$200MM CDC antismoker campaign flops

[Kent C]

Oh, but you can bet that I will actively criticize your assertions....

I'm actually the lesser enemy. I just criticise without pushing any agenda. 'Cause none of Ayn, Upton, and Kropotkin have fully convinced me.

Don't get me wrong, skepticism, along with free thought, free inquiry and the like, have a great history, esp. in the age of enlightenment/age of reason where the 'accepted' authority of kings and religions were questioned openly for the first time in a very public manner.

And skepticism is a factor in the right approach in addressing subjects, but to make it into a philosophy of itself, is, imo, a mistake for the reasons stated in the link. I knew that before I ever read Rand :- )

Skepticism is a bit like being an All City quarterback in high school. It doesn't play that well after graduation. You might be able to start a furniture store with your fans, but you better learn some concretes about running a business, or you're going to get sacked by reality. :- )

Skeptics push skepticism as an agenda. I've met a few.... lol.

 

[caramel]

Ok here's my criticism on short,

Kropotkin did not see how to fit a government in the picture without infringing on individual liberties. This leaves many questions unanswered. However he noted the need for the "locality" of the law, i.e. having various rules/law depending on place/time/circumstances etc. He realized that Procrustean one-size-fits-all laws would screw some individuals. We're pretty much addressing that to some extent through the federal/state/bylaws scheme (more on that soon).

Ayn took the "life liberty and happiness" triad at heart and tried to fit a government in the picture. However she didn't figure out how to finance and control it. She is probably the closest to the spirit of the Constitution.

Upton was more interested in the "equality" in the French "liberte egalite fraternite" triad, he argued that it can produce "happiness" for many, he found how to achieve that through a government, but he couldn't find how to reconcile "equality" with "liberty".

And now back to the federal / state / municipal bylaws discussion. I noticed that some of the most draconian anti smoking anti vaping regulations are taken at municipal level. My thesis is that they're doing it on the grounds that they're not government but corporations, and as such they can eschew some of the constitutional provisions.

So my question now is - should municipalities be seen as a form of government and thus fully subjected to the constitution?

 

[AndriaD]

Ok here's my criticism on short,

Kropotkin did not see how to fit a government in the picture without infringing on individual liberties. This leaves many questions unanswered. However he noted the need for the "locality" of the law, i.e. having various rules/law depending on place/time/circumstances etc. He realized that Procrustean one-size-fits-all laws would screw some individuals. We're pretty much addressing that to some extent through the federal/state/bylaws scheme (more on that soon).

Ayn took the "life liberty and happiness" triad at heart and tried to fit a government in the picture. However she didn't figure out how to finance and control it. She is probably the closest to the spirit of the Constitution.

Upton was more interested in the "equality" in the French "liberte egalite fraternite" triad, he argued that it can produce "happiness" for many, he found how to achieve that through a government, but he couldn't find how to reconcile "equality" with "liberty".

And now back to the federal / state / municipal bylaws discussion. I noticed that some of the most draconian anti smoking anti vaping regulations are taken at municipal level. My thesis is that they're doing it on the grounds that they're not government but corporations, and as such they can eschew some of the constitutional provisions.

So my question now is - should municipalities be seen as a form of government and thus fully subjected to the constitution?

Yes, absolutely. Any body performing the offices of government IS government, no matter what fancy name they call themselves.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Ok here's my criticism on short,

Kropotkin did not see how to fit a government in the picture without infringing on individual liberties. This leaves many questions unanswered. However he noted the need for the "locality" of the law, i.e. having various rules/law depending on place/time/circumstances etc. He realized that Procrustean one-size-fits-all laws would screw some individuals. We're pretty much addressing that to some extent through the federal/state/bylaws scheme (more on that soon).

Ayn took the "life liberty and happiness" triad at heart and tried to fit a government in the picture. However she didn't figure out how to finance and control it. She is probably the closest to the spirit of the Constitution.

