freakinacage
Well-known member
the only things i have to hide are things i shouldn\'t be doing anyway! anyway the only things i do in my room are sleep, sculpt and read (sadly!)
Good going anti smokers
- Thread starter Evil Dave
- Start date
the only things i have to hide are things i shouldn\'t be doing anyway! anyway the only things i do in my room are sleep, sculpt and read (sadly!)
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
:innocent: Government can bow out on what I put into my mouth (ok, get your mind out of the gutter 
).
But there is always the exceptions to the rule ..The youngest kid is studying the late 1800’s to early 1900’s in US History, and how the government was forced to step in and regulate our foods...because business sure was going to do it on their own.. example in her book, what went on in slaughter houses (nasty) and the watering down of milk, sold to the public.
Just trying to show that some thing good can come out of Government interference.
).But there is always the exceptions to the rule ..The youngest kid is studying the late 1800’s to early 1900’s in US History, and how the government was forced to step in and regulate our foods...because business sure was going to do it on their own.. example in her book, what went on in slaughter houses (nasty) and the watering down of milk, sold to the public.
Just trying to show that some thing good can come out of Government interference.funnymouth
Active member
seems to me that this distinction does not actually exist. someone will always exploit information. i do not want to be the target of this exploitation. i have nothing to hide, but that doesnt mean that i want to live under constant scrutiny. hell maybe i do have something to hide, perhaps im drinking untaxed soda, or smoking a cuban cigar, or having sex in a position which is locally illegal, or breaking any number of pathetic (and contrived) laws. the fuzz tapped my phone and look in to my house using infrared technology; now the \"secret police\" have a reason to bust in to my house? im not even a minority - what if i was middle eastern? its McCarthyism all over again.
as for the soda tax - my income tax money is going to pay for teeth and diabetes medicine for people who drank a bunch of soda and cant afford health care. is that fair? why dont they pay for it - and drink less soda along the way? everyone has vices, thats fine, id rather not pay for their consiquences though.
darthfoley
Active member
So Big Brother is fine as long as it doesn\'t effect you personally?
Let\'s say (obviously a stretch...but maybe not that much of one) that they decide to use their illegal \'information gathering\' to find out who smokes (or owns guns...or whatever) and specifically target those people for heightened surveillance/investigation.
Is it ok then?
It\'s just another example of the dichotomy I don\'t understand, like folks who think this spying is ok but then get horribly panty-twisted if someone suggests gun control. Or, in my current local example, the vocal minority writing constant letters to the newspaper lately decrying Abe Lincoln as a monster who ignored the Bill of Rights while in the same sentence lending full support to the current abuse of the same.
/shrug
funnymouth
Active member
lol darth, we made the same post at the same time!
Uh, guys...The government knows what you are doing anyway, the Patriot Act just puts it out in the open.
The FBI have had a file on me and my wife since the Clinton era.
Why do you ask?
Vampire: The Masquerade, when those teenage goth vampire wannabe\'s went on a murder spree.
When you buy a gun you have to register it anyway, who do you think gets that info?
The Patriot Act, pshaw, look up Project Echelon, that\'s scary, think back to the GURPS \"Cyberpunk\" Fiasco
The FBI have had a file on me and my wife since the Clinton era.
Why do you ask?
Vampire: The Masquerade, when those teenage goth vampire wannabe\'s went on a murder spree.
When you buy a gun you have to register it anyway, who do you think gets that info?
The Patriot Act, pshaw, look up Project Echelon, that\'s scary, think back to the GURPS \"Cyberpunk\" Fiasco
Odd this comes up, coz I was thinking something similar to this. Obesity is becoming as big a health problem as smoking, thus taxing fattening foods is a logical next step. So would making it be illegal to be obese, it would actually be pretty easy to monitor and enforce as well.
Interestingly what started me off on this train of thought is a new law they are trying to introduce here in NSW that would make it illegal to smoke in your car. Yes you read that right. And that is illegal even if you are the only one in the car... Supposedly its to stop people smoking in cars with children or pregnant women. I think this one may be a little hard to enforce...
Interestingly what started me off on this train of thought is a new law they are trying to introduce here in NSW that would make it illegal to smoke in your car. Yes you read that right. And that is illegal even if you are the only one in the car... Supposedly its to stop people smoking in cars with children or pregnant women. I think this one may be a little hard to enforce...
darthfoley
Active member
If you have no problems with that, then there\'s probably little point in continuing the discussion anyway.
No Such Agency
New member
In some circles, having an FBI file is considered a point of distinction.
