Debate Now Should the Government Dictate What Is and Is Not Healthy?

[emilynghiem]

Dear @G.T

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

The people already do decide, because the products arent being banned.

The company is just not allowed to false advertize its product. Dont know why thats such a harsh dictatorship, to you.

To me, its quite obvious that people are either really really ignorant of what "healthy" means, or they're really really bad at self control.

And this ignorance or lack of self control doesnt only effect themselves. It is a cost driver in the healthcare industry and in the Government (medicare/aid) sector (taxe$).

The government has 3 vested interests here.
- regulating commerce (false advertising)
- healthcare costs
- tax burden

I find it really difficult to see any fault whatsoever with disallowing a nutrition bar from calling itself "healthy" when it contains a leading contributor to heart disease - which last i looked was one of if not THE top killers in America.

Its actually one of the most egregious attempts at false advertising Ive seen.

Dear G.T.
although I agree with the content of your pt, i agree with Foxfyre not to depend on federal govt as a magical fixall. It was never desisned to micromanage every case in every industry.

The root problem is large corporations having collective power as govt has but without checks on them. So we keep bypassing this imbalance and going thru govt to get a collective objection to a collective entity. We cant keep doing that. We should address corporate structures to restore due process and balance. Then that will apply to all cases.

Actually we can keep on using the government OF the People because that is what it was specifically constructed to do. There is no other entity that keep corporations in check and so We the People are left without any other choice. Either we use our government to protect ourselves from the predations of corporations or we hand over all power to Corporate America and we become an Idiocracy instead.

Thanks DT but there still must be a better way than micromanaging case by case for each industry.

If we address corporate responsibilty head on, that would cover all cases of petitioning for accountability.

What id propose is another line of law, besides just civil or criminal.
And address Constitutional ethics and abuses that arent proven to be crimes or violations yet, but conflicts of interest or complaints in general before these escalate further.

Issues of media bias, religious or secular beliefs affecting public policy, political parties, nonprofit or profit corporations could all be addressed for purposes of facilitating and redressing grievances by free choice to correct problems. Then the public can have a track record of company ethics, and if the pattern is abusive the state can have grounds for revoking the charter license if grievances are not resolved.

We have a credit system that protects lenders from bad customers. Why isnt there a system to protect consumers from corporations with bad records

 

[G.T.]

Dear @G.T

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

The people already do decide, because the products arent being banned.

The company is just not allowed to false advertize its product. Dont know why thats such a harsh dictatorship, to you.

To me, its quite obvious that people are either really really ignorant of what "healthy" means, or they're really really bad at self control.

And this ignorance or lack of self control doesnt only effect themselves. It is a cost driver in the healthcare industry and in the Government (medicare/aid) sector (taxe$).

The government has 3 vested interests here.
- regulating commerce (false advertising)
- healthcare costs
- tax burden

I find it really difficult to see any fault whatsoever with disallowing a nutrition bar from calling itself "healthy" when it contains a leading contributor to heart disease - which last i looked was one of if not THE top killers in America.

Its actually one of the most egregious attempts at false advertising Ive seen.

Dear G.T.
although I agree with the content of your pt, i agree with Foxfyre not to depend on federal govt as a magical fixall. It was never desisned to micromanage every case in every industry.

The root problem is large corporations having collective power as govt has but without checks on them. So we keep bypassing this imbalance and going thru govt to get a collective objection to a collective entity. We cant keep doing that. We should address corporate structures to restore due process and balance. Then that will apply to all cases.

Actually we can keep on using the government OF the People because that is what it was specifically constructed to do. There is no other entity that keep corporations in check and so We the People are left without any other choice. Either we use our government to protect ourselves from the predations of corporations or we hand over all power to Corporate America and we become an Idiocracy instead.

Thanks DT but there still must be a better way than micromanaging case by case for each industry.

If we address corporate responsibilty head on, that would cover all cases of petitioning for accountability.

What id propose is another line of law,

Not every business is a corporation.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dear @G.T

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

The people already do decide, because the products arent being banned.

The company is just not allowed to false advertize its product. Dont know why thats such a harsh dictatorship, to you.

To me, its quite obvious that people are either really really ignorant of what "healthy" means, or they're really really bad at self control.

