No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
And Vaping and Weed sales are directly attached to that ..
But that does not change the fact , that you cannot find one single person who quit any of there addcitive habits because of Regualtions ..
Regualtions did not stop anyone from smoking .. Making people aware of the bad effects of smoking did , This is not regulatory at all .. Just common sense
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Those are not regulations at all , those are voluntary public or goverment/priavatley funded education and awareness ..
and all voluntary
Regulations are laws ya know ..
You do realize why those government funded and social systems exist right?
Because maintaining certain standards around healthcare as it relates to them, and services being demanded from the companies themselves that profit from them, are part of those regulations.
Yes, regulations are laws. And laws don't do only one single finite form of action. They are used to enact a wide berth of policies, from simple things to sweeping ones.
Yo do see where i said Goverment funded right .. yes yes , i know exactly how they work and they are lip service for the most part ... Many empty rooms , Many are systems exploited by addicts .... They are quite clever in ways .. They play the system to no end .. In all these vices ..
But my point is from the beggining of this till now , Noone gets out or help unless they have the strength and will to do so( and then they realize it was in them all along ) , No addict ever paid any attention to Regulations ..
And ill add Help Programs are good tools for those that want help ive worked thru a couple here in Philly , after i got out of Jail and got clean , i worked with a program , where i would pick up guys in a halfway house from prison they were allowed to work 8 hours and i had to have them back .. Of the 50 or so i represented and helped , many are back in Jail or dead , some i became friends with i watched them die , some were so stupid as to leave the job to get heroin .. I think only 1 or 2 actaully made good on the program .. ill also make you aware there was corruption and abuse in that program .. But there is in all of them
But again it starts with wanting to better yourself / Period .. No Regulation teaches or instills it .. It only comes form your self ..
This also applies to anyone stupid enough to drop there pay check on Gaming when they havent paid there bills
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
And Vaping and Weed sales are directly attached to that ..
But that does not change the fact , that you cannot find one single person who quit any of there addcitive habits because of Regualtions ..
Regualtions did not stop anyone from smoking .. Making people aware of the bad effects of smoking did , This is not regulatory at all .. Just common sense
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Those are not regulations at all , those are voluntary public or goverment/priavatley funded education and awareness ..
and all voluntary
Regulations are laws ya know ..
You do realize why those government funded and social systems exist right?
Because maintaining certain standards around healthcare as it relates to them, and services being demanded from the companies themselves that profit from them, are part of those regulations.
Yes, regulations are laws. And laws don't do only one single finite form of action. They are used to enact a wide berth of policies, from simple things to sweeping ones.
Yo do see where i said Goverment funded right .. yes yes , i know exactly how they work and they are lip service for the most part ... Many empty rooms , Many are systems exploited by addicts .... They are quite clever in ways .. They play the system to no end .. In all these vices ..
But my point is from the beggining of this till now , Noone gets out or help unless they have the strength and will to do so( and then they realize it was in them all along ) , No addict ever paid any attention to Regulations ..
This cycles right back to two points.
One, regulations are not about taking away individual choice. They are generally about preventing the exploitation of consumers. You can screw up as much as you want, regulations are dominantly there to stop companies from pushing people to make those bad choices for the sake of profit.
Two, without those regulations, much of the structure you take for granted goes away. While you chose to focus on support groups, those regulations also serve to funnel funding into new medical science and technology, medication and medical services, etc. Things to help recovering addicts and users.
Which then serves to perhaps restate this point, if your point from the beginning really is as simple-minded as "people choose to do something or not";
Regulations are not targeting freedom of choice. You want to know why those smoking regulations saw the adult population of the US shrink from 50% down to 14%?
Because thanks to those regulations, not only did the prior recovery assistance and medical assistance get developed, but the prolific and heavy-handed marketing strategies that companies had were all culled dramatically. No longer were advertisements allowed to associate cigarettes with anything and everything they pleased. No longer could they pitch their advertising to kids or toss out free samples of their product or fumigate buildings with tobacco just to push people into an addiction.
Suddenly, without companies hounding people to become addicted or to stay addicted, they were free to make the choice to quit. So regulations have had a massive hand across the board in that instance.
And not because it was trying to tamper with individual freedom of choice, but because it was protecting it by giving people a supporting framework, and preventing companies from tampering with an individual's freedom of choice.
No cigarette smoker Ever quit because of regulations...
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit. The regulations, as a result of this, does lead to a decline in usage of such things in direct part because there are many that are simply no longer bombarded with advertising or other practices pressuring them to do something they don't actually care that much for.
And Vaping and Weed sales are directly attached to that ..
But that does not change the fact , that you cannot find one single person who quit any of there addcitive habits because of Regualtions ..
Regualtions did not stop anyone from smoking .. Making people aware of the bad effects of smoking did , This is not regulatory at all .. Just common sense
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Those are not regulations at all , those are voluntary public or goverment/priavatley funded education and awareness ..
and all voluntary
Regulations are laws ya know ..
You do realize why those government funded and social systems exist right?
Because maintaining certain standards around healthcare as it relates to them, and services being demanded from the companies themselves that profit from them, are part of those regulations.
Yes, regulations are laws. And laws don't do only one single finite form of action. They are used to enact a wide berth of policies, from simple things to sweeping ones.
Yo do see where i said Goverment funded right .. yes yes , i know exactly how they work and they are lip service for the most part ... Many empty rooms , Many are systems exploited by addicts .... They are quite clever in ways .. They play the system to no end .. In all these vices ..
But my point is from the beggining of this till now , Noone gets out or help unless they have the strength and will to do so( and then they realize it was in them all along ) , No addict ever paid any attention to Regulations ..
This cycles right back to two points.
One, regulations are not about taking away individual choice. They are generally about preventing the exploitation of consumers. You can screw up as much as you want, regulations are dominantly there to stop companies from pushing people to make those bad choices for the sake of profit.
Two, without those regulations, much of the structure you take for granted goes away. While you chose to focus on support groups, those regulations also serve to funnel funding into new medical science and technology, medication and medical services, etc. Things to help recovering addicts and users.
Which then serves to perhaps restate this point, if your point from the beginning really is as simple-minded as "people choose to do something or not";
Regulations are not targeting freedom of choice. You want to know why those smoking regulations saw the adult population of the US shrink from 50% down to 14%?
Because thanks to those regulations, not only did the prior recovery assistance and medical assistance get developed, but the prolific and heavy-handed marketing strategies that companies had were all culled dramatically. No longer were advertisements allowed to associate cigarettes with anything and everything they pleased. No longer could they pitch their advertising to kids or toss out free samples of their product or fumigate buildings with tobacco just to push people into an addiction.
