Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Maybe Tobacco Causes Memory Loss
While Barack Obama
seems to have exaggerated his
illegal drug use, he has at the same time underreported
his use of a legal (for now) drug: tobacco. On MSNBC's
Hardball last night, ABC correspondent Jake Tapper
notes, Obama admitted that he snuck a cigarette here and there
after he officially quit in February 2007. Yet when Tapper ran into
a smoky-smelling Obama at the Capitol last August, the senator's
campaign insisted, even after consulting with him, that he
hadn't smoked at all in months.
Obama is a co-sponsor of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, currently making its way through Congress. Shouldn't he be setting an example by exercising a little more smoking prevention and tobacco control of his own?
[via TMZ]
|4.3.08 @ 7:16PM|#
A politician forbidding the rest of us to do something that he does himself? You're kidding!
JB|4.3.08 @ 7:17PM|#
"Do as I say, not as I do." Isn't that an official plank of the Democrat party?
|4.3.08 @ 7:17PM|#
"Shouldn't he be setting an example by exercising a little more
smoking prevention and tobacco control of his own?"
Absolutely not. The entire point is that people just can't do
anything on their own. If he could do it, it would defeat the
purpose of the legislation.
As dumb as all the nanny stuff is, I would kind of like it if we
had a Pres that smoked.
|4.3.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Shouldn't he be setting an example by exercising a little
more smoking prevention and tobacco control of his own?
Yes, because chemical dependency is a moral failure that
demonstrates only the poor character of those who experience it.
Why else would someone who's been smoking for thirty years not
stop?
I had no idea Jacob Sullum was a Victorian.
|4.3.08 @ 7:18PM|#
forbidding the rest of us to do something
Oh, is that what the bill does?
Hint: no.
Invisible Finger|4.3.08 @ 7:18PM|#
This merely means Obama is as consistent as all the other smokers who support anti-smoking legislation because they're too lazy/wussy to quit on their own.
emerson|4.3.08 @ 7:26PM|#
joe,
I'm pretty sure Jacob doesn't have a problem with Obama smoking.
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
Other Matt|4.3.08 @ 7:29PM|#
Yes, because chemical dependency is a moral failure that
demonstrates only the poor character of those who experience it.
Why else would someone who's been smoking for thirty years not
stop?
I had no idea Jacob Sullum was a Victorian.
Translation: "Waaahhhh!!!! You can't pick on the big B.O. in front
of joe!!!"
What's the matter, joe, can't admit when B.O. acts hypocritical
that it's ::gasp:: hypocritical? You are such a pompous little ass,
being gone for a week I'd forgotten how bad you were.
Unfortunately, you take little time to remind one.
So, let's play joe, where we change definitions to suit whatever we
want at the moment. Ok, joe so just what IS the point of the
aforementioned act if it's not to encourage smoking cessation?
Let's see your slithering about to try to deny it, it should be
entertaining.
Still the same partisan hack as always, lower case joe.
|4.3.08 @ 7:31PM|#
Oh, is that what the bill does?
Hint: no.
Joe --
If you think this legislation is not the first step to an intended
out-and-out ban on tobacco products, you've never seen a camel's
nose sneaking into the tent.
|4.3.08 @ 7:32PM|#
"Tapper ran into a smoky-smelling Obama at the Capitol last
August, the senator's campaign insisted, even after consulting with
him, that he hadn't smoked at all in months."
If he lied about that, he'd lie about other things.
|4.3.08 @ 7:41PM|#
@JB
"Do as I say, not as I do." Isn't that an official plank of the
Democrat party?
Ha! I'm trying to find a party that isn't an official
plank of!
|4.3.08 @ 7:42PM|#
If he enjoys smoking I wish he'd simply say, "I smoke. Deal with
it." For all I know he clears wax out of his ears with a bobby pin.
One can only hope that he occasionally has a bit too much to drink
and is grumpy before having his first cuppa coffee in the
morning.
I've watched the demonization/denormalization of smokers with jaws
agape. From a prop for long contemplation and symbol of
congeniality, it's become an activity apparently second only to
child abuse. Oh, California considers smoking around children
abuse. Silly me.
Travis|4.3.08 @ 7:43PM|#
Guys give Barry a break it isn't his fault he has a disease called addiction. He should be sentenced to rehab.
RamirezDeCongo|4.3.08 @ 7:46PM|#
So if no one saw him smoking, how do people know that he was
smoking in the presence of children and thus being a
hypocrite?
Please explain this.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 7:55PM|#
I had no idea Jacob Sullum was a Victorian.
Really?
You didn't know?
I have actually been trying to decide if he's a Victorian
Scientologist.
Hypocrisy doesn't seem to be something folks around here
understand.
So who should be involved in crafting laws about smoking?
Smokers?
Who should be involved in crafting laws about guns?
Gun owners?
Who should be involved in crafting laws about education?
Children?
Just asking questions.
|4.3.08 @ 8:03PM|#
It's the hypocrisy, stupid.
What hypocrisy? Have you ever encountered anyone who has ever tried
to quit smoking? Are you seriously not familiar with any possible
reasons why someone who has been smoking for 30 years can think
cigarette's are bad but still have one once in a while?
Seriously?
Other Matt has nothing to add except "joe'z bad." Again.
Yawn.
Crusader Rabbit, I think that's nuts.
If he enjoys smoking I wish he'd simply say, "I smoke. Deal
with it." And if he doesn't, and smokes only because of the
withdrawal symptoms while trying and failing to quite entirely,
then what should he say?
|4.3.08 @ 8:05PM|#
You know, I'd noticed the threads were better for the past
week.
I just realized why.
|4.3.08 @ 8:16PM|#
emerson, ken -
If I read this right, Obama hasn't actually lied or behaved
hypocritically (on this anyway). Campaign spokespeople seem to be
hired to just say whatever seems "best" at the time of questioning,
then be ready to take all the blame and resign if it doesn't work
out. So, unfortunately, this seems par for the course. If BO has
actually lied about it himself that'd be news. Most smokers I know
don't want other people to get started, so being attached to some
shitty bill seems like the politician's version of that
sentiment.
|4.3.08 @ 8:26PM|#
Is anybody actually so sheltered that they don't understand what
quitting cigarettes looks like?
Sniff sniff - Honey, did you smoke?
Nope. cough.
You read a story like that, and you think "hypocrite?" If he lies
about sneaking cigarettes, he'll lie about anything? He says he's
against smoking, but he has a cigarette once in a while, so he's a
hypocrite?
Uh...WHAT?!?
|4.3.08 @ 8:29PM|#
The family smoking and tobacco control act if I remember correctly is the one that gives the FDA regulatory approval and reduces the amount of nicotine allowed in cigarettes. Well that seems fairly consistent with Obama's theory of the role of government. Its a stupid bill because all the evidence sugest that less nicotine merely results in the smoker taking longer drags to get the same amount of nicotine, this leeds to more smoke and worse health. Its hypocrisy depends on what type of cigarretes he smokes, if he smokes cigarettes with the normal amount of nicotine he is a hypocrite but if he smokes lights he isn't because the bill essentially forces all cigarettes to have less nicotine. But he'd still be a hypocrite i guess because the bill would ban companies from calling them lights.
Elemenope|4.3.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Crusader Rabbit, I think that's nuts.
