How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
31-07-2012, 06:17 AM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(31-07-2012 05:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I include myself in these statements. I have personal problems that I simply don't control, and I will pay for that.

And you'd appreciate it if they came onto your house with guns tomorrow and made you tow the line?

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dom's post
31-07-2012, 07:52 AM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
To be totally honest I don't drink at all and i quit smoking too. But to make some stupid law to make them eradicated or to force me not to do either makes me crazy. If i wish to drink i will. If I wish to smoke a cigarette or anything else that smokes that should be up to me. It's my life and my own health choice in this matter. We have become so Conservative on how this will effect the Ins. industry and it's pay outs. It has been motivated by the Ins. industry to make their profit margin higher. I quit smoking for my health reasons and couldn't breath right. It had nothing to do with how much the bill would be if i got lung cancer. I didn't want to be like my father who walked around with a ox. tank stuck up his ass. That was the one of the reasons I quit. the other one was the cost was getting out of control. Now drinking is because i cant just drink 1 drink and walk away. If i start drinking I will get hammered to the point I am as stupid as a old boot. I hate that about myself. So I don't drink at all. I happen to love Jack Daniel's whiskey. I drink that strait up no ice. I have a little taste for white whiskey (moonshine) too. I never cared for the lager it took to long for me to get drunk. I would be the first guy in line to fight for anyone who wanted to smoke or drink. I also think smoking weed should be OK too.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a
free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their
political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their
own purpose. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like N.E.OhioAtheist's post
31-07-2012, 08:22 AM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(31-07-2012 07:52 AM)N.E.OhioAtheist Wrote:  I didn't want to be like my father who walked around with a ox. tank stuck up his ass.

His ass? I think your father should have gone to a different doctor.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Red Celt's post
31-07-2012, 08:46 AM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(31-07-2012 05:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(30-07-2012 08:32 PM)Anjele Wrote:  And who the hell makes up the government anyway? People perhaps? Those same creatures you say are unable to take care of themselves...but they can take care of everyone else.
The government is composed of people, yes, but as I previously stated, we are far more capable of attempting to dictate what is best for others. Whether or not the others are ready to use the provided tools is a different story.

A government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when derived from the people or society, over which that political power is exercised. Democracy insists the rights of the minority must be protected.

I think Anj just means in the US, government derives it's power from the consent of the governed. We do take care of ourselves - we might not be very good at it, but our rules are broad enough to encompass protections for those whose rights might be infringed upon by those rules.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2012, 10:53 AM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(30-07-2012 07:42 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Really? Would you be willingly to admit that the majority of U.S citizens, young and old, are slaves to that very immaturity? Never did I say you did something because you did not want to, rather, you are doing something because the government does not want you to do so. Here's something for you to eat up. The EU lowered the age of legal alcohol consumption from 17 to 16, and Europe has a significantly lower rate of DUI-releated accidents. The U.S age of legal consumption? Twenty-fucking-one. If that does not scream rebellious behavior, I do not know what will.

The point is this: People cannot take care of themselves, the government is in place for a reason. It governs, if you don't like it, too bad.

I think you're mostly wrong there. The majority of the nation is taking care of themselves pretty well and don't need a great amount of help or interference.

I'm not sure I agree with the current US drinking age, I think that the problem is education. If teenagers were taught more about the dangers of life (alcohol, cigarettes, unprotected sex, etc.) they could make better and more education decisions rather than simply having it banned and pretending the problem doesn't exist. Actually, that's true for everyone and not just teenagers. Sure some teens are just rebellious, but many are just curious. That curiosity could be satisfied safely if the environment were provided for them and the education given to them. Then we could lower the drinking age and it wouldn't be so dangerous.

The obesity problems in the US stems from a great number of sources. There are many contributing factors, some of which change significantly depending on where you're looking in the country. It's not just about stopping people from eating so much, it's about what's in the food we're eating, eating too many over-processed foods (sometimes because that's the only affordable food, or the most accessible food), and more. If someone doesn't have enough money to pay for the more expensive foods then they're going to buy cheap crap. If they can't feed themselves and their kids with the good stuff, then they can make their money stretch by buying over-processed crap. There are many efforts being made to help people across the board.

Then you have to take exercise into account. There has to be time for it, a safe place for it, motivation for it, and a knowledge of good exercises to do. If you want a gym membership then you have to have a good amount of disposable income for it (they're freaking expensive for a halfway useful gym).

And then, yeah there are medical complications, family history, etc. Those play a big role but are sometimes triggered or complicated by existing diet and exercise habits.

Oh yeah, then you have image problems. Americans are lambasted with the overdone over-sexualized images in ads and media from the youngest of ages. If you don't look like the picture-perfect photoshopped model, then why fucking try?

I think you oversimplify by just saying that Americans need to eat less because they can't stop themselves. Give your fellow humans some credit. The problem is much deeper and much more complex than "just stop eating because you're overweight".

