UK: Crackdown on cigarettes, attack on person responsibility
Posted on May 31st, 2008 by bile Categories and Tags: Uncategorized, bureaucracy, censorship, collectivism, corporatism, death, drugs, economics, free will, freedom, fucking retarded, healthcare, liberty, nanny state, police state, politics, privacy, prohibition, property, regulation, socialism, taxes, tobacco, UK, United Kingdom, your money, your rightsNext step full prohibition… because “we all pay for your unhealthiness.”
9 Responses to “UK: Crackdown on cigarettes, attack on person responsibility”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Marketing and commercialization is really annoying. I’m not saying we should ban it outright, but we should treat people who engage in such activities like pedophiles.
May 31st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
The study of human desire. Satan’s work it is. Best thing we can do is ban all forms of temptation and treat everyone like children. That way we can all be happy with our no frills pickles. Or is saying it’s a pickle too much? Perhaps the black, red and white labels will stir unnatural desires. The variaty of foods, the shapes, colors, tastes and effect, they are too much for one to handle. We should live like luddites but not just shunning technology… art too. Knowledge and freedom are far too dangerous to give to the layman.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:36 pm
These people are death merchants. They should be treated as such. Once again, I’m not saying government action is the solution. I think the solution is to treat these slick scumbags like the trash they are. Don’t allow yourself to be inundated with their crap until we can starve it out of existence. Don’t just boycott their product, don’t let your kids play with their kids. When you see them on the street cross to the other side and spit on the ground. Don’t sell anything to them. If you want people to change, this is how you do it. Educate yourself and others, then take action.
May 31st, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Funny… I don’t hear you saying this about prohibited drug dealers, alcohol store owners or Jack in the Box servers. Where’s the disdain for hookah bars and chiropractors?
Seems pretty obvious given tobacco was used prior to advertisement and since the 80’s and the major restriction in their freedom to do so it continues to be used by a large portion of the population including an increase in young women. And this all after major artificial increases in the cost to the end user… it seems to me that these "death merchants" are providing people just what they want. I don’t give a shit if they sell them single use suicide joints. If people want them let’em have them. If you want to discourage use go to the source, the buyers. Your hostility toward the seller is no different than that of the holier than thou politicians and leftists who want to control other people. You attack the wrong target with the wrong action.
May 31st, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Prohibited drug dealers do not advertise nearly as much. Alcohol store owners and Jack in the Box Ad men (not the servers, they are usually pretty clueless) are also responsible for influencing public opinion. The public does not realize the constant barrage of thought influencing propaganda they experience. We’ve fought about free will before. I believe people cannot be held completely accountable for the actions they take, especially in the current commercial warfare climate.
You are correct in saying that the public is the better target. The first step is education. Once educated people will begin to vehemently resent those who have been attacking (noted that you and I disagree on this term) them.
As far as single use suicide joints, I would give a shit if people sold them and misrepresented what they were. It’s not a simple matter of people getting the product that they want. It’s a matter of dictating what people want and then lying to them about what they are getting.
You calling me "holier than thou" does nothing to dissuade me from my standpoint. I want to alter public opinion such that I think the world will be a better place. I’ve never backed down from that. I’m just not doing it at gunpoint. As far as me thinking I’m better than people, I am. I am better than the man who markets addictive drugs to children.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Everything is thought influencing. Everything you come in contact with. That’s what existence is. So that comment is meaningless. Also… why not take a look at your precious communist nations. Are you telling me they had the same level or any advertising there? Are you going to tell me that they didn’t smoke?
If you don’t believe people can be held accountable for their actions why do do you go about attacking the sellers? Do some people have free will and others not?
Prohibited drug dealers advertise all the fucking time. What are you talking about? I see more pot on TV than cigarettes. I see more alcohol in print than cigarettes. I see fast food ads everywhere. I see sports car ads everywhere. You want to attack those middle men who do advertising but not those who do the dirty work? So we shouldn’t hold Edward Marcus responsible for harassing me because the Congress passed the laws? They are all actors in the system. They all give legitimacy to it. They are all fulfilling the CUSTOMERS demand.