For once, I agree with the panicking paranoids. The first step to
outlawing something formally legal is to identify it as a social
ill that must be controlled, through legislation. Not that
tobacco is not a social ill...just not one that should be
controlled by legislation. That status is reserved for social ills
like rape, theft, and murder. Suicide and lateral
annoyances don't quite rise to that level for me.
If he enjoys smoking I wish he'd simply say, "I smoke. Deal
with it." And if he doesn't, and smokes only because of the
withdrawal symptoms while trying and failing to quit entirely, then
what should he say?
"I smoke only because of the withdrawal symptoms while trying and
failing to quit entirely." Not so hard, though I'll admit a tad
more nuanced than people expect from their politicians these
days.
Elemenope|4.3.08 @ 8:34PM|#
But he'd still be a hypocrite i guess because the bill would
ban companies from calling them lights.
So what is that...a triple standard?
Dibbs|4.3.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Does this bill mean that ciggie packages can say "FDA approved" on them? Think of the advertising!
|4.3.08 @ 8:39PM|#
Elemenope,
"I smoke only because of the withdrawal symptoms while trying
and failing to quit entirely." That's pretty much what he said
last night to Chris Matthews. He acknowledged that he's fallen off
the wagon since he started trying to quit.
|4.3.08 @ 8:41PM|#
What kind of journalist prints a story about Obama without a reference to his crazy preacher?
|4.3.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Yeah, I agree with joe and NM. The guy smokes but thinks smoking
prevention is good. Most smokers I know don't give packs of Camels
to their kids for Christmas...
I mean, McCain, who has struggled and lost with adultery in his
life, could still be for marriage preservation bills...
|4.3.08 @ 8:45PM|#
What if he says "I like smoking, but I think in the long run it is bad for me and those around me, so I'm trying to quit, but it's hard and I'm not there yet."
Elemenope|4.3.08 @ 8:46PM|#
That's pretty much what he said last night to Chris
Matthews. He acknowledged that he's fallen off the wagon since he
started trying to quit.
Glad to hear it. I'm still a tad bit irritated that his people
thought the idea of him still smoking was so damaging they had to
fib about it. I expect too much, I know.
|4.3.08 @ 8:46PM|#
FDR & Ike smoked cigarettes,
Let's not forget Jed Bartlett.
As dumb as all the nanny stuff is, I would kind of like it if
we had a Pres that smoked.
I would love that too. Certainly would completely eliminate the
stigma of public officials smoking, and maybe people would start
looking cool again.
I think it kind of humanizes him for me; beneath the carefully
crafted image of the superhuman guy his men wants us to see, is a
guy who is constantly fumbling for lighters and breaking out the
quarters when they have ran out of petty cash.
Is anybody actually so sheltered that they don't understand
what quitting cigarettes looks like?
Sniff sniff - Honey, did you smoke?
Nope. cough.
You read a story like that, and you think "hypocrite?" If he lies
about sneaking cigarettes, he'll lie about anything? He says he's
against smoking, but he has a cigarette once in a while, so he's a
hypocrite?
Uh...WHAT?!?
Hey mom, I quit smoking!
That's great!
*visits months later*
"Is that a cigarette box between your coach? Why I thought you quit
smoking! Sure the box could had been from months ago but...*guilt
guilt guilt* ...you know, I am going to buy you a non-smoking patch
*knaw knaw knaw* ...I can't believe you would lie to me like that,
you know Jon you are an adult now and if you want to operate in
this world you need to stop lying or else you would never *daggers
to the heart daggers to the heart daggers to the heart* I keep
pestering you because I love you *guilt guilt guilt*"
"That's great mom. Constantly reminding me of a habit who's
cravings I have been trying to ignore is the best way to get me to
stop that habit. Excuse me for a minute while haul ass to the local
gas station."
|4.3.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Is anybody actually so sheltered that they don't understand
what quitting cigarettes looks like?
Sniff sniff - Honey, did you smoke?
Nope. cough.
You read a story like that, and you think "hypocrite?" If he lies
about sneaking cigarettes, he'll lie about anything? He says he's
against smoking, but he has a cigarette once in a while, so he's a
hypocrite?
Uh...WHAT?!?
Oh, come on Joe, its not like he's doing anything where he is under
constant physical and mental stress for prolonged periods of time
that would increase his cravings. Come on, Joe.
Other Matt|4.3.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Other Matt has nothing to add except "joe'z
bad." "joe'z a moron" Again. Yawn.
Fixed it for you.
C'mon joe, I'm waiting to hear the answer to my question. What
exactly is the bill supposed to be doing?
Can't you get your wee little mind to answer a direct question? Not
one?
Elemenope|4.3.08 @ 8:59PM|#
Can't you get your wee little mind to answer a direct
question? Not one?
Give it a rest, Matt. Honestly, it wearying.
As for the actual act, despite its barely constitutional nature
(damn you, commerce clause!...and, um...damn you, Supreme Court!)
seems to be redefining a cigarette as a drug delivery device, which
it fucking is. (Nicotine is a drug, genius.) And places it under
the regulatory of the Food and Drug Administration. This
is not rocket science.
So it's fairly fucking unclear from the peanut gallery just what
point you intend to make by pointing to the act itself. Unless you
mean to point out that the cigarette companies will now have to
suffer under the horrible regulatory yoke of the same people that
have crushed the great pharmaceutical companies into the
ground...oh, wait...
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:03PM|#
Other Matt,
Not to get in the way of your joe flirting and all, but the link
above provides the details.
The purposes of this Act are--
(1) to provide authority to the Food and Drug Administration to
regulate tobacco products under the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), by recognizing it as the
primary Federal regulatory authority with respect to the
manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products;
(2) to ensure that the Food and Drug Administration has the
authority to address issues of particular concern to public health
officials, especially the use of tobacco by young people and
dependence on tobacco;
(3) to authorize the Food and Drug Administration to set national
standards controlling the manufacture of tobacco products and the
identity, public disclosure, and amount of ingredients used in such
products;
(4) to provide new and flexible enforcement authority to ensure
that there is effective oversight of the tobacco industry's efforts
to develop, introduce, and promote less harmful tobacco
products;
(5) to vest the Food and Drug Administration with the authority to
regulate the levels of tar, nicotine, and other harmful components
of tobacco products;
(6) in order to ensure that consumers are better informed, to
require tobacco product manufacturers to disclose research which
has not previously been made available, as well as research
generated in the future, relating to the health and dependency
effects or safety of tobacco products;
(7) to continue to permit the sale of tobacco products to adults in
conjunction with measures to ensure that they are not sold or
accessible to underage purchasers;
(8) to impose appropriate regulatory controls on the tobacco
industry;
(9) to promote cessation to reduce disease risk and the social
costs associated with tobacco related diseases; and
(10) to strengthen legislation against illicit trade in tobacco
products.
|4.3.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Elemenope
Don't waste your time. Other matt is just trying to get on joe
because joe is an evil liberal and he is a virtuous conservative,
and thus he is compelled to argue with him for the very sake of
it...Uggh...
|4.3.08 @ 9:07PM|#
NM-Could you believe Richardson's endorsement of Obama? I thought for sure he was holding out for Clinton's VP slot (and thought that was a winning ticket btw).
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:09PM|#
"via TMZ"
Oh My God.
I just noticed the source on this.
TMZ.
You have got to be kidding.
On the same day we have a post about Kurt Cobain tennis shoes and
now the political coverage of TMZ is highlighted.
I had to check to make sure I wasn't on the E! webpage.
