Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Because tobacco is one product directly linked to the health problems it causes. Obesity it multifactorial, with a strong genetic component:
And you can look no further than this forum to discover people have no clue what constitutes obese. Anytime BMI is mentioned, there’s nothing but hemming and hawing about how it doesn’t apply.
Smokers pay a premium on insurance due to their choice. Poor people smoke, but nobody has a problem with raising prices for them. That same "trailer park mom" will find a way to smoke. Probably at the expense of her kids.
We didn't let the tobacco companies put MULTIVITAMIN on their packages.
This to me is the biggest take away from your link: "Obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the United States and developing countries. Although the trend of decreased physical activity and increased caloric intake is probably responsible for the recent rise in obesity".
well, that's an odd interpretation. I was trying to demonstrate a difference between tobacco deaths and gun violence.
Well, my advice would be to pay better attention to the packaging/ingredients if people really cared about what they were ingesting.
The social cost of those is higher than the taxes taken in, in general. Alcohol, in particular, is incredibly destructive.
Yeah, when the companies are no longer allowed, by the government, to lie to people.crackattack said:
While you’re probably correct about the murderers, It’s been shown repeatedly than gun ownership increases one’s risk of dying.FairWarning said:
You and @MTskibum have valid points. It's difficult to distinguish natural ingredients. I'm sure I couldn't very easily either. But as a consumer I already know certain things. I know most canned foods are high in salt. Same as refrigerated items. I also very rarely salt my food. I pay attention to calories per serving on something labeled "healthy". I hate most junk food and soda. So I avoid those almost exclusively. I know certain breads are unhealthy, especially white bread. I buy fresh whenever possible, which I know is tough for poorer individuals.
Believe me, I’m all for tackling obesity. But smoking is a much lower hanging fruit.crackattack said:
Of course, but my point is, guns don’t increase safety for most people. Quite the opposite actually.
I think you’re overestimating how savvy many consumers are. Believe me, I gave a nutrition lecture to inner city kids, and they were pretty clueless. And while many popular diets can help one lose weight, they arguably still aren’t healthy.
There is literally no way to quantify this statement. You have no idea how many times a crime was avoided because someone had a gun it it was known they had a gun or it was found out they had a gun.
Agree with this.crackattack said:
Agree with this too.massraider said:
I agree it is tricky to estimate. But we know violent crime rates in areas with and without strict gun control, and those rates based on per capita gun ownership. We also know the risk of gun-related death as it relates to gun control legislation.
You're right. I don't know sentence #2, so I don't throw out baseless allegations based on that lack of data.
The original statement was “don't people have a right to protect themselves?” wrt gun ownership. As we both agree it’s problematic to conclusively prove how many crimes guns avert (or promote), let’s just stick to a more concrete outcome: death.
crackattack said:
My only question is who gets to make the determination what falls in to the “sin” bucket? I’m much more libertarian on this issue. Let folks eat and drink and smoke what they like. Don’t allow advertising to target young kids. If someone chooses to eat horribly or drink or smoke - that’s their decision. We should stay out of peoples pantries the same way we do their bedrooms (not a perfect analogy but the point is the same). And yes, I realize there’s HC cost implications- I just don’t care about that as I’m not looking to be everybody’s nanny or health police - as long as their choices don’t impact others.
There is a debate. You keep coming back to this. You have zero data to back up what you're saying. Because you can't quantify it. Repeating the same line over and over, just like believing something with all your heart, doesn't automatically make it true.
But they are making the decision based on lies, misinformation, or sins of omission. Same way people didn't know 60 years ago what was in their cigarettes.
I prefer using my brain to answer questions. Here’s one analysis of multiple gun safety studies :
In layspeak, gun access doubles one’s risk of death by homicide, and more than triples risk of suicide.
Am I seeing this back and forth correctly that you guys haven't even factored in accidental shooting that resulted in injury instead of death.?
I also didn’t include accidental deaths and intentional non-fatal injuries, just to keep it simple. But you’re right, any discussion about the calculus of gun safety should include all harm they cause and prevent.
Seems like there was similar back and forth in the gun thread, as there was a debate about good guys with guns vs. accidental shootings vs. chances of death within a house with a gun, etc..
I wasn't involved in that debate, but I've had the discussion before. Usually the good guys with gun crowd reference a headline or two where someone with a gun thwarts some criminals. It's often an ex-cop or military brandishing the weapon. Meanwhile, they ignore studies which show populations of gun owners tend to hurt or kill their loved ones much more often than bad guys, and areas with stricter gun control legislation typically have fewer gun deaths per capita.
I’m fine with this - force companies to be upfront about what is in their products and the potential side effects. No big issue there. I would say that today more than ever that somebody who wants to be educated on these things can be - if they put in the effort.
That's a good idea. I'd actually be ok with giving more money for food stamps to buy healthier food. But then you run into the argument of government dictating what "junk food" is.
IF that happened, I think a bit more would have to be done about the price and access to healthier options in the poorer neighborhoods.
Yes, that would have to happen. In the hood, the liquor stores are the grocery stores. Jalapeño Cheetos and soda are the norm in food cards. Of course, who would fight tooth and nail to keep them food stamp eligible? PepsiCo, Coke, Mondelez (nabisco), etc.
100% falseMTskibum said:
I think the difference is I choose to smoke knowing the risk. I don't choose to get shot driving down the road, or going to a grocery store. These knuckleheads shooting up places and killing people are stripping their rights of living, and personal freedoms.
dead is dead isn't it ?
Seriously the argument is polar opposite on the spectrum. Most people see this i would assume
Because those people are choosing to engage in the behavior. I say this as somebody who thinks that drugs, while terrible, also shouldn't be illegal to consume. Same with high fructose corn syurp, etc.
