Let's Not Wage War on Smokers..... by 6IXSTRINGJACK

You don't like mushrooms?

You monster.

(don't give any fucks about smoking)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 6:01 PM

My grandfather had lung cancer. My grandmother had emphysema and circulatory disorders. They went through several packs a day. Over the years I'm sure my family has been exposed to a toxic mess of chemicals.

It was their choice to smoke, and our choice to visit them. Not much to be done about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 11, 2014 8:58 PM

JONGSSTRAW

Leonard Nimoy was interviewed on CNN last night. He will be 83 next month and he has COPD and sometimes has to use portable air. He smoked for many years, but he did quit 30 years ago. His doctors told him that his lungs were irreparably damaged even though he gave up the smokes long ago. If you gotta smoke use the E cigs. Otherwise it's suicide.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2014 11:04 AM

I get it. It's bad for you. I was very well aware of that going into it. Although it took quite a few years for me to realize the negative effects that smoking have had on my own health, they don't come as a surprise to me now.

Here's my 3 rules for non-smokers. If they were to comply with them, I think they would see that I'm not asking for very much, and I'm actually much more considerate of others than they imagine.

1. Don't tell me that I can't smoke in a parking-lot in my own car. This rule is mostly limited to hospitals. COME ON.... It's absolutely ridiculous that I can't smoke in my own car in the parking lot.

2. Don't tell me that I smell bad. Or, do tell me that I smell bad, but don't take any offense when I tell you that you're fat, you're a lousy cook or you got a shitty haircut. Just because I smoke doesn't mean you can throw out the Golden Rule.

3. Don't tax me into the poor house, or DO tax me, but show me that when I need medical attention after 30 years of paying $5.00/pack in taxes that it will be provided for me. In the end, I'm doing you all a favor. Not only are your property/income/sales taxes staying reasonable because they're taking much more than my share from me, but by the time I die, I will have paid into Social Security since I was 16 years old and I will never collect a dime (that is, if it even exists then anyways).

I know A LOT of old people who are hanging on well into their 90's. Some of these people have been constantly in and out of the hospital for various illnesses all of my life. Before my Grandpa died, he was taking 16 pills a day for everything from pain to preventing him from having gran-Mal seizures and pissing himself in public. My smoking Grandpa, on the other hand, died one year before retirement age.

I think the term "suicide" for smokers is a little overdramatic. My uncle used to say that his drinking and smoking habits were "slow suicide" but in the end he died by ingesting a bullet and nobody was surprised.

I may not find any joy in some day to day personal activities that "normal" people enjoy, and I might not be thrilled about life anymore, but I'm not suicidal. If I die, I die. Shit happens. I think I've got another 25-30 years left in me.

In the mean time, please, people, stop trying to make me feel guilty about smoking.

If I'm at a family party our out with friends that have kids, I do my smoking away from them so they don't even see me doing it. It's been years since I threw a butt on the ground. In my car they end up in the ashtray instead of out the window, and if I'm smoking outside a building I put it out "Army Style" between my fingers and throw the butt in the can.

I get no smoking in restaurants and I especially get no smoking in hospitals or on an airplane. Even if those things weren't illegal, I still wouldn't do them there. It would be nice to be able to smoke at a bar though. I had no idea how health conscious all of those innocent people were that were just looking to ingest some liquid poison at a premium price.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2014 12:40 PM

ELVISCHRIST

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

...but I can't even get Obamacare because we're not extending Medicaid in Indiana and the $2k+ per year premium I would be forced to pay as a smoker would be about 25% of my Net Income for the year. Not only am I not guaranteed coverage from any smoke related illinesses with the insane tobacoo taxes I pay, but I don't even come close to qualifying for an affordable "Universal" healthcare plan in my mid 30s.

That sounds like it is entirely the fault of your state government. They are refusing to help poor(er) people just to poke President Obama in the eye.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 13, 2014 1:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:
That sounds like it is entirely the fault of your state government. They are refusing to help poor(er) people just to poke President Obama in the eye.

Possibly, but Indiana doesn't operate on deficit spending like Illinois does.

Mayor Daily sold the parking meeters in Chicago to a foreign owned company for 99 years for enough money to break even for two years.

That's future tax revenue for Chicago (Illinois) that will go to a foreign country instead of helping to ease the tax burden. And that will go on likely long after my 3 month old niece has died of old age.

Don't be so quick to just jump on a side. I don't think it has anything at all to do with Obama. The states that don't want to buy into Obamacare are the ones that have been able to sustain themselves to this point, even with all of the other Federal Mandate burdens they've had to sustain.

They know FULL well that if they break under pressure and buy into it, then the equalibrium they've been able to maintain for 200 years will be shattered. Any excess funds made in Indiana, instead of being saved for a "rainy day" will instead be "re-located" to Illinois or California in an effort to keep the first U.S. State to declair bankrupcy.

That's why I moved to Indiana. Taxes here are reasonable because we're not Idiot Illinois.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 14, 2014 1:48 AM

I look forward to the day when smoking is virtually non existent.

I am amazed at how different things are now compared to 20 years ago. Workplaces, public transport, cafes, bars, restaurants...all smoke free. Thank god.

You're in denial, Six.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 14, 2014 1:28 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It's like any other addictive behavior which seriously impacts collective health. Overeating, for example. Drinking. The obese ARE discriminated against and yes, they get dirty looks too, especially every time they eat or try to squeeze into an airline seat.

The question is how best to reduce the behavior? There are collective and individual responses possible.

