Key anti-smoking treaty adopted

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Gaard touched upon the salvation of American fair taxation. Toilet paper. Eliminate all taxes and impose whatever is needed to compensate as a tax on TP. We are not going to stop buying it, and everyone is going to use it fairly equally regardless of disposable income.

You'll see newspaper, papertowel and Kleenex sales skyrocket.

no, there will spring forth a huge black market on undergound TP, gangs will roam the streets armed to protect their TP hood...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Alistar7
put the product under the jurisdiction of the body it belongs under and let it pass the same standards all other products governed by the FDA must do so to be placed on the market. I trust the FDA to make a better informed decision tha you or I.

You trust too much. It was the same government that banned hemp.

At any rate, banning it or putting it under the FDA will do nothing. Banning drugs did nothing to stem the tide of abuse. Banning alcohol did nothing to stem the tise of drinking. Banning the most adictive drug of all, tobacco, will do nothing.

But, these laws DO have an effect. They create huge and extremely dangerous underground black markets that hurt and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. And in the fight against these gangs, we see our civil rights slowly erode away.

Just stop it. You, and the government you so naively trust, are not our mothers. You are not our saviors, and the people do not need you to save them from themselves.

I do not trust the Govt. I know exaclty why hemp was outlawed, had nothing to do with the FDA. It was the same exact type of special interests shaping laws to protect their own financial interests.

We do not need to the Govt. to save us from ourselves, but they are supposed to help protect us from companies who will even use a deadly addcitive product marketed towards children wo make a buck, not get a cut and grease the way.

We don't need our Govt. to save us from ourselves, we need to save our Govt. for ourselves.

Exactly. We need to save our government from busy-body little nannies who blame various companies for their own lack of parenting. If your child starts smoking, it isn't the government's fault, it isn't the tobacco company's fault, it's YOUR fault.

Stop bleeting the anti-smoking mantra like a brain dead sheep for just a minute and THINK about this. You want protection from comapnies? DON'T BUY OR USE THEIR PRODUCTS and instruct your kids to do the same.

 

[Gaard]

I keep a roll in my trunk. You know, for those emergencies during long drives.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Gaard touched upon the salvation of American fair taxation. Toilet paper. Eliminate all taxes and impose whatever is needed to compensate as a tax on TP. We are not going to stop buying it, and everyone is going to use it fairly equally regardless of disposable income.

You'll see newspaper, papertowel and Kleenex sales skyrocket.

no, there will spring forth a huge black market on undergound TP, gangs will roam the streets armed to protect their TP hood...

Nope. In this case TP is easily substituted with other products. I know, I've run out of the stuff enough...

No need to pay greatly inflated taxes or black market prices.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Alistar7
put the product under the jurisdiction of the body it belongs under and let it pass the same standards all other products governed by the FDA must do so to be placed on the market. I trust the FDA to make a better informed decision tha you or I.

You trust too much. It was the same government that banned hemp.

At any rate, banning it or putting it under the FDA will do nothing. Banning drugs did nothing to stem the tide of abuse. Banning alcohol did nothing to stem the tise of drinking. Banning the most adictive drug of all, tobacco, will do nothing.

But, these laws DO have an effect. They create huge and extremely dangerous underground black markets that hurt and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. And in the fight against these gangs, we see our civil rights slowly erode away.

Just stop it. You, and the government you so naively trust, are not our mothers. You are not our saviors, and the people do not need you to save them from themselves.

I do not trust the Govt. I know exaclty why hemp was outlawed, had nothing to do with the FDA. It was the same exact type of special interests shaping laws to protect their own financial interests.

We do not need to the Govt. to save us from ourselves, but they are supposed to help protect us from companies who will even use a deadly addcitive product marketed towards children wo make a buck, not get a cut and grease the way.

We don't need our Govt. to save us from ourselves, we need to save our Govt. for ourselves.

Exactly. We need to save our government from busy-body little nannies who blame various companies for their own lack of parenting. If your child starts smoking, it isn't the government's fault, it isn't the tobacco company's fault, it's YOUR fault.