Suddenly, without companies hounding people to become addicted or to stay addicted, they were free to make the choice to quit. So regulations have had a massive hand across the board in that instance.
And not because it was trying to tamper with individual freedom of choice, but because it was protecting it by giving people a supporting framework, and preventing companies from tampering with an individual's freedom of choice.
If any of this would true Vaping would not be , being used in record numbers , it is regulated, and yet 1 in 20 do it most under 35 ... Many many kids .. Regualtions are not very effective at all , as you see Vaping is rampant ..
People will get and do what they want, no matter how many regualtions get imposed , Vaping is the perfect example blossoming in front of your eyes .. 38% of 12th graders are Vaping up 10% in one year.. Where are your Regulations , They are doing No good .. Waste of time
But again it starts with wanting to better yourself / Period .. No Regulation teaches or instills it .. It only comes form your self ..
Which I should say separately, this has been an outstanding flaw in your logic. How is it you can make the chain of logic that :regulations must be for making people behave a certain way" and not acknowledge the flip-side that people can and do regularly push others to behave a certain way in order to exploit them for their personal gain?
Take a moment there. Really. For once stop and actually try to think about it. Did everyone you know just randomly find some drugs on a street corner or go "You know I think I'm going to hop down to the 7-11 and buy something from the dude out back."?
Or did they, more likely, get a free sample from a friend at a party or while hanging out? Or did they turn to drug abuse as a way to tamp down personal trauma?
In every instance, there has to have been a supplier and a means to push that product to them. Most people don't just start addicted to a product. You first gotta hook them, you make them comfortable, and then you bilk them for all their worth.
That's where regulations matter most and what they focus on most. If you go to the FDA website and look at their current policies they have talked about for tobacco, most of it is around how companies are allowed to push their product. Because if you stop them from pushing someone into addiction in the first place, there is no struggle for them later to quit.
And that's itself the case with most regulations. YOU can choose to fuck up as much as you want, the regulations are mostly there to help prevent others from pushing you into making the bad choices though, and to help mop up the mess at times afterwards.
But again it starts with wanting to better yourself / Period .. No Regulation teaches or instills it .. It only comes form your self ..
Which I should say separately, this has been an outstanding flaw in your logic. How is it you can make the chain of logic that :regulations must be for making people behave a certain way" and not acknowledge the flip-side that people can and do regularly push others to behave a certain way in order to exploit them for their personal gain?
Take a moment there. Really. For once stop and actually try to think about it. Did everyone you know just randomly find some drugs on a street corner or go "You know I think I'm going to hop down to the 7-11 and buy something from the dude out back."?
Or did they, more likely, get a free sample from a friend at a party or while hanging out? Or did they turn to drug abuse as a way to tamp down personal trauma?
In every instance, there has to have been a supplier and a means to push that product to them. Most people don't just start addicted to a product. You first gotta hook them, you make them comfortable, and then you bilk them for all their worth.
That's where regulations matter most and what they focus on most. If you go to the FDA website and look at their current policies they have talked about for tobacco, most of it is around how companies are allowed to push their product. Because if you stop them from pushing someone into addiction in the first place, there is no struggle for them later to quit.
And that's itself the case with most regulations. YOU can choose to fuck up as much as you want, the regulations are mostly there to help prevent others from pushing you into making the bad choices though, and to help mop up the mess at times afterwards.
Im sorry i dont agree , regulations are not nearly as effective as you would like to think .. And again all the regulations have not Stopped or slowed down the Vaping hysteria that we have , and BTW many of them are the Tobacco co.. They Tobacco co. are laughing at the Regualtions and selling Vape kits to your kids ..
regulations my arse ...
Just lip service for the most part...
But im done here , think ill celebrate and go buy some Loot Boxes ..
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit.
And Vaping and Weed sales...
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Those are not...
You do realize why those government funded and social systems exist right?
Because maintaining certain standards around healthcare as it relates to them, and services being demanded from the companies themselves that profit from them, are part of those regulations.
Yes, regulations are laws. And laws don't do only one single finite form of action. They are used to enact a wide berth of policies, from simple things to sweeping ones.
Yo do see...
This cycles right back to two points.
One, regulations are not about taking away individual choice. They are generally about preventing the exploitation of consumers. You can screw up as much as you want, regulations are dominantly there to stop companies from pushing people to make those bad choices for the sake of profit.
Two, without those regulations, much of the structure you take for granted goes away. While you chose to focus on support groups, those regulations also serve to funnel funding into new medical science and technology, medication and medical services, etc. Things to help recovering addicts and users.
Which then serves to perhaps restate this point, if your point from the beginning really is as simple-minded as "people choose to do something or not";
Regulations are not targeting freedom of choice. You want to know why those smoking regulations saw the adult population of the US shrink from 50% down to 14%?
Because thanks to those regulations, not only did the prior recovery assistance and medical assistance get developed, but the prolific and heavy-handed marketing strategies that companies had were all culled dramatically. No longer were advertisements allowed to associate cigarettes with anything and everything they pleased. No longer could they pitch their advertising to kids or toss out free samples of their product or fumigate buildings with tobacco just to push people into an addiction.
Suddenly, without companies hounding people to become addicted or to stay addicted, they were free to make the choice to quit. So regulations have had a massive hand across the board in that instance.
And not because it was trying to tamper with individual freedom of choice, but because it was protecting it by giving people a supporting framework, and preventing companies from tampering with an individual's freedom of choice.
If any of this would true Vaping would not be , being used in record numbers , it is regulated, and yet 1 in 20 do it most under 35 ... Many many kids .. Regualtions are not very effective at all , as you see Vaping is rampant ..
People will get and do what they want, no matter how many regualtions get imposed , Vaping is the perfect example blossoming in front of your eyes .. 38% of 12th graders are Vaping up 10% in one year.. Where are your Regulations , They are doing No good .. Waste of time
For one, there's far less regulations around vaping than there is around tobacco still, many of them are still only in tentative proposal stages. Another thing is that what regulations do exist have been slowly changing to include more and more restrictions in their chemical manufacturing and distribution.
People will do what they want, because regulations are not about stopping you from doing what you want. You can choose to vape as much as you want, what the regulations are doing is preventing companies from telling you to vape and from using heavily addictive or harmful chemicals.
Vape pens taking off in a flash and law not being able to keep the pace as they proliferated without any kind of market control, speaks more to the lethargy of the government than it does about regulations that don't even necessarily exist yet.
Your continued misrepresentation of what regulations even operate as, makes this all the more troubling for you to ever understand.
Which I should say separately, this has been an outstanding flaw in your logic. How is it you can make the chain of logic that :regulations must be for making people behave a certain way" and not acknowledge the flip-side that people can and do regularly push others to behave a certain way in order to exploit them for their personal gain?
Take a moment there. Really. For once stop and actually try to think about it. Did everyone you know just randomly find some drugs on a street corner or go "You know I think I'm going to hop down to the 7-11 and buy something from the dude out back."?
Or did they, more likely, get a free sample from a friend at a party or while hanging out? Or did they turn to drug abuse as a way to tamp down personal trauma?
In every instance, there has to have been a supplier and a means to push that product to them. Most people don't just start addicted to a product. You first gotta hook them, you make them comfortable, and then you bilk them for all their worth.
That's where regulations matter most and what they focus on most. If you go to the FDA website and look at their current policies they have talked about for tobacco, most of it is around how companies are allowed to push their product. Because if you stop them from pushing someone into addiction in the first place, there is no struggle for them later to quit.
And that's itself the case with most regulations. YOU can choose to fuck up as much as you want, the regulations are mostly there to help prevent others from pushing you into making the bad choices though, and to help mop up the mess at times afterwards.
Im sorry i dont agree , regulations are not nearly as effective as you would like to think .. And again all the regulations have not Stopped or slowed down the Vaping hysteria...
Already addressed the false nature of your vaping argument with the above post. You literally had to use an example of a market that presently lacks in regulations to try and show how regulations don't work.
Which ironically proves the opposite of your claim, that a lack of regulations leads to problems. But since you didn't even bother to pause and look any of that stuff up, you just stepped in it instead.
Let's just call this one out for a moment, as we actually have some hard data on it that has already been discussed. CDC even has charts showing that tobacco regulations and subsequent smoking among adults has dropped in the last 30 years from half of all adults, down to ~14%.
Do you mean to say over a quarter of the nation just had changes of heart around this, and that the regulations that were established leading into the cataloged decline if it's prevalence have no causal relation?
The same can be brought up about every other example there.
Again, it's not like regulations are made to make you stop doing something on a personal level in the first place. It's reducing the ability for someone to exploit another's vices or suffering for profit.
And Vaping and Weed sales...
That's painfully far removed from the truth. Should we start removing all the support groups, healthcare professionals, medical assistance, etc that has all been ushered in through regulations then?
Suddenly a massive chunk of that support structure you take for granted when you try to stop smoking "by yourself" disappears. Same case with other forms of drug and alcohol abuse.
Those are not...
You do realize why those government funded and social systems exist right?
Because maintaining certain standards around healthcare as it relates to them, and services being demanded from the companies themselves that profit from them, are part of those regulations.
Yes, regulations are laws. And laws don't do only one single finite form of action. They are used to enact a wide berth of policies, from simple things to sweeping ones.
Yo do see...
This cycles right back to two points.
One, regulations are not about taking away individual choice. They are generally about preventing the exploitation of consumers. You can screw up as much as you want, regulations are dominantly there to stop companies from pushing people to make those bad choices for the sake of profit.
Two, without those regulations, much of the structure you take for granted goes away. While you chose to focus on support groups, those regulations also serve to funnel funding into new medical science and technology, medication and medical services, etc. Things to help recovering addicts and users.
Which then serves to perhaps restate this point, if your point from the beginning really is as simple-minded as "people choose to do something or not";
Regulations are not targeting freedom of choice. You want to know why those smoking regulations saw the adult population of the US shrink from 50% down to 14%?
Because thanks to those regulations, not only did the prior recovery assistance and medical assistance get developed, but the prolific and heavy-handed marketing strategies that companies had were all culled dramatically. No longer were advertisements allowed to associate cigarettes with anything and everything they pleased. No longer could they pitch their advertising to kids or toss out free samples of their product or fumigate buildings with tobacco just to push people into an addiction.
Suddenly, without companies hounding people to become addicted or to stay addicted, they were free to make the choice to quit. So regulations have had a massive hand across the board in that instance.
And not because it was trying to tamper with individual freedom of choice, but because it was protecting it by giving people a supporting framework, and preventing companies from tampering with an individual's freedom of choice.
If any of this would true Vaping would not be , being used in record numbers , it is regulated, and yet 1 in 20 do it most under 35 ... Many many kids .. Regualtions are not very effective at all , as you see Vaping is rampant ..
People will get and do what they want, no matter how many regualtions get imposed , Vaping is the perfect example blossoming in front of your eyes .. 38% of 12th graders are Vaping up 10% in one year.. Where are your Regulations , They are doing No good .. Waste of time
For one, there's far less regulations around vaping than there is around tobacco still, many of them are still only in tentative proposal stages. Another thing is that what regulations do exist have been slowly changing to include more and more restrictions in their chemical manufacturing and distribution.
People will do what they want, because regulations are not about stopping you from doing what you want. You can choose to vape as much as you want, what the regulations are doing is preventing companies from telling you to vape and from using heavily addictive or harmful chemicals.
Vape pens taking off in a flash and law not being able to keep the pace as they proliferated without any kind of market control, speaks more to the lethargy of the government than it does about regulations that don't even necessarily exist yet.
Your continued misrepresentation of what regulations even operate as, makes this all the more troubling for you to ever understand.
Your view and experience of the world , its vices , regulatory effects , recovery are very limited to text books and near useless and ineffective in practice ..
But im actually gonna take my 8 year old son Dairy Queen , ill be careful those DQ folks are highly exploitive of kids there marketing targets them directly .. Wish me luck ... lmfao
For one, there's far less regulations around vaping than there is around tobacco still, many of them are still only in tentative proposal stages. Another thing is that what regulations do exist have been slowly changing to include more and more restrictions in their chemical manufacturing and distribution.
People will do what they want, because regulations are not about stopping you from doing what you want. You can choose to vape as much as you want, what the regulations are doing is preventing companies from telling you to vape and from using heavily addictive or harmful chemicals.
Vape pens taking off in a flash and law not being able to keep the pace as they proliferated without any kind of market control, speaks more to the lethargy of the government than it does about regulations that don't even necessarily exist yet.
Your continued misrepresentation of what regulations even operate as, makes this all the more troubling for you to ever understand.
Your view and experience of the world...
So the best you can do is deflect when presented with fact.
Moreover by pulling out the same hyperbolic joke of a counterargument that's itself been debunked so many times it's lost all semblance of cleverness. What little it had at any rate.
Does Dairy Queen engage in any of the practices mentioned above? Oh, they don't ?
You only wanted to deflect and run away from the conversation with a herring? Well just be honest about that next time.
I really don't understand your habit of being so aggressive about arguing a point and then just cutting and running with a weak jab as soon as you realize you screwed up instead of just owning up to it and moving on.
For one, there's far less regulations around vaping than there is around tobacco still, many of them are still only in tentative proposal stages. Another thing is that what regulations do exist have been slowly changing to include more and more restrictions in their chemical manufacturing and distribution.
People will do what they want, because regulations are not about stopping you from doing what you want. You can choose to vape as much as you want, what the regulations are doing is preventing companies from telling you to vape and from using heavily addictive or harmful chemicals.
Vape pens taking off in a flash and law not being able to keep the pace as they proliferated without any kind of market control, speaks more to the lethargy of the government than it does about regulations that don't even necessarily exist yet.
Your continued misrepresentation of what regulations even operate as, makes this all the more troubling for you to ever understand.
Your view and experience of the world...
So the best you can do is deflect when presented with fact.
Moreover by pulling out the same hyperbolic joke of a counterargument that's itself been debunked so many times it's lost all semblance of cleverness. What little it had at any rate.
Does Dairy Queen engage in any of the practices mentioned above? Oh, they don't ?
You only wanted to deflect and run away from the conversation with a herring? Well just be honest about that next time.
I really don't understand your habit of being so aggressive about arguing a point and then just cutting and running with a weak jab as soon as you realize you screwed up instead of just owning up to it and moving on.
Is this just a habit old men have?
[mod edit]
Lol , I actually wanted to take my kid to DQ ,
.. You keep up your useless crusade for Regulations ..
Ive made my points all based on experience , and facts , youve made your on text book narrative that does not apply to real life ever , Most of it is unproven specualtion , as your Tobacco stance when the fact is we have more people combined smoking and Vaping which negates that data of less smokers .. But you keep beating the books , and reciting them , they lose much in RL application ..
No addict of any of these vices ever quit because of regulations , Regualations for the most part are just put in place to quiet low hanging fruit , its quite effective , as the same ole same ole conitinues , and they Stand on there soap box so proud of the regualtions , meanwhile m the Tobacco/ Gaming/ Alcohol/ Drug/Sex/Food/Car etc markets are stronger than ever ....
So the best you can do is deflect when presented with fact.
Moreover by pulling out the same hyperbolic joke of a counterargument that's itself been debunked so many times it's lost all semblance of cleverness. What little it had at any rate.
Does Dairy Queen engage in any of the practices mentioned above? Oh, they don't ?
You only wanted to deflect and run away from the conversation with a herring? Well just be honest about that next time.
I really don't understand your habit of being so aggressive about arguing a point and then just cutting and running with a weak jab as soon as you realize you screwed up instead of just owning up to it and moving on.
Is this just a habit old men have?
Its more akin to how a child would act when caught flat footed by factual statements in an argument. I like to call it the "Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo" defence tactic.
Ive made my points all based on experience...
You made assumptions based on anecdotal argument. I have plenty of personal experience to draw from as well, the difference here is that I also have actual metrics to back them up too.
Repeating the same straw-man about using regulations to quit over and over again just shows you are not even willing to think about the subject.
Preventative measures and support measures help you in freedom of choice, not in pushing you to make a choice. No shit "no one quit because of regulations" because that's not what regulations are about or for.
You see that point there? Can you cite a single regulation meant to decide for someone that they should quit something? Fact is, that's not common, as that's not the purpose of regulations. But that's what you try to claim they are for the sake of establishing a false argument to take down. It;s clear you avoid the corrections and demonstrated examples of what the regulations are actually about because if you acknowledged reality it'd undermine your nonsense.
For one, there's far less regulations around vaping than there is around tobacco still, many of them are still only in tentative proposal stages. Another thing is that what regulations do exist have been slowly changing to include more and more restrictions in their chemical manufacturing and distribution.
People will do what they want, because regulations are not about stopping you from doing what you want. You can choose to vape as much as you want, what the regulations are doing is preventing companies from telling you to vape and from using heavily addictive or harmful chemicals.
Vape pens taking off in a flash and law not being able to keep the pace as they proliferated without any kind of market control, speaks more to the lethargy of the government than it does about regulations that don't even necessarily exist yet.
Your continued misrepresentation of what regulations even operate as, makes this all the more troubling for you to ever understand.
Your view and experience of the world...
So the best you can do is deflect when presented with fact.
Moreover by pulling out the same hyperbolic joke of a counterargument that's itself been debunked so many times it's lost all semblance of cleverness. What little it had at any rate.
Does Dairy Queen engage in any of the practices mentioned above? Oh, they don't ?
You only wanted to deflect and run away from the conversation with a herring? Well just be honest about that next time.
I really don't understand your habit of being so aggressive about arguing a point and then just cutting and running with a weak jab as soon as you realize you screwed up instead of just owning up to it and moving on.
Is this just a habit old men have?
Its more akin to how a child would act when caught flat footed by factual statements in an argument. I like to call it the "Nanny nanny boo boo, stick your head in doo doo" defence tactic.
Ive made my points all based on experience...
You made assumptions based on anecdotal argument. I have plenty of personal experience to draw from as well, the difference here is that I also have actual metrics to back them up too.
Repeating the same straw-man about using regulations to quit over and over again just shows you are not even willing to think about the subject.
Preventative measures and support measures help you in freedom of choice, not in pushing you to make a choice. No shit "no one quit because of regulations" because that's not what regulations are about or for.
Hell even making erroneous claims about the industries themselves. Industries doing the best they ever have don't require bailouts.
If you can't be arsed to pay attention to the real world, then you should avoid trying to make claims about it.
Pot meet Kettle
ANd industry regualtions arent doing shit for ex .. 16 States raised Vape age to 21 last year , yet the us by 12th gragders went from 28% to 38% .. yea that working well
So pressure by FDA get Juul to remove all flavored Vap packs from brick and Stone and only sell to Adults over 21 online .. LMFAO .. who falls for this shit .. you actually belive that works ..
In your text book it might .. in RL there sales are booming online .. and a large portion of there market is Kids .. Regualtions Working ?
Alcohol deaths are still the 3rd leading cause of death .. Regulations working .?
Smoking .. right now not a single state funds Programs recommended to the required level instead pocketing the money 2.4% of money( that comes directly from taxing tobacco 27.3 billion collected 645 million spent ) being spent on programs recommended by Tobacco Control Programs .. Lol yea they are looking out for you .. Regulations Working?
Regualtions do very little and are put in place to quiet low hanging fruit , the Money still moves , the addicts still indulge , the deaths still pile up ..
You made assumptions based on anecdotal argument. I have plenty of personal experience to draw from as well, the difference here is that I also have actual metrics to back them up too.
Repeating the same straw-man about using regulations to quit over and over again just shows you are not even willing to think about the subject.
Preventative measures and support measures help you in freedom of choice, not in pushing you to make a choice. No shit "no one quit because of regulations" because that's not what regulations are about or for.
Hell even making erroneous claims about the industries themselves. Industries doing the best they ever have don't require bailouts.
If you can't be arsed to pay attention to the real world, then you should avoid trying to make claims about it.
Pot...
You claim you have presented facts, then show the link to those facts.
You argue from anecdote, and then you say pot meet kettle to the one that actually links to factual information.
You believe you have experience and discount that anyone else possibly could.
No shit a regulation is not going to factor into a person's decision making, when regulations are not about affecting consumer decision making. yet that's all you've got. Something that's been addressed countless times;
"Every game I have played so far has labeled their loot boxes appropriately"
Can you give a couple examples, what is appropriately?
Sure, just note that I am not saying every game does this just the ones I played. Anyway,
1. Brown Dust - They tell you what cards are in the box, and the percentage chance for each type of card. You know the stuff is random, and the odds.
2. Warframe - I don't think they have loot boxes, so all of their stuff is labeled appropriately
3. Alchemist code - same as brown dust
Those are the ones I remember.
I visited those game site home pages and I could find nothing listing the contents of the loot crates, the odds of reward, the average item cost to obtain, or any sort of information like that. They don't appropriately disclose the information.
Also, this isn't about loot crates. This is about predatory monetization and unethical business practices. Loot crates are only one little piece of that dirty pie. Providing the bare minimum information with limited accessibility isn't acceptable.
I can't speak to their websites, I saw what I needed to see in the in-game shops. When you go to roll a banner, it gives specific statistics which told me everything I personally needed to make a decision.
You are right, this isn't only about loot crates, you quoted something that another poster asked me about specifically.
I would say that if a product describes what you are getting, then you have the bare minimum to make a decision, and that is acceptable. It is up to the buyer to protect themself after that.
Perhaps if you give me an example of what you consider predatory and unethical, specifically. I'll go first.
In a lot of games I played recently, when you first start, they give you a lot of free currency. If you unwisely use it all up, you may get stuck and may want to buy more. I never do, apparently many others do. So this is a classic wet your appetite and then get you to spend. Do you consider this to be predatory and unethical, and do you think it should be against the law for developers to do this?
You made assumptions based on anecdotal argument. I have plenty of personal experience to draw from as well, the difference here is that I also have actual metrics to back them up too.
Repeating the same straw-man about using regulations to quit over and over again just shows you are not even willing to think about the subject.
Preventative measures and support measures help you in freedom of choice, not in pushing you to make a choice. No shit "no one quit because of regulations" because that's not what regulations are about or for.
Hell even making erroneous claims about the industries themselves. Industries doing the best they ever have don't require bailouts.
If you can't be arsed to pay attention to the real world, then you should avoid trying to make claims about it.
Pot...
You claim you have presented facts, then show the link to those facts.
You argue from anecdote, and then you say pot meet kettle to the one that actually links to factual information.
You believe you have experience and discount that anyone else possibly could.
No shit a regulation is not going to factor into a person's decision making, when regulations are not about affecting consumer decision making. yet that's all you've got. Something that's been addressed countless times;
The fact I can quote real information while you can only ass-pull makes for a rather clear difference here.
LMFAO , those arent facts just a pipedream if you take the time to read it ..
Here is some actual fun facts .. lo, wtf is wrong with you .. With all there regualtions the State and Federal Govt give you is lip service . like i said meant to just distract low hanging fruit , They dont give a fuck , and there is your proof ...
Weeee fun facts .. And again you can keep linking and quoting actual regualtions you want , .. They are worthless , that what you dont get .. They are made to shut people up /end
States have billions of dollars from the taxes they put on tobacco
products and money from lawsuits against cigarette companies that they
can use to prevent smoking and help smokers quit. Right now, though, the
states only use a very small amount of that money to prevent and
control tobacco use.1,8,9
In fiscal year 2019, states will collect a record $27.3 billion from
tobacco taxes and settlements in court, but will only spend $655
million in the same year. That’s less than 2.4% spent on programs that
can stop young people from becoming smokers and help current smokers
quit.9
Right now, not a single state out of 50 funds these programs at
CDC’s “recommended” level. Only two states (Alaska and California) give
more than 70% of the full recommended amount. Twenty-eight states and
the District of Columbia spend less than 20 percent of what the CDC
recommends. Three states (Connecticut, Tennessee, and West Virginia)
give no state funds for prevention and quit-smoking programs.9
Spending 12% (or about $3.3 billion) of the $27.3 billion would fund
every state’s tobacco control program at CDC-recommended levels.9
Ohh and in contrast just to help you ... The Tobacco Industry spends 1 miilion an Hour on Advertising and Marketing .. Regulations Working?
I can't speak to their websites, I saw what I needed to see in the in-game shops. When you go to roll a banner, it gives specific statistics which told me everything I personally needed to make a decision.
You are right, this isn't only about loot crates, you quoted something that another poster asked me about specifically.
I would say that if a product describes what you are getting, then you have the bare minimum to make a decision, and that is acceptable. It is up to the buyer to protect themself after that.
Perhaps if you give me an example of what you consider predatory and unethical, specifically. I'll go first.
In a lot of games I played recently, when you first start, they give you a lot of free currency. If you unwisely use it all up, you may get stuck and may want to buy more. I never do, apparently many others do. So this is a classic wet your appetite and then get you to spend. Do you consider this to be predatory and unethical, and do you think it should be against the law for developers to do this?
States have billions of dollars from the taxes they put on tobacco
products and money from lawsuits against cigarette companies that they
can use to prevent smoking and help smokers quit. Right now, though, the
states only use a very small amount of that money to prevent and
control tobacco use.1,8,9
In fiscal year 2019, states will collect a record $27.3 billion from
tobacco taxes and settlements in court, but will only spend $655
million in the same year. That’s less than 2.4% spent on programs that
can stop young people from becoming smokers and help current smokers
quit.9
Right now, not a single state out of 50 funds these programs at
CDC’s “recommended” level. Only two states (Alaska and California) give
more than 70% of the full recommended amount. Twenty-eight states and
the District of Columbia spend less than 20 percent of what the CDC
recommends. Three states (Connecticut, Tennessee, and West Virginia)
give no state funds for prevention and quit-smoking programs.9
Spending 12% (or about $3.3 billion) of the $27.3 billion would fund
every state’s tobacco control program at CDC-recommended levels.9
You literally just gave anecdotal opinion and called it fact, while referring to information provided by the CDC and FDA as a "pipedream".
