Social Justice in Medicine

[Osminog]

I’m going to completely disagree with you on the former. The tie-breaker for gender is currently self-determination and I believe that is the correct way to discern “gender.”

I’m fixated on color because that is the major determinant you are going to use, and it is going to often lead you to faulty conclusions inside and outside of medicine. I remember your argument regarding IQ and crime amongst black people. You believe them to be more violent and less intelligent based on certain statistical metrics (which fail to take into account historical influences). How can you argue that won’t affect the way you treat the average black person?

There are plenty of highly intelligent, law-abiding black people, and there are plenty of dimwitted criminals who are white. Group averages don’t necessarily reflect the traits of every individual within the groups, and they shouldn’t have any impact on how you interact with or show compassion toward a person who is in your care. It’s ridiculous that I even have to spell this out.

On average, in the US, black people are more violent (as measured by violent crime data) and less intelligent (as measured by IQ tests) than whites—and whites are more violent and less intelligent that East Asians, by the same measures. Believe it or not, this isn’t really a matter of serious dispute. What is heavily debated are the causes of these differences, and the best explanation probably isn’t going to as simple as “it’s all genetic” or “it’s all environmental.” Social behavior and mental traits stem from complex interactions between one’s genes and one’s environment, and we know based on twin studies that intelligence and personality traits are partly heritable. Furthermore, we can analyze the traits and outcomes of groups of people in different environments across the world and look for consistencies or inconsistencies; if certain qualities appear to be fairly universal in different environments, that increases the likelihood that genetic influences are at play.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TwoHighways]

There are plenty of highly intelligent, law-abiding black people, and there are plenty of dimwitted criminals who are white. Group averages don’t necessarily reflect the traits of every individual within the groups, and they shouldn’t have any impact on how you interact with or show compassion toward a person who is in your care. It’s ridiculous that I even have to spell this out.

On average, in the US, black people are more violent (as measured by violent crime data) and less intelligent (as measured by IQ tests) than whites—and whites are more violent and less intelligent that East Asians, by the same measures. Believe it or not, this isn’t really a matter of serious dispute. What is heavily debated is what the causes of these differences are, and the best explanation probably isn’t going to as simple as “it’s all genetic” or “it’s all environmental.” Social behavior and mental traits stem from complex interactions between one’s genes and one’s environment, and we know based on twin studies that intelligence and personality traits are partly heritable. Furthermore, we can analyze the traits and outcomes of groups of people in different environments across the world and look for consistencies or inconsistencies; if certain qualities appear to be fairly universal in different environments, that increases the likelihood that genetic influences are at play.

Cancelled!

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I love how no one argues that the NBA is racist despite 75% of its players being from a group that makes up 13% of the population lmao

#systemicracism

What does this have to do with anything? How is the NBA racist? Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t the draft a pretty solid meritocracy? I don’t know that much about professional sports.

 

[TwoHighways]

What does this have to do with anything? How is the NBA racist? Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t the draft a pretty solid meritocracy? I don’t know that much about professional sports.

It was a joke. If the bar for racism is set so low that equal representation of races based on population demographics is what matters (a view many SJW’s hold), then by that standard, the NBA and certainly the NFL are racist organizations.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

There are plenty of highly intelligent, law-abiding black people, and there are plenty of dimwitted criminals who are white. Group averages don’t necessarily reflect the traits of every individual within the groups, and they shouldn’t have any impact on how you interact with or show compassion toward a person who is in your care. It’s ridiculous that I even have to spell this out.

On average, in the US, black people are more violent (as measured by violent crime data) and less intelligent (as measured by IQ tests) than whites—and whites are more violent and less intelligent that East Asians, by the same measures. Believe it or not, this isn’t really a matter of serious dispute. What is heavily debated are the causes of these differences, and the best explanation probably isn’t going to as simple as “it’s all genetic” or “it’s all environmental.” Social behavior and mental traits stem from complex interactions between one’s genes and one’s environment, and we know based on twin studies that intelligence and personality traits are partly heritable. Furthermore, we can analyze the traits and outcomes of groups of people in different environments across the world and look for consistencies or inconsistencies; if certain qualities appear to be fairly universal in different environments, that increases the likelihood that genetic influences are at play.