Disturbed1
New member
Having an FBI file is more common than you might think.
I\'ve had one since my senior year of high school.
Not because of a crime, but because of a school assignment.
We had a mock United Nations debate.
I was assigned to represent the PLO (the only Jew in the class gets to represent the PLO... the irony)
We had to contact the organizations we represented. By sending and receiving mail to/from the PLO, I acquired an FBI file.
This was in 1989, long before 9/11/2001.
The US political situation is so screwed up, it boggles my mind.
Instead of fixing a problem, let\'s place higher taxes on it\'s symptoms.
I\'ve had one since my senior year of high school.
Not because of a crime, but because of a school assignment.
We had a mock United Nations debate.
I was assigned to represent the PLO (the only Jew in the class gets to represent the PLO... the irony)
We had to contact the organizations we represented. By sending and receiving mail to/from the PLO, I acquired an FBI file.
This was in 1989, long before 9/11/2001.
The US political situation is so screwed up, it boggles my mind.
Instead of fixing a problem, let\'s place higher taxes on it\'s symptoms.
Ebonbuddha
Active member
Ok. Yeah. I know I have been ignored lately when I make a post, but I am going to say this. Especially since I am the only diabetic on these forums, or at least one who has said he is diabetic. Diabetes isn’t just caused by sodas, candy, or fast food. Its not just lazy fat people who get diabetes either. I worked with a guy in America who was 6’7” or 6’6” (204 cm-207cm) He weighed 550lbs (249kg.) the guy ate two large pizzas for his lunch I witnessed it. He didn’t have diabetes. I am 6’5” (198cm) and about 380lbs (180kg to 190 kg) I eat salads, healthy foods, and Junk foods. I went to the gym two or three times a week and I have diabetes. It’s not fair I tell you.
There are a lot of people who can’t afford their diabetic medicine who are old, or had pancreas cancer. In my case, It runs in my family. There are three or four people in my mother’s side of family who have diabetes. This isn’t including me. It’s the same on my father’s side of the family too. So, it’s just not people who are negligent.
There are a lot of people who can’t afford their diabetic medicine who are old, or had pancreas cancer. In my case, It runs in my family. There are three or four people in my mother’s side of family who have diabetes. This isn’t including me. It’s the same on my father’s side of the family too. So, it’s just not people who are negligent.
Disturbed1
New member
Ebonbuddha, you\'re absolutely right.
Diabetes runs in my family as well.
Meds are very expensive, especially if you have little or no health coverage. Those with lower income are affected more so.
No matter how healthy your lifestyle is, you never know when genetics will rear it\'s ugly head.
Diabetes runs in my family as well.
Meds are very expensive, especially if you have little or no health coverage. Those with lower income are affected more so.
No matter how healthy your lifestyle is, you never know when genetics will rear it\'s ugly head.
darthfoley
Active member
I am as well, Ebon. Mine is partly hereditary (father\'s side) and partly indulgence in sweets when I was younger, I imagine.
Avelorn
Sven Jonsson
Prohibiting smoking in public places is about workconditions etc. And is not a paternalistic law as such. not IMO anyway. While adding higher taxes could be more paternalistic both with cigarettes and soda. But on the other hand if they reason that smoking and overweight costs this and that to the society.. well. Then the question is about which opinion you take in a more general, state welfare vs private insurances, debate.
However I agree with the points by Funymouth etc. There are other far more worrying things. The problem with all types of surveillance is that the anomalies of the system is defined by those who create and implement it. So \"nothing to hide\" today.. might be a reason for blacklisting tomorrow. The historic examples are many. The state generally introduce these kinds of measures \"in times of need\" under great controversy but.. they somehow manages to stick around.
However I agree with the points by Funymouth etc. There are other far more worrying things. The problem with all types of surveillance is that the anomalies of the system is defined by those who create and implement it. So \"nothing to hide\" today.. might be a reason for blacklisting tomorrow. The historic examples are many. The state generally introduce these kinds of measures \"in times of need\" under great controversy but.. they somehow manages to stick around.
generulpoleaxe
New member
the goverments put extra tax on certain products to increase there own revenue.
they don\'t do it to help us.
if they realy gave a shit they would limit the amount of sugar etc that the manufacturers put in the product.
all goverments lie, all goverments try to control.
we no longer have a choice about goverment, only which muppets are going to be in charge of screwing us.
democracy fell apart when it became a career instead of doing it for the good of the people.
they don\'t do it to help us.
if they realy gave a shit they would limit the amount of sugar etc that the manufacturers put in the product.
all goverments lie, all goverments try to control.
we no longer have a choice about goverment, only which muppets are going to be in charge of screwing us.
democracy fell apart when it became a career instead of doing it for the good of the people.
