Again my responses will be inline. -- Larry C. Lyons ColdFusion/Web Developer EBStor.com 8870 Rixlew Lane, Suite 204 Manassas, Virginia 20109-3795 tel: (703) 393-7930 fax: (703) 393-2659 Web: http://www.ebstor.com http://www.pacel.com email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. --
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 4:46 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: The Anti Terrorism Act.. > > > > If its a human behavior or a physiological construct then it can be > > quantifiable. If you can quantify the thing (and yes I've seen > > some studies > > that attempt to do such) then you can measure the impact of > > "willpower" on a > > behavior, such as smoking. Otherwise we are getting into > the realm of > > mythology, not science. By not quantifying and relying on myths > > its becomes > > little more than what shamans, NLP practitioners and other > > practitioners of > > irrational beliefs do. > > Sorry. I refuse to only accept those things documented and able to be > documented by science as real! Perhaps my life experiences > have led me to > understand a bit more, but just because you want to label > things outside > your ability to understand as irrational and mythology > doesn't mean they > cease to exist, or have no value! Maybe I was being a bit extreme in thinking of them as irrational, but if the phenomenon is not objectively observable and reproducible then it goes into the realm of magical thinking. In other words its beyond the realm of science. When I was doing work in this area, what was I supposed to say to the clients, "Try doing this, it may or may not work, we don't know. We don't know how even to measure it, but give it a try anyhow." If a physician tried that it would be grounds for malpractice at least. Similarly if an engineer tried that he's be laughed out of the profession. The point being is that in scientific research, and applications thereof, objective observation and reproducibility is required. > > > Never said that the addictiveness is evil. Its the > application thereof I > > dislike. If an individual gives another a very addicting > substance, he's > > considered evil and jailed as a drug dealer. When a tobacco > > company does it > > they get a government subsidy and tax breaks. > > And what of the candy company? Or the alcohol manufacturer? I > can walk into > any liquor store in town and pick up a bottle of a very > addictive single > malt scotch! No one is jailed, and no one is considered evil > except by the > religious zealots I don't wish to deal with anyway! Again however the liquor companies don't try to addict children. Its been shown by their own documents that the tobacco companies actively engaged in such actions. There is a difference. > > Or are you going to play the game that since alcoholism is > considered an > illness now, that somehow this falls outside the loop? Or obesity? > > > Actually the stats are very strong on this one. the reputable > > psych journal, > > Addictive Behavior published an article a few years back > that supported > > this. Remember what I said, nothing regarding the physical effect of > > withdrawal, I was referring to the rate of successful quitting. What > > percentage of people successfully quit following a single > > treatment regimen, > > which is typically 12 weeks of once per week hour sessions. Smoking > > cessation programs following this model usually report very > low rates, > > typically around 10%. Similar programs for heroin addiction > or alcohol > > additions report somewhat higher rates, 18% comes to mind > but I'll have to > > look that one up to be sure. > > Twelve weeks of one hour sessions? Pard, you want to quit > smoking then you > put the pack down and stop! If you can't do that then you > have no business > starting! Twelve weeks of one hour sessions is just garbage. > No wonder the > 'success' rate is so low! Stop coddling people into quitting! The rate for cold turkey attempts is far lower. > > > > > Don't communities and groups also have rights? Do your > individual rights > > give you the go ahead to pollute the stream that runs > through my property? > > Or do they allow you to pollute the air that I breath? Does it > > give you the > > right to yell Fire in a theater or play target practice > with your firearms > > in your backyard? > > No. Communities and groups do not have rights! Only > individuals have rights! And what about corporations? From what I understand, they also have rights, but they are definitely not individuals. > > As to our 'collective' stream. I can pollute my stream as > much as I want, > providing that once the water (Or whatever else) leaves MY > area and enters > yours, it's clean and pure again. I can also play with my > firearms in my > backyard as much as I want. However the noise, and or bullets > can not cause > you any problems or harm! In essence I am free to do whatever > I choose! But > I can not infringe on your freedoms! > > > Let me put it another way when do your rights end and mine begin? > > Your right > > to play Liberace Does the Sex Pistols ends when you play the CD > > very loud at > > 120 decibels at 4AM. > > Answered! Do the world a favour then don't play the Liberace album at 4am, I may exercise my right to target practice shortly thereafter. :) Liberace is bad enough but Liberace doing Sex Pistol covers is scary. Think of Pat Boone doing metal, only worse. > > > OK then your right to pollute your lungs not only affects > the air that I > > breathe, but also affects my health care costs, as a > nonsmoker I'll be > > paying for your care far longer than you'll be paying for mine. > > Wrong! Your health care costs are your own! You have made > your own deal with > the insurance company just as I have. They give me a discount > because I > don't smoke. They will give me more of a discount if I > exercise more. I'm > sure you'll come back with flap about rising costs being > distributed among > everyone but rising costs are a fact of life, deal! > > And as a side note... I have only been to the doctor once in > the last 30 > years, and I paid for that visit out of my pocket rather then > messing with > insurance. So chances are I've been paying to subsidize YOUR > health care a > great deal more then you have mine! > But you still end up paying for the smokers in more ways than one. For instance there have been estimates that smoking has indirect health care costs that are in the billions according to HEW stats. Similarly the VA spends far more on those who smoke on a per capita basis than nonsmokers. We all pay for that. Have a nice night all I'm out of here. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
