Okay.
Compared to heavy cigarette consumption, 3+ packs per day, the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more.
You just think you're so smart.
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following User Says Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
I can guarantee you that the PC party has gone through every letter of every word written and every second of audio on Smith already.
If she said that smoking is somehow good for you? yes.
I can't give thanks for some reason but I would just like to say thanks, because often times there are people who force their opinions into that of a political party (round peg, square hole and all), but if you could actually look at the evidence and change your opinion, I think that it admirable. That is actually why I hate it when people criticize politicians for "flip-flopping" as it takes more bravery and guts it seems to redirect a sinking ship than to continually bash it up against the rocks. Being able to look at evidence and continually readjust your position is very admirable in my opinion.
The Following User Says Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
I would suspect this is much like the red light district quotes. The big scary quote was something like "Calgary might as well open up a red light district" when you read the whole quote it was something like "If the police don't enforce the laws then Calgary might as well open up a red light district. Anyone who offers a portion of a sentence as damning evidence usually has a reason for cutting the other part of the sentence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
Booga boogie booooogggaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember how she also wanted more prostitutes??
Scaaaaary!?!
I can't believe you guys are falling for this kind of bull. How easily are you manipulated?
If the quote is true, what possible spin on it could make it seem less damning?
Unless you are claiming that what she actually said was:
Its not like "the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more"
or
No one really believes that "the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more"
or
Only an idiot would actually think that "the evidence shows moderate cigarette consumption can reduce traditional risks of disease by 75% or more"
I get that the quote was probably taken out of context and I don't doubt for a second that the person who wrote the article was trying to put her in the worst possible light, but unless you are saying that he flat out lied, I don't see a way where that comment could be flipped to the point that it wouldn't be bad.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Except that is wrong, there is a link between marijuana use and schizophrenia, particularly in the early developmental years (puberty). People with schizophrenia do smoke more but that is often a result of self-medication due to the impact of the disease on their lives.
In respected journals such as the Lancett there have been studies showing a corelation between dementias including alzheimer's disease.
I can e-mail you some journal articles if you would like?
Honest question: if it turns out that quote is accurate, would that change your opinion/who you would vote for?
I'm about to head to the polls and no, this doesn't affect how I'll vote even though if it's not taken out of context, it's a ridiculous statement. Had this come out a week ago and she tried to defend this position, I'd really start wondering. It's one thing to question climate change, but smoking?
She's unwilling to agree to measures I'm guessing most Albertans would support. Seems odd from a populist movement. Redirecting revenues to programs to curb youth smoking are a waste of money because they won't work as they haven't in the past. Having free votes potentially on the issue is laughable, because whats going to stop tobacco companies from influencing members votes?
I must have missed the stats that said more and more young people are smoking than ever before. Mind linking the page where you got that information because when I try putting that search into Google, all I get is this image:
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
Never thought I'd see the day where Makarov, MMM and myself were being nice to each other
Time to do some yard work.
I try and be nice to most everyone, particularly people who are politically aware, because while we may disagree, at the same time I do respect that you actually have an opinion on the issues, because there are many people who couldn't be bothered to do that.
Civility and respect is of the upmost important in politics, otherwise everything can devolve into mudslinging and personal attacks, which doesn't do anyone any good and can turn stale very fast
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mean Mr. Mustard For This Useful Post:
I assume you have some evidence that youth programs don't work?
Raising taxes can be a deterrent but you have to be careful not to go too far or it becomes a profitable black market business which we already have seen.
Prevention programs never work. Most kids know the dangers of smoking, they see the gross videos in school, if you were like me you saw Barb Tarbox in Jr. High. That didn't stop many people from at least trying smoking. Smoking is no different from pot or alcohol, kids are young and are going to experiment. Prevention programs have minimal effect, and I think spending more on them is wasteful. Better parenting would have more of an effect in my opinion.
When it comes to taxing too much, I used to agree with you, but now I don't because I realized that those who smoke are much more of a burden on the health care system than non-smokers, and prior to public smoking bans non-smokers could still feel the effects from smokers, making them incidentally cost more as well. I also considered things like lost tax revenue from declining sales of cigarettes, but I think the health care savings of fewer smokers could be substantial, and legalizing things like say marijuana and prostitution could help replace that tax money.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I must have missed the stats that said more and more young people are smoking than ever before. Mind linking the page where you got that information because when I try putting that search into Google, all I get is this image:
Quote:
Smoking rates among Alberta youth shot up dramatically, even as rates in the rest of the country hit record lows, according to Health Canada.
The number of regular smokers aged 15-19 in Alberta jumped from 12 per cent in 2009 to 17 per cent in 2010 — a 40% relative increase in youth smoking, according to annual results from the Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey.
Now it's nice to know countrywide its declining, but its obviously not good its rising so dramatically here. Other provinces have taken much more stringent measures against tobacco (including the lawsuits). Spending more to educate kids about the dangers of smoking just doesn't seem like wise spending to me unless it has a significant impact.
