Anti-smoking regulation and health fascism

[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.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

smoke pot instead and homoerotically blow it on my face like in that six feet under episode with David and Sarge. Woof.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think this thread is about trade-offs. Smoking gave my dad pleasure, and he did that even though he knew that he would probably die in his 60s. which he did.

playing mmorpgs gives me pleasure even though I know it causes near sightedness and exacerbates my social phobia since most people are assholes online just because they can be. But I like the feeling of winning and learning new spells and progressing in a fantasy environment and I'm wiling to accept that it causes me to be legally blind. I would seriously have perfect vision if I did less 'introverted activities' like reading/writing, watching netflix, but I like those things too much so that's how my eyes got adjusted.

my friend james (name changed) likes to cure his near sightedness and meditate even though it turns him to the most ANNOYING narcissist that can't emotionally connect with anybody. He can't get close to people romantically and it's very annoying. but him turning himself into this perfect person is just more important than him connecting with ppl.

so if I were to change my lifestyle/habits and how I live my life then I would have to like what I get more then what I don't get. but for me doing real world things is always a lose/lose so I don't participate. I really wish that I would have a real world experience that actually turned out positive but it seriously NEVER DOES. I'm not playing a victim that's just how it always goes. It's so annoying and I never belong. I'm just following my self-interests ala Ayn Rand and my self-interest always says to load up a video game. =/ Or watch another episode of star trek voyager which ima gonna do now. im sure the same is true of 'type a personalities' they cannot for the life of them see the point of writing a book or watching a bunch of tv shows or drawing or reading, they get energized by living in the WORLD DUDE. I will participate in your world again when it stops being so Te and annoying. Okay I love you buh-bye.

[Aquagraph]

If I had to pull statistics out of my ass[...]

But you don't have to. Please. She wasn't an argument as I said before. Think of her as a story feature releasing the tension, like BnD. We know that smoking kills already. Having constantly needed to be reminded of it makes me wanna light up.

Staff, obviously.

There are ways to legislate bar smoking so that the staff won't have to go to the smoking area. And that there is a non-smoking area. And so they used to do it if my memory serves me. I'm not really a hardliner here.

Placebo effects swings that way too, but effects isn't that significant. Definitely won't kill anyone, smoking will.

Have you heard about the case of this depressed patient going to ER for ODing with his depression pills. The treatment didn't help, his values were still off and no sign of dramatic improvement. They couldn't stabilize his condition in few days and then the doctor found out that he was part of the control group. He almost died but I guess his immune system was failing due to eating chalk since placebo doesn't kill anyone, right? He recovered after the doctors found out what he really took and told it to him.
There are also studies about life being prolonged by a few years with a positive attitude. In a way telling people that they are dying with their habit & lifestyle can kill people.

Everyone knows the dangers and yet people use it. Why do they start it?

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

I'm not trying to make a point. Points are made with statements, that there is a question such as the sentence: Are you able to answerit?

There is no one who benefit financially from anti-smoking campaign and legislation.

So who funds them and the studies?

What?

You want more social pressure against smoking in the form of educating the young about the dangers of the habit. Am I right?

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.

So it's an improvement to maintenance relation and kills people faster? Can it even get better?

Who are statistically recorded to die of smoking? What is the definition of a smoker death?