… the pharmaceutical companies vs. the tobacco cartel… it’s a win-win situation… depending on whose stock you invested in!
Now I’ve seen everything!
Knowledge is a powerful drug too. But people seem to be resistant to its effects. Smoking wreaks havoc upon the body. A deep understanding of that is all you need to quit. What more do you need? A drug? My sister smoked heavily until she abruptly stopped last year – she died of a heart attack at age 50 (with smoking being her only known cardiac risk-factor).
Drugs have effects. There is no need to divide them into “effects” and “side-effects”. That is a mind-game which attempts to downplay the less desirable effects. How many people are going to take this drug simply because it will “help them stop smoking.” Oh, the miracle of modern medicine! (oh, how astonishingly arrogant the allopathic medical industry is!) How many will research and learn all there is to know about the drug before deciding to take it? Not many.
Give the body what it needs. And only what it needs. Then trust it to do its job.
www.mercola.com
I know this wasn’t the point of the original post, but I couldn’t resist – my button got pushed. And no, I’ve never smoked or quit anything like that. And I couldn’t imagine giving up coffee (what would I do in the morning without my daily CNS stimulant, vasoconstrictor, and diuretic?).
Wow, was that a rant? What’s this foamy stuff coming out of my mouth?
Dave
I agree with you Dave. I have refused to take any medication for hayfever except for homeopathic tablets. If I have a headache I put up with it rather than taking painkillers. Plus the fact that almost any headache can be got rid of with the greatest substance known to man…COFFEE!
They are businesspeople, like everyone else.
As consumers, we all must remember to check the motivation behind anything “companies” tell us. The company usually has an agenda, and that agenda usually has to do with advancing the company’s interests. For pharmaceutical companies, the goal is to make you want to buy their products, even if they have to make up ailments for people to want cures for. How about all those anti-depressant products advertised on latenight TV?
How about Viagra? Viagra was (supposedly) developed to help people who really needed. But once approved, it’s being marketed to everybody (especially if you have an email account)!
So buyer beware. When reading or listening to information about “interesting” products or services, consider the source. Like “special advertising sections” in magazines or infomercials on TV. Their job is not to educate, but to motivate you to buy what they are selling. I don’t read or watch either, unless I’m reeeeeeely interested, which has happened about three or four times so far.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-lessig/two-questions-about-the-p_b_440655.html
Do you support separation of corporation and state?
Would you support a Constitutional Amendment on this?
I’m not sure myself. like so many of you
Quote: Yesterday, I called for a Constitutional amendment that would restore public trust in our government, and I asked everyone to join this effort through my organization, Change-congress.org.
The response has been extraordinary – but many people, for good reason, have questions about how an amendment could happen and about what that amendment should be.
First: What should that amendment be?
There are many now calling for an amendment to overrule last week’s Supreme Court decision inCitizens United that gave corporations, unions, and special interests unprecedented power to control our electoral process. But in my view, these calls are missing an important opportunity. It is not enough for us to get back to the world we had the day before the decision came down; that world was already corrupted by a Congress dependent upon special interest funding. Our Framers wanted a Congress dependent not upon foreign powers, or upon the President, or upon anything else save upon the People. Yet that is not our Congress today.
Amending the Constitution is a profound endeavor, and drafting the text that we would put before the American people for their consideration can’t be done by a single person or in a single week. But our shared objective must be an amendment that gives Congress the power to restore its independence, and I am working closely with others now to help craft exactly that amendment.
Second: How would this amendment get enacted?
Our Constitution allows itself to be amended in two ways: through Congress, or through a Constitutional Convention. Neither is easy, but both are possible – when a movement of organized, dedicated people comes together to insist on a change to their government.
I don’t believe that now is the moment to close doors or limit options. Both paths have their advantages and their challenges, and there will come a time to assess the risks of each and commit to one. But what we need to do first – loudly, tirelessly, and with the firmness of our convictions – is persuade America of two very simple facts: that this reform is necessary, and that this reform is possible if we do our work correctly.
Yesterday, as the President in his State of the Union address was affirming his commitment to legislation that would curb the influence of special interests, I was giving a speech of my own.
I was invited to give a speech to the Cato Institute, a prominent conservative think tank made up of the kind of people you might not think I’d agree with very often. I told them what I often say to my conservative friends and colleagues: that policies like heavy regulation and the complicated tax code – so many of the things that millions and millions of people dislike about the laws of this country – are the product of special-interest intervention into the legislative process. There’s only going to be more of that if we don’t do something about our system – just as there will only be more frustration on progressive issues like health care and climate change.
What I found was a group that, nearly universally, saw the same problems I did. Though we disagreed about the substantive policies each of us would pursue, there was a shared view, at least among many, about what blocked those substantive policies. There was agreement that 20 years of conservative Presidents in the last 29 did not produce less government or simpler taxes, and that’s not because these conservatives were fake. It is because of the system they were facing – a system that keeps the status quo in place.
Old timers thread and now a revived thread by Sendhair.
Is this remaniscence week? Where’s Glutes?
All this necroposting is making me sick. Got me all excited when I see sendhairs name on the front page and for nothing but a useless comment on an old thread. Ill hack a furball into Billy’s shoes when I get the chance…
You too, Catboy!
Where have you been?