Taking overeating (or other eating disorders) or drinking into discussion, to remove it from the smoking problem, evidence shows that a consistent family response against the behavior is actually quite effective in reducing the behavior. But the response shouldn't be rude or coercive, just reminders and concern when the behavior is occurring. IF the behavior is seriously throwing the entire family off-balance (eg drinkers who fail to meet their financial, parental and emotional obligations of being in a family) the family then can move on to "evicting" the person. (This would be the same as asking a smoker to step outside to smoke.) But "no response" (politeness/ denial) is not a good response from the immediate family.

Then there are what I call the meso-responses... personal responses from co-workers, friends, acquaintances, and strangers. The dirty look. The rude comment. No sure if those are effective in changing a behavior or not. Painful yes. But maybe they would just drive the person even deeper into their behavior.

Then there are policy responses: Higher taxes on junk food for example. Rules against drunk driving. Higher policy premiums. Treatment programs.

Since people drink and eat (and smoke) to reduce stress and quitting a habit is a big stressor, policies which would reduce stress such as low unemployment- should help.

Of course, we set up our society to maximize corporate profits, so THAT'S never gonna happen! I'm afraid that you're stuck with your shitty job, and your drinking and smoking anesthetic to your shitty life!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 14, 2014 1:44 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Six, you want to smoke? Have at it.

Just please don't do it where I (or anyone else who doesn't want to) can smell it.

"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 14, 2014 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It's like any other addictive behavior which seriously impacts collective health. Overeating, for example. Drinking. The obese ARE discriminated against and yes, they get dirty looks too, especially every time they eat or try to squeeze into an airline seat.

The question is how best to reduce the behavior? There are collective and individual responses possible.

Smoking has all but become invisible here. You just dont see it very often. You don't see cigarettes on display and when you do see a pack, you sure as hell wish you didn't.

I do have issue with the packaging, but the anti smoking advertising, packaging and sales laws, restrictions on smoking and taxation have all worked as smoking stats are way down.

http://www.cancercouncil.com.au/79110/reduce-risks/smoking-reduce-risk
s/tobacco-statistics/are-smoking-rates-declining/

I dont want to see it banned, but I agree that people should be restricted on where they do it to impact the harm on others.

It took me a few goes to quit altogether and it was damn hard to do, but you have to want to quit to achieve that, and until you do, six, you've got to live with the fact that having a monkey on your back has repercussions.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 14, 2014 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Don't tell me that I can't smoke in a parking-lot in my own car. This rule is mostly limited to hospitals. COME ON.... It's absolutely ridiculous that I can't smoke in my own car in the parking lot.

This always pissed me off, especially when I was dealing with the aftermath of an all-but-stroke, a severe case acute-febrile-whatthefuck, and neurocomplications on top of it, that the goddamn motherfucking hospital felt the desperate NEED to throw it in caffiene/nicotene WITHDRAWL on top of it, cause yeah, that's gonna HELP the situation, sure, not to mention the psychological impact on a patient who really doesn't fear death any more, sure, make them WANT to die, greeeeat idea in practice, yes ?

Dumb bastards.
FUCK your fifty feet.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 14, 2014 9:42 PM

Quote:
It's like any other addictive behavior which seriously impacts collective health.

COLLECTIVE health? I think that's the wrong thing to focus on if you're really concerned about other people's health.

As for the rest... Simply, if they can't be bothered, then neither can I. They can live their lives how they want to. I know people who are overweight, I know people who have had addictions. We tried to help them, they said they went clean, but they were lying and they tricked us, and then they died. It was a waste, in every possible way.

It's not my place to judge them, and not my place to interfere, unless they want the help. You can't save people from themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 15, 2014 2:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If we're spending our collective money to make up for lack of people's health (and that may mean putting their neglected children in care because of parental addiction) then whatever someone else does with their health affects me. That's not even counting things like epidemics and lost productivity.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 15, 2014 4:00 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Oh, let me just quote dubya on this.

Smoke 'em out ... dead or alive.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Don't tell me that I can't smoke in a parking-lot in my own car. This rule is mostly limited to hospitals. COME ON.... It's absolutely ridiculous that I can't smoke in my own car in the parking lot.

This always pissed me off, especially when I was dealing with the aftermath of an all-but-stroke, a severe case acute-febrile-whatthefuck, and neurocomplications on top of it, that the goddamn motherfucking hospital felt the desperate NEED to throw it in caffiene/nicotene WITHDRAWL on top of it, cause yeah, that's gonna HELP the situation, sure, not to mention the psychological impact on a patient who really doesn't fear death any more, sure, make them WANT to die, greeeeat idea in practice, yes ?

Dumb bastards.
FUCK your fifty feet.

-Frem

Yep Frem.... One of the CRAZIEST rules ever, right behind no smoking in a bar. Love that scene from BB. ;)

I'd like everyone to get back to the article I posted. This seems to have just devolved into another anti-smoking crusade by ex-smokers or non-smokers who have lost somebody they loved.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If we're spending our collective money to make up for lack of people's health (and that may mean putting their neglected children in care because of parental addiction) then whatever someone else does with their health affects me. That's not even counting things like epidemics and lost productivity.

That is such an obtuse point of view Signy, especially when it's directed only at smokers.

Show me a healthy person who doesn't indulge in behavior that would cost you in the long run and I'll show you a liar.

If we're going to look at it that way, then I require anyone who is fat to pay half of the taxes that I have to pay to smoke. Then let's add anybody who has had a DUI. Then people with a motorcycle license. Then let's have fair drug testing that doesn't isolate pot smokers and finds out who is abusing the hard-core drugs that aren't stored in your fat cells, and tax them accordingly.

