Mandating Low-Nicotine Cigarettes Could Make Smoking More Dangerous
Plus: Supreme Court rules on school choice and criminal justice reform, Louisiana's trigger law criminalizes abortion at any stage, and more...
The Biden administration continues its misguided war on nicotine. On Tuesday, the administration revealed plans to require cigarette makers to severely cut the amount of nicotine in their products. A proposed rule change "would establish a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes and certain finished tobacco products." The idea, it says, is to make cigarettes less addictive.
Nicotine is the substance in cigarettes that makes them physically addictive. But nicotine itself isn't what makes cigarettes so dangerous. (Some scientists "wonder if a daily dose could be as benign as the caffeine many of us get from a morning coffee," notes Scientific American.) It's the other ingredients in cigarettes, and the byproducts of combustion, that make smoking cigarettes so bad for you.
This is one reason why the war on vaping is so stupid, and also speaks to the half-baked premises of the Biden administration's latest anti-smoking plan.
In a world with lower-nicotine cigarettes, people already addicted to nicotine will still be addicted—they'll just have to smoke more cigarettes to get their nicotine fix. That means that mandating all U.S. cigarettes be low-nicotine cigarettes could actually make smoking riskier by requiring smokers to smoke more and consume more of the other substances in cigarettes in order to get the same level of nicotine they're used to.
You can make a case for saying this isn't prohibition, but there's a better case for using words by their plain meaning. If you mandated near zero alcohol in beer or near zero caffeine in coffee, everyone would reasonably see that as prohibition. Tobacco is no different. https://t.co/Ul3v0t09YE
— Jacob Grier (is not here) (@jacobgrier) June 21, 2022
Research funded by the government suggests that smokers will smoke more or inhale more deeply when cigarette nicotine levels are cut somewhat but will scale back or quit if nicotine is nearly eliminated from cigarettes, according to The Wall Street Journal.
But these studies exist in settings where smokers don't have alternatives. In the real world, nearly eliminating nicotine from legal cigarettes could trigger unintended consequences.
If the U.S. goes all low-nicotine smokes, other countries will still be producing full-nicotine cigarettes. And this opens up a great opportunity for smuggling and black market sales of higher nicotine cigarettes.
A bigger black market in cigarettes means three things, none of them good. First, it creates more room for organized crime to operate. Second, it creates more room for counterfeit cigarettes that could be even more dangerous for consumers. And third, it invites more policing of cigarette sales, which means more police time wasted on victimless crimes, more monitoring and harassment of business owners, and more potentially dangerous interactions between individuals and police.
"People applauding this policy should also specify what prison term they favor for people who sell full-strength cigarettes in violation of it," suggests Jacob Grier. "One year? Five years? I'm curious to know, but they never say."
Even absent black-market concerns, there are reasons to doubt the government research showing lowering nicotine levels means less smoking. From the Journal:
Industry executives also point to the fact that many study participants cheated by smoking regular cigarettes when they were supposed to be smoking only low-nicotine cigarettes. Researchers acknowledge this point.
"That certainly is a limitation of the studies, because people did not fully comply," Dr. Benowitz said. Despite the cheating, participants reduced their nicotine intake by 70%, he said.
Reducing nicotine intake per se shouldn't be the point though. Reducing nicotine intake without reducing overall cigarettes smoked doesn't help anyone.
Martin Cullip at Filter worries that lowering nicotine could also backfire by convincing some smokers that their habit is harmless. "In short, the [Food and Drug Administration's] scaremongering has managed to convince many people that nicotine is the most harmful ingredient of a combustible cigarette, when nicotine does not cause significant harms." In effect, "many smokers may understand the new products to be a government-approved green light to carry on smoking tobacco. This misguided understanding is liable to have deadly consequences."
Meanwhile, while authorities have gone all-in on low-nicotine cigarettes as a means to reduce smoking, they've repeatedly attacked a more sane way to do so: promoting vaping—which provides nicotine without the tar and combustion—as an alternative to smoking.
FREE MINDS
The Supreme Court issued rulings on school choice and criminal justice cases yesterday. For more, see:
- School Choice and Religious Liberty Advocates Just Won Big at the Supreme Court
- Supreme Court Makes It Effectively Impossible To Sue Federal Cops, Smashing a 51-Year-Old Precedent
In a third ruling issued yesterday, the court held 7–2 that a certain sort of attempted robbery does not qualify as a "crime of violence." The case—United States v. Taylor—asked whether someone convicted for attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act has also committed a crime of violence. "This matters because the additional 'crime of violence' designation carries with it a second felony conviction and extra years in prison," notes Reason's Damon Root.
FREE MARKETS
Louisiana's trigger law criminalizes abortion at all stages. A measure signed into law by Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards yesterday bans abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with no exceptions for rape or incest, and makes it a crime punishable by 10 to 15 years in prison to perform an abortion.
The law will take effect immediately if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade.
I've signed SB 342 by Sen. Jackson. While this legislation is similar to that passed in 2006, which is effective upon Roe v. Wade being overturned, SB 342 expands the exceptions in the 2006 legislation to include instances of medical futility & ectopic pregnancies. #lagov
— Gov. John Bel Edwards (@LouisianaGov) June 21, 2022
"Senate Bill 342 by Sen. Katrina Jackson (D–Monroe) updates Louisiana's 2006 abortion 'trigger law' and more than a dozen other prospective abortion restrictions," notes WRKF Baton Rouge. "The bill stiffens the criminal penalties for abortion providers already outlined in state law, doubling the maximum sentences to 10 and 15 years, depending on when an abortion is performed during a pregnancy."
SB 342 explicitly states that pregnant women cannot be prosecuted for the crime of abortion. "But critics of the bill say its broadened definition of personhood could expose doctors and patients alike to prosecution for homicide and dozens of other offenses in the state's criminal code," notes WRKF.
Under Louisiana's new law, abortion is a crime from the moment a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. This is an update from the old law, which specified that the ban on abortion started at fertilization and may have been used to ban emergency contraception
FOLLOWUP
Uvalde police's response to the shooter at Robb Elementary School was an "abject failure," Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told state legislators yesterday. "The officers had weapons. The children had none. The officers had body armor. The children had none. The officers had training. The subject had none. One hour, 14 minutes, and 8 seconds. That's how long children waited and the teachers waited in Room 111 to be rescued," McCraw said, identifying school district police chief and on-scene commander Pete Arredondo as major factors in the failure. "The only thing stopping a hallway of dedicated officers from entering Room 111 and 112 was the on-scene commander who decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children."
More from Reason's C.J. Ciaramella:
McCraw's testimony comes on the heels of reporting by multiple Texas news outlets that contradict Arredondo's narrative of the May 24 mass shooting that left 19 elementary school students and two teachers dead. Arredondo said in a recent interview with The Texas Tribune that he didn't consider himself to be the on-scene commander and that officers waited outside the door because they were outgunned and lacked breaching tools or keys to open the doors.
However, the Austin American-Statesman and KVUE-TV reviewed hallway footage of the incident and reported that officers arrived with a ballistic shield and rifles 19 minutes after the gunman entered the school. They also had a breaching tool, called a Halligan bar. The Texas Tribune reported that none of the security footage it reviewed shows officers checking the door or attempting to unlock it.
"I have great reasons to believe it was never secured," McCraw testified about the door. "How about trying the door and seeing if it's locked?"
QUICK HITS
Without government, who would steal your dirtbike and use it for what sounds like some kind of weird religious ceremony? https://t.co/o2HR7tIGrM
— Spike Cohen (@RealSpikeCohen) June 22, 2022
• More from the January 6 investigative committee hearings.
• A California measure decriminalizing loitering for prostitution purposes is on its way to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. (More background here.)
• "Chicago police officers will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or give chase over minor offenses," reports the Associated Press. The announcement comes "more than a year after two foot pursuits ended with officers fatally shooting a 13-year-old boy and 22-year-old man."
• "Another individual has died while in custody at Rikers Island, marking the seventh death this year at New York City's troubled jail complex," noted Gothamist yesterday. Now:
BREAKING: Just a day after announcing the death of a man at the Rikers Island Jail complex yesterday, the Department of Correction announced another, its *EIGHTH* death this year at a hospital prison ward. The person died at 11:34 am today. https://t.co/cwX3fIoMmn
— Jan Ransom (@Jan_Ransom) June 21, 2022
• Twitter's board of directors has approved Elon Musk's purchase of the company.
• Gun and ammunition sales would be specially tracked if a bank gets its way. Amalgamated Bank wants to create a special merchant category for guns and ammunition, which would allow credit card companies and banks to "file what's called a suspicious activity report with law enforcement if they suspect possible gun crimes," notes CBS News. For now, however, the effort has been blocked by the International Standards Organization.
• Does anyone care about Elvis Presley anymore?
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm actually surprised enbs first article is how the most libritarian thing you can do is support the model of civility, Jane's revenge
Isnt*
ENB's blurb from yesterday needs to be followed up with a BOTH SIDEZZZZ article by Robbie. Then she can post again after that. They have to maintain the balance.
I didn't even know there was another Jan. 6 Committee hearing. Nobody seems to care about watching that bullshit.
They hired a producer, a writer, and an editor, but it's totally not a show trial
and also aired it on prime time when congress rarely works
this is their hail mary, their only chance to make any kind of "case" that they are the good guys
and most people tuned out after day 1...
Not even ENB is talking about how good the information is. She's simply throwing up a link to a NYT article where someone else wrote about having watched it.
Why do we even need to watch it? All the information that's coming out now is simply a presentation of information that's already been gathered. This isn't the investigation. They should just dump all the notes and videos from their investigation and not bother with this pretense of calling witnesses they've already interviewed to say the same things again.
"Not even ENB is talking about how good the information is. She's simply throwing up a link to a NYT article where someone else wrote about having watched it."
Once it is completely done, she'll get her talking points from Salon, Wapo, etc and then maybe we'll get another full article about this show trial.
“Why do we even need to watch it? All the information that's coming out now is simply a presentation of information that's already been gathered.”
How do you know that if you are not watching?
Because all porn videos are true to type.
Caw caw!
Ironic since you ask for transcripts of videos instead of actual videos when the videos go against your first impressions.
"How do you know that if you are not watching?"
Because if they had something, anything even infinitesimally new, it would be on the front pages of every establishment newspaper in the country, you disingenuous fuck.
Well, there WAS one new thing. The AZ House speaker, who testified that he resisted Trump's efforts to challenge the election, and who was monetarily a star among libs, said he's still vote for Trump, despite the election issue:
https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1539604110084808706?s=20&t=rsD3fWJGKtXttPknlzbuww
“If he is the nominee, if he was up against Biden, I’d vote for him again”
And people will take this as being blindly loyal to Trump (somehow) and not as a condemnation on how bad Biden has been doing so far.
It's also a pretty clear case of jury tampering. Some of the protestors are still facing charges for individual crimes, and are entitled to a fair trial.
I’m pretty sure that what qualifies as jury tampering is much more constrained than discussing in general events that occurred in proximity to the criminal acts the defendant is accused of.
Imagine being so disingenuous that you try to pass off a televised congressional hearing as “discussing in general”.
With constant statements to media of criminal convictions.
Any type of hearing that only allows one side to present their case is called a "show trial". They are normally on seen in banana republics with corrupt government leaders and are used to punished political opponents, Oh....wait.....
Well, what do you know! That's exactly what we now have here in the U.S.
I rarely _watch_ any government proceeding or political speech. It’s an inefficient use of my time.
