Re: [CTRL] Tobacco
-Caveat Lector- Samatha 'Smith' wrote: -Caveat Lector- We don't make war on all consumers goods which can lead to bad health in the future. High fat foods, nitrites in processed meat, and on and on and on. Why tobacco? Sure it causes health problems in 2/3 of it's users, sure the medical bills get expensive.but are we taking a moral high ground against sugar because of the incidence of diabetes in this country? Stevia, a natural, healthy, powerful sweetener was banned in the US for years until health food advocates got it cleared to be sold as a food supplement. Makers are not ALLOWED to advertise it as a sweetener. The Japansese use stevia frequently, and it's added into their processed foods, and they have a much lower incidence of diabetes. But to make my point.I think the attack on tobacco is so that it will be made illegal, forced onto the black market, sold at high prices -- tax free -- and give the police-state another lame excuse to jail ordinary people. Samantha That's right. That must be the reason. The Govt. is just dying to stop raking in all those tabacco tax revenues just to persecute and jail ordinary people. Damn Gubmnt ! Joshua2 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco
-Caveat Lector- On 11 Feb 99, , Samatha wrote: -Caveat Lector- We don't make war on all consumers goods which can lead to bad health in the future. High fat foods, nitrites in processed meat, and on and on and on. Why tobacco? Sure it causes health problems in 2/3 of it's users, sure the medical bills get expensive.but are we taking a moral high ground against sugar because of the incidence of diabetes in this country? Stevia, a natural, healthy, powerful sweetener was banned in the US for years until health food advocates got it cleared to be sold as a food supplement. Makers are not ALLOWED to advertise it as a sweetener. The Japansese use stevia frequently, and it's added into their processed foods, and they have a much lower incidence of diabetes. But to make my point.I think the attack on tobacco is so that it will be made illegal, forced onto the black market, sold at high prices -- tax free -- and give the police-state another lame excuse to jail ordinary people. Yes, I agreeteenage cigarette smokers are already open to criminal prosecution, since it is now illegal for them to buy them. Interesting that is now LEGAL to refuse to hire people who use tobacco on or off the jobeven though tobacco is still a legal substance. And this is a trend that is growing across the nation. Let alone that there is no way to prove which respiratory ailments are caused by tobacco and which by other pollutants in the environment--including automobile emissions, pesticides, and other airborne chemical pollutants (that stuff being sprayed in contrails across the nation?). Yet there is no refusal to hire people who drink alcohol or eat Twinkiesor drink milk laced with BGHwho are equally liable to require much medical attention and time off the job for substance-related illnesses. Is this perhaps just another move toward a facist statethat only those who can prove perfect health may work? Also curious how the courts are going after the gun manufacturers. I am not particularly in favor of guns yet don't want to see public access banned. The idea that a manufacturer can be sued if his product is used irresponsibly, in spite of no fault by the manufacturer itself--if successful--means that the government will be able to control who produces what, and which manufacturers are allowed to stay in business. Also curious how one pundit, speaking of economics, talked about the need to remove "Depression Era barriers."--making these "barriers" sound antiquated and outdated. Those are Anti-Trust Laws he's talking about. sno0wl DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco
-Caveat Lector- With the law suits it could be that some of the Cigarette manufacturers wanted to bring out the fact that it was not (necessarily) the tabacco that caused things but the fact that sugar (among other things) has been added to tobacco and it is grown with pesticides and herbicides. Has anyone ever burt sugar? Leaves a big gooey mess - Tar? I heard that they used to use fiberglass in filters. Laura Sno0wl wrote: -Caveat Lector- On 11 Feb 99, , Samatha wrote: -Caveat Lector- We don't make war on all consumers goods which can lead to bad health in the future. High fat foods, nitrites in processed meat, and on and on and on. Why tobacco? Sure it causes health problems in 2/3 of it's users, sure the medical bills get expensive.but are we taking a moral high ground against sugar because of the incidence of diabetes in this country? Stevia, a natural, healthy, powerful sweetener was banned in the US for years until health food advocates got it cleared to be sold as a food supplement. Makers are not ALLOWED to advertise it as a sweetener. The Japansese use stevia frequently, and it's added into their processed foods, and they have a much lower incidence of diabetes. But to make my point.I think the attack on tobacco is so that it will be made illegal, forced onto the black market, sold at high prices -- tax free -- and give the police-state another lame excuse to jail ordinary people. Yes, I agreeteenage cigarette smokers are already open to criminal prosecution, since it is now illegal for them to buy them. Interesting that is now LEGAL to refuse to hire people who use tobacco on or off the jobeven though tobacco is still a legal substance. And