Other Matt|4.3.08 @ 9:12PM|#
Elemenope
Don't waste your time. Other matt is just trying to get on joe
because joe is an evil liberal and he is a virtuous conservative,
and thus he is compelled to argue with him for the very sake of
it...Uggh...
No MNG, I'm actually not a conservative. I'm registered as an
independent, and vote both parties, more demo and indie than
republican. joe's a disrespectful moronic partisan fuckwit , so I
object to his stupidity.
In the land before time, I'm told joe was a reasonable person. Now,
he's a troll. He's very good at it, throwing out stuff with no
substance and attacking others for his own failings in some vain
attempt to cover them, but he's not so good to be able to cover his
lack of logical thinking.
His comment here was absolutely worthless, other than to infer that
BO should be subject to some lesser scale of judgment in not
following his own legislation. Why? I don't know. I know joe's a
racist, who hates white people even though his skin is white. I can
only surmise that this is the underlying reason, as he has none. I
know he'd attack any other candidate for hypocritical acts, as I've
seen him do it.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:13PM|#
MNG,
Wasn't that surprised, actually.
He does more for Obama than he does for Clinton since Obama needs
help with the hispanic vote...I am sure Obama lobbied harder, and I
am sure Richardson enjoys feeling like he is a leader that can
bring something to Obama's campaign.
He is also smart enough to recognize that Obama is probably the
stonger candidate.
|4.3.08 @ 9:14PM|#
So Hussein has the same habits he wants to forbid, by law, to
others. Typical Democrat; reminds me of Eliot Spitzer (D-Emperor's
Club) and his crackdown on prostitution rings.
It's sort of disappointing. I started paying attention to politics
during the nonstop hypocritical nanny-stating and tawdry scandals
of the Clinton White House, but eight years of Bush has spoiled me;
despite constant Democrat Party fulminations, his administration
has been, refreshingly, the most moral, Christian, upright and
forthright government in living memory. I'd hate to see a Democrat
- especially a hip-deep-in-sludge Chicago pol in hock to black
radicals - tarnish the White House again, but with the dishonesty
on display in this post, I'm not sanguine about it.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Other Matt,
I am still not following the logic behind using the "hypocrit"
label for Obama on this.
Explain again how he is being hypocritical.
I mean if you are going to accuse joe of having no substance, you'd
think you could, I don't know, provide some support for your
assertion.
Other Matt|4.3.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Other Matt,
Not to get in the way of your joe flirting and all, but the link
above provides the details.
I've read it, thanks. It's obviously designed to regulate personal
behavior. So, if the behavior is so bad as to require regulation,
why does he engage in it? While orders of magnitude less, it's
similar to Spitzer pushing anti prostitution regulation.
My comment is joe apparantly doesn't understand this, given his
lack of comprehension of minor details. So, I'm looking forward to
a good slimy evasive slither as to how it really isn't designed to
regulate conduct, etc.
Personally I think both should be free from regulation.
Prostitution has been and will continue to be around. Smoking is a
personal choice. It's a hard demon to get off your back to quit, I
know, and while I don't particularly want it around me I don't have
anything against someone who wants to smoke. It's political
pandering and should be called out as such to put it under the FDA.
To preach "Do as I say, not as I do" is a severe character defect
in politicians, but I guess in joe's world if they're a Dem then
it's ok.
I mean if you are going to accuse joe of having no substance,
you'd think you could, I don't know, provide some support for your
assertion.
No problem, do you follow the above?
Daniel Reeves|4.3.08 @ 9:19PM|#
Shouldn't he be setting an example by exercising a little more smoking prevention and tobacco control of his own?
If you have to ask that, then you clearly don't understand the
liberal psyche (as seen in, for example, scientific research
subsidies): "I won't do it unless you do." There are valid times
for that type of attitude, such as with environmental causes.
Carbon taxes, for example, are good because the costs of limiting
those harmful externalities is something none of us actually want
to pay, but really should. But most of the time, it's all just
feel-good, authoritarian policies.
SIV|4.3.08 @ 9:19PM|#
Just because a progressive supports CAFE standards you don't
expect they are going to drive a dangerous little economy car or
hybrid.
That is for the other people.
Ditto on tobacco control/prohibition and smoking.
|4.3.08 @ 9:20PM|#
We really need a Prez that will have nicotine fits in the middle of sensitive diplomatic negotiations - and State of the Union addresses - and in military briefings. Can we hope as a result that the less time spent on these matters the better? Less time for bloviating, hand-wringing, arm-twisting and all the other attendant nonsense of government. Smoke up, Barry!
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:21PM|#
Other Matt,
It's obviously designed to regulate personal
behavior.
Really?
I don't see that provision in its state purposes. I do see a clause
about its goal "to continue to permit the sale of tobacco products
to adults in conjunction with measures to ensure that they are not
sold or accessible to underage purchasers"
I am afraid I still don't follow your logic.
Maybe I am just thick today.
Other Matt|4.3.08 @ 9:22PM|#
So Hussein has the same habits he wants to forbid, by law,
to others. Typical Democratpolitician from either
party; reminds me of Eliot Spitzer (D-Emperor's Club) and his
crackdown on prostitution rings.
It won't change until we free ourselves from the view that this
shit is normal.
Other Matt|4.3.08 @ 9:30PM|#
I don't see that provision in its state purposes. I do see a
clause about its goal "to continue to permit the sale of tobacco
products to adults in conjunction with measures to ensure that they
are not sold or accessible to underage purchasers"
You don't understand that these are designed to regulate a
particular course of conduct out of existence, and always make a
nod to preserving something to keep the subjects calm?
I am afraid I still don't follow your logic.
Maybe I am just thick today.
Maybe. Maybe it's me as it's been a long day. However, I think if
you honestly answered you'd acknowledge that the intent of the act
is to regulation tobacco out of existence. I have yet to find where
the FDA says it allows a drug with a track record of causing cancer
and no therapeutic benefit to remain on the market. Once they have
to treat nicotine as a drug, I don't see any basis for them to
change this.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:32PM|#
From the bill
No such regulation may require that the sale or distribution of
a tobacco product be limited to the written or oral authorization
of a practitioner licensed by law to prescribe medical
products.
`(2) LABEL STATEMENTS- The label of a tobacco product shall bear
such appropriate statements of the restrictions required by a
regulation under subsection (a) as the Secretary may in such
regulation prescribe.
`(3) LIMITATIONS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- No restrictions under paragraph (1) may--
`(i) prohibit the sale of any tobacco product in face-to-face
transactions by a specific category of retail outlets; or
`(ii) establish a minimum age of sale of tobacco products to any
person older than 18 years of age.
Still not seeing how the bill is designed to force people to
quit.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:35PM|#
Really.
To call Obama a hypocrit on this you would have to say that he
"wants to BE ABLE TO smoke" while doing things to "keep other
people from BEING ABLE TO smoke."
He's not.
|4.3.08 @ 9:41PM|#
So Hussein has the same habits he wants to forbid, by law,
to others. Typical politician from either party; reminds me of
Eliot Spitzer (D-Emperor's Club) and his crackdown on prostitution
rings.
It won't change until we free ourselves from the view that this
shit is normal.