But I certainly read a few articles about what was presented at each session of the hearing. Is reading about what happened at the hearing also something “nobody” cares about?
No new information has come out. It is performative art. Only broken people or democrats worried about the elections care.
Perhaps, the claim of "Nobody cares about the stupid Jan. 6 hearings" is really code for "I don't want you to care about the stupid Jan. 6 hearings"
If you care about them and can make a substantive case for why I should care, I'm willing to listen. Keep in mind I've actually watched a decent amount of it and found everything so far a complete waste of my time since there's nothing coming out that I didn't know over a year ago.
TRUMP’S DAUGHTER BELIEVED BARR!!!!
It's so funny that they think that's some big bombshell. And did they release the complete videos of those interviews or just show the out of context juicy bits?
But then again she was never crossed examined by this one sided Kangeroo Court of a committee i.e. she took him at his 'word'. Did she ask to see Barr's evidence to support his conclusions? Even if she did she would have discovered there is none. He did no investigation of local matters, and issued no reports with footnotes referring to documents, testimony or witnesses that can be checked. He might as well have said '....I told Trump people have been abducted by aliens but he refused to believe me...' and we are all supposed to take him at his word.
The analogy would be telling Trump there is no reason to believe anyone has ever been abducted by aliens. It matters, when determining burden of proof, who is the party in the discussion making extraordinary claims.
Because voter fraud is as rare as alien abductions. Yeah, go with that bird.
Cleanest election ever!
People trespassed. The Capitol Police were allowed to shoot them. The doj is free to violate their rights delaying prosecutions and keeping them in solitary for non violent acts. 20 year threats for non violent acts should be the norm.
Think I summarized Jeff's past comments there.
Maybe there are other people who are seeing this info for the first time.
I’ve seen several anecdotes recently about people’s MAGA relatives realizing what they have been supporting. The news that there was never an actual defense fund was a shock.
Lol. The AOC tweets huh. Good source.
Cite?
AOC posted a lot of reformed Republicans on her Instagram that totally happened.
"Maybe there are other people who are seeing this info for the first time."
Maybe if they were just born yesterday. The Democratic media machine has been screaming about it on every front page and prime time newscast for a year and a half.
I've seen several anecdotes that people were abducted by aliens. Must be true.
I don’t care what you or Dee think about anything, so have at it.
I want people to care about it because it is a travesty of a political show trial and absolutely disgusting.
Some people did some bad stuff and Trump is ridiculous. But the committee is making it about specific political and factual beliefs, acts of speech, and participation in protests which is all protected by the first amendment and should absolutely not be any of congresses concern. People can believe wrong stuff if they want to. It's not the government's job to correct them.
The fact the committee used this to basically gather all the internal communications of the primary opposing party is far more frightening to me.
Yes, that might be the scariest part. It's an attempt at a political purge and an attempt to demonize and exclude from politics a large part of the electorate.
You can't just let anyone vote. Democracy is hanging by a thread.
^ right on zeb
The people involved already got demonized, very over-prosecuted/over-charged, due process questionable, and the "deadly" part of the "deadly capitol riot" was an unarmed protestor who was shot, and a couple other old out of shape protestors that had heart attacks. Then we played it all on repeat for 18 months.
The information we had about a week after the riot was the same information we know today.
This is a public show trial to drag the heretics before the eyes of the world and have them confess, or to further demonize any heretics that refuse to do so. Nothing more.
But so far, they're not even talking about the perpetrators of the riot. It's been all Trump and Trump's Team. They're just trying to stoke Trump hatred and not provide any insights into who the people rioting were.
You don't think Biden's gonna run on HIS record, do you?
They're just trying to stoke Trump hatred
And I suspect trying to make a case for barring him from running again.
I've long thought that the reason they keep saying "insurrection" all the time is specifically for the purpose of using the 14th amendment to bar Trump and others from running for office. I don't think there's much chance that will happen, but that seems to be what they are going for.
Agreed on both "that's what they're going for" and "fat chance."
Not hatred. They are trying to discredit Trump so that he will not win the Republican nomination if Trump decides to run for President, again. Failing that, they are trying to discredit him so that he will not win.
Although, Trump, being a major asshole, attracts plenty of hatred without anyone else’s help.
Which is a totally appropriate use of congressional hearings, right?
Ive been told there are issues with inequality in schooling, incarceration, income, and rampant inflation with the economy on the verge of recession. And as woke DEI sensitive persons, we have to respect the fact that this will of course be amplified with communities of color.
All that being said, I think we should use 100% of congress' attention span and political capital they have left, with a majority in both houses and the white house, for a completely useless show trial to publicly shame their enemies which will result in no tangible change in anything.
So they're campaigning from the House chamber? Pretty sure that's illegal.
Ahh yes, spending millions of dollars to go after a candidate they despite to stop them from running. A totally good use of government. No wonder you support it.
"This is a public show trial to drag the heretics before the eyes of the world and have them confess, or to further demonize any heretics that refuse to do so. Nothing more."
And this, if you get right down to it, is why Chemjeff and Mike think it is a swell thing.
They WANT heretics called out by congress. They WANT Trump re-vilified over and over. They WANT the nation to never let this go. Because the right people are being punished, and the last thing they would ever do is stand up for the rights of those people.
If by "right people being punished", you mean the people who tried to subvert the democratic process to keep Trump in power despite the result of the election, then yes I do want everyone to be educated and reminded of what they did and for it not to happen again. And I'm specifically thinking of people like Eastman here who explicitly advocated for Pence to break the law to keep Trump in power. It does not mean random Trump voters who are unhappy that Trump lost, it does not even mean random Trump voters who don't think Biden legitimately won. Just the people who knew that what they were doing was wrong and did it anyway because they picked Trump over the Constitution.
If you really believe that all of the people that entered the capitol building on j6 were trying to “subvert the Democratic process”, you’re a partisan moron.
No, I don't.
But I do think there are people like Eastman who did.
That was more of a royal you, but duly noted. Thanks.
Some people did some bad stuff
The only people who did 'bad stuff' were the cops.
Everyone else did nothing wrong based on the number of people charged and tried for the much more violent rioting that colored much of Trump's tenure in the White House.
You cannot charge people for a crime that you've let other walk on.
You cannot say one set of people is bad when you called a different set of people good for doing the same thing.
Well, I'm not charging anyone with anything and have no influence over those who do, so I can make judgements based on reality and not on the hypocrisy of others. Some people committed crimes for which they should be punished. I'm talking about assaults and destruction of property.
Perhaps.
Let's check back next year when the Republicans put on shows based on congressional hearings on Russiagate and the 2020 Summer of Love.
I'm curious if ENB will find a lot of value in a Biden Impeachment, if Republicans bring proceedings next year.
What do you expect the impeachment charges to be?
People paying off Hunter Biden, with 10% off the top for the Big Guy, in exchange for access to Joe Biden. There seems to be enough evidence to open an investigation, at a minimum, but Republicans might just push to impeach.
If they start actually presenting evidence pulled from Hunter's laptop after a special committee investigates, would ENB find that potentially useful, or a pointless witch hunt, I wonder.
I'd rather a Republican Congress focus on policy instead of retribution, but it's not what I expect, of course.
Not sure why the Republican vs Democrat political rivalry revolves around ENB. She seems to be fairly libertarian and not a supporter of Republicans or Democrats.
She thought this was a really useful hearing after the first day of it. If she's actually libertarian, she probably wouldn't have, but also, seeing Republicans doing something similar may serve to gauge just how partisan she's being.
The only people in the country that thought the hearings were useful were a bunch of DNC insiders and ENB. But ENB surely doesn't have a side.
Also she cant see 1ft past ABORTION!
Yup, shes a solid, unbiased libertarian not a lefty
And hopefully about people in the NIH receiving royalties from companies they give grant money to.
Or, it’s an acknowledgment of reality.
Also might I add a fun fact about the J6 hearings. Day 1 had the highest viewership, after which it starkly dropped off.
Day 1's viewership was on par with a new episode of NCIS. That was before the majority that watched that day tuned out.
Day 1 had less viewers than the channels had for the prior weeks reruns.
January 6 will always be known in Catholic, Latin American and European circles as 3 Kings Day in the Christmas season. Christmas Day was merely a day of religious observance. 3 Kings Day was the day to exchange gifts. Awesome memories as a kid. America would do well to return to its Christian foundation
They're waiting for the hearings on the causes of 8% inflation, and why it didn't turn out to be transitory.
This afternoon the committee is claiming they have uncovered a new “tranche” of information to present. So, we shall see if there is anything really new.
"Spike Cohen
Without government, who would steal your dirtbike and use it for what sounds like some kind of weird religious ceremony?"
That fucking shit posting edgelord. Damn you Mises Caucus!
????????????
Damn you reason for not allowing emojis!
"Does anyone care about Elvis Presley anymore?"
Nope. My professors told me he's a MEDIOCRE DEAD WHITE MALE. Modern musicians like Taylor Swift are far more talented.
#TheFutureIsFemale
He. Stole. Songs. From. Black. Americans.
Literally shaking.
Bill Monroe was a Black American? ........
It comes from records like Hound Dog which was originally performed by a black artist even though written by 2 white Jewish Americans. That is where the myth comes from. He did perform some gospel music considered to have come from black gospel choirs as well.
And from the perception that rock and roll was originally black music, although it has its roots in both black and white music.
it has its roots in both black and white music
As does Jazz, which we're supposed to think of as "Black" music now, even though people like Duke Ellington were particular that Jazz was American music.
Anyone trying to claim Jazz as “Black” music doesn’t know the history of how Jazz came to be. Duke Ellington was absolutely right: it is uniquely American and example of the best things we can accomplish together.
No but Mac Davis was
/sarc
And they loved him for it.
Copying the good things from other cultures is how human progress is made.
^
Janis Joplin also got accused of ripping off Big Mama Thornton, when she actually thought that what she was doing was calling attention to her by covering her song, touring with her, and generally making people aware of her existence in a way they wouldn't have been without Janis.
How dare you! Attractive, cisgender women are NOT the future. You should dedicate your listening to trans and non-binary singers, like Shea Diamond and Skylar Kergil.
#TheFutureIsConfusing
Trans women are women...but I'm not fucking one of them.
gross. Is that XY Men who chop off their member to pretend they are womyn? Or is that XX Women who take androgen hormones to pretend they are men but take dick to stimulate their clit?
It is so confusing!!!!
LGBTQIA+ - the good news is there's only 26 letters in the alphabet...the bad news is they allow repeats.
Genetic mutations!
#TheFutureIsFemale?
Try this,
#TheFutureIsFauxFemale
ELVIS IS REAL!
Uvalde police's response to the shooter at Robb Elementary School was an "abject failure," Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw told state legislators yesterday.
Only if you wrongly believe that police are there to serve and protect. Their job is to go home safe after using whatever force necessary to make people do as they are told. They have no duty to help people, and putting their safety at risk can get them fired.
They did exactly what they are trained to do.
Without government, who would steal your dirtbike and use it for what sounds like some kind of weird religious ceremony?
Without government, who would create wealth by destroying property?
Without government, who would create happiness and justice by redistributing wealth?
"Chicago police officers will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or give chase over minor offenses," reports the Associated Press. The announcement comes "more than a year after two foot pursuits ended with officers fatally shooting a 13-year-old boy
Wait, that case where police responded to a report of gunshots in the area? They stopped two suspicious people in the area, who, it turned out, had been responsible, and the kid ran with the gun. Because it was a gang offense, see, and the kid was being used by the man to pretend he hadn't been handling the gun. Kid tried to ditch the gun, but as he lifted it up, the officer saw, and fired one shot.