this is a trend that is growing across the nation. Let alone that there is no way to prove which respiratory ailments are caused by tobacco and which by other pollutants in the environment--including automobile emissions, pesticides, and other airborne chemical pollutants (that stuff being sprayed in contrails across the nation?). Yet there is no refusal to hire people who drink alcohol or eat Twinkiesor drink milk laced with BGHwho are equally liable to require much medical attention and time off the job for substance-related illnesses. Is this perhaps just another move toward a facist statethat only those who can prove perfect health may work? Also curious how the courts are going after the gun manufacturers. I am not particularly in favor of guns yet don't want to see public access banned. The idea that a manufacturer can be sued if his product is used irresponsibly, in spite of no fault by the manufacturer itself--if successful--means that the government will be able to control who produces what, and which manufacturers are allowed to stay in business. Also curious how one pundit, speaking of economics, talked about the need to remove "Depression Era barriers."--making these "barriers" sound antiquated and outdated. Those are Anti-Trust Laws he's talking about. sno0wl DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-02-12 08:42:30 EST, you write: But to make my point.I think the attack on tobacco is so that it will be made illegal, forced onto the black market, sold at high prices -- tax free -- and give the police-state another lame excuse to jail ordinary people. Samantha That's right. That must be the reason. The Govt. is just dying to stop raking in all those tabacco tax revenues just to persecute and jail ordinary people. Damn Gubmnt ! Joshua2 I don't see terrible logic here on my part. Why are drugs like cocaine and marijuana illegal? Many believe that aspects of the government are deeply involved in drug profiteering. Or by your logic, why is marjuana not legalized? It could be taxed. Samantha DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco
ome say we Cannucks pay in taxes for a pack of smokes). Now if that's for a single pack, figure out how many packs are sold in the US, and from there you can see how many tax dollars will be generated by following our lead. Still think it makes sense to ban smoking completely? Gee - where would they get the money to jail all those people if they didn't have the revenue from Tobacco Taxes... Sgt Bee... [EMAIL PROTECTED] 02/11/99 03:58 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]@internet@WTAXE cc: Subject:Re: [CTRL] Tobacco -Caveat Lector- We don't make war on all consumers goods which can lead to bad health in the future. High fat foods, nitrites in processed meat, and on and on and on. Why tobacco? Sure it causes health problems in 2/3 of it's users, sure the medical bills get expensive.but are we taking a moral high ground against sugar because of the incidence of diabetes in this country? Stevia, a natural, healthy, powerful sweetener was banned in the US for years until health food advocates got it cleared to be sold as a food supplement. Makers are not ALLOWED to advertise it as a sweetener. The Japansese use stevia frequently, and it's added into their processed foods, and they have a much lower incidence of diabetes. But to make my point.I think the attack on tobacco is so that it will be made illegal, forced onto the black market, sold at high prices -- tax free -- and give the police-state another lame excuse to jail ordinary people. Samantha DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco
-Caveat Lector- We don't make war on all consumers goods which can lead to bad health in the future. High fat foods, nitrites in processed meat, and on and on and on. Why tobacco? Sure it causes health problems in 2/3 of it's users, sure the medical bills get expensive.but are we taking a moral high ground against sugar because of the incidence of diabetes in this country? Stevia, a natural, healthy, powerful sweetener was banned in the US for years until health food advocates got it cleared to be sold as a food supplement. Makers are not ALLOWED to advertise it as a sweetener. The Japansese use stevia frequently, and it's added into their processed foods, and they have a much lower incidence of diabetes. But to make my point.I think the attack on tobacco is so that it will be made illegal, forced onto the black market, sold at high prices -- tax free -- and give the police-state another lame excuse to jail ordinary people. Samantha DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- Hawk wrote: -Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: You shouldn't and neither should I. Do I have health insurance or do I get you to pay for my stupidity by going to the emergency room? Can't you see that what you are attacking is socialism? You don't know what the hell you're talking about do you? How, pray tell, do you get me to pay for your emergency room, unless you elect some thugs to extort my money to pay it? That's not socialism you idiot. That's democracy. And that's what I'm talking about in all these posts. I'm not talking about being a dictator like Hitler, Mao, or Joe Steel as your moronic compatriot claimed in a related post. I'm talking about what we citizens decide democratically. If I do have health insurance, do your rates go up because I felt like sticking pine cones in my ears? Nope... Because if the govm't didn't require insurance companies to NOT discriminate, and offer policies to fools as well as the wise, I would buy my insurance from a company that plainly said, "We do not pay for the consequences of fools who sholve pine cones into body cavities." My insurance would be cheaper, nor more expensive. And of course that includes smokers, drinkers, dopers, addicts, and thrill junkies. What do you mean " eventually?" What if your wife and children were in one of those cars and crashed and died? Why, becuase you were shoving pine cones while driving? If so, then you should be assigned to a penal colony for the rest of your natural life Is that worth YOUR philosophy of freedom? Yes it is... Where there is freedom, there is risk. You're a jerk. I'll take the risks that go with freedom. The difference is, I am willing to pay the consequences, and you want someone else to pay. If YOUR freedom means putting others at serious risk of life or limb, then you will just have to do with less freedom. I will? And I suppose that you and people like you will "see to it" that I "do with less freedom." Hey listen. I don't know you from a hole in the ground. Don't flatter yourself. You are not so important that me and people like me are out to diminish your freedom. Your philosophy is fucked and so is your character for choosing it. That's all I am contending with here. Those who willingly and recklessly place other people at serious risk should be punished severely... If the punishment were swift enough, and severe enough, fewer people would shove pine cones while driving. I care about your family more than I care about your freedom. Do you? Give me a break! Please... DON'T care for my family You have no obligation to do so, and I would appreciate it if you would mind your own business. Fair enough. My business includes the society I live in and the ecology I live on. If you are situated in either of these two places, like it or not, we have to deal with each other. This is pleasant theoretical bullshit, but if we know that 50% of pine cone jammers throw rocks at cars and wind up hurting people, then it would only be wise to preempt that behavior to save lives. No sir... It would be wise to throw everyone who does so into the penal colony with a hoe and a sack of seed. If that means it's harder for you to indulge in such behavior, so be it. You lose. We all win. If you can't live with this, then get yourself a little homestead in the mountains and do what ever the hell you want. That is what it aways boils down to with "your kind of folks" isn't it? "If you don't do what we say, you cannot live with us... go somewhere else." Well sure if you are a selfish greedy destructive oinker. What do you expect? A good citizen's award? Suppose we just round you and your guys up and "send you someplace else?" But I have a better idea Suppose we just make you pay your own way? In which case you would either wise up or starve to death, and frankly, I'm not sure which I would prefer. I do pay my own way. I don't know what the hell your talking about. I pay my way and then some. Or rather, YOU and a group of others who agree with you? What others? The "party" or the "gang" you collect about you, or who more likely collected you about them, and voted your thugs into office to tell the rest of us how we must behave. Oh. Poor little baby. Does little baby not like being told what to do by big bad democratic majority of his neighbors. Well tough shit. That's politics in the USA. I work for more democracy. Much more democracy. If my fellow citizens choose to go down a path I disagree with, I must accept it or leave because those are the risks in a democratic system. Nobody will give up the little democracy we have to suit a bunch of Darwinian elitist oinkers like you. It's not possible to outlaw greed. But you don't need to be lavishly rewarded for it. I tell you what You just don't contribute to how lavishly or how niggardly I am rewarded.. That way, you won't have a
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- God, Hawk really is a schmuck isn't he!! nurev wrote: -Caveat Lector- Hawk wrote: -Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: You shouldn't and neither should I. Do I have health insurance or do I get you to pay for my stupidity by going to the emergency room? Can't you see that what you are attacking is socialism? You don't know what the hell you're talking about do you? DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- From: Vices Are Not Crimes; A Vindication of Moral Liberty --Lysander Spooner, 1875. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6181/vices.html ...We all come into the world in ignorance of ourselves, and of everything around us. By a fundamental law of our natures we are all constantly impelled by the desire of happiness, and the fear of pain. But we have everything to learn, as to what will give us happiness, and save us from pain. No two of us are wholly alike, either physically, mentally, or emotionally; or, consequently, in our physical, mental, or emotional requirements for the acquisition of happiness, and the avoidance of unhappiness. No one of us, therefore can learn this indispensable lesson of happiness and unhappiness, of virtue and vice, for another. Each must learn it for himself. To learn it, he must be at liberty to try all experiments that comment themselves to his judgment. Some of his experiments succeed, and, because they succeed, are called virtues; others fail, and, because they fail, are