The Next US President is....

[static]

And now you're moving the goalposts.....

"Addictiveness" is unquantifiable. There are more people who have caffeine dependencies than nicotine because there are more coffee and tea drinkers than smokers, but nobody can say with quantifiable evidence which substance is "more" addictive. People in general have an easier time quitting coffee than smoking/snus though. . As to the links between caffeine and heart disease, there are no conclusive studies as of yet, but moderate consumption has been shown to be harmless.

Yes, this is becoming apparent despite the sugar producers' efforts to subvert research proving this and sugar's links to heart disease since the 60s. But moderate consumption is not harmful.

You're losing track here - obesity is not a substance that you can control.

Again, moderate consumption is relatively harmless, and can even carry health benefits.

There is no level of consumption of tobacco products that can be considered safe or harmless.

I just listed other substances that generate more secondary deaths per year than nicotine, as has been my position since you're the one that brought up second hand smoking. There are no moving goal posts. You say they're somehow not relevant or somehow different. I'm still waiting for you to explain that logic. Why tobacco? Why not ban alcohol? It has detrimental effects on the body, long term it causes liver damage, short term in inhibits your senses, to many it's mentally addictive. It has inhibited people enough to commit cases of rape, date rape, drunk driving accidents and kills 5 times more people than cigarettes. By every objective metric we have, it is more harmful to society than nicotine, and even a single beer can impair someone enough to be dangerous to those around them. There is no level of consumption of alcoholic products that can be considered safe or harmless. I can draw those same conclusions from every single thing I've mentioned here.

Obesity absolutely is something the government can and does control. The food pyramid was straight government propaganda when they tried to push corn during the 50's and 60's. Public schools control 1/3 of the meals you eat for at least 7 of the most formative years of your life, possibly 12 years depending on your school and as we learned during Obama's term, what food and what portions can be mandated at the federal level. FDA can declare HFCS a controlled substance, same with pesticides, to force all farms 100% organic. They can dictate how much of certain things you can have, like New York's soda tax / size restrictions. The FDA can get rid of additives that we're finding have been causing recent generations to develop new types of long term health issues. They can get ban preservatives to make us have to eat clean, fresh foods. I'm sure a number of initialed agencies can dictate what hormones we're allowed to feed animals that we breed for consumption. Physical activity? The DOE can push out revised curriculum in schools to make PE class more intense. I seem to remember in an early version of ACA there was a hamburger tax that'd be implemented federally. Do you still think our government can't control obesity by restricting the substances that most often cause it or by implementing sin taxes?

 

[Rusty Trombone]

and kills 5 times more people than cigarettes

Thought this was a bit off and checked with google sensei.

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.

Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day.

 

[static]

Thought this was a bit off and checked with google sensei.

Cigarette smoking is responsible for more than 480,000 deaths per year in the United States, including more than 41,000 deaths resulting from secondhand smoke exposure.

Excessive alcohol use is responsible for more than 95,000 deaths in the United States each year, or 261 deaths per day.

Secondary causes. Again, I don't care if people kill themselves, that's their choice. 480k seems a bit on the high side, since that would mean 75% of all cancer / respiratory cases would be smoking related, which I find hard to believe. unimportant to me though.

Double checked and can't find the article I had read awhile back that around 150-200k / year die from drunk driving. My mistake though, it was probably an activist group lying about that and just calling all auto accidents drunk driving. Can't believe anyone these days *sigh*

I was totally wrong about the numbers, though my point still hasn't changed. Virtually everything we consume has some impact on our long term health, and can impact those around us. I still don't think government should have the authority to dictate what I'm allowed to put into my body. That's between me, my family, friends, loved ones.

 

[Frenchy]

I just listed other substances that generate more secondary deaths per year than nicotine, as has been my position since you're the one that brought up second hand smoking. There are no moving goal posts. You say they're somehow not relevant or somehow different. I'm still waiting for you to explain that logic. Why tobacco? Why not ban alcohol? It has detrimental effects on the body, long term it causes liver damage, short term in inhibits your senses, to many it's mentally addictive. It has inhibited people enough to commit cases of rape, date rape, drunk driving accidents and kills 5 times more people than cigarettes. By every objective metric we have, it is more harmful to society than nicotine, and even a single beer can impair someone enough to be dangerous to those around them. There is no level of consumption of alcoholic products that can be considered safe or harmless. I can draw those same conclusions from every single thing I've mentioned here.

Obesity absolutely is something the government can and does control. The food pyramid was straight government propaganda when they tried to push corn during the 50's and 60's. Public schools control 1/3 of the meals you eat for at least 7 of the most formative years of your life, possibly 12 years depending on your school and as we learned during Obama's term, what food and what portions can be mandated at the federal level. FDA can declare HFCS a controlled substance, same with pesticides, to force all farms 100% organic. They can dictate how much of certain things you can have, like New York's soda tax / size restrictions. The FDA can get rid of additives that we're finding have been causing recent generations to develop new types of long term health issues. They can get ban preservatives to make us have to eat clean, fresh foods. I'm sure a number of initialed agencies can dictate what hormones we're allowed to feed animals that we breed for consumption. Physical activity? The DOE can push out revised curriculum in schools to make PE class more intense. I seem to remember in an early version of ACA there was a hamburger tax that'd be implemented federally. Do you still think our government can't control obesity by restricting the substances that most often cause it or by implementing sin taxes?

hey, you and @Sudsy , do you guys try to steal @Keihan and my position as #1 bickering old guys couple , Muppet Show style here?

 

[Keihan]

hey, you and @Sudsy , do you guys try to steal @Keihan and my position as #1 bickering old guys couple , Muppet Show style here?

Kiss my ass, I'm not old. Like I said, I don't have white pubes yet.

 

[Frenchy]

Kiss my ass, I'm not old. Like I said, I don't have white pubes yet.

Yeah well me neither. Ok just Kermit and Piggy then. And im obviously the frog

 

[Keihan]

Yeah well me neither. Ok just Kermit and Piggy then. And im obviously the frog

That's not the politically-correct term we use here.

 

[Sudsy]

I just listed other substances that generate more secondary deaths per year than nicotine, as has been my position since you're the one that brought up second hand smoking. There are no moving goal posts. You say they're somehow not relevant or somehow different. I'm still waiting for you to explain that logic. Why tobacco? Why not ban alcohol? It has detrimental effects on the body, long term it causes liver damage, short term in inhibits your senses, to many it's mentally addictive. It has inhibited people enough to commit cases of rape, date rape, drunk driving accidents and kills 5 times more people than cigarettes. By every objective metric we have, it is more harmful to society than nicotine, and even a single beer can impair someone enough to be dangerous to those around them. There is no level of consumption of alcoholic products that can be considered safe or harmless. I can draw those same conclusions from every single thing I've mentioned here.

Obesity absolutely is something the government can and does control. The food pyramid was straight government propaganda when they tried to push corn during the 50's and 60's. Public schools control 1/3 of the meals you eat for at least 7 of the most formative years of your life, possibly 12 years depending on your school and as we learned during Obama's term, what food and what portions can be mandated at the federal level. FDA can declare HFCS a controlled substance, same with pesticides, to force all farms 100% organic. They can dictate how much of certain things you can have, like New York's soda tax / size restrictions. The FDA can get rid of additives that we're finding have been causing recent generations to develop new types of long term health issues. They can get ban preservatives to make us have to eat clean, fresh foods. I'm sure a number of initialed agencies can dictate what hormones we're allowed to feed animals that we breed for consumption. Physical activity? The DOE can push out revised curriculum in schools to make PE class more intense. I seem to remember in an early version of ACA there was a hamburger tax that'd be implemented federally. Do you still think our government can't control obesity by restricting the substances that most often cause it or by implementing sin taxes?

Double checked and can't find the article I had read awhile back that around 150-200k / year die from drunk driving.

And now both moving the goalposts with the discussion of obesity (again, not a substance), and providing false information in an attempt to refute.

Excessive alcohol use in the US is responsible for approximately 100,000 deaths, and approximately 10,000 deaths per year can be attributed to alcohol impaired driving.

Comparatively, tobacco use takes the lives of 480,000 people a year, including the 40,000 attributed to secondhand smoke.

You have to further consider that roughly 50% of the population are consumers of alcohol, compared to 14% of the population that smoke - . taking into account number of users and total (primary and secondary) mortality, tobacco is nearly 16 times more likely to kill someone that uses it. Further, consider that there are roughly 2,800,000 deaths in the US per year, with tobacco causing 17% of them - pretty significant when a substance used by 14% of the population manages to cause 17% of the annual death toll.

Pointless continuing the discussion with you as you are simply going to redirect or gainsay any point I make. You do you.

 

[static]

And now both moving the goalposts with the discussion of obesity (again, not a substance), and providing false information in an attempt to refute.

Excessive alcohol use in the US is responsible for approximately 100,000 deaths, and approximately 10,000 deaths per year can be attributed to alcohol impaired driving.

Comparatively, tobacco use takes the lives of 480,000 people a year, including the 40,000 attributed to secondhand smoke.

You have to further consider that roughly 50% of the population are consumers of alcohol, compared to 14% of the population that smoke - . taking into account number of users and total (primary and secondary) mortality, tobacco is nearly 16 times more likely to kill someone that uses it. Further, consider that there are roughly 2,800,000 deaths in the US per year, with tobacco causing 17% of them - pretty significant when a substance used by 14% of the population manages to cause 17% of the annual death toll.

Pointless continuing the discussion with you as you are simply going to redirect or gainsay any point I make. You do you.

I would love to do me, except you support policies and regulation that would preventing me from doing me.

 

[CharlieSimms]

Gosh I really hate to chime in on a thread not related in any way to the true, glorious purpose of the site... But to see the impact of alcohol measured only by death incidents, I really have to disagree. The many crimes, broken families and general chaos in society that alcohol causes makes the deaths a very small part of the overall equation. Not that I advocate making it illegal but the impact on society of alcohol is quite an epic shit show. Smoking is not great either but I have to believe a marginally lesser evil.

 

[SugoiBoy]

First run for governor and then for president?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-56864649

 

[JohnOsaka]

would be very quietly pleased if the government banned smoking cigarettes anywhere in public and, better, start executing anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers and basically all tourists traveling for pleasure right now.

Yeah, fuck that noise. Are you sure you aren't a Democrat?

I love your unusual mix of Republicanism and North-Korean style of problem solving. It’s refreshing

More depressing than anything else.

 

[JohnOsaka]

Frankly, I’m glad to be living in Japan.

Yep. Living in Japan has its perks..

Where it's malcontents mostly kill themselves and only occasionally kill others.

 

[Simonka]

... or maybe they just said Palestinians too have the right to a state , which was interpreted as usual as “antisemitic” and “wanting to wipe Israel off the map”...

That’s like an instant IQ test..
- Is it anti Semitic to condemn Israel?
+ Yes
- Congratulations, you have double digit IQ!

For the mid-to-low IQ folk, it’s not anti semitic to support Palestine, it’s not anti Chinese to speak out about the Uyghur massacre, it’s not hating on Turks to accept Armenian genocide etc etc. A state doesn’t equal its people.. when people remain silent in fear of offending the wrong people, it bothers me so much.

 

[Frenchy]

That’s like an instant IQ test..
- Is it anti Semitic to condemn Israel?
+ Yes
- Congratulations, you have double digit IQ!

For the mid-to-low IQ folk, it’s not anti semitic to support Palestine, it’s not anti Chinese to speak out about the Uyghur massacre, it’s not hating on Turks to accept Armenian genocide etc etc. A state doesn’t equal its people.. when people remain silent in fear of offending the wrong people, it bothers me so much.

well said!

 

[IchigoDave]

 

[Frenchy]

Not sure about the next US President
But this is our current one listening to the “grindcore” band Ultra Vomit at Elysee Palace. He invited them. I think I gonna change my nationality and moniker here. Trop c’est trop!

 

[psd]

Not sure about the next US President
But this is our current one listening to the “grindcore” band Ultra Vomit at Elysee Palace. He invited them. I think I gonna change my nationality and moniker here. Trop c’est trop!

Allez hop ! t'occupe t'inquiète
Touche pas ma planète

 

[Frenchy]

Allez hop ! t'occupe t'inquiète
Touche pas ma planète

well I’ve watched La Souris Deglinguee at Ecole Polytechnique back in the days so Une Souris Verte at L’Elysee, why not after all

 

[SugoiBoy]

One thing that most American expats should be able to agree upon is the need to get rid of the worldwide taxation of income by the federal government.

Both Democrats Abroad and Republicans Overseas have supported this position.

https://www.democratsabroad.org/residency_based_taxation

http://republicansoverseas.com/wp-content/uploads/Territorial-Tax-Reform-Proposal-Jan-6-2017.pdf

 

[Joe2017]

Breaking news! Biden and Putin manage to agree on something during the summit: they both decided to wear the same sunglasses.

 

[Frenchy]

I like surrealist art

 

[MikeH]

 

[Keihan]

There are a number of talking heads here stateside, including a few who were staunchly in Biden's corner in 2020, who are calling this (and Biden's disastrous press conference) an "administration ending" event, and rightly so. This is a fucking disaster. I'm pretty comfortable saying that Biden (Harris) won't be getting a second term. That worries me because the anti-vaxxer dickheads from the GOP bullpen are probably even worse. But I'm staying out of the politics of this one. I hope. For now.

That said, I sincerely hope our State Department is doing everything possible to evac all the Afghan interpreters and intelligence volunteers who assisted the U.S. and gets them the fuck out of there ASAP with green cards and jobs lined up here stateside. A decade ago when I was working for Congress one of our office's priorities was assisting with the process of getting visas for the Afghani volunteers who served as translators and guides with our military, and that's actually one of the few things I ever did in politics that I'm proud of. John Q. Public probably has no idea, but if the Taliban gets their hands on these guys they're not simply dead, but will be tortured, their families will be massacred, women, children, cats, dogs, everything. These people are fucking savages.

I'm happy to see us ending this 20-year bullshit campaign but the Biden Admin royally fucked up. No doubt, this is Saigon all over again.

 

[Sudsy]

I'm pretty comfortable saying that Biden (Harris) won't be getting a second term.

They've still got their one get out of jail free card - Biden steps down citing dementia onset, and Harris gets to waltz in absolved of Biden's sins.

What do you bet the odds are on them using it in the next 30 days?