That is some serious editorializing of what data actually show. A lower average IQ score for blacks does not indicate that blacks are less intelligent on average. Perhaps it means they are less well educated, and given that most black neighborhoods have garbage schools, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise. This also extends to violent crime. Blacks are not on average more violent than whites. Blacks commit more violent crime, but there are a number of reasons for that which have nothing to do with genetics that have been demonstrated very well and are not in dispute by anyone who isn’t racist.

Edit: and I’m also going to say that you need to be careful because if you’re about to make an argument that black people are less intelligent and more violent because they are black, that will not be tolerated on this site. It is racism and will result in moderation.

 

[deleted480308]

What does this have to do with anything? How is the NBA racist? Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t the draft a pretty solid meritocracy? I don’t know that much about professional sports.

I think they are trying to draw an analogy to how people try to defend urm policies in medical life...i.e. if the selected group doesn’t represent the population at large it must be racism

 

[dr_kateb]

What's funnier is how they describe white guys in the NFL.

"Deceptively fast"
"High football IQ"
"Real gym rat"
"Scrappy player"

lmao

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

What's funnier is how they describe white guys in the NFL.

"Deceptively fast"
"High football IQ"
"Real gym rat"
"Scrappy player"

lmao

Bill Burr has a hilarious bit about sports and the difference between athletic moves and intelligent moves.

 

[TwoHighways]

That is some serious editorializing of what data actually show. A lower average IQ score for blacks does not indicate that blacks are less intelligent on average. Perhaps it means they are less well educated, and given that most black neighborhoods have garbage schools, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise. This also extends to violent crime. Blacks are not on average more violent than whites. Blacks commit more violent crime, but there are a number of reasons for that which have nothing to do with genetics that have been demonstrated very well and are not in dispute by anyone who isn’t racist.

Edit: and I’m also going to say that you need to be careful because if you’re about to make an argument that black people are less intelligent and more violent because they are black, that will not be tolerated on this site. It is racism and will result in moderation.

It’s an absolutely loaded topic for sure (race and intelligence) and I’ve yet to actually dive into the research behind it, and there are certainly environmental factors at hand as well that we should seek to minimize as much as possible. But certainly there’s a biological basis for intelligence, just as there is for every other human trait and whether there are differences in the mean among different races or ethnicities is a valid thing to discuss.

What do we do with that information though, assuming there were meaningful differences and environmental factors were controlled for? I say absolutely nothing. Cognitively gifted people are exceptional, period and we all stand to benefit from their contributions to society, assuming they have good intentions for their fellow man.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

It’s an absolutely loaded topic for sure (race and intelligence) and I’ve yet to actually dive into the research behind it, and there are certainly environmental factors at hand as well that we seek to minimize as much as possible. But certainly there’s a biological basis for intelligence, just as there is for every other human trait and whether there are differences in the mean among different races or ethnicities is a valid thing to discuss.

There is a way to discuss it. Saying that blacks are less intelligent than whites because they are black is a racist statement.

 

[readmypostsMD]

That is some serious editorializing of what data actually show. A lower average IQ score for blacks does not indicate that blacks are less intelligent on average. Perhaps it means they are less well educated, and given that most black neighborhoods have garbage schools, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise. This also extends to violent crime. Blacks are not on average more violent than whites. Blacks commit more violent crime, but there are a number of reasons for that which have nothing to do with genetics that have been demonstrated very well and are not in dispute by anyone who isn’t racist.

Edit: and I’m also going to say that you need to be careful because if you’re about to make an argument that black people are less intelligent and more violent because they are black, that will not be tolerated on this site. It is racism and will result in moderation.

