What about seatbelts? Same reasoning. People fly out of window, get head injury, who pays for it? The state. Seatbelt = saving the state healthcare $$
FDA to Ban Menthol in Cigarettes and Flavored Cigars
- Thread starter peregrinus
- Start date
.gif)
- Status
It is always interesting to drill down into the logic and reason of why something like this would be put on the table. Sifting through potential "good" reasons for it to happen, or "good" reasons for it not to happen can be a fun and engaging exercise for the citizen brain.
Trust me, every politician mulling over the issue is sifting through those very same options. What we as citizens often fail to implement when it comes to our own analysis, is that politicians in today's world are not limited by logic, truth, or reason. Justification for the support of any certain policy can be based on information that is suspect, exaggerated, or entirely fabricated, and there is no real negative cost for the politician.
However, as with any decision made by an American politician in today's political climate, those reasons, explanations, and justifications are nothing more than a means to an ends. Simply figures plugged into an equation that will result in a total number of one of two things. After the numbers are run, and the totals are estimated, they are left with a simple way forward. Whichever option they believe will garner them a higher number of either, is the answer on whether to support or oppose. Like any business, and let's be real here, that is exactly what politics is, their job is then to market the selected option that they feel is the most likely to sell well in their target market (their constituents). If they succeed at this (which they will attempt to do at all costs) they will in fact receive a greater number of one of the two things that they are after.
And what are those two things? I have created the below diagram to explain how both of them play in to the overall strategy of nearly every American career politician (which is most all of them) on either side of the aisle.
As with most legislation, this is not about health. It is not about people. It is not about care. It is, as always, about what will be the most likely position to allow them to retain their employment, control, power, opportunity for advancement, and therefore, MONEY.
Trust me, every politician mulling over the issue is sifting through those very same options. What we as citizens often fail to implement when it comes to our own analysis, is that politicians in today's world are not limited by logic, truth, or reason. Justification for the support of any certain policy can be based on information that is suspect, exaggerated, or entirely fabricated, and there is no real negative cost for the politician.
However, as with any decision made by an American politician in today's political climate, those reasons, explanations, and justifications are nothing more than a means to an ends. Simply figures plugged into an equation that will result in a total number of one of two things. After the numbers are run, and the totals are estimated, they are left with a simple way forward. Whichever option they believe will garner them a higher number of either, is the answer on whether to support or oppose. Like any business, and let's be real here, that is exactly what politics is, their job is then to market the selected option that they feel is the most likely to sell well in their target market (their constituents). If they succeed at this (which they will attempt to do at all costs) they will in fact receive a greater number of one of the two things that they are after.
And what are those two things? I have created the below diagram to explain how both of them play in to the overall strategy of nearly every American career politician (which is most all of them) on either side of the aisle.
As with most legislation, this is not about health. It is not about people. It is not about care. It is, as always, about what will be the most likely position to allow them to retain their employment, control, power, opportunity for advancement, and therefore, MONEY.
Well said. Some other media references for you:
Debate emerges over racism and white supremacy in Oregon math instruction
PORTLAND, Ore. (KATU) — A new debate has emerged over the controversial topic of white supremacy and racism in school math instruction. The Oregon Department of Education (ODE) recently sent a newsletter to math educators in the state. The newsletter contained information about a virtual...
katu.com
Harvard’s gatekeeper reveals SAT cutoff scores based on race
A Harvard University dean testified that the school has different SAT score standards for prospective students based on factors such as race and sex — but insisted that the practice isn’t discrimin…
nypost.com
For Anti-Racism, San Diego Schools Will Teach Black, Hispanic Kids Less
Expecting less from someone based on his or her race used to be called bigotry. Condescension toward black students hardly qualifies as ‘anti-racism.'
thefederalist.com
Oxford University Academics Linked Sheet Music to 'White Supremacy'
Oxford academics complained Western musical notation had not "shaken off its connection to its colonial past", according to the Telegraph.
www.breitbart.com
I don't think we are hurting enough to do anything about the anti-smoking issues. Once the government really stump on the tobacco, and the black market kicks in, the government will say they were wrong. There is no direct link between smoking and health, people who smoke just seems to die early. Meaning, they miss all the tax and kick back they were getting from Big Tobacco. They will bring it back as some "medical" reason.
I've got a work around. Smoke a bowl of Frosty Mint in dedicated pipe, now everything you smoke in the pipe will be menthol. Problem solved. We could pre-ghost pipes and put them on the market. I don't see any law against flavored pipes. Your experience with Frosty Mint is an inspiration.
Savenelli has had a few lines of flavored pipes for a few years now.
I did not know that. I lead a sheltered life.
Really! I did not know this either. Like in pre-ghosted with Latakia, Vanilla, Cherry or Lakeland?
Honey, vanilla, licorice, and mint.
Simple. All those politicians are potheads.
And for the record I’m all for legalization of almost everything.
Because most people don't stand on principle...and because double standards in general seem to be very popular these days.
Politics at its most entertaining. Gotta love those who embrace situational ethics.
Not for those with a well defined understanding of right and wrong. I'm not a fan of "gray areas" or "doing what's easy or comfortable." I find people who abide flexible standards/ethics of right and wrong to be particularly undependable. One never knows how they will react in a situation. They usually seem to go with the flow or, react only in ways which are best for them. The older I get, the less tolerant I am of "situational ethics."
We tried to offset healthcare costs associated with tobacco use here in Canada by taxing it to death. We lost revenue and tax dollars and our healthcare system didn't improve one single bit. Was a cash cow and a virtue signal, nothing more. Also created a huge black market as well as drove a ton of business southward.
Simple. All those politicians are potheads.
Black market works. Might even motivate those innocent politicians. Innocent as $20 whores.
- Status