Outside of the realm of health, there is plenty of behaviors both addictive and non-addictive that people do everyday that should be taxed out of existence as well. Gambling and extreme Credit Card debt come to mind. But then again, since MONEY is at the heart of these addictions, it doesn't matter how much you tax the behavior. These people were just going to file for bankruptcy anyways.

For them, I say open up debtors prisons again. Give everyone fair warning that they have one more chance to file for bankruptcy. If they can't get their debt under control and somehow can't pay off their debts after they've been given a clean slate, then it's off to debtors prison for them where they have to spend 8 hours every day doing menial work for free until their debts are paid off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:29 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

I grew up in an environment where smoking was common place. A bit of a mixed message, as I was also told it's the worst habit to pick up, and I'd be better off if I didn't.

So I never did.

It doesn't bother me when I'm around those who smoke, say at a bar or out and about in public. But I sure can smell it from a mile away. And here's the thing, unlike most folk who have a knee jerk reaction to tobacco smoke as soon as they get a whiff of it, I don't. More often than not, I actually like it, or at least can deal w/ it. And even though I know full well how it can destroy one's health, the 2nd hand smoke fear we've been force fed is ,imo,is BS. Very much like AGW and some other stuff we're told will doom us all , if we don't obliterate this or that from our lives.

I've not read the article yet. Just tossing in my 2 cents.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:00 AM

Thanks for the tolerant point of view. My bro, who never picked up smoking, is just like that since we grew up with it. I'm sure he would be different if I were to light up in front of my niece, but I'd never do that so it's not a big deal.

Seriously.... Read the article.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:06 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

'Outside of the realm of health, there is plenty of behaviors both addictive and non-addictive that people do everyday that should be taxed out of existence as well."

I think there should be a similar tax on sugar and anything that uses added sugar. It's the #1 cause of obesity in the US.

ETA: As I think about it, I'd also forbid adding sugar to babyfood. Sugar is addictive to a large percentage of the population.

If we use cigarettes as an example - at this point, no thanks to the tobacco industry - everyone who picks up a smoke knows that tobacco is bad for you. They may be too young to fully understand the risks, but no one is forcing them to do something against their will or their best interests.

Babies aren't in a position to choose. They're being fed an addictive substance that will harm them later in life. And that substance is there ONLY to add to the profitability of a corporation.

And we think that's a normal way to run a society. How fucked up are we in our worship of capitalism and 'freedom'?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
'Outside of the realm of health, there is plenty of behaviors both addictive and non-addictive that people do everyday that should be taxed out of existence as well."

I think there should be a similar tax on sugar and anything that uses added sugar. It's the #1 cause of obesity in the US.

ETA: As I think about it, I'd also forbid adding sugar to babyfood. Sugar is addictive to a large percentage of the population.

If we use cigarettes as an example - at this point, no thanks to the tobacco industry - everyone who picks up a smoke knows that tobacco is bad for you. They may be too young to fully understand the risks, but no one is forcing them to do something against their will or their best interests.

Babies aren't in a position to choose. They're being fed an addictive substance that will harm them later in life. And that substance is there ONLY to add to the profitability of a corporation.

And we think that's a normal way to run a society. How fucked up are we in our worship of capitalism and 'freedom'?

Goddamned right 100% 1kiki! ;)

I take my coffee black, without the frills. Packets of sugar should be at least $.50 a piece according to Tobacco-tax-style "luxury" laws. Half'n'Half creamers should be $1.00 a shot.

And while we're feeling all friendly about letting the children choose, I'd like to be able to start a class action lawsuit of primarily white American boys who had half of their junk cut off when they were born.

I'm awaiting my financial restitution for that, but I am willing to settle out of court for an "all frills" sex-bot.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:06 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"And while we're feeling all friendly about letting the children choose, I'd like to be able to start a class action lawsuit of primarily white American boys who had half of their junk cut off when they were born."

I think you'd have to show harm. The data is 50-50 so far.

In principle I agree with you, but not for the same reasons as forbidding sugar. The two situations aren't equivalent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
"And while we're feeling all friendly about letting the children choose, I'd like to be able to start a class action lawsuit of primarily white American boys who had half of their junk cut off when they were born."

I think you'd have to show harm. The data is 50-50 so far.

In principle I agree with you, but not for the same reasons as forbidding sugar. The two situations aren't equivalent.

I'm willing to meet you halfway here 1kiki.

I can't imagine you would be thrilled if you knew 1/3 of every vagina born in America was being removed for "sanitary", "religious" or out-of-fear reasons of any sort......

I will never know of the joy that an orgasm with foreskin can bring a man. Maybe it's all made up, but no matter what anyone says, it is something that I absolutely 100% could never research and feel for myself.

Goddamned Lorana Bobbits, everyone of you that agree with the practice.

Here's my new rule on post-birth procedures.

We continue to allow them to chop off half of a man's penis so long as we fill a girls genitalia with Gorrilla Glue in an effort to make her anatomically correct to a Barbie Doll.

I realize that smoking is far off from circumcision and that circumcision is VERY far off from ingesting sugar.

If you can somehow justify a reason to ban sugar, but you can't justify a ban on circumsision ON IMPULSE, SERIOUSLY..... take a step or two back... look into the mirror, and ask yourself what the fuck is wrong with yourself.

You would sooner ban human beings from the joy of ingesting sugar than ban the practice of "people in power" chopping off half a man's sexual organs????

Seriously... WTF....

Just because my organs are largely on the outside, doesn't give you a right to cut them off.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:31 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

6 --- stop drinking and calm down. My post was very short. You SHOULD have been able to make it to the phrase 'I agree with you'.