I don't necessarily want a world where police aren't allowed to chase suspicious armed men who are fleeing. It's not a "minor offense" when someone has been discharging a firearm in the area. People want police to respond to gunshots, not a guy selling loose cigarettes.
The problem isn't police chasing people. The problem is police shooting fleeing people in the back and then nothing else happens. So to stop police from shooting people in the back they're going to prohibit foot chases.
How many people do you think are shot in the back in a year? This should be informative.
*Jeopardy music playing*
LMAO. good one
rmac, can you ask him since I am back to number 1 on his list?
I’ll ask, but I doubt he’ll answer me either.
Think of how bad it is for those poor kids to go to jail for just shooting around. I'm sure they will never actually harm anyone.
I get the sarcasm; but in my locale, many kids shoot just for recreation. The sheriff deputies don't shoot the kids for possessing and/or discharging firearms.
To they do it on the street in city neighborhoods?
Aiming at people?
*Do they
They do in my locale, too. They certainly don't run around town doing it at 1am in town, though.
I, too, live in a rural area. My neighbors also discharge their weapons on their own property (and scare my dog, who is very skittish about gunshots). This is different than firing a weapon on a city street because bullets penetrate and there's lots of things potentially behind your bullet. That's why there are firing ranges in cities, to give people a place where they can shoot weapons recreationally.
A lot of people would prefer gangs not shoot up the buildings they're living in. These are the sorts of laws we want enforced. When I'm talking about criminal justice reform, I want them to stop beating up taco vendors and kneeling on necks, I don't want them to stop reporting to calls of gunshots because, "Well that's just what those kids like to do!"
Kids holding toy guns (not pointing, not shooting) are shot by cops fairly regularly. My (missed) point was rural cops aren't killing people for the act of holding something/anything that looks like a weapon.
Tamir Rice was bullshit, I agree. But that was an actual toy gun, there were no reports of gunshots in the area, and the cops created a ridiculous situation by skidding to a stop 2 feet from him, nearly plowing him over, and then screaming contradictory and confusing orders at him without allowing him time to respond. And yes, fuck those guys. But other than that, I can't find any recent case of a kid shot while holding a toy gun, despite you saying it happens regularly.
The facts of a case like that are substantially different than responding to a report of gunshots, identifying an armed person, that armed person immediately runs. Kid didn't drop the gun, he tried to sneakily fling it over a fence, and in doing so, he was lifting the gun, so the officer fired one shot defensively. There's literally nothing wrong with the officer's behavior in that scenario, but people are outraged because the kid was 13.
Maybe if he didn't join a gang where people are shooting up city streets, he'd still be alive. Maybe he shouldn't have agreed to be a gun mule for some asshole who was going to make him take the fall for possessing the weapon if they were caught with it. Fuck that guy, but also fuck all the people who are outraged that violent actions have predictably violent consequences.
“Kids holding toy guns (not pointing, not shooting) are shot by cops fairly regularly.”
Define fairly regularly.
Here's a database:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/
How much is too much? I don't know. I think the actual number there might hide actual issues of broader police abuses. Like, asset forfeiture really is high. Lots of non-fatal encounter issues. Shootings get a lot of attention because they are particularly dramatic, and also because killed vs. not killed is an easy statistic.
Being expected to chase people on foot can be embarrassing too, if you're out of shape. I can see why the police unions didn't fight this one too hard.
"Amalgamated Bank wants to create a special merchant category for guns and ammunition, which would allow credit card companies and banks to "file what's called a suspicious activity report with law enforcement if they suspect possible gun crimes," notes CBS News."
Hi, Reason. At which point do we get to discuss Fascism?
Maybe when Republicans get back control?
There is a difference between:
1. The government orders a business to perform some action
2. The business voluntarily deciding to perform some action
It depends on where the locus of control lies. It looks like in this case, the business is deciding on its own to create a separate category for gun sales. It can still be a bad idea without being fascism.
But jeff, there's no difference at all between the government forcing businesses to do things and businesses voluntarily doing what the government wants. No difference at all. They're only "voluntarily" doing what the government wants because they'll be punished if they don't. So whenever a business does anything the government wants it's because they are under direct threat from the DNC (Republicans never do this, only Democrats).
Elizabeth Warren goes on TV and says "I think social media companies should do more to censor misinformation" and that is fascism in action.
Donald Trump goes on TV and says "the media is the enemy of the people" and that is just Trump being Trump, nothing to worry about.
You could argue successful, directly attempted fascism is worse than unsuccessful, indirectly attempted fascism
I would argue that in order for some action to qualify as fascism, that the locus of decision-making has to belong with the government and not with the company.
So if the government passes a law or a regulation that declares "social media companies must censor misinformation", then if Facebook complies, that would be fascism, because the power to make that decision has been taken out of their hands.
But if some government official tries to jawbone social media companies into doing what they want, without passing any formal law or regulation to that effect, that is not fascism, because ultimately the power to decide whether to comply or to refuse the demand still lies with the company.
So based on this, give me a modern example of "successful, directly attempted fascism" in this country.
There are actions that are taken by government to influence these actions. Letters, regulatory threats, contracting awards, etc.
When the mob asks someone if they need protection, it’s not a threat.
— Lying Jeffy
Jeff's not lying. He's really that stupid.
But he lies so much I like to keep it part of his title.
I agree that government tries to influence people's behavior via a variety of means. That may or may not be a good idea depending on the situation, but in each case, the locus of decision-making remains with the individual, not with the government. The individual is free to comply with or refuse each of those influences. By labeling those things as "fascism" it's really just applying a scary label to government activities that you simply don't like.
No it is not. These industries are acting on a political will decided to not be allowed through government power. So government instead influences these changes outside of normal power structures to get the changes they want. It is literally Italian fascism.
But this is a circular argument:
"How do you know it is fascism?"
"Because the company did what the government wanted!"
"But how do you know the company did what the government wanted out of intimidation, and not out of a genuine agreement with their position?"
"Because the government pressured them into performing the action!"
"But how do you know that the pressure was successful?"
"Because the company did what the government wanted!"
Etc., etc.
Yeah that's the difficulty of Fascism, Chemjeff. Denying that it could possibly happen is not the answer.
It isn't a circular argument. You are the one introducing one by claiming the businesses came to the same government realization as government despite never having come to that realization prior to government asking or saying something. You're the one relying on bad argumentation.
The rest of us are seeing how non financial motivations are driving corporate actions despite them hurting profits through ESG or DEI programs. We see the arguments of governments working openly with major companies through financial gain or threats of regulations.
You are the only one trying to defend this as "well, there is not 100% proof so it's fine" even when the proof is 95%.
The rest of us are seeing how non financial motivations are driving corporate actions despite them hurting profits through ESG or DEI programs.
Jesse, the existence of "non financial motivations" is irrelevant to the discussion of fascism. What is relevant is who has the POWER to make decisions for the company.
"I would argue that in order for some action to qualify as fascism, that the locus of decision-making has to belong with the government and not with the company."
Then you don't know what Fascism is. That is nationalization or socialization of a company- where the decisions are made by the government.
Fascism by definition requires that the deployment of capital be controlled by PRIVATE actors. So you have basically constructed your logic so that Fascism cannot exist.
He's drawing a distinction between being browbeaten and compelled by a real threat of force, and I think it's a valid distinction.
You think the people currently crying "Fascism!" would singing jeff's tune had Trump followed up on his threats to go after media companies peddling "fake news", or would they be defending him?
Rhetorical question, I know.
Here’s where sarc lies about Trump supporters being cult like and never criticizing him, even though we have.
so we are going to make a comparison between an arguably bad thing that did happen through democrats, to a hypothetical thing Trump did in the bad dreams of people that dont like him?
Can you be specific on which threats you are talking about?
Calling fake news just that isn't an actual threat.
"He's drawing a distinction between being browbeaten and compelled by a real threat of force, and I think it's a valid distinction."
And he is thereby denying that Fascism could exist. Do you know how Mussolini managed to direct the economy of Italy? It wasn't be passing a law. It was by having Fascist Cartels (the private owners of industry) get together and decide how to implement his policies. If you disagreed with his policies, you would be drawn up in front of the government and harassed, sacked, and/or executed.
The Nazis went further by forcibly distributing resources to companies headed by members of the Party. But it was functionally the same- you had cartels of leaders executing in order to further the interests of the government. The explicit threat was that they would be removed if they did not execute policy.
What I find so infuriating about this is that under any other construction, anyone would say that the THREAT of government retaliation is the same as actual force. If the government will jail you for protest, they are forcing you not to protest. The fact that you still own the decision to protest doesn't change that fact.
If you disagreed with his policies, you would be drawn up in front of the government and harassed, sacked, and/or executed... The explicit threat was that they would be removed if they did not execute policy.
That's a real threat of force. Your boss having to fire you "or else" is force.
We're not there. Not yet anyway. If/when we get there I will take cries of fascism seriously. But right now it's pointless hyperbole.
Dragging you in front of congress and threatening to break you up if you don't get control of "misinformation" is "not there yet"?
In what way, Sarc? Because that is literally what congress is doing.
I thought you said you were arguing from hyperbole below yet continue to defend Jeff's argument here sarc. Which is it?
When did trump threaten to “go after media companies”, sarc? And what was the threat?
Pretty sure he just called them names and that was it, but you never know what threatens people these days. It doesn’t take much.
When did trump threaten to “go after media companies”, sarc? And what was the threat?
In fairness, Trump did ask the FCC to review ABC's broadcasting license when they ran a story he didn't like, and Ajit Pai said "no, we're not going to do that."
But that arguably pales in comparison to what has been going on between Congress and social media, which is something that is actually happening right now vs. something that Trump attempted and failed several years ago.
No, nationalization is where the government literally owns the company. Ownership is not strictly necessary for the decision-maker to be the government.
Fascism by definition requires that the deployment of capital be controlled by PRIVATE actors.
So does free-market capitalism. But clearly free-market capitalism is not equivalent to fascism.
So I would argue that fascism is where the capital is owned by the private sector, but the power to decide what to do with that capital is really controlled by the government. The actual property owner does not have true property rights to decide, and is instead really just a caretaker for the government's wishes.
And what distinguishes fascism from ordinary government regulation, is that under fascism, the power to decide how the capital is allocated is totalizing, while a government regulation may deal with only narrow and specific instances of how that capital may be used (to fight pollution, for example).
So, by hauling social media CEOs before Congress, has Congress substantively taken away Facebook's power to decide how its capital is allocated? I believe the answer is no.
"So, by hauling social media CEOs before Congress, has Congress substantively taken away Facebook's power to decide how its capital is allocated? I believe the answer is no."
Yes because you have narrowed down your example to be something that...you know, didn't actually happen during fascism.
When Mussolini implemented fascism, he vested power in Cartels- Agriculture, Military Equipment, etc. These Cartels decided how policy would be IMPLEMENTED, by deciding how the capital would be deployed. Mussolini, as a rule, didn't say "We shall have 3 trains on track A hauling X." Mussolini and his politicians decided on policy and it was up to the private owners to decide how the company would execute to do the work.
In our case, we have the Cartel (the FANGS) directed by the government to stop Misinformation. In some cases they are even directly telling the companies of examples of information and speakers that they are talking about. And the companies are figuring out how to do that by allocating their resources appropriately.
The Democrats would have to literally put the word fascism in their platform to convince Lefty Jeffy.