I'm for some amount of regulation- but not straight up banning. Regulation has to be done smartly or it won't work at all, it'll just piss everyone off. Regulation should take place at the government and corporate level rather than inhibiting personal liberties. And the regulation shouldn't overburden the corporation otherwise they won't be able to afford to make the food. So it's a tight rope walk. But simply banning crappy food or alcohol or cigs won't cut it. We know that from the prohibition era.

(30-07-2012 07:42 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  And? He was already breaking one rule, and considering he was putting other's lives at risk diminishes any respect I could have had for the man. They are in place for a reason, and this semi-anarchistic view you have on these matters is somewhat troubling. What you said does not help your case either.

Wow, semi-anarchistic? You sound like the US republicans bleating the "socialism" horn every time they see something they don't like. Not agreeing with some ideas on governing doesn't mean that person is an anarchist in any form. I agree with Anjele on this, but I'm definitely a leftist liberal.

(30-07-2012 07:42 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I fail to see why so many Americans have this overly skeptical views on simple laws that have, statistically, been proven more beneficial. Good luck with your trust issues and the government.

You'd need to study American history to start to have an understanding about why government is mistrusted. Not just the American Revolutionary War, but also the Civil War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and all of the periods in-between. Most especially in recent history there has been a message being [not so?] subtly put out on the right that government is inept at all important tasks (but fully capable of running massive wars with our overpowered military). Not only has government mistrust been an undercurrent in much of our history, but it's also a major platform for many of the movements in America today.

(31-07-2012 03:04 AM)Magoo Wrote:  It will never work.

Back in the old days of America, whenever it was, they banned alcohol. But because of the banning, people ended up drinking more of it than normal, so basically it made things worse.

It's not really just that; it's that it didn't stop people and it forced the acquisition of booze to be an underground thing. People have to turn to illegitimate sources for alcohol, which led to smuggling and organized crime. So not only did people not stop drinking, but there was not a huge problem of mobs running cities, heavy corruption, and general chaos as a result. It simply didn't work, and it left a dangerous environment.

It's not really that people drank too much.

(31-07-2012 05:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Some people may be offended by what I said, but the truth hurts. We are better in interfering with one another's lives than we ever could in knowing ourselves. This is evident by the incredibly high obesity rates in the U.S, as an example. They don't know how to take care of themselves and they lack the self-control to stop eating, just as an example.

Again, you're oversimplifying the problem greatly. Are you going to ban overeating? Will that fix it? No, of course not. It's not that simple.

(31-07-2012 05:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  Sure, there maybe more underlying causes than just that, it may be a genetic problem, or a psychological problem, but they still cannot stop themselves, can they? I include myself in these statements. I have personal problems that I simply don't control, and I will pay for that.

You admit that it's a bigger problem, but you still want to pin it on lack of self-control? Come on man, be honest. If it's got a variety of causes it'll need a better solution than telling someone to "just stop eating so much".

Just like drinking and smoking, if you want people to stop you have to remove the reasons that they do it in the first place. You're going to have to cure stress in all its various forms. Or else you're going to have to take a complex and multifaceted approach to the problems of obesity, drinking, smoking, and other drugs. Personally, I'm for legalizing MJ and education people on it, just like I am with alcohol, smoking, and eating.

And for you it's that you just "don't" control yourself in one area, but Americans "can't" control themselves? Do you think yourself better? Your choice of words suggests you do.

(31-07-2012 05:56 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The government is composed of people, yes, but as I previously stated, we are far more capable of attempting to dictate what is best for others. Whether or not the others are ready to use the provided tools is a different story.

It is ridiculous to argue that the government should not have the right to protect its people. I think Prohibition is stupid, but it is a nice thought if it worked.

The federal government is not great at granular control over its people. It's best at broader controls. And it should be a social safety net. It should provide for its people and protect, yes. But it should not greatly impede on its peoples' liberty. And the amount that it should impede its peoples' liberty in the name of protection is probably where we disagree.

Godzilla Kitten, Directed by J.J. Abrams
[Image: Kineoprojectfinished3_zps79916ea4.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kineo's post
31-07-2012, 10:54 AM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(31-07-2012 08:22 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  
(31-07-2012 07:52 AM)N.E.OhioAtheist Wrote:  I didn't want to be like my father who walked around with a ox. tank stuck up his ass.

His ass? I think your father should have gone to a different doctor.

That was funny!

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a
free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their
political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their
own purpose. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes N.E.OhioAtheist's post
31-07-2012, 12:18 PM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(30-07-2012 07:42 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(30-07-2012 07:17 PM)Anjele Wrote:  It's been many years since I did something just because I was told not to. I do things because I want to. I don't do things because I don't want to. I don't know where you got that idea. The point is I have a mind of my own, I don't need everything governed.

My first husband died drunk driving...and it wasn't his first time behind the wheel drunk...he had been busted before...I am against driving when impaired. But by all medical accounts, had he NOT been wearing a seatbelt he would have survived the crash. The rules and restrictions are far from perfect.

