Reads this newsclip from VOA -- http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-11-voa50.cfm
Yeah, I know smokers already know it's bad or they don't care. But if I knew a tidal wave was coming your way, I know you'd want me to tell you.





Reads this newsclip from VOA -- http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-02-11-voa50.cfm
Yeah, I know smokers already know it's bad or they don't care. But if I knew a tidal wave was coming your way, I know you'd want me to tell you.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





I find it interesting how many of those deaths will be coming from China, I guess we had to pay them back somehow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/216998.stm
Some interesting things from Richard's linked article:
>>in China smoking causes unexpectedly large numbers of deaths from tuberculosis, emphysema, stomach cancer and liver cancer.
Well, although I think that I'm on record for having a poisonous death grudge (turnabout being fair play) against cigarette makers, smoking doesn't cause tuberculosis. Myobacterium tuberculosis causes tuberculosis.
>>...mortality and causes of death of these men over a 30-year period through annual monitoring, taking into account diet, blood pressure, drinking and other factors.
I'm wondering if one of those "other factors" might be a whole gob of people working in environmental conditions that are more toxic than the half a pack a day that they smoke.
>>Only around 10% of cigarettes sold in China are imported.
We may have introduced it to them, but they're killing themselves.





I don't know about predisposing, but certainly lung inelasticity and dysfunction wouldn't help with tuberculosis. To that extent, a smoker is far more susceptible to the effects of tuberculosis than a nonsmoker would be. I just take exception to the implication that smoking causes TB.
Yes, because government involvement fixes everything. Please, Big Brother, run our lives for us!The grim statistics show that unless governments get more involved, the number of tobacco users will continue to increase worldwide and so will the number of tobacco-related deaths.
I don't have a problem with local laws banning smoking (in fact, I love them). I just disagree with the implication that "government involvement" is the only thing that can possibly save lives and that we desperately need more government involvement, presumably at the federal level.
I don't get this. I mean, the government already regulates drugs (and we tend to think that the regulation is a good thing, although people differ insofar as effective mechanisms); it is sort of a trite acknowledgment that if smoking were discovered tomorrow the government would be regulating the shit out of it. This is not, like, "extra" regulation; it is regulation that we have generally embraced to be necessary, and just putting tobacco (correctly) under the ambit of that regulation. What am I missing?
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
See my post above.
^^^ Interesting point, Jenny... I watched CNBC ( I watch for the ladies haha) , they were talking about what companies would do well based on who won the election. THeir expert said that in a Dem administration, Altria would be the stock to own. Now Altria is the owner of Phillip Morris (PM). The reasoning is that PM ( and I have confirmed this with folks who work there ) wants the FDA to regulate cigarettes. Mostly because it may eases the burden of further litigation but in PM's case it would lock market share ( that was never really explained). Anyway I thought it was an interesting discussion
But on a side note, maybe if government did its job ( u know being the referee is kinda a government function ), they would not allow these tobacco companies to put so much junk in cigs.. I mean they put salt peter and other ingredients to keep cigs burning and all. Nicotine is bad - but some other chemicals that you inhale from cigarettes are far worse. U r better smoking cigs imported from England where companies can only put tobacco in a cigarette - or smoke cigars![]()





Government involvement doesn't always mean regulations and control of smokers. An example: The NYS Depf of Health is doing a credible job of bringing reality to the smokers via TV spots, posters, etc. If I were a smoker and saw those, I'd be worried. Reality is what they seem to need IMHO. I'm not but I think they hit home. Apparently it is doing some good, from a study or two I've heard about. Regulating tobacco co. advertising is another.
( In any case government regulation, of lawless and irresponsible companies and individuals in such a varied society is necessary, as long as intelligence and feedback leading to modification is also applied. For example regulations must follow the intent of the law, not the intent of the bureaucrats. Of course those caveats are rare. )
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
I have taught that the sky in all its zones is mortal and its substance was formed by a process of birth
He's saying, be balanced in your regulatory approach, smart in your lawmaking, and true to the letter of the law. I think.
I guess I would rather see people choose to quit smoking as, you know, free adults. Publicity campaigns are great, but we all know smoking is bad for us and some people choose to do it anyway. If a LOCAL (not federal) government wants to defend my nonsmoking lungs by restricting smokers to the outdoors and their private property, that's terrific. But I don't see much else they can do without stepping on free citizens who have a right to poison themselves if they want to.




^^^ So local government is ok, but not federal? That sounds like the ole "pick and choose" to me.
Or is it just that you're happy (or would be happy) with a local smoking ban, but can still justify your whole "right to choose" idea as long as people elsewhere in the country aren't under a ban?





Yes, true to th intent of the law. Monitor how it is being administrated and if it has the desired effect. And if something is obviously not working, after intelligent appraisal, fix it so that it does work.
Hey, it's what we do in business.
How about a $10 /pack tax on cigarettes to be spent on publicity campaigns and reimbursing Medicaid for respiratory and (certain types of) cancer expenditures?
Last edited by threlayer; 02-13-2008 at 10:25 PM.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
Actually it's this old piece of paper we have lying around somewhere (probably on the toilet-paper holder in the Congressional Men's Room) called "the Constitution." State and local governments have a lot more leeway than the federal government, which is supposed to serve only a minimal unifying function. That way different communities can live according to their community norms, and Oregon hippies don't have to adhere to the same standards as Arkansas Baptists. And a person who isn't comfortable in one community can move to another where there are more like-minded people and the local laws reflect local standards.
Well, if not tabacco, I'm 100% positive that something else will kill every single person on this planet.
Meaning, in less than 100 years, at least 6 billion people will have died of something.
This article strikes me as some kind of fear mongering nonsense. I smoke (like a pack a month, but still), and I know damn well that it is bad for me. Alzheimer's runs in my family and tobacco seems to have an anecdotal effect in staving off Alzheimer's. There is no cure for cancer or Alzheimer's, but it takes forever to die of Alzheimer's and cancer is only really bad for 4-5 months after being diagnosed as fatal.
Meh, I prefer cancer, personally. I mean, my true preference is to die of a Heroin overdose, but only after that fatal cancer diagnosis.![]()
Promote yourself and earn more money! This is a business that is owned by strippers for strippers. Let's make that money!
^^^ Hear, hear. I can still remember Bill Hicks: "News flash! Nonsmokers die EVERY DAY!"
If you want to kill yourself with cigarettes, or junk food, or TV, or unprotected sex, or cocaine, or alcohol, or driving your car off a cliff, that's your own damn business. I don't see any reason why government needs to be everyone's daddy and tell us all how to be good little boys and girls.




Ok, so I guess Huckabee isn't nuts and wasn't wrong in what he did since all those "Arkansas Baptists" who aren't known for their "intelligence" could have just moved somewhere else?
So what if your local government banned SC's because of moral opinions, I guess you wouldn't care because you could go somewhere else?
I would love to know some of you other constitutional opinions, but this isn't the time, maybe they'll come up later.




Huckabee was elected to represent his community. Arkansas Baptists voted Huckabee into office, and retained the freedom to vote him out. If they felt that someone like Nancy Pelosi represented their interests better, they could either vote that person into office or move to San Francisco and a more like-minded community.
If my local government banned strip clubs, I would certainly take an interest because my local government represents me; I have as much a say as everyone else, but if the community at large would rather have no strip clubs then I can either get used to that or move. Go ahead and ask me why I settled in Portland instead of Memphis!
Do you not think it's a good thing that different communities can all coexist? Or should we all be required to think and act exactly alike?
ETA: Jester, you REALLY need to look up the Tenth Amendment. It's right there in the Constitution. I didn't make it up.




On the Huckabee issue, your arguing both sides in two threads.
I think different communites should and DO coexist, but often theres a need for cohesiveness.
Trust me, I know all the amendments... I wasn't disputing that. I just meant I would be curious to hear what you have to say about other issues involving the constitution.
And since you specifically mentioned the ole' 10th... Thats why our gov. has the Necessay and Proper clause.
I'm not arguing both sides at all. I don't want Huckabee to be my president for exactly the same reason I don't want to move to Little Rock. I think that mentality is nuts and I would rather have elected officials (and neighbors) who better represent my views. So I live on the west coast, in a community I fit into better than I'd fit into Little Rock, and I support political candidates who represent my community.
But that doesn't mean I don't think Arkansans should be able to vote for Huckabee if they want to. I accept that Jimmy Arkansas and I are probably going to disagree on a wide range of issues, and that's why he lives there and I live here.
Bookmarks