Now, don't you feel like a 6-string jackASS for trolling the CO2 thread - because you got in a drunken hissy-fit over someone AGREEING with you?

So 6, do you think you could take one day off from being a drunken douche?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 12:47 PM

Quote:
If we're going to look at it that way, then I require anyone who is fat to pay half of the taxes that I have to pay to smoke. Then let's add anybody who has had a DUI. Then people with a motorcycle license. Then let's have fair drug testing that doesn't isolate pot smokers and finds out who is abusing the hard-core drugs that aren't stored in your fat cells, and tax them accordingly.

Outside of the realm of health, there is plenty of behaviors both addictive and non-addictive that people do everyday that should be taxed out of existence as well. Gambling and extreme Credit Card debt come to mind.

Video games, television, and internet are also obvious addictive behaviours that affect health.

Let's not even get started on all these people having sex because they think it's fun, and they're addicted to it, but they have all these ROTTEN KIDS society has to take care of. And then there's LOVE, which causes people to waste so much time daydreaming about their hopes for other people instead of doing anything with real world value.

Really ANYTHING could theoretically create a reward center feedback loop that could lead to addiction. And negative experiences also cost productivity as well. Marriages that go bad, people are traumatized by abuse or assault, there are emotional reactions to hardship that prevent a worker from being productive. The only way to stop people from costing society productivity is if we isolated everyone from experiencing any emotion, breed them via artificial insemination so that only enough healthy children are produced to maintain a stable population, and then forced everyone to work every hour they are physically capable of.

Focusing on collective health and productivity over personal choice is not the best approach. The costs of personal choice are an inevitable consequence of living in a society that doesn't exhibit absolute control over every facet of life. And these costs would be entirely affordable if our priorities in domestic spending and the environment weren't so screwed up. Our vices and choices are excused only to the extent that we are willing to excuse the vices and choices of others.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 1:53 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Focusing on collective health and productivity over personal choice is not the best approach."

But focusing on businesses selling addictive substances for profit might be a reasonable societal option.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:55 PM

Quote:

But focusing on businesses selling addictive substances for profit might be a reasonable societal option.

I can maybe agree with that. Many businesses can be pretty evil about deliberately trying to encourage addiction.

Although there would need to be different approaches for anything with potential intellectual value - such as video games, internet, and television. Availability of information and art is important, and we can't allow those to be either prohibited or controlled. Models of consumption, however, CAN be changed, to discourage addiction.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 4:59 PM

Quote:
Excuse me 6Six but what about those of the population that suffer from something called Hypoglycemia which means "low blood sugar" and have to have that cup of coffee with sugar or soda when out to keep from fainting and going to the hospital? Speaking as someone who does, I don't appreciate if I ever get back down to the US maybe having to do that.

Yes, I agree with this. I think that wholesale condemnation of certain kinds of foods and nutrients might not be the best path, since some people may have different nutritional needs than other people.

Nutrition tends to follow a trend of demonizing one thing or another as the specific cause of poor health and health related deaths. Not too long ago, it was cholesterol, then salt, and now it's sugar, and in some places, gluten and dairy (edit: spelling).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:43 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

I honestly believe that addictive substances should be banned under a certain age, and perhaps addictive games, cartoon violence etc as well. There's a lot of evidence that brains are massively rewired in the teenage years through the early 20's. At that time the brain seems to be closing its final critical period for peer socialization, sexual habits, and pair formation (similar to the critical period for being able to discriminate sounds, or acquire language). It's also a period of heightened propensity to acquire addictions compared to later years.

I think this is one of those things that should be guided by the best available science, and subject to revision as more information comes along, with shades of grey in between yes and no, if applicable.

I think we may be in agreement that people with financial incentive shouldn't be able to freely sell anything addictive to everyone, without any societal constraints at all.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

I can maybe agree with that. Many businesses can be pretty evil about deliberately trying to encourage addiction.

Although there would need to be different approaches for anything with potential intellectual value - such as video games, internet, and television. Availability of information and art is important, and we can't allow those to be either prohibited or controlled. Models of consumption, however, CAN be changed, to discourage addiction.

Right, and I think the thing that blows my mind is how much high fructose corn syrup gets added to foods, even foods like bread in the US. Wow, sweetened bread.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:14 PM

I got a better idea, how bout leaving people the fuck alone, staying out of their lives, and not trying to nitpick and micromanage lives that do not BELONG to you, hrmmm ?

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:15 PM

Quote:
physician Paracelsus famously said, "The dose makes the poison," meaning that even harmless substances can become toxic if you eat enough of them. Many people ask me, "Is high fructose syrup really that bad for you?" And my answer to this question is "Yes," mainly for this very reason.

In America today, we are eating huge doses of sugar, especially high fructose corn syrup. It is sweeter and cheaper than regular sugar and is in every processed food and sugar-sweetened drink. Purging it from your diet is the single best thing you can do for your health!

In recent history, we've gone from 20 teaspoons of sugar per person per year to about 150 pounds of sugar per person per year. That's a half pound a day for every man, woman, and child in America. The average 20-ounce soda contains 15 teaspoons of sugar, all of it high fructose corn syrup. And when you eat sugar in those doses, it becomes a toxin.

As part of the chemical process used to make high fructose corn syrup, the glucose and fructose -- which are naturally bound together -- become separated. This allows the fructose to mainline directly into your liver, which turns on a factory of fat production in your liver called lipogenesis.

This leads to fatty liver, the most common disease in America today, affecting 90 million Americans. This, in turn, leads to diabesity -- pre-diabetes and Type 2 diabetes. So, high fructose corn syrup is the real driver of the current epidemic of heart attacks, strokes, cancer, dementia, and of course, Type 2 diabetes.

