Man Made Global Warming

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

It's bad because people that choose to smoke already know of the risk by now. They have been very aware for a very long time. Common sense tells you when you stand in a smoky room and you start coughing and your eyes water, not good. Don't need a researcher to tell me that. And yes, lung cancer comes in many forms from many causes. So, special tax on the painters? The coal miners? The wind? This is California doing the double dip because the state is pro liberal/socialist and by nature they are completely fiscally irresponsible and they saw this as an easy way to steal some more money and pander to the dimwits that live here, to make up for declines in the other cigs tax revenue streams. The part you didn't post.

per wiki
"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 (1988 ) and Proposition 10 (1998 ). "

See, already taxed many times over. So, how much of the part you posted would have gone to fund the wild BBQs parties and pretty interns on short term contracts I wonder?




hum dee dum. Go back and google the marlboro man. that was a long time ago. they have been stretching this thing all that time. get a clue. The antacid thing, just another $50 light-bulb scheme.

Research is fine, but it should be subject to rules of cost/benefit. Not guise for money grab to fix irresponsible state spending. wait, what???

it's not about finding out that smoking is dangerous, it's about TREATING THE DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. palliative care, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, lost working hours, hospital care... these things are all a massive drain on the health system so paying for the increased cost through taxation of the people who cause the increased expenditure is, basically, pretty fair. non-smokers are not contributing to the care of those who put themselves at risk. that some non-smokers also contract these diseases through no fault of their own and will benefit from advances in treatment or prevention is not a bad thing. how can you fail to make this simple connection? the state also explicitly lays out how they will spend this increased revenue, and that it will almost entirely go towards research for smoking - and in a small part non-smoking - related diseases and smoking cessation. put a burden on the health system by your activity, be it driving without a seatbelt and paralysing yourself or engaging in a demonstrably risky habit, and it seems fair that you contribute to the cost through taxation. as less people smoke the income from lower taxes is reduced, but the costs do not appreciably decrease in providing cancer care units.

Originally Posted by =CfC= Father Ted

So who should make these rules? Obviously not governments, because they just use the results to make policy which robs the man in the street, so who else?


The only way to really arrive at the "truth" in the scientific arena is to fund blue sky (sorry Titus) research, where it's the idea that's important, not who's right or wrong, or who stands to gain/lose from the findings.

house!

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

I would say it boils down to the capitalists way verses the socialists way. I tend to think blue sky is fallacy because even the researchers have a self interest...(e.g., reputations, egos, salaries,...etc). The politics enter into it no matter what. Take example, NASA. Funded by tax dollars, contracts out to private sector, enages in space exploration and outreach to muslims. One president say we are going to the moon again, the other says we are going to mars or whatever

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...feel-good.html

In reality, it's a muddling through to get the real answers. Just look at "physics", aristotle to present day. Even back in aristotle days there was politics in getting to the truth on gravity.

I would also say this w/cost benefit...the timing of when and what to do w/ research matters a lot. Needs/economies of the people are constantly changing. In the good times, it makes sense to pursue the less urgent risks. So, in usa, we do this by voting every few years to fine tune the agenda of the research, changes in public funding. Also, people are certainly free to fund whatever they want whenever they want with private dollars.

please don't use the telegraph as a source for anything, it's up there with the daily heil as being biased to the point of irrelevant. to paraphrase, put that paper down and never open it again.

"physics", interesting use of quotation marks there. is physics a scam? do you get the scientific methodology at all, or are you just bringing a load of pre-conceived notions about "science" to the party and refusing to actually learn anything?

nasa is a highly politicised agency and always has been, in that it was originally conceived for the dick waving contest the USA and USSR were engaging in. it continues to be a tool for politicians, ala bush and obama saying they are going to do big and exciting things with it.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

it's not about finding out that smoking is dangerous, it's about TREATING THE DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT...

