Yes I know quite well... I was just pointing out that you could always drop about 1/4th of the stuff out because that stuff is not unhealthy and mainly used to make smoking more appealing.nlsme1 wrote:
And the other 3000? Cadmium, lead-210 (radioactive heavy metal), polonium-210 (radioactive heavy metal), the list goes on and on.BLdw wrote:
Usually about about 1/4 of them are flavonoids, smells, taste and such...nlsme1 wrote:
There is SOME of the 4000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. 4000.
Poll
Do you smoke?
| No, never | 56% | 56% - 60 | ||||
| Used to, but quit | 20% | 20% - 22 | ||||
| Light smoker, < a pack a day | 13% | 13% - 14 | ||||
| Moderate, a pack a day | 6% | 6% - 7 | ||||
| heavy, > a pack a day | 3% | 3% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 107 | ||||||
Well said, however you just pointed out that the FDA should be all over Big Tobacco. Considering they are dishonest in every step they have ever made concerning the safety of their product.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not necessarily. Some regulatory bodies are in place in order to force individuals and companies to remain honest. While I fully believe in caveat emptor, a wholly unregulated system can not be put in place unless fraud, corruption, and theft are stamped out. A decrease in regulation must be followed, or preempted, by an increase in the ability of our justice system to not only root out, but prosecute those who commit these sorts of crimes. There should be no distinction given to 'white collar crime' and no special treatment. Crime is crime.nlsme1 wrote:
He is not saying he wants it closed for corruption. That is another issue. He doesn't like the idea of someone telling what he can and can't do. Again, would you like to see all regulatory bodies done away with, that is not the same question as "would you like corruption to be dealt with?".
However, I think many regulatory bodies, the FDA and FCC to name but two, have largely overstepped their boundaries and have trampled individual rights in a misguided belief that they are doing so for the 'common good'. So yes, I am taking back what I said earlier, the FDA should exist, but only in a limited scope that forces companies to be honest about what is in their product and what the stated benefits may be.
Everyone knows the dangers of cigarettes. It's not the companies responsibility to give out every single detail. pick up a book and read sheesh.nlsme1 wrote:
Well said, however you just pointed out that the FDA should be all over Big Tobacco. Considering they are dishonest in every step they have ever made concerning the safety of their product.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not necessarily. Some regulatory bodies are in place in order to force individuals and companies to remain honest. While I fully believe in caveat emptor, a wholly unregulated system can not be put in place unless fraud, corruption, and theft are stamped out. A decrease in regulation must be followed, or preempted, by an increase in the ability of our justice system to not only root out, but prosecute those who commit these sorts of crimes. There should be no distinction given to 'white collar crime' and no special treatment. Crime is crime.nlsme1 wrote:
He is not saying he wants it closed for corruption. That is another issue. He doesn't like the idea of someone telling what he can and can't do. Again, would you like to see all regulatory bodies done away with, that is not the same question as "would you like corruption to be dealt with?".
However, I think many regulatory bodies, the FDA and FCC to name but two, have largely overstepped their boundaries and have trampled individual rights in a misguided belief that they are doing so for the 'common good'. So yes, I am taking back what I said earlier, the FDA should exist, but only in a limited scope that forces companies to be honest about what is in their product and what the stated benefits may be.
Like it matters. I've had the ingredients listed to me numerous times by anti-smokers and it hasn't changed my desire to smoke. Should they list the ingredients on the packaging? Yes. Should it go any further than that? No.nlsme1 wrote:
Well said, however you just pointed out that the FDA should be all over Big Tobacco. Considering they are dishonest in every step they have ever made concerning the safety of their product.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not necessarily. Some regulatory bodies are in place in order to force individuals and companies to remain honest. While I fully believe in caveat emptor, a wholly unregulated system can not be put in place unless fraud, corruption, and theft are stamped out. A decrease in regulation must be followed, or preempted, by an increase in the ability of our justice system to not only root out, but prosecute those who commit these sorts of crimes. There should be no distinction given to 'white collar crime' and no special treatment. Crime is crime.nlsme1 wrote:
He is not saying he wants it closed for corruption. That is another issue. He doesn't like the idea of someone telling what he can and can't do. Again, would you like to see all regulatory bodies done away with, that is not the same question as "would you like corruption to be dealt with?".
