Anti-smoking regulation and health fascism

[Lotus]

When you get pissed enough about the stupid shittiness of government, you can join me and CPig in calling for its destruction.

YaY anarchists on the internet!

none of You guys do shit.

ashton respond to mY pm i need VI confirmation asap.

i love You cpig.

[Absurd]

Revolutionaries on the Internet.

[olduser]

Revolutionaries on the Internet.

ron paul 2012

[Absurd]

ron paul 2012

Hahaha! I pissed spit myself wilist smoking a dn drinking beer. Thank you.

[Aquagraph]

Researchers in the academia get name for themselves by finding controversial facts.

Yes, the ideal science is critical and counters itself from time to time. Eppur si muove

Also they get funding for particular research not particular results, skewing the results endangers their credibility and career.

So cigarette industry would have a discretided scientists..

If money was an issue tobacco industry would chip in.

..on an payroll for counter-productive results?

These people ain't stupid but calculative. That's a major part of it why they are in their positions.

That is bullshit. Longer and healthier life is of clear value for any person who isn't fucked up and selfdestructive.

I criticize about the subjectivity of that pseudo-factual statement and then you countered it with said it's about values of a particular group (the "normal" people)?

If the smoking alleviates schizophrenics condition it is reasonable for him to trade improved quality of life for the amount of it.

Good. They needed your approval.

That rational choice is not available to other people, because there is no benefits to quality of life present for them that could compete with the harm to the quality and length of life.

There are other less studied benefits. Besides the apparent high and social tool aspects.
Can you imagine a scenario where the cigarette companies are happy that they have the forbidden fruit you shouldn't use?

There are benefits to most things.

I dare you all to name one thing that hasn't.

Anyway, I thought this was mainly about businesses not being allowed to in any way advertise or display their nicotine/tobacco products in a sort of great strategy of if people don't see it, then it isn't there, and so they will be less inclined to try to find it, ask for it and buy it. (Out of sight, out of mind.) Really that would be a huge deterrent for me, having to go out of my way to ask for them. I suppose I could just bring a picture of what I want and then I wouldn't have to speak. I could say, "these" and leave it at that.

I completely agree with this.

I still don't seem to have an opinion.

Sounds wise.


Describe me the typical smoker, please.

[Absurd]

Why am I not fucking quoted, what the fuck is this - a democracy?

[Esaman]

So cigarette industry would have a discretided scientists..
..on an payroll for counter-productive results?

Even if study results are in suspicion. Discrediting them would require an independent study. Why counter-productive? Smoking is good for you, right?

There are other less studied benefits. Besides the apparent high and social tool aspects.

Tobacco is one of the most if not the most studied substances, the strong influences already popped up. "Hey, lets all socialize on occasion of burning our health". It is good that there is social pressure against smoking, because otherwise there would be (and was) social pressure to smoke.

I criticize about the subjectivity of that pseudo-factual statement and then you countered it with said it's about values of a particular group (the "normal" people)?

It is only natural for a person to see "healthier, longer life" without any other qualifiers and circumstances as straightforward benefit. I am sorry if suicidally depressed or deranged ideologues feel excluded.

PS. All that said, I am not for banning or too aggressive taxation of smokes.

[Aquagraph]

Even if study results are in suspicion. Discrediting them would require an independent study.

Tobacco is one of the most if not the most studied substances[...]

What factions have been funding all these studies on smoking in your opinion?

Why counter-productive? Smoking is good for you, right?

Discredited scientists won't lend credibility, they eat it.
And this brings me back to the question: Can you imagine a scenario where the cigarette companies are happy that they have the forbidden fruit you shouldn't use?
Think about the best target audience; rebellious teenagers. Get em smoking young and they'll be trying to quit after for real when they are in their thirties or whatever.

It is good that there is social pressure against smoking, because otherwise there would be (and was) social pressure to smoke.

Social pressuring to teenagers on health education, check.

It is only natural for a person to see "healthier, longer life" without any other qualifiers and circumstances as straightforward benefit.

I don't know if a developed ape with a drastically prolonged lifespan up to age of oblivion and forgetfulness has a lot to do with 'natural' either. Things like Nature are just as you want to look at it.

I am sorry if suicidally depressed or deranged ideologues feel excluded.

Let me confess my possible bias, we all have some anyways; I like the illusion of sex drugs and rock n roll I am having.

