^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Posts: 6,651 
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
Videos: 5
Location: Newfoundland!
March 30th, 2007, 09:25 AM
hahaha gotta love malcolm in the middle. I have every episode :0)
hahaha gotta love malcolm in the middle. I have every episode :0)
House Member
Posts: 3,167
March 30th, 2007, 09:50 AM
Tracy, at least the underreporting of domestic violence committed by women is likely now coming to an end. Sheltered for far too long by long suffering partners, abusive women can now expect to see the same degree of publicity as men in the past. It's a good thing.
Hey, this thread has wandered!
The big question remains: why are Swedes so lazy and how are the number cookers there able to convince the world Sweden has a solvent economy?
Tracy, at least the underreporting of domestic violence committed by women is likely now coming to an end. Sheltered for far too long by long suffering partners, abusive women can now expect to see the same degree of publicity as men in the past. It's a good thing.
Hey, this thread has wandered!
The big question remains: why are Swedes so lazy and how are the number cookers there able to convince the world Sweden has a solvent economy?
March 30th, 2007, 10:15 AM
Quoting tamarin
LOL, you realize that conventional theory suggests 98% of the time any thread on any subject will eventually change to the topic of George Bush within 40 posts. Sweden's economy is a nice segway to Shrub. Perhaps he has been the problem with their numbers after all.
Tracy, at least the underreporting of domestic violence committed by women is likely now coming to an end. Sheltered for far too long by long suffering partners, abusive women can now expect to see the same degree of publicity as men in the past. It's a good thing.
Hey, this thread has wandered!
The big question remains: why are Swedes so lazy and how are the number cookers there able to convince the world Sweden has a solvent economy?
Hey, this thread has wandered!
The big question remains: why are Swedes so lazy and how are the number cookers there able to convince the world Sweden has a solvent economy?
March 30th, 2007, 05:37 PM
Quoting karrie
Some big folk that want to be accepted, have to work twice as hard as their skinny counterparts to shed that nasty label, if at all.
Not to mention Bear, that people tend to have that preconceived notion of obese people, and so they watch overweight folk to 'prove' their idea, while they don't watch and critique skinny folk.
Quoting Tonington
Ah, but they were forced out by draconian fascist anti smoking legislation. Smoking rooms with adiqate ventilation and climate controls, would reduce the effects of the elemants. But they are not allowed, not because they posed a risk to others, but because of a fascist mindset.
Not really. Choosing to smoke and continue to smoke will force you into that position. So the exposure to the elements could contribute to the illness, but the conclusion that smokers have more sick days than non-smokers still stands.
March 30th, 2007, 06:19 PM
But that is the reality of the situation. If you want to smoke, you are going to be exposed to these things and that's the way it is. I'm not denying the other factors, jyst saying that the conclusion is still valid. Hell I'm a smoker and I like the fact that I'm forced outdoors. I can't stand the stuff, but my will power is just plain sh|t, truly my greatest flaw. It's amazing how my brain will make excuses for me, believe me it's embarassing to be so weak. When schools over, I plan on quitting, I know heard that before right? About as believable as a lazy person being more proactive as a new years resolution. I have quit before, never longer than 6 months, which should have been enough...
My Grandfather always told me when he quit, he just looked at the pack and said to himself, I'm a better man than this. I guess I just have to 'man' up...
But that is the reality of the situation. If you want to smoke, you are going to be exposed to these things and that's the way it is. I'm not denying the other factors, jyst saying that the conclusion is still valid. Hell I'm a smoker and I like the fact that I'm forced outdoors. I can't stand the stuff, but my will power is just plain sh|t, truly my greatest flaw. It's amazing how my brain will make excuses for me, believe me it's embarassing to be so weak. When schools over, I plan on quitting, I know heard that before right? About as believable as a lazy person being more proactive as a new years resolution. I have quit before, never longer than 6 months, which should have been enough...
My Grandfather always told me when he quit, he just looked at the pack and said to himself, I'm a better man than this. I guess I just have to 'man' up...
March 30th, 2007, 06:24 PM
Hypocrite!!!
LMAO!!!
I'm just kidding...
Good luck with quitting, I've been trying for years.
To the topic...