Upton was more interested in the "equality" in the French "liberte egalite fraternite" triad, he argued that it can produce "happiness" for many, he found how to achieve that through a government, but he couldn't find how to reconcile "equality" with "liberty".

And now back to the federal / state / municipal bylaws discussion. I noticed that some of the most draconian anti smoking anti vaping regulations are taken at municipal level. My thesis is that they're doing it on the grounds that they're not government but corporations, and as such they can eschew some of the constitutional provisions.

So my question now is - should municipalities be seen as a form of government and thus fully subjected to the constitution?

Extremely short answers:

Kropotkin thought humans could survive like animals - in cooperation (and that's a stretch since they kill other animals) without competition. IOW, he, like all communists, think they can change the nature of man as a rationally self-interested entity to a collectivist state-interested entity, sacrificing their individuality for the greatest good of the state.

Rand acknowledged the nature of man and knew that operating on natural values of reason, production, etc. would find value - as did our founders - in a gov't that would uphold and protect individual rights of life, liberty and property and would support such gov't voluntarily IF it provided those values necessary against those (foreign or domestic) who would violate those rights.

The reason why that idea is so foreign to most people now, is because our gov't has become a leviathan through ideas that had nothing to do with the founding of a small limited gov't. Looking back through that fog of change that has happened since - it is hard to imagine how it could work without taxation or with voluntary financing - the way we finance anything else we value now - food, clothing, housing, etc. etc. We had no income tax in this country before the communistic/progressive ideas were pushed through Congress in 1913. So how did we live without this tax before that?

Sinclair was a mix of the above - the 'mixed economy' solution, which is why you have some agreement of some of his ideas and some disagreement - the Ron Paul/Bernie Sanders deal I mentioned.

You: "I noticed that some of the most draconian anti smoking anti vaping regulations are taken at municipal level."

As to what has been implemented (as of this date), you're right, but in June IF the deeming goes through as written, then you will be completely wrong about that. And if after that, there is 'more to come' as has been said by the FDA, CDC and other entities, then you will be so wrong that no one would question it.

As for: "should municipalities be seen as a form of government and thus fully subjected to the constitution?" I simply can't believe you could even asked that. Andria's right in her answer.

 

[caramel]

Well Upton noticed that when you're born in a world that's fully owned by someone else, and run on a for profit base especially in a monopolistic manner, then all those voluntary payments you mentioned are not so voluntary anymore.

I was asking the muni question since we recently had the Rob Ford telenovela where the government said they cannot interfere since Rob is the elected CEO of the City of Toronto Corp which is in no way part of the govt period.

Guess they could argue the same with all and any municipal bans and bylaws.

 

[Kent C]

Well Upton noticed that when you're born in a world that's fully owned by someone else, and run on a for profit base especially in a monopolistic manner, then all those voluntary payments you mentioned are not so voluntary anymore.

Monopolies are created by anti-free market policies. In a free market, attempted monopolies, unassisted by gov't, fall to competitors and/or new products that provide the same or better function.

Right now, there is no monopolies in ecigarettes. After June, if the deeming goes as written, there very well may be a monopoly or a cartel in ecigarettes. Without the deeming, (or similar regulations) that doesn't happen. And people will voluntarily pay for what they consider to be of value to them.

Right now, people and companies pay for private security and some use private mediation services for justice - between companies who have contracts with each other - to keep any conflicts off of gov't lines. They agree ahead of time to comply with the private mediator's rulings. Why? Because there is a 'value' there. Paying for military protection from foreign intrusions is a harder case to make, but entirely possible, since there is value in maintaining a free society. Ie. IF it were free as it once was - now, because of the 'socialist and 'mixed' aspects that have diluted the freedom since the progressive age and beyond, it may not be worth saving.

 

[caramel]

Well one may argue that on the current path we're running the risk of ending up with a system with the combined disadvantages of both Ayn and Upton's systems, and the advantages of none.

And I don't agree that the solution proposed by the Founding Fathers is really a solution. It was more like the realization that if their system doesn't work, there's no way to fix it. Just start again from scratch and see what you can do based on the previous experience.