And this ignorance or lack of self control doesnt only effect themselves. It is a cost driver in the healthcare industry and in the Government (medicare/aid) sector (taxe$).

The government has 3 vested interests here.
- regulating commerce (false advertising)
- healthcare costs
- tax burden

I find it really difficult to see any fault whatsoever with disallowing a nutrition bar from calling itself "healthy" when it contains a leading contributor to heart disease - which last i looked was one of if not THE top killers in America.

Its actually one of the most egregious attempts at false advertising Ive seen.

Dear G.T.
although I agree with the content of your pt, i agree with Foxfyre not to depend on federal govt as a magical fixall. It was never desisned to micromanage every case in every industry.

The root problem is large corporations having collective power as govt has but without checks on them. So we keep bypassing this imbalance and going thru govt to get a collective objection to a collective entity. We cant keep doing that. We should address corporate structures to restore due process and balance. Then that will apply to all cases.

Actually we can keep on using the government OF the People because that is what it was specifically constructed to do. There is no other entity that keep corporations in check and so We the People are left without any other choice. Either we use our government to protect ourselves from the predations of corporations or we hand over all power to Corporate America and we become an Idiocracy instead.

I really do fail to see any of the connections here.

We can use the government of the people (in other words the people we elect) to protect us from corporations (staffed with people who are also part of the first group). Got it.

Next, it is quite clear that the government and big corporations are quite deeply in bed (or does the left not scream about the amount of money big corporations utilize to buy elected officials).

Really, we have no other choices ? We have plenty of choices.

Either we use the government to control corporations or we become an idiocracy ? Do you really limit yourself that narrowly ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

View attachment 40144

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

A. Your graph shows a peak in 1995....long after ads were banned.

B. 20% of High Schoolers smoke ???? Wow....that is terrible. Seems the government is falling down big time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

I think that I will let someone else answer your question of "So what?" about tobacco companies creating tobacco ads designed to addict our children to toxic drugs....

There are all manner of television programs and other means used to entice our children into doing all manner of things most people consider to be harmful to children. But the only realistic protection our kids have from such influence is the parents themselves. It should be parents who rise up in protest against the tobacco company ads and not the government. The government should always be the referee and never the coach in such matters.

And that, Foxfyre, is exactly what happened, and is why you do not see tobacco ads on TV any more. The tobacco industry fought it tooth and nail, but the banning of tobacco ads was a grass roots movement that resulted in laws passed and regulations made by our elected representatives, as we demanded of them.

And, "Joe Camel", complete with cool shades, was specifically designed as a tool to influence preteens and early teens to smoke. Good luck in providing effective parental resistance to anything that your average subteen decides to emulate on TV, or in other ads. There are now three "Marlboro men" who have died from cancer. There will not be any more "Marlboro men".

According to the posted graph about 20% of High Schoolers are Marlboro men/women.

That's pretty sad.

Looks like passing those laws didn't do squat.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

I think that I will let someone else answer your question of "So what?" about tobacco companies creating tobacco ads designed to addict our children to toxic drugs....

No, the "So what ?" has to do with the elimination of ads.

That did little to prevent teen smoking.

 

[G.T.]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

View attachment 40144

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

A. Your graph shows a peak in 1995....long after ads were banned.

B. 20% of High Schoolers smoke ???? Wow....that is terrible. Seems the government is falling down big time.

No, the peak was 1997. And it was 37%.

B. No, its 15% not 20. And down from 37% thats an aweful huge knowledge campaign victory.

And for adults, its a downward trend since the 60's on these graphs.

Seems a win win all around for getting the correct science out there.

 

[G.T.]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

I think that I will let someone else answer your question of "So what?" about tobacco companies creating tobacco ads designed to addict our children to toxic drugs....

There are all manner of television programs and other means used to entice our children into doing all manner of things most people consider to be harmful to children. But the only realistic protection our kids have from such influence is the parents themselves. It should be parents who rise up in protest against the tobacco company ads and not the government. The government should always be the referee and never the coach in such matters.

And that, Foxfyre, is exactly what happened, and is why you do not see tobacco ads on TV any more. The tobacco industry fought it tooth and nail, but the banning of tobacco ads was a grass roots movement that resulted in laws passed and regulations made by our elected representatives, as we demanded of them.

And, "Joe Camel", complete with cool shades, was specifically designed as a tool to influence preteens and early teens to smoke. Good luck in providing effective parental resistance to anything that your average subteen decides to emulate on TV, or in other ads. There are now three "Marlboro men" who have died from cancer. There will not be any more "Marlboro men".

According to the posted graph about 20% of High Schoolers are Marlboro men/women.

That's pretty sad.

Looks like passing those laws didn't do squat.

Its 15%. Way less than HALF of what it was at peak.

Thats not squat? Im begging like a beggar to differ.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Corporations always do what is best for you, without any interference from the government. Turning Love Canal into a toxic waste site was actually in the public's best interest. it has created billions of dollars in jobs....

 

[Foxfyre]

Dear @G.T

Since corporations exercise unequal access to collective influence and resources, I recommend holding companies to have some standards of due process and right to petition to redress grievances that Govt is supposed to maintain.

Unfortunately our system has been hijacked by the costs of legal actions,
so I recommend more accessible mediation, some system of issuing grievances to companies if their practices are deemed problematic or unethical.

That way people can petition directly, and resolve issues effectively case by case,
without depending on going through govt to pass laws to micromanage every case.

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

The people already do decide, because the products arent being banned.

The company is just not allowed to false advertize its product. Dont know why thats such a harsh dictatorship, to you.

To me, its quite obvious that people are either really really ignorant of what "healthy" means, or they're really really bad at self control.

And this ignorance or lack of self control doesnt only effect themselves. It is a cost driver in the healthcare industry and in the Government (medicare/aid) sector (taxe$).

The government has 3 vested interests here.
- regulating commerce (false advertising)
- healthcare costs
- tax burden

I find it really difficult to see any fault whatsoever with disallowing a nutrition bar from calling itself "healthy" when it contains a leading contributor to heart disease - which last i looked was one of if not THE top killers in America.

Its actually one of the most egregious attempts at false advertising Ive seen.

Dear G.T.
although I agree with the content of your pt, i agree with Foxfyre not to depend on federal govt as a magical fixall. It was never desisned to micromanage every case in every industry.

The root problem is large corporations having collective power as govt has but without checks on them. So we keep bypassing this imbalance and going thru govt to get a collective objection to a collective entity. We cant keep doing that. We should address corporate structures to restore due process and balance. Then that will apply to all cases.

In my opinion, if a corporation's products are inferior, and somebody else offers a better product at an attractive price, the free market will take care of it.

If a corporation is engaged in misconduct that hurts people and/or infringes on their rights or allows a harmful substance in their product that the people have no way to know it is there, there are already plenty of laws in place or legal recourse to address that.

In the case of the OP, we are dealing with an arbitrary mandate from the federal government forbidding a company from advertising its nutrition bar as 'healthy'. Any idiot can look at the ingredients in that nutrition bar and know that it is far more nutritious and 'healthy' than are many things the government does include in its guidelines for a 'healthy' diet.

But whether or not the nutrition bar meets your or my standards for 'healthy', I want the people to be able to decide. I see it as government overreach, excess authoritarianism, and wrong for government to dictate what a private corporation can or cannot advertise as healthy in this case.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Corporations always do what is best for you, without any interference from the government. Turning Love Canal into a toxic waste site was actually in the public's best interest. it has created billions of dollars in jobs....

Strawman

Corporations utilize government to protect themselves from their poor decisions.

And they use government to create barriers to entry so that they can modulate prices higher than the market might otherwise dictate.

Try starting a restaraunt and see how much red tape you hit. It's not wonder that we mostly have the Chile's, Applebee,s and Burger Kings...etc. of the world.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

View attachment 40144

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

A. Your graph shows a peak in 1995....long after ads were banned.

B. 20% of High Schoolers smoke ???? Wow....that is terrible. Seems the government is falling down big time.

No, the peak was 1997. And it was 37%.

B. No, its 15% not 20. And down from 37% thats an aweful huge knowledge campaign victory.

And for adults, its a downward trend since the 60's on these graphs.

Seems a win win all around for getting the correct science out there.

The peak is long after the ads were pulled. It was still going up. So...pulling the ads did nothing with regards to young people.

Take your pick.....it has still leveled off...why ?

Because government is not applying the same pressure it did before.

And we act powerless because of that.

 

[Agit8r]

Where adults are concerned, controlled substances should be limited to dangerous narcotics like heroin. As far as minors go, society should be able to determine what is and is not appropriate to sell them and legislate accordingly, whether it be tobacco or soda pop.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Dear @G.T

Corporations are held to certain standards via RICO, anti-trust and some necessary environmental laws. Again, there are regulations that disallow claims that could cause severe harm to people. The example I used earlier is that you can claim your product is BEST when it isn't. But you can't claim it cures cancer if it doesn't.

So when it comes to a term like 'healthy', and given how wrong the government has been in the past as to what is and what is not 'healthy' and the general ambiguity of that term. . .

. . .and add to that the wide variances involved. Onions for instance might be completely healthy for you and very unhealthy for me.

Add all that up, and I see it as inappropriate, unjustifiable, and detrimental government overreach for the government to dictate to a private company that it cannot advertise its nutrition bar as 'healthy'.

The government doesnt have a track record of being wrong.

The sciences were wrong.

Stop conflating the two.

And it is very detrimental to ones health to think that a food is healthy when it's not, and so it meets your own standard for when the Government SHOULD interfere, which you described above.

Your onion example fails again also, because outliers dont (and shouldnt) effect a national standard. Meaning - people can be allergic to almonds and that doesnt disqualify them as being categorized as HEALTHY because the science says otherwise.

I know that is your argument. But I think I made an adequate argument in the OP for why government should not be making ultimatums and dictates based on scientific opinion that changes with the seasons. Compile the information of what the prevailing scientific opinion is--pro and con--yes. But let the people decide.

The people already do decide, because the products arent being banned.

The company is just not allowed to false advertize its product. Dont know why thats such a harsh dictatorship, to you.

To me, its quite obvious that people are either really really ignorant of what "healthy" means, or they're really really bad at self control.

And this ignorance or lack of self control doesnt only effect themselves. It is a cost driver in the healthcare industry and in the Government (medicare/aid) sector (taxe$).

The government has 3 vested interests here.
- regulating commerce (false advertising)
- healthcare costs
- tax burden

I find it really difficult to see any fault whatsoever with disallowing a nutrition bar from calling itself "healthy" when it contains a leading contributor to heart disease - which last i looked was one of if not THE top killers in America.

Its actually one of the most egregious attempts at false advertising Ive seen.

Dear G.T.
although I agree with the content of your pt, i agree with Foxfyre not to depend on federal govt as a magical fixall. It was never desisned to micromanage every case in every industry.

The root problem is large corporations having collective power as govt has but without checks on them. So we keep bypassing this imbalance and going thru govt to get a collective objection to a collective entity. We cant keep doing that. We should address corporate structures to restore due process and balance. Then that will apply to all cases.

In my opinion, if a corporation's products are inferior, and somebody else offers a better product at an attractive price, the free market will take care of it.

If a corporation is engaged in misconduct that hurts people and/or infringes on their rights or allows a harmful substance in their product that the people have no way to know it is there, there are already plenty of laws in place or legal recourse to address that.

In the case of the OP, we are dealing with an arbitrary mandate from the federal government forbidding a company from advertising its nutrition bar as 'healthy'. Any idiot can look at the ingredients in that nutrition bar and know that it is far more nutritious and 'healthy' than are many things the government does include in its guidelines for a 'healthy' diet.

But whether or not the nutrition bar meets your or my standards for 'healthy', I want the people to be able to decide. I see it as government overreach, excess authoritarianism, and wrong for government to dictate what a private corporation can or cannot advertise as healthy in this case.

I think you misrepresent what others seem to be thinking.

And I might be inclined to agree with them that many people are so stupid they don't look...or they simply don't care.

My question is why should the government keep them from removing themselves from the genepool ? I am not sure I know the answer...but I think it is worth asking.

Your last paragraph is an exercise in the discussion (once again...and we always arrive here) on the function of government.

While I may not be as prone to engage in that discussion....I am very much attuned to the fact that I can point to precious few situations where the government actually did something meaningful in this regard.

I think of the Alar scare, the dioxine debacle...the overall Ames test screw up......the so called science that turns out to be not very good science.

And here is a question for some....the speed limit.

Jimmy Carter lowered the speed limit to 55 mph. I've heard that saved lives and fuel. Why are we back to 70 mph ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Where adults are concerned, controlled substances should be limited to dangerous narcotics like heroin. As far as minors go, society should be able to determine what is and is not appropriate to sell them and legislate accordingly, whether it be tobacco or soda pop.