Then just ban smoking. Stop using it as gravy train to make your living and then put a halo on yourself as god's gift to man. I didn't even mention the federal taxes that are already on cigs. They (the "researchers" or whatever you want to call that crowd) had the option to put out a proposition to simply ban smoking. They didn't do that because they are hypocrites. Instead they partnered up with the state to do a money grab. Apparently, it is not going to pass.

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

please don't use the telegraph as a source for anything, it's up there with the daily heil

the story was widely reported in various news vehicles. I just happened to link to that one as fyi. the story refers to originally reported in al jahzeera article.

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

"physics", interesting use of quotation marks there. is physics a scam? do you get the scientific methodology at all, or are you

read the first couple chapters of the book "understanding physics" by issac asminov. iirc, somewhere in there he poses the question w/ falling bodies - why was it no one simply crumpled the piece of paper when it was dropped? yes, I get it. that's why I brought it up. understanding physics, different relative to age of aristotle, different relative to age of galileo, different relative to age of einstein...etc.

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

nasa is a highly politicised agency and always has been,

exactly my point. you can't take the self-interest/political out of it, imo. "blue sky" is fallacy, imo. the politics get in eventually, not matter the original intent.

[MD_Titus]

to ban it is to remove the choice. surely you're all for freedom of choice? it's not about people using it as a gravy train, it's about recognising people's right to freedom of choice, freedom to smoke, whilst mitigating it's harmful effects. i would imagine that a vote to ban smoking altogether would be beaten back all the more comprehensively than a vote to increase tax on tobacco.

please stop misusing quotation marks though, it makes you look silly. as does saying that reading the first couple of chapters of a single book means you understand scientific methodology. it's not different relative to the age, it's a progression and evolution of understanding through cumulative knowledge and experience. it's not "muddling through", it's producing theory and models based on evidence, testing them and refining them or throwing them out altogether if they are unproven. "muddling through" makes it sound like it's made up on the fly.

you are right that you cannot take self-interest/politics out of it altogether, but to say that those are the main motivators in all scientific endeavour is a gross error.

[MadBlaster]

Well, we will just have to disagree about their real motivations. I stand by my opinion. If the government and researchers of smoking really wanted to solve the problem, they would stop trying to provide a get out of jail card to the smokers. Instead, they choose to enable and feed off them with promise of get out of jail card. That is hypocrisy and scam. If they really wanted it to stop, they would refuse to treat smokers and/or seek to ban it. Simply require a law to have the smokers sign a waiver from cost of their health cares related to smoking. Then they bear all the costs of their choice and the non-smokers don't have to share it. Very simple. But then you have bunch of idle researchers with nothing to do and we can't have that. Nor can we have the government lose a revenue stream.

Okay, i'm out of this thread. I grow tired trying to explain that 2+2=4 and titus jump in to tell me that '+' means to add.

[kendo65]

Your anti-tax hysteria has got the better of you. Are you really saying that you would prefer it if the government issued a blanket ban on smoking? That in your opinion it would be better than raising taxes on cigarettes?

That's a pretty draconian response, don't you think.

I can imagine the hypocritical whinging that would ensue (from people like you) if the government even for a moment hinted at introducing such a measure....yet more evidence to feed your 'new world order' paranoia?

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by MadBlaster

Well, we will just have to disagree about their real motivations. I stand by my opinion. If the government and researchers of smoking really wanted to solve the problem, they would stop trying to provide a get out of jail card to the smokers. Instead, they choose to enable and feed off them with promise of get out of jail card. That is hypocrisy and scam. If they really wanted it to stop, they would refuse to treat smokers and/or seek to ban it. Simply require a law to have the smokers sign a waiver from cost of their health cares related to smoking. Then they bear all the costs of their choice and the non-smokers don't have to share it. Very simple. But then you have bunch of idle researchers with nothing to do and we can't have that. Nor can we have the government lose a revenue stream.

Okay, i'm out of this thread. I grow tired trying to explain that 2+2=4 and titus jump in to tell me that '+' means to add.

we wouldn't. these are highly intelligent people, do you think they would sit on their hands and do nothing?

as for teh government lose a revenue steam, that legislation you posted where they specify where the money will go... did you ignore the figures?

[priller26]

Dont believe in Man made global warming, and am leaving as big of a footprint as I can

[ATAG_Doc]

How big of a footprint do you think this house makes compared to yours?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0...86.html#s91253

I bet you there are a couple of poor flight simmers reading this that could possibly find a room to use. Why does this man (whoever this is) need all this? Isn't this excessive?

This is obviously a 1 percenter.

Eat the rich.

[jimson8]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

it's not about finding out that smoking is dangerous, it's about TREATING THE DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. palliative care, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, lost working hours, hospital care... these things are all a massive drain on the health system so paying for the increased cost through taxation of the people who cause the increased expenditure is, basically, pretty fair. non-smokers are not contributing to the care of those who put themselves at risk. that some non-smokers also contract these diseases through no fault of their own and will benefit from advances in treatment or prevention is not a bad thing. how can you fail to make this simple connection? the state also explicitly lays out how they will spend this increased revenue, and that it will almost entirely go towards research for smoking - and in a small part non-smoking - related diseases and smoking cessation. put a burden on the health system by your activity, be it driving without a seatbelt and paralysing yourself or engaging in a demonstrably risky habit, and it seems fair that you contribute to the cost through taxation. as less people smoke the income from lower taxes is reduced, but the costs do not appreciably decrease in providing cancer care units.

I'm good with it, as long as you also tax motorcycle riders for the drain on society for trauma care, also those with other physically dangerous hobbies, those who don't exercise and of course those who do because of sports related injuries and you would want to institute a gay tax for the past if not present costs associated with HIV infection.

[CWMV]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

it's not about finding out that smoking is dangerous, it's about TREATING THE DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH IT. palliative care, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, lost working hours, hospital care... these things are all a massive drain on the health system so paying for the increased cost through taxation of the people who cause the increased expenditure is, basically, pretty fair. non-smokers are not contributing to the care of those who put themselves at risk. that some non-smokers also contract these diseases through no fault of their own and will benefit from advances in treatment or prevention is not a bad thing. how can you fail to make this simple connection? the state also explicitly lays out how they will spend this increased revenue, and that it will almost entirely go towards research for smoking - and in a small part non-smoking - related diseases and smoking cessation. put a burden on the health system by your activity, be it driving without a seatbelt and paralysing yourself or engaging in a demonstrably risky habit, and it seems fair that you contribute to the cost through taxation. as less people smoke the income from lower taxes is reduced, but the costs do not appreciably decrease in providing cancer care units.


nasa is a highly politicised agency and always has been, in that it was originally conceived for the dick waving contest the USA and USSR were engaging in. it continues to be a tool for politicians, ala bush and obama saying they are going to do big and exciting things with it.

Wait a minute, now shouldn't the person being treated be the one to pay for his care, via the cost of his health insurance over the years? Why is it the states responsibility (read yours and mine) to take care of these people? Its really not.

My grandfather in law had a wonderfully simple way of describing the only obligations of the federal government: Protect the country and deliver the mail.
I think we should probably get towards cutting everything that doesn't fit into those two areas, and leave the rest to the people and what they wish to do via their state legislatures. You sacrifice too much by letting one central government decide for so many people. Smaller govt=better representation. I believe there were some really great fellows who had a similar idea back in the late 1700's.
I mean why is there this big push to just give all power to the state. Seriously the last people we should be granting MORE power to.

We had a similar ballot proposition that just failed here in California, proposition 29.
The state, in their grand wisdom, wanted to set up so many programs and their associated bureaucracies with this additional cigarette tax (and not for the state of california. Funds would have been spent in other states and countries) that a mere 20% of the funds received would have actually gone into any type of research.
Ya, lets give these types more power and money. Its bound to turn out well.

The whole NASA thing you have going there is just incomprehensible. Were a species that needs to expand and explore, and that's what they do.