http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss/Trends/trendchart.asp?qkey=10010&state=US

Using BRFSS data,we find that smokers,the overweight,and obese adults comprise 82.1% of the adults in the US.

The 'so-called' normal weight nonsmokers are only 17.9% of the adults.

As part of the majority(overweight and a smoker),I very much resent being classified as "un-normal" by the minority(nannies-antismokers).

Normal is what the majority of people are,not the minority.

Elected officials must be made aware of the fact that over 80% of the voters that put them in office are being made objects of hate by laws advocated by a small minority of nannies and smoker haters.

I wish that I knew how to put together a political party or action group to represent the majority of Americans that are being "de-normalised" and made into scum.

De-normalizing the "normal", or the prevailing social paradigm, is an integral part of undermining the ideological bedrock of a society to replace it with a new ideological bedrock.

The most effective way of doing this is to attack the society's basic economic philosophy. The idea here is that Free Market Capitalism makes you a fat smoker, while a Centralized, Governmental economy will make us all live past 100, though, in reality, it will destroy the quality of life, decrease health, and increase virtually every problem, just like it always has.

quote:

De-normalizing the "normal", or the prevailing social paradigm, is an integral part of undermining the ideological bedrock of a society to replace it with a new ideological bedrock.

The most effective way of doing this is to attack the society's basic economic philosophy. The idea here is that Free Market Capitalism makes you a fat smoker, while a Centralized, Governmental economy will make us all live past 100, though, in reality, it will destroy the quality of life, decrease health, and increase virtually every problem, just like it always has.

I agree with you Winston - at the heart of the current public health hysteria we're living under is a disdain for individual choice and the free market. However, once the neo-communist antis get their way and have everything banned, and all corporations are nationalized, what are we left with and where is the eternal life that they promised all those non-smokers who jogged 20 miles a day and never ate a milligram of trans-fat? It reminds me of how Stalin banned the study of genetics because it was contrary to communist dogma that everyone was born equal and that it was the environment, not inheritance tha mattered. One of his scientists applied this to improving the wheat crop by freezing the seeds, thinking this would make the crop more hearty, the result was widespread famine and the deaths of millions.

This is what's underfoot in New Zealand. Someone is proposing to reduce the voting age there to 16 to figure out how to curb smoking and drinking! At that age they are lack social skills and maturity to make good judgements on any issues.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=204&objectid=10431173

Teenagers 'less healthy than their parents' generation'
Email this storyPrint this story 5:00AM Wednesday March 28, 2007
By Jeremy Laurance


The opportunity to intervene and stop adolescents from risky behaviour such as taking drugs is often missed, say health specialists
Today's adolescents are the first generation to have grown up less healthy than their parents, doctors said yesterday.

Alcohol, tobacco, drugs, obesity and sexually transmitted diseases have replaced childhood infections of the past such as tuberculosis and polio and are exacting a greater toll. The difference is that the modern threats to teenager's health are preventable.

Between 1970 and 2000, obesity in adolescents has increased fourfold, sexually transmitted diseases have increased threefold, drinking has increased, smoking rates are unchanged since 1982, and suicide is slightly up, figures show.

The trends are highlighted in a series of papers on adolescent health published as a special supplement by the Lancet which the journal says is an area of medicine that remains "neglected, marginalised or ignored in many countries".

Adolescence is when teenagers start smoking, drinking and having sex - behaviours which could have a huge impact on their long term health, the journal said. But, the opportunity to intervene was being missed.


Russell Viner, a specialist in adolescent health at University College Hospital, said the ages at which young people were permitted to vote, drink, drive or buy cigarettes were out of kilter with their biological and social maturity and should be rethought.

The voting age should be reduced to 16 to increase young people's sense of responsibility and engagement in society, which could reduce risky behaviour, he said.

"Young people are the only group in the population where every health indicator is either static or adverse.

"We have less old fashioned infectious disease but it has been replaced by social causes of death and illness which are causing significant health problems that weren't there 40 years ago."

"[Teenagers] in the second decade of life outnumber [children] in the first decade but 95 per cent of the resources [for health] are focused on children. This group has been absent from the public health challenge."

Many young people remained tied to their families until well into their twenties despite having become biologically mature in their early teens.

The modern mismatch between biological maturity and social maturity, marked by marriage or financial independence, had coincided with an increase in risky behaviours leading to injuries, mental disorders and suicides.

Dr Viner said there was a very large gap after puberty when young people did not have the institutions of adulthood to control those behaviours and did not get them until they were into their twenties.

Glenn Bowes, professor of paediatrics at the University of Melbourne, said adolescents were at particular risk from the drinks industry which was targeting them just as their parents generation had been targeted by the tobacco industry.

"High potency products are being heavily marketed to get young people to drink before the legal age which is having a very negative impact but is all denied by the industry. Let us hope it does not take us decades to recognise the impact it is having as it did with tobacco."

Professor Andre Tylee, of the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College, London, said mental disorders related to alcohol and drug use and other causes were increasing but there was little guidance on how to engage young people in treatment.

Reminds me of the movie "Wild in the Streets" where no one over 30 was to be trusted. It shows the youth taking over and drugging everyone past the age of 30. The movie ends with two teenagers discussing taking control from those over 20.

Based on reality, grade school children proposing legislation they have no knowledge of as the class of people best suited to govern our lives today.

Reminds me also of Art Linklatters series of programs about what comes from the mouths of children.

quote:

Glenn Bowes, professor of paediatrics at the University of Melbourne, said adolescents were at particular risk from the drinks industry which was targeting them just as their parents generation had been targeted by the tobacco industry.

Just saw a half hour segment on CNN earlier on how binge drinking among young adults and college students is out of control - reminds me of the hysterics about teens smoking 10 years ago. Also saw an article posted earlier today about how the sons of women who eat red meat during pregnancy have a much lower sperm count (the study was based on interviews, just like the secondhand smoke studies). I think we can all see where this is going, unless you are a non-drinking, non-smoking vegan, just like Hitler, you are an enemy of the state.

Dr Viner and Professor Bowes are out to lunch. Unless one wants to assume that the kids of New Zealand are much more naive and easily manipulated than their American counterparts, it is necessary to factor in all the studies, many of them funded by the advertising industry, which show advertising is remarkably unable to motivate behaviour such as smoking and drinking. Familial and peer behavior is infinitely more important.

As to the preposterous idea of the 16 year old vote. Remember back in the Nixon years when we lowered the voting age in Federal elections to 18? The reason for the change was given in terms of "if they're old enough to die in Vietnam, they're old enough to vote," but was really the desire of conservatives to end the riots and liberals to change politics by harnessing youthful idealism and energy.

Ultimately the goals of neither conservative nor liberal were realized. In time the companion idea of dropping the drinking age to 18 was rejected as experience showed that the result was an unacceptably high body count. Apparently voting doesn't kill quickly enough so we can stick with that, but drinking can kill fast so we had to raise the legal age.

Voting leads to social responsibility like advertising causes smoking. In short: IT DOESN'T! IF voting actually resulted in social responsibility then we wouldn't be saddled by governments filled with healthnazis and neo-commie commissars.

You'll notice that the overall theme is recurrent; weaken the core values. Establishment, any perceived establishment, is bad, no rhyme or reason or solutions needed, just criticism resulting in a shift in core social values.

I presume that all here are Americans. It's very difficult for us to conceive that the rest of the world now lives, and has always lived, under very different political/ideological/economic systems very much different from our own. Why? For the same old seeming "common sense" tendencies toward collectivism that have existed since human civilization has existed.

Our nation, as described by those who created it, is "a bold experiment". They didn't have great confidence that it would last. The election of 1804, when Adams voluntarily gave power to Jefferson, may be the first time in the history of humanity that someone willingly gave power to someone who was ideologically opposed to them without a single person being killed. In the 7,000 year history of civilization, this first took place only 200 years ago.

America is counterintuitive in its tradition of preserving individual rights and emphasizing human potential with a heavy emphasis on Rights. I'll mention again, that "Rights" DOES NOT MEAN "you are permitted" in the sense that The Founders intended it. RIGHTS are natural, like the hair on your head or the skin on your body. The Bill of Rights isn't a permission slip, it's a guarantee. You're not "permitted" rights, your rights are yours, totally, completely, and exclusively. I've never owned a gun. I dislike guns. Alot. However, you have a Right to own a gun, via The Bill of Rights. You must have it. It is essential. You must have it to ensure that our government doesn't act the way, quite frankly, it is currently acting. Government must never, never, never have exclusive access to the use of force. 'What about the massive power of our military?' some will ask. How does that compare against the power of your hunting rifle? A corrupt American government isn't looking to use its force internally, but externally. If you cut out the brains, the muscles grow weak. The brains are few. By the same logic, by any logic, really, America should have never gained Independence. These ideals didn't have a snowballs chance in Hell then, either.