IQ is good measure of your innate ability to solve complex problems quickly

There is a way to discuss it. Saying that blacks are less intelligent than whites because they are black is a racist statement.

Is it racist to say that people with higher IQs are smarter than people with lower IQs?

 

[dr_kateb]

IQ is good measure of your innate ability to solve complex problems quickly


Is it racist to say that people with higher IQs are smarter than people with lower IQs?

muh intersectionality

But being completely serious you might be. I've seen some people say that if something is classist it's also racist.

 

[Osminog]

That is some serious editorializing of what data actually show. A lower average IQ score for blacks does not indicate that blacks are less intelligent on average. Perhaps it means they are less well educated, and given that most black neighborhoods have garbage schools, it shouldn’t be much of a surprise. This also extends to violent crime. Blacks are not on average more violent than whites. Blacks commit more violent crime, but there are a number of reasons for that which have nothing to do with genetics that have been demonstrated very well and are not in dispute by anyone who isn’t racist.

If you don’t think that IQ tests measure for intelligence and you’d rather define intelligence in another way, that’s fine. Let’s just say that whatever cognitive abilities that IQ tests measure (whether you want to call it intelligence, “g”, human mental ability, or any other term) are different between racial groups, and that differences in IQ correspond to differences in life outcomes both among and within racial groups. The effects of schooling on IQ test performance have been shown to be very small, not even close to accounting for the one SD (15-point) difference. I think you might be flipping the causal arrow; people with higher IQs are able to achieve more academically, even if put in a mediocre public school.

I define “more violent” as “more prone to committing violent acts.” Perhaps you have your own definition that I’m not familiar with. If the official violent crime rates are higher for one group than for another, then, on average, one group is more violent than the other (based on my definition). As far as the “number of reasons” you have, I hope they also account for violent crime disparities in Canada and the UK, among other countries.

 

[7331poas]

Med schools aren't trying to make future social workers, but it's not unreasonable for doctors to advocate for measures that will improve the health of their patient population.

Hard disagree. When you wade into the realm of politics there are more factors at play than simply what will "improve the health of the patient population".

M4A might improve outcomes, doesn't mean I have to support it.

 

[Osminog]

There is a way to discuss it. Saying that blacks are less intelligent than whites because they are black is a racist statement.

I agree. I think people shouldn’t phrase it that way because someone could interpret that to mean that all white people are more intelligent than all black people, which isn’t true. It has to be emphasized that the discussion is strictly about group averages.

The “because they are black” part is especially ridiculous because there’s zero reason to believe that being unintelligent is a direct consequence of being black. All of the highly intelligent black people (Barack Obama comes to mind) serve as a counterpoint to that notion.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I define “more violent” as “more prone to committing violent acts.” Perhaps you have your own definition that I’m not familiar with. If the official violent crime rates are higher for one group than for another, then, on average, one group is more violent than the other (based on my definition). As far as the “number of reasons” you have, I hope they also account for violent crime disparities in Canada and the UK, among other countries.

As to the first point, I don’t think you can make the jump from more violent crimes to more prone to violence just from stats alone. When you systematically segregate a people into crappy neighborhoods with bad schools and fewer opportunities, etc, crime is going to go up. So in these neighborhoods, where there is a higher level of crime and the vast majority of people are of a certain race, then you will be having that race commit more crimes disproportionately. That doesn’t mean they are more prone to violence because of genetics.

Edit: forgot the second point. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the UK. I don’t know about Canada, but 84% of arrests in England and Wales are whites and whites have the highest conviction rate and guilty plea rate there. In London, 48% of arrests are whites, but only like 26% are black.

 

[readmypostsMD]

 

[readmypostsMD]

I agree. I think people shouldn’t phrase it that way because someone could interpret that to mean that all white people are more intelligent than all black people, which isn’t true. It has to be emphasized that the discussion is strictly about group averages.

The “because they are black” part is especially ridiculous because there’s zero reason to believe that being unintelligent is a direct consequence of being black. All of the highly intelligent black people (Barack Obama comes to mind) serve as a counterpoint to that notion.

