You don't have a choice on the matter, so why waste bandwidth with empty proposals? Consumer tendencies and ideology is an illusion to keep movements away from threatening economic interests of the industrial/banking world. Change can never come from consumer modification.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Of course we do. See Big Tobacco.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn't hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke. No move was made against tobacco till the US signed trade agreements with China to allow Big Tobacco to sell in the world's #1 smoking market. Look back at that date, then follow stock market prices of BT after the date. PM and RJR diversified, even put a foot into Big Pharma taking up their market.

Still, when you sum up all control substances including psychotropic recipied substances, the grand total hasn't changed a bit. The quality of the market changed, the quantity didn't. The poor kept smoking the rich just got Prozac

[–] henry1917@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn’t hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke.

What do you mean "falsified findings?"

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I see big tobacco just fine, and consumers didn’t hit big tobacco, the US government did by stepping on falsified findings of the ills of 2nd hand smoke.

What do you mean “falsified findings?”

There is no evidence today of the ills of 2nd hand smoke, so how did this support back then came about the 2nd hand smoke is just as dangerous?

There is so much false rhetoric and propaganda in addictive substances it is pathetic. Just search around on medical centers treating addictions, look for nicotine, being accused for cancer, heart disease ... there has never been any evidence that other than a psychological addiction that nicotine alone causes any harm. If you suffer from hypertension and have weak vessels, yes you can die from it, but you can die from coffee or just getting scared.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

How the fuck could second hand smoke be safe if first hand smoke isn't? Isn't smoke inherently unsafe to breathe? Even wood fire smoke can cause cancer, you aren't supposed to breathe smoke!

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

you go learn science and research methodology then go make up your own stuff, till then just research sci.journals on what they deduced. Most urban street air is much more toxic and dangerous than inhaling 2nd hand smoke in a bar

Nicotine, a harmless substance, liquefies in such a high temperature that it can hardly make it through the filter and into your lips in gaseous form, so people saying you are spitting nicotine by breathing smoke are full of crap and illusions (I don't see religion being banned for that).

Carbon monoxide? Carbon particles and biproducts of burning carbo-hydrates, as long as our lives are surrounded by vehicles the exhaling of smoke from a smoker's mouth is negligible.

But it stinks! Aaa... but you smell like industrial aromatics, perfumes, deodorants, detergents ... working on a Caterpillar bulldozer stinks but I don't hear anyone banning them

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Most urban street air is much more toxic and dangerous than inhaling 2nd hand smoke in a bar

That's an indictment of our shitty society with its shitty air quality, not an absolution for second hand smoke. We should eliminate both.

But it stinks! Aaa… but you smell like industrial aromatics, perfumes, deodorants, detergents … working on a Caterpillar bulldozer stinks but I don’t hear anyone banning them

Well I don't see Caterpillar bulldozers inside bars either 🙃

Again, this is an indictment of our shitty society. We should be banning dirty engines too - electric motors can achieve the same level of torque (and greater!) without pumping out cancer causing pollutants that stink up our world.

All smoke is dangerous. We should reduce it as much as possible, from all sources.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Again, this is an indictment of our shitty society. We should be banning dirty engines too - electric motors can achieve the same level of torque (and greater!) without pumping out cancer causing pollutants that stink up our world.

Ignorance doesn't clean the air, with the average country still making electric power and transmitting it in long distances in the most inefficient and expensive ways, 86% is produced by burning fossil fuels, and this doesn't include the risk of nuclear power, although clean till you deal with storing depleted uranium. Urban yuppies have been sold the illusion their electric car doesn't pollute, a 60s Rambler running still doesn't pollute, a 5y old electric vehicle in the dumpsite near you will fill the area with toxins. Electricity produced, transmitted, used for charging at less than 40% efficiency, pollutes more than a 60s gas-gassler.

But electric, thermoplastics, vehicle AND OIL/COAL industries need to sell a myth to the urban yuppie to accessorize in something "different" that will stick out and make them feel superior. The upcoming huge environmental hazzard is lack of recycling of useless electric vehicles and their batteries, the enormous amount of excess electricity produced to cover transportation with electricity, and the economic crisis that will result from this irresponsible madness governments are allowing to take place.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

We should ban private car ownership, no question. That would do a hell of a lot to improve air quality. People can take a train, ride a bike, or work remotely.

We're still going to need bulldozers, though.

[–] iriyan@lemmy.ml -2 points 3 days ago

Yes, at 900hp 750KW, I can imagine a farmer using 2MWh of charging to get 3-4 hrs of work done and this would be by providing this power all the way out to each farm, or remote mining site, or rural road construction.

I've written this example before to those that get it: Take a 6hp engine produce electricity at 3KW, power your bike at 3KW, instead of powering it with the 6hp engine. Now take this power send it through two thick copper wires 200mi away and back (it takes 2) and on its way back charge two 4KWh batteries, to power your 3KW bike, and then go riding for an hour. This is your clean efficient power. The myth is the powerplant burning coal/diesel/nat.gas is so efficient that its 6hp motor makes 10KW power ( :) ) and there are no losses of power using cables over hundreds of miles, no losses due to heat charging, and 100% of the charge is put to work in your vehicle. And this will save the environment.

It doesn't work that way and if you had high-school physics you should have known better.