And regarding your bullet points you just quoted from the CDC without citation, you do realize that the CDC is arguing for more regulation there, no?
So did you just switch sides to say that if the state governments put a bit more money into regulations instead of pocketing it, they'd actually solve most of the outstanding issues, as that CDC page talks about? Not only that, nothing you said contradicted my point regarding regulations any ways, their dialogue was all around supporting recovering addicts, not forcing people to quit smoking.
Thanks for providing information to reaffirm my position though. Seeing as they are declaring that regulations are not being operated on due to lack of funding. IE, no regulations resulting in vulnerable people suffering that could be absolved by investment into their regulations and subsequent programs.
Or were you quoting the CDC to say you don't agree with their assessment? In which case that would mean you still have no evidence or fact to your opinion, as you can only quote information supporting the opposing case.
LOL wtf is wrong with you , you do realize * and yes i know what they are arguing for ) lol wtf .. And there is Nothing Ancedotal there at all those are cold hard facts , dont make shit up
They wont get it .. DO you realize your State/Local/And Fed govt are
laughing at you did you read what all your regulations have gotten ..
Next to nothing .. a bone thrown to the big mouths to shut them up ..
Listen
, like i said from the begining of this , you only one that can help
you is you , Regualtions do not help as the facts show.. Nothing changes
except of course your State Govt got to clean up on Billions of Dollars
directly from Smoking .. I wonder where it all went ....
Your logic is faulty , the fact is Regualtions do nothing , the fact is States spend didly spaut to help people ..
Regeulations are put in place to shut up people , You do not seem to
understand that .. Nothing has changed in any of these vices ..
You
can post there Regualtions all you want over and over ( which is all
you have brought to the table) to nauseum ,, Look at the Regulations ..
Hey lookie here i posted Regulations .. Look at this link of
Regulations ... THEY DONT FUCKING WORK
But as you can see and the data supports not only is Usage up , but
Your Govt is making Billions and tossing pennies back .. Regualtions
Working ?
You seem to lack the hmmm understanding of what the signifigance is of the Facts i just posted for you ..
And i understand why you want to dance and around and distract from it , with a wall of text , it does fly right in the face of everything you ahve stood for and argued here.. But those are facts Directly from the CDC
Thats a shame .. You keep up the fight , im gonna go play some UO ..
So in summary, you cannot argue whether or not regulations work, because your best argument is to quote the CDC showing how proposed regulations that don't make it to action, don't do anything.
"When nothing is doing nothing then nothing happens. Therefore regulations do nothing."
I'm sorry, but that is perhaps the most ignorant logic I've read in a while. You might as well have blamed salmon being salmon colored for all it's meaning.
Seeing as I quoted the facts from the CDC, and noted exactly how they are a reinforcing statement to what I've shared previously, I fail to see what you think I was 'dancing around' by openly accepting them.
And that your only potential counterargument to that would be to try and ass-pull something about vapes that lack most relevant regulations to begin with, meaning you'd be comparing an unregulated market to a regulated one (and it doesn't reflect favorably on the unregulated one). Even then, e-cig/vape usage itself only accounts for 4.5% as of 2018. Additionally, while it is increasing, it's also worth noting those states lacking regulations are already going through steps to incorporate e-cigs and vapes into standard FDA tobacco regulations.
So I'm supposed to take a demonstration from one side of a set of regulations that have made a very clear impact, another side lobbying for regulations that are not in place or consequently enforced, and reach the conclusion that the active regulation that have made a impact, actually have not, because the ones that don't exist haven't done anything yet?
Ironically, if you looked at the regulations that actually are in place, instead of the ones that are only proposed by CDC, we suddenly find a much different picture. Data supports usage is at an all time low. Not even the CDC page claims otherwise, it only talks about the remaining 14% and how support for their proposed regulations would help resolve it.
Oh, but that'd be an inconvenient reality for your opinions, so instead you'll focus on the remaining 14% and cry wolf about the regulations that are not even in effect, instead of the affect of the ones actually in effect.
This has all been quite the dodge from you regarding the fact that we should be addressing gambling regulations any ways.
So in summary, you cannot argue whether or not regulations work, because your best argument is to quote the CDC showing how proposed regulations that don't make it to action, don't do anything.
"When nothing is doing nothing then nothing happens. Therefore regulations do nothing."
I'm sorry, but that is perhaps the most ignorant logic I've read in a while. You might as well have blamed salmon being salmon colored for all it's meaning.
Seeing as I quoted the facts from the CDC, and noted exactly how they are a reinforcing statement to what I've shared previously, I fail to see what you think I was 'dancing around' by openly accepting them.
And that your only potential counterargument to that would be to try and ass-pull something about vapes that lack most relevant regulations to begin with, meaning you'd be comparing an unregulated market to a regulated one (and it doesn't reflect favorably on the unregulated one). Even then, e-cig/vape usage itself only accounts for 4.5% as of 2018. Additionally, while it is increasing, it's also worth noting those states lacking regulations are already going through steps to incorporate e-cigs and vapes into standard FDA tobacco regulations.
So I'm supposed to take a demonstration from one side of a set of regulations that have made a very clear impact, another side lobbying for regulations that are not in place or consequently enforced, and reach the conclusion that the active regulation that have made a impact, actually have not, because the ones that don't exist haven't done anything yet?
Ironically, if you looked at the regulations that actually are in place, instead of the ones that are only proposed by CDC, we suddenly find a much different picture. Data supports usage is at an all time low. Not even the CDC page claims otherwise, it only talks about the remaining 14% and how support for their proposed regulations would help resolve it.
Oh, but that'd be an inconvenient reality for your opinions, so instead you'll focus on the remaining 14% and cry wolf about the regulations that are not even in effect, instead of the affect of the ones actually in effect.
This has all been quite the dodge from you regarding the fact that we should be addressing gambling regulations any ways.
[mod edit]
Regulations do not work .....
Gambling is at all time High .. Regulations Working?
Opioid use All time High.... Regulations Working?
Alcohol Sales and consumption All time High .. Regulations Working?
Tobacco use which includes Vaping and Snuff products at an All Time high ..Regualtions Working
Porn Industry at all Time High .. Regulations Working...?
Illegal Drug Heroin/Meth/Cocaine killing 130 people a day All Time High Regulations Working ...?
And you choose Gaming Regulations to get your panties in knot over ....
So in summary, you cannot argue whether or not regulations work, because your best argument is to quote the CDC showing how proposed regulations that don't make it to action, don't do anything.
"When nothing is doing nothing then nothing happens. Therefore regulations do nothing."
I'm sorry, but that is perhaps the most ignorant logic I've read in a while. You might as well have blamed salmon being salmon colored for all it's meaning.
Seeing as I quoted the facts from the CDC, and noted exactly how they are a reinforcing statement to what I've shared previously, I fail to see what you think I was 'dancing around' by openly accepting them.
And that your only potential counterargument to that would be to try and ass-pull something about vapes that lack most relevant regulations to begin with, meaning you'd be comparing an unregulated market to a regulated one (and it doesn't reflect favorably on the unregulated one). Even then, e-cig/vape usage itself only accounts for 4.5% as of 2018. Additionally, while it is increasing, it's also worth noting those states lacking regulations are already going through steps to incorporate e-cigs and vapes into standard FDA tobacco regulations.
So I'm supposed to take a demonstration from one side of a set of regulations that have made a very clear impact, another side lobbying for regulations that are not in place or consequently enforced, and reach the conclusion that the active regulation that have made a impact, actually have not, because the ones that don't exist haven't done anything yet?
Ironically, if you looked at the regulations that actually are in place, instead of the ones that are only proposed by CDC, we suddenly find a much different picture. Data supports usage is at an all time low. Not even the CDC page claims otherwise, it only talks about the remaining 14% and how support for their proposed regulations would help resolve it.
Oh, but that'd be an inconvenient reality for your opinions, so instead you'll focus on the remaining 14% and cry wolf about the regulations that are not even in effect, instead of the affect of the ones actually in effect.
This has all been quite the dodge from you regarding the fact that we should be addressing gambling regulations any ways.
you are a waste of time , oblivious to reality .. And wrong at every turn ...
No matter how bad an argument is their are things that should never been said. Telling someone they are a waste of time is one of them. Just my thoughts on the matter. Words, even those said on the internet, can impact someone emotionally
Lol the internet is no place for emotions ... If you bring them you have already failed
And you choose Gaming Regulations to get your panties in knot over ....
I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo that this was no longer a website about gaming.
And you wanna guess why things like gambling are at an all time high? Unregulated video game gambling activities.
We already covered that even with Vaping included, tobacco is actually at a low not a high.
Opoids have actually in general gone on the decline, the only one increasing in use is Weed, which is going through it's own vetting for regulations in the places it's been legalized.
You're just making call out to things that you cannot and will not substantiate. Hell, you even repeat something that on this page we've already shown to be false.
You really are not in a position to be making these personal attacks about being a waste of time or oblivious to reality.
And you choose Gaming Regulations to get your panties in knot over ....
I'm sorry, I didn't get the memo that this was no longer a website about gaming.
And you wanna guess why things like gambling are at an all time high? Unregulated video game gambling activities.
We already covered that even with Vaping included, tobacco is actually at a low not a high.
Opoids have actually in general gone on the decline, the only one increasing in use is Weed, which is going through it's own vetting for regulations in the places it's been legalized.
You're just making call out to things that you cannot and will not substantiate. Hell, you even repeat something that on this page we've already shown to be false.
You really are not in a position to be making these personal attacks about being a waste of time or oblivious to reality.
ohh BS , more of the same from you , Its like argueing with the White Rabbit ... your late .. and wrong move on
And yes Smoking is Down but Tobacco product use is up 50 Million people used Tobacco products last year , which include Vaping Snuffs Chews Cigars Hookahs etc... I know you lkike to ignore that fact because it debunks your entire stance . but facts are facts , i know how much you like them .. But replacing one Tobacco product with another is not a good thing
you are a waste of time , oblivious to reality .. And wrong at every turn ...
No matter how bad an argument is their are things that should never been said. Telling someone they are a waste of time is one of them. Just my thoughts on the matter. Words, even those said on the internet, can impact someone emotionally
Eh, in this case he at least said it to someone that doesn't care. His constant avoidance of the subject and random bouts of unrelated misinformation bothers me more than his attempts to insult me does.
Comments
One, regulations are not about taking away individual choice. They are generally about preventing the exploitation of consumers. You can screw up as much as you want, regulations are dominantly there to stop companies from pushing people to make those bad choices for the sake of profit.
Two, without those regulations, much of the structure you take for granted goes away. While you chose to focus on support groups, those regulations also serve to funnel funding into new medical science and technology, medication and medical services, etc. Things to help recovering addicts and users.
Which then serves to perhaps restate this point, if your point from the beginning really is as simple-minded as "people choose to do something or not";
Regulations are not targeting freedom of choice. You want to know why those smoking regulations saw the adult population of the US shrink from 50% down to 14%?
Because thanks to those regulations, not only did the prior recovery assistance and medical assistance get developed, but the prolific and heavy-handed marketing strategies that companies had were all culled dramatically. No longer were advertisements allowed to associate cigarettes with anything and everything they pleased. No longer could they pitch their advertising to kids or toss out free samples of their product or fumigate buildings with tobacco just to push people into an addiction.
Suddenly, without companies hounding people to become addicted or to stay addicted, they were free to make the choice to quit. So regulations have had a massive hand across the board in that instance.
And not because it was trying to tamper with individual freedom of choice, but because it was protecting it by giving people a supporting framework, and preventing companies from tampering with an individual's freedom of choice.
Take a moment there. Really. For once stop and actually try to think about it. Did everyone you know just randomly find some drugs on a street corner or go "You know I think I'm going to hop down to the 7-11 and buy something from the dude out back."?
Or did they, more likely, get a free sample from a friend at a party or while hanging out? Or did they turn to drug abuse as a way to tamp down personal trauma?
In every instance, there has to have been a supplier and a means to push that product to them. Most people don't just start addicted to a product. You first gotta hook them, you make them comfortable, and then you bilk them for all their worth.
That's where regulations matter most and what they focus on most. If you go to the FDA website and look at their current policies they have talked about for tobacco, most of it is around how companies are allowed to push their product. Because if you stop them from pushing someone into addiction in the first place, there is no struggle for them later to quit.
And that's itself the case with most regulations. YOU can choose to fuck up as much as you want, the regulations are mostly there to help prevent others from pushing you into making the bad choices though, and to help mop up the mess at times afterwards.
For one, there's far less regulations around vaping than there is around tobacco still, many of them are still only in tentative proposal stages. Another thing is that what regulations do exist have been slowly changing to include more and more restrictions in their chemical manufacturing and distribution.
People will do what they want, because regulations are not about stopping you from doing what you want. You can choose to vape as much as you want, what the regulations are doing is preventing companies from telling you to vape and from using heavily addictive or harmful chemicals.
Vape pens taking off in a flash and law not being able to keep the pace as they proliferated without any kind of market control, speaks more to the lethargy of the government than it does about regulations that don't even necessarily exist yet.
Your continued misrepresentation of what regulations even operate as, makes this all the more troubling for you to ever understand.
Which ironically proves the opposite of your claim, that a lack of regulations leads to problems. But since you didn't even bother to pause and look any of that stuff up, you just stepped in it instead.
Moreover by pulling out the same hyperbolic joke of a counterargument that's itself been debunked so many times it's lost all semblance of cleverness. What little it had at any rate.
Does Dairy Queen engage in any of the practices mentioned above? Oh, they don't ?
You only wanted to deflect and run away from the conversation with a herring?
Well just be honest about that next time.
I really don't understand your habit of being so aggressive about arguing a point and then just cutting and running with a weak jab as soon as you realize you screwed up instead of just owning up to it and moving on.
Is this just a habit old men have?
Repeating the same straw-man about using regulations to quit over and over again just shows you are not even willing to think about the subject.
Preventative measures and support measures help you in freedom of choice, not in pushing you to make a choice. No shit "no one quit because of regulations" because that's not what regulations are about or for.
"One, regulations are not about taking away individual choice. They are generally about preventing the exploitation of consumers. You can screw up as much as you want, regulations are dominantly there to stop companies from pushing people to make those bad choices for the sake of profit."
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/482243/mmorpg-com-general-the-jimquisition-examines-the-addictive-cost-of-predatory-monetization/p6#AUqE77pSxLfRsEtI.99
You see that point there? Can you cite a single regulation meant to decide for someone that they should quit something? Fact is, that's not common, as that's not the purpose of regulations. But that's what you try to claim they are for the sake of establishing a false argument to take down. It;s clear you avoid the corrections and demonstrated examples of what the regulations are actually about because if you acknowledged reality it'd undermine your nonsense.
You argue from anecdote, and then you say pot meet kettle to the one that actually links to factual information.
You believe you have experience and discount that anyone else possibly could.
I ain't no pot or kettle to the likes of you.
Hell, you even go as far as using the same straw man about regulations and decisions that's been addressed countless times, that is demonstrated as false through looking at the actual regulations presently in law and looking at what they actually target.
No shit a regulation is not going to factor into a person's decision making, when regulations are not about affecting consumer decision making. yet that's all you've got. Something that's been addressed countless times;
"One, regulations are not about taking away individual choice. They are generally about preventing the exploitation of consumers. You can screw up as much as you want, regulations are dominantly there to stop companies from pushing people to make those bad choices for the sake of profit."
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/482243/mmorpg-com-general-the-jimquisition-examines-the-addictive-cost-of-predatory-monetization/p6#AUqE77pSxLfRsEtI.99
The fact I can quote real information while you can only ass-pull makes for a rather clear difference here.
EDIT:
Here's a more general topic made a while back regarding the practices as they applied more broadly to F2P.
And regarding your bullet points you just quoted from the CDC without citation, you do realize that the CDC is arguing for more regulation there, no?
So did you just switch sides to say that if the state governments put a bit more money into regulations instead of pocketing it, they'd actually solve most of the outstanding issues, as that CDC page talks about? Not only that, nothing you said contradicted my point regarding regulations any ways, their dialogue was all around supporting recovering addicts, not forcing people to quit smoking.
Thanks for providing information to reaffirm my position though. Seeing as they are declaring that regulations are not being operated on due to lack of funding. IE, no regulations resulting in vulnerable people suffering that could be absolved by investment into their regulations and subsequent programs.
Or were you quoting the CDC to say you don't agree with their assessment? In which case that would mean you still have no evidence or fact to your opinion, as you can only quote information supporting the opposing case.
"When nothing is doing nothing then nothing happens.
Therefore regulations do nothing."
I'm sorry, but that is perhaps the most ignorant logic I've read in a while. You might as well have blamed salmon being salmon colored for all it's meaning.
Seeing as I quoted the facts from the CDC, and noted exactly how they are a reinforcing statement to what I've shared previously, I fail to see what you think I was 'dancing around' by openly accepting them.
While you call out CDC complaints about insufficient regulations for supporting recovery, did you conveniently forget to call out the fact that FDA regulations has dropped smoking from 50% down to 14%?
And that your only potential counterargument to that would be to try and ass-pull something about vapes that lack most relevant regulations to begin with, meaning you'd be comparing an unregulated market to a regulated one (and it doesn't reflect favorably on the unregulated one). Even then, e-cig/vape usage itself only accounts for 4.5% as of 2018. Additionally, while it is increasing, it's also worth noting those states lacking regulations are already going through steps to incorporate e-cigs and vapes into standard FDA tobacco regulations.
So I'm supposed to take a demonstration from one side of a set of regulations that have made a very clear impact, another side lobbying for regulations that are not in place or consequently enforced, and reach the conclusion that the active regulation that have made a impact, actually have not, because the ones that don't exist haven't done anything yet?
Ironically, if you looked at the regulations that actually are in place, instead of the ones that are only proposed by CDC, we suddenly find a much different picture. Data supports usage is at an all time low. Not even the CDC page claims otherwise, it only talks about the remaining 14% and how support for their proposed regulations would help resolve it.
Oh, but that'd be an inconvenient reality for your opinions, so instead you'll focus on the remaining 14% and cry wolf about the regulations that are not even in effect, instead of the affect of the ones actually in effect.
This has all been quite the dodge from you regarding the fact that we should be addressing gambling regulations any ways.
And you wanna guess why things like gambling are at an all time high?
Unregulated video game gambling activities.
We already covered that even with Vaping included, tobacco is actually at a low not a high.
Opoids have actually in general gone on the decline, the only one increasing in use is Weed, which is going through it's own vetting for regulations in the places it's been legalized.
You're just making call out to things that you cannot and will not substantiate. Hell, you even repeat something that on this page we've already shown to be false.
You really are not in a position to be making these personal attacks about being a waste of time or oblivious to reality.