No, sorry, it's only normal for Democrat politicians. Though I
understand that if you listen to the MSM, which hushes up Democrat
scandal as much as possible and bloats up like a toad over any
potential impropriety with an R after its name, you might get the
impression that the two parties are equal. So the attitude's
understandable; but I have to oppose it anyway. When we're locked
in a struggle between Good (R-America) and Evil (D-Treason), 'A pox
on both your houses!' is as bad as actively siding with Evil.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:41PM|#
Other Matt,
You don't understand that these are designed to regulate a
particular course of conduct out of existence, and always make a
nod to preserving something to keep the subjects calm?
Sorry, but that just has too much of a BigGovermentConspiracy
flavor to it for me.
|4.3.08 @ 9:42PM|#
Agreed with NM. SIV, Other Matt, where has Obama called for any limits on other folks smoking while he smokes? Improving the labelling would, one thinks, be OK with libertarians (they don't like fraud I hear)...But then, I've long thought many conservatives pose as libertarians...
|4.3.08 @ 9:43PM|#
"Though I understand that if you listen to the MSM, which hushes
up Democrat scandal as much as possible and bloats up like a toad
over any potential impropriety with an R after its name, you might
get the impression that the two parties are equal."
Are you drunk? Vitter. Spitzer. Press coverage? Yeah, obviously a
left wing cabal...
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 9:43PM|#
When we're locked in a struggle between Good (R-America) and
Evil (D-Treason), 'A pox on both your houses!' is as bad as
actively siding with Evil.
That's fucking funny shit.
|4.3.08 @ 9:44PM|#
What if the phone rings at 3am and Obama misses it because he went outside to smoke?
SIV|4.3.08 @ 9:50PM|#
What if the phone rings at 3am and Obama misses it because
he went outside to smoke?
Blame anti-smoking prohibitionists for subsequent World Holocaust.
The President can permit smoking in the White House.
SIV|4.3.08 @ 9:53PM|#
MNG,
Libertarians generally oppose the FDA,food and drug laws, mandatory
labeling, regulation of commerce between individuals etc. You don't
have a decoder ring so it is understandable you might forget.
Daniel Reeves|4.3.08 @ 9:56PM|#
To call Obama a hypocrit on this you would have to say that he "wants to BE ABLE TO smoke" while doing things to "keep other people from BEING ABLE TO smoke."
Untrue. Obama theoretically could stop smoking at any moment. But
why isn't he? Because he'd rather smoke than endure the costs of
quitting. So yes, in a sense, he wants to smoke. He'd rather NOT
smoke and, in addition, NOT endure the pain of quitting, but
there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Often our long term interests are in contrast with our short term
interests. One study showed that when asked what they wanted then
and there from a choice of chocolate or fruit, most people chose
chocolate. However, when another group was asked what they wanted a
week later, most people chose the fruit.
Addiction itself is rational because it fulfills a craving inside
of us. Just because something has undesirable long-term interests,
it may have desirable short-term interests.
For short-term interests, you could say that smoking is simply a
game of "bad" and "worse": Smoking is bad, but not smoking is worse
because it leaves a certain craving of some people unfulfilled.
Smoking, therefore, is relatively "good" short-term.
Now if people truly want to quit, then people should set up their
own goals and restrictions. There are plenty of ways to do that
these days, and certainly; we don't need the government to do it
for us, or especially decide that everybody should abide by what
their long-term interests "should" be. What about my short-term
interests? What if I really just don't care?
Elemenope|4.3.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Obama theoretically could stop smoking at any
moment.
That assumes a whole damn lot about the natures of human will and
causality.
|4.3.08 @ 10:17PM|#
"Yet when Tapper ran into a smoky-smelling Obama at the
Capitol last August, the senator's campaign insisted, even after
consulting with him, that he hadn't smoked at all in
months."
I should take back that comment about how if he lied about that,
he'd lie about other things...
I suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word "smoked"
is.
Orange Line Special|4.3.08 @ 10:18PM|#
While Reason is concentrating on tennis shoes and TMZ stories,
I've been covering a couple recent examples of Obama offering a
FalseChoice and promoting illegal activity.
Oh, he also described something that sounds an awful
lot like the NAFTASuperhighway, something that Reason told us
doesn't exist.
As a sop to Reason and their lightweight coverage, I'll note that
Obama's picture above looks an awful lot like one of Reason's other
fans.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 10:23PM|#
Dan Reeves,
While I am with LMNOP on the logical problems with your overall
argument.
I am mainly baffled as to how you see it being a refutation of my
statement IN ANY WAY.
The claim under scrutiny is the claim that because Obama supports a
bill to regulate the tobacco industry that includes as a goal "to
continue to permit the sale of tobacco products to adults" while
still smoking, he is a hypocrit.
Translation: people are claiming that Obama wants to be able to
smoke while FORBIDDING others from smoking.
Doesn't hold up to scrutiny, no matter whether addiction is a real
phenomena or not (which it is, btw).
|4.3.08 @ 10:24PM|#
SIV
I know many libertarians are against the FDA, but I assumed they
were against the provisions that kept certain products out of the
market. Why would they be against labeling? Isn't information
crucial to a market transaction? Or should the person only be able
to sue after the fact if misinformed (and maybe dead when it comes
to food and drugs)?
You can drop the decoder ring talk. I'm not a libertarian, and I'm
up front about that. But you're not either. I know that much about
libertarianism.
|4.3.08 @ 10:26PM|#
I find it hilarious that despite all of lonewacko's self-linkings, his site isn't even a blip on traffic rankings.
Neu Mejican|4.3.08 @ 10:27PM|#
The list so far.
NAFTA super Highway = imaginary thing
Addiction = A real thing
|4.3.08 @ 10:28PM|#
I don't know. Just because TMZ covered Obama lying about his
smoking, that doesn't necessarily mean he's a douche bag.
Being a candidate's a hard job. Maybe he just got mixed up.
|4.3.08 @ 10:29PM|#
If a person could be sued after the fact for misrepresenting his product, then why in the world would it not be OK to have an agency check for these misrepresentations before the fact? You have to wait for someone to be hurt first? If you think a person could not sue after the fact, then you don't recognize fraud as wrong. And THAT would be interesting.
|4.3.08 @ 10:30PM|#
By the way, that picture's worth a thousand words.
It's like the film of the Governator smokin' a spliff. If Obama
wins, it'll be around forever, I'm sure.
SIV|4.3.08 @ 10:39PM|#
MNG,
Against mandatory labeling,why should the State compel you to
disclose the ingredients of your product? Potential buyers can
chose to use it or not. Competitors may find advantage in
disclosing ingredients.Mis-labeling composition and amounts of
ingredients would be fraud.
I'm not a libertarian, and I'm up front about that. But you're
not either.
Drink....Right?
|4.3.08 @ 10:41PM|#
When was the last time we had a President that smoked cigarettes
anyway?
Was it Lyndon Johnson?
|4.3.08 @ 10:44PM|#
FDR & Ike smoked cigarettes, and Bob Barr smokes
cigars
There's your answer Cesar
|4.3.08 @ 11:39PM|#
"'Do as I say, not as I do.' Isn't that an official plank of
the Democrat[ic] party?"
Larry Craig, Mark Foley and Bob Allen switched parties? I wasn't
aware of that. What's that? OH! They switched panties. I
misunderstood.
|4.3.08 @ 11:59PM|#
Yes, because chemical dependency is a moral
failure
Yes. It is.
I always thought Bogart was white.
Don't niggerlip that joint?
|4.4.08 @ 12:03AM|#
"but eight years of Bush has spoiled me; despite constant
Democrat Party fulminations, his administration has been,
refreshingly, the most moral, Christian, upright and forthright
government in living memory."