Bottom line: the constant inclusion of people who, by virtue of their necessary self-interested disposition, seek accesss into mainstream societal values, virually weaken those core values. Any, and I mean any, path of least resistance will be used toward this goal. The people who serve this goal are inexplicably ignorant of the fact that they serve it. It will continue to be this way. More and more access will be given for important decisions to be made by people who have no business making them. This course has become so powerful now, that I find little hope for stopping it.

Nicely said, WinstonSmith.

Yes, WinstonSmith, nicely put. In general, I'm in tandem with you. The vast majority of our Constitution deals with spelling out the limited powers of government and the first ten amendments were hoped to finish the job of fencing government in completely.

While the authors of the costitution and first ten amemdments were practical politicians and not idealists nor fuzzy headed intellectuals, they had some blind spots regarding the inevitable nature of government. Even the component of the federal government which is supposed to protect miniorities against the tyranny of the majority, the Supreme Court, has followed the inevitable trajectory. This is why the Court has never held that the 9th Amendment is an inexhaustable bag of specific rights, liberties and prerogatives inherent to the citizens and no other entity.

The aftermath of the so-called Revolution of 1800 when Thomas Jefferson replaced arch ideological rival, John Adams after one of the nastiest campaigns in history underscored the dynamics of government. As water rolls down hill and dawn follows dark, government, all government, at all levels seeks to defend, maintain and expand authority, that is the capacity to substantially, materially and directly effect the perceptions, beliefs and behaviors of the citizens.

Presidents, Congresses and from John Marshall onward, the Supreme Court have followed this trajectory: preserve, maintain and when at all possible, expand authority over the public. State and local governments in all their branches and actions do exactly the same.

Political ideology in no way inhibits this reality as was underscored dramatically recently in an op-ed piece in the NY Times by David Brooks in which this neo-con spokesfigure specifically rejected the Republican conservatism of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. He, in common with the current Administration and many Republicans, considers the limited government vision of these earlier stalwarts of conservatism as obsolete. He argues that the diffuse nature of current threats to us requires an ever stronger, more powerful central government authority. He recurrently stated that security leads to liberty and only strong, central authority can give security.

His linking of authority, security and liberty is frankly Orwellian. His entire piece is on the level of "Freedom is Slavery" and the similar oxymoronic statements of NewSpeak. Before we dismiss Brooks as a weirdo of the loonie fringe of the far right, note that there has been no particular denial from the so called left or the not-so-rightwing element of the Republican party. There can't be.

Regardless of ostesensible ideology, all hands in politics, whether they will admit it or not, want to enhance governmental authority and will use any excuse to do so. Examples abound: a couple of nutcase kids shoot up a highschool and a Republican congress links with a Democratic president to pass intrusive, unnecessary legislation regarding firearm ownership. A foreign threat kills thousands and the inherently abusive USA Patriot Act is passed in a rush and flurry.

Then there is smoking. It meets the test developed by Brooks--smokers are a diffuse "threat." Americans have shown an ever-increasing yearning for personal security, particularly in health and longevity. Fertile soil for manipulated fear. Can there be any better opportunity to directly effect the perceptions, beliefs and behavior of individual citizens than the banning of tobacco?

There are obvious economic interests such as the pharmaceutical industry which have been so often and so ably commented upon in this forum which stand ready, willing and able to back the political push to expand authority. Even without the incestuous union between business and government, the anti-smoking crusade is too attractive for politicians to ignore. It is an area of personal perception, belief and behavior that is vulnerable. To win against smoking is to immesurably enhance the authority of government.

As a result, governments at all levels, local, state and federal compete with each other to be the first and most effective in demonizing, marginalizing and criminalizing the smoker. If and when they succeed the limitless bag of the 9thh amendment will be shrunk. The other targets, food, drink, guns and ideas will be softer, easier to take down. "Security is Liberty" will take its place along with "Freedom is Slavery" and "War is Peace" twenty-five or maybe forty years after the title year of 1984 and Winston Smith, all the Winston Smiths, will be hauled off to Room 101.

WinstonSmith mentioned that it is essential that the central government not have a monopoly on firearms. That, of course, is why the 2nd amendment exists. Practical politicians and experienced revolutionaries one and all, the Founders understood that as a last resort only an armed citizenry could keep the government honest. The military of today understands that as well.

Over the past twenty years I have briefed or lectured at all levels of all services from the Pentagon on down to specific units on the eve of deployment. A couple of themes have come up again and again in informal conversations. One is the disinclination to "take on" a public with over 300 million personally owned guns. The second has been, "Hell if I'd do it! I'm an American too."

Not being given to visions of revolution, gunfire in the streets and similar nightmares of conspiracy theorists, I don't think that matters will go that far. I may be wrong, heck, I'm a historian not a prophet, but it sticks in my mind that as the ever-expansionist government moves forward it will automatically overplay its hand and force a political counterstrike.

How do you make a snowball? How do you turn the squishy individual flakes of snow to turn into a deadly iceball? The answer as we all know is pressure. Pressure. That's what the government is doing to us right now. The pressure is pushing us together, pressing us tighter and tighter, making us realize that as squishy individuals we can do nothing. Forcing us to recognize that together we are the ultimate iceball, aimed at the head of government and its allies.

quote:

Originally posted by drybones:
Yes, WinstonSmith, nicely put. In general, I'm in tandem with you.

No, friend.

I think all on this board know that I am always willing to go deep and write a ten pager, quibbling on some discrepancy or another.

You and I, however, are in lockstep.

Thank you so much for taking your time to add to my post with your valuable experience and insights.

quote:

Originally posted by drybones:
Not being given to visions of revolution, gunfire in the streets and similar nightmares of conspiracy theorists, I don't think that matters will go that far.

I agree. I don't think that an armed militia is going to take down the government, nor do I wish it to. I do think that The Founders had this in mind as a possibility, though, for obvious reasons. The tragedies of Ruby Ridge, Waco and the subsequent Oklahoma City bombing come to mind, though. Lately, I find my thinking looking past simple cause and effect scenarios. Rather, I find that when our government behaves in ways that it shouldn't, it causes systemic problems, and the devastation of these errors often manifests itself in ways that can't be easily predicted. Private Arms ownership, as so many have pointed out, adds a chaotic, and often deadly, element to our society. However, this element of chaos, as tragic as it is when it comes to fruition, is a necessary safeguard for preserving Constitutional ideals. This is a bit difficult to explain without giving someone the idea I'm implying something I'm not. I'll put it this way:

The Right to Bear Arms is implicit to the design of this Nation and if the government goes too far in messing with that right, a tiger is likely to be loosed from its cage. I've written my thoughts here on the "pattern" of neo-communism and this phenomena is part of the "pattern" of Freedom and individual rights. McVeigh was a rotten, evil bastard for what he did. When you mess with Constitutional ideals, you'll notice that alot of rotten, evil bastards get set loose. (Anti-smokers among them.)

In this way, the corrosion of a system is, in itself, possibly a preservation mechanism. It seems possible that the "snowball effect" you spoke of is naturally set into action when this corrosion occurs, but it seems that it often takes hold of people with misguided intentions, like McVeigh, who only farther add to the corrosion.

This is not a good sign. It implies that the system is reaching out at random in hope of preserving its pattern. It looks like death throes. If the "snowball effect" doesn't work, the system is likely to keep dying.

On that note, your point regarding the inevitable death of societies is well received. I believe that Orwell knew this to be true. This was well illustrated in "Animal Farm"; even the most well intentioned systems eventually lose out to totalitarianism. Or, as he had O'Brien predict in "1984": "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever."

Last, in case there is confusion, my antipathy for Leftism shouldn't be confused with Right Wing Conservatism. I am a Libertarian. I certainly oppose some of the positions of the current Presidential administration. but, as you noted, the equal and, in my mind, more dangerous threat, from The Left, are extremely powerful and being ignored by almost all media. Leftism has a very insidious nature.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: WinstonSmith,