Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBlaster
I could care less how much RJ Reynolds bankrolled. It's their money and their business interest they are protecting. If I was an investor in their company, I would expect that.
1.On the other hand, the members of the scientific community (e.g., Cancer Society, the American Lung Association and the American Heart Foundation) of course, play themselves as the "good guys". When it's really about their job security via taxes on the cigarettes, the very thing they are against. Total hypocrisy. We don't need to keep researching this thing. We have known for decades smoking = not good for you. It is a waste of money, time and talent.
2.The latest, don't take antacid pills because they will give you a heart attack after decades of telling us that it prevents osteoarthritis and is a good source of calcium in the diet. Just brilliant, these guys. Anything to keep the money flowing. Like we are all eating antacid pills like candy or something when it says right on the label 2 pills equals 750 mg. They assume we don't know how to read. It is truly sad what a bunch of idiots we have become from socialist indoctrination. Scam after scam.
As far as paying for someone else mistakes, yea I'm against it. You build your own boat. If you take risk, you need to get some insurance before you take part. Simple. If you smoke, your problem. Shoot yourself if you can't deal with the consequences.
fyi:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...012%29#Details |
you're great.
in the first instance 1.they're researching about cancer. lung cancer can and does develop in people who have not smoked. if cancer was cured then all these scientists would be able to channel their ability and knowledge elsewhere. not one single scientist worthy of the title would like to stay employed if it were the choice between unemployment and tens of thousands of people dying annually from the disease at the centre of their research. this research is expensive. it is not publicly funded to the degree it needs to be, hence the dozens of cancer research charities. if they increase taxes on cigarettes it has the dual effect of discouraging through expense, and making the cancer research paid for by smokers... then fine by me. as with the law, that's the penalty to do what you want - are you willing to pay it?
to say that they have a vested interest in not curing cancer or researching how to treat it is actually more offensive than telling atheists to kill themselves.
Use of revenue
Revenue raised by the initiative would have been spent as follows, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office:
Approximately $75 million annually would have maintained existing tobacco tax revenue streams. The objective here was to avoid negatively impacting other revenue streams from other cigarette taxes such as from Proposition 99 (198
and Proposition 10 (199.
60% (approximately $468 million annually) would have gone to research of cancer and tobacco-related disease "for the purpose of grants and loans to support research into the prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments and potential cures of lung cancer and other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases, including but not limited to coronary heart disease, and chronic obstructive lung disease".
15% (approximately $117 million annually) would have gone to facilities and capital equipment for research "for the purposes of grants and loans to provide facilities, including but not limited to those building, building leases and capital equipment as my be found necessary and appropriate by the Committee, to further biomedical ,epidemiological, behavioral, health services, and other research whose primary focus is to identify and refine promising prevention, early detection, treatments, complementary treatments, rehabilitation and potential cures of lung cancer an other types of cancer, cardiovascular disease, emphysema and other tobacco related diseases".
20% (approximately $156 million annually) would go to tobacco prevention and cessation to the state’s existing tobacco control program. These funds would be divided between the California Department of Public Health (80%) and the California Department of Education (20%) for their existing programs to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco.
3% (approximately $ 23 million annually) would have gone to tobacco law enforcement "to support law enforcement efforts to reduce cigarette smuggling, tobacco tax evasion, and counterfeit tobacco products, to reduce illegal sales of tobacco products to minors, and to enforce legal settlement provisions and conduct law enforcement training and technical assistance activities for tobacco related statues".
No more than 2% (approximately $16 million annually) would have gone to administration, including the collection, auditing, and distribution of revenue.
how is any of that bad?
2. this is how science works. they keep on testing things, and when they find out something that only becomes clear after decades-long research by hundreds of teams throws up enough data for a really good meta-analysis... they make it public, and they are more than happy to change their advice if the evidence supports it, if the results are statistically significant, if there are no flaws in their method. that's when you find stuff like this out. also, are antacid a generic or trademarked tablet?
in this case you blame a socialist scam, when in fact you're most likely looking at a corporate-based lack of depth to the research or non-reporting of it. if they aren't looking for a link to heart attacks then they won't find it.
a drug company team is different to a cancer research, or any research, team that is not directly linked with a product.
kendo, that's his tactic. fail to win with either logic or rhetoric, instead infuriate with "wait what?"