Not true rmac. Jeff would claim nazis weren't socialists despite the word being there.
Mussolini CREATED the cartels via government edict.
Here is a better explanation of fascist cartels:
Under fascism, the state, through official cartels, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Planning boards set product lines, production levels, prices, wages, working conditions, and the size of firms. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and “excess” incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or “loans.” The consequent burdening of manufacturers gave advantages to foreign firms wishing to export. But since government policy aimed at autarky, or national self-sufficiency, protectionism was necessary: imports were barred or strictly controlled, leaving foreign conquest as the only avenue for access to resources unavailable domestically. Fascism was thus incompatible with peace and the international division of labor—hallmarks of liberalism.
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
The social media giants, whatever you think of them, were not CREATED by the state as a cartel to implement some official government policy.
What did trump do in anyway to influence the media?
Put warrants on reporters? Nope. Obama.
Spy on congress communicating with Israeli media and politicians? Nope. Obama.
Send fbi agents to raid offices? Nope Biden.
How is saying the media lied when they lied fascism jeff? Trump didn't order influence activities or work with reporters to push narratives. That has been the democrats.
You are so fucking delusional.
He's not delusional, he knows he's lying so that would make him evil.
Elizabeth Warren did more than just "say" that. She's a member of Congress and they've pulled in Google, Zuckerburg, and Twitter execs to have congressional hearings where they berate them. Then there's the explicit threat of passing laws.
Trump just directly called CNN fake news with specific complaints.
Elizabeth Warren did more than just "say" that. She's a member of Congress and they've pulled in Google, Zuckerburg, and Twitter execs to have congressional hearings where they berate them. Then there's the explicit threat of passing laws.
Yes, she did, along with many members of Congress.
But the fact remains, no laws or regulations were passed directing social media companies to censor misinformation. So the locus of decision-making remains with the company, not with the government.
Right. Social media complied with what Congress wanted so Congress didn't have to pass a law to force them. They just cooperated with the government to avoid regulations.
Great argument for how this isn't fascism.
They just cooperated with the government to avoid regulations.
OR, they were persuaded by the government's arguments and decided to act voluntarily. Would that be "fascism"? Obviously not.
How do you decide which one it is?
I am simply not persuaded that every time a politician speaks, it is equivalent to an exercise in fascism. That is using the term so overbroadly that it renders the term meaningless.
Government persuasion under the threat of their power.
How the fuck do you claim to be libertarian and defend this.
Look Jesse, those people in jail didn't rape anyone since the women consented rather than being murdered so there is nothing wrong there according to progressive dogma on this issue.
Because if there was sufficient reason for them to adopt those behaviors, you wouldn't need the government. The market would force that behavior for their own benefit. They bent the knee to the government to do something that's not in their own financial interest to avoid regulation. They didn't bow to customer demands or public outrage, they bowed to government. They chose government over their customers.
Hello. Fascism is here.
Because if there was sufficient reason for them to adopt those behaviors, you wouldn't need the government. The market would force that behavior for their own benefit.
What if there is a market failure?
They bent the knee to the government to do something that's not in their own financial interest to avoid regulation.
How do you know censoring disinformation is not in their own financial interest? There is definitely a market for it, generated by much the same people who vote for a government to "do something" about censoring disinformation.
They didn't bow to customer demands or public outrage, they bowed to government.
I think you need to actually read what the "other side" is saying. There is significant outrage out there that, for example, in their view, Fox News is able to call itself "news" and protected by the First Amendment when they are really just a propaganda organ for Republicans. There is an entire utilitarian view of the First Amendment which states that the right of free speech, and the right of a free press, are justified only when they produce "constructive speech" or "real journalism". It is not what I believe, but that view is out there and it is shared by a lot of people.
A government that thinks that censoring misinformation is a good idea doesn't arise ex nihilo.
Chemjeff: What if there is a market failure?
Also: But the market is working properly here.
" There is an entire utilitarian view of the First Amendment which states that the right of free speech, and the right of a free press, are justified only when they produce "constructive speech" or "real journalism". It is not what I believe, but that view is out there and it is shared by a lot of people."
Yes these people believe that the correct information to distribute should be as decided by the state, for the state, and not against the state. I've heard that stuff before somewhere...hmmmm.
Jeff defines market failure as the market acting against the left's wishes.
Yes these people believe that the correct information to distribute should be as decided by the state, for the state, and not against the state.
No. It is more like, speech should only be covered by the First Amendment if it "serves some useful purpose". It doesn't have to be "for the state" per se. That is why they think it is justifiable to ban "hate speech" - in their mind, it doesn't serve a useful purpose and therefore shouldn't be covered by the First Amendment. That is why they want to severely limit campaign donations - in their mind, the donations are corrosive to democracy, and therefore not constructive and ought to be banned. They would be fine with speech that criticizes the government, as long as it is a "constructive" argument. I don't agree with it, but at least I understand the argument. And these people are out there, and they are the market that these social media companies are trying to serve when they attempt to police 'disinformation'.
"How do you decide which one it is?"
Yeah that's the problem with Fascism. However, when you have the government (for example in these specific cases) bragging that they singled out accounts to ban, and the social media companies doing so, wouldn't you think that crosses the line?
If you protest against the government, they reserve the right to freeze your finances, audit you, and detain you indefinitely. And they are telling you they don't want you to protest for this cause.
But since you are the one who decides whether to risk it, I guess the government can't technically be compelling you...Is that how it works?
The government should not threaten people for conducting otherwise lawful normal protests.
The government should not freeze the finances of people for conducting otherwise lawful normal protests.
The government should not detain indefinitely people for conducting otherwise lawful normal protests.
We agree that these are bad things that the government shouldn't be doing.
The question is whether these bad things are FASCISM. Not every bad thing is an example of fascism. So no I don't think those are examples of FASCISM. Just generally bad behavior on the part of the government.
Trying to apply the label FASCISM to the things that we particularly don't like is just trying to co-opt the extremely negative connotation that the word has to the bad things that we want to emphasize. Sort of how Team Blue uses the word "racism".
So sure, let's adopt a working definition of "fascism" as: a bad thing that we don't merely dislike, but we REALLY REALLY don't like. Such as:
"Yesterday I stubbed my toe, it really hurt. It was totally fascist."
Sound good?
"But the fact remains, no laws or regulations were passed directing social media companies to censor misinformation"
Im assuming they will need to have a verified, "I am a Fascist" card in their wallet before you crack on this one
But he claimed trump was one above without that card.
Not even then will he budge. The icky conservative leaning posters here have laid out their position and Jeff is honor bound to disagree with them.
So, if cops pull you over, pat you down, and search your car, all while making "suggestions" that you leave town, but do not arrest you--and then you decide to leave town--that's voluntary, right? And no government intrusion into your rights, right?
Cops can't grab a media company off the street, beat it up, lock it in a cage, and charge it with a crime.
Not a very good comparative example.
See Arthur Anderson during Enron.
"That's a nice social media company you have there, would be a shame if the government had to regulate it for misinformation"
Hard to look at that in a good light
But every government regulation can be twisted to follow that same script:
"That's a nice company you have there, would be a shame if the government had to impose a minimum wage"
"That's a nice company you have there, would be a shame if the government had to impose workplace safety rules"
"That's a nice company you have there, would be a shame if the company had to impose anti-pollution regulations"
Is *every single regulation* an example of fascism? Or is there perhaps a distinction to be made between individual regulatory acts, and totalizing fascist control?
Are you a libertarian or not?
Not.
Something can be a bad idea and still not be fascism. You understand this, right?
Going to point out the sea lion tact jeff is taking here. He is trying yo route the discussion to different definitions of fascism to escape the accepted baseline of the discussion at hand. He is directing the argument on definition to avoid examples of influence that works against his arguments. He does that below as well.
See how he makes the argument here of companies coming to the view of government despite them never reaching those views without threat of government actions prior.
He then dismisses examples of those threats below saying they don't matter at all despite showing no evidence for the market reason for these views or a profit motive for them.
He is in full sea lion mode.
I have stated plainly what I believe is a reasonable definition of fascism from an economic point of view.
You disagree, because you don't have a reasonable definition of fascism; your entire schtick here is to point out something bad that Democrats are doing and then screaming FASCISM!!! Because to you the word "fascism" just means "what Democrats want".
You disagree, because you don't have a reasonable definition of fascism;
And point proven. Only his definition is reasonable because it supports his arguments.
Despite most posters here having the same definition as myself.
This is sea lion 101.
Thanks for making the libertarian case why all of those things are horrible.
but what about that GIF of him beating up the guy with the "CNN" logo for a head?!
Elizabeth Warren goes on TV and says "I think social media companies should do more to censor misinformation" and that is fascism in action.
Donald Trump goes on TV and says "the media is the enemy of the people" and that is just Trump being Trump, nothing to worry about.
Dude, that's totally different. You see, Warren is a Democrat and Trump is a Republican. See? Totally different.
wtf, do I need separate html tags between new lines?
same italics around both this line
and this line
guess so.
If you can’t see the difference between insulting someone because they’re dishonest and threatening them with regulations and increased taxes unless they cooperate with the governments demands maybe this topic is over your head.
"Elizabeth Warren goes on TV and says "I think social media companies should do more to censor misinformation" and that is fascism in action.
Donald Trump goes on TV and says "the media is the enemy of the people"
Trump stated something similar to what you wrote in a tweet, not on TV. And Elizabeth Warren didn't just say it on TV but has made a formal proposal and features it on her website.
https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/fighting-digital-disinformation
Can you understand the difference between a hyperbolic tweet without a specific target and an actual plan, sarcasmic?
Sorry, I see you were quoting chemleft's dishonesty, but the question still stands.
Why are my hyperbolic comments always treated by you and your troll buddies as if that's the only time I say what I mean?
And to answer your question, this was late in Trump's term. I have no doubt that he would have gone after the media if he'd been elected to a second term, though that can't be proven either way.
Deliberate trolling on your part isn't hyperbole, sarcasmic. But nonetheless your comments are treated by exactly nobody here as potential government policy, so I don't understand what you're trying to get at.
My point is that if Trump had gone after "fake news" like Warren went after "misinformation", that the people currently crying "Fascism" would be defending him.
Principles shminciples. Nobody cares about what politicians do. Only thing that matters is TEAM.
Don't mistake this for me defending Warren. She's a despicable creature that barely counts as a human being, and her politics are terrible.
So, using something that never happened, then telling people how they would react if it did happen, then using that as evidence in your argument.
"My point is that if Trump had gone after "fake news" like Warren went after "misinformation", that the people currently crying "Fascism" would be defending him."
Your point is that if 2 hypotheticals both happen the way you assume they would, based on people having the views you assume they will have, then its fine for Warren to do a Fascism?
Great point man!
Your point is that if 2 hypotheticals both happen the way you assume they would, based on people having the views you assume they will have, then its fine for Warren to do a Fascism
Are you aware that you posted that under this:
"Don't mistake this for me defending Warren. She's a despicable creature that barely counts as a human being, and her politics are terrible."
And you're accusing me of excusing her? That's JesseAz level stupidity/dishonesty.
You realize you had to put the 2nd post because you realized you were defending her it he first right?
Again, you added hypotheticals to attack one side while ignoring the actual actions of the other.
Why do you always call your statements hyperbolic only after people point out how stupid the comments were? You have multiple statements in here teaming up with jeff to defend his lame attempt to attack those against fascist agreements between corporations and government. Yet you are now claiming this is just hyperbole? LOL.
Lol. 4 years just wasn’t enough time.
