Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:46:

InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:24:
Excuse me for butting in (no pun intended) into this argument I dont usually defend Rollingthundre's opinions but claiming that smoking costs more in tax dollars than the industry brings in is a rather weak argument.

When you add up all of the direct and indirect costs for smoking related health care I'm sure that's the case. That's without going into the toll it takes on families and the economy. I don't have any studies handy because I rarely care much for smoking debates but I'm sure there have been several done in NA if you get google happy. Keep in mind most of the money the Big Tobacco lobbies take in stays there. Health care in North America is insanely expensive, you have no idea man. It is not uncommon for people to get very sick and go into major debt or bankruptcy after being screwed by health insurance. Smokers get boned on that stuff too, the HMOs will use anything against you and smoking is a giant red flag on your file.

The government is pretty indifferent about the taxes, they will make it up somewhere else. The taxes also don't scale with the costs which continue to increase every year. I can't disagree with RM that the smoking industry doesn't have a very long term future ahead, it's being slowly phased out everywhere I travel. I'm on business in Canada pretty often and they don't even let them display cigarettes on the shelves there in many places, American tobacco companies have it easy.

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:44:
I can't tell from that rant, would you prefer that Monsanto's genetically modified crops, which there's no proof cause cancer and could probably end up doing the opposite (in that hopefully someday they reduce the need for pesticides, which we do have proof causes cancer.)

Wouldn't that be a slippery slope?
I imagine you'd prefer a world where the government never says "hey, that causes cancer, stop doing it" and, well, we have no options. Because, if you've followed the Supreme Court case, you'd see you really do have no options. Over 91% of soybeans are genetically modified. Basically, you're eating genetically modified food at every meal.

I'd imagine, if it comes out that they cause cancer, the US wouldn't do anything because, I mean, nanny state.



Also, it's impossible for the US to become a 3rd world country, under the modern definition. And, under the prior definition, we'd simply have to be neither communist nor part of NATO, an organization you probably feel is socialist, so you'd probably prefer us to be a third world nation.

InBlack wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:20:
I dont really think this is that terrible actually. The FBI wants to be able to get a warrant from a judge. Better a proper warrant then snooping illegaly (which is what Im assuming is already done). Some would argue that its better not to snoop at all, and I would usually agree but can we really stop any government from snooping if it wants to??? The NSA is already doing shit nobody wants to acknowledge in the interest of "National Security". Wouldnt it be better to regulate the snooping with the judiciary so at least there is some kind of probable cause required and they cant snoop on random people at will...

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 11:04:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:53:

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:27:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:

Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!

Stop twisting things, did I ever even suggest being against laws in general? Or drunk driving laws? Holy fucking strawman batman!

I am not saying you are against laws.
I am saying you are against new laws that may change your habits.

Old laws that changed other people's habits? Those are fine.
New laws that change your habits? NANNY STATE!


See how I'm not saying you hate laws but instead saying you use the term "nanny state" very hypocritically.

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:27:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 10:06:

Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Where did I defend smoking? I have nerve? I'm not the one name calling and tossing out bullshit left and right. Look to your boyfriend beamer for that.

"I'm not insulting anyone, ask your boyfriend!"


Hehehehe.



Also, dude, you love slippery slope arguments. More importantly, you think everything is a nanny state unless the government is already doing it. Drunk driving laws? Swell! Any other new law limiting what you can do? Nanny state!

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:56:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:48:

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:41:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:

Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!

You'd know all about nanny state things I'm sure. Maybe we should outlaw cars too, while we're outlawing guns and everything else so you can live in your little bubble world and be safe while papa Barry watches over you.

Woosh.

Verno wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:58:
Defending a dude who was pointing a laser at both an aircraft and a policy helicopter and defending smoking in the same topic, wow. You have to admire the nerve if nothing else, LOL.

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:41:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:39:

Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Alcohol does as much damage and can aid in the cause of long term illness like alzheimers. It's just as bad as smoking. I'm not changing goalposts one bit. Never heard of anyone being killed by a smoking driver, however you hear about drunk driving deaths daily. So yeah I do think you're wrong. Yet there's no major tax on alcohol in comparison to cigarettes and you see a booze ad every 5 minutes.

Yup, you can get killed by a drunk driver, so drunk driving is outlawed.
You can get killed by second hand smoke, plus it makes your clothes smell like ass, so public smoking is outlawed.

Makes sense to me. Though, I suppose, it's a nanny state thing. Maybe we should relax drunk driving laws. If I choose to drive drunk that's my decision, not the gubments!

Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:29:
You brought this up tough guy. You're the one who launched into the 'why is so smoking so demonized?!!' shit. No one cares if you want to smoke yourself to death, we care about how much it costs society in health and dollars. Yeah no shit smoking increases the risk of cancer, glad you caught up to 30 years ago. That's why the government taxes the shit out of it and restricts advertising to try and prevent people from getting addicted.

The alcohol argument is brainless and invalid. Alcohol can be used recreationally in a responsible manner, cigarettes on the other hand are engineered to be addictive. You can drink without health impact, you cannot smoke without health impact. This is scientific fact, not opinion. Smoking affects general respiratory functions, lowers your immune system capability and a dozen other very nasty things OTHER than cancer risk.

You can gnash your teeth and call me names all you want but you can't hide from the truth. Smoking is on the decline in most countries so the governments approach is working. That's why tobacco companies are getting into the food industry, the writing is on the wall.

So stop trying to change the goalposts and pretend I'm trying to get you to quit. I don't give a SHIT about you, smoke a damned chimney you rude little ankle biter. Just don't sit there and preach to me about the government being so mean to tobacco and launch into hysterics about health care when you are a part of the problem.

Beamer wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:17:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 09:08:

Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:52:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 08:20:

You're the type of ex smoker I hate. Preachy and sanctimonious.

If you have nothing to say then take a fucking hike instead of trying to get the last word with some stupid shit. When you've had cancer, we'll talk about being too preachy. There's nothing preachy or sanctimonious about the facts, you just don't want to face the truth or your own hypocrisy.

I know people who didn't smoke or drink their entire lives and still died of cancer. Smoking increases the risk obviously, but if I get cancer I'm not going to blame anyone but myself for it.

Calling smoking a blight is a bit over board unless you want to put alcohol right up there with it. Until then kindly stop being a sanctimonious prick thanks.

My insurance rates thank you you entitled jerk. "I can smoke, and you all can deal! And then, later on, help me pay for any ramifications!"

And it is a blight. I'll never live in an area without a public smoking ban.

Plus, frankly, it makes you look like a redneck in the States. There's definitely a correlation between social class and smoking.

Redmask wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 07:12:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 28, 2013, 00:32:
Then outlaw it, then you can outlaw booze too. People do things that are unhealthy, people skydive, potentially unhealthy. Spare me the over dramatics though, I know the risks associated with smoking.

Bet you're one of those second hand smoke is worse than first hand smoke types as well.

I swear you are incapable of reading. You, why do they tax smoking but don't allow it to advertise? Me, a full explanation of why. You, a bunch of shit totally unrelated. Over dramatic? It's the truth, it's scientific fact, there is nothing dramatic about it. They tax it because it has a major health cost to people that the cigarette companies would otherwise not kick back. Ban it? If only! They can't ban it because people like you would make an unholy stink and you know that. They restrict advertising because it's bad for society as a whole. You are slowly killing yourself faster than you otherwise would be. Maybe you don't care, fine but you're sucking up unnecessary tax dollars. Take some personal responsibility for your actions you freeloader.

People kill themselves drinking and eating too except those things positive weight for society when used in moderation, smoking does not. You lose all rights to bitch about healthcare when you're a smoker, it is the height of hypocrisy and that's coming from an ex smoker. I smoked for 15 years, don't talk down to me as if I was other people about it, I know all about the health risks and you will learn one day the hard way.

Cancer isn't fun and smoking is the losers lottery ticket to it, as if there wasn't enough risk of getting cancer as it is. Getting into a car accident sucks but that just proves life has enough risk without taking totally unnecessary ones that have nothing positive whatsoever. You want to be a daring risk taker, go climb a mountain. At least you would have some pictures to show for it instead of a huge hole in your wallet where a chunk of your retirement savings could have been and chemotherapy.

Redmask wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 21:44:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 18:13:
And for the record, and being a smoker, I think it's ridiculous, cigarette companies are barely allowed to advertise these days, but that doesn't stop the government from taxing the fuck outta cigarettes.

It's a blight on society and a huge resource drain on the health care system. Of course the government taxes it, they need to recoup something from it. There is no positive benefit to smoking and I say that as someone who smoked for 15 years and knew it was stupid every time I lit one up. You'll quit one day and understand. I don't want my tax dollars paying for unnecessary health care.

Since I know the comparison people will make is to alcohol, it can be used recreationally in moderation. Smoking is more insidious, it has inherent addictive properties, both short term and long term health implications. Smoking has no positive weight whatsoever, literally nothing at all outside of jobs that aren't a good long term bet. Of course it's advertising should be limited.

Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 17:10:

jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

He probably thinks the smoking bans are too far.

Bloomberg's soda ban is often brought up. As if, you know, everyone didn't endlessly mock it. Jon Stewart, someone often hailed as a top liberal talking head, endlessly mocked it.

And it does lead to a social good. People are too fat and too likely to get type 2 diabetes. Their insistence upon drinking buckets of liquid sugar and calories is an enormous part of this. So you can see that connection.
It was just the wrong way to make it.

But, of course, some people think that it isn't the government's job to make sure that what companies offer us is good for us. We should judge. If we want to survive solely on Twinkies we should be allowed to eat solely Twinkies, even if it means there will be a strain on society the taxpayer has to bear. Whatever, I see that argument somewhat, the issue comes from when there aren't many alternatives. Most products in the supermarket have excessive amounts of sugar, salt, and chemicals. It would be nice if the government stepped in and regulated that. Clearly the American consumer isn't very good at doing so on an individual level. Banning certain ingredients would be nice. Hell, there are some things banned in the EU as being carcinogenics that the US still allows.

This, though, will somehow be seen as me saying Bloomberg was anything other than a fool.

jdreyer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:54:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:25:
No? Isn't much different when you're essentially welcoming government to run your life and tell you what you can and can't say/do/eat/drink etc.

Are there egregious examples of this? I mean, where there's no obvious good being done. It's pretty obvious that regulating alcohol and tobacco provide benefit to society. Or do you feel that even this is too much?

Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 16:15:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:57:

Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Are liberals and democrats in general, generally for bigger government or against it?

Bigger government != "daddy."

Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:56:
And who here says the government should daddy us?

You come up with these absolutely nuts strawmen that exist only on the Bill O'Reilly show.


Should the government do what it can to fight institutionalized sexism and racism?
Yes. Yes it should.
Should it "daddy" us?
What does that even mean?

Beamer wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:13:

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 15:00:

Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:11:
Hahah who would seriously defend some dipshit getting 30 months for trying to crash aircraft?

It's a 19 year old kid, I hardly think he was thinking Oh I'll crash some planes today. Stupid to do? Very much so, throwing the book at a bored and obviously stupid kid to do it twice however seems a tad harsh.

And really it's the other story that should have people far more up in arms. We are becoming a police state and no one seems to give a fuck about it.

This is throwing the book? The maximum is 5 years per offense. 2 offenses. 30 months is significantly less than 120 months.

Plus, with this being fairly common and people not realizing it's illegal or dangerous, an example is being made of him to get the word out. It happens.

Plus, given that this is more than the prosecution recommended, there's another hearing next week, in which the sentence will likely be dropped down to 12-15 months.

Plus, even if he did get the 30 months, as a guy with no priors that did something non-violent he'd likely serve a tiny fraction before being let out.

Plus, just because he wasn't thinking "oh, I'll crash some planes today" doesn't mean he didn't do something that could have led to it. He needs to take personal responsibility for his actions, right?

Plus, laws don't necessarily care what your intention was. Trust me, though, had his intent been to use the laser to crash a few planes he'd be getting much, much, much more than 30 months.

Plus, maybe you'll learn a lesson that confusing your actual point with idiocy like "you libs" and "both these stories" just distracts from any point you mean to make. Had you stopped and said "wow, this one story is pretty frightening, what do you guys think?" you would have had some discussion. But when you say "you stupid libtards didn't respond to these two horrible stories within 20 minutes of Blue posting them so clearly you don't care" then you get people mocking you for the rest of the day.
This is why people think you troll. Your posts are so well structured to avoid any real conversation that you have to be planning them that way.

Verno wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 14:11:
Hahah who would seriously defend some dipshit getting 30 months for trying to crash aircraft?

Frags4Fun wrote on Mar 27, 2013, 12:00:
I couldn't even get through half of the video. Super boring. Same marketing strategy as BF3. SP garbage. If they want SP, they should make it like 1942 SP where the SP was the same as MP except with bots.