Edit: Yay for Taiwanese animation!
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
I think it has to be both, support advertisting campaigns aimed at youth smoking and use less traditional means, such as youtube videos and social media, take cues from viral advertising such as the Kony2012 thing (well successful in that people paid attention to it) and use more innovative approaches. I agree you aren't going to change much with scare tactics and lectures, so change the approach.
On top of that absolutely nail those who sell cigarettes to people under 18, hit them hard with fines and pull their ability to sell cigarettes if they are found to be selling them to people under 18. Once people hit around 20 I don't think that there are that many people who start smoking - or at least people I know who smoke.
First past the post does have its faults, as do all other systems. I consider the alternative to be unwieldy and it usually ends up giving us coalition governments where it is extremely difficult to accomplish anything substantialram the interests of a minority down the majority's throats. Perhaps a better system would be to retain the first past the post method but to give the individual reps more independence. Do away with the party whip system.
Fixed. First past the post is junk. Making it easier to do something without majority support is not something I consider to be a positive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerun
Please explain.
Sure. Alberta income taxes start at 0%, until you reach $17K (the basic personal exemption) at which point they're 10%. For most people with an income over $20K, a $300 dividend does the same thing as raising the basisc personal exemption $3K. This is considered progressive because it is a less flat tax. Obviously, the dividend is not exactly the same as a $3K increase to the basic personal exemption, but it's actually more progressive because you get it even if you're at zero tax.
That was a little disappointing actually. It wasn't as funny as some of the other ones like the Alberta Party or the Apple iPhone one. Not because its the PCs, just not as well done...if that makes any sense?
Maybe I'm just really jaded, but I honestly don't see many of those measures being very effective.
Lets be real honest, even to otherwise intelligent people, you can shove a dozen people like Barb Tarbox in front of them, or inundate people with pictures of diseased lungs, cancerous tongues, blackened teeth and gums, flaccid cigarettes as a substitute for a limp penis, and all other proven side effects ad nauseum. And yet, they won't quit. They'll either say they don't smoke "that much", or think menthols are somehow better because menthol leaves are healthy, or pontificate about Uncle Al who lived to 90 and smoked a pack a day, or bring up the evils of alcohol somehow being in the same league, or say fast food is somehow worse too. Or, they say its their life, their choice. Which would be true, if not for public healthcare footing the bill.
Yet, even with all the campaigns and startling imagery, kids that should be scared straight aren't, they still do it.
Hammering people who sell cigarettes to minors sounds great, but don't we already do that? And won't that simply lead minors to the black market? Especially in concert with a tax jump.
Raising taxes sounds great, but didn't we recently drop the taxes to curb black market sales?
Banning flavoured tobacco sounds about as useful as banning bum wine... something else will take its place. The addiction is to nicotine, not to the masking flavoring.
All these measures seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room. Personal accountability. If people don't feel they have any real consequences, give them some.
Maybe we should try a couple of these suggestions:
- Raising charges and fines against youth (and maybe their parents too) for smoking under age. I bet a 16 year old kid will think twice if they get a massive $500-1000 fine for smoking. If they don't? Well, money to spend mitigating bad choices.
- Implement a mandatory information collection on all tobacco purchases and track how much each person purchases tobacco annually. Charge them an extra health premium every year on their provincial tax. You wanna smoke so badly, fine. Your decision will cost even more now.
Suing tobacco companies seems like an easy way out, but its revenue to deal with the negative outcomes, so if the courts say they're culpable, as they have, why not. At least that one will work in its goal to put money in the bank to fund healthcare and preventing. To stop tobacco use by minors, nope.
There really isn't a simple solution, but it seems the focus is on prevention, and I'm not confident that actually works after a certain point. I mean, as a society, we have to try something, but people love their vices, and often curbing those are impossible (see: War on Drugs) or ridiculous (see: Prohibition).
Last edited by Thunderball; 04-21-2012 at 02:10 PM.
I would suspect this is much like the red light district quotes. The big scary quote was something like "Calgary might as well open up a red light district" when you read the whole quote it was something like "If the police don't enforce the laws then Calgary might as well open up a red light district. Anyone who offers a portion of a sentence as damning evidence usually has a reason for cutting the other part of the sentence.
I looked for the article, really briefly, and didn't see it.
I do take issue with your last sentence though. Quite often the first part is cut-off because the guy is writing a piece that has to make sense to the reader. It's quite difficult to fit the entire sentence in at times, and just by removing the first part of it doesn't mean all context is lost.
Honestly though, its a pretty tired excuse. The Wildrose people seem to say things one day and use this "context" excuse the next. Its OK to admit that you don't believe in science. I was watching Mad Men last week and most of the characters on that show would agree that smoking isn't bad for your health! You're not alone in your views and you really should fit for them.