Some monopolies are natural and breaking them is very difficult.

As for ecigs it looks indeed that there are strong forces working towards eliminating players with less then billions in their pockets.

 

[AndriaD]

You know, it's funny; when I first read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I found myself in complete agreement with all the espoused principles -- in fact the idea of function superceding form so prevalent in The Fountainhead is one of the baseline philosophies of my life. Later, in my liberal detour, I wondered how I could reconcile that agreement with the ideals of the liberal movement. And now I know, I can't reconcile them at all; they're diametrically opposed. So it would seem that my liberal-thinking detour really was a detour, because I cannot and will not uphold a gov't that exists just to make itself bigger and more powerful, and wants to nanny everybody into a collective and rigidly-defined and -enforced uniformity.

What I'd like to see is a gov't which is entirely conservative, fiscally, and quite liberal in its approach to freedom and social mores. I'm not sure that any such animal exists, because those running around these days claiming to be 'conservative' want to send women back to the 'barefoot and pregnant' days, and send homosexuals to death, or at least back into their closets. I can't support either of those agendas, but the bloated gov't desired by the liberals is an outrage, a farce that Swift would have had a field day with, and simply cannot be maintained for any length of time.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Well one may argue that on the current path we're running the risk of ending up with a system with the combined disadvantages of both Ayn and Upton's systems, and the advantages of none.

And I don't agree that the solution proposed by the Founding Fathers is really a solution. It was more like the realization that if their system doesn't work, there's no way to fix it. Just start again from scratch and see what you can do based on the previous experience.

Some monopolies are natural and breaking them is very difficult.

As for ecigs it looks indeed that there are strong forces working towards eliminating players with less then billions in their pockets.

Disagree with all but the last line and those forces are gov't forces. (or forces financed by gov't.)

"Natural Monopolies" is just a fake term similar to 'interventional epidemiology' to justify the intervention of gov't to either maintain or establish a dominant position in an industry for the gov't's own purpose - usually kickbacks from 'utility companies' like electric, telephone and cable.

The reason that 'breaking them is very difficult' is because of gov't regulations that either established them in the first place or maintains them. The difficulty is breaking the regulation, not the monopoly - breaking the monopoly is rather easy with competitive pricing or alternative products or services. Telephone companies for example were considered a 'natural monopoly' since allowing several companies to string up poles and wires would be too much 'infrastructure' (same with electric companies). However there are free market solutions to that - separating the infrastructure from the suppliers or innovations such as wifi and cellular phones now.

If, by regulation, all ecigarette production and distribution goes to RJR/Lorillard/Imperial Tobacco, then breaking them is all in breaking the legislation/deeming - there were already competing interests that were out-competing them!

 

[caramel]

What do we do about someone owning the land holding the sole water resource in a large area? buy bottled water? (see California draught)?

I would agree with you if something like 30% of the land would be still up for take - you just move elsewhere. these days you can't.

I think BG wants to deal with a few deep pocketed players not with thousands of small ones - back office deals are so much more effective and easy to arrange. So I agree with you on the ecigs path.

 

[Kent C]

What do we do about someone owning the land holding the sole water resource in a large area? buy bottled water? (see California draught)?

I would agree with you if something like 30% of the land would be still up for take - you just move elsewhere. these days you can't.

I think BG wants to deal with a few deep pocketed players not with thousands of small ones - back office deals are so much more effective and easy to arrange. So I agree with you on the ecigs path.

One can move anywhere except on the lands that the gov't has confiscated. Let the price of water reach it's natural level in places of draught and there will be more water brought in than you can use. Same with disaster areas and chainsaws and generators. 'Gouging' is just supply and demand working in those areas - to restrict it, cost lives, in the name of 'equality' It doesn't take long for that to normalize - people from all areas would come to make up for the scarcity and the 'supply' side would bring the price down.

 

[AndriaD]

I recently saw a photospread on weather.com, showing all these gorgeous palatial homes in CA -- all with green grass for acres and acres, and pools too -- while surrounded by sere brown wasteland.