I don’t get why that’s racist to say... it’s just a cold hard fact

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I don’t get why that’s racist to say... it’s just a cold hard fact

What? Are you saying it’s a cold hard fact that white people are more intelligent than black people?

 

[Mass Effect]

I’m all for private business restricting smoking (and many would even without laws). I don’t think it’s appropriate for govt to try and steer activity with selective sin tax

Interesting. I've never before met a non-smoker doctor who was against government intervention to reduce smoking. I look at it like this -- if you smoke, you're going to cost the rest of us more money in the long run so you should have to pay more money in order to smoke.

 

[Neopolymath]

Interesting. I've never before met a non-smoker doctor who was against government intervention to reduce smoking. I look at it like this -- if you smoke, you're going to cost the rest of us more money in the long run so you should have to pay more money in order to smoke.

Yeah I'm not following his argument even though I'm well-versed in his code.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Interesting. I've never before met a non-smoker doctor who was against government intervention to reduce smoking. I look at it like this -- if you smoke, you're going to cost the rest of us more money in the long run so you should have to pay more money in order to smoke.

Oh that's an SB softball.

They wouldn't cost us more without government mandated insurance

 

[Osminog]

As to the first point, I don’t think you can make the jump from more violent crimes to more prone to violence just from stats alone. When you systematically segregate a people into crappy neighborhoods with bad schools and fewer opportunities, etc, crime is going to go up. So in these neighborhoods, where there is a higher level of crime and the vast majority of people are of a certain race, then you will be having that race commit more crimes disproportionately. That doesn’t mean they are more prone to violence because of genetics.

"Prone to violence" doesn't imply anything about genetics. Someone can be more prone to violence due to purely social reasons. Setting aside semantics, the fact remains that blacks have drastically higher crime rates in the US, per capita, than other groups.

I do think poverty and gang culture, glamorized now in many popular songs and videos, certainly play in this predicament, but I'm not so sure that they fully explain it. My question is, how do you explain the near-universality of this phenomenon? It would be one thing if this happened in only one city, or only one state, or only one country—but it unfortunately seems to be the case that black poverty and crime are a fact of life in every region with a noteworthy black population. If you have a compelling, evidence-based sociological theory that explains this, I would seriously be more than happy to hear it. I'm genuinely open to changing my mind on this subject.

Edit: forgot the second point. I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the UK. I don’t know about Canada, but 84% of arrests in England and Wales are whites and whites have the highest conviction rate and guilty plea rate there. In London, 48% of arrests are whites, but only like 26% are black.

13% of the London population is black. 48% of murder suspects in London are black, over a three-fold overrepresentation. 3% of the UK population is black. 13% of murder suspects in the UK are black, over a four-fold overrepresentation. (Source: Black murder victims and suspects: London v UK)

My point is that this isn't a phenomenon that's unique to the United States, and so I don't think it can be satisfactorily explained just by referring to injustices in American history.

 

[Damson]

Interesting. I've never before met a non-smoker doctor who was against government intervention to reduce smoking. I look at it like this -- if you smoke, you're going to cost the rest of us more money in the long run so you should have to pay more money in order to smoke.

Well it's an addiction. Like many other potentially debilitating addictions such as gaming, coffee-drinking, excessive media consumption.

Our problem with government intervention with such behaviors is that individuals should have the right to decide whether or not these addictions are a problem and/or that they want these addictions addressed. Allowing government involvement in commonplace, albeit harmful-to-self activities, risks lobbyists leveraging this precedent as a stepping stone to enact future gov practices that infringe upon individual liberty.

Selective sin tax is one of those stepping stones.

I'd argue that it most certainly IS a function of the government as long as Medicaid and Medicare is paying for these individuals and as long as smokers who end up with chronic debilitating disease drain government resources. No one is telling them they can't smoke. They just have to pay more in order to do so.

Regular consumption of high-fat/high-cholesterol/high-sugar foods sends people to ERs and ICUs, incessant gaming without social exposure can lead people into mental downward spirals -> therapy, sedentary lifestyles increase risk of osteoporosis

So many addictive things people do to themselves that the government already foots the bill for. Yet you can't default to forceful intervention for a reason stated above. Public education is more effective anyway long-term.

 

[deleted480308]

Interesting. I've never before met a non-smoker doctor who was against government intervention to reduce smoking. I look at it like this -- if you smoke, you're going to cost the rest of us more money in the long run so you should have to pay more money in order to smoke.

Shouldn’t cost us money, you getting emphysema is your problem

 

[deleted859689]

Shouldn’t cost us money, you getting emphysema is your problem

On that note we shouldn't have to pay for abortions either.

 

[Mass Effect]

Well it's an addiction. Like many other potentially debilitating addictions such as gaming, coffee-drinking, excessive media consumption

Yes, I'm well aware it's an addiction. As a psychiatrist, I treat it daily.

Our problem with government intervention with such behaviors is that individuals should have the right to decide whether or not these addictions are a problem and/or that they want these addictions addressed

And individuals are getting to decide. Smoking is not illegal. Like all things in life, you make choices. Do you want to smoke? Fine. But it costs money. If you don't want to pay it or can't afford to pay it, then don't smoke. Simple as that. I have no idea what the outcry is about.

Allowing government involvement in commonplace, albeit harmful-to-self activities, risks lobbyists leveraging this precedent as a stepping stone to enact future gov practices that infringe upon individual liberty

As I said before, as long as these patients put a burden on govt resources, including the healthcare industry, then I welcome govt taxing them for their cigarettes.

Regular consumption of high-fat/high-cholesterol/high-sugar foods sends people to ERs and ICUs

Nicotine is a mind-altering drug. Doritos is not. Though I'm not opposed to discussion of higher tax on Doritos either.

incessant gaming without social exposure can lead people into mental downward spirals -> therapy, sedentary lifestyles increase risk of osteoporosis

Again, I'm quite aware of this.

So many addictive things people do to themselves that the government already foots the bill for. Yet you can't default to forceful intervention for a reason stated above. Public education is more effective anyway long-term

I agree that public education is more effective and that's why I said the acknowledgement of the harmful affects of tobacco did much good. But I'm not at all opposed to higher tax on individual choices that cost the rest of us in the long run.

 

[Mass Effect]

Oh that's an SB softball.

They wouldn't cost us more without government mandated insurance

Of course they would. Even without government-mandated insurance for the rest of us, these focus suck the life blood out of Medicaid/Medicare and file for disability long before the rest of us retire. They've always put a burden on the healthcare system, even before government-mandated insurance.

 

[Lawpy]

 

[Lawpy]

What are your thoughts about social justicey type stuff creeping into medical curriculum? I came here to be a doctor and to care for people and pathology is pathology. I’m not a social worker, political activist, or nurse, nor do I care to be one. Discussions about climate change, race relations, and covid hysteria (denialism and lockdown proponents) aren’t going to make me any more capable of running a code, interpreting labs, or remembering important anatomical relationships.

I think it's worth learning about but that's just me. It's the hypersensitive and hyperemotional response to serious topics that becomes a problem.

 

[deleted859689]

Nicotine is a mind-altering drug. Doritos is not. Though I'm not opposed to discussion of higher tax on Doritos either.

Would you agree that sugar and carbohydrate rich foods can stimulate the reward center leading to addiction? I would argue that Doritos can be a mind-altering drug. I know you said you aren't apposed to a higher tax on Doritos - we should tax junk food through the roof. Sometimes even I make the midnight drive to 7-11 for that cheesy tasty (sometimes spicy) crunch I can't deny myself.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Of course they would. Even without government-mandated insurance for the rest of us, these focus suck the life blood out of Medicaid/Medicare and file for disability long before the rest of us retire. They've always put a burden on the healthcare system, even before government-mandated insurance.