If you never say what you mean, then you run the risk of people either taking everything you say at face value OR thinking that you’re completely disingenuous in your discourse.
Are you two done with your micro circle jerk?
Obesity and whiskeydick make it a time consuming process.
Here let me help--
Elizabeth Warren goes on TV and says "I think the government should make social media companies do more to censor misinformation" and that is fascism in action.
Donald Trump goes on TV and says "the media is the enemy of the people" and doesn't set up his own publicly funded disinformation gestapo to punish it and that is just Trump being Trump, nothing to worry about.
There.
The media ARE the enemy of the people. They have done a spectacular job of proving it over the last 20 years.
And sarc jumps in with his ignorance about the fact government is influencing these actions from past actions, pushing of ESG through regulations and contract awards, etc.
Congrats buddy.
You are aware of Operation Checkpoint and the origins of this, right? The fact that regulators keep pushing this? The fact that Biden's administration is using ESG scores for contracting, often encouraging these outcomes?
Soft fascism is still fascism.
Just like the bullshit red flag law sent to vote pays states to adopt the laws. It is government influencing outcomes. It is not a business freely choosing to do this.
Stop your fascist loving bullshit jeff.
In fact here is a story from the hill regarding an OCC rule attempting to be pushed to force regulators to be neutral on rule applications for various industries such as gun manufacturers and the democrat push back, including Biden, on it.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/534197-regulator-finalizes-rule-forcing-banks-to-serve-oil-gun-companies/
Take a look at the stances Bidens OCC appointment has. They are against it and the OCC helps set the regulatory framework for the banking industry.
So let's understand what you're saying here.
This OCC rule forces banks to do business with all customers, including oil & gas and firearms companies, even if the bank doesn't want to. Which is clearly a violation of the freedom of association.
The government is taking control away from the bank to decide with whom to do business, and you are saying that is NOT an example of fascism? It is the opposite.
This just goes to show that your working definition of "fascism" is "whatever Democrats want", which is par for the course for you.
You got it completely wrong, as usual.
Trump's administration tried to implement a neutrality rule due to prior threats against banking industries, see Operation Chokepoint. They wanted to implement neutrality into law so the banking industry could not be regulated or threatened based on some type of political behavior (see how you defend 230). The Democrats fought this because it would make their prior attempts at attacking the gun industry illegal, see lower post.
The democrats have openly attacked the gun industry for decades. They went after banks through risk regulators and attempts at reporting requirements as recently as 3 years ago, but also did it on the sly for Operation Chokepoint 10 years ago.
Your argument above is "the banks are deciding to do this on their own!!!" which is bunk.
Jesse, from your link:
The rule makes it illegal for any bank regulated by the OCC with more than $100 billion in assets to reject a customer for reasons other than financial risk.
The government is making it illegal for a bank to refuse to do business with a customer that it would otherwise reject for reasons other than financial risk. It is the government literally telling banks with whom they must do business. And notably you don't even try to claim that it's not an example of fascism, you just like the idea because it goes against what Democrats want. Once again, your working definition of "fascism" is "whatever Democrats want".
Yes. Neutrality. Which words are you having difficulty with? How does your cite dispute anything i stated sea lion?
The fact he wants to end gun manufacturing liability protections is another warning sign yo connected entities stating their own threat of liability is under threat.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-wants-end-gun-maker-liability-protections-could-sink-industry-n1263556
The PLCAA takes away the right of individuals to sue gun makers in most all circumstances. If the law were repealed, how would it be fascism? It wouldn't mean the government would be in charge of gun makers. It would mean, rightly or wrongly, that individuals would have the power to sue gun makers again. It may be a bad idea, but I fail to see how it is "fascism".
How would opening up liability to manufacturers due to misuse of their products not be a means to control manufacturers through threats of lawsuit? The left has been seeking this for decades.
What's next, make car makers responsible for DUIs?
You really and truly are not libertarian. Making a legal product should not open somebody up for liability for making that product. That is a means of controlling an industry, which you apparently are applauding.
How would opening up liability to manufacturers due to misuse of their products not be a means to control manufacturers through threats of lawsuit?
No more so than the result of any lawsuit against anyone. Are you now going to be so vague as to try to claim that every court judgment is equivalent to fascism?
The left has been seeking this for decades.
We aren't talking about what "the left" wants, we are talking about government control of private industry. Yet again you think "fascism" means "whatever the left wants".
What's next, make car makers responsible for DUIs?
Should car makers be pre-emptively immune from all but a handful of lawsuits?
How about vaccine makers like Pfizer? Hmm?
Making a legal product should not open somebody up for liability for making that product/i>
The merits of PLCAA is not the relevant question though. The question is, would repealing PLCAA result in fascism, i.e., government control of private gun owners? The answer is no. It would mean, rightly or wrongly, that individuals would be able to sue gun makers, JUST LIKE anyone right now is able to sue any other industry for any other reason.
Is the presence of a civil tort system an example of fascism?
Pfizer lied on their application data and their products result in direct harm, not from misuse. Lol. What an idiot. They wouldn't be liable for the guy who took 21 doses or whatever. You do understand misuse from intended application correct?
And I have given you multiple examples of government trying to regulate gun industries here. Are you blind? Or just completely dishonest?
Jesse, the question isn't whether a particular regulation is a good idea or a bad idea. The question is, is it fascism??? Something can be a bad idea and still not be fascism. That is difficult for you to comprehend, because in your mind "what Democrats want" automatically equals fascism.
And now my point above on what you are attempting to do is proof positive youre being a dishonest sea lion. I've stated clearly what fascism is. You've ignored it and attempted to refine it to require smoking gun emails while claiming the businesses came to the realizations and agreements of government on their own.
I have provided you multiple examples of government threatening regulations and you deny them all. These occurred before the bank asked to do the regulations the Government asked of then PRIOR to their decision.
Such fucking dishonesty from you.
Now answer the other question you avoided. Do you understand misuse of a product versus harm from intended use?
Once again Jesse. An idea can still be a bad idea without being FASCISM.
The government threatening a regulation is not fascism. What is fascism is government CONTROL over a company.
Your definition of fascism is so broad it is meaningless.
Furthermore you frequently conflate what the government does, and what "the left" does. Sure, "the left" doesn't like guns and wants to use lawsuits to go after gun companies. That is not *the government* going after gun companies, no more so than it was "the government" going after Amber Heard when she lost the lawsuit against Johnny Depp.
So, your definition of fascism deserves to be ignored because it is ridiculous, not based on any rational standard. You just want to call everything you don't like "fascism".
Here is how democrats are using ESG to go after the gun industry.
https://thefederalist.com/2021/08/30/how-democrats-are-using-economic-chokeholds-to-restrict-your-gun-rights-without-passing-any-new-laws/
So how is this fascism? Hmm?
ESG is not being forced onto companies by the government.
But it is something that Democrats like that you don't like. So you call it "fascism"?
ESG is not being forced onto companies by the government.
Are you ignorant or dumb?
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/biden-administration-esg-activity-accelerates
"ESG is not being forced onto companies by the government."
Other than the fact that it is being forced onto companies by the government, you are absolutely correct.
The government is putting its thumb on the scales, and you will justify it just so long as the Wrong people support it.
Is it fascism?
Sea lioning 101.
Yes.
Here are democrats pushing banks to report all gun transactions.
Rep. Jennifer Wexton, D–Va., quietly introduced the Gun Violence Prevention Through Financial Intelligence Act late last year. This pushes for banks and credit card companies to automatically provide transaction data to the federal authorities on some firearms purchases with the goal of identifying "suspicious activity," despite pushback that payment networks determining what is odd and what is not sets a concerning precedent.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/us-banks-financial-institutions-severing-ties-gun-industry
No government influence at all right jeff and sarc?
What are the odds that they just scrolled past all those links without bothering to read them?
Of course they did. Sarc probably thinks they were ad hominem attacks as well.
It's all grey to me.
Well then you missed a pile of evidence against Jeff's argument.
I don't really care what JesseAz has to say. As long as he's not spreading lies about me I couldn't give a fuck. And even then I only give a fuck when idiots believe him.
So you’re going to continue arguing about a topic while intentionally remaining ignorant.
Also, Jesse’s back on the list.
Show us the list, sarc!
shorter sarc "I remain ignorant in all of my thoughts because research and educating myself is hard work, but i'll hide behind people being mean to me to defend my ignorance"
Also sarc: "posting my past comments word for word is lying about me."
"I don't really care what JesseAz has to say."
Jesse wasn't saying anything. The big pile of links were, but if you'd rather wallow in ignorance don't be surprised when others call you out on it.
And I'll tell you this. Jesse contributes more pertinent information in a day here, than you do in a year.
Why thank you sir.
I'm back on the list!!!! Still number 1 fellas.
I think the proposal is disturbing, and potentially violates the Fourth Amendment. I have difficulty seeing how it is fascism however.
So what we have here, are four examples of Democrats doing things that you don't like, and so therefore you label it as "fascism".
Which just goes to show, Team Red acolytes such as yourself throw around the term "fascism" to refer to Team Blue, for much the same reason Team Blue acolytes throw around the term "racism" to refer to Team Red: to use a scary word to describe the actions of the other team. Really it means nothing more than "doody-head".
These are 4 examples of many of government trying to influence banks in regard to the gun industry which you implied didn't exist in your prior posts. That the banks came to this decision without any influence.
How dishonest are you Jeff?
Jesse, the government trying to "influence" people is not fascism.
Let's see: This morning I heard a PSA on the radio from the government urging me not to drink and drive. Oh no, the government is trying to influence me! Is that fascism, Jesse? Is it?
Your standard for fascism is far too vague, and operationally consists of "whatever Democrats want". As I said, you use it just like leftwing people use the term "racist" - just as an ugly slur, nothing more.
Wow.
Influence under coercive measures is literally what fascism does, especially in realms of citizen behaviors not allowed to be regulated by government.
These are not free market actions when governments get involved through regulatory threats or promises of government funds requiring appeasement of their views not given powers to them from the constitution, such as with ESGs.
You are closer to a supporting benevolent dictatorships than you are libertarian.
You are applauding government resources being used to threadten or influence markets for politics. That is fascism.
Influence under coercive measures is literally what fascism does,
So then: by your standard, that PSA I heard, urging me not to drink and drive, is FASCISM because it is also illegal to drink and drive as well. Is that your reasoned position Jesse?
The government asking me to wear a seat belt when I drive is FASCISM? No different than Mussolini's Italy?
You have stretched the word beyond all real meaning and are using it just as a slur. Nothing more.
No, because drinking and driving isn’t a company, or economic activity, or the means of production.
This is a shit analogy Jeff. Do better.
Read Jesse's definition of fascism:
"Influence under coercive measures is literally what fascism does, especially in realms of citizen behaviors not allowed to be regulated by government."
It’s pretty obvious the context of this whole conversation is in regards to the business world though.
More to your analogy, if that PSA was more like Josh Hawley saying “nice drivers license you’ve got there, would be a shame if it was revoked because you let people drink at your house and then leave” I could see how someone might misconstrue that as fascism (since the definition has been tortured by leftist to the point of meaning any oppressive government action perpetrated by Republicans.) and while I would agree that’s oppressive, it would only be Fascism if you change house to business.
"Soft fascism is still fascism."
Get woke! Soft fascism is how we do compassionate social justice to achieve righteous equity for all oppressed people without too many blatant violations of the Constitution while consistently expanding the scope and power of government in partnership with our like-minded business owners who are totally free to do as they choose after testifying before Congress.