However, I think many regulatory bodies, the FDA and FCC to name but two, have largely overstepped their boundaries and have trampled individual rights in a misguided belief that they are doing so for the 'common good'. So yes, I am taking back what I said earlier, the FDA should exist, but only in a limited scope that forces companies to be honest about what is in their product and what the stated benefits may be.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Pick up any legal drug and you will find it IS their responsability to tell you what you are consuming. And how can one pick up a book and read about something the manufacturer keeps HIDDEN.Cybargs wrote:
Everyone knows the dangers of cigarettes. It's not the companies responsibility to give out every single detail. pick up a book and read sheesh.nlsme1 wrote:
Well said, however you just pointed out that the FDA should be all over Big Tobacco. Considering they are dishonest in every step they have ever made concerning the safety of their product.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not necessarily. Some regulatory bodies are in place in order to force individuals and companies to remain honest. While I fully believe in caveat emptor, a wholly unregulated system can not be put in place unless fraud, corruption, and theft are stamped out. A decrease in regulation must be followed, or preempted, by an increase in the ability of our justice system to not only root out, but prosecute those who commit these sorts of crimes. There should be no distinction given to 'white collar crime' and no special treatment. Crime is crime.
However, I think many regulatory bodies, the FDA and FCC to name but two, have largely overstepped their boundaries and have trampled individual rights in a misguided belief that they are doing so for the 'common good'. So yes, I am taking back what I said earlier, the FDA should exist, but only in a limited scope that forces companies to be honest about what is in their product and what the stated benefits may be.
Do you like the government funding things like cancer research? Or smoking cessation? Or even giving grants to healthcare facilities?JohnG@lt wrote:
Like it matters. I've had the ingredients listed to me numerous times by anti-smokers and it hasn't changed my desire to smoke. Should they list the ingredients on the packaging? Yes. Should it go any further than that? No.nlsme1 wrote:
Well said, however you just pointed out that the FDA should be all over Big Tobacco. Considering they are dishonest in every step they have ever made concerning the safety of their product.JohnG@lt wrote:
Not necessarily. Some regulatory bodies are in place in order to force individuals and companies to remain honest. While I fully believe in caveat emptor, a wholly unregulated system can not be put in place unless fraud, corruption, and theft are stamped out. A decrease in regulation must be followed, or preempted, by an increase in the ability of our justice system to not only root out, but prosecute those who commit these sorts of crimes. There should be no distinction given to 'white collar crime' and no special treatment. Crime is crime.
However, I think many regulatory bodies, the FDA and FCC to name but two, have largely overstepped their boundaries and have trampled individual rights in a misguided belief that they are doing so for the 'common good'. So yes, I am taking back what I said earlier, the FDA should exist, but only in a limited scope that forces companies to be honest about what is in their product and what the stated benefits may be.
None of the above.nlsme1 wrote:
Do you like the government funding things like cancer research? Or smoking cessation? Or even giving grants to healthcare facilities?JohnG@lt wrote:
Like it matters. I've had the ingredients listed to me numerous times by anti-smokers and it hasn't changed my desire to smoke. Should they list the ingredients on the packaging? Yes. Should it go any further than that? No.nlsme1 wrote:
Well said, however you just pointed out that the FDA should be all over Big Tobacco. Considering they are dishonest in every step they have ever made concerning the safety of their product.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
On that note I kindly back out of this thread. I hope you never get cancer. Just know, if you ever receive any care for cancer you are a hypocrite. If you are ever thankful someone you know gets treatment for cancer, you are a hypocrite. If you ever sign up for medicare, you are a hypocrite.JohnG@lt wrote:
None of the above.nlsme1 wrote:
Do you like the government funding things like cancer research? Or smoking cessation? Or even giving grants to health care facilities?JohnG@lt wrote:
Like it matters. I've had the ingredients listed to me numerous times by anti-smokers and it hasn't changed my desire to smoke. Should they list the ingredients on the packaging? Yes. Should it go any further than that? No.