Really? Would you be willingly to admit that the majority of U.S citizens, young and old, are slaves to that very immaturity? Never did I say you did something because you did not want to, rather, you are doing something because the government does not want you to do so. Here's something for you to eat up. The EU lowered the age of legal alcohol consumption from 17 to 16, and Europe has a significantly lower rate of DUI-releated accidents. The U.S age of legal consumption? Twenty-fucking-one. If that does not scream rebellious behavior, I do not know what will.

The point is this: People cannot take care of themselves, the government is in place for a reason. It governs, if you don't like it, too bad.

And? He was already breaking one rule, and considering he was putting other's lives at risk diminishes any respect I could have had for the man. They are in place for a reason, and this semi-anarchistic view you have on these matters is somewhat troubling. What you said does not help your case either.
I fail to see why so many Americans have this overly skeptical views on simple laws that have, statistically, been proven more beneficial. Good luck with your trust issues and the government.

Your government entities determined that he was find to go out and do what he wanted...my pleas to his counselor were ignored due to confidentiality, in fact, she wouldn't even talk to me. The legal agencies involved slapped his wrist, said go forth and drive whenever you want which only made me look like a bitch to him and to his family and friends. I turned in every direction to those that PROTECT us, and not a damn one would listen.

I don't give a flying fuck if you don't have respect...he is the father of my children and will be given respect on that level. He had an out of control addiction, he was flawed...good damn thing there isn't anyone in government like that!

Your government...knew better than I...the person that knew him best...they did a great fucking job of protecting their citizenry. They were way bigger and badder than me and they let him go back out and drive with no restrictions. Yeah...they are way smarter than an actual person.

And, not that I owe it, but my second question when I heard he died was, "did he hurt anybody else." That was a fear of mine and one repeatedly expressed to the legal entities involved...they didn't give a rat's ass.

Take a look at your avatar...that's my salute to you.

See here they are, the bruises, some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-07-2012, 02:31 PM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(30-07-2012 06:46 AM)poolboyg88 Wrote:  Which methods do you think would be practical in eradicating the use of these drugs in society? (say, within the USA).
Rewrite the constitutions, so they follow a format that everyone understands; and then, local municipalities can adopt amendments that prohibit alcohol and cigarettes in their local district. People who like to smoke, and/or drink, would be compelled to seek refuge in a municipality that allows alchohol and cigarettes.

Hopefully, the prohibition is balanced by other economic ventures for the community, thereby maintaning the economic viability of the municipality. If it proves to be successfull, then other municipalities might be encouraged to follow the original municipality's plan, and possibly leading to a state-wide prohibition.

The key is, you have to start local, and that is something you whiney Democrat liberals cannot possibly do - you need federal help to do anything, including the thinking.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TrainWreck's post
31-07-2012, 02:39 PM (This post was last modified: 31-07-2012 03:30 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(31-07-2012 10:53 AM)kineo Wrote:  If teenagers were taught more about the dangers of life (alcohol, cigarettes, unprotected sex, etc.) they could make better and more education decisions rather than simply having it banned and pretending the problem doesn't exist.
What more do you want to tell them that they don't already get?

Cigarettes can give you cancer and you can die early from that. Alchohol impairs your immediate mental and physical abilities that can lead to immediate safety hazard of the physical body, such as, car accidents; long-term abuse leads to long-term disfunctions of bodily organs that may lead to difficult health and early death. Unprotected sex can incur incurable deseises that can lead to difficult health and early death.

You make it sound like there is information being censored - are you sure you don't have an atheist/Christian censorship infatuation that leads you to believe that there is secret information being held back to promote theism?

There is only so much information a person can process, and worrying about the long-term ill effects is something most smart people do not worry about, because they are smart, and do not abuse the stuff, or are accepting of their consequences. It is the dumb people who abuse the stuff and then complain that they are not responsible for their health problems, they claim they are victims of sublimital messages in the advertising that makes them buy more beer and cigarettes.And you will ussually find that such irresponsible people align themselves with the Democrat political party, because the Democrats pander to their irresponsible reasoning by taxing the responsible people to pay for the irresponsible people's social services, like health care. Why you want to keep stupid people alive is fucking silly.

All my fucking life, the Democrats have been claiming that education is deficient, or something, but they never have a solution - why is that?

It's a good bet that there are a lot of stupid people making babies that they cannot care for properly, or teach some basic organizational skill, because the whole family is fucked-up stupid with fucked-up ideas that all the smart people are out to make their precious significant lives miserable. The world is over-populated with stupid people - what are we to do?

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TrainWreck's post
31-07-2012, 05:04 PM
RE: How would you successfully eradicate the use of alcohol and cigarettes?
(31-07-2012 02:39 PM)TrainWreck Wrote:  The world is over-populated with stupid people - what are we to do?

Get with the program! The breeding program I mean Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: