But surely you wouldn't advocate using ANYTHING that has animal testing? it's cruel after all and as you keep saying you might as well kick a dog every time you light one And tobacco companies no longer need to use animals as they already know what it does to them and humans but perhaps the fact that they did all the research before you started smoking is convenient for you is this a case of your ethics being used when convenient?Yes i do smoke, usually 7 or less rollys a day, and as for your points;
a. Since 1995 no animals have been used to test tobacco or tobacco products ( <a href="http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5210460.stm" target="_blank">http/news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5210460.stm</a> ). So my animal ethics are not off- tobacco animal testing was banned before i even started smoking, and to be honest if you use the ethic that you shouldn't use anything thats been tested on animals at some point in its history, then thats ridiculous as the vast majority of things have (food, medications, cleaning products, cosmetic products etc etc).
For a start, animal testing is a completely different matter to battery farming. Animal testing is necessary in many aspect for the safety of the human race- battery farming is not. I am not going to delve too much into this matter as it is largely off-topic and deserves another thread in its own right.
However animal testing and battery farming are not comparable issues- animal testing is done for the safety of the human race. Whether i agree or disagree on animal testing, depends very much on the individual case of testing (i.e. Animal testing for cures for stuff like Parkinson's Disease is a very different matter than animal testing for a new brand of lipstick etc).
Lighting up a rolly is no comparable to kicking a dog everytime, because animals have not been involved in tobacco testing for over a decade- whether i smoke or not, it will not put animals into that sort of testing. So you example/analogy is completely wrong.
Battery farming is a completely different matter- its purpose is for profit, and unlike me, everytime you buy a KFC you are paying for another chicken/s to be put in another cage.
Perhaps the non smokers are too polite to tell you that they do mind your unfiltered smoke wafting over them, or perhaps they are worried that you will go off on a rant about it's your right.b. I don't smoke around non-smokers without permission; the only times i smoke are in my own home, or at the pub in the designated smoking area- if i smoke around a non-smoker, i ask if it is cool with them first (and the vast majority of the time its fine). Don't label all smokers as the same- we're not all trying to make children, pregnant women and baby animals breath as much of our smoke as possible .
Maybe they are, maybe they're not. But the fact remains that i am a considerate and polite smoker who asks for permission, so i am at no fault whatsoever- you can assume and accuse all you like (but i warn its not that intelligent nor credible to do so), but that doesn't change the facts.
Oh dear me, you just haven't done your research there.
The tobacco industry is responsible for roughly 12% of the the deforestation of the planet, directly leading to the death of many animals who are burned in the fires and the loss of habitat of many more. It's not just trees cut down for space to grow it, but also to cure (dry) it.
How can anyone who claims to care about animals partake in consumption of a drug purely for their pleasure that is directly responsible for the deaths of so many wild animals? Not to mention the millions more affected by the effects of global warming caused by the burning of the trees and the subsequent lack of trees to deal with the additional CO2 in the atmophere? That's one big hypocrisy right there.
You have lectured why everyone should eat free range because it's healthier, yet partake in smoking which is responsible for so many illnesses. Hypocrisy again.
There was the program on last night showing that Tobacco comapnies are promoting smoking to children in poorer countries, how can anyone who claims the moral high ground support this industry?
So your habit, which is just for pleasure, has a history of animal testing, causes masses of worldwide deforestation, promotes it's products to children and is unhealthy for you and anyone around you.
You see how this works Tokis? If you aren't whiter than white yourself you shouldn't be so dismissive and accusatory towards others.
Would you like a hand down of that high horse?
I could equally argue that you are even worse in this respect- you call my tabacco a drug for pleisure, but you forget that your fast food burgers and nuggets are purely for pleasure too (they are not necessary for healthy diet etc) and that animal ranching plays an even bigger part in forest deforestation;
"Cattle ranching is a major cause of rainforest destruction in Central and South America. Ranchers slash and burn rainforests to grow grass pasture for cattle. Once the cattle have grazed sufficiently, they are slaughtered and exported to industrialised countries, including the US, to be made into fast food hamburgers and frozen meat products. It has been estimated that for every quarter pound hamburger made from rainforest cattle, 5 sq m of rainforest is cleared.;
"Soybean production in the Brazilian Amazon states grew approximately 60 percent between 1998 and 2002, and the cattle herd nearly doubled from 26.2 million in 1991 to 51.6 million in 2001, making Brazil the second largest soybean exporter and the world’s major beef exporter, according to the Woods Hole report.
This increase in production has transformed the agricultural sector into a serious threat to the Amazon environment. The effect of land clearing on the Amazon rainforest and its indigenous inhabitants is severe.
The Greenpeace report quotes Britaldo Silveira Soares-Filho of the University of Minas Gerais as saying, "By 2050, current trends in agricultural expansion will eliminate a total of 40 per cent of Amazon forests, including at least two-thirds of the forest cover of six major watersheds and 12 eco-regions.";
"A handful of the world's largest food companies and commodity traders, including McDonald's in the UK, are driving illegal and rapid destruction of the Amazon rainforest, according to a six-year investigation of the Brazilian soya bean industry.
The report, published today, follows a 7,000km chain that starts with the clearing of virgin forest by farmers and leads directly to Chicken McNuggets being sold in British and European fast food restaurants. It also alleges that much of the soya animal feed arriving in the UK from Brazil is a product of "forest crime" and that McDonald's and British supermarkets have turned a blind eye to the destruction of the forest.
The report, by Greenpeace investigators, details how the world's largest private company, the $70bn (£40bn) a year US agribusiness giant Cargill, has built a port and 13 soya storage works in the Amazon region. It provides farmers with seeds and agrochemicals to grow hundreds of thousands of tonnes of beans a year, which the company then exports to Liverpool and other European ports, mainly from Santarem, a city on the Amazon river.";
So by accusing me of hypocrisy, you make yourself into a hypocrit as well- your beloved fast food is having a far more damaging impact on the environment that my tobacco is having (also i would like to add that where did you source you tobacco deforestation figure from?). The fact of the matter is that mine is the lesser damaging habit, so you can no fair place to critercize me when you are supporting much worse causes. Your product causes even more widespread deforestation, its unhealthy for you, and it unashamedly promotes its products to children etc.
Also i did not see that program you see of on TV, so i cannot comment on that.