HFCS contains dangerous chemicals and contaminants

Beside the ginormous load of pure fructose and sugar found in HCFS, as an added bonus, it contains other chemical toxins. Chemical contaminants used during manufacturing end up in the HFCS and in our food. What we know, for example, is that chloralkali is used in making high fructose corn syrup. Chloralkai contains mercury. And there are trace amounts of mercury found in high fructose corn syrup-containing beverages. Now, it may not be a problem if we eat this occasionally, but the average person in the country consumes more than 20 teaspoons a day of high fructose corn syrup and the average teenager has 34 teaspoons a day. Over time, these heavy metals can accumulate in the body, causing health problems.

Additionally, when we look at the chemical components of high fructose corn syrup on a spectrograph, we can see that it contains many weird chemicals that we know nothing about. That's why I say better safe than sorry.

Look out for the red flag

The main reason you should give up high fructose corn syrup is that it's a big red flag for very poor quality food. If you see this ingredient on a label, I guarantee you the food is processed junk. So, if high fructose corn syrup is anywhere on the label, put it back on the shelf. You should never eat this food.

If you want to stay healthy, lose weight easily, get rid of chronic disease, and help reduce the obesity epidemic, the single most important thing you can do is eliminate high fructose corn syrup from your diet and from your children's diet. Just banish it from your house.

Purge your kitchen

I challenge you to go into your kitchen right now, go in the cupboard and refrigerator, and look at every single label. And I want you to count how many products you have right now in your house that contain high fructose corn syrup. Then, I want you to get a big garbage bag and throw them out and find replacements that are free of it.

If you want to have some sugar, that's fine. Have a little sugar, but add it to your food yourself. Don't eat food made with added sugar. Cut the high fructose corn syrup from your life forever. You'll be healthier. Our planet will be healthier. And we'll have a healthier generation of children.

Wishing you health and happiness,

Mark Hyman, M.D.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/high-fructose-corn-syrup_b
_4256220.html

I'm on an anti sugar kick at the moment, but we dont tend to use the corn syrup in foods

Edit.It's a blog so I can almost forgive the use of the word 'ginormous'. Almost.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 6:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

I got a better idea, how bout leaving people the fuck alone, staying out of their lives, and not trying to nitpick and micromanage lives that do not BELONG to you, hrmmm ?

What about the fucking companies that are making billions out of brainwashing the public into putting shit into their bodies?

Once again, people are not islands of individuality. If your brother, mother, father, friend is killing themselves through addiction, that impacts on you.

So bring out your pat libertarian one liners. They don't reflect any reality that I know. I live in a family, a society. What happens to others impacts upon me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:23 PM

Quote:
What about the fucking companies that are making billions out of brainwashing the public into putting shit into their bodies?

Once again, people are not islands of individuality. If your brother, mother, father, friend is killing themselves through addiction, that impacts on you.

So bring out your pat libertarian one liners. They don't reflect any reality that I know. I live in a family, a society. What happens to others impacts upon me.

1) I keep forgetting that you Australians don't have the same distinction between anarchist and libertarian that we do in the states.

2) I'm not sure who he was responding to, but I have a suspicion he didn't read too far into the thread before he got hung up on something he responded to, much like I did.

3) I am positive that Frem hates some of the more irredeemable worse offending businesses as much as the hardcore liberals of the board do. Because in the states, that's the difference between being an anarchist and a libertarian.

4) There are still caveats, even if we would encourage businesses to market products that have anti-addiction measures incorporated in them. I know that there are a lot of gamers who find game companies handholding them for their own good to be incredibly annoying, and I suspect smokers are annoyed and disgusted by graphic images on their cig packages when they already know the stuff is bad for them. It's a question of balance I guess, finding a happy medium that allows the greatest amount of personal choice without ignoring safety.

In games, many companies have compromised by adding in incentives and messages that encourage the gamer to log off after a certain amount of time, but which can be toggled on or off through parental controls.

This would be better than banning children outright from addictive or violent art materials, like games, and put that choice into the judgment of individuals and parents where it belongs.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 16, 2014 11:18 PM

Just would like for once some to acknowledge there is a middle ground between

1. every decision is an individuals to make
2. total government control over all of our lives

So leaving aside the video games stuff, and going back to smoking, firstly your individual right ends once you start to harm someone else through your passive smoking, hence all the bans on where you can do it.

Secondly, multinational companies pour billions into what essentially is propaganda for the masses, with highly successful strategies for influencing, if not determining, how we eat, shop, cook and live. And I wont even get into medical treatments, thankfully we dont get them advertised here, directly anyway.

There is no doubt that tobacco companies influenced the way people smoked. If tobacco had been marketed as something you enjoy with friends after dinner, 'smoke the peace pipe anyone?' rather than something you can do all the time, easily, conveniently and don't forget the health benefits, then the epidemic of smoking related diseases would not be in existence.

Same with sugar, corn syrup, fat Basically its in businesses best interest to get consumers to consume as much as they are physically able to, and bugger the consequences. That's all about individual choice. That's the mantra of the free marketeer, marketing his poison.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 12:47 AM

>1. every decision is an individuals to make
>2. total government control over all of our lives

I think the problem most are having with this is the perception of bans-in-effect or even blatant bans are what are most commonly proposed. Which does start to get into questions about where the bans would stop once started. If there is anything I have observed, it is that the watchdogs and moral crusaders can be overzealous and love to cut off sin and vice completely, no matter what the personal cost to the people they impact.

When you remember that America was founded by puritans who outlawed even dancing, and that many of them would want to return us to that state, you realize our caution. We are talking fundamentalists who can be just as bad as Sharia Law.

And, they are willing to coopt the efforts of those with more innocent motivations to achieve their aims. Such as feminists and pornography.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 1:51 AM

I have no problem with the discussion being had about where the line falls between personal responsibiliy and collective action. I do have a problem with the 'it's individual choice' line being trotted out like a death knell on a conversation.

The problem with extreme individualism is that it doesn't acknowledge how we all live and function together; the impact of addiction upon choice and the effect of sophisticated marketing upon choice.

Basically, I could say don't bother entering the discussion if you are going throw around the one line truisms, only that would mean these boards would dry up overnight.

As far as I can see, smokers are free to smoke. They can't let their smoke impact upon others and there are health warnings on packaging (I think they are over the top). Cigarettes are highly taxed to discourage smoking.

So I cant see what Six is on about. I'm not sure what he wants really... if people tell him he stinks, I think that is rude, and I'd never say that to anyone, even if I thought it. I dont persecute people I know who smoke, although I dont allow them to smoke in my house or my car. Truthfully, most have now given up, or smoke rather slyly as I did before I quit. And feeling like a leper did motivate me to quit.

It almost seems anachronistic now, like watching Mad Men.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 2:25 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

Do you think parents should be free to buy heroin and feed it to their babies at every meal as a matter of personal choice? For the record.

The reason I ask is b/c you seem to think every ban in history without exception is the work of some moralistic killjoy, and has no legitimate reason for existence.

"I think the problem most are having with this is the perception of bans-in-effect or even blatant bans are what are most commonly proposed. Which does start to get into questions about where the bans would stop once started. If there is anything I have observed, it is that the watchdogs and moral crusaders can be overzealous and love to cut off sin and vice completely, no matter what the personal cost to the people they impact.'

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 4:30 AM

Fine, you want the straight dope, I'll give it to ya, like a right cross to the chops and you'll prolly like it about as much.
And yes I *did* thoroughly read the goddamn thread before posting that.

The REASON I sometimes post a snark laden soundbite is cause often as not even when I do try to explain it just gets ignored/strawmanned into one anyways by folks so wrapped up in their own dogwhistle issues that their brains might as well be coated with teflon cause logic and reason sliiiiide RIGHT off.
That said, credit where it's due, despite the vitriol involved in our head-on verbal fisticuffs, some folks DO actually read the bloody explaination when I give it, which is the only reason I even bother.

The other reason is the same as why I spit on the ground when I walk past a bunch Westboro Baptists or similar scum - to pointedly and insultingly remind them that not everyone shares their opinion or bows to their will, and there's people in this world who cannot be cowed by them, IMHO it's a very important reminder.

But... you wanted the straight dope, fine.

Fact number one: Prohibition does not work.

It didn't work with booze, it didn't work with drugs, and it's not never gonna work for tobacco, guns, abortion, unhealthy food, religion, self-destructive-behavior or whatever the hell else you wanna apply it to - and that goes for "stealth" prohibition of the type used against abortion, tobacco and as of late, legalized marijuana (the latter by leaving no physical place TO legally smoke it)....

Does not work.
Will not work.
Can not work.

We clear on this ?
Ok, good.

And here's the real rum dinger no one never gets to, WHY it won't work.
Because you're looking in the wrong fucking end of the telescope and addressing symptoms instead of causes, never getting to the root of the goddamn problem in the first place.

For example access to proper medical care, education and contraception makes the whole abortion thing mostly go away, all banning it does is drive it into back alleys, making it just that much friggin worse.

Prohibition via taxation on tobacco, all that did was create a booming market for smuggling, with the related crime and social destruction - and I still have concerns that the same games will be played with legalized marijuana, thus rendering legalization itself naught more than a bitter joke.

Guns and violence in general, better addressed by sanity, investment in mental health care, and a strong social push towards empathy and cooperation instead of this darwinistic eat or be eaten bullshit that makes em crazy in the first place - as I said about school shootings well over a decade ago, it comes to the point where someone is looking for a weapon, it's already too goddamn late.

And so forth and so on, but no, no one never wants to talk about that - it's all ban this, ban that, do-what-I-say-OR-ELSE.
And it's them LAST two words which sore piss me off, comprende?

Now; to the next point, NONE of this shit is binary either/or, yes/no, black/white decisions neither, and WHY people try to make it so is something else offensive to me.

Take for example, Food.

Just off the top of my head here, HFCS, MSG, Aspartame and Transfats, just for a filthy foursome to work with...
Now there *IS* market influence, I don't trust it, mind you, but it is there.
Case in point - was a time, for a while, you couldn't even freakin buy real maple syrup in most stores, and that sorely pissed me the hell off cause I happen to like my pancakes goddamnit... but the demand was there, and voila, there it is, on the shelves again.

Hell, I just recently got my hands on some Meijers store brand Organic maple-praline, and apple-butter syrups, $3.99 a bottle too, AND the organic-cert on them is Canadian, which is a hell of a lot more credible than American, cause they're pretty serious about their maple syrup, well, as serious as Canadians ever get about anything...

Same with real non-transfat peanut butter (although some sustainability/conduct issues arise over palm oil, yeah) and actual FRUIT jelly that isn't just flavored HFCS laden crap, and some of it at pretty reasonable prices.

On the other hand, though... try FINDING anything without HFCS in it at any of the stores I can afford to shop at, and that seriously pisses me off cause I used to like my Bologna and Cheese sammiches, but now ?
HFCS in the cheese, HFCS in the bologna, HFCS in the bread?!, IN. THE. MOTHERFUCKING. BREAD??!! - How in holy hell does that even make any logical SENSE, I ask you ?