Stop bleeting the anti-smoking mantra like a brain dead sheep for just a minute and THINK about this. You want protection from comapnies? DON'T BUY OR USE THEIR PRODUCTS and instruct your kids to do the same.

stop bleating that right wing crap and wake up.

We need to save our govt. because it is controlled by business, not the people.

Tobacco is somewhat unique given it's history and economic implications, however the actions of that industry and our govt.'s collusion and assistance should be an affront to any american. They paid them off for years to keep the FDA away, and when they finally had to pay the piper, the money all goes tothe Govt., funny, they don't deny the adverse financial affect on society now.

The govt. will do whatever they have to keep their share of the money rolling in, and the tobacco companies will go along as long as they can continue to operate. How is this extra money being raised, by taxing the product even more, fantastic. Now let's sit idly by while they prey even more on people like your mohter, hooked to her death, to make even more money. They must be really concerned about us though, otherwise they wouldn't have sued right? That's why the FDA is still not in the picture, even after cigarette manufactures basically admitted to altering nicotine levels. Not much dispute when there are your own records as evidence.

 

[Vic]

My grandfather smoked 2 packs a day for 80 years and lived to be 94, dying of natural causes.

Put that in your fscking propagandist pipe and smoke it.

 

[Gaard]

My aunt smoked 2 packs a day for 30 years and died of lung cancer around 50 years old.

 

[Vic]

I knew a girl who never smoked a day in her life and died of cancer at 26.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Alistar7
put the product under the jurisdiction of the body it belongs under and let it pass the same standards all other products governed by the FDA must do so to be placed on the market. I trust the FDA to make a better informed decision tha you or I.

You trust too much. It was the same government that banned hemp.

At any rate, banning it or putting it under the FDA will do nothing. Banning drugs did nothing to stem the tide of abuse. Banning alcohol did nothing to stem the tise of drinking. Banning the most adictive drug of all, tobacco, will do nothing.

But, these laws DO have an effect. They create huge and extremely dangerous underground black markets that hurt and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. And in the fight against these gangs, we see our civil rights slowly erode away.

Just stop it. You, and the government you so naively trust, are not our mothers. You are not our saviors, and the people do not need you to save them from themselves.

I do not trust the Govt. I know exaclty why hemp was outlawed, had nothing to do with the FDA. It was the same exact type of special interests shaping laws to protect their own financial interests.

We do not need to the Govt. to save us from ourselves, but they are supposed to help protect us from companies who will even use a deadly addcitive product marketed towards children wo make a buck, not get a cut and grease the way.

We don't need our Govt. to save us from ourselves, we need to save our Govt. for ourselves.

Exactly. We need to save our government from busy-body little nannies who blame various companies for their own lack of parenting. If your child starts smoking, it isn't the government's fault, it isn't the tobacco company's fault, it's YOUR fault.

Stop bleeting the anti-smoking mantra like a brain dead sheep for just a minute and THINK about this. You want protection from comapnies? DON'T BUY OR USE THEIR PRODUCTS and instruct your kids to do the same.

stop bleating that right wing crap and wake up.

We need to save our govt. because it is controlled by business, not the people.

Tobacco is somewhat unique given it's history and economic implications, however the actions of that industry and our govt.'s collusion and assistance should be an affront to any american. They paid them off for years to keep the FDA away, and when they finally had to pay the piper, the money all goes tothe Govt., funny, they don't deny the adverse financial affect on society now.

The govt. will do whatever they have to keep their share of the money rolling in, and the tobacco companies will go along as long as they can continue to operate. How is this extra money being raised, by taxing the product even more, fantastic. Now let's sit idly by while they prey even more on people like your mohter, hooked to her death, to make even more money. They must be really concerned about us though, otherwise they wouldn't have sued right? That's why the FDA is still not in the picture, even after cigarette manufactures basically admitted to altering nicotine levels. Not much dispute when there are your own records as evidence.