I'm not calling the study invalid, but I will always question the accuracy of studies such as these. Because they fail to look at the whole of the picture.
The study could have easily been about the effects of being forced outside.
Quoting Tonington
I got to...
But that is the reality of the situation. If you want to smoke, you are going to be exposed to these things and that's the way it is. I'm not denying the other factors, jyst saying that the conclusion is still valid. Hell I'm a smoker and I like the fact that I'm forced outdoors. I can't stand the stuff, but my will power is just plain sh|t, truly my greatest flaw. It's amazing how my brain will make excuses for me, believe me it's embarassing to be so weak. When schools over, I plan on quitting, I know heard that before right? About as believable as a lazy person being more proactive as a new years resolution. I have quit before, never longer than 6 months, which should have been enough...
My Grandfather always told me when he quit, he just looked at the pack and said to himself, I'm a better man than this. I guess I just have to 'man' up...
My Grandfather always told me when he quit, he just looked at the pack and said to himself, I'm a better man than this. I guess I just have to 'man' up...
Quote:
And stopped, that it's it. All your posts are garbage now. How can you be as smart as you and smoke?
Hell I'm a smoker
Hypocrite!!!
LMAO!!!
I'm just kidding...
Good luck with quitting, I've been trying for years.
To the topic...
I'm not calling the study invalid, but I will always question the accuracy of studies such as these. Because they fail to look at the whole of the picture.
The study could have easily been about the effects of being forced outside.
March 30th, 2007, 06:33 PM
That's the thing about statistics. When you start to read into them, theres only so much they actually say. In this case, females in the navy have statistically more sick days than non-smokers. That and the swedes apparently also. Beyond that we are into speculation. I agree that more time outdoors may in fact be causing it as well, but the stats say nothing about that. They didn't tally time spent outdoors and compare against non-smokers who spend time outdoors. It's just like the political polls. People try to take it farther than the data allows.
Why the investigators didn't consider exposure, I can't say. It certainly would make sense if they did...
That's the thing about statistics. When you start to read into them, theres only so much they actually say. In this case, females in the navy have statistically more sick days than non-smokers. That and the swedes apparently also. Beyond that we are into speculation. I agree that more time outdoors may in fact be causing it as well, but the stats say nothing about that. They didn't tally time spent outdoors and compare against non-smokers who spend time outdoors. It's just like the political polls. People try to take it farther than the data allows.
Why the investigators didn't consider exposure, I can't say. It certainly would make sense if they did...
House Member
Posts: 3,167
March 30th, 2007, 08:18 PM
But smoking has allowed the government to open up its coffers and just rake it in. In most stores here, a pack sells for ten dollars. Larceny! Add to that the huge profits reaped by government inspired and promoted gambling via any number of applications and we have a society totally alien to the one I grew up in. Smokes were cheap in the sixties and gambling and lottos illegal. Now the feds act like some remake of the Mafia and are just putting it to us. Strange times and a macabre form of democratic government. It has a licence to steal. And we put with it.
But smoking has allowed the government to open up its coffers and just rake it in. In most stores here, a pack sells for ten dollars. Larceny! Add to that the huge profits reaped by government inspired and promoted gambling via any number of applications and we have a society totally alien to the one I grew up in. Smokes were cheap in the sixties and gambling and lottos illegal. Now the feds act like some remake of the Mafia and are just putting it to us. Strange times and a macabre form of democratic government. It has a licence to steal. And we put with it.
March 30th, 2007, 08:33 PM
To be honest we shouldn't even be allowed to smoke. There is no way in hell that any other product could ever get away with selling a product for human consumption with those chemicals in it. Who would choose to buy food with high levels of Lead, Cadmium, Ammonia, Chromium 2-aminonaphthalene, Nitric Oxide, 1-aminonaphthalene, Pyridine 4-aminobiphenyl, Quinoline 3-aminobiphenyl, Hydroquinone, Benzo(a)pyrene, Resorcinol Formaldehyde, Catechol Acetaldehyde, Phenol Acetone, and so forth.
It is a great cash cow though.
