Experts Warn Against Clove Cigarettes: Thailand

[Polsci]

Inhale deeply. And slowly.

[Jingthing]

So following your logic it's ok to go and do stupid things that will shorten your lifespan considerably?

Russian roulette?

Yes, that should be allowed. Why not?

It's called civilization. Laws for your own good. Something libertarians don't get.

[TAWP]

So following your logic it's ok to go and do stupid things that will shorten your lifespan considerably?

Russian roulette?

Yes, that should be allowed. Why not?

It's called civilization. Laws for your own good. Something libertarians don't get.

Social fascists don't understand that I don't want another mommy. I have one. And she taught me well.

What social fascists and authoritarians, both leftists and right-wing, fail to understand is that our free will is absolute and to limit the free will, when it has no impact to limit other peoples right to not be imposed upon, is not the be limited or hindered.

If that is allowing someone to go water-skiing without a helmet, eat pizza while playing console-games or watching horror-movies while masturbating with a cactus, why should we disallow this? Because you think you know what is best for someone else? The audacity, the sheer volume of the arrogance that perpetuate a persons mind to come to that conclusion.

[DickFarang]

1. When I lived in what now is Indonesia some sixty years ago the clove cigarettes were called Kretek. These were supposedly pure clove cigarettes. I do not smoke, so I cannot give personal experience.
   I guess over the decades they have tampered with the clove cigarette and now it has become a poison to the human lungs.
   Whatever it is Mother Nature produces the human race cannot leave it alone GREED and has to tamper with it and in the process make it more dangerous.
   

Some 15 years ago those “kretek” cigarettes were still for sale in Indonesia.

The name “kretek” refers to the noise they make when smoked.

I think they were cheaper than tobacco cigarettes.

[DickFarang]

So following your logic it's ok to go and do stupid things that will shorten your lifespan considerably?

Russian roulette?

Yes, that should be allowed. Why not?

Some people bareback ... and like it.

[Jingthing]

...

What social fascists and authoritarians, both leftists and right-wing, fail to understand is that our free will is absolute and to limit the free will, when it has no impact to limit other peoples right to not be imposed upon, is not the be limited or hindered.

...

In your dreams. Libertarianism is a sham philosophy. No government adopts and no government ever will adopt it. At least communism has been tested to a degree. Libertarianism is a pipe dream that completely ignores the realities of human nature.

[transam]

So following your logic it's ok to go and do stupid things that will shorten your lifespan considerably?

Russian roulette?

Yes, that should be allowed. Why not?

It's called civilization. Laws for your own good. Something libertarians don't get.

Social fascists don't understand that I don't want another mommy. I have one. And she taught me well.

What social fascists and authoritarians, both leftists and right-wing, fail to understand is that our free will is absolute and to limit the free will, when it has no impact to limit other peoples right to not be imposed upon, is not the be limited or hindered.

If that is allowing someone to go water-skiing without a helmet, eat pizza while playing console-games or watching horror-movies while masturbating with a cactus, why should we disallow this? Because you think you know what is best for someone else? The audacity, the sheer volume of the arrogance that perpetuate a persons mind to come to that conclusion.

+1

[Ned]

I think the real concern here is : Don't buy foreign cigarettes. Keep profits here.

[TAWP]

...

What social fascists and authoritarians, both leftists and right-wing, fail to understand is that our free will is absolute and to limit the free will, when it has no impact to limit other peoples right to not be imposed upon, is not the be limited or hindered.

...

In your dreams. Libertarianism is a sham philosophy. No government adopts and no government ever will adopt it. At least communism has been tested to a degree. Libertarianism is a pipe dream that completely ignores the realities of human nature.

That doesn't even make sense. Of course you will not be able to explain why something that recognizes peoples equal rights and right to a free will is a pipe-dream or a bad thing, but then again you are a leftist that think you have the right to impose your views on others.

[Jingthing]

...

What social fascists and authoritarians, both leftists and right-wing, fail to understand is that our free will is absolute and to limit the free will, when it has no impact to limit other peoples right to not be imposed upon, is not the be limited or hindered.

...

