Obama Signs Anti-Smoking Bill

[Good_Apollo]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/22/obama.tobacco/

Nobody else WTFing over this? :smith:

[Rob Oplawar]

lolwut? you're wtfing because tobacco is now under the oversight of the fda?

trwtf is that it wasn't sooner. >_>

[Phopojijo]

I think he was pointing to the irony of Obama being a smoker.

[Good_Apollo]

I think he was pointing to the irony of Obama being a smoker.
There's more to it then that, but that works too.

[Rook]

I think smoking is fucking stupid and the taxes and regulations on it should keep going higher. however alcohol, much safer for you and a lot more enjoyable should keep a low tax. =]

[SnaFuBAR]

except people tend to enjoy it a bit too much then go smash into another car killing someone's wife and kids, yet the drunk survives because he's liquored up.

yeah totally keep a low tax on it.

[Good_Apollo]

I think smoking is fucking stupid and the taxes and regulations on it should keep going higher. however alcohol, much safer for you and a lot more enjoyable should keep a low tax. =]Bolded for clarity.

[Phopojijo]

except people tend to enjoy it a bit too much then go smash into another car killing someone's wife and kids, yet the drunk survives because he's liquored up.

yeah totally keep a low tax on it.Eh... I disagree -- yes, what you said is all true but -- that's irresponsibility.

Smoking has just about no responsible facets... though it will not directly send you careening into oncoming traffic... unless you happen to be looking at the lighter or cigarette at the time... or pull a Lebowski and drop the smoke and burn your crotch...

[SnaFuBAR]

I completely understood the idea of personal health of cigarettes vs alcohol. The retort was that while it is safer for you than cigarettes, it's much more unsafe for people around you in excess and irresponsibility.

That shouldn't have to be explained or bolded. You should have the comprehension to understand that.

E: Yes, phopo, I understand that.

[Jean-Luc]

I think smoking is fucking stupid and the taxes and regulations on it should keep going higher. however alcohol, much safer for you and a lot more enjoyable should keep a low tax. =]

1) Not everyone has that mindset. Keep in mind some people prefer smoking to drinking.
2) Alcohol is one of the leading preventable causes of death in this country, both directly and indirectly. This is especially true among younger people, and has lead to the death of quite a few people I know.

And as a final note. Rook, you're 18 years old, thereby making alcohol consumption illegal, hth

[Phopojijo]

1) Not everyone has that mindset. Keep in mind some people prefer smoking to drinking.
2) Alcohol is one of the leading preventable causes of death in this country, both directly and indirectly. This is especially true among younger people, and has lead to the death of quite a few people I know.When you say true among younger people I assume you mean overdoing it, falling on your back, vomitting, and choking to death or similar alcohol-related death -- because the largest demographic of drunk drivers are 35-55 year-old Males.

[Jean-Luc]

When you say true among younger people I assume you mean overdoing it, falling on your back, vomitting, and choking to death or similar alcohol-related death -- because the largest demographic of drunk drivers are 35-55 year-old Males.
To an extent. When it comes to the younger demographic, it is blatantly obvious that the responsibility level is very low, thereby leading to more risk, at least to my experience. I can't tell you how many friends of mine have gotten in trouble with the law for being intoxicated, and at least 5 kids at my school were killed due to it.

Personally, I think all drugs should be taxed to a moderate level. Say what you want about them, there is inherent risk in any drug you take.

[Good_Apollo]

So aside from all the moral discussions and health debates, is nobody going to miss their cloves and, potentially, menthols?

[Bodzilla]

except people tend to enjoy it a bit too much then go smash into another car killing someone's wife and kids, yet the drunk survives because he's liquored up.

yeah totally keep a low tax on it.

anything can be abused.
alcohol
religion
even computer games.

Thats not a very accurate way to judge alcohol snaf and you know better.

[CN3089]

however alcohol, much safer for you

your liver hates you so much right now


So aside from all the moral discussions and health debates, is nobody going to miss their cloves and, potentially, menthols?

not stupid enough to smoke, sorry

[Xetsuei]

anything can be abused.
alcohol
religion
even computer games.

Thats not a very accurate way to judge alcohol snaf and you know better.

Are you really going to use that as an argument? That's just plain pathetic. I don't know if it's because you like drinking alcohol so much that you bother to defend it, but it's one of the most abused, if not the most abused substance there is. It's the leading preventable cause of death for many, many things.

[Needles]

anything can be abused.
alcohol
religion
even computer games.

Thats not a very accurate way to judge alcohol snaf and you know better.

Well....not all of those can kill people. Alcohol can cause death because, well your just not normal when your drunk.

[Bodzilla]

Are you really going to use that as an argument? That's just plain pathetic. I don't know if it's because you like drinking alcohol so much that you bother to defend it, but it's one of the most abused, if not the most abused substance there is. It's the leading preventable cause of death for many, many things.

no it's because a worst case scenario is not the way it should be judged.

Look at religion, some peopel get on great with it, have great lives and are happy living their lives fine.
Then you get people that abuse it and do stupid shit, e.g. extremists.

Now do we as a society judge religion the same way?
or computer games?
do we say because theres some fucking retards out there that take their shit too seriously and cause harm to others that we should therefore BANISH religion or start increasing tax's on it?
Hell fucking no.

So why the fuck should it be any different with alcohol.
ANYTHING can be abused.
Seems like a pretty solid argument for me, but i forgot that it just happens to be special and we cant say these horrible untrue things about it!

I can guarantee right now that even though religion is not a substance it is abused a hell of alot more then alcohol in sheer numbers alone.

[Jean-Luc]

Bod, that's not the point. Alcohol and Nicotine are toxic substances for your body, period. They can lead to death both for the person using the drug, and for those around them. You can't compare that to computer games or religion.

[Xetsuei]

no it's because a worst case scenario is not the way it should be judged.

STUPID ANALOGIES

So why the fuck should it be any different with alcohol.
ANYTHING can be abused.
Seems like a pretty solid argument for me, but i forgot that it just happens to be special and we cant say these horrible untrue things about it!

I can guarantee right now that even though religion is not a substance it is abused a hell of alot more then alcohol in sheer numbers alone.

Yes, but you have to realize a lot of the time it is the worst case scenario. Yes, hurf durf anything can be abused. It just happens to be the case that alcohol gets abused a lot more than most other things. And like I said, those analogies have almost nothing to do with it. Religion and computer games that are abused do not lead to nearly as many deaths as alcohol does. I'm guessing the only reason you're arguing about this is because you're an alcohol abuser yourself.

What Jean-Luc said too.

[SnaFuBAR]

no it's because a worst case scenario is not the way it should be judged.

Look at religion, some peopel get on great with it, have great lives and are happy living their lives fine.
Then you get people that abuse it and do stupid shit, e.g. extremists.

Now do we as a society judge religion the same way?
or computer games?
do we say because theres some fucking retards out there that take their shit too seriously and cause harm to others that we should therefore BANISH religion or start increasing tax's on it?
Hell fucking no.

So why the fuck should it be any different with alcohol.
ANYTHING can be abused.
Seems like a pretty solid argument for me, but i forgot that it just happens to be special and we cant say these horrible untrue things about it!

I can guarantee right now that even though religion is not a substance it is abused a hell of alot more then alcohol in sheer numbers alone.

Dude, that has got to be one of the most uneducated, vague, wishy-washy, biased arguments I have read in a long time.

[Bodzilla]

and the whole if people are allowed to drink they will all get drunk and drive and kill innocent womens and their kidz.

coo.

[SnaFuBAR]

Now you're presenting what I said as something else.

My post meant that alcohol in excess has social problems associated with it that differ from tobacco use/abuse. That very fact is the reason why saying that alcohol should retain a lower tax because it's better for the self than tobacco is fucking laughable.

[Bodzilla]

Bod, that's not the point. Alcohol and Nicotine are toxic substances for your body, period. They can lead to death both for the person using the drug, and for those around them. You can't compare that to computer games or religion.

thats right, i forgot that we as a society still havnt accepted mental conditions as a medical problem yet.
so therefore, hey it doesnt matter if they're batshit crazy, just as long as they're fit and strong!

Abuse is Abuse. it doesnt matter what form it comes in, so baning, taxing and prohibiting something based on excessive abuse is a fucking stupid idea.

[Kornman00]

I think he was pointing to the irony of Obama being a smoker.


The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act gives the FDA power to ban candy-flavored and fruit-flavored cigarettes, widely considered appealing to first-time smokers, including youths. It also prohibits tobacco companies from using terms such as "low tar," "light" or "mild," requires larger warning labels on packages, and restricts advertising of tobacco products.


It also requires tobacco companies to reduce levels of nicotine in cigarettes.


Not only is the thread title wrong, but you people seem to think this is abolishing smoking all together. It's just adding a long over due regulation of a very poisonous drug that has been killing its users and the people around them for decades.

[Jean-Luc]

thats right, i forgot that we as a society still havnt accepted mental conditions as a medical problem yet.
so therefore, hey it doesnt matter if they're batshit crazy, just as long as they're fit and strong!

Abuse is Abuse. it doesnt matter what form it comes in, so baning, taxing and prohibiting something based on excessive abuse is a fucking stupid idea.

I don't know what the case is in Australia, but here in America, we've accepted mental conditions as a problem. We have institutions designed to helping these people cope, and medications to attempt to improve their disorders. Also yes, abuse is abuse, but the fact of the matter is that the substance(s) in question are both proven to be leading causes of death. If that's not a good reason for higher taxation, I don't know what is.

[SnaFuBAR]

Abuse is Abuse. it doesnt matter what form it comes in, so baning, taxing and prohibiting something based on excessive abuse is a fucking stupid idea.

Except where said abuse caused damage to infrastructure, requires medical treatment and such because it creates a need to fund resources to deal with these things. Yeah totally don't tax it and use the tax money to fund corrective actions.

[Bodzilla]

Except where said abuse caused damage to infrastructure, requires medical treatment and such because it creates a need to fund resources to deal with these things. Yeah totally don't tax it and use the tax money to fund corrective actions.
Boom september 11.

[SnaFuBAR]

HAHAHAHAHA

oh fuck me, mate, try again.

[Aerowyn]

I think he was pointing to the irony of Obama being a smoker.

He said he honestly has made an effort to quit at the request of his wife and daughters.

And yes, I feel that this should've been done ages ago.

[Bodzilla]

that was a direct cause of mental abuse through an abuse OF RELIGION that caused damage to infrastructure, required medical assistance and used tax money.

It is the exact same thing as your car accident scenario.
What exactly am i supposed to change.

Abuse is ABUSE.

[annihilation]

Why can't video games be abused? Did anyone read the story of the kid who killed his parents because they took Halo 3 away from him?

[CN3089]

alcohol and tobacco are stupid and if you use them you are stupid hope this helps..

[Jean-Luc]

that was a direct cause of mental abuse through an abuse OF RELIGION that caused damage to infrastructure, required medical assistance and used tax money.

It is the exact same thing as your car accident scenario.
What exactly am i supposed to change.

Abuse is ABUSE.

9/11 caused around 3,000 deaths.

There were 17,400 deaths due to drunk driving in America alone in the same year. Alcohol kills over 75,000 American's per year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/

HTH

As for you smokers, 440,000 American's die per year due to smoking, with more than 10 million annual deaths worldwide predicted by 2020

[SnaFuBAR]

that was a direct cause of mental abuse through an abuse OF RELIGION that caused damage to infrastructure, required medical assistance and used tax money.

It is the exact same thing as your car accident scenario.
What exactly am i supposed to change.

Abuse is ABUSE.

you don't understand the socio-political temperance of the region, and thus you make your argument on faulty grounds.

[Mass]

Is nobody going to miss their cloves?

Not afraid to admit I'm going to miss my occasional clove.

I'm really glad they're finally moving to truly marginalize cigarette smoking, though. Cigars and pipes are one thing, terrible vices, but cigarettes are a corporate plan to do only one thing: create and sustain addiction.

As far as this little discussion about alcohol goes, when you look at it, it's a serious problem, but one that always has been and always will be. Beer is the foundation of civilization, after all, without alcohol you would have no written word with which to disparage its use.

It's a blessing and a curse, and it will for the foreseeable future always prove totally inseparable from us. The worst thing we can do is try to control it by any means beside the monetary. The high drinking age only shunts our youth into dark corners away from responsible and helpful people and into excessive and dangerous behavior.

Prohibition is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

(with the possible exception of some Islamic countries where the punishment is a little beyond our modern standards...)

[MetKiller Joe]

Putting higher taxes will give a disincentive to buy cigarettes, but because of that you might have people switching to other stuff. People will switch to the cheaper alternative, as they always do. It is human nature. If you are addicted to nicotine, you will want to get your nicotine fix.

You aren't going to stop people from smoking by passing laws; this is evident with illicit drugs. Teens will still get their hands on crap they find to be taboo simply because it pisses off their parents.

Edit:

Small side note.

We don't really have a drinking age in Croatia (kids can walk into a store and buy beer and wine), and yet I see the same stupid crap being perpetrated over there as here. Yet, we have a drinking age. So, if the same things are going to happen whether or not we have a drinking age, why have a drinking age? Why have laws they aren't going to do anything besides use taxpayer dollars to fight a crime that can't be won?

[Bodzilla]

you don't understand the socio-political temperance of the region, and thus you make your argument on faulty grounds.
enlighten me

I don't know what the case is in Australia, but here in America, we've accepted mental conditions as a problem. We have institutions designed to helping these people cope, and medications to attempt to improve their disorders. Also yes, abuse is abuse, but the fact of the matter is that the substance(s) in question are both proven to be leading causes of death. If that's not a good reason for higher taxation, I don't know what is.
no.

my mom works in the industry and has all her life.
she was one of the best adolescent mental health workers around as well as a whole range of other things.
now she travels around this area teaching and instructing the next generation of mental health workers.

Now as a society we still turn down our noses at mental issues, it's still a taboo issue that is not as openly discussed or as accepted as a genuine problem. Hence why you have this shit happen.
Having a discussion on it right now on vent actually.
Depression, autism, schizophrenia.

We have a Textbook example of head abuse on this forum.
someone who got far to involved in what he was hearing and he changed his perception and altered his logical thinking patterns. Eventually isolating himself from the community.

Dane.

[Bodzilla]

9/11 caused around 3,000 deaths.

There were 17,400 deaths due to drunk driving in America alone in the same year. Alcohol kills over 75,000 American's per year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/

HTH

As for you smokers, 440,000 American's die per year due to smoking, with more than 10 million annual deaths worldwide predicted by 2020

you forget about the crusades there pal?

[Mass]

Putting higher taxes will give a disincentive to buy cigarettes, but because of that you might have people switching to other stuff. People will switch to the cheaper alternative, as they always do. It is human nature. If you are addicted to nicotine, you will want to get your nicotine fix.


They're not raising taxes with this one. Just changing labels (proven to be completely irrelevant) and forcing manufacturers to change their contents (the only relevant thing.) They're also getting rid of flavored cigarettes like cloves, that part is just kind of bogus.

[Jean-Luc]

Whatever Bod, if you want to keep arguing that mental illness and murders in the name of God are just as serious, fine, you do so. The point is that both alcohol and smoking related deaths are preventable. There is no law anywhere that says you have to smoke or drink.

Also, you cannot tell me that it's possible to prevent religious deaths. Unless you plan on killing all the religious fundamentalists who pay too much attention to their holy scripture, you aren't going to stop it.

Back to the topic at hand. I think it's a good idea to take any steps possible towards lowering the incidences of smoking in this country. It kills far too many people, and has been viewed as "safe" for far too long. What I mean by "safe" is that the American public knows it's dangerous, but refuses to take steps towards preventing it, thereby making it acceptable. And yet I still have yet to see marijuana, which hasn't lead to ANY direct deaths, get legalized, but that's a debate for another thread.

[MetKiller Joe]

They're not raising taxes with this one. Just changing labels (proven to be completely irrelevant) and forcing manufacturers to change their contents (the only relevant thing.) They're also getting rid of flavored cigarettes like cloves, that part is just kind of bogus.

Alright, so it's even worse than a tax.

If the market wanted better labels by now, there would have been different labels, and by the market I mean that if people that smoked asked that instead of "low tar" you will now have something like "this has a slight risk of lung cancer" or whatever, the companies would have put it there. I really doubt that by the end of high school most American teenagers haven't gotten the "cigarrettes cause cancer and slowly kill you" spiel 10 times. They don't care. That is what is attractive to them. They hate the low risks of everyday life, and so they rebel.

[Bodzilla]

Whatever Bod, if you want to keep arguing that mental illness and murders in the name of God are just as serious, fine, you do so. The point is that both alcohol and smoking related deaths are preventable. There is no law anywhere that says you have to smoke or drink.so these others arn't?
my whole point is these things are ABUSE and judging something ON ABUSE is stupid and impractical!


Also, you cannot tell me that it's possible to prevent religious deaths. Unless you plan on killing all the religious fundamentalists who pay too much attention to their holy scripture, you aren't going to stop it.
EDUCATION


Back to the topic at hand. I think it's a good idea to take any steps possible towards lowering the incidences of smoking in this country. It kills far too many people, and has been viewed as "safe" for far too long. What I mean by "safe" is that the American public knows it's dangerous, but refuses to take steps towards preventing it, thereby making it acceptable. And yet I still have yet to see marijuana, which hasn't lead to ANY direct deaths, get legalized, but that's a debate for another thread.
i agree completely on all accounts.
but it's still an educational thing, not a tax thing that will change that

[Kornman00]

Wow. This thread has taken a whole new direction. Let's hear it for Change! Yes we can! And yes you did...

[rossmum]

I completely understood the idea of personal health of cigarettes vs alcohol. The retort was that while it is safer for you than cigarettes, it's much more unsafe for people around you in excess and irresponsibility.

That shouldn't have to be explained or bolded. You should have the comprehension to understand that.

E: Yes, phopo, I understand that.
It varies. Some people remain totally responsible, others go absolutely off the rails. No matter how many drinks I have, I stand by my principles - I've never smoked anything, never tried drugs, etc. A lot of people I know would do anything you suggested after only a couple.

Unfortunately, you can't really enforce things on an individual basis, so the rest of us have to suffer because some people can't control themselves :rolleyes:

[Good_Apollo]

Not only is the thread title wrong, but you people seem to think this is abolishing smoking all together. It's just adding a long over due regulation of a very poisonous drug that has been killing its users and the people around them for decades.Thread title isn't wrong, it's against smoking, Anti-Smoking. :confused2:

9/11 caused around 3,000 deaths.

There were 17,400 deaths due to drunk driving in America alone in the same year. Alcohol kills over 75,000 American's per year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6089353/

HTH

As for you smokers, 440,000 American's die per year due to smoking, with more than 10 million annual deaths worldwide predicted by 2020
People do things everyday with the knowledge that it could or will kill them. They do it anyway. It's called freedom.


They're not raising taxes with this one. Just changing labels (proven to be completely irrelevant) and forcing manufacturers to change their contents (the only relevant thing.) They're also getting rid of flavored cigarettes like cloves, that part is just kind of bogus.
The FDA being in control? Doesn't bother me.
Releasing content lists or removing or reducing certain additives that are harmful? Sure.
Taking away certain flavors? Fucking stupid.
The labels thing doesn't bother me anyway simply because nobody is ignorant about cigarettes anymore, they either want to smoke or they don't and labels won't stop them from making their choice or make it for them.

[rossmum]

People do things everyday with the knowledge that it could or will kill them. They do it anyway. It's called freedom.
What about when it can or does kill the people downwind of them?

[Good_Apollo]

What about when it can or does kill the people downwind of them?Second hand smoke is still in heavy debate (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1). Essentially it's impossible to link smoking to cancer so it's hard to discern whether second hand smoke can either. If you aren't talking about second hand smoke then let me know because that's all I can think of.

*Waits for someone to explode about how smoking has proven to lead to cancer and doesn't give this a second thought first before they rage type.

[king_nothing_]

Also yes, abuse is abuse, but the fact of the matter is that the substance(s) in question are both proven to be leading causes of death.
So are saturated fats. Shall we start regulating and overtaxing them, as well?

What I find funny is that when that Political Compass quiz gets posted on here, almost everyone ends up on the libertarian end, yet almost everyone in this thread seems to be all for increase government regulation in this case. Very strange.

I'll tell you right now, I don't like smoking and never have. But do I think it should be regulated more by the government? No. What someone does with their own body is not the business of the state.

[English Mobster]

I'm just going to butt in here and say:
Fucking finally. I feel this is the first step to getting rid of smoking entirely. I have a best friend who smokes at least a pack a day. It may have biased me towards the anti-smoking side, but that's how I feel on the issue.
Yes, banning smoking causes its own set of issues, just like Prohibition did in the 20s. I'll admit that I don't have the foggiest idea on how to solve those issues. However, I feel banning it entirely will reduce the number of deaths by smoking in the U.S., as smokers will be forced to rely on the MUCH safer "electronic cigarettes" to get their fix.

[Good_Apollo]

I'm just going to butt in here and say:
Fucking finally. I feel this is the first step to getting rid of smoking entirely. I have a best friend who smokes at least a pack a day. It may have biased me towards the anti-smoking side, but that's how I feel on the issue.
Yes, banning smoking causes its own set of issues, just like Prohibition did in the 20s. I'll admit that I don't have the foggiest idea on how to solve those issues. However, I feel banning it entirely will reduce the number of deaths by smoking in the U.S., as smokers will be forced to rely on the MUCH safer "electronic cigarettes" to get their fix.I find it annoying how everyone assumes that people don't sometimes just like to smoke, nicotine or not. Electronic Cigarettes do seem somewhat useful to me but at the same time one of the most worthless things invented.

[rossmum]

Second hand smoke is still in heavy debate (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1955237&page=1). Essentially it's impossible to link smoking to cancer so it's hard to discern whether second hand smoke can either. If you aren't talking about second hand smoke then let me know because that's all I can think of.

*Waits for someone to explode about how smoking has proven to lead to cancer and doesn't give this a second thought first before they rage type.
I see... presumably, then, asbestosis causing lung cancer is a myth, skin cancer being caused by excessive UV exposure is a myth, and anything else which is pretty bloody obviously linked but can't be proven beyond the doubt of stubborn people who are in denial is a myth, too.

Nobody's saying smoking will cause lung cancer without exception - just look at Castro (e/ even then, the cigars he probably smokes really high-quality without the kind of shit they put in cigarettes, which is usually what gets you) - but it's not coincidence that smokers have a far higher incidence of lung cancer, the same way people exposed to asbestos do. Plenty of things can be linked to cancer; in fact, it seems just about everything can, but there are only a few clear-cut cases where cancer is a likely outcome rather than a simple, relatively unlikely risk. Smoking is one of them.

[Good_Apollo]

I see... presumably, then, asbestosis causing lung cancer is a myth, skin cancer being caused by excessive UV exposure is a myth, and anything else which is pretty bloody obviously linked but can't be proven beyond the doubt of stubborn people who are in denial is a myth, too.

Nobody's saying smoking will cause lung cancer without exception - just look at Castro - but it's not coincidence that smokers have a far higher incidence of lung cancer, the same way people exposed to asbestos do. Plenty of things can be linked to cancer; in fact, it seems just about everything can, but there are only a few clear-cut cases where cancer is a likely outcome rather than a simple, relatively unlikely risk. Smoking is one of them.You misconstrue not being able to prove something as it being a myth. To prove something needs significant testing and since the moral issues with testing something that has been researched to improve chances of cancer forming within lungs due to smoking on actual human beings is decidedly unethical, therefore unprovable by standard means.

This is besides the point because were were discussing second hand smoke, I presume anyway, and that is still the subject of many studies with highly mixed results.

[rossmum]

You realise the Germans already did that shit back in WWII, when they gave no fuck for ethics?

Any other excuses?

e/ Wait, so you expect the effect of breathing in THE SAME SHIT to be different depending on whether you're the actual smoker or just someone nearby? Jesus.

[Good_Apollo]

You realise the Germans already did that shit back in WWII, when they gave no fuck for ethics?

Any other excuses?

e/ Wait, so you expect the effect of breathing in THE SAME SHIT to be different depending on whether you're the actual smoker or just someone nearby? Jesus.
Me? I'm not a scientist. I just read things.

What about you?

[rossmum]

I'm not a scientist either, but I like to read things written by scientists, not third-hand hearsay spread by smokers in denial.

I did study anatomy though if that's any help

[Good_Apollo]

Clearly.

This is fruitless.

[Bodzilla]

Have you ever heard of the Celestrial teapot scenario apollo?
you may want to read up on that and you'll realize exactly why your receiving the negative attention your currently getting. because from a technical point of view you may be right in this, but from a logical standpoint your ass backwards.

I suggest other people do the same as well. Follow the evidence