What else would you put on the list ?

And when did parents stop being the primary guardians for children ?

 

[G.T.]

So, should the government have the authority to regulate advertising? Well, once upon a time, they did not, and this is what us kids were seeing when we turned on cartoon shows on TV:

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

View attachment 40144

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

A. Your graph shows a peak in 1995....long after ads were banned.

B. 20% of High Schoolers smoke ???? Wow....that is terrible. Seems the government is falling down big time.

No, the peak was 1997. And it was 37%.

B. No, its 15% not 20. And down from 37% thats an aweful huge knowledge campaign victory.

And for adults, its a downward trend since the 60's on these graphs.

Seems a win win all around for getting the correct science out there.

The peak is long after the ads were pulled. It was still going up. So...pulling the ads did nothing with regards to young people.

Take your pick.....it has still leveled off...why ?

Because government is not applying the same pressure it did before.

And we act powerless because of that.

It was a lagging indicator quite obviously because of the COUNTER-AD campaign and the information campaign.

To say they didnt work, with that radical of a change? Couldnt be a serious view.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

So what ?

You think that is why kids smoke today ?

Do you think they light up the first one NOT knowing the problems associated with it.

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

View attachment 40144

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

A. Your graph shows a peak in 1995....long after ads were banned.

B. 20% of High Schoolers smoke ???? Wow....that is terrible. Seems the government is falling down big time.

No, the peak was 1997. And it was 37%.

B. No, its 15% not 20. And down from 37% thats an aweful huge knowledge campaign victory.

And for adults, its a downward trend since the 60's on these graphs.

Seems a win win all around for getting the correct science out there.

The peak is long after the ads were pulled. It was still going up. So...pulling the ads did nothing with regards to young people.

Take your pick.....it has still leveled off...why ?

Because government is not applying the same pressure it did before.

And we act powerless because of that.

It was a lagging indicator quite obviously because of the COUNTER-AD campaign and the information campaign.

To say they didnt work, with that radical of a change? Couldnt be a serious view.

There is no correlation whatsoever.

Who are you to determine what is serious ?

 

[Agit8r]

Where adults are concerned, controlled substances should be limited to dangerous narcotics like heroin. As far as minors go, society should be able to determine what is and is not appropriate to sell them and legislate accordingly, whether it be tobacco or soda pop.

What else would you put on the list ?

And when did parents stop being the primary guardians for children ?

Should children be able to buy booze and porn at the corner market? Get real.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Where adults are concerned, controlled substances should be limited to dangerous narcotics like heroin. As far as minors go, society should be able to determine what is and is not appropriate to sell them and legislate accordingly, whether it be tobacco or soda pop.

What else would you put on the list ?

And when did parents stop being the primary guardians for children ?

Should children be able to buy booze and porn at the corner market? Get real.

They don't need to go to the corner market to get porn.

In all our wisdom, the internet is rife with it.

I think you are the one who needs to look around.

You didn't answer my question.

My kids have friends who parents were loading them with booze and pot at age 12.

It's parents, not government that gets the job done.

 

[G.T.]

CDC - Trends - Infographics - Smoking Tobacco Use

View attachment 40144

CDC - Trends in Current Cigarette Smoking - Smoking Tobacco Use

A. Your graph shows a peak in 1995....long after ads were banned.

B. 20% of High Schoolers smoke ???? Wow....that is terrible. Seems the government is falling down big time.

No, the peak was 1997. And it was 37%.

B. No, its 15% not 20. And down from 37% thats an aweful huge knowledge campaign victory.

And for adults, its a downward trend since the 60's on these graphs.

Seems a win win all around for getting the correct science out there.

The peak is long after the ads were pulled. It was still going up. So...pulling the ads did nothing with regards to young people.

Take your pick.....it has still leveled off...why ?

Because government is not applying the same pressure it did before.

And we act powerless because of that.

It was a lagging indicator quite obviously because of the COUNTER-AD campaign and the information campaign.

To say they didnt work, with that radical of a change? Couldnt be a serious view.

There is no correlation whatsoever.

Who are you to determine what is serious ?

No correlation whatsoever?

Right. It magically dropped by more than half because...


Just cuZ