PS. All that said, I am not for banning or too aggressive taxation of smokes.

Good to hear. I'm for heavier taxation though.

Besides, think about it. Who are the most likely to die from second-hand smoking from bars? Drunks, obviously. I think people can handle some control a la eugenics if it's not done straightforward. Boring people can have the world as scoundrels, losers and the real artists become endangered.

This is Lorna Gobey. She is century old in the pic. She's been drinking and smoking without dying for 70 years now. She has haggened over the years but she still drives a motorcycle. This is nothing like "look she smokes and she's still alive" nor it is an argument at all. But she seems fun.

In case you missed; Describe me the typical smoker, please.

Here's a thought, what if smoking kills people more because people think they should be dying?

[willekeurig]

I'm very much against smoking in bars outside of the area specified for that. The cigarette smoke makes me feel like throwing up most of the time and the smell sticks to hair and clothes so you smell like shit and need to wash clothes all the time. I don't like the idea of getting whatever toxic substances cigarettes contain in my lungs either. Since pretty much everyone of my friends are smokers I'd have a shitty time at bars/restaurants if it wasn't for the smoking rooms/areas. Another thing is that the people who work at bars would be exposed to the smoke at their job. Ok you can always say that people choose their jobs but I dunno, it's hard to find a job these times and if the only one you can get is of the kind that puts your health at a risk what can you do about it? I think having to take a few steps to go to a smoking room/outside is a low cost for making the place safer and cozier for everyone.
(I'd imagine one plus side to the smoking booths/having to smoke outside is that you also get to talk to strangers in a non-socially awkward way. Asking for a lighter is easier way to open a conversation than walking up to someone's table )

The "you're drinking so you shouldn't mind smoking" argument sucks ass imo. Not everyone goes to bars to "destroy themselves"; small amounts of alcohol are actually proven to be good for your health. Most heavy drinkers maybe wouldn't care too much, but not everyone is like them. Many people go to bars to socialise, hold meetings, to relax with a glass of wine after work, there are bars that are also cafes and half of the customers don't even drink anything else but tea or something.. Also, I don't think having one unhealthy habit means (or should mean) you give away the right to protect your health from other unhealthy stuff. As if forcing people who eat junk food to drink booze would be okay because "they're already destroying themselves". Or not letting the people who don't do sports get public health care as "they don't care anyways". The fuck?

With everything else I agree.

[Aquagraph]

There isn't much to do except disseminate the ideas. Also, engaging in counter-economic activity wherever reasonable.

Which reminds me, Aquagraph you might like Agorism.

When you get pissed enough about the stupid shittiness of government, you can join me and CPig in advocating for its destruction.

I was hoping for an explanation for why this kind of regulation is bad too, assuming it would be productive. Can I have one? I'm also interested how you see age limit enforcement.

loveeee living in a tobacco state. down here you can still smoke in bars (some, not all) and of course crappy timeless places like bowling alleys and waffle house. i onlY see cigarette advertisements inside gas stations and convenience stores though.

I gotta visit places like that if I visit the States again.

the finnish law sounds waY too extreme imo. who cares if smoking is unhealthY, so are most people's eating habits Yet its ok to advertise heart attack inducing fast food. let people die how they want to.

If you believe in the Scandinavian welfare (communism sympathizing) society with (socialist) universal healthcare, you could call it cutting the need for tax funded (robbed) money.

And don't mistake me for a person with static ideologies.

I like the idea of experimental federalism though.

Agorism? A new category economical again. Thanks

Also found:

Other names for practicing counter-
economists (other than black marketeers)
are:
[...]
•Anyone who has ever smoked a joint,
even if he regretted it (as when running for
office);
• Anyone who has ever committed any
sex act except the missionary position with
one’s legal spouse in one’s legal home
(most states);
• Drivers in some states who do not
run in front of their cars with lanterns so
as not to scare horses;
and many others. Did you find yourself on
the list?

Agarina, you probably realized that it's a vent. Not too serious about it. I still smoke in trams. I also believe that Aki Kaurismäki should be the national director of Finland. And Finnish bars need smoke. They tend to have no smoking areas and even completely smoke-free bars.

I agree with what you said about smoking booth social stuff. As an extreme extrovert alcoholic smoker, I gotta love them.

Agarina, what do you think of the legislation itself?