The fact that you think I'm "right wing" only proves how naive you are. When it comes to social issues, I'm about as left wing and anti-authoritarian as can be. BANNING tobacco IS right-wing. It is an authoritarian measure taken to control individuals. It's cloaked as "anti-corporate" but the fact of the matter is, people will still smoke long after tobacco companies are gone. They'll just be replaced by gangsters and drug dealers.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Vic
I knew a girl who never smoked a day in her life and died of cancer at 26.

she must have hung out with your grandfather......


amused, the right has protected tobacco as much as the left, but it is their lingo that uses the term "personal responsibility", that is not a democratic party line....

you might not be right wing, but that stance is.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Amused
So much for freedom.

Had they been interested in education and awareness campaigns, I'd support them. But it seems they are more interested in authoritarian policy.

Did you bother finding out more about the treaty, or is this just one of your canned "evil socialists are taking away our freedoms" responces?

The report I saw on this said that the treaty is about setting controls on tobacco, such as ones that are already in place in north america. For example, having inappropriate ads, mainly those targetted towards kids in countries with lax rules, would be outlawed. Also things like having models hand out free cigs to kids at concerts would be stopped.

Marty, I DID read it. Controls on advertising beyond truth in advertising laws (enforced by civil suit) are simply wrong, and pointless. The Joe Camel hysteria was a joke. No matter how they advertise, they will be accused of targeting kids.

Lucky pretty much sums it up in his post. So I wont repeat any of it.

My reactions to things are not 'canned" Marty.

I can assure you, they're very predictable. Anyway, I'll reply to both you and Lucky here:

I just finished reading over the higlights, and I must say the treaty is very reasonable and flexible. It's not about making countries oulaw cigs, but simply to bring the rest of the world up to the standards that we have here in Canada and the US.

Let's go over it article by article

1. Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship (Article 13) - This is simple. Advertising works, otherwise companies wouldn't be spending billions on it. If the tobacco companies can't advertise, fewer poeple will smoke, fewer people will die. If they can't advertise, only those poeple who really want to smoke will smoke, the companies will not be able to convince to smoke.

2. Packaging and Labeling (Article 11) - Cigarettes in both Canada and the US already have health warnings, this will simply make sure third world countries implement similar laws.

3. Secondhand Smoke (Article 8) - Unlike what Lucky thinks, this is simply meant to protect non-smokers from smokers, not outlaw smoking. Things we take for granted here (no smoking in office buildings, in subway stations etc) are unheard of in many countries. Remember, this treaty is about bringing the rest of the world up to our standards.

4. Smuggling (Article 15) - I don't think anybody has a problem with this.

5. Taxation & Duty Free Sales (Article 6) - What's the problem with this? In general, young people don't have as much money as adults, thus if you increase the price you will discourage them. This works both in theory and in practice. Examples:
-Alcohol here is expensive due to taxes and is one of the biggest reasons why I don't drink much. I can guarantee you that if alcohol prices went down, my drinking would increase.
-I work at a store and sell cigarettes among other things. young people buy the cheapest ones availble ($4.50/20), while adults buy the brand names ($6.50/20 and $7.50/25). The only time I sold expensive cigs to a yong person is when we ran out of the cheap ones.

6. Product Regulation & Ingredient Disclosure (Articles 9 & 10) - I don't think any of us have a problem with this.

7. Liability (Articles 4.5 and 19) - if companies don't play by the rules, sue them. Rather simple.

Overall, I don't see anything unreasonable, or anything we (N.A.) haven't already implemented. Of course, you can spin this anyway you want, but I encourage you to set aside your hatred of the UN and look at this in a objective manner.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic
I knew a girl who never smoked a day in her life and died of cancer at 26.

My grandpa died at 56 after many years of smoking 2 packs a day.


We can post empirical evidences til the sun explodes, but it won't change the fact that smoking increases the chance of cancer. Simple was that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic
I knew a girl who never smoked a day in her life and died of cancer at 26.

she must have hung out with your grandfather......

No... she got leukemia. :|

My point is not to provide empirical data. Nor do I refute that smoking is harmful to one's health.

My point is that you are all going to die anyway, everyone is going to die, and you should quit being such busybody pansy-assed pussies about it, terrified and poking into everyone's life and trying to tell them how to live. If they want to smoke, let them smoke, it's none of your business. edit: Simple as that.

'Tis better to live and die young than to die old having never lived.