How is he a hypocrite? He just doesn't want the government to do it, he'd rather have a private company doing the research.nlsme1 wrote:
On that note I kindly back out of this thread. I hope you never get cancer. Just know, if you ever receive any care for cancer you are a hypocrite. If you are ever thankful someone you know gets treatment for cancer, you are a hypocrite. If you ever sign up for medicare, you are a hypocrite.JohnG@lt wrote:
None of the above.nlsme1 wrote:
Do you like the government funding things like cancer research? Or smoking cessation? Or even giving grants to health care facilities?
I didn't say he was a hypocite, I said he would be a hypocrite.
You asked the wrong question. Do I think cancer research should exist? Absolutely. But it should be funded via donations and those that can profit from the research such as pharmaceutical companies or those that wish to make the jump into that industry.nlsme1 wrote:
On that note I kindly back out of this thread. I hope you never get cancer. Just know, if you ever receive any care for cancer you are a hypocrite. If you are ever thankful someone you know gets treatment for cancer, you are a hypocrite. If you ever sign up for medicare, you are a hypocrite.JohnG@lt wrote:
None of the above.nlsme1 wrote:
Do you like the government funding things like cancer research? Or smoking cessation? Or even giving grants to health care facilities?
Smoking cessation is covered by most peoples health insurance companies. Either way, the cost of a box of nicotine patches is far less than the weekly cost of a pack a day habit. If someone wants to quit smoking, they can quit anytime they want, they don't need to call 311.
Health care facilities should be funded by the private sector for profit.
And... I will never, in a million years, sign up for medicare. I'm planning for my retirement, not spending all my money and praying there is still enough left in social security and medicare funding when I reach that age. Only morons would reach that point.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Galt i just read your sig and who you are responding to atm.
In an effort to 'clean up DST', the following people will no longer be replied to: ruisleipa, nlsme1, Mitch, oug, pace51, Sh1fty, ATG
In an effort to 'clean up DST', the following people will no longer be replied to: ruisleipa, nlsme1, Mitch, oug, pace51, Sh1fty, ATG
Yes, precisely!Cybargs wrote:
How is he a hypocrite? He just doesn't want the government to do it, he'd rather have a private company doing the research.nlsme1 wrote:
On that note I kindly back out of this thread. I hope you never get cancer. Just know, if you ever receive any care for cancer you are a hypocrite. If you are ever thankful someone you know gets treatment for cancer, you are a hypocrite. If you ever sign up for medicare, you are a hypocrite.JohnG@lt wrote:
None of the above.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
An honest, albeit offtopic, question here--do you think the government should fund research into basic science? I mean things like Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Argonne, Fermilab, contribute to CERN, etc...? Without federal funding, science research in the US would collapse. Quickly.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, precisely!Cybargs wrote:
How is he a hypocrite? He just doesn't want the government to do it, he'd rather have a private company doing the research.nlsme1 wrote:
On that note I kindly back out of this thread. I hope you never get cancer. Just know, if you ever receive any care for cancer you are a hypocrite. If you are ever thankful someone you know gets treatment for cancer, you are a hypocrite. If you ever sign up for medicare, you are a hypocrite.
Incorrect. There are a lot of private scientific institutes that flourish pretty well. NASA itself right now is a financial black hole.SenorToenails wrote:
An honest, albeit offtopic, question here--do you think the government should fund research into basic science? I mean things like Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Argonne, Fermilab, contribute to CERN, etc...? Without federal funding, science research in the US would collapse. Quickly.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, precisely!Cybargs wrote:
How is he a hypocrite? He just doesn't want the government to do it, he'd rather have a private company doing the research.
Which ones? I work for a private university...but I'm paid by funding from NIH grants. The NSF funds craploads of chemistry and physics research, as does DARPA, DoD, DoE...without these funding sources, many 'private scientific institutions' would not be flourishing...Cybargs wrote:
Incorrect. There are a lot of private scientific institutes that flourish pretty well. NASA itself right now is a financial black hole.
And I don't see Bell Labs (even in it's glory days) as a valid example of private research...since that was all funded by a giant state-granted monopoly.
