View Single Post
Old March 20th, 2009, 03:50 AM
Hajo Flettner
Status: Offline
Hookah Legend
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,746
Default Re: Comming Ban on Flavoured Tobacco

Originally Posted by Mackmaven View Post
The best historical precedent if you want try and find something to what you're suggesting is the temperance movement. That was a very strong and politically charged movement, the legislation you've sighted thus far in no way reflects there being nearly the same amount of social or political backing.[/quote]

Well no actually, that wasn't a precedent I was thinking of and not one i'd use. Instead, i'd point to the fantastic growth of the anti-tobacco lobby, the successes have had and the utter failure of the opposition to do anything about it but I understand you'd rather create a strawman. Also, my concern is stickily limited to the ability of the legislation in question to ban flavoured tobacco but again I understand your willingness to use strawman tactics and red hearings. If you havenít been asleep for the last 10 years or so youíll notice that the anti-tobacco agenda has become law all over the country but clearly that is something youíd rather not admit. I suppose that SCHIP didnít happen, public smoking bans are a mere imagination and things havenít really changed that much when it comes to the anti-tobacco agenda becoming law.

[/quote] Public statements by the president: If there's any precedent here, it's that you shouldn't expect so much from the president, or any politician for that matter.[/quote]

I see, so when the president publicly sides with the anti-tobacco lobby that doesnít mean anything because politicians donít practice what they preach. Iíll just have to ignore the fact that when It comes to the anti-tobacco legislative agenda he has carried the rhetoric into reality. I suppose I should also ignore the reality that the anti-tobacco lobby actually has a pretty good track record getting politicians to support them in public policy matter and Iíll also ignore the fact that the anti-tobacco cause is a popular one with the public. Basically, in order for your line of thought to hold water all one needs to do is shut out reality and simply assume that since Obama is a politician he wonít do what he says and ignore what he has done.

[/quote] The secretary of health and the surgeon general: The surgeon general also advocates healthy eating and living... America MUST be listening.[/quote]

Well, I guess I just wasnít thinking clearly. Surely no one cares what the surgeon general says about smoking policy which is why the reports on the matter put out by his office are so obscure. I mean itís not like anyone uses those reports to support public smoking bans. Thanks for the tip. As to the secretary of health obviously no one cares what he thinks and besides, I am certain that heíll recognize his irrelevancy and not exercise his authority under the bill in question to decide what constitutes flavoured tobacco needing to be regulated/banned by the bill. After all, government officials never take advantage of the power they have and since we already have established that they lie I am sure that he wonít do what he says and that his history of anti-tobacco lobbying will in no way shape how he handles his job.

[/quote] Endless ad campaigns: I don't know where you live, but I haven't seen these "ban tobacco ads" flavored or not. In fact, other than the amazingly well positioned Philip Morris funded Truth ads I haven't seen anything on TV about tobacco as of late.[/quote]

I donít recall say that the adds call for the banishment of tobacco but hey, why let a little thing like that get in the way of a good strawman? What I did mention is anti tobacco adds which are legion. The fact that the tobacco industry is forced to pay for them hasnít made them any less prevalent or any less hysterical or inaccurate. But hey, I am sure that a whole bunch of adds are around refuting the like of the truth campaign so itís all balanced right? But in any case, I am sure that those adds have had no effect as is clearly seen by the widespread popular appeal of the smokerís rights movement in all the mass media outlets and all the fawning attention that is lavished on my side by celebrates and the educational establishment. Likewise I suppose that the mainstream news media rarely gives any notice to anti-tobacco studies and they naturally are pretty concerned with giving equal exposure to criticism of such studies. Yep, I see now why I was wrong to think that anti-tobacco legislation has any chances of passing given the dearth of media attention given to the cause. Why hell, Iíll bet that any day now Iíll see Colby or someone like Sullum on Opra or the Tonight Show.

[/quote] Opinion poles: remember the two weeks when people really liked Sara Palin?[/quote]

You got a point there. Nothing demonstrates that opinion donít reflect public opinion more then a flawed survey during the election. Yep, I think itís safe to say that the public doesnít support anti-tobacco legislation and since a poll was wrong about Palin .I suppose that a few decades of public polling must be wrong about how tolerant the public is towards smokers. Clearly I have nothing to worry about in terms of the bill in question and all those smoking bans that have been passed over the years all over the country have caused huge voter revolts which is those same bans are all going to be repealed. Yep, that sounds right to me.

[/quote] Empiricism: Like I said, citing context-free past anti-smoking legislation that passed does not in anyway build a case for your argument. If they're going to start chopping away at tobacco, there are virtually no precedents because even the temperance movement only succeeded under some very "right-time right-place" circumstances. In economic terms, you'd be screwed for a regression model. [/quote]

Oh, O.K. I see now that all of those politicians and pressure groups that have had such stunning victories in getting the anti-tobacco agenda passed into law all over the country has nothing to with anything. Why I am sure that since pushing all the taxes, bans and such and getting a mountain of cash from the anti smoking lobby they felt really bad about themselves and are reading Sullum and have had a change of heart. I mean past behavior doesnít mean anything and since politicians all lie we can rest secure in the knowledge that what they have done was a mere fluke. Good plan.
Reply With Quote