 

[Lucky]

1. Advertising, Promotion and Sponsorship (Article 13) - This is simple. Advertising works, otherwise companies wouldn't be spending billions on it. If the tobacco companies can't advertise, fewer poeple will smoke, fewer people will die. If they can't advertise, only those poeple who really want to smoke will smoke, the companies will not be able to convince to smoke.

And thank god we have a constitution that take precedence over this POS treaty. I feel sorry for the folks in countries who don't. Why aren't you making the same argument for alcohol? Fewer people will drink and become alcoholics. Why not for cars? Then fewer people will pollute the air or being involved in car crashes.

2. Packaging and Labeling (Article 11) - Cigarettes in both Canada and the US already have health warnings, this will simply make sure third world countries implement similar laws.

Not really, it significantly changes and strengthens what is required on the pack. I actually dont have a problem with this, but it is a major change.

3. Secondhand Smoke (Article 8) - Unlike what Lucky thinks, this is simply meant to protect non-smokers from smokers, not outlaw smoking. Things we take for granted here (no smoking in office buildings, in subway stations etc) are unheard of in many countries. Remember, this treaty is about bringing the rest of the world up to our standards.

Sorry, it would outlaw many instances where smoke does not affect non-smokers. Like in well ventilated and seperated areas in restraunts and bars, and in workplaces with designated smoking areas. ALL public places. Eventually smoking will be restricted to just inside your home, as smoking inside your car will have long been banned under the guise of "safety" by then.

4. Smuggling (Article 15) - I don't think anybody has a problem with this.

Not so much the idea in theory but how will the application of it pan out.

5. Taxation & Duty Free Sales (Article 6) - What's the problem with this? In general, young people don't have as much money as adults, thus if you increase the price you will discourage them. This works both in theory and in practice. Examples:
-Alcohol here is expensive due to taxes and is one of the biggest reasons why I don't drink much. I can guarantee you that if alcohol prices went down, my drinking would increase.
-I work at a store and sell cigarettes among other things. young people buy the cheapest ones availble ($4.50/20), while adults buy the brand names ($6.50/20 and $7.50/25). The only time I sold expensive cigs to a yong person is when we ran out of the cheap ones.

So what, you are in favor of raping old people? What is your point? Artificially boosting the price to levels not in check with reality will only lead to underground markets, smuggling, and "homemade" products not popular yet. It is NOT your job to legislate choice.

6. Product Regulation & Ingredient Disclosure (Articles 9 & 10) - I don't think any of us have a problem with this.

I dont have a problem with ingrediant disclosure, but that's about it.

7. Liability (Articles 4.5 and 19) - if companies don't play by the rules, sue them. Rather simple.

And therein is the problem-who makes the rules? This was the main sticking point that held the US back from signing it. It essentially forces states to either sue, or participate in the suing, of a tobacco company, if the committee that heads this montrousity deems neccesary. The simple fact that cigarettes eventually kill will be enough grounds to sue-and force other states to participate-even if the whole goddamm pack said nothing but "this will kill you". At some point you have to take personal responsibility, and this treaty effectively says that doesnt matter.

Overall, I don't see anything unreasonable, or anything we (N.A.) haven't already implemented.

Im sorry, you really need to read it again if that's what you believe. I've pointed out a half dozen things this POS would do that we dont have right now. This has NOTHING to do with the UN. You are the FIRST person to bring that up. This does far more than simply restrict billboards, ban smoking on government turf, or require non smoking areas in restraunts. This is a measure so draconian that much of the advertisement portion of it is unconstitutional in the United States and will therefore not be able to be applied. I've listed some of the measures to be enacted, I challenge you to show me what of those we already have enacted on a federal level. Tell me how we already have a foreign body requiring our sovereign nation to raise taxes or participate in lawsuits. This will ban smoking in my workplace when absolutely no one has ever complained, or been affected in *any* way.

 

[Martin]

And thank god we have a constitution that take precedence over this POS treaty. I feel sorry for the folks in countries who don't. Why aren't you making the same argument for alcohol? Fewer people will drink and become alcoholics. Why not for cars? Then fewer people will pollute the air or being involved in car crashes.

The problem isn't drinking, its drinking AND driving. There are tons of PSAs, organiazations and a slew of other stuff to discourage people from drinking and driving.

Sorry, it would outlaw many instances where smoke does not affect non-smokers. Like in well ventilated and seperated areas in restraunts and bars, and in workplaces with designated smoking areas. ALL public places. Eventually smoking will be restricted to just inside your home, as smoking inside your car will have long been banned under the guise of "safety" by then.

Only if the Parties choose do to so. Toronto has a bylaw that gives resturants/bars a choice. Either be totally non-smoking, only smoking (people under 19 not allowed) or have a separate, ventilated room for smokers. A well designed law that makes sure everyone has a choice AND is compatible with the treaty. If Parties outlaw smoking in public areas, that would be THEIR fault, not the treaty's.


Look at this:

Nonsmokers must be protected in workplaces, public transport and indoor public places.

Unlike what you believe, it DOES NOT SAY "ban all smoking in all offices". If your goverment chooses to force all public builings to become non-smoking and doesn't give them a chance to intall smoking rooms, then that would be YOUR government's fault. The setup you have would work, since it protects non-smokers.



You see, what you are doing is not reading, but simply extrapolating unlikely extreme-case scenarios that make the treaty seem bad.

So what, you are in favor of raping old people? What is your point? Artificially boosting the price to levels not in check with reality will only lead to underground markets, smuggling, and "homemade" products not popular yet. It is NOT your job to legislate choice.

Not my job to legislate choice? Look around you!!! Why can't I buy a nuclear weapon? Why are goverments legislating my choice to buy nukes? Why are they legislating children's choices with such things as tobacco or alcohol???! We already legislate choices!!!

Now, that you've accepted the fact that we legislate choices, can you tell me that discouraging young poeple from smoking is a bad thing?

Tell me how we already have a foreign body requiring our sovereign nation to raise taxes or participate in lawsuits.

Why don't you tell me where the treaty demands these things? All I see it (and I quote your link)

Tobacco tax increases are encouraged

Legal action is encouraged as a tobacco control strategy.

Why don't you visit dictionary.com and familiarize yourself with the meanings of "encourage" and "require".

 

[Lucky]

The problem isn't drinking, its drinking AND driving. There are tons of PSAs, organiazations and a slew of other stuff to discourage people from drinking and driving.

And there are plenty of anti-smoking organizations out there, even funded by the tobacoo companies, that do the same for tobacco.

Only if the Parties choose do to so. Toronto has a bylaw that gives resturants/bars a choice. Either be totally non-smoking, only smoking (people under 19 not allowed) or have a separate, ventilated room for smokers. A well designed law that makes sure everyone has a choice AND is compatible with the treaty. If Parties outlaw smoking in public areas, that would be THEIR fault, not the treaty's.

Read the treaty again, and stop selectively reading:


evidence indicates that only a total smoking ban is effective in protecting non-smokers.

You see, what you are doing is not reading, but simply extrapolating unlikely extreme-case scenarios that make the treaty seem bad.

The stated agenda is to completely ban smoking. I dont see how I'm extrapolating anything but what will happen.

Not my job to legislate choice? Look around you!!! Why can't I buy a nuclear weapon? Why are goverments legislating my choice to buy nukes? Why are they legislating children's choices with such things as tobacco or alcohol???! We already legislate choices!!!

Jesus, are you that out of touch with reality? Comparing cigarettes with nuclear weapons? You anti-smoking folks really do have an agenda.

Now, that you've accepted the fact that we legislate choices, can you tell me that discouraging young poeple from smoking is a bad thing?

This will not affect only young people, it will affect young and old. No getting around that.

Why don't you tell me where the treaty demands these things? All I see it (and I quote your link)

Read Part VI, article 19, lines 3, 4, and 5.
Also, part III, article 6, lines 2A and 2B.

 

[Martin]

Read Part VI, article 19, lines 3, 4, and 5.

from the link:
"1. For the purpose of tobacco control, the Parties shall consider taking legislative action or
promoting their existing laws, where necessary, to deal with criminal and civil liability, including
compensation where appropriate."

"encourage" and "consider" do not have the same meanings as "require" and "will do".

Points 3,4 and 5 are simply there so that countries will help one another.

Also, part III, article 6, lines 2A and 2B.

Let me bold in a few parts for you.
"2. Without prejudice to the sovereign right of the Parties to determine and establish their taxation
policies, each Party should take account of its national health objectives concerning tobacco control
and adopt or maintain, as appropriate, measures which may include:
(a) implementing tax policies and, where appropriate, price policies, on tobacco products so
as to contribute to the health objectives aimed at reducing tobacco consumption; and
(b) prohibiting or restricting, as appropriate, sales to and/or importations by international
travellers of tax- and duty-free tobacco products."

Again, this treaty is very flexible. The US may decide its taxes don't need to be changed, it may decide to hike them.

This will not affect only young people, it will affect young and old. No getting around that.

Yes, but young ones much, much more than old ones.

Jesus, are you that out of touch with reality? Comparing cigarettes with nuclear weapons? You anti-smoking folks really do have an agenda.

Yes, didn't you know? My agenda includes taking away your freedoms, eating your babies and just plain old evilry.

I merely pointed out that we DO legislate choice. We do it all the time. The question is: is helping people stop smoking the right thing to do?




You say:

The stated agenda is to completely ban smoking. I dont see how I'm extrapolating anything but what will happen.

Treaty says

Article 3
Objective
The objective of this Convention and its protocols is to protect present and future generations
from the devastating health, social, environmental and economic consequences of tobacco
consumption and exposure to tobacco smoke by providing a framework for tobacco control measures
to be implemented by the Parties at the national, regional and international levels in order to reduce
continually and substantially the prevalence of tobacco use and exposure to tobacco smoke.

Notice: "reduce", not "ban". Do you now see how you're extrapolating wild scenarios? How your interpretation of the treaty is different from what the treaty actually says?

Read the treaty again, and stop selectively reading:
evidence indicates that only a total smoking ban is effective in protecting non-smokers.

I read that, but it seems you do not understand their meaning. Having one large space with a smoking and non-smoking section DOES NOT protect non-smokers. Having a separate smoking room DOES protect smokers. The latter IS a total smoking ban, since non-smokers have no contact with cig smoke whatsoever.

And there are plenty of anti-smoking organizations out there, even funded by the tobacoo companies, that do the same for tobacco.

We don't have to control alcohol advertising because use of their product isn't much of a problem. That is not the case with cigarettes.
Now IF alcohol was a problem like cigs are, then I would support similar advertising measures to be applied to alcohol companies.

 

[JellyBaby]

Overquote much?

 

[Lucky]

"encourage" and "consider" do not have the same meanings as "require" and "will do".

I didn't cite 19.1, I cited 3-5, which mandate countries assist in the suing of tobacco companies.

Article 6 speaks for itself.

Yes, but young ones much, much more than old ones.

Not all older people are "rich".

I merely pointed out that we DO legislate choice. We do it all the time. The question is: is helping people stop smoking the right thing to do?

Via the implementations of this treaty? Certainly not in this country.

Notice: "reduce", not "ban". Do you now see how you're extrapolating wild scenarios? How your interpretation of the treaty is different from what the treaty actually says?

The treaty as a whole is a simple pretext to the banning of cigarettes. Either actual banning, or through price increases and access restrictions.

I read that, but it seems you do not understand their meaning. Having one large space with a smoking and non-smoking section DOES NOT protect non-smokers. Having a separate smoking room DOES protect smokers. The latter IS a total smoking ban, since non-smokers have no contact with cig smoke whatsoever.

That is simply not a good option. Seperated and ventilated systems work just find. Additionally you ignoring the fact that once they leave the door they will encounter far polluted air just by casual encounter to the air around them. You act as though a restraunt's air should be completely sterile, as if the rest of the air is too.

We don't have to control alcohol advertising because use of their product isn't much of a problem. That is not the case with cigarettes.

Millions of college binge drinkers arent' a problem? Millions of alcoholics? How are you quantifying what is a problem and what is not? Your agenda, perhaps? Cigarettes first...then work on alchohol later? I believe I've shown the evil of this treaty and hope that people will contact their appropriate goverment representatives (senators in the US) and urge them not to ratify this rights-grab.