called vices. He gathers wisdom as much from his failures as from his successes; from his so-called vices, as from his so-called virtues. Both are necessary to his acquisition of that knowledge - of his own nature, and of the world around him, and of their adaptations or non-adaptations to each other - which shall show him how happiness is acquired, and pain avoided. And, unless he can be permitted to try these experiments to his own satisfaction, he is restrained from the acquisition of knowledge, and, consequently, from pursuing the great purpose and duty of his life. To know what actions are virtuous, and what vicious - in other words, to know what actions tend, on the whole, to happiness, and what to unhappiness - in the case of each and every man, in each and all the conditions in which they may severally be placed, is the profoundest and most complex study to which the greatest human mind ever has been, or ever can be, directed. It is, nevertheless, the constant study to which each and every man - the humblest in intellect as well as the greatest - is necessarily driven by the desires and necessities of his own existence. It is also the study in which each and every person, from his cradle to his grave, must necessarily form his own conclusions; because no one else knows or feels, or can know or feel, as he knows and feels, the desires and necessities, the hopes, and fears, and impulses of his own nature, or the pressure of his own circumstances. It is not often possible to say of those acts that are called vices, that they really are vices, except in degree. That is, it is difficult to say of any actions, or courses of action, that are called vices, that they really would have been vices, if they had stopped short of a certain point. The question of virtue or vice, therefore, in all such cases, is a question of quantity and degree, and not of the intrinsic character of any single act, by itself. This fact adds to the difficulty, not to say the impossibility, of any one's - except each individual for himself - drawing any accurate line, or anything like any accurate line, between virtue and vice; that is, of telling where virtue ends, and vice begins. And this is another reason why this whole question of virtue and vice should be left for each person to settle for himself. Vices are usually pleasurable, at least for the time being, and often do not disclose themselves as vices, by their effects, until after they have been practiced for many years; perhaps for a lifetime. To many, perhaps most, of those who practice them, they do not disclose themselves as vices at all during life. Virtues, on the other hand, often appear so harsh and rugged, they require the sacrifice of so much present happiness, at least, and the results, which alone prove them to be virtues, are often so distant and obscure, in fact, so absolutely invisible to the minds of many, especially of the young that, from the very nature of things, there can be no universal, or even general, knowledge that they are virtues. In truth, the studies of profound philosophers have been expended - if not wholly in vain, certainly with very small results - in efforts to draw the lines between the virtues and the vices. If, then, it became so difficult, so nearly impossible, in most cases, to determine what is, and what is not, vice; and especially if it be so difficult, in nearly all cases, to determine where virtue ends, and vice begins; and if these questions, which no one can really and truly determine for anybody but himself, are not to be left free and open for experiment by all, each person is deprived of the highest of all his rights as a human being, to wit: his right to inquire, investigate, reason, try experiments, judge, and ascertain for himself, what is, to him, virtue, and what is, to him, vice; in other words: what, on the whole, conduces to his happiness, and
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: I fear stupidity and and the legitimization of greed. Not freedom and liberty. I fear ideological theories that have no basis in reality. I have actually lived in the type of society you theorize about. I have seen people damage themselves irreparably and even die because those who they lived with weren't sure that they should step in and save them from themselves. It was tragic and unnecessary. Life is more important than freedom. That's what you clowns can't seem to understand. If you really want the kind of freedom you and Von Mises and other Libertarians keep babbling about, then you must live alone so that your freedom has no affect on others. But if your behaviors do affect others, they have the right to limit what you do. It's in the nature of being a social animal. Neither Mao, or Stalin, nor even Hitler at his most elequent could have put it better. best wishes, Howard Davis DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- nurev forwarded: "The global perspective: a new opium war" snip While it is the responsibility of each nation to implement their own tobacco control measures, governmental and non-governmental organisations in the USA have a very special responsibility: The exemplar role - showing that 'It can be done.' The message from the USA is that smoking rates can be reduced and that litigation can have a major impact. Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Nurev opined: This slippery slope theory is juvenile and stupid. The government might as well repeal all murder laws. Because if the gov. can tell you that you are not smart enough to know that you shouldn't kill anyone, next they'll tell you you can't have sex with children. Or even yell fire in a crowded theater. MJ: What you apparently do not understand is that one's free CHOICE to utilize opium, morphine or tobacco do NOT violate another's 'right' to his OWN life. I do realize freedom is a scary concept to many. Nurev: Freedom is not scary to me. Libertarians are scary to me. They seem to be somewhat adolescent. Like you for example. The above statement is scarily absurd in its lack of reality perception. YOU MUST BE A LIAR to state that crack, heroin, alcohol, and tobacco have no affects on people other than the users. I won't even dignify your idiotic statement with obvious examples of its absurdity. MJ: Your blatant contradictions aside ... I am not nor have I ever claimed to be a Libertarian ... and your logical fallacies do little to bolster your claim. I have no knowledge of your use or non-use of any of the above substances NOR do I know whether or NOT you are 'addicted' to Twinkies or similar. How exactly does your use OR non-use effect me? What YOU freely choose to participate -- so long as it does not violate *my* right to *my* life -- is freedom. By instructing me that I may not utilize tobacco products, you are violating my freedom to choose for myself. Same goes for the other above vices, prostitution, gambling, etc. Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Nurev opined: No. It's not. MJ: Really? Look at how many idiots run rampant believing THEY know better than others ... and desire the legalized use of FORCE (Government) to enact legislation supporting their delusions. Do tobacco users desire to limit the freedom of others? Nurev: You are just ridiculous man. You are implying that all tobacco users are libertarian in attitude. Libertarianism has damaged your brain. MJ: No, the 'Libertarian' angle is your strawman. And your fallacies continue as does your evasion of the topic. Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. Nurev opined: Maybe bad ideologies like Von Mises' and Ayn Rand's, but otherwise you can't compare what junkies do to reading bad books and seeing bad plays. MJ: What provides *you* with the grand insight as to which ideologies are *better* than others? Or that such is incomparable with 'junkies' (whatever that might entail? Nurev: The ability to think. MJ: At which point will you begin utilization of this 'ability'? :) Von Mises -- as expressed in the tobacco concern above -- favors FREEDOM, are you stating this is a *bad* ideology? Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. Nurev opined: I ask anyone reading this to do so out loud a few times and tell me that it isn't an absurd and illogical propagandistic trick to play upon the feeble minded. MJ: What exactly do you find so troubling? Do you
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- Hawk wrote: -Caveat Lector- Joshua wrote: Freedom is not scary to me. Libertarians are scary to me. They seem to be somewhat adolescent. Like you for example. The above statement is scarily absurd in its lack of reality perception. YOU MUST BE A LIAR to state that crack, heroin, alcohol, and tobacco have no affects on people other than the users. I won't even dignify your idiotic statement with obvious examples of its absurdity. Hey... May I say something? In case you don't grasp the concept... If you or anyone else shoves pine cones up his well, into his ears, lets say, and it causes severe irritation to you, BUT you want to do it, why the hell should I care? You shouldn't and neither should I. Do I have health insurance or do I get you to pay for my stupidity by going to the emergency room? If I do have health insurance, do your rates go up because I felt like sticking pine cones in my ears? Should we outlaw pine cones? Of course not. But if your severe irritation causes you to throw rocks at passing cars, then eventually you will suffer even more for that anti-social behaviour, because you force the consequences of YOUR irrational behaviour on OTHERS. What do you mean " eventually?" What if your wife and children were in one of those cars and crashed and died? Is that worth YOUR philosophy of freedom? If YOUR freedom means putting others at serious risk of life or limb, then you will just have to do with less freedom. I care about your family more than I care about your freedom. Do you? Your come-uppence, however, should be based on the throwing of rocks at other people, and NOT foster attempts to outlaw pine cones. This is pleasant theoretical bullshit, but if we know that 50% of pine cone jammers throw rocks at cars and wind up hurting people, then it would only be wise to preempt that behavior to save lives. If that means it's harder for you to indulge in such behavior, so be it. You lose. We all win. If you can't live with this, then get yourself a little homestead in the mountains and do what ever the hell you want. What exactly do you find so troubling? Do you not believe an individual is 'intelligent' enough to determine his own vices? Some are, but most are not. And, we are to suppose, YOU are? Yes, that's right. Or rather, YOU and a group of others who agree with you? What others? I fear stupidity and and the legitimization of greed. Ah You do not fear the outlawing of greed? It's not possible to outlaw greed. But you don't need to be lavishly rewarded for it. Thus, if anyone does anything for a selfish reason, he should be convicted of a crime? It depends on what they do. If so, practically every free exchange of goods and services for money would make criminals out of all the participants in the deal. That would depend on the deal wouldn't it? Not freedom and liberty. I fear ideological theories that have no basis in reality. Then why do you embrace them so? No basis in reality eh? How come all organized societies are more like my concept than yours? I have actually lived in the type of society you theorize about. I have seen people damage themselves irreparably and even die because those who they lived with weren't sure that they should step in and save them from themselves. Dear God! Please deliver us from such as would "save us from ourselves!" What are you bothering him for? It's his rules. It was tragic and unnecessary. Life is more important than freedom. That's what you clowns can't seem to understand. That is PRECISELY the most wimpish and absurd thing you could say. It is such a theory that makes people volunteer for slavery rather than accept responsibility for their own actions Everybody should take responsibility for their own actions. Marvelous concept. Please, Sir, find a kind master for yourself and leave the rest of us alone. I'll be glad to leave you alone. Until you sell tobacco, crack, heroin, defective toys, poisoned food, polluting cars, endangered species, hate speech, and other sundries. If you don't like it leave. You are not going to get your way because it's impossible to run a large society on such idotic ideology. You may need to start your own. Don't forget the pine cones. Joshua2 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- nurev wrote: You shouldn't and neither should I. Do I have health insurance or do I get you to pay for my stupidity by going to the emergency room? Can't you see that what you are attacking is socialism? How, pray tell, do you get me to pay for your emergency room, unless you elect some thugs to extort my money to pay it? If I do have health insurance, do your rates go up because I felt like sticking pine cones in my ears? Nope... Because if the govm't didn't require insurance companies to NOT discriminate, and offer policies to fools as well as the wise, I would buy my insurance from a company that plainly said, "We do not pay for the consequences of fools who sholve pine cones into body cavities." My insurance would be cheaper, nor more expensive. What do you mean " eventually?" What if your wife and children were in one of those cars and crashed and died? Why, becuase you were shoving pine cones while driving? If so, then you should be assigned to a penal colony for the rest of your natural life Is that worth YOUR philosophy of freedom? Yes it is... Where there is freedom, there is risk. I'll take the risks that go with freedom. The difference is, I am willing to pay the consequences, and you want someone else to pay. If YOUR freedom means putting others at serious risk of life or limb, then you will just have to do with less freedom. I will? And I suppose that you and people like you will "see to it" that I "do with less freedom." Those who willingly and recklessly place other people at serious risk should be punished severely... If the punishment were swift enough, and severe enough, fewer people would shove pine cones while driving. I care about your family more than I care about your freedom. Do you? Give me a break! Please... DON'T care for my family You have no obligation to do so, and I would appreciate it if you would mind your own business. This is pleasant theoretical bullshit, but if we know that 50% of pine cone jammers throw rocks at cars and wind up hurting people, then it would only be wise to preempt that behavior to save lives. No sir... It would be wise to throw everyone who does so into the penal colony with a hoe and a sack of seed. If that means it's harder for you to indulge in such behavior, so be it. You lose. We all win. If you can't live with this, then get yourself a little homestead in the mountains and do what ever the hell you want. That is what it aways boils down to with "your kind of folks" isn't it? "If you don't do what we say, you cannot live with us... go somewhere else." Suppose we just round you and your guys up and "send you someplace else?" But I have a better idea Suppose we just make you pay your own way? In which case you would either wise up or starve to death, and frankly, I'm not sure which I would prefer. Or rather, YOU and a group of others who agree with you? What others? The "party" or the "gang" you collect about you, or who more likely collected you about them, and voted your thugs into office to tell the rest of us how we must behave. It's not possible to outlaw greed. But you don't need to be lavishly rewarded for it. I tell you what You just don't contribute to how lavishly or how niggardly I am rewarded.. That way, you won't have a complaint either way... Right? In short, why not just mind your own business and leave the rest of us to our own devices, and the rewards or tragedies that result from them? You pay your way, and I'll pay mine.. and you can contribute to whoever else you feel is deserving... Just don't force my participation. It doesn't seem all that difficult a concept to me. Not freedom and liberty. I fear ideological theories that have no basis in reality. Then why do you embrace them so? No basis in reality eh? How come all organized societies are more like my concept than yours? Because men love evil rather than