Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

A skeptical look at medical practices
User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Scott gets caught lying.

Postby Scott Mayers » Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:37 pm

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Who's quote is this?
Matthew Ellard wrote:Hmmmm.....let's read the quote again together

"As the President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council then admitted to a legislative committee, “there is no question that consumption is down measurably over the last five years, and there is no question that taxes have been a significant factor.”


Matthew Ellard wrote:Hmmmm.....I'm pretty sure it is The President of the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers Council. Let me know if you are still confused by this quote.
Scott Mayers wrote:Now you ARE being deliberately deceptive, Matthew.
No Scott. You directly lied and said that increasing the price of cigarettes did not reduce reduce consumption. You ran away when I asked you produce evidence for your obvious fabrication.

Okay, I don't know what you are trying to impose on MY words here, Matthew. :?: I can only guess that you're pissed at me for challenging some faith you have about your opinion on this or other issues I strongly argue against.

MY POSITION is that sugar should NOT be taxed because the taxation on it discriminates against the poor for not having a legitimate choice to volunteer quitting of their own force. I DID just link you to the W.H.O. and others with the quotes THAT tobacco taxes DO NOT affect the poor because it only FORCES them to pay more for what little 'luxury' they receive regardless. The psychology is that if you have nothing to GAIN with options that do not exist anyways, tobacco, drugs, and sugar are going to be MORE valuable to the poor, not less.

You're arrogant mindset comes from a more privileged background where options EXIST. Thus, the very options to do other things leads people who used to smoke able to TRANSFER their addiction to other things. You won't see a vegetarian lifestyle for the poor because there is an even GREATER requirement to require things like a vehicle, the cost of gas and upkeep, (or the extended costs of taxis), the greater costs due to DISTANCES to such stores that sell these, etc.

Also when poor, the very lack of opportunities makes one more REQUIRED to RISK at a greater percentage of their resources in contrast to even the average middle classes. This struggle makes them more willing to try things like smoking or drugs at an earlier age. Once the hook is in, the REAL physical addictions involved takes MORE effort and energy to overcome than those of a wealthier background BECAUSE of the need to transfer ones attention to other 'better' lifestyles.

You no doubt have much actual experience in a ghetto either. Where you have larger groups of people who struggle similarly, even where the odd person DOES try to succeed, others around them take them down (not necessarily out of some intrinsic evil will to do so) because when one sees another able to have more, they expect each other to 'share the wealth'. If not, you are less able to survive. The tendency of this is similar to communist country communities that demand of each that they each should have at least the same 'luxuries' of their neighbor and no more WHEN EVERYONE IS SUFFERING EQUALLY. So you get kids growing up with even less than even the MINIMUM of what YOU would take advantage of assuming EVERYONE has when they don't. You're arrogant if you think anyone in these communities can simply turn to bowling or camping or skiing or other recreational options that contribute to how and why others quit.

The ACT of quitting is successful when VOLUNTARY with those options, not FORCED upon them by outsider arrogant righteous health-conscious fanatics who LOVE LIFE for all that it has to offer them. Taxing YOU as one who COULD afford these options may be fair. But what is a $400/mth habit for you may be a mere trivial expense to be taxed when it merely puts pressure on your 'guilty' conscious. For those in poor communities, where $400 may be 90% of their income, this EXTORTION of a cost is precisely how many utilize the effect of this power to trap people into extreme behaviors. So the effect of taxation is to STEAL MORE money from the poor to help pay for costs of the middle and upper classes only. The taxation is also at the extreme that a poor person pays as much tax as many home owners do. And yet, those 'taxpaying' homeowners are even more intolerant of paying 50% taxes where the addicted are required to pay 600% taxes on top of their default 'taxes' for their lack of the things you take for granted.

