Which is more harmful?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Obvious choice for me.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Teenagers often need to drive. Go current driving age and 18 drinking age.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tabacco, the effects to those around are worse because second-hand smoke occurs without abuse of the drug

Wow, I completely agree with DWTL.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tabacco, the effects to those around are worse because second-hand smoke occurs without abuse of the drug

Wow, I completely agree with DWTL.

So, ah, are you planning to ever respond to any of the people who have said things you don't agree with?

I've made my position on this pretty clear in the past. It's possible to responsibly use alcohol and not harm yourself or others. But you can't use tobacco without harming yourself, and it's very unlikely that you'll never harm others unless you basically live like a hermit.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Tabacco, the effects to those around are worse because second-hand smoke occurs without abuse of the drug

When was the last time someone smoked one too many cigarettes at a party and crashed their car because they were too uncoordinated?

When was the last time someone had one too many cigarettes and gave their kid cancer with second hand smoke?  Let's not kid ourselves, tabacco breaks up families too, however, this is a not a let's leave and come back later, its a you're dead from smoking break up.  If you handle alcohol correctly it is not very harmful at all.

^^^^^

Sad when DWTL is the voice of reason.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The difference is you CAN eat a donut once in awhile. You CAN have a drink once in awhile. You can't for cigarettes, because you'll eventually get addicted. Which is the only reason people smoke anyway, they smoked in high school because they actually thought it was cool (even though I remember that one was far more likely to get picked on FOR smoking rather than for NOT smoking) and got addicted as a result.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

If the vast majority of smokers were people who only smoked a cigar once in awhile, smoking wouldn't be such a problem. But that's not the case.

So far, I have yet to hurt anyone through my lack of moderation in drinking (other than the janitor in my old dorm I suppose).

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

You can't for cigarettes, because you'll eventually get addicted.

Do you have proof for this assertion?

There are literally millions of people who smoke socially (at parties, and the like), and will never become addicted.  Dumbass.

If they start smoking on a regular basis, they will become addicted.

The majority of smokers are addicts. The majority of alcoholic drinkers are not. Tobacco is a an addictive substance as well, no one is immune to it, while alcohol is only addictive to certain people.

The difference is you CAN eat a donut once in awhile. You CAN have a drink once in awhile. You can't for cigarettes, because you'll eventually get addicted. Which is the only reason people smoke anyway, they smoked in high school because they actually thought it was cool (even though I remember that one was far more likely to get picked on FOR smoking rather than for NOT smoking) and got addicted as a result.

The question is "which is more harmful?", not "which is more addictive?".  To answer that question, the only relevant facts is the number of deaths that are linked to the substance in question.  What is not relevant is things like "well, if you do it in moderation you'll be fine".  True as that may be (though it's probably equally true of cigarettes), it's irrelevant, because an awful lot of people don't do it in moderation.

You're welcome to consider an idealized world where everyone drinks only in moderation all you want, but any conclusions you'll reach from examining that world will be totally unrelated to anything found in the real world.

Not drinking in moderation as I said though is not necessarily harmful. Don't get behind a car wheel and you'll just end up puking a lot an passing out and feeling lousy the next morning.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

What exactly do you think that "drinking in moderation" is?

I'd say not getting to the point where you are too intoxicated to drive.

Not drinking in moderation as I said though is not necessarily harmful. Don't get behind a car wheel and you'll just end up puking a lot an passing out and feeling lousy the next morning.

Not necessarily harmful (in the short term)?  Yes.  Has been known to be harmful in thousands of cases every single year?  Yes.

The fact of the matter is that removing the alcohol from the equations of drunk driving, cirrhosis, cancers related to alcohol consumption, and other such problems, will remove the problems themselves.  Thus, it is not unfair to say that alcohol caused those problems.  That alcohol does not always cause such problems, and that in some cases the problems were also due to poor judgment (such as driving while drunk) is irrelevant.  You asked "which is more harmful?"  These are some of the kinds of harm that alcohol causes.  You are arguing something entirely different than the subject of this topic.

And alcohol's lesser addictive qualities to cigarettes is also irrelevant.  You can argue that the problems due to alcohol are due to poor choices one makes, but the same could be argued about cigarettes (the poor choice in that case being starting to smoke in the first place).  They're all about poor choices; the only difference is when the choices were made and what the choices were.  And it's not as if being addicted means that you are then bound to smoke for the rest of your life.  People can and do quit smoking every year; thus, not quitting could also be counted as a poor choice people make.

Just wondering, are you just playing devil's advocate or did you actually vote for alcohol?

Here's an analogy I'll give to the type of argument you're using: Cars have killed more people than nuclear weapons. Thus cars are obviously more harmful than nuclear weapons.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Ah, here's proof tobacco is worse. Thanks Canada:



http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/tobac-tabac/legislation/label-etiquette/graph/citydies-villemeurt9_e.html

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Gabu was arguing that even if alcohol can be used responsibly that doesn't mean anything if it's killed more people than tobacco. But if tobacco has killed more there isn't really an argument. I agree with you on the addiction point too.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's justification basically for why I love alcohol and hate tobacco.