There are couple of shades of gray between 1 and 2:
1.33: The government threatens new legislation or regulation of the business doesn’t “voluntarily” comply.
1.67: Same as 1.33, but the company’s management is sympathetic to the government in power, anyway, so there isn’t any real conflict between the two.
1.75: Like 1.67, but the company is welcoming or encouraging the government intrusion into their industry.
Ken used to always write lengthy condemnations of the Democrats for engaging in 1.33. And he might have been right about it, but my criticism of his essays was always that he ignored the possibility that 1.67 or 1.75 was going on.
There are no shades of grey. If the government actors are compelling censorship whether by laws or by threat (however mild), they're still violating the first amendment.
The company's reaction, whether fear or delight, is immaterial.
How about, Party apparatchiks are installed on the board or executive staff of the company? Because, you know, that is what is happening in big tech, and it is literally what the Fascists did to control the means of production.
"are installed" by whom? The government? Or the company? That is an important difference.
No it isn't.
The revolving door of regulators to industry back to regulators is dangerous even if initiated by companies. It is still government capture if initiated from private sources as they are using government resources.
The government directly choosing the board of directors of a company, that is fascism.
The company choosing its own board of directors is not fascism EVEN IF those choices are problematic for other reasons as you specify.
""are installed" by whom? The government? Or the company? "
Well, let's see. As a part of the financial overhaul of GM, the Board of Directors was literally installed by the federal government. But not fascism, right?
Do you do any work around banks? Let me tell you how shit actually works around here: In order to do ANY banking, you need to do work with a Too Big to Fail (TBF) bank. That is either because they have money to give you (if you are a company) like Goldman or Chase, or because they are the custodial holders of your money (like State Street).
These companies have one purpose: to please the government. They are TBF, so they do not have to worry about going insolvent. Their only job is to please the auditors. And those regulators help authorize every executive you hire. And so it is easier to hire people who you know the government will accept.
If you don't understand how this insinuates government and party apparatchiks into the company, then you are being willfully blind.
And by the way, do you know anything about the bank that kicked off this thread?
Being willfully ignorant is one of the many different ways Lying Jeffy is dishonest.
I would say that what happened to GM in 2008-09 was a travesty on many levels. I have no problem calling that an example of fascism. I would say that it happened under a very specific set of circumstances, one that I hope is never repeated.'
And no I don't know much about the intricate details of modern banking. If you have a reference I'd like to read it.
OK, but you are just arguing about definitions of words. Whether or not "fascism" is the correct term, people are discussing something that is really happening. Can you at least just say that it's wrong for government officials to pressure private companies to censor?
Bet you he can't.
Can you at least just say that it's wrong for government officials to pressure private companies to censor?
Sure is, regardless of the official's party affiliation.
Most of the time, I think it would be wrong for government to try to pressure people to censor, yes.
Wait, when did banks become free again? Are they using gold now?
buy ammo with cash only for now on
Correct. And, certainly don't buy ammo on-line, especially from a new site that purports to have fantastically low prices. Buy from your locally owned gun store that has been in business for years. You should already have a good relationship with the owner by now and be on a first-name basis to the point he will call you if he gets a shipment of the ammo you have been looking for.
I do not trust the government not to create an on-line ammo store with low prices so they can get the names and info of gun owners. Maybe that's what the IRS and Dept. of Ed is doing with all that ammo it has been buying lately.
Hi, Reason. At which point do we get to discuss Fascism?
whenever it's Orange Man it's fascism, doncha know?
Elvis is a problematic cultural figure himself, a white man who appropriated Black music and made it into something mainstream white audiences would accept … at the expense of those Black artists.
That's...one way of looking at it.
1) What is "Black Music" ? Do all black people have the same music?
2) Are artists never allowed to be inspired by something and then do their own take on it? That's basically destructive for the concept of art.
3) Is it Elvis' fault if white people at the time were too racist to enjoy African Americans performing similar music to him?
I guess all the black rappers cutting in tracks by white artists are also "appropriators"?
Those white artists were appropriating first, so it’s ok.
Fucking Beastie Boys. It's all their fault.
I guess all the black rappers cutting in tracks by white artists are also "appropriators"?
No - they are victims of cultural imperialism.
Cultural appropriation is such a stupid idea. In any kind of diverse society, that's just how culture works.
if it didnt work and didnt become popular it would be "these racist whites refuse to celebrate black culture because they are racist"
When its a ridiculous damned if you do/dont, and the answer will almost assuredly be "a racism happened" best to eye roll and ignore
"Cultural appropriation is such a stupid idea."
It certainly is. Someone from one race isn't allowed to use things made by another race? If we followed that thought process, I don't think it would work out too well for a lot of people.
Just think how many people around the world would not be allowed to wear pants or use metal.
Or electricity, recording equipment, marketing, computers, smart phones, planes, autos…. Lol.
Cultural influence was the easy mode for Civ 3.
In the progressive conception, culture is always a product of BIPOC people, and anything white people do is theft from BIPOC people.
Well, that or it's cultural imperialism and not nasty appropriation when the non-white people adopt Western culture.
The logical endpoint for this kind of stuff is to push for everyone just going to their corners and not mixing influences.
Color me surprised that stuff the woke are pushing is leading us toward resegregation.
"Cultural Appropriation" in this case sounds like a prohibition on artistic miscegenation. You cannot mix different artistic cultures. It is an inherently racist concept.
You don’t even need to be a serious scholar of music history to know that lots of influences have gone back and forth between black and white musicians. Anyone who has sat through Ken Burns’ country music documentary saw plenty of examples.
Yeah, "black" music using European instruments and scales, etc. isn't exactly a pure product of a single culture either. And why reject the idea that good things like music can come from bad situations like slavery and segregation?
Music is like math. It is a set of notes that are combined to form sounds. It can't be racist. You can steal a song but not a sound. The very essence of creative music is to study what other musicians do and play and evolve your music accord to what you like, hear and want to play.
Adding to Mike's statement, not just black and white musicians. All cultures have music, play music and are influenced by other's music. Ravi Shankar and the Beatles in the mid-sixties is a great example of too many to list.
Racist people make everything about race in an attempt to defeat our chance to get beyond race. Here we go again. Intellectual racism is the worst kind because it pretends to care so deeply while stripping the agency from the very people it claims to help.
Just maybe people didn't care for the way the black community sang. music is evolutionary just because one group did it does not mean it was done well. and if you listen closely some "black" music can be traced to Celtic.
It’s also disingenuous on the part of people who accuse Elvis of cultural appropriation to gloss over the fact that he was extremely good looking, and charismatic.
and could sing better than anyone else
Or at least sing with some of the best of them. The voice he uses for his crooning songs was "appropriated" from Bing Crosby.
Eh, lets not pretend that there was not a lot of personal and state sponsored racism that kept black music from white audiences who weren't looking for it.
Just maybe people didn't care for the way the black community sang.
I think Elvis' success pretty directly contradicts this.
It seems to me pretty obvious that even still to this day people tend to listen to musicians from the same cultural background as them.
White teenagers in the '50s simply weren't exposed to music that black people were making. Elvis exposed them to it, in addition to being incredibly handsome and charismatic. It really is that simple.
While it's true that radio and record companies generally offered a segregated menu until the 50s, musicians will always listen to whatever they can get their ears on. Music doesn't have a skin color. It's kind of silly to claim that Elvis success came at the expense of black musicians. If not for him millions would never have heard that music. A lot of music in those days came out of the old blues world and a lot of it was recorded by multiple artists. Publishing rights were pretty sketchy in many cases. That's how Cream ended up recording Crossroads a song that had been around for at least 40 years without attribution. And the purported racism of white record buyers isn't supported by the evidence. One of the most successful country singers in history was Charlie Pride a black man who came to fame in the sixties. And if you were around in the sixties you might remember a little record company called Motown that dominated radio for a couple of decades. Does anyone believe that white people didn't buy those records? More weeping and ranting about a problem that doesn't exist.
Get retro-woke!
"The only proper "music" are the traditional/religious songs that our people have sung since we emerged from a hole in the earth at the beginning of time. Members of the tribe who deviate from those songs are heretics. Outsiders who sing our songs are existential enemies and must be destroyed."
Or just do away with music altogether. See RUSH - 2112
Just around the corner
Well, let's answer these questions.
What is "Black Music"
'Black' music is basic percussion, basic horns and basic pipes.
There are no stringed instruments, no woodwinds, no brass, no piano. There is no written music, no scales.
That's what black music is.
Are artists never allowed to be inspired by something and then do their own take on it?
No.
Is it Elvis' fault if white people at the time were too racist to enjoy African Americans performing similar music to him?
This has two parts. Is other people's preference Elvis responsibility? No.
Were African Americans performing music like Elvis' music? No. Similar. But not quite there.
Elvis was selling nathan's hotdogs, black people were selling ball park franks. They're both hot dogs, both good, but not the same. And one caught on faster.
And then there's demographics. If every person in a population that comprises 13% of the population loves your work, you're not going to be anywhere near as popular as a person whose audience is half of the population that comprises 80% of the population.
I tell you Peanuts, this Biden economy is amazing! Liberal capitalist Warren Buffett made $1.29 billion yesterday. And I'm a liberal capitalist too so when he gets richer it also proves how smart I am.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
SB 342 explicitly states that pregnant women cannot be prosecuted for the crime of abortion.
Hmm. So why is this again? I mean, if abortion is literal murder, shouldn't the pregnant woman at least be considered an accessory to the crime?
Also, if providers are criminalized but not the women, an entirely predictable result is that women seek abortions that don't have providers, i.e., self-induced abortion. Would that be an improvement over the status quo?
The government tries really hard not to say "you can't do this."
Instead they use the commerce clause to prohibit the selling of goods and services while claiming to protect people from evil businesses.
So in this case they're saying that the woman getting the abortion isn't the criminal, it's the person performing the service.
Well, I agree that the federal government really abuses the commerce clause. But in this case it's a state law so the commerce clause really doesn't apply.
And yes the government tries to "protect" people from "evil" businesses. And I can see how a pro-life person might view an abortion provider as engaged in an evil business that ought to be banned. But presumably the reason why this person views the business is evil is because that he/she believes the provider is literally killing babies. And if that is the case, then one would think the woman would at least be considered complicit in that killing.
My point was that the government doesn't say "You can't buy this." Instead they say "Nobody can make or sell this." Federal government and state governments both do the same thing.
Which, I think, is mostly just a political dodge. Consumers are a larger constituency than manufacturers. Manufacturers are a larger and more stationary target. Coming out of the Progressive Era a huge amount of case law was built up allowing them to be targeted, so they do it.
So, I guess what I'm saying is I agree.
Even hardcore anti-abortion conservatives seem to be afraid, politically, to go after the woman herself. A lot of these red state trigger laws are framed so that the doctor is the one who is jailed or sued.
That summary makes it sound like there is a loophole where a pregnant doctor can perform an abortion on another pregnant woman, and be immune from being prosecuted for it.
The reason is that there isn't a strong desire to punish women who get abortions, since they could be your sister or daughter. It's easier demonize the people performing the act.
I'm honestly surprised by how many states are pushing for this. My assumption was that the people pushing for complete abortion bans were the extreme end, with the vast majority of the electorate still wanting to keep open early-term abortions. It's possible some state legislatures are misreading their bases. I don't think it's a good policy.
Evidence is that they are likely overplaying their hands. We'll see though, this is part of allowing things to play out at the state level.
Me to. Also found it interesting that the Louisiana law was proposed by a (D) and signed by a (D) governor.