Who’s misrepresenting cigarettes? The data for the damage they do goes back well over 100 years. The government uses my money to put up TV, billboard and print anti-tobaco ads up everywhere and makes it illegal for Phillip Morris to do the opposite. They force them to put huge "THIS WILL KILL YOU" warnings on every box. THE CUSTOMERS DONT CARE. Just like those who drink don’t care. And those who do crack or meth. They are fully aware and choose to do what they like to their body. If the customer doesn’t ask the seller is under no obligation to tell.
You aren’t consistent. If you want to stop the self destructive behavior of people you need to ostracize anyone who participates. That includes the store clerks who work for the companies which sell the products. That includes acquaintances lighting up on the back porch at a party or cracking open a beer. Your words are empty until you do.
May 31st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Oh and how things have changed. I recall you wanting to smoke or just give Phillip Morris $20 because of the government’s actions against them.
June 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
Who the shit is supporting government action? Not me. I’ve mentioned that repeatedly. I don’t like government action. Hence, the $20 donation. Why do you always try to shoehorn this back to the standard, well-rehearsed argument?
Precious communist nations? Since when do I cherish communist nations? We constantly talk about the history of communist nations and we both no they rarely ever implement communism and rarely ever get things right, so why would I like them? I should feel resentful towards them for continuing to pervert the beliefs I have and cause me to get badgered with their existence in arguments.
Here is the sticking point between you and me: You place more faith in free will than I do. You use it to justify all kinds of things. It’s not that easy. People are relatively predicable and are influenced by their genetic make up as well as the interactions they have with others. It is very easy to manipulate people in a manner that I would consider unethical. That’s without using any physical force. People who do this for immoral ends are scum. The people who succumb to it are victims. They’re not 100% victims because they are partially responsible for their actions, but they are victimized enough that the attacker is also accountable. I’m sorry that world isn’t as black and white as you want it to be, it would certainly be easier that way.
June 1st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Who said you did? Not me. I’m merely pointing out the very large sentiment change. From supporting those "death merchants" to wanting to ostracize them out of existence.
I recall not more than 6 months ago you talking about how much purer China was to the communist ideas you had and I pointing out that in fact they’ve never been that pure. You have consistently in the past nearly 10 years talked up Cuba, USSR and China and their leaders while all but ignoring the horrible crimes they committed and obvious failures they became.
Agreed. And instead of spending time validating your economic system you bash capitalism ad nauseam. As I pointed out in the thread the other day… Marx and the other LVT communists have huge holes in their theories that I don’t see you or others make any headway in closing. The Austrians have lots of thought experiments and economic history to point to… I don’t hear that from you. I hear emotional laden diatribes against what you don’t like. How no one can be truly responsible for their actions except those who are performing the acts you don’t like. Seems convenient and stereotypically Marxist.
All I’m saying is I’m giving people the benefit of the doubt. That it’s highly presumptuous to claim I know better. Of course people are effected by their interactions. When did I ever claim otherwise? I’m not claiming full incompatible libertarianism. Yet you are hop and skip from determinism in some statements for the "victims" and treat the "aggressors" like they are free will devils. If the sheep can’t be anything but sheep why then blame the wolf for being a wolf?
If it’s so easy then why isn’t 99% of the population in favor of the war? And Catholic? Buying Pepsi? And… pick your poison? You overestimate peoples inabilities. By doing so… just like the government does… you take away their responsibility. You attempt to negate peoples ability to choose. That sentiment is what I have an issue with. That same sentiment is what drives the statists and authoritarians. That the people don’t know any better, that they can’t care for themselves, that then need to be watched over. That arrogance is what has led to millions of peoples deaths as those types of individuals proved they were no smarter than the rest of us. That intolerance is what needs to be ostracized. People are 100% responsible for their actions unless outright coerced. If you don’t hold that belief you can’t hold anyone responsible for their actions at all, either because you follow true deterimism or because you can’t possible know the level of responsibility they have, and this whole "society" and "existance" thing is truly meaningless as we are tied to a predetermined future. Including this conversation.
I see it no more than a copout to push such a doctrine. It makes it far too easy to not walk the talk. Also… assuming free will exists, it demotivates people from attempting to change their situataion. I’m not talking about law of attraction here but I’d hope we can agree that individuals who believe they aren’t in control are naturally demotivated and less likely to achieve professed end goals or steps to reach it.