Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

In my opinion, the companies that make and distribute tobacco are about as close to legal murderers as you can get. Yeah, people choose to smoke of their own volition, but the companies responsible are pretty unconcerned that their products are so incredible harmful and addictive.

I just think it's totally ridiculous that there needs to be PSA's and surgeon generals warning people against legal products.

Ever since my uncle died of lung cancer, my view on the topic is very skewed towards painting tobacco companies as nothing but a pack of criminals.

[NJW2000]

Yeah. Given that 70% want to quit (and presumably wish they'd never started), some sort of legislation would definitely be justified.

Hm. I'm not expressing myself clearly here, but are there legal precendents/frameworks for that sort of thing? Where a majority of people would prefer to have not been offered a certain choice after making it, so in some ways the democratic/maximum-freedom thing to do would be for the government to remove that choice?

[Reelya]

I'm reading here about a woman who had vaginoplasty (for medical reasons), then made a necklace out of the removed stuff. Not sure how to feel about that.

More power to her, though, I imagine if that was a dude then the sensitive and supporting news article would be way different: "I had a cyst on my peepee, got it cut off, so now I made my foreskin into a bracelet, isn't it cool and life-affirming?"

[martinuzz]

"I had a cyst on my peepee, got it cut off, so now I made my foreskin into a bracelet, isn't it cool and life-affirming?"

Could be worse, could have made a wedding ring from it

[EnigmaticHat]

Yeah. Given that 70% want to quit (and presumably wish they'd never started), some sort of legislation would definitely be justified.

Hm. I'm not expressing myself clearly here, but are there legal precendents/frameworks for that sort of thing? Where a majority of people would prefer to have not been offered a certain choice after making it, so in some ways the democratic/maximum-freedom thing to do would be for the government to remove that choice?

Not really.  You can sell people a product that claims to do something but actually does nothing in the US and its difficult to get the law to do anything about it.

That being said, the only reason tobacco is legal is because after prohibition no one expects outlawing it to work.  Also because tobacco companies aggressively pay for product placement and lobbying.

[Reelya]

Cosmetics are bad for that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olay

One of the most successful lines (Oil of Olay) in the world is successful because it never claimed to do anything. Adverts just say stuff like "Share the secret of a younger looking you" without telling you what it's for or how it's meant to be used. Later they titled it "Oil of Olay: oil free beauty fluid", because, hey, wouldn't want oil in your Oil of Olay "beauty fluid".

[Frumple]

Hm. I'm not expressing myself clearly here, but are there legal precendents/frameworks for that sort of thing? Where a majority of people would prefer to have not been offered a certain choice after making it, so in some ways the democratic/maximum-freedom thing to do would be for the government to remove that choice?

As far as I'm aware, there's no precedent for that sort of thing, or at the absolute least none that have managed to stand up to challenge. (Un)fortunately, "you're probably going to friggin' regret this and it makes it much more likely you're going to die" generally isn't sufficient for legal enforcement on its own.

Most things, so long as whatever smear you leave behind isn't on someone else or their property, it's sketchy as hell to build a legal framework from that angle that's not riddled with problems as great or greater than whatever you're trying to stop. Direct/short term suicide (gun to the head as opposed to binge eating and never exercising, ferex) has better luck, but most legal systems I'm aware of aren't going to do much to stop stuff where you have years to change your behavior.

... now, if you still want to legally minimize, there's plenty of ways, mind you. No public usage, strict regulation on product quality, vice taxes, public programs educating people on the subject, so on. Increased medical cost burden, etc. Make it a pain in the ass to support the addiction and supply its material... you generally don't want to be/can't get away with directly criminalizing use (you want an example of how that fucks up, just look at the USA's war on suffrage drugs or the whole roaming vigilante death squad thing the occasional country indulges in, and so on.), but you often can for related stuff.

Part of it's kicking an addict while they're down, but it's stuff you can do.

[Akura]

My mom lost her phone. Apparently, she had set it on the back bumper of her car while she was out somewhere. She had gone almost to back to where she left, giving up beforehand reasoning that with all the bumps she hit on the way home from there there's no point in going back to where she started to look for it. I know my parents have some stupid backwards logic, but goddamn.

So, she bought a new phone, spending over $100 on it. She asked me to help her figure it because of the vast differences(...not really) between the new phone. The last part of showing her how to use her phone, the main menu had a MSN newsfeed that she wanted removed. Instead, she subscribed to the service because she liked having a newsfeed, then was downloading probably a bunch of spyware because she clicked on an add for bible stuff.

[Reelya]

Part of it's kicking an addict while they're down, but it's stuff you can do.

Kicking an addict while they're down can be fully justified on a utilitarian basis. The group of people doing the kicking derive pleasure and status from the kicking. Meanwhile, the addict is already down, so their self-esteem is already rock-bottom, and the added negative utility of the sound thrashing they received is of less value than the positive utility gained by the kickers.

And even if the kick-ee gains more negative utility than the kickers, that just means we need more kickers. If each kicker gains 2 utility and the kick-ee loses 5 utility, that just means it's unthinkable to kick an addict while they're down with less than three people at a time. Otherwise it's completely justified and moral.

[pisskop]

popped up a Paul Simon playlist while ironning.

holy shit.  its good stuff, and completely the polar opposite of my usual.  and good.

maybe its just the mood im in ...

[Avarice]

I think its also a personality thing.
I smoke on odd occasions but don't really like the feeling the taste or its smell. Its good company for a joint/bucky/cone/alcohol/mushrooms but by itself seems pointless to me.
Though I do see and understand its addiction.
It can look cool. You get to go outside for smokes and socialise.

[Greiger]

Do you ever get that feeling where, for a micron of a fraction of a second, the world feels like it's reversed and you're experiencing a mirror image of it? That the house you've known for months is suddenly flipped and everything is on the wrong side of everything?

I do not handle sleep deprivation well. Similarly, guess who had to stay up 'til 5AM this morning for work on a weekend.

Don't worry that's just the non dominant side of your brain using the dominant side's sleep deprived weakness to, just for a moment, seize control.  Everything is flipped because it's the opposite side of your brain your body is used to working with.

Perfectly normal, the non dominant side will be forced back into servitude as soon as the dominant side notices.

CGP Grey Link*

[Reelya]

Here's another good one on that topic:

https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight

[martinuzz]

About 110 thousand UK travellers are stranded abroad, after airline company Monarch was declared bankrupt today.
The British Civil Aviation Authority is scrambling to charter planes to bring the travellers back home, and minister of Transport Chris Grayling is calling it the largest repatriation mission in peacetime, ever.
CAA estimates the repatriation to take a full two weeks, and begs travellers stranded abroad to be patient.

Heh, that's gonna be a whole lot of folks calling their bosses to say their holidays might take an extra two weeks, that's gonna cost the UK economy more than just the charter expenses.

[Loud Whispers]

Fuck the economy tbh I want to know if the people are safe