Medicare, Medicaid, and SS are all insurance...

 

[Taddy Mason]

Nicotine is a mind altering substance. Doritos is not. Though I'm not opposed to discussion of higher tax on Doritos either.

Lest ye forget the Twinkie defense...

 

[Kardio]

Yeah I'm not following his argument even though I'm well-versed in his code.

I think he’s opposed to the govn’t using taxes as a way to incentivize / disincentivize consumer behavior

 

[deleted859689]

Lest ye forget the Twinkie defense...

Lest we forget the twinkie scare of 2012

Sign of the Apocalypse: Mass Panic Over Twinkies

America woke up to the news that Hostess Brands would shut down. We wasted no time stocking up.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Neopolymath]

I think it's worth learning about but that's just me. It's the hypersensitive and hyperemotional response to serious topics that becomes a problem.

You can tell most of them are hyperemotional by how unable they are to argue from logic rather than telling you that you are a POS for not entirely agreeing or for acknowledging but saying XYZ isn't important. It's why I don't engage in these conversations outside of close friends and family that I know can debate like an adult.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

"Prone to violence" doesn't imply anything about genetics. Someone can be more prone to violence due to purely social reasons. Setting aside semantics, the fact remains that blacks have drastically higher crime rates in the US, per capita, than other groups.

I do think poverty and gang culture, glamorized now in many popular songs and videos, certainly play in this predicament, but I'm not so sure that they fully explain it. My question is, how do you explain the near-universality of this phenomenon? It would be one thing if this happened in only one city, or only one state, or only one country—but it unfortunately seems to be the case that black poverty and crime are a fact of life in every region with a noteworthy black population. If you have a compelling, evidence-based sociological theory that explains this, I would seriously be more than happy to hear it. I'm genuinely open to changing my mind on this subject.



13% of the London population is black. 48% of murder suspects in London are black, over a three-fold overrepresentation. 3% of the UK population is black. 13% of murder suspects in the UK are black, over a four-fold overrepresentation. (Source: Black murder victims and suspects: London v UK)

My point is that this isn't a phenomenon that's unique to the United States, and so I don't think it can be satisfactorily explained just by referring to injustices in American history.

The argument that because it happens elsewhere it must be something innate is not a good one. England and Canada don’t exactly have spotless records with how they treat blacks. There is no reason to believe there isn’t racism in those countries contributing to it, especially since outside of London, the percentage of murders committed by blacks is much closer to the population.

 

[Mass Effect]

Would you agree that sugar and carbohydrate rich foods can stimulate the reward center leading to addiction? I would argue that Doritos can be a mind-altering drug. I know you said you aren't apposed to a higher tax on Doritos - we should tax junk food through the roof. Sometimes even I make the midnight drive to 7-11 for that cheesy tasty (sometimes spicy) crunch I can't deny myself.

Doritos, in and of itself, is not a mind-altering drug. But yes, a diet high in junk can activate the reward centers and can alter mood. I'm not opposed to taxing junk. But the topic of this thread is cigarettes so I'm sticking to that.

 

[Mass Effect]

I think he’s opposed to the govn’t using taxes as a way to incentivize / disincentivize consumer behavior

The government taxes gasoline as well. It isn't to incentivize or disincentivize us driving. Cigarettes are taxed because of the health risks associated with them and the large cost to the rest of us when these people inevitably get sick.

 

[Kardio]

The government taxes gasoline as well. It isn't to incentivize or disincentivize us driving. Cigarettes are taxed because of the health risks associated with them and the large cost to the rest of us when these people inevitably get sick.

I’m not making an argument one way or another

 

[PsychApp777]

Refuse the Marxist propaganda. Any philosophy that prioritizes one group/demographic over others is wrong when you analyze the deeper implications. The ultimate minority is the individual. See the below video for an elaboration.

 

[Damson]

Doritos, in and of itself, is not a mind-altering drug. But yes, a diet high in junk can activate the reward centers and can alter mood. I'm not opposed to taxing junk. But the topic of this thread is cigarettes so I'm sticking to that.

The subject matter you were talking about with @sb247 is about a behavior you are for taxing because it burdens our healthcare budget.

@Kumorebi brought up Doritos because the logic of your position may be applied to other similarly self-destructive behaviors that burden our public insurance. You seem to have shifted your argument just now - nicotine directly alters the mind, but Doritos on the other hand indirectly alters the mind by releasing dopamine, which activates the pleasure pathway. Due to the nature of the former, you find it taxable? Both burden our socialized insurance budget though.

Extra-taxing junk is overreach

 

[canquito]

Man, SDN's less-than compassionate side is coming out of the woodwork.

But back to the cigarette topic... Some of you need to read The Cigarette Century by Allan Brandt. If left to its own devices, the smoking industry will come back rearing its nasty, almost indomitable head. I'm young, so I am part of the generation that hardly sees smokers but vaping. You betcha.

I can appreciate the argument that 'smoking is an individual's exercise of free-will or self-restrain, leave the government out of it.' (Congrats, you share something in common with Ayn Rand btw)

But also consider the effect tobacco taxation has in preventing smoking among younger populations. Impact of cigarette taxes on smoking prevalence from 2001-2015: A report using the Behavioral and Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS)

Do cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation reduce teen smoking? – Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research

By Summer Sherburne Hawkins, Ph.D., M.S. While seeing an adolescent smoking may be less common now than it was even a decade ago, the teenage years are a time of experimenting with risky behaviors. Everyone knows the long-term dangers of smoking, but adolescent brains are particularly...

obssr.od.nih.gov

Government has to promote (dare I say ensure) public welfare. What's next? Arguing that the government has no say in how fast you drive or how comfortable you should feel without a seatbelt?

 

[TwoHighways]

Man, SDN's less-than compassionate side is coming out of the woodwork.

But back to the cigarette topic... Some of you need to read The Cigarette Century by Allan Brandt. If left to its own devices, the smoking industry will come back rearing it's nasty, almost indomitable head. I'm young, so I am part of the generation that hardly sees smokers but vaping. You betcha.

I can appreciate the argument that 'smoking is an individual's exercise of free-will or self-restrain, leave the government out of it.' (Congrats, you share something in common with Ayn Rand btw)

But also consider the effect tobacco taxation has in preventing smoking among younger populations. Impact of cigarette taxes on smoking prevalence from 2001-2015: A report using the Behavioral and Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS)

Do cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation reduce teen smoking? – Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research

By Summer Sherburne Hawkins, Ph.D., M.S. While seeing an adolescent smoking may be less common now than it was even a decade ago, the teenage years are a time of experimenting with risky behaviors. Everyone knows the long-term dangers of smoking, but adolescent brains are particularly...

obssr.od.nih.gov

Government has to promote (dare I say ensure) public welfare. What's next? Arguing that the government has no say in how fast you drive or how comfortable you should feel without a seatbelt?

I don't find SJW "compassion" all that compassionate, given the divisiveness of the belief structure and hellish place we'd end up if we prioritized equality of outcome across any way you can divide people into groups. I do think that many SJW's ascribe to the narrative out from a sincere place of wanting things to be more fair/equitable, but I don't think they've thought through the logical extremes with which the ideology ultimately leads. And I do think the more militant SJW types are more motivated out of hatred and bitterness than goodwill for mankind. On the contrary, I think it's much more compassionate to treat people as individuals and not assigning them traits based on a group identity.

 

[deleted480308]

Man, SDN's less-than compassionate side is coming out of the woodwork.

But back to the cigarette topic... Some of you need to read The Cigarette Century by Allan Brandt. If left to its own devices, the smoking industry will come back rearing its nasty, almost indomitable head. I'm young, so I am part of the generation that hardly sees smokers but vaping. You betcha.

I can appreciate the argument that 'smoking is an individual's exercise of free-will or self-restrain, leave the government out of it.' (Congrats, you share something in common with Ayn Rand btw)

But also consider the effect tobacco taxation has in preventing smoking among younger populations. Impact of cigarette taxes on smoking prevalence from 2001-2015: A report using the Behavioral and Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS)

Do cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation reduce teen smoking? – Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research

By Summer Sherburne Hawkins, Ph.D., M.S. While seeing an adolescent smoking may be less common now than it was even a decade ago, the teenage years are a time of experimenting with risky behaviors. Everyone knows the long-term dangers of smoking, but adolescent brains are particularly...

obssr.od.nih.gov

Government has to promote (dare I say ensure) public welfare. What's next? Arguing that the government has no say in how fast you drive or how comfortable you should feel without a seatbelt?

The govt absolutely shouldn’t be enforcing seat belts on adults

 

[Damson]

Man, SDN's less-than compassionate side is coming out of the woodwork.

But back to the cigarette topic... Some of you need to read The Cigarette Century by Allan Brandt. If left to its own devices, the smoking industry will come back rearing its nasty, almost indomitable head. I'm young, so I am part of the generation that hardly sees smokers but vaping. You betcha.

I can appreciate the argument that 'smoking is an individual's exercise of free-will or self-restrain, leave the government out of it.' (Congrats, you share something in common with Ayn Rand btw)

But also consider the effect tobacco taxation has in preventing smoking among younger populations. Impact of cigarette taxes on smoking prevalence from 2001-2015: A report using the Behavioral and Risk Factor Surveillance Survey (BRFSS)

Do cigarette taxes and smoke-free legislation reduce teen smoking? – Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research

By Summer Sherburne Hawkins, Ph.D., M.S. While seeing an adolescent smoking may be less common now than it was even a decade ago, the teenage years are a time of experimenting with risky behaviors. Everyone knows the long-term dangers of smoking, but adolescent brains are particularly...

obssr.od.nih.gov

Government has to promote (dare I say ensure) public welfare. What's next? Arguing that the government has no say in how fast you drive or how comfortable you should feel without a seatbelt?

The article you linked is pretty interesting

TLDR of this article: gov taxation on smoking thwarts teens from smoking. more significantly on young teens, less so on older teens. Article states that the more you tax smoking, less the behavior.

 

[Chelsea FC]

MD vs DO or Nurse posts gets nuke for going off topic so quickly on here but we have a constant discussion about if "blacks are genetically inferior to whites" with an admin and this is able to carry on? Maybe im just personally disturbed by all the hateful comments on here but the double standards on what is considered on "ontpic" is laughable. This should be in the sociopolitical forum.
PS: POC who read this, this is exactly how your colleagues are thinking about you.

 

[dr_kateb]

MD vs DO or Nurse posts gets nuke for going off topic so quickly on here but we have a constant discussion about if "blacks are genetically inferior to whites" with an admin and this is able to carry on? Maybe im just personally disturbed by all the hateful comments on here but the double standards on what is considered on "ontpic" is laughable. This should be in the sociopolitical forum.
PS: POC who read this, this is exactly how your colleagues are thinking about you.

7-1 Bayern

 

[Steve_Zissou]

MD vs DO or Nurse posts gets nuke for going off topic so quickly on here but we have a constant discussion about if "blacks are genetically inferior to whites" with an admin and this is able to carry on? Maybe im just personally disturbed by all the hateful comments on here but the double standards on what is considered on "ontpic" is laughable. This should be in the sociopolitical forum.
PS: POC who read this, this is exactly how your colleagues are thinking about you.

*this is how a very small subset of your colleagues think of you

I disagree with a lot of the SJW agenda, but I also disagree with the “race realists” in this thread. I’m more of a barely left of center centrist.

Edit: and I’m only barely left of center because the left has been moving further and further left, leaving me much closer to center.

 

[Chelsea FC]

7-1 Bayern

If you see all of these comments and the first thing that comes to your mind is to make a comment about a soccer game your priorities are messed up.