Ebonbuddha
Active member
I didn\'t know that about you Darth. how long hae you been diabetic? I hear you about the childhood sweets. I was around Krispy Kremems before they became popular.
You guys want to hear something ironic? I was making a salad today and I was using and read the ingredients on the box. Sugar is in my salad dressing. I read my wife\'s Johnny\'s Season Salt.It contained sugar...I don\'t think we can blame just sodas. There are alot of foods that have sugar in them. We can blame only sodas like we can only blame McDonalds for woes.
You guys want to hear something ironic? I was making a salad today and I was using and read the ingredients on the box. Sugar is in my salad dressing. I read my wife\'s Johnny\'s Season Salt.It contained sugar...I don\'t think we can blame just sodas. There are alot of foods that have sugar in them. We can blame only sodas like we can only blame McDonalds for woes.
airhead
Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Diabetes seems to strike a very random pattern. Some people are more apt to come down with it due to weight or heredity (combining the two seems really bad - think I\'m probably headed there myself.)
But taxing sodas is somewhat stupid. First that money will not be \'set aside\' for diabetes research. All taxes (except for a select few \'off line items\' like social security) go into the general fund and are redistributed by the budget.
And this is from a government that cares about us? We have to wear seatbelts in a car - but helmates are optional on a motercycyle? Just shows the motercycle lobby is better than the insurance lobby that got the seatbelt laws passed. Look for the healt nazi lobby that is behind this.
But taxing sodas is somewhat stupid. First that money will not be \'set aside\' for diabetes research. All taxes (except for a select few \'off line items\' like social security) go into the general fund and are redistributed by the budget.
And this is from a government that cares about us? We have to wear seatbelts in a car - but helmates are optional on a motercycyle? Just shows the motercycle lobby is better than the insurance lobby that got the seatbelt laws passed. Look for the healt nazi lobby that is behind this.
S
sebrushworth
Guest
I think it\'s frightening how many governments think they have a right to tell people how to live their lives. Apparently our government party here in Sweden is also considering a tax on sweets (which they are of course waiting until after the election before trying to implement). Let people decide for themselves for god\'s sake!
The thing that really disturbs me is when even liberal governments which are supposedly against telling people how to live their lives try to implement these kinds of laws. I\'m not the least bit surprised when conservatives and socialists do it though, because they generally think the government has a right/obligation to make people behave \"correctly\".
The thing that really disturbs me is when even liberal governments which are supposedly against telling people how to live their lives try to implement these kinds of laws. I\'m not the least bit surprised when conservatives and socialists do it though, because they generally think the government has a right/obligation to make people behave \"correctly\".
funnymouth
Active member
ebonbudda, you make a good point, and i am very well aware that diabetes occurs for many reasons - one of my closest friends has a very extreem case that he has had since adolecence (type 1). that doesnt change the fact that type 2 diabetes is dramatically on the rise and that 1 out of every 10 dollars spent on health care in the US is spent on diabetes (in 2002 it was $92 billion, plus another $40 billion in indirect costs). is it wrong to want to reduce the number of diabeties cases? no. is it wrong to tax an item to reduce consumption and generate money to help treat a symptom of its abuse, or to educate people about its dangers? i dont know, but id say no.
soda is a LUXURY item with many serious health consiquences. its not like they are taxing water, or food. you should be able to buy it, but that doesnt mean that it should be cheep. if we are going to tax things, why not luxury items? seems logical to me. if along the way we can help prevent teeth from rotting out of kids faces and reduce the likelyhood that they will develop health problems later in life because their parents cant afford the sweet sweet poison than im all for it. soda is not a substitute for fluids - it is candy, and most people (apparently) dont know that.
p.s. i read your posts
edit: keep in mind that it is a TAX, not a legal restriction. you can still buy all the soda in the world if you so choose, and i support your right to do so.
soda is a LUXURY item with many serious health consiquences. its not like they are taxing water, or food. you should be able to buy it, but that doesnt mean that it should be cheep. if we are going to tax things, why not luxury items? seems logical to me. if along the way we can help prevent teeth from rotting out of kids faces and reduce the likelyhood that they will develop health problems later in life because their parents cant afford the sweet sweet poison than im all for it. soda is not a substitute for fluids - it is candy, and most people (apparently) dont know that.
p.s. i read your posts
edit: keep in mind that it is a TAX, not a legal restriction. you can still buy all the soda in the world if you so choose, and i support your right to do so.