Yet Aunt Millies and Sara Lee have already cranked out no-HFCS bread in response, and proudly display that fact on the label - demand creates supply.

Hell, Aspartame got its ass kicked by consumer pressure, as questions about its safety led the big cola companies to dump it - same thing could happen with HFCS in time.
Just cause it ain't moving FAST enough for your liking don't mean it ain't movin, and trying to force the issue just makes a mess of it

Best way to move it along is to educate people, stand on the facts and back it with good, solid evidence - and not affiliate yourself with nefarious fronts like for example CSPI (thinly veiled vegan/religious? front relying heavily on junk science and outright lies) or on the other end, FORCES (smokers rights group heavily subsidized by big tobacco), cause when you build your foundation on such shaky ground some clever bastard like me will yank that rug out from under ya double damn quick.

Still - it's not binary, there's other factors in motion, for example the FDA/USDA and Truth-in-Labelling, and it's no goddamn answer to an ineffective Govt agency to create another one to do the job the first one won't, that's idiotic, counterproductive and wasteful.

Now, that's one place a binary solution DOES have to be applied, due to the problem of regulatory capture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture

You can work for the Corps, *OR* the Govt - but not both, hell no, no way.
That needs setting in stone, cause there absolutely has to be a clear distinction between the two or the system as presented simply can not, will not, properly function.

Then get on the Truth in Labelling Act and actually ENFORCE THAT SHIT.
Most food labelling these days is a mishmash of halftruths and blatant lies anyways, case in point this little tidbit.
http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html

And when I say enforce, I mean ENFORCE - none of this piddly-diddly shit like fining a company 1.5mil for a law they made 15mil by violating, only lesson that hands out is that crime pays if you scale it large enough, nope...
You sic the GAO on them and AUDIT them, find out just how much they profited from the violation and then fine them FIVE TIMES THAT - if it sinks em, it sinks em, and they fucking deserved it, no write offs, neither.

So it's not an all-in-one, not a sound bite, nor a binary solution, there's many factors you have to take into account, and bringing out the banhammer to get your way cause you want it and you want it now makes a mockery of everything that ever mattered in the first place.

There's also the choices we ourselves make.
One thing most folk don't realize about Anarchists is that we have a much stronger sense of civic duty/responsibility as a direct result OF that belief - think about it logically for a moment... we believe, and quite firmly, that people can and will act in the best interests of a society or community *without* some government goon forcing them to under threat of violence.
Thus, does it not logically follow that we would, as a rule, actually ourselves live up to that belief, hrmmm ?

Which is why when idiotic knee-jerk, self-destructive ideas are proposed, you tend to find me standing right in their path with a stop sign.

Which is also why for a long time I wouldn't eat fish - the hell if I was going to finance the kind of mislabelling, chicanery, and ecologically irresponsible bullshit going on there, and I still mostly feel that way.
Even now, I will eat only Alaskan Pollock, cause it's the only fish handled in a sane, sustainable fashion these days, cause the practices goin on in farmed fish are still below my standard of decency, far below it, in some cases.

And we all make some bad choices too, at least theoretically or in other peoples opinion.

Sure, I smoke.
Given the toxic cocktail of pharmaceuticals necessary to keep me from vader-choking the fuck out of all the morons around me, which smoking eventually replaced, I think I got a better deal out of the tobacco...

And yes I know it's dangerous, toxic as hell, and makes a mess, from the smell lingering to disposing of the ashes and butts it's all kind of yucky - kind of like Christianity, cause how I feel about that religion is a LOT like rabid nonsmokers feel about smoking - think about that one for a bit... cause damn sure no one else seems to cry havoc about "secondhand religion", aka Blue Laws, other than me.

Anyhows, I *do* try to be polite about it, cause I am picky about when and where I smoke, hell I dun even smoke in my own car cause it's a vintage BMW, but I don't take being TOLD by someone else very well, asked politely, we can work with that, but TOLD, and with a great big "Or Else!" stick looming behind it ?
Hey. Fuck you!

Funny thing about it, most of our concept of "Healthy" and demonization of tobacco comes from the..uh... "work", of former surgeon general C Everett Koop...

Y'all DO know that he was a nutter, that it is now widely acknowledged that the man was clinically insane while in office, and that most of his scientific method ran from shaky to downright laughable, especially when he handed our results in advance and demanded that studies be made to fit them - at one point he managed to have *ALL* cases of lung cancer listed as smoking-related, even non-smokers, and I bet the asbestos companies fucking loved him for it.
Speakin of, you know what they used for cigarette filters for a long time ?
Micronite.
Know what Micronite is ?
Pulverized Asbestos.
But yeah, all the Tobaccos fault, suuuuure it is.

Not sayin smoking itself can't cause it, mind you - just that you're gonna need better science than that to convince me, and besides, I don't smoke chemically treated big tobacco product filtered with heaven knows what... I smoke hand rolled, unfiltered, organically grown (only cause my source is a cheap bastard) canadian smuggler tobacco, just so ya know.
And that only cause they chose to jack the taxes on the local stuff 1300% in one year.
No, that's NOT a typo.
Someone did that to something YOU liked, wouldn't you consider it a serious asshole thing to do, attempted prohibition without admitting to it ?
Anyhows, I know how awful the stuff is, but seriously if smoking is what kills me, imma die laughing.

