Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Smoking Bans
onifre
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 136 of 151 (506027)
04-21-2009 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Straggler
04-21-2009 9:01 PM


Re: Smoking while pregnant
Neither one would have been as effective alone as without the other.
Fair enough. So do we just keep the law or eventually say "hey, you folks seem to have it down already" - "Cars have airbags, seatbelts, all the necessary outer protection, I think the law can be deactivated, it served it's purpose" - which was of course to teach safety, yes?
Do you think they'll get rid of it if we show we "get it"?
No.
That is my point; you know the safety of it, you understand what happens if you don't use it. You were brought up, like me, without seatbelts yet you "get it". If you would do it without it being a law then the law didn't effect you one way or the other.
Also when I was a kid there was no law. And I never wore a seatbelt!!!! In fact my dad's knackered old excuse for a car did not even have seatbelts!!!!!
I would stand in the back seat and hold my parents shoulder while they drove, and smoked, and my dad would have a beer on the way to the beach. Now 2 of those are against the law and one of them may soon be also...go figure.
Will you not agree that the law has forced the mandatory inclusion of safety features in cars if nothing else......?
I will agree that in the area of automotive regulations and safety, the auto manufacturers have really stepped up and taken the proper measures to insure the publics safety when driving their vehicles.
Maybe it's so they won't be liable, maybe it's driven by the free market and if you want to compete it MUST include the safety features, or, perhaps it has been consumer demand for a better product, what ever it may have been, that is one area where they've done an excellent job.
The seatbelt law seems like an after thought, though.
But the laws forcing the auto makers to step up their safety on the vehicles is one that I can support.

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2009 9:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2009 2:56 PM onifre has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 137 of 151 (506088)
04-22-2009 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Straggler
04-21-2009 8:04 PM


Re: Smoking while pregnant
But how much does that matter IF the laws that are in force effectively meet their intended aim?
What if the intended aim is something I disagree with? I may not disagree with trying to save lives, but just because a law does what it wants to do doesn't makwe the law just, it just makes it effective.
In Britain it is my responsibility as the driver to make sure everyone in the car is wearing a seatbelt. If they are not I face punishment.
Is this taking care of myself or others?
Well, that depends on who the people are. If they are children, then I think a law forcing you to belt in kids is a good one. I defend those because they are protecting children who may not know enough to protect themselves. That's why we have age of consesnt and majority, social services and other programs. Protecting children is a noble aim.
Prosecuting you for others not wearing seatbelts is not only a bad law (forcing seatbelt use) but it's a misdirected law. Why are you responsible for another human being's actions if they're not children under your care? Punishing YOU for a bad choice THEY make is ludicrous. Tying this in to the larger thrust of this forum, it's like God punishing all of us for the choice Adam made. Isn't it?
IF it makes those who would not otherwise consider their own live at risk be more aware?
I would prefer an education campaign rather than a law enforcement one. I guess that's where we differ.
IF it WORKS. IF it is pragmatically desirable then on what grounds do you oppose this law?
I don't think it is pragmatically desirable.
IF evidence suggests that all the above practical criteria are met would you still oppose the law on some sort of principled grounds?
Let's assume that all of the above IFs are true for the sake of argument.
Is it possible for you to seperate your principled stance from your belief or interpretation of the evidence that is available? Or not?
Principled stands are what mae the country better. It was a principled stand that forced civil rights laws through. I'm not saying seatbelt laws are on the same scale, but if laws working is justification for not trying to change them, then we would still be back in the times where only landowning white men were able to vote in AMerica. It WORKED and met it's desired aim, why change it?
I think people should be able to put themselves at risk. They should be educated on the nature of the risk, and then they have the choice to listen or to go ahead and do the risky thing, so long as they're not dsirectly harming anyone else.
Wearing a seatbelt is a personal safety choice, much like condom use. Do you know how much suffering, wasted lives and money we could save by making it a law to wear a condom anytime you have sex outside of marriage? I assume you would consider this a breach of privacy, right? People have the right to make the choice in the bedroom to engage in risky behavior, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2009 8:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2009 3:10 PM Perdition has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 138 of 151 (506099)
04-22-2009 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by onifre
04-21-2009 9:33 PM


Seatbelts
Do you think they'll get rid of it if we show we "get it"?
I think that once a law has been demonstrated to be effective (whether or not that law or the associated public awareness campaign that went with it was ultimately responsible for that effectiveness) there is an understandable reluctance to reverse the law in question. I think that reversing such a law could arguably be taken as a sign that the problem has gone away.
Straggler writes:
No. But to be honest I would be less dilligent about my friends. I would be much more likely to think that they are responsible for their own safety. As things stand they buckle up or get out.
That is my point; you know the safety of it, you understand what happens if you don't use it. You were brought up, like me, without seatbelts yet you "get it". If you would do it without it being a law then the law didn't effect you one way or the other.
I have added my full quote rather than just the 'No' that you quoted. My friends are safer in my car, I am less likely to be responsible for their deaths, as a direct result of the law in question.
Once laws that were at one time controversial become second nature and are considered as all but common sense due to their effectiveness they have served their purpose to society. Unless they cause any actual harm I see no reason to get rid of such laws purely on the basis that people "get it". There will always be some that do not "get it".
Consider taxi drivers and the like and I think that there is still a case for the law despite me and you "gettting it" in a social awareness sense.
would stand in the back seat and hold my parents shoulder while they drove, and smoked, and my dad would have a beer on the way to the beach. Now 2 of those are against the law and one of them may soon be also...go figure.
My experience is similar. Whilst these seem like the "good old days" given that we both seem to agree that we would not put our kids in the same situation can we really say that things are worse now as a result of the laws under discussion?
But the laws forcing the auto makers to step up their safety on the vehicles is one that I can support.
On that we agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by onifre, posted 04-21-2009 9:33 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 139 of 151 (506101)
04-22-2009 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Perdition
04-22-2009 11:32 AM


Re: Smoking while pregnant
Principled stands are what mae the country better.
I partialy agree. But what principle exactly do you think you are defending here?
Stragler writes:
IF it WORKS. IF it is pragmatically desirable then on what grounds do you oppose this law?
I don't think it is pragmatically desirable.
On what grounds do you conclude this? If it is effective at saving lives on what pragmatic, as opposed to principled grounds, do you oppose the law in question?
I'm not saying seatbelt laws are on the same scale, but if laws working is justification for not trying to change them, then we would still be back in the times where only landowning white men were able to vote in AMerica. It WORKED and met it's desired aim, why change it?
Because that particular aim had a huge negative impact on the lives of millions of human beings.
What negative impact does legally being required to wear a seatbelt have on anyone?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Perdition, posted 04-22-2009 11:32 AM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Perdition, posted 04-22-2009 4:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 140 of 151 (506105)
04-22-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
04-22-2009 3:10 PM


Re: Smoking while pregnant
Not being able to vote is only a negative thing in principle. Considering nearly half of the country doesn't vote as it is, not being able to vote doesn't actually hurt a person. While it's true, it may lead to laws being enacted that harm the people who have no recourse, it's not a direct effect of not voting.
Likewise, not being free to choose to wear a seatbelt or not doesn't have a direct negative impact, and in fact, could very potentially save your life. My opposition to this type of law is a principled one, and no matter what statistics may say about how many lives the law has saved (which as Onifre has pointed out, is not easily determined, since we can only show that wearing a seatbelt helped in a particular case, but not the reasoning behind WHY a seatbelt was worn) I don't think it's a fair trade-off.
As it has been quoted, or misquoted, "Those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."
I'm not a rightwing, libertarian whackjob, I think there are legitimate reasons for outlawing things that harm other people, but I don't like a law that protects a person from themselves, it seems to go against self-determination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 04-22-2009 3:10 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2009 9:15 AM Perdition has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 141 of 151 (506150)
04-23-2009 9:15 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Perdition
04-22-2009 4:18 PM


Seatbelts
We seem to both agree that we would generally choose to wear a seatbelt ourselves. We also seem to agree that we would encourage anybody else that we care about to wear one too.
Presumably we therefore also agree that wearing a seatbelt does indeed increase safety and save lives to some extent at least.
We also seem to agree that a great deal of indirect harm to others can be caused by needless loss of life.
Not being able to vote is only a negative thing in principle.
Untrue. Not being able to vote and having no government representation as a result has absolutely massive practical consequences!!!!!!!!!! But that is beside the point. I am very pro-principle. ALL laws are ultimately the result of one principle or another. I am just against the blind adherence to a single principle (e.g. self determination) in the face of pragmatic compromise with regard to another principle (e.g. attempting to stop the needless loss of life that in itself causes indirect harm to others). Most laws are a pragmatic balancing act of different principles but we all (including me) can all too often be blinded by principled arguments when pragmatic ones are just as relevant.
The legally enforced wearing of seatblets seems to be a fairly trivial compromise of any principle. The fact that you seem unable to specifiy exactly which principle is being compromised only adds to my conviction of this.
Enforced seatbelt wearing seems to be effective in terms of having the desired result of saving lives and reducing the indirect harm caused to others that loss of life leads to. It also seems to have no real practical negative impact of any consequence on anybody at all.
Thus on balance legally enforcing seatbelt use seems like a perfectly legitimate law to me. For what it is worth the vast majority of the Western world (and much of the non-Western world) seems to agree with this assessment.
So what actual benefit to anyone do you think there would be in repealing these laws?
"Those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither freedom nor safety."
The actual quote from Benjamin Franklin (a quote whose sentiment I would claim to be largely in agreement with) is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Is the right to not wear a seatbelt really an "Essential Liberty"........?
Edited by Straggler, : Change subject
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Perdition, posted 04-22-2009 4:18 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Perdition, posted 04-23-2009 2:42 PM Straggler has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 142 of 151 (506179)
04-23-2009 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Straggler
04-23-2009 9:15 AM


Re: Seatbelts
The legally enforced wearing of seatblets seems to be a fairly trivial compromise of any principle. The fact that you seem unable to specifiy exactly which principle is being compromised only adds to my conviction of this.
The principle is self-determination.
I don't want to sound heartless, I think saving lives is a noble and worthwhile goal, but when a person isn't willing to do something simple to protect themselves, then let them get hurt.
When I first started driving 10 years ago, my own rule was I didn't move the car until everyone was belted in. I did that without need of a law because I understood the safety issue.
As I drove more and more, I became more lax, and would occassionally even drive without a belt on myself. That was during my late teen, invinceable stage, and I could definitely see a law applying to young drivers, just as there are daylight driving and passenger restrictions on young drivers.
Once a person is 18, however, they are considered able to determine their own course in life, and they can amke it as risky or safe as they choose. If they knowingly engage in a risky endeavor and end up getting hurt, I feel bad for them, but it was their choice. I never jump to the conclusion that we should outlaw what they did to protect other people, I just think we should make sure everyone is aware, or more aware of the risks, and then let people make up their own minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2009 9:15 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2009 5:02 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 149 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-12-2009 2:00 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 143 of 151 (506185)
04-23-2009 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Perdition
04-23-2009 2:42 PM


Re: Seatbelts
The principle is self-determination.
OK.
I don't want to sound heartless, I think saving lives is a noble and worthwhile goal, but when a person isn't willing to do something simple to protect themselves, then let them get hurt.
It is not just about self harm. The principle is 'not hurting others'. Whether directly or indirectly.
When I first started driving 10 years ago, my own rule was I didn't move the car until everyone was belted in. I did that without need of a law because I understood the safety issue.
Seatbelt use has, in Britain at least, become the overwhelming norm rather than the exception since the law was introduced.
As I drove more and more, I became more lax, and would occassionally even drive without a belt on myself. That was during my late teen, invinceable stage, and I could definitely see a law applying to young drivers, just as there are daylight driving and passenger restrictions on young drivers.
For purely pragmatic reasons why complicate the law with age restrictions? A blanket law for such an insignificant compromise is simpler to impose, enforce and understand without unnecessary complication or beauracracy.
Once a person is 18, however, they are considered able to determine their own course in life, and they can amke it as risky or safe as they choose. If they knowingly engage in a risky endeavor and end up getting hurt, I feel bad for them, but it was their choice. I never jump to the conclusion that we should outlaw what they did to protect other people, I just think we should make sure everyone is aware, or more aware of the risks, and then let people make up their own minds.
I would say that legal enforcement of seatbelt use for all is in practise a case of balancing a very trivial and insignificant compromise of 'self determination' against a relatively major risk of direct harm to self resulting in significant indirect 'harm to others'. In practise it seems to have been reasonably effective at achieving that aim.
I guess that if anyone really disagrees with the seatbelt law on grounds of principle then they can break the law, pay the fine on the rare occasion that they do actually get caught and consider it a sort of danger/freedom "tax" paid instead of higher insurance premiums. But to my mind that would be an OTT reaction.
As would revoking the law.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Perdition, posted 04-23-2009 2:42 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Perdition, posted 04-23-2009 6:06 PM Straggler has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 144 of 151 (506188)
04-23-2009 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Straggler
04-23-2009 5:02 PM


Re: Seatbelts
It is not just about self harm. The principle is 'not hurting others'. Whether directly or indirectly.
"Indirect harm" seems to me to be a vague concept. Yeah, having someone die in a car crash makes others sad, and if that person is making money for the family, it can bring hardship, but in America, the vast majority of families have two working partners. Often the person who dies will have life insurance, so the monetary hardship can be mitigated against. As for the feeling sad about the death, I can sympathize. I worry about it, probably more than I should, everytime my fiancee gets up to drive the half hour to work, knowing she's tired. But I trust her to make the right decisions, I don't force her to. If a person knows their significant other, or any friend or family member is driving without a seatbelt, then talk to them and try to convince them that what they're doing is a bad choice, especially when the alternative is so easy.
Seatbelt use has, in Britain at least, become the norm rather than the exception since the law was introduced.
That's great, but is it a consequence or merely a correlation? I admit, it's probably a consequence, but if the law were repealed, would a significant part of the population go back to not wearing a seatbelt? If so, that speaks to a deeper issue in the people than seatbelt use.
For purely pragmatic reasons why complicate the law with age restrictions. A blanket law is simpler to impose, enforce and understand without unnecessary complication or beauracracy.
Because, in my state at least, we already have age restrictions on driving. It's a very good way to get good driving habits instilled in a class of people most prone to making driving mistakes, as well as giving adults the self-determination I, at least, value so much.
I would say that legal enforcement of seatbelt use is in practise a case of balancing a very trivial and insignificant compromise of 'self determination' against a relatively major risk of direct harm to self resulting in indirect 'harm to others'. In practise it seems to have been reasonably effective at achieving that aim.
I don't see it as trivially as you do, and I don't see the risk as greatly as you do. Yes, IF a person gets into an accident, a seatbelt will help. How often have you been in an accident? I haven't been in any where the seatbelt would have made any difference. Only one person in my family has been in an accident where the seatbelt made any difference, passive safety devices such as airbags have made seatbelts less necessary.
I guess that if anyone really disagrees with the seatbelt law on grounds of principle then they can break the law, pay the fine on the rare occasion that they do actually get caught and consider it a sort of danger/freedom "tax" paid instead of higher insurance premiums. But to my mind that would be an OTT reaction.
As would I, putting yourself at a risk you would not normally engage in just to oppose a law is asinine in my mind. If a person disagrees with the law, and truly doesn't want to drive with a seatbelt, they won't. If they get pulled over, they will try to get it on before the officer gets to their window. I've seen that happen many times, I've even been forced to do it in one instance because I was, perhaps against my better judgment, trying to take off my coat while driving, and sped up faster than I was anticipating I would.
I guess we'll just disagree on this, both of us will continue driving around with our seatbelts on, and not feel any major problem until one of us makes a mistake and gets a fine, not because we hurt anyone, or were going to in any probability, but because we didn't do enough, in the mind of the state, to protect ourselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2009 5:02 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2009 6:43 PM Perdition has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 145 of 151 (506191)
04-23-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Perdition
04-23-2009 6:06 PM


Re: Seatbelts
Yeah, having someone die in a car crash makes others sad....
Sad.....?! It potentially destroys the lives of dependents (i.e. kids), family more generally (i.e. parents etc.) and even those strangers who are involved in otherwise avoidably fatal accidents.
Even if we ignore financial factors (which personally I would not) the indirect effects of death to others are amongst the most significant events most of those "others" will ever face in their entire lives.
"Indirect harm" seems to me to be a vague concept.
And the legal requirement to wear a seatbelt seems a trivial and insignificant compromise in the practical context of "freedom and self determination".
The indirect harm to others caused by death seems far more tangible, meaningful and personally relevant to me than the pragmatically meaningless "infringement of principle" concept you are advocating with respect to this particular law...........
I admit, it's probably a consequence, but if the law were repealed, would a significant part of the population go back to not wearing a seatbelt?
I think it is largely a consequence.
But whether the law is an instigator or reflector of the prevailing cultural attitude I remain unclear as to what you think specifically would be actually gained, rather than potentially lost, by repealing the particular law in question?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Perdition, posted 04-23-2009 6:06 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Perdition, posted 04-24-2009 11:03 AM Straggler has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3320 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 146 of 151 (506245)
04-24-2009 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Straggler
04-23-2009 6:43 PM


Re: Seatbelts
You know, I think we're just going to disagree on this, and while I disagree with the law, I don't consider it of such importance that I worry about it too much. It doesn't make me do anything I wouldn't normally do, and you're right, it makes it safer for people to drive.
I'm not about to start a campaign to repeal the law, but were it to come to a referendum in my state, I would vote to repeal it. That's about as far as I'd be willing to go against it.
I had a counter example all planned in my head regarding obesity and the effect that has, often leading to death but which we don't impose a fine for, but it would just end up in us going in another circle.
I do honestly enjoy debating, and you're one of the better posters on this site, so keep up the good work. I just think we're talking in circles now and considering we're unlikely to change our opinions and we're a bit off topic, I'm going to have to gracefully concede a draw.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Straggler, posted 04-23-2009 6:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 04-24-2009 3:02 PM Perdition has not replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 147 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 147 of 151 (506262)
04-24-2009 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Perdition
04-24-2009 11:03 AM


Re: Seatbelts
I'm not about to start a campaign to repeal the law, but were it to come to a referendum in my state, I would vote to repeal it. That's about as far as I'd be willing to go against it.
Fair enough. I think we would both wholeheartedly agree that this is your democratic right.
I had a counter example all planned in my head regarding obesity and the effect that has, often leading to death but which we don't impose a fine for, but it would just end up in us going in another circle.
I think the difficulty and intrusiveness of enforcement would pragmatically differentiate such a law from enforced seatbelt wearing specifically but.........
Perhaps one for another day?
I do honestly enjoy debating, and you're one of the better posters on this site, so keep up the good work.
I accept your compliment and return it back to you.
I just think we're talking in circles now and considering we're unlikely to change our opinions and we're a bit off topic, I'm going to have to gracefully concede a draw.
Fine by me. As I said earlier in this thread I think laws will inevitably be partially irrational as they are necessarily derived from subjective opinion as to which principle most applies in which situation. Thus there are no "right" answers.
Good talking to you. No hard feelings despite any disagreement. And I will no doubt see you elsewhere on this forum.
Take it easy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Perdition, posted 04-24-2009 11:03 AM Perdition has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3033 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 148 of 151 (511864)
06-12-2009 11:47 AM


Found an interesting article about Phillip Morris and it's support of a new Bill...and the real reason why they support it.
Smoke Signals: Why a Tobacco Giant Is Backing a Tough New Antismoking Bill
A couple of quotes...
quote:
The U.S. Senate on Thursday struck the most devastating legislative blow in history to Big Tobacco, giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over the industry. The new bill, which passed in the House in April, includes tough new restrictions on advertising like allowing only black-and-white text ads in magazines with substantial youth readerships, mandates that manufacturers prove or stop using claims like "light" and "low tar," bans flavored cigarettes (except menthol) and makes provisions for large, graphic warning labels. So why, then, is tobacco giant Philip Morris, unlike its industry brethren, celebrating the unprecedented oversight?
When Senator John McCain introduced FDA regulatory legislation in 1998, the company spent a reported $100 million successfully fighting it. But since then, Philip Morris has had a crucial realization. With 50% of the U.S. tobacco market already safely in the company's pocket - and more than 50% of 18- to 25-year-old smokers loyal to its top brand, Marlboro - restrictive legislation will effectively lock in its market dominance, preventing any competitors from taking a bite out of Philip Morris' very lucrative business.
But there's another key reason Philip Morris lobbied hard for FDA regulation, aligning itself with strange bedfellows like the Campaign for Smoke-Free Kids, the American Lung Association and longtime antismoking crusaders Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Henry Waxman. "Philip Morris wants the public-health community to join them in finding the holy grail: the safe cigarette," says Gregory Connolly, a tobacco expert and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Simply put, figuring out how to produce a less harmful tobacco product and getting an FDA seal of approval could open up a whole new, potentially huge consumer market.
Enjoy
- Oni

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 151 (511891)
06-12-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Perdition
04-23-2009 2:42 PM


Re: Seatbelts
I don't want to sound heartless, I think saving lives is a noble and worthwhile goal, but when a person isn't willing to do something simple to protect themselves, then let them get hurt.
Damn right... I just can't feel sorry for daredevils or bullfighters when they get hurt.
Yeah, ya know, maybe you got hurt because you faced off with a 2,000 pound beast of pure instinct. Maybe... I don't know...

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run." --Sydney J. Harris--

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Perdition, posted 04-23-2009 2:42 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by 1.61803, posted 06-24-2014 5:39 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1526 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 150 of 151 (730122)
06-23-2014 11:25 PM


deleted
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024