Dear God. Please tell me this is some of the driest sarcasm I have
ever read??? please.
deron|4.4.08 @ 12:13AM|#
Gotta sympathize with Obama on this one.
I quit smoking in 1993, but if the smell were on me anytime after
it was assumed that I snuck a smoke. My wife still gives me a glare
even if I simply talked to someone while they were smoking.
Maybe Tapper's right about the smell and Obama not admitting often
enough, but I also know from experience that once the smells on you
assumptions will follow.
This isn't a get him to question... Doesn't McCain smoke as well? I
recall during the 2000 primary a reporter talking about how it was
one of the traits that made him seem personable.
|4.4.08 @ 12:32AM|#
Raise of hands who has smoked?
I quit last june. Haven't had one since.
(BTW: I don't want to shill but Allen Carr's easy way to stop
smoking is a really good book on this. I quit right after I put it
down. It's not really a scare book just clever de-programming.) I
still don't believe in addiction as a disease. Sue me. I knew every
time I lit a cigarette what I was doing. Addiction is real but it
is beatable. It' not easy but it's not child birth either.
The thing I will say though is what do you expect him to say? I
mean society has basically demonized smokers. I barely agree with
the man, but this I give a pass on. I mean I'm not running for
office and I was ashamed of smoking It's the new society guilt
trip. Of course he lied about it. Running a campaign for president
is not the ideal time to be quitting. (though the temper tantrum
withdrawal interviews might have been fun.) You can't go around
saying "yeah, i smoke." Because as a democrat you would be
crucified...Almost literally. Good-bye soccer mom votes. The only
thing close to a race killer as smoking might be having facial hair
(when did that become politically taboo
?) or having a visible *gasp* tattoo.
P.S. Stop being such alarmists. No one is banning tobacco. Do you
have any Idea what banning tobacco would do for organized crime?
Not to mention the insane cost of enforcement.
It's already inarguably stupid that they banned smoking in
bars.
|4.4.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Good-bye soccer mom votes. The only thing close to a race
killer as smoking might be having facial hair (when did that become
politically taboo
On that subject, how about Richardson's rockin' new beard? The best
thing to happen to the man, ascetically, was to lose that race
Daniel Reeves|4.4.08 @ 12:43AM|#
Elemenope,
I went over the costs of smoking and . Did you just stop at that?
And notice the label "theoretically." When you stop smoking, there
are costs and people seem to completely ignore them. If there were
no costs, then anybody who wanted to simply could. Hey, I want a
lot of money, but I'm short of that goal because what I DON'T want
to do is work hard.
Theoretically, I could type up a paragraph on some random subject.
But I'm not. To that, one must say, "that assumes a whole damn lot
about the natures of human will and causality." In respect to human
behavior, the difference between two plausibilities is
arbitrary.
--
Neu Mejican,
Well what is the purpose of this legislation anyway? To
encourage smoking?
|4.4.08 @ 12:55AM|#
Not wanting his wife to know, that doesn't necessarily make him a douche bag either.
|4.4.08 @ 1:12AM|#
Warty wins the thread
I dunno, Areson was pretty good.
Joe, OTOH, is still a dick.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 2:32AM|#
Dan Reeves,
Well what is the purpose of this legislation anyway? To
encourage smoking?
The purpose of the legislation is posted above, but it would be
accurate to say it was to discourage smoking.
That, however, is a far cry from FORBIDDING smoking, which seems
required for the charge leveled at Obama on this one.
Added to the list:
SIV's sense of humor = a bit off.
|4.4.08 @ 2:38AM|#
might be having facial hair (when did that become politically taboo
?)
I have a theory that it's all Hitler and Stalin's fault.
|4.4.08 @ 5:17AM|#
Maybe after a couple hundred plus years of passing legislation (like this), congress should concentrate on REPEALING some of it before the dung pile gets any deeper. They've been doing it so long it isn't just their shoes that stink anymore.
|4.4.08 @ 5:48AM|#
Oh yea, nice picture. Kind of reminds me of OJ on the cover of Time, don't ya think?
|4.4.08 @ 6:15AM|#
Kind of reminds me of OJ on the cover of Time, don't ya think?
I'm thinking Ricardo Tubbs.
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 7:22AM|#
Theoretically, I could type up a paragraph on some random
subject. But I'm not. To that, one must say, "that assumes a whole
damn lot about the natures of human will and causality." In respect
to human behavior, the difference between two plausibilities is
arbitrary.
Arbitrary but *not* insignificant, and that was my point. Since
neither you nor I live in Obama's head, we have no direct knowledge
of what he is and is not capable of doing through willpower. And
either way, we have no strong evidence that free will exists at all
(which changes the moral landscape quite a bit if it were to not
exist).
The two assumptions you made, ergo, were both epistemologically
unwarranted, and since you assumed them in a way that supported
your argument (if the choice between the two each time is truly
arbitrary) I felt the need to point that out. When you have no good
reason to support one option over another, but simply do so in
order to build your argument, it deserves to be pointed out,
doesn't it? Arguments live or die by their assumptions.
VM|4.4.08 @ 7:37AM|#
"ithaqua"...
"ithaqua"...
it appears as though EDWEIRDOOO and KNEEL have morphed yet
again!
herodotus|4.4.08 @ 8:44AM|#
I quit smoking, without a patch or nicotine gum or any other
drugs. Cold Turkey. It's been over three years now without a single
puff.
And yet I am against most recent tobacco legislation, especially
smoking bans in bars.
This makes me morally superior to Barack Obama.
All of which will give me a delightful feeling of smugness, that
will probably linger for the entire day.
|4.4.08 @ 8:46AM|#
how about Richardson's rockin' new beard
That's no beard, it's a goatee with personal boundary issues.
This is a beard.
As is this.
|4.4.08 @ 8:58AM|#
It's no fair trying to make Other Matt defend a position he only
took up for the purpose of being a dick to me.
Srsly, guys. Fish in a barrel here.
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 9:11AM|#
It's no fair trying to make Other Matt defend a position he
only took up for the purpose of being a dick to me.
The lesson here is, if you are gonna be a dick in public, do it
with well-formed arguments.
I live by this principle, and it has served me well. :)
Taktix®|4.4.08 @ 9:19AM|#
SugarFree | April 4, 2008, 8:46am | #
That's no beard, it's a goatee with personal boundary issues.
This is a beard.
As is this.
Sugarfree, you win the whole month.
Episiarch|4.4.08 @ 9:27AM|#
NutraSweet, that picture (Cruise) is fucking awesome. That she's
taller than that midget is even better.
Now I want to watch South Park.
|4.4.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Frankly, the hysteria over smoking is enough to make me puke. Good God almighty. People need to get lives and the government should stay out of them. I like Obama very much as a person - he does seem to have a modicum of decency - but I disagree with him fundamentally about the role and utility of government. I am tempted to vote for him precisely because he does smoke. I smoked for 20 years and never had a problem - proof of nothing, I know - and I quit 3 years ago and you know what, it wasn't even hard. I smoked because I enjoyed it and quit because I was sick of being a pariah. I'm thinking when I turn sixty I will take it up again. Or maybe sooner just out of spite. Typically ex-smokers are the worst in terms of self righteousness. Smokers, like atheists, are one of the few groups it's permissable to have contempt for and to discriminate against.