good... Because more people are lazy than industrious Because more people are beggers rather than producers ... Because given the option, more people would require me to be responsible for them rather than being responsible for themselves... That's just for starters... The list goes on. Please, Sir, find a kind master for yourself and leave the rest of us alone. I'll be glad to leave you alone. Until you sell tobacco, I don't sell it.. I buy it... crack, heroin, defective toys, poisoned food, polluting cars, endangered species, hate speech, and other sundries. You're a real piece of art I thought you were serious there for a while... Yep, you had me going... I admit... Now I see you were just joking all along. If you don't like it leave. You are not going to get your way because it's impossible to run a large society on such idotic ideology. There you go again "If you don't do as I say, you must leave." But, my egotistical and lunatic friend... There is another option... You may need to start
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- nurev forwarded: "The global perspective: a new opium war" snip While it is the responsibility of each nation to implement their own tobacco control measures, governmental and non-governmental organisations in the USA have a very special responsibility: The exemplar role - showing that 'It can be done.' The message from the USA is that smoking rates can be reduced and that litigation can have a major impact. Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Nurev opined: This slippery slope theory is juvenile and stupid. The government might as well repeal all murder laws. Because if the gov. can tell you that you are not smart enough to know that you shouldn't kill anyone, next they'll tell you you can't have sex with children. Or even yell fire in a crowded theater. MJ: What you apparently do not understand is that one's free CHOICE to utilize opium, morphine or tobacco do NOT violate another's 'right' to his OWN life. I do realize freedom is a scary concept to many. Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Nurev opined: No. It's not. MJ: Really? Look at how many idiots run rampant believing THEY know better than others ... and desire the legalized use of FORCE (Government) to enact legislation supporting their delusions. Do tobacco users desire to limit the freedom of others? Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. Nurev opined: Maybe bad ideologies like Von Mises' and Ayn Rand's, but otherwise you can't compare what junkies do to reading bad books and seeing bad plays. MJ: What provides *you* with the grand insight as to which ideologies are *better* than others? Or that such is incomparable with 'junkies' (whatever that might entail? Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. Nurev opined: I ask anyone reading this to do so out loud a few times and tell me that it isn't an absurd and illogical propagandistic trick to play upon the feeble minded. MJ: What exactly do you find so troubling? Do you not believe an individual is 'intelligent' enough to determine his own vices? Von Mises stated in _Human Action_: The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters. Nurev opined: A study in Libertarianism at it's most adolescent. And at Ludwig's age too. How pathetic. MJ: Actually it is PURE liberalism -- in it's true state. Why the fear of freedom and liberty? Regard$, --MJ ...when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon. -- Thomas Paine DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Tobacco capitalists' global offensive.
-Caveat Lector- nurev forwarded: "The global perspective: a new opium war" snip While it is the responsibility of each nation to implement their own tobacco control measures, governmental and non-governmental organisations in the USA have a very special responsibility: The exemplar role - showing that 'It can be done.' The message from the USA is that smoking rates can be reduced and that litigation can have a major impact. Opium and morphine are certainly dangerous, habit-forming drugs. But once the principle is admitted that it is the duty of government to protect the individual from his own foolishness, no serious objections can be raised against further encroachments. A good case could be made out in favor of the prohibition of alcohol and nicotine. And why limit the government's benevolent providence to the protection of the individual's body only? Is not the harm a man can inflict on his mind and soul even more disastrous than any bodily evils? Why not prevent him from reading bad books and seeing bad plays, from looking at bad paintings and statues and from hearing bad music? The mischief done by bad ideologies, surely, is much more pernicious, both for the individual and for the whole society, than that done by narcotic drugs. These fears are not merely imaginary specters terrifying secluded doctrinaires. It is a fact that no paternal government, whether ancient or modern, ever shrank from regimenting its subjects' minds, beliefs, and opinions. If one abolishes man's freedom to determine his own consumption, one takes all freedoms away. The naive advocates of government interference with consumption delude themselves when they neglect what they disdainfully call the philosophical aspect of the problem. They unwittingly support the cause of censorship, inquisition, intolerance, and the persecution of dissenters. --Ludwig von Mises 1949 DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