Why go private when you can leach off the government? Research won't completely stop, it'll just get it's funding mostly by private companies (Monsanto funding a shitload of crop genetics) Virgin right now is trying to get cheap flights into space tbh.SenorToenails wrote:
Which ones? I work for a private university...but I'm paid by funding from NIH grants. The NSF funds craploads of chemistry and physics research, as does DARPA, DoD, DoE...without these funding sources, many 'private scientific institutions' would not be flourishing...Cybargs wrote:
Incorrect. There are a lot of private scientific institutes that flourish pretty well. NASA itself right now is a financial black hole.
And I don't see Bell Labs (even in it's glory days) as a valid example of private research...since that was all funded by a giant state-granted monopoly.
Right, and those have immediately profitable goals. What about research into the subatomic structure? Or quantum electodynamics? You stop research into BASIC science, and you lose the profitable technologies of tomorrow. And the government is the only entity that really has the ability to shovel money at it.Cybargs wrote:
Why go private when you can leach off the government? Research won't completely stop, it'll just get it's funding mostly by private companies (Monsanto funding a shitload of crop genetics) Virgin right now is trying to get cheap flights into space tbh.
There are a lot of rich people who donate a lot of money into research institutes too... If someone finds that science is really important to them and they'd donate, I'd rather have that then the government taking my money and spend it to oblivion.SenorToenails wrote:
Right, and those have immediately profitable goals. What about research into the subatomic structure? Or quantum electodynamics? You stop research into BASIC science, and you lose the profitable technologies of tomorrow. And the government is the only entity that really has the ability to shovel money at it.Cybargs wrote:
Why go private when you can leach off the government? Research won't completely stop, it'll just get it's funding mostly by private companies (Monsanto funding a shitload of crop genetics) Virgin right now is trying to get cheap flights into space tbh.
sometimes I think D&ST just needs to be put down like a rabid dog
then dst regulars would invade EEHurricane2k9 wrote:
sometimes I think D&ST just needs to be put down like a rabid dog
You do realize that government money has been in EVERY MAJOR advancement into science? Including healthcare? Pretty much every prescription drug had government money somewhere along the line, especially in the early developements.Cybargs wrote:
There are a lot of rich people who donate a lot of money into research institutes too... If someone finds that science is really important to them and they'd donate, I'd rather have that then the government taking my money and spend it to oblivion.SenorToenails wrote:
Right, and those have immediately profitable goals. What about research into the subatomic structure? Or quantum electodynamics? You stop research into BASIC science, and you lose the profitable technologies of tomorrow. And the government is the only entity that really has the ability to shovel money at it.Cybargs wrote:
Why go private when you can leach off the government? Research won't completely stop, it'll just get it's funding mostly by private companies (Monsanto funding a shitload of crop genetics) Virgin right now is trying to get cheap flights into space tbh.
And if you ever benefit from what the government does, when you have always "spoken out" against it, you would become a hypocrite.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, precisely!Cybargs wrote:
How is he a hypocrite? He just doesn't want the government to do it, he'd rather have a private company doing the research.nlsme1 wrote:
On that note I kindly back out of this thread. I hope you never get cancer. Just know, if you ever receive any care for cancer you are a hypocrite. If you are ever thankful someone you know gets treatment for cancer, you are a hypocrite. If you ever sign up for medicare, you are a hypocrite.
No I don't. I don't believe science research would change much, there would be a gap in time where science research would fall off a cliff, yes (but most practical science is conducted by the private sector anyway), but it would correct itself and find its own balance. Things like the Large Hadron Collider, massive Observatories, etc don't interest me in the slightest. They are just money pits from which, as with all government funded research, we don't expect any results. I want results.SenorToenails wrote:
An honest, albeit offtopic, question here--do you think the government should fund research into basic science? I mean things like Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, Argonne, Fermilab, contribute to CERN, etc...? Without federal funding, science research in the US would collapse. Quickly.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, precisely!Cybargs wrote:
How is he a hypocrite? He just doesn't want the government to do it, he'd rather have a private company doing the research.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No I wouldn't moron, because I wasn't given a fucking choice.nlsme1 wrote:
And if you ever benefit from what the government does, when you have always "spoken out" against it, you would become a hypocrite.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, precisely!Cybargs wrote:
How is he a hypocrite? He just doesn't want the government to do it, he'd rather have a private company doing the research.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat