I'm no Nostradamus but...

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Bullsht.

NIH Epidemiology of Alcohol Problems in the United States

See table "Historical Trends: 1850-1997". This table shows that consumption rebounded by ~1978. Another NIH publication showed the rebound but not that it surpassed pre-prohibition consumption rates. Since I can't find that table I'll back off of my claim that it never rebounded completely. However, the graph does show prohibition worked.


Edit: Found the table was was thinking of when I wrote my initial statement.
Apparent per capita ethanol consumption, United States, 1850?2002, NIH
The pre-prohibition peak was 2.6 gal/capita in the 1906-1910 period. Post prohibition rates did not pass this mark until 1973. The reason I was looking at this (about a year ago) was that I was wondering if alcohol consumption rate correlated w/ economic growth rates in any way. They don't. The consumption rate also didn't correlate with the unemployment rate.

Way to cherry pick data to back up your flawed assertions. :roll:

You chose the highest point (and I'd sure like to know where these figures are from, any data called "Apparent" is suspect) prior to prohibition. Why not use the figures from the period directly prior to prohibition? Wouldn't that be more telling? If you used 1916?1919 at 1.96 gallons per capita, that was surpassed in 1944. People probably didn't have lots of disposable income to spend on liquor during the depression. And how much drinking do you suppose happened during WWII? Then consider that since then consumption was right back to where it was pre-prohibition.

Prohibition stopped nothing. You found one period where it was "apparently" high, and declare that prohibition stopped people from drinking. Your "facts" mean nothing.

Way to ignore the data trends after you pulled a "bullshit" out of your ass.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ironwing
Way to ignore the data trends after you pulled a "bullshit" out of your ass.

Data trends? Do you understand the meaning of the word trend? Based on sparse data in your own data source for pre-prohibition, you're claiming that Prohibition lessened drinking afterwards it was lifted. Yet your own data shows that within 15 years after prohibition (which spanned the Great Depression and WWII) that drinking was right back up to where it was pre-Prohibition.

 

[alexjohnson16]

For the people who are complaining about the smell - are we going to start fining every person who farts or enforcing fines for not bathing/using deoderant?

Never in my life have I heard a bigger group of babies than the goddamned anti-smoking people on ATOT.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ironwing
Way to ignore the data trends after you pulled a "bullshit" out of your ass.

Data trends? Do you understand the meaning of the word trend? Based on sparse data in your own data source for pre-prohibition, you're claiming that Prohibition lessened drinking afterwards it was lifted. Yet your own data shows that within 15 years after prohibition (which spanned the Great Depression and WWII) that drinking was right back up to where it was pre-Prohibition.

The pre-prohibition dip you speak of can be explained by the growing abstinance movement prior to enactment of prohibition. Prohibition didn't just pop out of a societial vacuum. My claim was that prohibition worked. Alcohol consumption was definitely down during prohibition and that the effect lingered well after prohibition ended. The data supports both claims.

 

[Captante]

All the smokers who insist that they have the "right" to smoke & make other people breathe it are the ones you have to thank for the ever-tighter restrictions on public smoking... perhaps if these smokers had consideration for others in the first place, public smoking wouldn't be illegal just about everywhere these days.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: ironwing
Way to ignore the data trends after you pulled a "bullshit" out of your ass.

Data trends? Do you understand the meaning of the word trend? Based on sparse data in your own data source for pre-prohibition, you're claiming that Prohibition lessened drinking afterwards it was lifted. Yet your own data shows that within 15 years after prohibition (which spanned the Great Depression and WWII) that drinking was right back up to where it was pre-Prohibition.

The pre-prohibition dip you speak of can be explained by the growing abstinance movement prior to enactment of prohibition. Prohibition didn't just pop out of a societial vacuum. My claim was that prohibition worked. Alcohol consumption was definitely down during prohibition and that the effect lingered well after prohibition ended. The data supports both claims.

Abstinence movement? Yeah, abstinence movements work wonders. We all know that if we tell kids not to have sex, they won't. Well, they will, they just won't tell us about it so it won't show up on your governent studies. Likewise, if we pretend that people don't have stills in their basement and are drinking like fish behind closed doors, then we can come out with all these pretty charts and graphs showing that people aren't drinking. :roll:

Fact is, that once we were honest with ourselves and realized that prohibition wasn't solving anything, it was lifted, and the actual reported rate of alcohol consumption went right back to where it was. Do you really think that granddad reported the output of his still to the government? And do you think he tore it down the day prohibition was lifted? I'm sure there was some overlap.

 

[SeaSerpent]

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b
yeah because being against something that is horrible to your health and others around you is the baddd.....yup


the only reason its not illegal now is...yup you guessed it...money....

yep, thats the only reason the government taxes the sh!t out of it.

 

[apologetic]

Originally posted by: Captante
All the smokers who insist that they have the "right" to smoke & make other people breathe it are the ones you have to thank for the ever-tighter restrictions on public smoking... perhaps if these smokers had consideration for others in the first place, public smoking wouldn't be illegal just about everywhere these days.

Nah. Some people would be bothered by it just because it is unhealthy. They just can't seem to mind their own business, so they turn to the government to pass laws for "health" reasons.

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: NiteWulf

Originally posted by: RBachman

Originally posted by: NiteWulf

Originally posted by: RBachman
As evidenced by what, the injection of christianity into public schools we've seen under the current administration?

Examples?

Text

1. That is completely detatched from the federal administration
2. It's a theory
3. It's a Creationist theory, not Christian.

It is NOT a scientific theory. It attempts to explain nothing; only to discredit science and claim that anything the layman doesn't understand must be attributable to god. It serves as a lever to pry open public schools to the idea of teaching christianity, since doing so all at once would cause an uproar. This is evidenced by its heavy support among christians, especially radical christians.

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
For the people who are complaining about the smell - are we going to start fining every person who farts or enforcing fines for not bathing/using deoderant?

Never in my life have I heard a bigger group of babies than the goddamned anti-smoking people on ATOT.

It's a personal space issue. If you're walking down the street and smoking or farting I don't care. If you're in an elevator with me or sitting a table over from me in a restaurant, I'd take offense to either. Smoking results in a smell which will last longer and embed itself in my clothes however. Generally people are considerate enough to not fart in those situations.

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Lol, why don't you do a little more research on the EPA's studies and then get back to me. Although do me a favor and do yourself one as well. Check into it with an objective mind and not seeking only the evidence that will back up your predetermined conclusion. That's what the EPA studies have done and consequently, they're B.S..

Wow you totally shot the EPA down with your astounding facts and research :roll:

Why don't you do yourself a favor and take a few classes in research and research methodology. Then maybe you will learn to stop parroting the arguements used by the cigarette companies. Yeah you know those companies that had that flawless research that said cigarette smoke doesn't even hurt people who smoke.

Every one of your points was addressed in the link I posted, you chose to ignore facts and spout rhetoric. Yes you have proven your superior research skills to the EPA :roll:

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
For the people who are complaining about the smell - are we going to start fining every person who farts or enforcing fines for not bathing/using deoderant?

Never in my life have I heard a bigger group of babies than the goddamned anti-smoking people on ATOT.

I don't know about farting or smoking, but I'm all in favour of some harsh penalties for those people who seem to be allergic to soap and other cleansing products. When you leave a stench so present in the surround air that bystanders can taste it, it's time to take a goddamn shower, you damn dirty hippie.

- M4H

 

[Ausm]

Originally posted by: Injury

Originally posted by: MagicConch
I doubt it. They'll just tax the hell out of it.

exactly.

As long as they get tax money out of it, the government will never ban it.

Then they should legalize weed and tax the fvck out of it and they could pay off the national debt

Ausm

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: alexjohnson16
For the people who are complaining about the smell - are we going to start fining every person who farts or enforcing fines for not bathing/using deoderant?

Never in my life have I heard a bigger group of babies than the goddamned anti-smoking people on ATOT.

farting and b.o. doesn't cause cancer you douchebag :roll:

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: CraigRT
You are not allowed to smoke in any public establishments in my town, and they were apparently working on banning smoking outdoors too.. no idea how they're gonna pull that off.. Soon you'll only be able to smoke in your own home, which many people don't want to do anyways. Sitting on the back step looks to be the only option

so why don't smokers want to smoke in their own homes?

 

[Damn Dirty Ape]

Originally posted by: apologetic
Everywhere I go people seem to think that smoking is the next great Satan

Congrats to the anti-tobacco ad campaigns, you've done it!!!!

Us smokers are a dying breed, so smoke'em if you got'em

one can only hope..

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: KillerCharlie
I hope either

a) smoking becomes illegal

or

b) the government doesn't have to pay a DIME in healthcare costs toward someone who smokes

As long as all the fatties out there can't have subsidized health care either, I'm fine with it.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Lol, why don't you do a little more research on the EPA's studies and then get back to me. Although do me a favor and do yourself one as well. Check into it with an objective mind and not seeking only the evidence that will back up your predetermined conclusion. That's what the EPA studies have done and consequently, they're B.S..

Wow you totally shot the EPA down with your astounding facts and research :roll:

Why don't you do yourself a favor and take a few classes in research and research methodology. Then maybe you will learn to stop parroting the arguements used by the cigarette companies. Yeah you know those companies that had that flawless research that said cigarette smoke doesn't even hurt people who smoke.

Every one of your points was addressed in the link I posted, you chose to ignore facts and spout rhetoric. Yes you have proven your superior research skills to the EPA :roll:

My question would be why did a Federal Judiciary call the EPA study pathetic and rigged, and threw it out as the basis of a claim?

 

[lobadobadingdong]

If that does happen will my health insurance premiums finally drop?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Lol, why don't you do a little more research on the EPA's studies and then get back to me. Although do me a favor and do yourself one as well. Check into it with an objective mind and not seeking only the evidence that will back up your predetermined conclusion. That's what the EPA studies have done and consequently, they're B.S..

Wow you totally shot the EPA down with your astounding facts and research :roll:

Why don't you do yourself a favor and take a few classes in research and research methodology. Then maybe you will learn to stop parroting the arguements used by the cigarette companies. Yeah you know those companies that had that flawless research that said cigarette smoke doesn't even hurt people who smoke.

Every one of your points was addressed in the link I posted, you chose to ignore facts and spout rhetoric. Yes you have proven your superior research skills to the EPA :roll:

My question would be why did a Federal Judiciary call the EPA study pathetic and rigged, and threw it out as the basis of a claim?

Reference?

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: aplefka

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl

Originally posted by: Son of a N00b
yeah because being against something that is horrible to your health and others around you is the baddd.....yup


the only reason its not illegal now is...yup you guessed it...money....

Ah, our first typical uneducated poorly thought out knee jerk reaction.

So you're saying it's uneducated and poorly thought out to say that smoking is horrible to your health?

I hope you become the next surgeon general. :roll:

I'm saying that it's not horrible to the health of those around me. I'm saying that most American's live an unhealthy life in some respect whether that be their eating habits, amount of alcohol they injest excercise routine, sexual practices, or geographical area in which they live, etc.. I'm asking what right you have to tell me which unhealthy practices I may engage in and which ones I may not.

If you're not able to understand this it would be better for you to just quit posting in this thread.

bwahahah ooohh the inrony of him calling me undeducated

I disagree with you sir, and the FACTS are on my side

 

[Crazee]

Originally posted by: Mill

Originally posted by: Crazee

Originally posted by: flxnimprtmscl
Lol, why don't you do a little more research on the EPA's studies and then get back to me. Although do me a favor and do yourself one as well. Check into it with an objective mind and not seeking only the evidence that will back up your predetermined conclusion. That's what the EPA studies have done and consequently, they're B.S..

Wow you totally shot the EPA down with your astounding facts and research :roll:

Why don't you do yourself a favor and take a few classes in research and research methodology. Then maybe you will learn to stop parroting the arguements used by the cigarette companies. Yeah you know those companies that had that flawless research that said cigarette smoke doesn't even hurt people who smoke.

Every one of your points was addressed in the link I posted, you chose to ignore facts and spout rhetoric. Yes you have proven your superior research skills to the EPA :roll:

My question would be why did a Federal Judiciary call the EPA study pathetic and rigged, and threw it out as the basis of a claim?

Then my question would be why didn't you do a little more research and find that the EPA won the appeal by unanimous decision. That the original judge who ruled against it was a former tobacco lobbyist. link

Try again.