This probably isn't a shocker to anyone
Government Revenues from Tobacco Taxes - 2001-2002
Newfoundland $79.5 million
Prince Edward Island $17.5 million
Nova Scotia $105 million
New Brunswick $69 million
Quebec $652 million
Ontario $703 million
Manitoba $135 million
Saskatchewan $120 million
Alberta $373 million
British Columbia $470 million
Federal government $2,509 million
Total - Federal & Provincial
$5,235 million
To be honest we shouldn't even be allowed to smoke. There is no way in hell that any other product could ever get away with selling a product for human consumption with those chemicals in it. Who would choose to buy food with high levels of Lead, Cadmium, Ammonia, Chromium 2-aminonaphthalene, Nitric Oxide, 1-aminonaphthalene, Pyridine 4-aminobiphenyl, Quinoline 3-aminobiphenyl, Hydroquinone, Benzo(a)pyrene, Resorcinol Formaldehyde, Catechol Acetaldehyde, Phenol Acetone, and so forth.
It is a great cash cow though.
This probably isn't a shocker to anyone
Government Revenues from Tobacco Taxes - 2001-2002
Newfoundland $79.5 million
Prince Edward Island $17.5 million
Nova Scotia $105 million
New Brunswick $69 million
Quebec $652 million
Ontario $703 million
Manitoba $135 million
Saskatchewan $120 million
Alberta $373 million
British Columbia $470 million
Federal government $2,509 million
Total - Federal & Provincial
$5,235 million
House Member
Posts: 3,167
March 30th, 2007, 08:52 PM
Tonington, we can play that game a number of ways. And no one should be allowed to become over 30 pounds overweight. It's a precursor to a number of ailments And healthcare costs. We live our lives. Sometimes the foolish and less smart are simply more enjoyable. We do not cede to any government the right to govern our every choice and activity.
Tonington, we can play that game a number of ways. And no one should be allowed to become over 30 pounds overweight. It's a precursor to a number of ailments And healthcare costs. We live our lives. Sometimes the foolish and less smart are simply more enjoyable. We do not cede to any government the right to govern our every choice and activity.
March 30th, 2007, 09:28 PM
You can get overweight by eating healthy products. There is nothing healthy about cigarettes. How can we square the fact that this is selling poison? Maybe they ought to make cigarettes with DDT and tell the residents of Malaria prone regions to just smoke and that will keep the bugs away. There are some activities where I can rationalize regulation by government, this is one of them. Grow it yourself if you want to smoke it. Making money off it, not kosher.
You can get overweight by eating healthy products. There is nothing healthy about cigarettes. How can we square the fact that this is selling poison? Maybe they ought to make cigarettes with DDT and tell the residents of Malaria prone regions to just smoke and that will keep the bugs away. There are some activities where I can rationalize regulation by government, this is one of them. Grow it yourself if you want to smoke it. Making money off it, not kosher.
House Member
Posts: 3,167
March 30th, 2007, 09:35 PM
We can question tobacco and alcohol and trans fat and soft drinks. A whole canvas of things someone enjoys. Should we ban coke because soft drinks are often fingered as the gateway to obesity? Let people live their lives. Government has become far too intrusive.
We can question tobacco and alcohol and trans fat and soft drinks. A whole canvas of things someone enjoys. Should we ban coke because soft drinks are often fingered as the gateway to obesity? Let people live their lives. Government has become far too intrusive.
March 30th, 2007, 09:46 PM
Government intrusion is a matter of opinion. Everyone will no doubt find some intrusion unacceptable while others do not. Should I be allowed to sell my fish with known carcinogens and addictive substances? It is yummy.
Bottom line it is corporate deviance. These practices wouldn't be allowed anywhere else. Hell we can't even use discarded embryos to research methods to keep people healthy and alive, but we can sell someone poison for a good profit, which will hasten their trip to meet their maker. There's one instance where I think the intrusion is a$$ backwards.
Government intrusion is a matter of opinion. Everyone will no doubt find some intrusion unacceptable while others do not. Should I be allowed to sell my fish with known carcinogens and addictive substances? It is yummy.
Bottom line it is corporate deviance. These practices wouldn't be allowed anywhere else. Hell we can't even use discarded embryos to research methods to keep people healthy and alive, but we can sell someone poison for a good profit, which will hasten their trip to meet their maker. There's one instance where I think the intrusion is a$$ backwards.