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 10:09AM|#
Smokers, like atheists, are one of the few groups it's
permissible to have contempt for and to discriminate
against.
Don't forget pimps! They get picked on all the time.
|4.4.08 @ 10:15AM|#
i quit smoking four years ago. i used to play with a band up until a couple months ago and every weekend i would come home REEKING of cigarette smoke. just because you smell smoke on someone doesn't mean they're smoking. obviously.
|4.4.08 @ 10:18AM|#
What hypocrisy? Have you ever encountered anyone who has
ever tried to quit smoking?
Yeah. Me, several others. I didn't find it hard at all (@five years
of a pack or so a day, thanks).
So who should be involved in crafting laws about smoking?
Smokers?
Who should be involved in crafting laws about guns?
Gun owners?
Yes to both. And a gun owner or smoker attempting to criminalize
behavior they currently engage in is a hypocrite, because they are
saying others should conform to a standard that they fail to meet
themselves.
Now, support for the FDA In Your Living Room Act by a smoker isn't
quite hypocrisy, but fibbing about whether you have quit yet is,
well, fibbing.
Chalk it up as another small dent in the Obama halo.
Wheels|4.4.08 @ 10:21AM|#
You would think that with the coverage that Obama gets, he is the next coming of Christ. Talk about people supporting someone because it's the political correct 'thing to do' really discourages me. Especially since no one wants to be the one to report on the real issues (bad real estate deals, a disfunctional preacher...)otherwise you get called a racist. Double standard? You be the judge.
|4.4.08 @ 10:25AM|#
Good point, miike. The guy spends his days addressing groups in
American Legion halls.
Now, support for the FDA In Your Living Room Act by a smoker
isn't quite hypocrisy, but fibbing about whether you have quit yet
is, well, fibbing.
Except he didn't. Someone from his campaign denied that he'd
smoked.
People who quit smoking and fall off the wagon usually do it on the
sly, and hide it from the people around them. Surely you've noticed
this.
|4.4.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Both of my best friends started smoking in high school. One of
them could smoke a pack a day for a six months, then turn on a dime
and not smoke for months without even missing them.
The other, I saw curled up on the floor reduced to tears when he
tried to quit. Eventually he succeeded, with the patch.
There must be some biological factor that causes some people to
become physically addicted and not others.
Anon|4.4.08 @ 10:33AM|#
B O really dropped the ball on this. He could have stood up for his right to make a personal choice, but noooooo.
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 10:36AM|#
Chalk it up as another small dent in the Obama
halo.
Call it the downside of being deified when you aren't a God.
"Ray. When someone asks you if you're a God, you say
'yes'!"
Episiarch|4.4.08 @ 10:37AM|#
There must be some biological factor that causes some people
to become physically addicted and not others.
Agreed. I take up smoking periodically because I like it (I
currently smoke) but when I decide to stop it is frighteningly
easy, especially compared to others' extreme difficulty with
it.
|4.4.08 @ 10:39AM|#
I like to totally-not-awkward-or-creepy way they're "holding
hands."
It's almost as if he's holding her up, maybe still wobbly after her
last audit. The frozen smile on her zombie face is also a nice
touch.
I used to take the "Hollywood = American Royalty" formulation at
face value, but I think "Hollywood = All New and Improved
Freakshow" is closer to the truth.
As for Obama, I'd take a smoker on the sly over an ex-smoker who
was strict in abstaining any day. As an ex-smoker, I will a test
that nothing can be more annoying than an ex-smoker. (Or a
righteous ex-addict of any stripe.)
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 10:42AM|#
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080403/ap_on_he_me/smokers_genes_16joe,
episiarch
"This is really telling us that the vulnerability to smoking
and how much you smoke is clearly biologically based," said
psychiatry professor Dr. Laura Bierut of Washington University in
St. Louis, a genetics and smoking expert who did not take part in
the studies. She praised the research as "very
intriguing."
|4.4.08 @ 10:57AM|#
There must be some biological factor that causes some people
to become physically addicted and not others.
Yeah, it's genetic.
I suspect they're looking at more than one locus for this. The lung
cancer susceptibility marker isn't identified (I mean I haven't
seen it's mention, I'm sure the labs working on it have their ideas
and don't want to share yet) but is correlated very strongly with
lung cancer rates and with difficulty quitting.
That latter is where I think they're actually looking at two loci,
because I already know that a Dopamine receptor variant (DRD2
TaqIA) is associated with the "reward" response and is strongly
correlated with addiction rates (and various other psychiatric
issues).
Somewhat OT, but I'm waiting for the day when the lung cancer and
addiction loci are used by insurance companies to penalize just the
smokers in the high risk categories, while leaving alone the ones
who are at low risk.
|4.4.08 @ 11:00AM|#
B O really dropped the ball on this. He could have stood up
for his right to make a personal choice, but noooooo.
His personal choice is to quit, and hide his backsliding from his
wife.
Big Tobacco|4.4.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Obama smoking makes me like him more. Is that
strange?
Not at all! Our choice tobaccos lend the successful man that
certain,
how do you say, je ne sais quoi.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Bronwyn,
It's OK, your link is better.
Here's the money quote from the link I put up...
Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute of Drug
Abuse in Bethesda, Md., which funded one of the studies.
"It opens our eyes," Volkow said Wednesday. "Not everyone takes
drugs for the same reason. Not everyone smokes cigarettes for the
same reasons."
One clue is in the location of the just-discovered variants, on the
long arm of chromosome 15, Volkow said. It is in an area that, when
damaged during tests on animals, makes them depressed and anxious.
While some people smoke because it helps them focus or gives them a
physiological reward, others do it to stave off
depression.
People from the second group are the ones who seem to deny the
reality of addiction...
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 11:21AM|#
So between the two studies we have:
Genetic risk for addiction associated with increased risk of lung
cancer.
Genetic risk of lung cancer sensitive to smoking rate.
But, of course, those who want to stop but aren't successful just
need to man up and admit that they REALLY WANT to keep smoking
because the short term benefits outweigh the long term
costs...
Or something
|4.4.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Or something is right. The implications and interpretations of
this stuff can be mind-boggling.
I'm working on a psych-pgx panel right now that will combine drug
metabolism and a couple of drug response factors.
That DRD2 variant has been extensively studied in schizophrenic
patients and it's duly noted that most (maybe all?) schizophrenics
are avid smokers.
That this effect can go beyond schizophrenics to depressed,
PTSD-suffering or otherwise "normal" people as part of a coping
strategy isn't so hard to believe.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 11:29AM|#
Such testing could carry risks all its own, bioethicist
Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania warned. People who
have been found to have a genetic predisposition to addiction and
lung cancer could find it harder to get health or life insurance,
or their employer might drop their coverage, he said.
"The good news is that getting these risk estimates will help focus
anti-smoking campaigns, and some people will want to voluntarily
get into anti-addiction programs early, where they will probably
work better," Caplan said in an e-mail. But if such testing is
done, it should be voluntary, and the results should be kept
private, he said.
Bronwyn brought this up as well.
Here we have an issue with some meat for libertarians to
discuss.
How does the intersection between Obama's proposed bill, testing
for genetic addiction risk, nationalized healthcare, and privacy
rights lead to important restrictions on your freedom, even while
smoking remains perfectly legal and tobacco readily available?
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Bronwyn,
beyond schizophrenics to depressed, PTSD-suffering or otherwise
"normal" people
You haven't been memorizing your Szasz...these are all just
"metaphoric diseases" don't ya know
=/;^)
Episiarch|4.4.08 @ 11:40AM|#
That DRD2 variant has been extensively studied in
schizophrenic patients and it's duly noted that most (maybe all?)
schizophrenics are avid smokers.
My girlfriend is a psychologist and works with mostly
schizophrenics currently. They are all smokers, every last one.
|4.4.08 @ 11:47AM|#
My girlfriend is a psychologist and works with mostly schizophrenics currently. They are all smokers, every last one.
My schizophrenic art school buddy was also a smoker. Holy crap (but then, most of the people I knew in art school were smokers).
|4.4.08 @ 11:50AM|#
Thirded: joe-momma was a psych nurse, and the schizophrenics
were some world-class smokers.
Speaking of Szasz, I always knew he echoed the anti-psychiatry
language of the Scientologists, but I just found he actually
cofounded the Citizens Campaign for Human Rights with them.
Which brings us back to the Tom Cruise picture: HA HA!
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
That one deserves a link joe,
http://www.cchr.org/
And with virtually unrestrained psychiatric drugging of so many
of our schoolchildren, it is no surprise that the largest age group
of murderers today are our 15-to-19-year-olds.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:00PM|#
Today, the mental health treatment of our young is a life or
death gamble and, given the growing number of fatalities, a roll of
the dice not to be taken lightly. No longer is it a question of
whether children die from psychiatric treatments, but rather whose
child will be next.
It's for the children.
Timmy Mac|4.4.08 @ 12:00PM|#
So he has a hard time quitting smoking. Wow. That's rare.
This whole post is a silly cheap shot.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Speaking of Szasz, I always knew he echoed the
anti-psychiatry language of the Scientologists
joe,
You would be slightly more correct if you reversed that
statement.
Like most things, it looks like "you knew" wrong.
why do Progressives want to punitively tax schizoprenic patients
and poor people?
|4.4.08 @ 12:07PM|#
Actually, "he cofounded CCHR with the Scientologists" and "the
Scientologists cofounded CCHR with Szasz" say exactly the same
thing.
As do "He echoes their language" and "they echo his
language."
Like most things you whine at me about, you don't actually have a
point.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Szasz, Myth of Mental Illness published 1960.
Szasz, The problem of psychiatric nosology: A contribution to a
situational analysis of psychiatric operations. Amer. J. Psychiat,
1957
L. Ron Hubbard's crusade was in full swing in the 1950's as early
as 1956.
http://psychassualt.org/
Who cribbed from who?
Hard to tell, really.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 12:16PM|#
As do "He echoes their language" and "they echo his language."
doesn't mean the same thing joe.
4. One who imitates another, as in opinions, speech, or
dress.
Szasz did not "imitate" Scientology.
Which you clearly stated in your crude attempt at ad hominem
fallacy.
Mike Laursen|4.4.08 @ 12:21PM|#
While Barack Obama seems to have exaggerated his illegal
drug use, he has at the same time underreported his use of a legal
(for now) drug: tobacco.
Guess that says a lot about which of those two vices has become the
less socially acceptable.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Who cribbed from who?
Hard to tell, really.
You could try to cite a textual precedent to Szasz writing. He
footnotes extensively,Dianetics won't be in there.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 12:27PM|#
Neu,
Good luck backing up your claim that Szasz' ideas are derivative of
Scientology.
When you have no argument ad hominem can't hurt.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:29PM|#
He footnotes extensively,Dianetics won't be in
there.
May be true.
I don't know.
That wouldn't disprove that he had read it and that a book widely
read, that echoed his own thoughts, was not influential in the
development of his own ideas.
As an academic, I am sure he would have recognized the damage
citing Dianetics would have done to the reception of his
arguments.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:31PM|#
SIV,
Good luck backing up your claim that Szasz' ideas are
derivative of Scientology.
When did I make this claim?
I said it would be hard to tell who cribbed from whom?
You were the one that claimed a potential link in the opposite
direction. That would be harder to back up since Hubbard's writings
are earlier.
GG|4.4.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Here's an
interesting alternative. There's an American version called
Crown7. The FDA isn't
regulating it since it's not considered a smoking cessation
device.
Dollars to donuts they'd still kick you out of a bar or restaurant
for using it.
|4.4.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Szasz did not "imitate" Scientology.
Really, really, REALLY bad timing, dude. See the comment above
yours?
4. One who imitates another, as in opinions, speech, or
dress. Um, yeah. You see, that definition is for a NOUN. Ergo,
it cannot be the correct definition for "echo" in the statment
"Szasz echos Scientologists' language."
SIV segues to "pointless semantics."
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:37PM|#
Szasz's entire crusade is ad hom.
For god's sake he helped found a museum called "Psychiatry: an
Industry of Death Museum"
Some things don't deserve more than ridicule.
Buried in his writings, Szasz has many interesting things to
say.
In the context of the state of the art in 1960 a criticism of
psychiatric diagnosis as "unscientific" made a good deal more sense
than it does currently. His points on the dangers of doctors and
the state collaborating are worth noting.
But overall, he is the archetype of a crank.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 12:39PM|#
That would be harder to back up since Hubbard's writings are
earlier.
I wasn't aware that all Hubbard and Scientology
publications were composed prior to 1957.
When did I make this claim?
Neu
joe made it first and you quickly "echoed" the claim by implication
and insinuation.
I understand your hostility to Szasz, many people are sensitive
about an issue that might threaten their pay check.
|4.4.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Ad homenim attack = "X is wrong, because Y is an unreliable
source."
It is a fallacious attempt to rebut an argument.
No argument from Szasz has been provided. No argument from Szasz
has been rebutted.
The phrase "ad homenim" is not, in fact, a synoymn for "personal
insult," nor even "statement which casts and individual in a bad
light."
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:40PM|#
Neu segues to "negative proof"
That would require that I was attempting to prove anything.
You were the one that come to the thread with an assertion that
someone else was factually incorrect.
I simply stated that it would be hard to demonstrate which of two
positions was correct.
|4.4.08 @ 12:42PM|#
I understand your hostility to Szasz, many people are
sensitive about an issue that might threaten their pay
check.
This, for example, is an example of an ad homenim fallacy.
Neu Mejican actually made an argument - to paraphrase, "Szasz is a
loon who cribbed his position from a UFO cult."
SIV then "rebutted" this argument with "I understand your hostility
to Szasz, many people are sensitive about an issue that might
threaten their pay check."
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:42PM|#
SIV,
I understand your hostility to Szasz, many people are sensitive
about an issue that might threaten their pay check.
Tee hee.
Funny shit.
|4.4.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I simply stated that it would be hard to demonstrate which
of two positions was correct.
Actually, I only offered the argument that their statements were
similar.
SIV offered the argument that the Scientologists cribbed their
position from his.
NM, contrary to my above comment, has only rebutted SIV's argument
about who followed whom. He did not offer an argument of his
own.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 12:46PM|#
joe,
Did you ever hear of "root words"?
Echo is a noun, the root of the verb echoes.
echoes 2. To repeat or imitate:
There, feel better?
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:47PM|#
So SIV,
Here are my assertions.
1) Your claim that joe is incorrect is on shaky ground.
2) Szasz and Hubbard in fact do echo each others language if you
use the applicable definiton of the word "echo" (see definition 5
above).