"Hmm. So why is this again? I mean, if abortion is literal murder, shouldn't the pregnant woman at least be considered an accessory to the crime?"
Yes. Killing your kid at six months should carry the same penalty as sixteen months.
Your comment just gave me a thought. Are all our "birthdays" about 9 months behind?
You'd have to rename it "conceptionday" or something. Birthday means the day you left the womb.
Not birthday, but ages. In Africa and Asia they recognize this and that's why traditional systems often have people up to a year older than they would be in the West.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Asian_age_reckoning
Some Asian countries are now adopting the Western practice of counting age from your date of birth though.
You are actually making a somewhat common pro-life argument. It's just not politically popular because voters, on average, don't represent any particularly coherent philosophical view. Lots of people tend to view the woman as something without volition when it comes to abortion. This is more a comment about the politics of abortion more than anything. It's also why we're likely to end up with mostly compromise abortion policy in most states.
To your second point about self-induced abortion. Probably. I think if we did criminalize the woman we would also see people doing self-induced abortions. Criminalizing providers, we will still mostly likely see providers doing it in black markets as well. You're kind of getting at some point which is "Why do we have laws if people will ignore them?" You have an additional caveat that people might get hurt while ignoring said laws as well.
So, pro-life folks tend to argue from a place of the child having some rights that deserve protection, and that it is worth codifying in law. Though we will see, politically, what form that actually ends up taking. I expect I will be disappointed and we will see less bans than some folks seem to think we'll see.
How is an abortion provider different than a hitman?
"Hmm. So why is this again? I mean, if abortion is literal murder, shouldn't the pregnant woman at least be considered an accessory to the crime?"
The question of whether something is moral or not is not the same as to what the government ought to do about it.
1: That would absolve men of any responsibility entirely.
There's a reason it isn't pushed anywhere. It takes two to make one.
2:. Um yes, why would you think pro-life people wouldn't be happy(er) about that?
Some of the environmental regulations for space x involve horny turtles and a book report on history.
Among the requirements to clear rockets for takeoff are that SpaceX will coordinate with a “qualified biologist” on lighting inspections to minimize the impact on sea turtles, operate an employee shuttle between the city of Brownsville and the SpaceX facility in Boca Chica, and perform quarterly cleanups of the local Boca Chica Beach.
SpaceX must also contribute to local education and preservation efforts, including preparing a historical context report for the events of the Mexican War and the Civil War that took place in the area as well as replacing a local historical marker's missing ornaments.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/red-tape-entangles-spacex
typical BS work just because they no longer like Elon
they may want to be careful, Musk just might move operations to another country that would be happy to have him.
He can't unless he starts from zero again. There's a lot of laws against rocket technology leaving the US.
Liberal Tesla owners everywhere are conflicted.
I doubt it. They've solved the problem of cognitive dissonance by just not thinking about it.
Mandating Low-Nicotine Cigarettes Could Make Smoking More Dangerous
You ever seem to have one of those days where it just seems like everybody's getting on your case from the Biden Administration all the way down to your best girlfriend?
I use to have those days all the time. In high-school the put me to work in the school book store, until I got board. 2 hours later you know where I was found?
Smokin ain't allowed at school.
What if you homeschool?
Forget just smoking, you're even forbidden from dating classmates.
Oh no!
Deadly earthquake hits Afghanistan
By the end of the day I expect Fiona to tell us how this tragedy proves the US needs to invite the entire population of Afghanistan to immigrate here so Reason.com's billionaire benefactor Charles Koch can increase his supply of cost-effective labor.
#CheapLaborAboveAll
No need. I'm sure the Taliban has made earthquake relief their top priority.
They have plenty of military equipment, courtesy of U.S. taxpayers, to move those destroyed buildings and rebuild as quickly as possibly. They can also build temporary homes for those displaced. It's a shame about those that were killed in the earthquake but at least they weren't killed by gunfire.
The case—United States v. Taylor—asked whether someone convicted for attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act has also committed a crime of violence.
The Hobbs act sounds a lot like Calvinball.
The j6 trial is Calvin Ball,
The decision seems to be an example of reasoning so overcooked it results in an absurd conclusion so stupid that only an intellectual can buy into it.
The reasoning seems to be that since robbery can theoretically be done without violence, the court is required to ignore the factual violence that occurred in the commission of the crime.
Does anyone care about Elvis Presley anymore?
If he's still alive, he's living in a nursing home with JFK.
The FDA's plan to ban nicotine cigarettes (which the dishonest agency has repeatedly proposed since 2009) could/would have similar negative ramifications as alcohol prohibition a century ago:
- a slight decline in consumption,
- a multimillion dollar government created black market,
- a huge decline in government tax revenue,
- contaminated, tainted and more harmful products, and
- a huge increase in crime (including violent crime) and corruption by federal, state and local government officials.
The junk science studies (financed with hundreds of millions of federal tax dollars by FDA, NIH and other DHHS agencies) that dutifully conclude banning nicotine from cigarettes would "help smokers quit and reduce smoking rates" fail to acknowledge that 10 times more smokers would switch to black market cigarettes (than would quit smoking), or that banning nicotine cigarettes would likely create a $50-$80 billion black market for cigarettes in the US each year.
Ever since Congress enacted the FSPTCA in 2009 (thanks to Obama and the Democrat controlled Congress) the FDA has protected cigarettes by repeatedly lying about the very low risks of nicotine vaping, smokeless tobacco and other smokefree nicotine alternatives (all of which are 99% less harmful than cigarettes, and have helped tens of millions of smokers quit smoking) by knowingly and falsely claiming these low risk alternaitves:
- are addicting millions of teens to nicotine,
- are gateways to cigarettes for teens,
- do NOT help smokers quit,
- do NOT reduce disease risks for smokers,
- may be even more harmful than cigarettes.
In 2009, FDA illegally banned the import/sale of ALL nicotine vapes in the US and US Customs seized nearly 1,000 shipments at US Ports.
In order to defend/win their vapor ban in federal court (where I submitted an Amicus Brief), the FDA lied about and demonized vaping and claimed their ban was necessary to "protect children".
But after Judge Richard Leon and the US Appeal Court (which included Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) unanimously struck down FDA's illegal vapor ban in 2010/2011, the agency doubled down on its lies about vaping to regulate vaping products as tobacco
products (which was FDA's vapor prohibition plan B).
Since 2016, over one million applications have been submitted to FDA for different vapor products now on the market. But FDA has only approved just several applications (for vapes owned by RJ Reynolds/BAT and NJOY), which would/will give them a FDA created monopoly/oligopoly for vapor products (just as I repeatedly predicted would occur at FDA hearings and in public comments since 2014).
Instead of banning nicotine cigarettes (and/or banning 99% of nicotine vapor products), the FDA should truthfully inform Americans that ALL smokefree nicotine/tobacco products are far less harmful alternatives to cigarettes and should urge all smokers to switch, or substitute them as much as possible.
During the past decade, thanks to the vaping revolution, US high school student smoking declined to just 2%, and young adult smoking (18-25) dropped to just 7% (as teen smokers rejected CDC's, FDA's and the US SG lies about vaping, and switched to vaping).
Unfortunately, smoking rates among adults over 35 years of age declined very little during the past decade, as most of those smokers believed DHHS lies about vaping.
Now FDA plans to force the vast majority of cigarette smokers to create a massive and likely violent black market (in hopes that 5%-10% of smokers quit smoking because Uncle Sam banned cigarettes).
Also note that Big Pharma (GSK & J&J own Nicorette and Nicoderm, Pfizer owns Chantix) protected their FDA approved smoking cessation drugs (that have helped very few smokers quit) spent billions of dollars lobbying Congress to enact the 2009 FSPTCA, lobbying FDA, CDC and US SG to illegally ban vapes in 2009, lobbying FDA, CDC and US SG to regulate vapes as tobacco products in 2016, and lobbying all health agencies to demonize, tax and ban the use of low risk smokefree alternatives.
From 2000-2009, Philip Morris collaborated with Big Pharma (and their funding recipients at CTFK, ACS, AHA, ALA, AMA, APHA, etc) to lobby Congress to enact the cigarette protecting FSPTCA (because doing so protected PM's Marlboro cigarette monopoly from market competition by other cigarettes and by smokefree alternatives).
Yeah tobacco prohibition has been a transparent racket since the settlement decades ago. But I'm going to make one more point that you alluded to. The underlying assumption in this article is that nicotine is a powerfully addictive drug and people smoke cigarettes because they're desperate to get their fix. As you point out nicotine replacement products are readily available and have been for decades. If it's a matter of getting a fix, I can walk into any drug store and buy nicotine off the shelf. The problem is that these products do not help people stop smoking. They are as effective as cold turkey. People do not smoke cigarettes to get a nicotine fix. They smoke for other reasons. But nobody wants to talk about that because too many grifters are making too much cash with the status quo.
I'd say (with several decades of personal experience) that people (I assume I'm not too unique) smoke both for the nicotine fix and for other reasons.
I smoked for a long time. Quit near the end of last year, but still use some vape and smokeless tobacco products. Those things satisfy the nicotine cravings OK, but doesn't fully satisfy the desire to smoke.
To borrow a common meme:
1. Governments don't lie.
2. Some governments lie, but not ours.
3. Our government lied, but not much.
4. Our government lied, but its only temporary and did not matter.
5. Our government lied, but its good for us.
6. What lies?
So with the nicotine narrative, we are around step 5, right?
One is sympathetic to the fears of the consequences of prohibition, but it's not immediately true that alcohol and cigarettes are the same type of product. Both are legal but restricted. We still have bars everywhere but almost nowhere to smoke, and society has gotten so accustomed to being smoke-free that most everyone would find it absurd for an office or airport to suddenly welcome smokers again.
It's plausible that cigarette smoking could be phased out of the human experience with no real disruption. Cigarettes are kind of an evil thing. They are made so addictive because they are so useless. Their use is in reducing the anxiety of being addicted to them. Great business model that kills half a million Americans a year.
Alcohol is bad too, but as a social lubricant it's hard to rival. It actually has a use. But even if that's a rationalization, that's no reason not to fix a separate problem. I've never met a former smoker who misses smoking so much they'd consider engaging in the black market. It's simpler simply to be a nonsmoker.
What does any of that have to do with fhe government?
For Tony, everything has to do with government, at least how it supports his desires and ambitions.
It's plausible that cigarette smoking could be phased out of the human experience with no real disruption. Cigarettes are kind of an evil thing. They are made so addictive because they are so useless.
Tony, chiming in from the Temperance Movement, Circa 1898.
Prog gonna prog
Hubris. Complete hubris.
Kurt Vonnegut said: “The public health authorities never mention the main reason many Americans have for smoking heavily, which is that smoking is a fairly sure, fairly honorable form of suicide.”
I suppose smoking served a function of being a slow, socially accepted way of committing suicide.
Not if its victims seek cancer treatment that I have to pay for via either taxes or insurance premiums.
What is the limiting principle on that line of thinking? Certain behaviors are risky, for instance, alternative sexual practices. Can those be banned because "we" pay for the consequences when the results go pear-shaped?
Don't say the quiet part out loud!
Tony demonstrating, as so many ignorant democrats do, that govt policy they like one day, for one reason, just might actually be used against them in the future.
Now do AIDS.
And when you're done with that, do abortions.
Cronut off the top rope with the elbow drop then still decided to drop the stanky leg on him.
It's good you know what's best for others Tony. What would we do without you?
A progressive is someone who is worried that someone, somewhere, somehow is enjoying something.
Honestly, it's underappreciated how good of a stimulant nicotine is. It's really an enjoyable drug and really does help you focus. Coffee and Nicotine, woo nelly.
Problems with ADHD were probably less prevalent back when "everyone" smoked.
I've never met a former smoker who misses smoking so much they'd consider engaging in the black market.
That's because cigarettes are freely available and the only people you've met who are former smokers are former smokers by their own choice.
When did the US cross the line and normalize the nanny state? How can so many people now expect (and endorse) government actions that jump directly from "it would be good if" to "here's a new federal law" that either prohibits or requires something of all people? What happened to the once common understanding that the role of government should have limits, and people are largely responsible for their own decisions (and consequences)?
dunno when it was official, but I feel like the lockdowns, mandates, and public shaming were if not crossing the goal line, spiking the football and doing the DX "suck it" gesture
...the administration revealed plans to require cigarette makers to severely cut the amount of nicotine in their products.
Because obviously they have that power.
"This is an update from the old law, which specified that the ban on abortion started at fertilization and may have been used to ban emergency contraception"
Does emergency contraception result from emergency sex?
If it works after fertilization, i.e conception, it is not, by definition, contraception.
...with no exceptions for rape or incest...
If you think it's a life unto itself then of course no exceptions. If you don't, then again this is an irrelevant distraction. It shouldn't be illegal at all in your eyes.
^
Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards yesterday bans abortion at all stages. I thought only Republicans were anti abortion. I'm so confused on who i should hate these days. will the left protest on this governors house and will garland finally enforce the law? enquiring minds want to know.
Garland is too busy in Ukraine facilitating another $2 B to feed the Democrats insatiable appetite for war. Next we will learn that Democrats are voting for Liz Cheney!
Is it happy hour yet?
"https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/11/opinion/democratic-ticket-liz-cheney-2024.html"
NYT - Biden / Cheney 2024?!
“Is it happy hour yet?”
What time zone are you in?
That's the Louisiana Governor, right? If so, then my only comment is never generalize politically what is happening in Louisiana. It's its own little fiefdom.
Supreme Court Makes It Effectively Impossible To Sue Federal Cops, Smashing a 51-Year-Old Precedent
Some precedents are more sacred than others.
The officers had weapons. The children had none. The officers had body armor. The children had none. The officers had training.
Think I found the problem.
Me as well. Give a few teachers and students firearms and they would have a better chance than they would by waiting on the cops.
Without government, who would steal your dirtbike and use it for what sounds like some kind of weird religious ceremony?
Probably the same people, just without the badges.
"A California measure decriminalizing loitering for prostitution purposes is on its way to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom. (More background here.)"
I am amazed that ENB did not dedicate the entire Roundup to this.
Probably working on a long piece for it. We’ll know if she doesn’t do the roundup Monday.
'"Another individual has died while in custody at Rikers Island, marking the seventh death this year at New York City's troubled jail complex," noted Gothamist yesterday.'
Was he killed by a dirt bike?
Yes. He was shived by a man named Dirt Bike.
Joe Dirt Bike.
More from the January 6 investigative committee hearings.
Did they finally fit him for that orange jumpsuit yet?
Orange is the new OrangeManBad
Chicago police officers will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or give chase over minor offenses...
They're not in shape for that anyway. Better to just shoot.
True. 2/3 of Americans have a BMI >25, which despite statins being taken like candy, heart disease is still, 40 years going strong, the leading killer in the Western World. With heterosexuals not giving birth to
blobs of tissuebabies faster than than the death rate, extinction will happen very soon. Happy Hump day!the BMI thing is kinda of funny since it's generalist and doesn't do a great picture. I have a 24 BMI about 10% body fat still do 5k races right around the 18 minute mark deadlift 2.5 my body weight, waist size 29 and I'm on the borderline of being overweight.
Yea, bmi doesn't really say much.
I'm a 22, and my height/weight hasn't changed in 10 years. But 10 years ago I was playing basketball 20+ hours a week, whereas now my fitness is less than ideal.
Same bmi though!
BMI is a better predictor of problems at the extremes. BMI that starts getting under 18 and you are more at risk of malnutrition the further you stray. There can be a lot of grey area in the "normal" BMIs of 18-24 and "overweight" BMI of 25-30 and lots of variables can play into this. When you start to get too high above 30, and almost certainly above 40, you get the complications of obesity/metabolic syndrome.
Its not very informative for 18-30 as the amount of muscle mass and fitness play such a big role here. But once you enter the above 35 club you can start to predict a lot of the health problems that most likely will come.
ill add that the Rock has a BMI of 32-34 depending on what role he is going up for, and this represents a large amount of muscle mass per height.
when I was power lifting I was a BMI of 30 and in the best shape of my life both in terms of strength and cardio.
My point being the usual muddying of "but what about muscle?" starts to fade at 35. And that is for extremely muscular, healthy people. BMI over 40 is almost certainly unhealthy and predicts future (if not current) hypertension, cholesterol, pre/diabetes, etc, all of which are building for heart/vascular disease.
BMI SCIENCE DENIERS
Like sooooo many Americans do 5k races, play BB 20 hrs/week, and hit Golds Gym every day at 4:30 am to get buff. OK, my husband and I go to Golds on weekdays, and I can tell you for a fact, most in the gym are lard asses playing on their phones, irritating the gym rats to no end. Muscle gyms went the way of foo foo gyms. yuk
BMI is the standard metric used in medical circles to give physicians a quick data point of the patient that he will be seeing for 12 mins in their office. Every patient hospital record has the patient's BMI listed in their demographics section because Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis, Hydrostatic Weighing, DEXA scan, etc aint gonna happen. Sheesh, such complainers, these Gen Z types
Yea, but thanks to the covid vax heart disease isn't just for the fat and old!
Equity
Another individual has died while in custody at Rikers Island...
Thank God they're disposable, I guess.
And just how was he connected to the Clintons?
Smokers will smoke more cigarettes, thus buy more cigarettes, which in turn gives the government more tax dollars. It's a feature, not a bug!
Kill people off faster by distributing them via CVS and Walgreens Pharmacies, covered by CMS and Third Party Payers. Talk about evolutionary forces in full swing!
Twitter's board of directors has approved Elon Musk's purchase of the company.
Calling his bluff.
Sen. Katrina Jackson (D-Monroe)
OMG THOSE EVIL REPUBLINAZIS AND THEIR HANDMAID FANTASIES
Oh, wait...
Democrats can be Republicans too. It just matters what you believe in your heart.
She's also black.
"Chicago police officers will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or give chase over minor offenses,"
I'm no fan of cops but "you're allowed to run away from arrest" is a helluva position to take.
Chicago Shoplifting Outline: II. They Won't Chase You
In Seattle, people don't have to pull over for cops anymore, because cops can't pursue a car. So people don't pull over for cops anymore. Weird how that happened.
I'd be MUCH more in favor of a rule that says cops can't pull people over.
There's literally no reason for traffic enforcement. It's a scam to raise money from tickets, nothing more.
"I have great reasons to believe it was never secured," McCraw testified about the door. "How about trying the door and seeing if it's locked?"
According to the latest reports, it is not possible to lock the door from the inside.
Louisiana's trigger law criminalizes abortion at all stages.
It's a $99 flight to New Mexico from there...
Those Cajuns are very resourceful
Great food in New Mexico too. Though a big sloppy pile of sopapillas with red chile might not be what most people are craving post-abortion.
>>Chicago police officers will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot
should read "no longer allowed to shoot people in the back"
The Biden administration continues its misguided war on nicotine. On Tuesday, the administration revealed plans to require cigarette makers to severely cut the amount of nicotine in their products
But, but, but...what happened to "my body, my choice?" Oh, they say they are protecting lives?
Remember the days when Democrats argued one could not legislate morality by govt fiat? those were the days
meanwhile, 3 cheers for Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Florida, et al, for following Biden's lead and legislating morality re: protecting lives!!!
between legislating morality on what substances are govt approved, and legislating medical care to people, I dont see how they possibly have an argument for "my body, my choice" and I will happily laugh at these green haired rejects as they try to use this argument in their handmaids tale cosplay.
Hoisted on their own petard
My morality disgusts you, your morality disgusts me.
Let's rumble!
pervert
Seems appropriate -- take peoples' stuff and destroy it, call that freedom and do it in front of Freedom Tower. Why not donate them to people lacking transportation around the world? Why not auction them off to legal buyers? Why not just let people keep them?
And Elvis is still the king.
Damn skippy!
>>loitering for prostitution purposes
fully support chicks standing around trying to look attractive.
definitely make sure you miss any of the abortion protests. For your eyes' sake
Hmm, perhaps if not for beer, none of those activists would ever need an abortion.
Ladydick isn't picky.
Fuck Joe Biden.
139 days to midterms.
The low nicotine experiment has already been tried. 40 years ago all of the major manufacturers marketed "lite" cigarettes, with low tar. They mostly used a system of holes in the sides of the filter to cool fastest and make them easier to filter, while also diluting the smoke. They reduced tar and nicotine by a huge amount.
To no effect. People smoked more cigarettes, and learned to hold the cigarettes in a way to block the holes.
They were eventually dropped.
I don't think they were ever dropped. They just couldn't call them "light" when some regulations changed. I'm pretty sure that if you buy Parliaments or whatever they still have the holes in the filter.
Women more likely to be dramatic hypochondriacs than men:
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2022/06/21/women-long-COVID/4101655819644/
Then there's this little chestnut:
"Knowledge about fundamental sex differences underpinning the clinical manifestations, disease progression, and health outcomes of COVID-19 is crucial for the identification and rational design of effective therapies and public health interventions that are inclusive of and sensitive to the potential differential treatment needs of both sexes,"
Fucking bigots.
On WHAT farcical basis do FedGov have any authority to say anything concerning tobacco \in any form or stage of manufacturing? The "T" in BATFE should not even BE there, along with the other three.
WHERE amnogst the "few and defined" powers do FedGov claim the pwoer to regulate a plant that can be grown almost anywhere? .
"MSNBC guest: "There is a great deal of Americans where it is uncomfortable that they're spending more, but they are not gonna go under. You've got to stop complaining ... you still have your job ... so I'm gonna need you to calm down and back off."
https://twitter.com/FreeBeacon/status/1539671168650977281?s=20&t=dNJ1Ib_5saeFME1wBd9zLg
This is just spectacular. Do they even realize that every time they open their mouths, they're writing a Republican campaign ad?
I actually have made $30,030 simply in 5 weeks straightforwardly running part-time from my apartment. (scs-12) Immediately while I've misplaced my ultimate business, I become exhausted and fortunately I observed this pinnacle on line task & with this I am in a function to acquire hundreds immediately via my home. Everybody is capable of get this satisfactory career &
can benefit extra greenbacks on line going this article.......... http://payout11.tk
Let me be the first to inform you that this country is now at the point of no return. You probably cannot grasp what the loss of Due Process means to citizens. The glaring inanity of your comment is that you are still playing politics and blind to the decades of Democratic party's Let Them Eat Cake, Murder and Mayem and ensuring low income families that it is okay to be stupid.
The party of your choice has promoted the most fowl of treatments toward humans and littered the hallways of your capitol with token Black females, homosexual governors and clueless prosecutors. And called it a democracy which it is NOT but none learned much in school Wave your little flag and go down with the ship. How are you now going to defend yourself? Police won't and it is too late to buy weapons and ammo and you play politics with only a couple days supply of junk food. Don't forget to vote.