US continues to go forward

[Rob B.]

Maybe bc he posted as much.

I must have missed that.

Besides without this short little stroll we would have missed the discussion on vending machine condoms and ballon animals. I for one am a better person bc of that off ramp.

This we can all agree on.

 

[CowboyJD]

What? Where did you gather he is fine with tobacco regulation but not with junk food regulation? Or vice versa?

You guys amaze me.

Says the guy that's just confessed to intentionally mischaracterizing what I actually said to "mess with me".

 

[CowboyJD]

I must have missed that.

This we can all agree on.

You did.

 

[JTOSU]

I must have missed that.

You didn’t.
But others like to make stuff up. It is how they try to debate.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

You didn’t.
But others like to make stuff up. It is how they try to debate.

Are you serious Clark?

 

[CowboyJD]

You didn’t.
But others like to make stuff up. It is how they try to debate.

Okay, let's put it on the record.

Are you fine with present tobacco regulations (warning labels on packaging/marketing restrictions) as you presently understand them?

Or are they onerous big brother regulations that you'd rather not see in place?

You've already clearly stated you don't want such regulations on marketing for candy, sugary drinks, etc.

No, I absolutely do not advocate for candy sales to be restricted to 18+ adults like cigarettes. I do not want regulation to add a warning label on packaging. Or restrictions for marketing for candy, sugary drinks, etc.

 

[JTOSU]

Okay, let's put it on the record.

Are you fine with present tobacco regulations (warning labels on packaging/marketing restrictions) as you presently understand them?

Or are they onerous big brother regulations that you'd rather not see in place?

You've already clearly stated you don't want such regulations on marketing for candy, sugary drinks, etc.

lol. You just claimed I stated I was for it earlier. It must be on record. Just copy where I posted that previously.

 

[CowboyJD]

Hell, I'll go on record as to both questions.

I believe the health dangers of tobacco smoking are sufficiently dire and clear as to justify government mandated labels on packaging on them and marketing restrictions.

While I recognize the health dangers of sugary sweets/candy/etc., I don't believe that they are sufficiently dire to justify government mandated labels on packaging and marketing restrictions. There are other ways to educate the public as to the health effects of those items.

With regards to a State banning the sale of food containing certain harmful dyes, chemicals, preservatives, etc, I believe that is an appropriate form of public safety/public health regulation. The feds and state do that all the time.

When I said,

The bigger picture is that he is fine and dandy with any particular regulation that he agrees with, but any he doesn't is "onerous burdensome big brother regulations".....but just because he says so.

I wasn't saying there is anything wrong with being fine and dandy with some public safety regulations AND believing some shouldn't be made....but based upon a cost/benefit analysis instead of an absolutist statement of regulations are onerous, big brother restrictions that you are uniformly against.

 

[CowboyJD]

lol. You just claimed I stated I was for it earlier. It must be on record. Just copy where I posted that previously.

Dodge....dodge....dodge.

What I actually stated was that you were fine and dandy with cigarette restrictions.

All of these quotes indicate that to be true.

That would be silly. Tobacco sales are illegal for non-adults.

Been laws about age restrictions for tobacco for 150 years in most states. All states for over 80 years.

Weird that someone in the medical field cannot provide that answer for themself. That would be like me asking you financial questions.
By let me help you.. according to the CDC nearly 50% of people that start smoking in their youth ultimately die from smoking. Unlike a Snickers bar — tobacco use is highly addictive.

But let’s stop this stupid discussion. You know well that tobacco use is much worse than soft drinks and Snickers, a lot more addictive, and A LOT more studies proving the danger. I would never give my child a cigarette, but I would have not have a problem with my child having a candy bar every now and then. I imagine you feel the same way, but are just trying to be argumentative.
If you still want to advocate for more authoritarian governmental decisions — fine — but I do not agree.

Answer me a simple question: 1) Would you ever give or buy your child (under 18) a cigarette? 2) Would you ever give or buy your child a Snickers? 3) Would you ever giver or buy your child a Coke or Dr Pepper?

If you are being honest, you know the answer is simple…it is 1) hell no; 2) yes; 3) yes.
Again, let’s stop being stupidly argumentative - you are trying to make a point that is failing.

You certainly never pointed out or argued that the cigarette restrictions in place are onerous and burdensome big brother regulations.

But you could clear your position up really, really, REALLY easily.

It's very weird that you won't.

Hell, I'm fine and dandy with the present cigarette restrictions in place. I agree that we shouldn't have similar restrictions for candy, sugary drinks. I think you're refusing to say you're fine and dandy with the present cigarette restrictions in place because that would mean you actually agree with me and that would give lie to all your prior false "extreme partisan leftist" mischaracterizations of me of the past.

 

[Rob B.]

 

[Rob B.]

Says the guy that's just confessed to intentionally mischaracterizing what I actually said to "mess with me".

 

[JTOSU]

I agree that we shouldn't have similar restrictions for candy, sugary drinks. I think you're refusing to say you're fine and dandy with the present cigarette restrictions in place because that would mean you actually agree with me

I am the one that has been saying we shouldn’t have government restrictions mandating no candy and soft drinks for the last two pages on this thread. Glad you finally came around and agree with me.

The topic went from SNAP to whether we should have candy and soft drinks machines in elementary and junior highs. As for the comparison about soft drinks vending machines and tobacco vending machines…that remains silly. Tobacco sales are illegal for youth. As Joey from Friends would say “that is a moo point”.

 

[HacklemanPoke]

Dodge....dodge....dodge.

What I actually stated was that you were fine and dandy with cigarette restrictions.

All of these quotes indicate that to be true.









You certainly never pointed out or argued that the cigarette restrictions in place are onerous and burdensome big brother regulations.

But you could clear your position up really, really, REALLY easily.

It's very weird that you won't.

Hell, I'm fine and dandy with the present cigarette restrictions in place. I agree that we shouldn't have similar restrictions for candy, sugary drinks. I think you're refusing to say you're fine and dandy with the present cigarette restrictions in place because that would mean you actually agree with me and that would give lie to all your prior false "extreme partisan leftist" mischaracterizations of me of the past.

The lack of self awareness to only be replaced w self importance is an interesting character trait.

Faced w advancing the discussion w simple straight forward answers we instead get the message board equivalent of the lovechild of Patches O’Houlihan and Mr. Short Term Memory telling us we are being stupidly argumentative and continuing a stupid discussion.

To the original impetus of the latest discussion, I think all but one poster would not argue the fact that

a)tobacco restrictions are a good thing
b)Giving your kid the occasional Snickers (and someone feel free to correct me but the newest Snickers installment of pecan is the best candy bar) or Dr Pepper is ok. Life should be celebrated.
c)keeping vending machines in elementary/jr high schools free of sugary drinks and junk food is a good thing. And we should probably include Big Chief and Magnums out of those as well.
d)having govt restrictions on carcinogenic additives is also a positive

 

[HacklemanPoke]

I am the one that has been saying we shouldn’t have government restrictions mandating no candy and soft drinks for the last two pages on this thread. Glad you finally came around and agree with me.

The topic went from SNAP to whether we should have candy and soft drinks machines in elementary and junior highs. As for the comparison about soft drinks vending machines and tobacco vending machines…that remains silly. Tobacco sales are illegal for youth. As Joey from Friends would say “that is a

And once again you evade. Multiple posters have straight forward answered your questions yet here we are.

Are you in favor of removing restrictions on tobacco?
Yes/No

The question is not “Is it settled law” or a Tribianized bastardized version.

 

[JTOSU]

You were literally the 1st poster to mention restricting candy sales like tobacco and I quote “No, I absolutely do not advocate for candy sales to be restricted to 18+ adults like cigarettes.” I followed that up w the vending machine question

OMG! . Dude, the quote you have from me was immediately AFTER and in REPLY to…you!

In case you forgot, here is what you posted 1st that I replied to:
Hackleman: “I’m guessing you have no problem w the tobacco industry being prohibited from marketing and selling to minors. How is the food industry any different?”

 

[HacklemanPoke]

OMG! . Dude, the quote you have from me was immediately AFTER and in REPLY to…you!

In case you forgot, here is what you posted 1st that I replied to:
Hackleman: “I’m guessing you have no problem w the tobacco industry being prohibited from marketing and selling to minors. How is the food industry any different?”

I recognized what I posted and that’s why I went back and edited to remove that accusation. I stood/stand corrected.

You still haven’t answered the question directly about if you feel the restrictions on tobacco should be removed.

So where you stand?

 

[steross]

Weird that someone in the medical field cannot provide that answer for themself. That would be like me asking you financial questions.
By let me help you.. according to the CDC nearly 50% of people that start smoking in their youth ultimately die from smoking. Unlike a Snickers bar — tobacco use is highly addictive.

But let’s stop this stupid discussion. You know well that tobacco use is much worse than soft drinks and Snickers, a lot more addictive, and A LOT more studies proving the danger. I would never give my child a cigarette, but I would have not have a problem with my child having a candy bar every now and then. I imagine you feel the same way, but are just trying to be argumentative.
If you still want to advocate for more authoritarian governmental decisions — fine — but I do not agree.

Amazing that an adult has never heard of the Socratic method. Oh well, I guess I overestimated you yet again.

Far more children are harmed by our food environment than tobacco. Why? Because we restrict tobacco use and do insane things like put vending machines in school which not only takes that decision out of the hands of parents, but makes kids feel like that is not only something that the school permits, it actually condones.

There is a lot more complexity to medicine than just "what's worse."

You whine about "authoritarian" government. Except when you want it. You whine about the things that harm your social class, but advocate for things that harm others. I try to figure out your philosophical basis for your points, and really the only consistent thing is you advocate for what is best for you.

 

[steross]

Answer me a simple question: 1) Would you ever give or buy your child (under 18) a cigarette? 2) Would you ever give or buy your child a Snickers? 3) Would you ever giver or buy your child a Coke or Dr Pepper?

If you are being honest, you know the answer is simple…it is 1) hell no; 2) yes; 3) yes.
Again, let’s stop being stupidly argumentative - you are trying to make a point that is failing.

Knowing what I know now, there is no way I buy a child a regular coke or dr pepper. And yes, I am being honest.

Guess what the most common cause of cirrhosis is in this country. MAFLD. Alcohol can't keep up.

You think you know a lot more than you do.

 

[steross]

The bigger picture is that he is fine and dandy with any particular regulation that he agrees with, but any he doesn't is "onerous burdensome big brother regulations".....but just because he says so.

 

[CowboyJD]

It’s glaringly obvious.

He’s doing everything he can think of to not avoid admit the fact that he is indeed fine and dandy with tobacco restrictions being discussed.

Dodge, dodge, dodge.

The attempted yet ultimately unsuccessful mental gymnastics are impressive in their futility.