PDA

View Full Version : Lifestyle Regulation



misterlowercase
02-10-2017, 15:30
http://i.imgur.com/35uAHV7.png
http://i.imgur.com/msQ01A1.jpg

In 1917, after the United States entered World War I, President Woodrow Wilson instituted a temporary wartime prohibition in order to save grain for producing food. That same year, Congress submitted the 18th Amendment, which banned the manufacture, transportation and sale of intoxicating liquors, for state ratification. Though Congress had stipulated a seven-year time limit for the process, the amendment received the support of the necessary three-quarters of U.S. states in just 11 months.

Herbert Hoover called prohibition a "noble experiment," but the effort to regulate people's behavior soon ran into trouble. Enforcement of prohibition became very difficult. Soon, such terms as "bootlegger," "bath tub gin," and "speakeasy" became household words. Gangs of hoodlums became more powerful as they trafficked in alcohol. By the 1930s, a majority of Americans had tired of the noble experiment, and the 18th Amendment was repealed.

If progressivism was founded on a belief in the moral law, so was prohibition, which sought to eliminate from commerce an article that was believed to destroy man's reason, paralyze his moral nature, and undermine the very foundation of religion and political democracy. If progressivism was an attempt to limit the power of an industrial and financial plutocracy, prohibition aimed to mash the liquor industry—one of the most corrupting branches of that plutocracy—with its intimate ties to commercialized vice and political machines. If progressivism represented a crusade for humanitarianism, so did prohibition, which held that liquor was a primary cause for poverty, crime, disease, misery, and broken homes.

:

Now a hundred years later,
certain forces have been highly successful at ushering in a very tight control mechanism aimed at the prohibition of tobacco, and many of the worlds nations have implemented harsh regulations.

Alienation through bureaucratic proceduralism,
and a grinding of the grimy gears through a kafkaesque catastrophe.
http://cdn0.dailydot.com/uploaded/images/original/2016/5/31/bug_80_anim_gif.gif

Sadly,
much of the control grid parameters will hurt the smaller independent firms or businesses the worst.

Reading this thread, my eyeballs popped out when I saw the monetary figures for registration and other fees:

http://snuffhouse.com/discussion/11206/new-eu-laws-and-the-impact-on-our-passion

A representative from Toque stated:

Registration is 120GBP x flavour x size in year one and 65GBP x flavour x size thereafter.

For Toque the amount we would have to pay adding all our flavours and the ones we make for other people comes to:

Toque 2.4 million GBP in year one and 1.2 million GBP every year thereafter.

Poschl only has to pay 33,600 Euros in year one and 18,200 Euros thereafter.

Marlboro only has to pay 3,360 Euros in year one and 1,820 Euros thereafter.

As much as I suspect corruption, I actually think it's more likely incompetence on the EU officials who worked out the registration fee.

In-friggin-sane.
:surprised:

http://i.imgur.com/Obs4J36.jpg

misterlowercase
02-10-2017, 16:08
By the way,
that poll above was cribbed from one of the most infuriating and absurd sites you're ever likely to see:

http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2010/10/27/word-wars-and-tobacco-control-choose-the-winner/

The BMJ Tobacco Control blog.

Where you'll read such things as this:

Terence A. Gerace, Ed.M., M.A., Ph.D.:

The terms Big Tobacco, tobacco industry, and major tobacco companies should be eliminated in favor of “toxic-tobacco companies” or “toxic-tobacco industry”. None of the former terms provides the true negative denotation that “toxic-tobacco companies” and “toxic-tobacco industry” do. Placing “Big” in front of Tobacco blunts tobacco’s negative associations. “Big” has a positive connotation as evidenced by McDonalds Corporation’s using “Big” in front of “Mac” and Frito-Lay placing “Big” before “Grab” to designate its large bag of snacks for individuals.

Such commentary highlights the sad fact that too many politicians fall for the elaborately crafted narratives from thick-as-mince quackademics and vote in favor of government oversight thinking that they are carrying out a "noble experiment" in the name of public health or societal good, while totally ignoring individual liberty.

Dr. Seuss knew the score...

http://i.imgur.com/XPnjJlx.jpg

...nutty moralists ridin' a high horse!

craigmillar
02-10-2017, 20:15
I realize that tobacco both from smoking and from second hand smoke causes cancer, I am more than willing to sign a waiver if I am diagnosed with a cancer caused by my smoking then just let me go in peace.If the taxes collected and the donations can not find a cure for the Big C then it is time to start looking at the pharmaceutics industry. I read somewhere that Alpie the guy frozen for thousands of years in a glacier had some form of cancer obviously he didn't get it from some pipe smoker with a fill of Velvan in his pipe.The more a government tries to interfere with peoples choices the more likely they are to want the forbidden fruit Here in Canada this year the Government will legalize Mary Jo God knows how much will be charged as tax. By the way I HAVE NEVER SMOKED IN PUBLIC IN MY LIFE.

Piffyr
02-11-2017, 04:42
I realize that tobacco both from smoking and from second hand smoke causes cancer [...]
Personally, I find the second-hand smoke studies a little dubious.