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Gaard touched upon the salvation of American fair taxation. Toilet paper. Eliminate all taxes and impose whatever is needed to compensate as a tax on TP. We are not going to stop buying it, and everyone is going to use it fairly equally regardless of disposable income.

Let me just say, I got stuck 2 miles away from camp without my normal field pack on a hunting trip once, when a sudden bout of diarrea came over me. I'm talking from absolutely nothing to "20 seconds, tops, till containment field failure" in the space of a few steps down the trail. After taking care of business, I used my socks. Now, this was a very nice pair of new socks, and I was sad to see them wasted, but if you want to talk about comfort...

In other words, you've always got options, and socks would be cheaper than the feds levying taxes SOLELY upon TP. I'm sure the above is TMI, but it proves my point.

 

[Martin]

I didn't cite 19.1, I cited 3-5, which mandate countries assist in the suing of tobacco companies.
Article 6 speaks for itself.

Assisting isn't the same as suing. And yes, article 6 speaks for itself - a country can choose whether to adopt or maintain taxes on tobacco. Seeing as how tobacco is already taxed in the vast majority of the world, I fail to see a problem with this article.

Via the implementations of this treaty? Certainly not in this country.

Curios how those implementations have already worked in your country, isn't it?

The treaty as a whole is a simple pretext to the banning of cigarettes. Either actual banning, or through price increases and access restrictions.

Haha, do you work for FoxNews by any chance? You see that is your opinion and not what the treaty is about. If you're going to continue doing this, I'll have to stop wasting my time with you.

Seperated and ventilated systems work just fine.

That is what I am saying too, in addition to pointing out that having these systems does not go against the treaty.

Millions of college binge drinkers arent' a problem? Millions of alcoholics? How are you quantifying what is a problem and what is not? Your agenda, perhaps? Cigarettes first...then work on alchohol later? I believe I've shown the evil of this treaty

A much lesser problem, since alcohol isn't physically addicting like cigarettes. I'm affraid, all you have shown is how the straw man argument works.

Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

 

[Lucky]

much lesser problem, since alcohol isn't physically addicting like cigarettes.

AHAHAHAHA!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Now I remember why I promised myself not to debate stupid people.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Lucky

much lesser problem, since alcohol isn't physically addicting like cigarettes.

AHAHAHAHA!!! That's the funniest thing I've heard all day. Now I remember why I promised myself not to debate stupid people.

People develop a mental dependence on alcohol, not a physical addiction, dumbass. From December 02 to May 03, I did not have a single drink. I wasn't trying to quit either, I just never got around to drinking. This could not have happened with a physically addicting substance. How many smokers or herion addicts can simply forget to smoke/take drugs?

 

[Ltroy24]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: Vic
I knew a girl who never smoked a day in her life and died of cancer at 26.

she must have hung out with your grandfather......

No... she got leukemia. :|

My point is not to provide empirical data. Nor do I refute that smoking is harmful to one's health.

My point is that you are all going to die anyway, everyone is going to die, and you should quit being such busybody pansy-assed pussies about it, terrified and poking into everyone's life and trying to tell them how to live. If they want to smoke, let them smoke, it's none of your business. edit: Simple as that.

'Tis better to live and die young than to die old having never lived.

OK first of all your a moron it is my bussiness because your second hand smoke makes me sick seriously i reallly do puke when around alot of second hand somke. Second of all it is nasty and gross. I shouldn't have to die early because of F*CKERS like you.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ltroy24
OK first of all your a moron it is my bussiness because your second hand smoke makes me sick seriously i reallly do puke when around alot of second hand somke. Second of all it is nasty and gross. I shouldn't have to die early because of F*CKERS like you.

Dude STFU. You don't like 2nd hand smoke, don't be around smokers. As for its lethality, unless you're married to a chain-smoker for 50 years, it isn't. People smoke 20-40 cigarettes every day for 50 years, and you think walking past a smoker is going to kill you?

:disgust: :|
And while we're on the subject of possibly poisonious fumes, I seriously hope you never drive or ride in a car, hypocrite.