In your dreams. Libertarianism is a sham philosophy. No government adopts and no government ever will adopt it. At least communism has been tested to a degree. Libertarianism is a pipe dream that completely ignores the realities of human nature.

That doesn't even make sense. Of course you will not be able to explain why something that recognizes peoples equal rights and right to a free will is a pipe-dream or a bad thing, but then again you are a leftist that think you have the right to impose your views on others.

You are suggesting that ALL governments in the world are fascist because ALL governments impose civilizing influences, through LAWS, on their populations. While the specifics of all laws are always debatable, the idea that civilized societies that do impose civilizing laws are necessarily fascist is specious. Its really convenient for libertarians also because there has never been a Libertariantopia nation state in practice to show how ridiculous their philosophy is, and there never will be.

The opponents of the dangerous, silly, juvenile movement called libertarianism come from the left, middle, AND right. That's because pure libertarianism is off the map of political REALITY.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[Siam Simon]

So following your logic it's ok to go and do stupid things that will shorten your lifespan considerably?

Russian roulette?

Yes, that should be allowed. Why not?

It's called civilization. Laws for your own good. Something libertarians don't get.

Social fascists don't understand that I don't want another mommy. I have one. And she taught me well.

What social fascists and authoritarians, both leftists and right-wing, fail to understand is that our free will is absolute and to limit the free will, when it has no impact to limit other peoples right to not be imposed upon, is not the be limited or hindered.

If that is allowing someone to go water-skiing without a helmet, eat pizza while playing console-games or watching horror-movies while masturbating with a cactus, why should we disallow this? Because you think you know what is best for someone else? The audacity, the sheer volume of the arrogance that perpetuate a persons mind to come to that conclusion.

Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying (don't fall off your seat in shock ), there is also the hugely important factor of impact on other people around one from one's behaviour. An obvious and straightforward example is why should someone in a public restaurant or bar have to breathe second-hand smoke from someone else?

[TAWP]

That doesn't even make sense. Of course you will not be able to explain why something that recognizes peoples equal rights and right to a free will is a pipe-dream or a bad thing, but then again you are a leftist that think you have the right to impose your views on others.

You are suggesting that ALL governments in the world are fascist because ALL governments impose civilizing influences, through LAWS, on their populations. While the specifics of all laws are always debatable, the idea that civilized societies that do impose civilizing laws are necessarily fascist is specious. Its really convenient for libertarians also because there has never been a Libertariantopia nation state in practice to show how ridiculous their philosophy is, and there never will be.

The opponents of the dangerous, silly, juvenile movement called libertarianism come from the left, middle, AND right. That's because pure libertarianism is off the map of political REALITY.

'Dangerous, silly, juvenile' says the man that wants war with Iran.

All governments are authoritarian to some degree. Some people - such as yourself - seem to wish for more. Others - like me - wish for less.

Funny, under a libertarian govern Gays would have the same equal rights as all others. Something you, militantly, are looking for. Good luck with that under any strong authoritarian government.

And your remark about there never been a 'Libertariantopia' [sic] as some form of indicator that there never can be a better, less authoritarian, state is kinda sad. I wonder if we could apply that kind of thinking on your struggle and try to convince you to stop trying to change things? Or that wouldn't be appropriate?

I am sorry that you find having respect for others and your right to not be abused as something that is ridiculous.

[TAWP]

Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying (don't fall off your seat in shock ), there is also the hugely important factor of impact on other people around one from one's behaviour. An obvious and straightforward example is why should someone in a public restaurant or bar have to breathe second-hand smoke from someone else?

Here is the basic outline:

No-one has the right to enter your owned house and smoke against your will.

You have no right entering someones owned house and proclaim that he has to stop smoking.

[Siam Simon]

Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying (don't fall off your seat in shock ), there is also the hugely important factor of impact on other people around one from one's behaviour. An obvious and straightforward example is why should someone in a public restaurant or bar have to breathe second-hand smoke from someone else?

Here is the basic outline:

No-one has the right to enter your owned house and smoke against your will.

You have no right entering someones owned house and proclaim that he has to stop smoking.

But what about in communal areas? Is the freedom with the smoker, or with the non-smoker who doesn't want to breathe someone's second-hand smoke?

[Jingthing]

That doesn't even make sense. Of course you will not be able to explain why something that recognizes peoples equal rights and right to a free will is a pipe-dream or a bad thing, but then again you are a leftist that think you have the right to impose your views on others.

You are suggesting that ALL governments in the world are fascist because ALL governments impose civilizing influences, through LAWS, on their populations. While the specifics of all laws are always debatable, the idea that civilized societies that do impose civilizing laws are necessarily fascist is specious. Its really convenient for libertarians also because there has never been a Libertariantopia nation state in practice to show how ridiculous their philosophy is, and there never will be.

The opponents of the dangerous, silly, juvenile movement called libertarianism come from the left, middle, AND right. That's because pure libertarianism is off the map of political REALITY.

'Dangerous, silly, juvenile' says the man that wants war with Iran.

All governments are authoritarian to some degree. Some people - such as yourself - seem to wish for more. Others - like me - wish for less.

Funny, under a libertarian govern Gays would have the same equal rights as all others. Something you, militantly, are looking for. Good luck with that under any strong authoritarian government.

And your remark about there never been a 'Libertariantopia' [sic] as some form of indicator that there never can be a better, less authoritarian, state is kinda sad. I wonder if we could apply that kind of thinking on your struggle and try to convince you to stop trying to change things? Or that wouldn't be appropriate?

I am sorry that you find having respect for others and your right to not be abused as something that is ridiculous.

Stop posting lies. I am not for a war with Iran. I am for Iran not getting nuclear weapons.

You don't need a libertarian government to have gay equality under the law. That has been proven in a number of countries. Libertarians have proven nothing as they have never run a government and never will. In that sense, they always have an unfair debate advantage, but again, it's all abstract and nothing real. Interestingly, the current leader of the libertarian movement in the US attracts an inordinate number of racists, antisemites, and homophobes.

Like I said before, specific laws are justifiably subject to specific discussion. I can be pro gay rights, pro legal marijuana, and ALSO against legalization of Russian roulette games and be a rational person in favor of a liberal civilization, not a fascist, and not a libertarian.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying (don't fall off your seat in shock ), there is also the hugely important factor of impact on other people around one from one's behaviour. An obvious and straightforward example is why should someone in a public restaurant or bar have to breathe second-hand smoke from someone else?

Here is the basic outline:

No-one has the right to enter your owned house and smoke against your will.

You have no right entering someones owned house and proclaim that he has to stop smoking.

But what about in communal areas? Is the freedom with the smoker, or with the non-smoker who doesn't want to breathe someone's second-hand smoke?

If I own a house and open up a restaurant it is my house that I allow people to enter - the rules still stand.

If I open up a restaurant and love food I would most likely ban smoking, cell-phones and flip-flops - and if customers appreciated it my business would prosper.

[Siam Simon]

Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying (don't fall off your seat in shock ), there is also the hugely important factor of impact on other people around one from one's behaviour. An obvious and straightforward example is why should someone in a public restaurant or bar have to breathe second-hand smoke from someone else?

Here is the basic outline:

No-one has the right to enter your owned house and smoke against your will.

You have no right entering someones owned house and proclaim that he has to stop smoking.

But what about in communal areas? Is the freedom with the smoker, or with the non-smoker who doesn't want to breathe someone's second-hand smoke?

If I own a house and open up a restaurant it is my house that I allow people to enter - the rules still stand.

If I open up a restaurant and love food I would most likely ban smoking, cell-phones and flip-flops - and if customers appreciated it my business would prosper.

You're avoiding answering my question. I'll make it easier for you to answer it: What if a non-smoker is walking behind a smoker in a public street, or sat next to a smoker on a bench in a public park? Is the freedom with the smoker to smoke where s/he wants, or with the smoker to not have to breathe in second-hand smoke?

[TAWP]

Stop posting lies. I am not for a war with Iran. I am for Iran not getting nuclear weapons.

You don't need a libertarian government to have gay equality under the law. That has been proven in a number of countries. Libertarians have proven nothing as they have never run a government and never will. Interestingly, the current leader of the libertarian movement in the US attracts an inordinate number of racists and homophobes.

You are for imposing your will on other nations - you are an authoritarian and have not expressed any disgust against using force to prevent Iran from getting nuclear arms capability.

There is no major nation with total equality and secularism under the law. No doubt, it can be reached in any nation - eventually - but then everything could be reached by all states - eventually - but I am yet to see any state move towards truly respect the rights of humans to not be oppressed. You support oppression, you just want your flavours on it.

And your pathetic slander on the movement by saying that it attracts some deluded individuals is no more than slander and completely baseless as any indicator on the movement in large if you truly understood what the movement stood for. If you really want to go that route I have some examples from the movements you seemingly adhere to. Or we could recognize that a movement should be judged on its positions, policies and actions.

[Jingthing]

Libertarians would have bent over for the the Nazis. Read the last post for the proof. Happily, their appeal is limited to the fringes and it will always be that way.

On the clove ciggies, if they are especially harmful, sure ban them or restrict them with government laws! That's not radical, that's common sense.

Society pays later anyway with increased disease and suffering. Of course libertarians don't care about taking care of people that have become sick either. They choose out of civilized choices on BOTH ends.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

You're avoiding answering my question. I'll make it easier for you to answer it: What if a non-smoker is walking behind a smoker in a public street, or sat next to a smoker on a bench in a public park? Is the freedom with the smoker to smoke where s/he wants, or with the smoker to not have to breathe in second-hand smoke?

Sorry, I thought it was implied.

No person has the right to impose their actions upon others. If you can prove that smoking next to a person in open space is a proven health risk that it is a violation against the exposed persons right to not be oppressed upon. In the same way as I cannot dump mercury in the river or open a factory that puts out unfiltered waste-water in the local lake. These things are however possible in today's authoritarian systems, for a wide range of reasons.

[TAWP]

Libertarians would have bent over for the the Nazis. Read the last post for the proof. Happily, their appeal is limited to the fringes and it will always be that way.

On the clove ciggies, if they are especially harmful, sure ban them or restrict them with government laws! That's not radical, that's common sense.

You would have supported the Nazi's if they attacked nations you disliked - as we see today. So maybe the only reason you dislike them was that they killed jews and not enough capitalists? Pol Pot is more up your alley?

Let us know when you are truly anti-war. (Don't confuse that with pacifism. If you need me to explain further, do tell. You seem confused.)

Edited January 28, 2012 by TAWP

[Jingthing]

Libertarians would have bent over for the the Nazis. Read the last post for the proof. Happily, their appeal is limited to the fringes and it will always be that way.

On the clove ciggies, if they are especially harmful, sure ban them or restrict them with government laws! That's not radical, that's common sense.

You would have supported the Nazi's if they attacked nations you disliked - as we see today. So maybe the only reason you oppose them was that the killed jews and not enough capitalists? Pol pot is more up your alley?

Let us know when you are truly anti-war. (Don't confuse that with pacifism.)

That offensive post can stand for itself.

[Siam Simon]

You're avoiding answering my question. I'll make it easier for you to answer it: What if a non-smoker is walking behind a smoker in a public street, or sat next to a smoker on a bench in a public park? Is the freedom with the smoker to smoke where s/he wants, or with the smoker to not have to breathe in second-hand smoke?

Sorry, I thought it was implied.

No person has the right to impose their actions upon others. If you can prove that smoking next to a person in open space is a proven health risk that it is a violation against the exposed persons right to not be oppressed upon. In the same way as I cannot dump mercury in the river or open a factory that puts out unfiltered waste-water in the local lake. These things are however possible in today's authoritarian systems, for a wide range of reasons.

You just won't give a straight answer. It's not even about health risks. Non-smokers usually get p1ssed off by the smell of cigarettes. Should their freedom to enjoy a public place be restricted or impaired by a nearby smoker? Or should the smoker's freedom to smoke in a public place take precedence?

Edited January 28, 2012 by Siam Simon

[hellodolly]

You're avoiding answering my question. I'll make it easier for you to answer it: What if a non-smoker is walking behind a smoker in a public street, or sat next to a smoker on a bench in a public park? Is the freedom with the smoker to smoke where s/he wants, or with the smoker to not have to breathe in second-hand smoke?

Sorry, I thought it was implied.

No person has the right to impose their actions upon others. If you can prove that smoking next to a person in open space is a proven health risk that it is a violation against the exposed persons right to not be oppressed upon. In the same way as I cannot dump mercury in the river or open a factory that puts out unfiltered waste-water in the local lake. These things are however possible in today's authoritarian systems, for a wide range of reasons.

You just won't give a straight answer. It's not even about health risks. Non-smokers usually get p1ssed off by the smell of cigarettes. Should their freedom to enjoy a public place be restricted or impaired by a nearby smoker? Or should the smoker's freedom to smoke in a public place take precedence?

They could move they are free to do that.

[Siam Simon]

You're avoiding answering my question. I'll make it easier for you to answer it: What if a non-smoker is walking behind a smoker in a public street, or sat next to a smoker on a bench in a public park? Is the freedom with the smoker to smoke where s/he wants, or with the smoker to not have to breathe in second-hand smoke?

Sorry, I thought it was implied.

No person has the right to impose their actions upon others. If you can prove that smoking next to a person in open space is a proven health risk that it is a violation against the exposed persons right to not be oppressed upon. In the same way as I cannot dump mercury in the river or open a factory that puts out unfiltered waste-water in the local lake. These things are however possible in today's authoritarian systems, for a wide range of reasons.

You just won't give a straight answer. It's not even about health risks. Non-smokers usually get p1ssed off by the smell of cigarettes. Should their freedom to enjoy a public place be restricted or impaired by a nearby smoker? Or should the smoker's freedom to smoke in a public place take precedence?

They could move they are free to do that.

But if they move, their freedom of public space is being restricted.

[TAWP]

But if they move, their freedom of public space is being restricted.

The social contract doesn't prohibit a person from being inconvenienced, but not to be harmed.

[Jingthing]

But if they move, their freedom of public space is being restricted.

The social contract doesn't prohibit a person from being inconvenienced, but not to be harmed.

Aha! So you believe in social contracts. Excellent. So ipso facto you believe some LAWS which restrict personal freedoms for the greater good of society are valid. The sticky part comes about with the DETAILS of all those laws. But we bloody need some of the laws and you're never going to get public consent that we don't. Edited January 28, 2012 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

But if they move, their freedom of public space is being restricted.

The social contract doesn't prohibit a person from being inconvenienced, but not to be harmed.

Aha! So you believe in social contracts. Excellent. So ipso facto you believe some LAWS which restrict personal freedoms for the greater good of society are valid. The sticky part comes about with the DETAILS of all those laws. But we bloody need some of the laws and you're never going to get public consent that we don't.

You seem confused. Laws are something needed. But laws are merely a collection of social contracts. And such laws are good as long as they follow a basic premise (as outlined before) and don't over-reach. Your claim that laws that restrict the personal freedoms are needed is false. The aim is never to limit the personal freedom, it is to guarantee the rights of each citizens against oppression or abuse. An important distinction that will dictate how laws are constructed. It is the over-reach and misuse of legislative power that is opposed - not laws as a concept.

One day, when you actually read what I write or pick up a book and read what the ideas actually say, we can have a reasonable debate.

[Siam Simon]

But if they move, their freedom of public space is being restricted.

The social contract doesn't prohibit a person from being inconvenienced, but not to be harmed.

Would that be the social contract that allows non-smokers to breathe air unpolluted by cigarette smoke everewhere they want to go in public places, or the social contract that allows smokers to pollute the air everywhere they want to go in public places?

[TAWP]

But if they move, their freedom of public space is being restricted.

The social contract doesn't prohibit a person from being inconvenienced, but not to be harmed.

Would that be the social contract that allows non-smokers to breathe air unpolluted by cigarette smoke everewhere they want to go in public places, or the social contract that allows smokers to pollute the air everywhere they want to go in public places?

Again, if you can prove that second hand smoke in open air has a distinct health risk, then ofcourse then you cannot smoke around others in 'public' space (as oppose to privately owned establishments).

Much like it is illegal to shot someone but it is legal to be ugly or have bad breath.