Anti-smoking regulation and health fascism

[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?

[Esaman]

If I had to pull statistics out of my ass, then I'd say for every 100 year old smoker alive thee is a million dying from smoking related reasons at age below 60, yearly.

"Who are the most likely to die from second-hand smoking from bars?" - Staff, obviously.

"In case you missed; Describe me the typical smoker, please. " I won't be guessing demographics, but what I do think about average smoker is that he/she would prefer if he didn't smoke, but he is an addict.

"Here's a thought, what if smoking kills people more because people think they should be dying?" Placebo effects swings that way too, but effects isn't that significant. Definitely won't kill anyone, smoking will.

"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."
What is a point you are trying to make? That it is not your fault that you were stupid as a teenager?

There is no one who benefit financially from anti-smoking campaign and legislation. (Except everyone who will not burn their money in form of tobaco and healthcare of course)
Scientists have nothing to gain and everything to loose by altering results in anti-smoking direction. Your conspiracy accusation on researchers is stupid.

"Social pressuring to teenagers on health education, check."
What?

[Korpsy Knievel]

A study released a year or three ago, which I can't seem to find, claimed that in the interest of reduced burdens on the medical and welfare systems, it is beneficial that tobacco consumers kill themselves prematurely through use of those carcinogenic products than it for them to live into old age where they would require more extensive attention and support for a longer period.