3) Szasz, despite some interesting ideas, is mostly a crank who
should be largely ignored.
Three is based on my personal evaluation of his writings and
actions. It is in no way a result of the coincidental alliance he
has made with Scientology.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:51PM|#
joe,
I recognized the disconnect between your statement and SIV's
interpretation.
I was saying that, even given his interpretation of what you had
said, his assertion was on shaky ground.
pedant war or shall we claim a cease fire.
I liked the direction this was going earlier...
To wit, my question: How does the intersection between Obama's
proposed bill, testing for genetic addiction risk, nationalized
healthcare, and privacy rights lead to important restrictions on
your freedom, even while smoking remains perfectly legal and
tobacco readily available?
|4.4.08 @ 12:52PM|#
My girlfriend is a psychologist and works with mostly
schizophrenics currently. They are all smokers, every last
one.
Smoking actually calms the symptoms of schizophrenia -- and bipolar
disorder, which I have. And so I smoke.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 12:56PM|#
joe,
You and Neu clearly imply:
"Szasz is a wrong and a wack job because Scientologists who are
wrong wack jobs hold similar views"
That would fit your fallacious argument definition above.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
Given the results of the study I cited above...what are your
thoughts on the trade off between increased cancer risk and symptom
reduction?
Would you use a less dangerous treatment for your symptoms if it
was readily available?
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 1:00PM|#
SIV,
Here I will state it openly for you.
Both Szasz and Scientology hold ridiculous views on
psychiatry.
Szasz is not a crank because of his association with
Scientology.
Szasz is a crank because of his views.
He has found a home among like minded individuals in the church of
Scientology.
|4.4.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Nope, I didn't "clearly imply" any "because" in that
statement.
Szasz is a whack job and wrong because his ideas are delusional.
The causal relationshiop here is that his delusion led him to join
forces with a UFO cult, not vice versa.
SIV|4.4.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Neu,
so your definition of pedantic is "I'll pretend I didn't say
anything and I don't know what words mean"?
SIV|4.4.08 @ 1:02PM|#
joe | April 4, 2008, 12:57pm | #
NM, I'm with you.
.......such a lovely and delightful couple.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Szasz's choice to align himself with a rich and powerful
organization that echoes his views makes perfect sense.
It does not, however, help his argument for a couple of
reasons.
1) Scientologists, despite their money and influence, are generally
seen as a bit looney. Opening Szasz up to ad hom attacks.
2) Scientologists are even less concerned about the scientific
support for their positions. At one time, Szasz would probably have
been convinced by science that refuted his position. Hanging out
with those who agree with you based not on evidence, but on faith,
can corrupt your ability to remain skeptical and objective of your
own position.
|4.4.08 @ 1:07PM|#
.......such a lovely and delightful couple.
Essay question: explain why the quoted statement is or is not an ad
homenim attack.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 1:07PM|#
SIV,
Who is pretending that they don't know what "echoes" means?
That would be you.
You looked up the word in a dictionary and chose the definition you
needed to support your argument.
The text you copied from:
4. a person who reflects or imitates another.
5. a sympathetic or identical response, as to sentiments
expressed.
You are telling me that you didn't notice the second sense of the
word?
Really?
I am the one pretending?
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 1:13PM|#
While we are discussing the meaning of words:
Pedant:
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details. (as
in "You would be slightly more correct if you reversed that
statement")
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 1:19PM|#
And in the spirit of being a pedant...
I will correct my previous post:
The text that SIV copied from
4. One who imitates another, as in opinions, speech, or
dress.
5. A sympathetic response...
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 1:24PM|#
Pedant:
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details. (as in "You
would be slightly more correct if you reversed that
statement")
Me too, I wanna play!
Cavil (n):
3. a trivial and annoying objection.
4. the raising of such objections.
5. a fucking Cylon played by Dean Stockwell.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Cavil:
noun
1. an evasion of the point of an argument by raising irrelevant
distinctions or objections (as in "Did you ever hear of "root
words"? Echo is a noun, the root of the verb echoes.")
Neu Mejican Battlestar Pedant|4.4.08 @ 1:35PM|#
That was frackin' Frakkin' sweet.
Fixed that
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Frak
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 1:37PM|#
That was frackin' sweet.
I was just watching the last few eps. in season three to refresh,
and was reminded just how awesome Mark Sheppard really is.
Perhaps equals his Firefly performance. Perhaps.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 2:03PM|#
LMNOP,
Mark Sheppard's part was indeed the high point of that whole
storyline.
I had forgotten about him in Firefly.
So, since it is Friday...
Which do you prefer
Firefly
or
BSG?
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Which do you prefer...
Aw geez, don't make me choose!
But seriously, while I deeply appreciated Firefly's
writing and motifs, BSG is in all honesty simply better
quality television. I found Firefly, as befits a Joss
Whedon creation, wildly uneven in quality, oscillating from really
spectacular ("Our Mrs. Reynolds, "War Stories", "Objects in Space")
to really mediocre ("Safe", "Bushwhacked", "The Message")...
...while the worst BSG episodes were still *good*.
For what it's worth, Joss Whedon prefers BSG, too.
Undoubtedly, I am stepping into a hornet's nest of geek sacred cows
with all this. Ah well.
|4.4.08 @ 2:53PM|#
Jamie Kelly,
Given the results of the study I cited above...what are your thoughts on the trade off between increased cancer risk and symptom reduction?
Would you use a less dangerous treatment for your symptoms if it was readily available?
Anti-anxiety medication works, but not in combination with my
current meds. Smoking helps my concentration when I really need it
(I'm a journalist, and after I do my interviews and research, I
retreat to a bar across the street to do my writing, where I can
smoke).
I'd happily quit smoking if I could find an appropriate
replacement.
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Jamie,
Thanks for the response.
I believe that that study I just linked to may be an important step
in finding you (or your grandchildren, who knows) an
alternative.
For the sake of discussion, I wonder if the FDA having oversight on
tobacco will increase the chances of the mechanism that makes
tobacco a viable treatment for you being discovered, and an
alternative being developed.
Maybe the FDA should have oversight for marijuana instead of the
DEA.
Medical marijuana and medical tobacco with FDA approval and
oversight to assure quality and reduce harm?
Thoughts?
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 6:10PM|#
LMNOP,
I am with you, BSG is the better program.
I believe Joss called it the best science fiction ever put on
screen. I am not sure he was limiting it to the small screen
either.
I wouldn't go that far, but it has certainly raised the bar.
I must admit I am skeptical that they will pull off the wrap-up
this season in a satisfying way.
For instance, they may have jumped the shark with the C. Tie
reveal. It doesn't seem to jibe with the timeline for early Cylon
experiments with hybrids, but we'll have to see...
Neu Mejican|4.4.08 @ 6:17PM|#
Three novels that I think would make a fabulous science fiction
telenovellas (that is what BSG is, really) are Samuel Delany's
Trouble on Triton and Stars in My Pocket Like Grains
of Sand and Nova.
All three have a very "lived in" feel to the world/universes he
creates.
Another good candidate would be Haldeman's Fovever
War.
Elemenope|4.4.08 @ 11:21PM|#
Yeah, I really dug The Forever War.
Another fun one might be Heinlein's Friday (which actually
sounds a little like where Whedon's "Dollhouse" might go) or
(really brave) Time Enough for Love; you could go pretty
much anywhere you want story-wise with a protagonist who's
thousands of years old.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245