Seems to me if they stopped all the fatcats from irrigating their GRASS, they'd have plenty of water for CROPS. I mean, DUH!

Andria

 

[nicnik]

You know, it's funny; when I first read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, I found myself in complete agreement with all the espoused principles -- in fact the idea of function superceding form so prevalent in The Fountainhead is one of the baseline philosophies of my life. Later, in my liberal detour, I wondered how I could reconcile that agreement with the ideals of the liberal movement. And now I know, I can't reconcile them at all; they're diametrically opposed. So it would seem that my liberal-thinking detour really was a detour, because I cannot and will not uphold a gov't that exists just to make itself bigger and more powerful, and wants to nanny everybody into a collective and rigidly-defined and -enforced uniformity.

What I'd like to see is a gov't which is entirely conservative, fiscally, and quite liberal in its approach to freedom and social mores. I'm not sure that any such animal exists, because those running around these days claiming to be 'conservative' want to send women back to the 'barefoot and pregnant' days, and send homosexuals to death, or at least back into their closets. I can't support either of those agendas, but the bloated gov't desired by the liberals is an outrage, a farce that Swift would have had a field day with, and simply cannot be maintained for any length of time.

Andria

The first college class I took was "Introduction to Sociology", in the summer of 1971, at a local community college. The entire class consisted of reading and discussing "The Fountainhead". I only read a tiny bit of it, listened somewhat to the discussions, which really mostly involved the teacher talking and attempting to indoctrinate. I didn't like or agree with much of what I was hearing, and resented the teacher's agenda driven style of educating.

We were to be mostly graded based on a final paper to be written on "The Fountainhead". I did what I'd always done in high school and grade school. I just wrote what I knew the teacher wanted to hear. I got an A- for the paper, and I forget what grade for the class. Then I signed up for a couple of classes at a private 2-year college, which turned out to be a lot better.

It would be helpful to me to have more of a formal education to fight back against the Tobacco Control Industry, but it is far from necessary. And fighting back is a good fit for any part of the left/right spectrum.

 

[AndriaD]

I think I was 12 or 13 when I read The Fountainhead, which no doubt explains why its principles are so basic and fundamental to my own. I finally got around to Atlas Shrugged sometime in my 40s, which was probably a good thing, as it was a far more ambitious read, and really required a much greater knowlege of the world to understand.

I think The Fountainhead is probably why I don't care for jewelry -- I wear a very slender anniversary band as my wedding ring, and that's it. I have a watch, but these days it seems quite unnecessary. Also no doubt why I don't have "bling" on any of my mods, though I love the magenta-pink of my only "girly" mod -- and rarely ever wear makeup; I can't abide 99% of perfume, so I don't wear it either -- some sweet edible-smelling lotion (vanilla!) is the only scent I can tolerate.

Strange how a work of fiction can resonate so strongly as to influence aspects of one's whole life. I suppose that's one of the beauties of reading for pleasure.

Andria

 

[Jman8]

Hmmm... for indoor spaces, yes; even if every word they ever said about 2nd hand smoke is a total lie, tobacco smoke just stinks, and it sticks to everything, and the smell is nearly impossible to remove.

Ouch. "Just stinks" is opinion and I would estimate around 80% of the people agree with you. But if 80% said that they think ALL vaping stinks, would that be reason enough to ban it in all public indoor spaces even if all aspects of harm are lies?

The smell is not impossible to remove. In my experience, it takes a couple years to COMPLETELY remove. And a couple months to mostly remove.

Outdoors? Not a single one should stand; it's total nanny-fascism. And especially that crap about "it's our property, so you can't smoke on it." What total BS.

If the smell were the only issue, then outdoors would make sense. If the BS about it is impossible to remove were accurate, then outdoors would also make sense.

I really dislike when vapers can't get this issue worked out, and think their anti-smoking rhetoric don't stink.

It does.