My point is that Koop was a madman, a nutter, and about the only thing he was ever even right about was that using violence to discipline children was stupid - but hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
It's just that I don't see why we're still basing a lot of our national concept of health on the arbitrary whims of a known lunatic - doesn't anyone else see the problem with this, doesn't anyone else question the dogma ?

In short, it's not that goddamn simple, and trying to make it so is foolish and insulting.
Trying to pretend it is for reasons I care less about, and then swing the banhammer cause you want your way and you want it right now is offensive beyond any words I could apply to it.
But never for a moment say I haven't thought it through before I chewed your ass about it.

Cause I have, every single fucking time - none of you just ever seem to REMEMBER that.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 4:31 AM

Oh, and do me the favor of not calling me a Libertarian, that's insulting.
Anarchists believe in freedom for all, not just the rich.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 1:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So 6, do you think you could take one day off from being a drunken douche?

Yep... tomroow. I promissesesese

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 1:15 PM

Quote:
Byte

Do you think parents should be free to buy heroin and feed it to their babies at every meal as a matter of personal choice? For the record.

...

I honestly can't tell if you're seriously asking or if you're making a nasty snark that would involve taking everything I've said in this thread out of context and which would demonstrate a complete lack of respect for me as a person.

Either way, continuing this conversation would be an insult to us both.

For the record: No, that violates the presumed personal choice of the infant, and wtf is your problem with me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 1:32 PM

Whatever fueled such a white boy rant must have been worth listeing to.

Goddamned Eminems of their generation.....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 2:08 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte, I gave you the quote of your post, in full, that lead to that question. Perhaps you can't see how your post would leave that impression. So here it is again:

I think the problem most are having with this is the perception of bans-in-effect or even blatant bans are what are most commonly proposed. Which does start to get into questions about where the bans would stop once started. If there is anything I have observed, it is that the watchdogs and moral crusaders can be overzealous and love to cut off sin and vice completely, no matter what the personal cost to the people they impact.

I don't see that's it's directed toward and specific kind of ban, like perhaps salt in babyfood, or violent games, or heroin for infants, or age-related restrictions, or anything. It's pretty global.

So I was trying to find a limit, or if there even is one, for your very global statement, especially in light of you previous statements. No disrespect was intended.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 3:02 PM

Quote:

Byte, I gave you the quote of your post, in full, that lead to that question. Perhaps you can't see how your post would leave that impression. So here it is again:

I don't follow your progression of thought from what I said to what you asked, at all. Also for the record, and for your future reference, most people are really offended if you ask them if they're okay with parents poisoning children, and it stretches what little good will I have to try to give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't know that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 3:10 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So Frem, I tried to summarize your post:

Prohibition does not work
booze, drugs, tobacco, guns, abortion, unhealthy food, religion, self-destructive-behavior

NONE of this shit is binary either/or, yes/no, black/white decision
food - market forces will solve the problem (and I presume all problems by extension) albeit slowly

education leads to informed choices

one govt agency on top of another doesn't solve the problem of ineffective agencies - get rid of revolving doors

Anarchists ... believe, and quite firmly, that people can and will act in the best interests of a society or community *without* some government goon forcing them to under threat of violence.

Koop was a madman (and) we're still basing a lot of our national concept of health on the arbitrary whims of a known lunatic

So, I wanted to go through this one at a time, starting with prohibition:

Many things were discussed like age-appropriate bans on addictive things, bans on manufacturers adding sugar (and excess salt while we're at it) to babyfood, and even taxes on items to change consumption patterns. No one has discussed universal prohibition (or if they have, it went by me).

When it comes to banning certain things in food, such prohibitions already exist and have made our food safer. No one adds lead or arsenic to food (anymore). Similarly, there are requirements for certain ingredients to be added to food, like iodine to salt, that have made our food supply more healthful.

But forbidding manufacturers from adding sugar and salt to babyfood isn't a prohibition on either. Parents are free to get out ye olde salt shaker and sugar bowl if they feel the need.

When it comes to looking at age-related prohibitions, alcohol and cigarettes are examples of existing ones. What current figures leave unanswered is 'would those numbers increase if there was no prohibition on young people purchasing these things?'

But the REAL prohibition is instructive - alcohol consumption did dramatically decrease:

Similarly, when abortion was illegal it was less frequent than when it became legal under restricted circumstances.

Whether you agree with the policy or accept the side effects, the results are definitive. Universal prohibition works to reduce the prohibited behavior. So it's possible that age-related prohibitions do indeed reduce that behavior in those age-groups.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 3:19 PM

Quote:
Anarchists ... believe, and quite firmly, that people can and will act in the best interests of a society or community *without* some government goon forcing them to under threat of violence

Not exactly. Anarchists believe that MOST people can get along with other people without maiming or harming anyone intentionally. We also think there are idiots and shitheads out there - as in your example of the poison friendly parents.

The community would have an interest in intervening with anyone, parent or corporation, that decides to poison members of that community, and an anarchist believes that doesn't necessarily involve corruptible cops/judges/attorneys/politicians. I was willing to have that discussion about viable middle grounds and alternative approaches, but now I feel like my sense of ethics and morality may have been impugned.

This thread is also clearly rapidly approaching a point where no anarchist would WANT to participate, so have a nice day.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 3:34 PM

Frem, you're going to have to abbreviate your post into main points before I respond. I just can't get through your long ramblings.

One thing. Please find where anyone has mentioned prohibition. You are jumping off half cocked once again.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 3:37 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:

Oh, and do me the favor of not calling me a Libertarian, that's insulting.
Anarchists believe in freedom for all, not just the rich.

-F

That's funny.

No where remotely true, but still funny.

Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen

I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.

" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, February 17, 2014 3:39 PM