🚀 go-pugleaf

> (Scott doesnt obey rules - thats why he snips the name of the person
> he is answering, and only leaves his own name for everyone to look at)

It's simple convention that goes WAY back boy.  Nothing more telling of
newbie status than loads of irrelevant material.  Your mailer should show
you the thread progression, so trailing the original message is a peice of
piss.

Hmmm, when does deleting the original "from" field make it onto Joan's top
10?

> >> Let the drug pushers be like the cigarette companies are portrayed?
> >> Let them use psychology to get people onto their products, knowing
> >> full well what it will do to them?

> >People get a CHOICE buddy.  I watched more TV as a kid than my parent's
> >generation probably did in 30 years.  I don't smoke - never have, never
> >will.  Fat lot of good the "psychology" of cigarette advertising did for
> >them.

> but Scott....  do *all* people get the *same* choices?

Of course they bloody well do.

> Was your life experience *exactly* the same as your parents

I take it that question is rhetorical?

> - so that when you all had the choice of smoking or not, you all would
make
> *exactly the same choices?  I will bet not. Life experiences or lack
> of them can affect the choice people make.

Affect, but not DETERMINE.  The individual bears the ultimate responsibility
for their CHOICES.

> Our Psych friend might be able to shed some light on the power of peer
pressure.

Three guesses what area my formal qualifications are in.  Do try to keep up.

> Even you suffered from that.

Like hell I did.

>The difference is that kids can be educated at
> home and at school about how they *can* say no, and still be 'cool'

You won't fool any of them.  Kids are WAY too smart to buy that kind of
bullshit from ANY "authority figure".  Give them some bloody credit.  The
concept of tabula rasa doesn't apply to teenagers, nong.

> whereas in your parents time it was more often than not the 'in thing'
> to smoke.  Its a fact that the cigarette companies went out of their
> way to study the psychology behind getting people to 'want' to smoke.

Good for them - smart business practise.  Just like McDonalds with their
uncomfortable seating and air conditioning that is too cold.  SMART
BUSINESS.

> >Bollocks, the individual who CHOOSES to take the drug, who CHOOSES to
light
> >the cigarette, is the only one to bear responsibility.

> Yes and no.

No "Yes and no" about it.  It's a clear-cut YES.


> But you seem to portray yourself as someone who would rather line up all
the smokers and shoot them.

Bzzzzzzzt.  Lie.

> >Are Casinos responsible for the behaviour of gambling addicts?  Fuck off
> >they are.  The filthy losers are the only ones responsible for getting
> >themselves up to the neck in debt.

> There was talk that there was some 'flaw' in the genetic makeup of
> people with compelling adictions.

The nature v nurture debacle taken to ridiculous excess.  Nonsense.

> I would like to see what develops from that, and if its proven, there
could be a cure for most
> addictions.

How about gingerbread houses and rivers of honeycomb?