P.S. Our government, including tobacco lobbies, do NOT voluntarily opt to present studies to show THAT the poor are being taken advantage of as it defeats the power of their capacity either to tax or, for tobacco companies, to become liable more than they already are in the public's eye. As for what I know and learn generally, it is NOT my onus to provide some statistic to prove nor disprove something that is already dubiously presented to FAVOR the anti-vice believers in power. But I just showed you the W.H.O. report and one on an American State that you can challenge if you disagree.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sun Dec 18, 2016 7:38 pm

Scott: how does ANYONE not have a free choice as to whether or not to eat sugar?..... other than lack of knowledge which is negatively correlated to wealth but is not discrimination as normally thought of.

Its a rather silly argument---poor and ignorant people should be left to their own resources to look after themselves? They can still be poor and ignorant and respond like a trapped rat to the sugar tax and AVOID IT which is good on two points: they save money and they avoid sugar.

Your version of "freedom" is.................... BS.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7510
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby TJrandom » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:28 pm

Maybe what is needed is a graduated tax on sugar - the lower your income, the higher the tax rate. Surely then, even the poor would be able to live a more healthy lifestyle.


(Or is that granulated… :lol: )

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scott gets caught lying.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 18, 2016 10:53 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:I can only guess that you're pissed at me for challenging some faith you have about your opinion on this or other issues I strongly argue against.
No Scott. I am calling you out for lying and fabricating evidence on a Skeptic forum. That's what happens here. :lol:

Do you still claim that tobacco sales in Canada do not reduce as price goes up?
s-d-curve.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Scott gets caught lying.

Postby Scott Mayers » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:42 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:I can only guess that you're pissed at me for challenging some faith you have about your opinion on this or other issues I strongly argue against.
No Scott. I am calling you out for lying and fabricating evidence on a Skeptic forum. That's what happens here. :lol:

Do you still claim that tobacco sales in Canada do not reduce as price goes up? s-d-curve.jpg

I don't know...., but have you stopped beating your wife?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:53 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Scott: how does ANYONE not have a free choice as to whether or not to eat sugar?..... other than lack of knowledge which is negatively correlated to wealth but is not discrimination as normally thought of.

Its a rather silly argument---poor and ignorant people should be left to their own resources to look after themselves? They can still be poor and ignorant and respond like a trapped rat to the sugar tax and AVOID IT which is good on two points: they save money and they avoid sugar.

Your version of "freedom" is.................... BS.

You added "ignorant" though, bobbo. THIS is itself 'ignorant' of the reality. You can be intelligent and poor and still be vulnerable to normal emotional factors that influence why people behave. In fact, many in the poorer communities may be MORE rational if contrasted with someone from a wealthy and highly educated one facing similar circumstances. People aren't dumb to the nature of smoking. It doesn't take ANY scientific study to infer that tobacco, among other real threats, are not a 'natural' healthy thing to do. I always actually found it more odd THAT people assumed education is itself needed for things like drug abuses. Alcohol abuses are obviously recognized by children of their parents but they can still grow up to become alcoholics contrary to that wisdom.

I even had excellent education, especially with respect to drugs, alcohol and smoking. I didn't even start until I was of age (18). Yet I was 'naive' to the nature and power of addiction. My friends all smoked and though I THOUGHT I knew what it meant, I still internally thought of them as merely having some weakness of willpower. I was wrong when I thought that I could prove to them this of myself. ...one of the reasons I even tried in the first place.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scott gets caught lying.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 19, 2016 6:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:Do you still claim that tobacco sales in Canada do not reduce as price goes up? s-d-curve.jpg
Scott Mayers wrote:I don't know...., but have you stopped beating your wife?

Scott, you complete moron. You made the specific claim that cigarettes sales did not decrease when the price increased where you live.

A loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a logical fallacy. Whereas you simply lied..
:lol:

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Scott gets caught lying.

Postby Scott Mayers » Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:Do you still claim that tobacco sales in Canada do not reduce as price goes up? s-d-curve.jpg
Scott Mayers wrote:I don't know...., but have you stopped beating your wife?

Scott, you complete moron. You made the specific claim that cigarettes sales did not decrease when the price increased where you live.

A loaded question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a logical fallacy. Whereas you simply lied..
:lol:

Cigarette sales DO NOT DECREASE FOR THE POOR. The 'for the poor' is the significant factor.

By the way, I'm watching David Suzuki's "Nature of things" just now and it is about how the VARIETY of microbes in our guts are the most significant factor that determine who gets a problem with weight. They are explaining how the lack of variety is precisely related and thus WHY eating processed foods create problem WHEN that is ALL that people have to eat. So instead of inhibiting choice, increasing variety of foods in a cost effective way would be more successful.

One of the scientists experimenting with this has noticed that a mere increase in fiber is helpful.

Obviously, since variety is limited in the poor communities as I was saying, this supports this further.

The episode can be found at "It takes guts" (2015) on YouTube.

P.S. Yes, you are loading a question without justification. PROVE that I 'lied' first. If you think you did, then define what you think 'lying' is.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Dec 19, 2016 9:54 am

Scott: what are you "doing" when I specifically use the term/notion of ignorance and you switch it to intelligence? Do you know that educated people live longer than uneducated people? Its the combo plate of income and knowledge. Knowledge contrasted to ignorance and NOT intelligence at all.

So Scott.......... what are you "doing?" Intentionally trying to mislead or are you this muddled in your thinking without regard to other motives?

Scott...I checked but very fast.... has anyone linked to any statistics regarding cost/tax vs consumption for rich vs poor....or is Matt's general theoretical curve all we have? I would google the issue myself.......... except I really don't care. If the cost/tax reduces "anyones" desire for tobacco/alcohol/sugar/caffeine or whatever you have........then I'm FOR IT. It doesn't make any difference at all to me who may not respond to the incentive THAT IS THERE, regardless of the reasons. This is sometimes referred to as "social policy." The cost of tobacco and alcohol reduced its consumption by myself in my early years...lost interest in both in my later years. If coffee goes up in price due to tax or international shortages due to Climate Change and a collapse in the Robusta bean....I'll check more closely to switching to tea...it that doesn't get similar treatment.

I remember Dear Old Mom. Skinny and Healthy to the end of her days. Used to drink plain water. She even claimed to like it and had no interest in discussing the finer points of liquid consumption. Why did I inherit most of my genes from Dad?

Wise up.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scott gets caught lying.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 19, 2016 10:54 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:Cigarette sales DO NOT DECREASE FOR THE POOR. The 'for the poor' is the significant factor.

Scott. That is another direct fabrication that you made up on the spot.

Do you have any evidence that households with lower disposable incomes, do not reduce tobacco consumption as the price rises?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:09 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Scott...I checked but very fast.... has anyone linked to any statistics regarding cost/tax vs consumption for rich vs poor.
Yes and specifically for cigarettes. In addition, Scott has got it back to front, because he is making up stories as he goes.

Let's pretend, "poor household" X only has $200 to spend, each week, on cigarettes and alcohol and entertainment. If I increase the price of cigarettes to $200 a week Scott is claiming that household X will only give up 100% of alcohol and entertainment. Scott claims the consumption of cigarettes is inelastic to price That is total crap.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Matthew's attempt to malign me...

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:27 am

Ok....another quick skim for links on the last two pages of this thread produces:

Scott Mayers wrote:And I quote with more force.

Tobacco and poverty have become linked in a vicious circle, through which tobacco exacerbates poverty and poverty is also associated with higher prevalence of tobacco use. Several studies from different parts of the world have shown that smoking and other forms of tobacco use are much higher among the poor. [World Health Organization, site source: http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/eco ... overty/en/]



From Washington post, "Why the wealthy stopped smoking while the poor didn't":

"We've won the war on cigarette smoking" is a mantra among health-conscious middle and upper class Americans. But within the remarkable half-century long public health success story of declining overall rates of smoking is a disturbing subplot: Those still puffing away are a substantially more disadvantaged group than ever before.


Neither of those links provides evidence/survey/NUMBERS on whether or not tobacco use goes up or down based on level of taxation. the fact that the poor continue to smoke in higher percentage does not negate there could still be less because the tax was raised or that there would be more if the tax were lowered.

Seemingly a related issue, but in fact: not. "How many smoke" is not the same issue as incentives to smoke or not.

common sense says on a discretionary item, the higher the cost, the fewer will opt for it.

Scott: got any "facts" or at least "data points" at all?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Angel » Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:37 am

I apologize if it's been mentioned
already but white sugar is a hard crystal
building block of life. Brown sugar is already
half way to being poop. How do you figure
brown sugar is better for you ?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Matthew's attempt to malign me...

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:48 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Ok....another quick skim for links on the last two pages of this thread produces:

Scott Mayers wrote:And I quote with more force.

Tobacco and poverty have become linked in a vicious circle, through which tobacco exacerbates poverty and poverty is also associated with higher prevalence of tobacco use. Several studies from different parts of the world have shown that smoking and other forms of tobacco use are much higher among the poor. [World Health Organization, site source: http://www.who.int/tobacco/research/eco ... overty/en/]



From Washington post, "Why the wealthy stopped smoking while the poor didn't":

"We've won the war on cigarette smoking" is a mantra among health-conscious middle and upper class Americans. But within the remarkable half-century long public health success story of declining overall rates of smoking is a disturbing subplot: Those still puffing away are a substantially more disadvantaged group than ever before.


Neither of those links provides evidence/survey/NUMBERS on whether or not tobacco use goes up or down based on level of taxation. the fact that the poor continue to smoke in higher percentage does not negate there could still be less because the tax was raised or that there would be more if the tax were lowered.

Seemingly a related issue, but in fact: not. "How many smoke" is not the same issue as incentives to smoke or not.

common sense says on a discretionary item, the higher the cost, the fewer will opt for it.

Scott: got any "facts" or at least "data points" at all?

Then Provide the proof of your counterclaim THAT smoking has decreased in the poor communities! You and Matthew are formally DENYING this so it would be most EASIEST to provide your own odd beliefs. Is there ANY evidence whatsoever that provides proof that OF those who quit come from the poor community because of taxes specifically? In fact, in kind, your beliefs would also imply that those in the richer communities have NOT quit more than in the impoverished groups. So you are then denying that even richer people opt out of smoking based on the increased burden of taxes alone. Is there a stat that says that the majority of rich people quit because they couldn't AFFORD the cost?

I'm betting you can't find direct statistics on these for the same reason people everywhere just default to assuming smoking is bad. It would go against the capacity to tax should anyone WITH the financial advantages beyond the poor to even be motivated to sponsor a statistic that would SUPPORT such a vice. The arrogant assumption that people in poor communities are simply lacking wisdom makes you guys the idiots if you think you personally required an education with statistics to demonstrate the hazzards of smoking. (??)

Your assumption of 'incentive' should apply to the drug addict of other drugs. Why do drug users of other drugs continue to even bother trying to find money for their habits considering the extreme costs associated?
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:06 am

Angel wrote:I apologize if it's been mentioned
already but white sugar is a hard crystal
building block of life. Brown sugar is already
half way to being poop. How do you figure
brown sugar is better for you ?

Then molasses must be...? :P
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:13 am

Hey Scott: the issue/subject just isn't that interesting to "fight" about. Society should do what it can to inform ALL CITIZENS/people regarding health benefits and hazards. After that...around that.... "whatever" .... people make their own choices. WHATS IMPORTANT: they can't say "I didn't know."

Rich people may smoke less because they are "rich" or better informed or have access to health care or a whole raft of close and overlapping issues..... same with the poor.

If you want to argue that the poor will spend their money regardless of cost: ...... I have no interest.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:28 am

My argument, bobbo, as it relates to sugar, is to the fact that it is taxed to a degree that is an extortion on the understanding that those who smoke are PHYSICALLY addicted. Sugar is even MORE 'addictive' by default of our innate survival mechanisms that favor it. So my argument has to be considered with respect to my view against taxing sugar because it would be used as a means to extort people. It would also extort the poor with more REAL significance because it is normally an easier energy source that is relatively cheap without taxation. For those already able to afford the luxuries to choose other non-sugar lifestyles is unaffected because they HAVE those options. Obviously if you can't afford those alternative options (whether they are 'healthier' or not), they are still least available to the poor. If we kept elimating what is ideally healthy by the fortunate nut-eating vegetarian wealthy people who opt for this AT THE EXPENSE of the poor, you are discriminating against the poor in a very targeted and unnecessary way.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:03 am

Nonsense.

If you don't want to pay the tax...........don't buy it...........or find a black market source. All else is.................. BS.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Scott Mayers » Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:50 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Nonsense.

If you don't want to pay the tax...........don't buy it...........or find a black market source. All else is.................. BS.

Fine. But don't expect me to give one {!#%@} about your concerns either regarding political favors or disfavors of your supposed 'rationale'. If you don't respect those you simply hate, then {!#%@} you too! Let Hitler reign for all that matters, right?

This is why I'm disgusted with the thinking going on here by most complaining against things like Trump or the Holocaust. Why should anyone favor the supposed side that was 'liberal' when the tendency to be such has become more intolerant against the little guy than the opposing one. I'll favor the {!#%@} who's at least UP FRONT about their intolerance than ones who hide it in a veil of concern and compassion for those they really actually hate.

[I'm purposely being rhetorical here. So don't bother trying to get me to elaborate.]
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Angel » Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:41 pm

Scott Mayers wrote:
Angel wrote:I apologize if it's been mentioned
already but white sugar is a hard crystal
building block of life. Brown sugar is already
half way to being poop. How do you figure
brown sugar is better for you ?

Then molasses must be...? :P


All it is is water in the sugar.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:49 am

SM---I agree, spinning as fast as you are, I don't think any amount of elaboration would purge the nonsense you have posted. You have spun from the social engineering pros and cons into who is hating on whom. Pure Nonsense.

............and everyone knows, molasses has vitamins and minerals and is much better than the sugar it also has. Now, I know you will just claim I hate sugar. Ha, ha===>and you'd be right. Ain't that the shits?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8186
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Poodle » Fri Jan 06, 2017 8:55 am

Sugar is the heavenly host from which the great god Alkool emerges.

Don't knock it.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Fri Jan 06, 2017 11:33 am

Poodle............ well, thats true. BUT==>you can have the sugar, and I'll take the Alkool. Note======>the only one in the picture who actually wants sugar is the microbe. THIS FORUM: is for homo sapiens...... if not Drinkum Alkools.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Angel » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:46 pm

Commercial brown sugar is only
white sugar with molasses.
When you get your molasses
elsewhere ~ you don't need it on
your sugar.
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Scott gets caught lying again...

Postby Matthew Ellard » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:48 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Then Provide the proof of your counterclaim THAT smoking has decreased in the poor communities! (as price rises) You and Matthew are formally DENYING this so it would be most EASIEST to provide .......
Scott. you are simply too stupid for this forum and make up too many fake "facts". Try another forum.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/
http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/publi ... df?ua=1%20

User avatar
Monster
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4988
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:57 pm
Location: Tarrytown, NY, USA
Contact:

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Monster » Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:48 am

Angel wrote:I apologize if it's been mentioned
already but white sugar is a hard crystal
building block of life. Brown sugar is already
half way to being poop. How do you figure
brown sugar is better for you ?

The aroma of brown sugar is one of the most heavenly aromas in the world to me. Thus, brown sugar causes me temporary happiness, making me just a teensy bit less stressed, thus a teensy bit healthier.
Listening twice as much as you speak is a sign of wisdom.

User avatar
Angel
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1524
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 6:23 pm
Custom Title: LOVE

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Angel » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:57 am

Monster wrote:
Angel wrote:I apologize if it's been mentioned
already but white sugar is a hard crystal
building block of life. Brown sugar is already
half way to being poop. How do you figure
brown sugar is better for you ?

The aroma of brown sugar is one of the most heavenly aromas in the world to me. Thus, brown sugar causes me temporary happiness, making me just a teensy bit less stressed, thus a teensy bit healthier.


All I recomend is everything in moderation
and you are your own mod squad ;-)

May I add that ~ every winter it gets
tremendously dry. People drink a LOT
more hot milky sugary alcohol water.
This causes flu like symptoms .
Are you really sick?
To be or not to be?
To believe or
Not to believe?
To be live or
Not to be live?
To exist or
Not to exist?
What was the question?

User avatar
Scott Mayers
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2331
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:56 pm
Custom Title: Deep

Re: Scott gets caught lying again...

Postby Scott Mayers » Fri Jan 13, 2017 11:54 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Scott Mayers wrote:Then Provide the proof of your counterclaim THAT smoking has decreased in the poor communities! (as price rises) You and Matthew are formally DENYING this so it would be most EASIEST to provide .......
Scott. you are simply too stupid for this forum and make up too many fake "facts". Try another forum.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/
http://www.who.int/tobacco/mpower/publi ... df?ua=1%20

I'm guessing that you thought by calling me 'too stupid' with a few links that others might not actually read? Hmmm.

Only your last link remotely supports your own view and lacks any actual proof as it is a pamphlet promoting taxation, not actual stats.

Your first link even states up front precisely my point on the vacuity of evidence existing in its abstract:

There is a general consensus among policymakers that raising tobacco taxes reduces cigarette consumption.
However, evidence that tobacco taxes reduce adult smoking is relatively sparse.


It's not in the interest of those proposing 'sin' taxes by the wealthier people who don't smoke by default of their privileged options to seek studies that counter their interest to save the extra taxes they'd have to pay for otherwise. And to easily discover counter studies BY THE POOR who are not even eligible to do such costly studies are just not done at all without compassion by some sponsor willing to put their neck out on the line for it.

But that said, you really SHOULD read that first paper! It only supports my position, not yours, AND only confirms that you cannot possibly be the lawyer you assert you are. [Unless those insult tantrums you embrace are just an emotional ploy of yours to appeal to some 'jury' you are counting on to be too dumb here to notice?]

Here's the summary conclusion of that first paper of my own point:
To summarize, our analysis of the association between cigarette taxes and adult cigarette use suggests that adult smoking is largely unaffected by taxes. At best, cigarette tax increases may have a small negative association with cigarette consumption, although it is difficult to distinguish the effect from zero, and in practical terms implies that it will take very large tax increases, for example, on the order of 100%, to reduce smoking by 5%.


From the CDC in the U.S. [Current Cigarette Smoking Facts in the U.S.]:
By Education

Current cigarette smoking was highest among persons with a graduate education degree certificate (GED) and lowest among those with a graduate degree.

More than 24 of every 100 adults with 12 or fewer years of education (no diploma) (24.2%)
About 34 of every 100 adults with a GED certificate (34.1%)
Nearly 20 of every 100 adults with a high school diploma (19.8%)
More than 18 of every 100 adults with some college (no degree) (18.5%)
More than 16 of every 100 adults with an associate's degree (16.6%)
More than 7 of every 100 adults with an undergraduate college degree (7.4%)
More than 3 of every 100 adults with a graduate degree (3.6%)

By Poverty Status
Current cigarette smoking was higher among persons living below the poverty* level than those living at or above this level.

About 26 of every 100 adults who live below the poverty level (26.1%)
Nearly 14 of every 100 adults who live at or above the poverty level (13.9%)
*Poverty thresholds are based on U.S. Census Bureau data.

I added the education above but only to point out that since education and wealth ARE a defaulted link, you cannot interpret one's mere education in general to be the 'causation' of one not to smoke. Those with more money are by default with more options available to FAVOR things with easier access that are more productive regardless. So the more money you have, the less likely you'd even opt to smoke (a default negative) and the more likely to have a higher education (a default positive).

Your second link:
1.3. Low SocioEconomic
Status (SES)
1/13/2017 Effects of Tobacco Taxation and Pricing on Smoking Behavior in High Risk Populations: A Knowledge Synthesis
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228562/ 3/17

Smoking is strongly linked to social and economic status and is a significant contributor to inequalities in health.
Smoking rates in high income countries are highest among those who have had the least education and are in the
lowest socioeconomic groups
[13,14].


Ding ding ding!! You found perfect support for my argument, ....thank you!

The third pamphlet you gave asserting it is from the WHO contradicts the WHO link I gave you above earlier and so can't make sense of this in the least. Here is the direct opening comment from the link I provided [World Health Organization International site!]:
Poverty

Tobacco and poverty are inextricably linked. Many studies have shown that in the poorest households in many low-income countries, spending on tobacco products often represent more than 10% of total household expenditure. As a result, these families have less expendable income for necessities such as food, education and health care. Thus, in addition to its direct health effects, tobacco leads to malnutrition, increased health-care costs and premature death. Viewed from this perspective, tobacco may also contribute to a higher illiteracy rate, since money is spent on tobacco instead of education.

Tobacco and poverty have become linked in a vicious circle, through which tobacco exacerbates poverty and poverty is also associated with higher prevalence of tobacco use. Several studies from different parts of the world have shown that smoking and other forms of tobacco use are much higher among the poor.


These all support the fact that the poor are the ones that both suffer the most as smoking addicts AND quit the least! The ones 'quitting' come from the wealthier classes. More likely, the extra taxes extorted upon the desperately poor enslave them at the benefit of the wealthier to save what they'd have had to pay if they were taxed on their inheritances instead.

That pamphlet you provide may be one suggested as an action by the anti-smoking intolerant people of one country but the claim is unsubstantiated when it asserts that poor people in South Africa quit simply because of taxes. It's directly contradictory of the other facts elsewhere established as I quoted above from the same site. Also, the first paper you linked even justifies this by their own explanation of how the rate of smoking still decreased regardless of taxation changes. Other factors play a role. But only the poor are the ones being FORCED to take on the burden with unusual discrimination.
I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Scott gets caught lying again...

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 14, 2017 2:37 am

Scott Mayers wrote:Only your last link remotely supports your own view and lacks any actual proof as it is a pamphlet promoting taxation, not actual stats.
Every link I have made supports my rebuttal of your pathetic fabrication. You simply got caught out making up a story and claimed increased price does not reduce tobacco consumption. Bad luck. :lol:

Scott Mayers wrote:But that said, you really SHOULD read that first paper! It only supports my position, not yours, AND only confirms that you cannot possibly be the lawyer you assert you are.
No Scott. You are lying again. The paper does not say tobacco consumption remains constant as price rises, does it? Quote where you claim it says that? :lol:


Scott Mayers supplies a quote wrote:"To summarize, our analysis of the association between cigarette taxes and adult cigarette use suggests that adult smoking is largely unaffected by taxes. At best, cigarette tax increases may have a small negative association with cigarette consumption, although it is difficult to distinguish the effect from zero, and in practical terms implies that it will take very large tax increases, for example, on the order of 100%, to reduce smoking by 5%".

Your quoted summary does not exist anywhere in the paper You are lying again.
Here is the real quote
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/ ... 37n4-7.pdf

Cigarette Taxes and Smoking
"There is a strong consensus that people smoke less as the price increases, with a price elasticity of –0.4 for adults and –0.65 for adolescents."

Conclusion
While smoking has declined as a result of the tax, our recent study shows that the “core” of smokers that remains after the multiple recent tax increases is less responsive to price increases than commonly assumed. As a result, the public health argument to justify additional cigarette taxes is less valid today"


Does this article, you provided, say there is no reduction in tobacco consumption as price rises?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:11 am

Gee.............LYING............ about quoted material? That is about the only offense of which I would BAN THE POSTER. As always> for a time, as a lesson. Permanent only on repetition of a heinous nature. Close, is claiming someone lied when they have not.

I found Scotts quote at the bottom of page 17 on the linked pdf document from Matts first link.

Matt: you owe Scott an Apology. And "moi" about 10 minutes of my life.

I will collect.---by a beer on bondi beach should I ever get there again.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:32 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I found Scotts quote at the bottom of page 17 on the linked pdf document from Matts first link.
Can you link me to my link to ensure we are talking about the same paper and it's results?

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19660
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:36 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I will collect.---by a beer on bondi beach should I ever get there again.


I hear the supermodel looks of some servers there are quite stunning.
Hi, Io the lurker.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:47 am

I don't know what link to my link means.

Your link http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326 had a link to a pdf at the bottom:

"There is a general consensus among policymakers that raising tobacco taxes reduces cigarette consumption. However, evidence that tobacco taxes reduce adult smoking is relatively sparse. In this paper, we extend the literature in two ways: using data from the Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplements we focus on recent, large tax changes, which provide the best opportunity to empirically observe a response in cigarette consumption, and employ a novel paired difference-in-differences technique to estimate the association between tax increases and cigarette consumption. Estimates indicate that, for adults, the association between cigarette taxes and either smoking participation or smoking intensity is negative, small and not usually statistically significant. Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%.

download in pdf format


That pdf openned up ((http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326.pdf)) and I searched on the word (unaffected) as concerned the word (summarize) might not be there. Again...bottom of page 17 of the pdf document FROM your first link above (But all the words are there. I think even most liars would not go to the effort to make up quotes. Forming a conclusion without exhaustive research though....... is more common.

THAT was another 10 minutes you could, and I assume did, do on your own? Looks like we may have to coordinate our vacation schedules.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:50 am

scrmbldggs wrote:I hear the supermodel looks of some servers there are quite stunning.


1. Thats what the Ozzies call "A Chaser"
2. Too skinny...... even for a model.

The 3 hours I spend on Bondi Beach reminded me of any day in Southern California except .... better everything.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:55 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I don't know what link to my link means.
Lets deal with this quote first.

Your link http://www.nber.org/papers/w18326 had a link to a pdf at the bottom:

Our evidence suggests that increases in cigarette taxes are associated with small decreases in cigarette consumption and that it will take sizable tax increases, on the order of 100%, to decrease adult smoking by as much as 5%.
Cigarettes have increased in price by more than a 100% and thus consumption has reduced. This paper confirms my clear statement. How on earth do you and Scott think this quote states that tobacco consumption does not decrease as price rises?

Please explain?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 4:56 am

Explanation: Matt....you fail to admit to mistakes.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:00 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Explanation: Matt....you fail to admit to mistakes.


Bobbo, the quote you posted specifically says tobacco consumption decreases as price rises. What on Earth are you posting this quote for, if it actually confirms what I clearly stated?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:04 am

I have to go to dinner. Did I read it that defectively?....or are you just looking at a different quote? I'll be back.... one hour
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26619
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sat Jan 14, 2017 5:13 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:I have to go to dinner. Did I read it that defectively?....or are you just looking at a different quote? I'll be back.... one hour
I have to hang out the washing and do some piano practice. Amanda is at the beach, as it is very hot today.

It's the quote from page 17, as noted.

"At best, cigarette tax increases may have a small negative association with cigarette consumption, although it is difficult to distinguish the effect from zero, and in practical terms implies that it will take very large tax increases, for example, on the order of 100%, to reduce smoking by 5%.

In English, as price increases , tobacco consumption reduces. It's a clear statement. :D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
True Skeptic
Posts: 10699
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am

Re: Sugar is Poison...Harvard PAID to keep it a secret.

Postby bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:39 am

Matthew Ellard wrote: Scott Mayers supplies a quote wrote:
"To summarize, our analysis of the association between cigarette taxes and adult cigarette use suggests that adult smoking is largely unaffected by taxes. At best, cigarette tax increases may have a small negative association with cigarette consumption, although it is difficult to distinguish the effect from zero, and in practical terms implies that it will take very large tax increases, for example, on the order of 100%, to reduce smoking by 5%".


Your quoted summary does not exist anywhere in the paper You are lying again.


Now we have both copied and pasted exactly what Scott posted.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests