4 ms·

I'm sure loosening restrictions is all part of the Make America Healthy Again plan, right?

by malfist 1y ago

nashashmi 1y ago
Restrictions placed by govt is not a part of MAHA, and is anti MAGA.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  If the federal government can't implement and enforce restrictions then it has no authority at all. Why do you think we have tariffs?
  - nashashmi 1y ago
    It is not so much about what the govt can’t do. It is more about what it should not do. It is the philosophy of govt that is in the MAGA political discourse. I am not of the opinion that govt should not be placing restrictions. That is literally the definition of laws. I am of the opinion that govt should not regulate how someone can do something. Loosening a ban on menthol, not because it was harmful, but because it was causing addictions, was an overreach. It should have banned the Tobacco and nicotine instead.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      There is no consistent agreement about what the government can or cannot do within MAGA. That's why it's not a framework for global discourse. It is a joke even within conservative circles. "Let me control my own health" up until abortion is mentioned. "We need better surveillance measures" up until that surveillance is used against them. "Law enforcement needs more privileges" until they harass your daughter with the bodycam turned off. "Don't regulate Apple/Google" up until they become politicized and collude with the government for warrantless surveillance. "Foreign policy is too globalist!" up until Israel insists Iran has a nuke. And so on. There isn't a single neocon value that can't be forsaken by ideologues, I challenge you to name just one.
      - nashashmi 1y ago
        That is not inconsistency. That is double standards. They are willing to uphold a rule until it bites back against them. This is mob mentality. And a reason for why democracy does not work (unless the mob is diffused).
- dreamcompiler 1y ago
  Except of course for government restrictions on women's reproductive healthcare. Those seem to be fine.
  - nashashmi 1y ago
    Not sure what you seem to refer to. If it is abortion, then that is restricted in the same spirit as murder is prohibited.
    - bigyabai 1y ago
      Only if the state laws redefine it as such. The whole issue around abortion for conservatives is that it's not considered felony manslaughter by the Supreme Court. Hasn't been for close to 50 years now.
    - malfist 1y ago
      Murder has a victim. Abortion does not.
      - nashashmi 1y ago
        The unborn baby can be considered a life. That is the victim. You and I may not agree, but that is politics
        BobaFloutist 1y ago
        [dead]
        const_cast 1y ago
        It can be considered a life, maybe in some hypothetical argument, but nobody actually can make that argument. Because it's hard. There's implications of autonomy here. If an unborn baby is a life and has rights, which rights does it have? Is it an American Citizen? It must, at least, have personhood - what are the guardrails around that? Can I, for example, say that the unborn fetus is a person and is inside me, and is therefore bound by "stand your ground" laws, meaning I am free to kill it for self-defense, much like I would a grown person? See, the Supreme Court never actually asked that question. As it stands, unborn babies are not people, they are not citizens. We, instead, said "fuck it this is hard to argue" and made exactly 1 exception for unborn fetuses - abortion. If you want to argue an unborn fetus is alive, there are implications and consequences of that. Evidently, conservatives are too cowardly to address any of them. Ever. So, here we are, with our broken laws that make no sense.
jajuuka 1y ago
Considering vaping is an effective means to get people off cigarettes, I would guess so. MAHA is garbage but this is a good change.
- EA-3167 1y ago
  The narrative of vapes as "tools to quit tobacco" really doesn't hold up. I'm not saying that you can't make it work, some people do, but it's not the primary use and it doesn't account for the explosion of vaping among young populations who weren't using nicotine before vaping. These companies aren't investing tens of billions into these products because they plan to help smokers quit and then stop using vapes. By the same token the degree to which vapes help people quit is up in the air, some studies show strong effects in favor of quitting, others show strong effects that it's inferior to other quitting aids. (i.e. studies like https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7867832/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7867832/) "These are a way for people to reduce harm" is primarily an industry narrative at this point, divorced from reality.
  - jajuuka 1y ago
    It's not a narrative. It's what the research tells us. https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/ready-to-quit-smoking/vaping-to-quit-smoking/ https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/ready-to-quit-... The "protect the children by banning products" is a very common narrative though that has no scientific basis. Kids were using nicotine before vaping, they were smoking cigarettes. And these companies absolutely are investing in a growing market for adults who either want to quit smoking entirely or want a healthier option to cigarettes. As cigarettes prices have continued to soar and laws have become more and strict on where someone can and cannot smoke, vaping offers an alternative to get nicotine and an oral fixation. So it's not surprising that more and more adults have switched to it. That's not a study that's a meta-analysis. You seem to have seen the one ad Juul put out to minors and assumed that is the entire industry and its purpose. This is objectively divorced from reality.
    - EA-3167 1y ago
stronglikedan 1y ago
Absolutely. Vaping gets so many people off cigarettes. This is a win. The think-of-the-children thing was all bullshit.

I'm sure loosening restrictions is all part of the Make America Healthy Again plan, right?

nashashmi 1y ago

Restrictions placed by govt is not a part of MAHA, and is anti MAGA.

bigyabai 1y ago
If the federal government can't implement and enforce restrictions then it has no authority at all. Why do you think we have tariffs?
- nashashmi 1y ago
  It is not so much about what the govt can’t do. It is more about what it should not do. It is the philosophy of govt that is in the MAGA political discourse. I am not of the opinion that govt should not be placing restrictions. That is literally the definition of laws. I am of the opinion that govt should not regulate how someone can do something. Loosening a ban on menthol, not because it was harmful, but because it was causing addictions, was an overreach. It should have banned the Tobacco and nicotine instead.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    There is no consistent agreement about what the government can or cannot do within MAGA. That's why it's not a framework for global discourse. It is a joke even within conservative circles. "Let me control my own health" up until abortion is mentioned. "We need better surveillance measures" up until that surveillance is used against them. "Law enforcement needs more privileges" until they harass your daughter with the bodycam turned off. "Don't regulate Apple/Google" up until they become politicized and collude with the government for warrantless surveillance. "Foreign policy is too globalist!" up until Israel insists Iran has a nuke. And so on. There isn't a single neocon value that can't be forsaken by ideologues, I challenge you to name just one.
    - nashashmi 1y ago
      That is not inconsistency. That is double standards. They are willing to uphold a rule until it bites back against them. This is mob mentality. And a reason for why democracy does not work (unless the mob is diffused).
dreamcompiler 1y ago
Except of course for government restrictions on women's reproductive healthcare. Those seem to be fine.
- nashashmi 1y ago
  Not sure what you seem to refer to. If it is abortion, then that is restricted in the same spirit as murder is prohibited.
  - bigyabai 1y ago
    Only if the state laws redefine it as such. The whole issue around abortion for conservatives is that it's not considered felony manslaughter by the Supreme Court. Hasn't been for close to 50 years now.
  - malfist 1y ago
    Murder has a victim. Abortion does not.
    - nashashmi 1y ago
      The unborn baby can be considered a life. That is the victim. You and I may not agree, but that is politics
      - BobaFloutist 1y ago
        [dead]
      - const_cast 1y ago
        It can be considered a life, maybe in some hypothetical argument, but nobody actually can make that argument. Because it's hard. There's implications of autonomy here. If an unborn baby is a life and has rights, which rights does it have? Is it an American Citizen? It must, at least, have personhood - what are the guardrails around that? Can I, for example, say that the unborn fetus is a person and is inside me, and is therefore bound by "stand your ground" laws, meaning I am free to kill it for self-defense, much like I would a grown person? See, the Supreme Court never actually asked that question. As it stands, unborn babies are not people, they are not citizens. We, instead, said "fuck it this is hard to argue" and made exactly 1 exception for unborn fetuses - abortion. If you want to argue an unborn fetus is alive, there are implications and consequences of that. Evidently, conservatives are too cowardly to address any of them. Ever. So, here we are, with our broken laws that make no sense.

jajuuka 1y ago

Considering vaping is an effective means to get people off cigarettes, I would guess so. MAHA is garbage but this is a good change.

EA-3167 1y ago
The narrative of vapes as "tools to quit tobacco" really doesn't hold up. I'm not saying that you can't make it work, some people do, but it's not the primary use and it doesn't account for the explosion of vaping among young populations who weren't using nicotine before vaping. These companies aren't investing tens of billions into these products because they plan to help smokers quit and then stop using vapes. By the same token the degree to which vapes help people quit is up in the air, some studies show strong effects in favor of quitting, others show strong effects that it's inferior to other quitting aids. (i.e. studies like https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7867832/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7867832/) "These are a way for people to reduce harm" is primarily an industry narrative at this point, divorced from reality.
- jajuuka 1y ago
  It's not a narrative. It's what the research tells us. https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/ready-to-quit-smoking/vaping-to-quit-smoking/ https://www.nhs.uk/better-health/quit-smoking/ready-to-quit-... The "protect the children by banning products" is a very common narrative though that has no scientific basis. Kids were using nicotine before vaping, they were smoking cigarettes. And these companies absolutely are investing in a growing market for adults who either want to quit smoking entirely or want a healthier option to cigarettes. As cigarettes prices have continued to soar and laws have become more and strict on where someone can and cannot smoke, vaping offers an alternative to get nicotine and an oral fixation. So it's not surprising that more and more adults have switched to it. That's not a study that's a meta-analysis. You seem to have seen the one ad Juul put out to minors and assumed that is the entire industry and its purpose. This is objectively divorced from reality.
  - EA-3167 1y ago

stronglikedan 1y ago

Absolutely. Vaping gets so many people off cigarettes. This is a win. The think-of-the-children thing was all bullshit.