 

[AndriaD]

Ouch. "Just stinks" is opinion and I would estimate around 80% of the people agree with you. But if 80% said that they think ALL vaping stinks, would that be reason enough to ban it in all public indoor spaces even if all aspects of harm are lies?

Yes, if 80% felt that way about all vapor, it would be sufficient reason -- I wish to hell they'd ban people wearing perfume in indoor public spaces. But for the stink of cigarette smoke, I'd be willing to bet that opinion is held by more like 90%-95%. Even some smokers feel that way, especially in restaurants. Some pipes and even a few cigars aren't too bad, in fact some are quite pleasant to smell, but cigarettes? Very, very, VANISHINGLY few would think it smells good, and even those with no die-hard opinion either way would probably define it as an unpleasant smell.

The smell is not impossible to remove. In my experience, it takes a couple years to COMPLETELY remove. And a couple months to mostly remove.

If a stink takes years to remove, I'm gonna stick with "nearly impossible to remove" -- for things that couldn't be laundered or dry cleaned, I'd just throw it away and buy new -- which gets costly (to a prohibitive degree!) when you're talking about carpet and drapes and furniture.

I really dislike when vapers can't get this issue worked out, and think their anti-smoking rhetoric don't stink.

It does.

I'm really not anti-smoking; I think every person should have the right to go to hell any way they choose to -- but now that I know what cigarettes really smell like, I have to side with the anti's on the smell -- it's ghastly, IMO, and very few would disagree. And I don't even think it's particularly dangerous to MOST people, particularly adult people -- but why inflict that stink on those who don't partake, or those who maybe do partake but are eating (and thus not usually smoking at the same time!). And I don't think BT is the spawn of satan, either -- that's BP, and BG.

Andria

 

[TLS01]

I recently saw a photospread on weather.com, showing all these gorgeous palatial homes in CA -- all with green grass for acres and acres, and pools too -- while surrounded by sere brown wasteland.

Seems to me if they stopped all the fatcats from irrigating their GRASS, they'd have plenty of water for CROPS. I mean, DUH!

Andria

Ironically, they're the same ones preaching about water conservation.

 

[Bill Godshall]

When creating this thread, DrMA wrote
"The most expensive antismoker campaign ever turns out to be an abysmal failure."

This study was even worse junk science that Glantz puts out. The way the study measured the impact of the CDC's ad campaign was to track internet searches about quitting smoking (which is a useless way to measure anything).

This study is even worse than the CDC's study (that concluded their ad campaign was a huge success). Nothing like junk science being conducted to refute other junk science.

Seems like nobody who posted a comment on this thread even bothered reading anything about this so-called study other than the intentionally deceptive title.

And the last 15 or 20 replies on this thread are completely off topic.

 

[Jman8]

Yes, if 80% felt that way about all vapor, it would be sufficient reason --

Welcome to ANTZ camp. You have been graciously accepted. Please enjoy your stay.

If a stink takes years to remove, I'm gonna stick with "nearly impossible to remove" -- for things that couldn't be laundered or dry cleaned, I'd just throw it away and buy new -- which gets costly (to a prohibitive degree!) when you're talking about carpet and drapes and furniture.

And I'm going to call it BS, as it takes only a couple months to mostly remove.

I'm really not anti-smoking; I think every person should have the right to go to hell any way they choose to -- but now that I know what cigarettes really smell like, I have to side with the anti's on the smell -- it's ghastly, IMO, and very few would disagree. And I don't even think it's particularly dangerous to MOST people, particularly adult people -- but why inflict that stink on those who don't partake, or those who maybe do partake but are eating (and thus not usually smoking at the same time!). And I don't think BT is the spawn of satan, either -- that's BP, and BG.

Andria

The underlined part is all you needed to say. It puts the rest in proper perspective.

 

[AndriaD]

Welcome to ANTZ camp. You have been graciously accepted. Please enjoy your stay.



And I'm going to call it BS, as it takes only a couple months to mostly remove.



The underlined part is all you needed to say. It puts the rest in proper perspective.

I hate the antis. But cigarette smoke stinks.

Andria