Erosion of the snus EU ban? Uk at least...

[Dave***t]

I could have sworn I read your post once, Zero, and it stopped at 'let's hope I'm wrong'. Maybe my eyes are playing tricks. Or maybe it was wishful thinking.

To answer the question, plenty. For example... Pointers to resources on the net for those who aren't so familiar with the issue to read for themselves. Information from new studies with a bearing on the situation. Discussion of the detail of the report I linked. Experiences of members where they've been let off by clued up customs officers, perhaps. Anecdotes from people who've had to try to explain to people that snus doesn't mean you'll be dead from oral cancer within a week, as most non-scandinavians who are passingly familiar with snus seem to think - you may even learn a new quip that helps get the point across. Any news of reactions to this study and others like it that people may have heard from the media/people in authority. People's experiences when talking to doctors or dentists who were more enlightened that you might expect. Opinions from healthcare professionals who might care to post. The list goes on.

Not everything is an invite for macropolitical swordplay or railing against perceived hegemonic conspiracies!

[Zero]

^ :lol: Ah, fair enough, mate. I guess I find it hard to concentrate on playing my hand when I've seen the dealer stacking the deck... if that makes any sense. And yeah, my post was shorter for probably a few minutes. Lots of my posts are. Once I get going whole chapters start assembling themselves in my brain and I sometimes post up before I'm done thinking. I know people don't like reading books so I try to keep it short, but there's always a trailing thought or two...

But I can’t see the benefit of being treated by a system that actually loses money on you getting better and receiving treatment.

Non profit doesn't mean it loses money - it just means that net revenues (profits) are re-invested into the business rather than given out to shareholders. In this case, any profits would go to improvement of the hospital, for example.

the only people to profit greatly from a total free marked economy are the rich

Not to get into it too much, but I would probably advocate something closer to Austrian School economics rather than anarcho-capitalism. Economies need basic laws just like society does - no killing, no extortion, no fraud, no bribery, etc. The main issue I have with current systems is the adherence to Keynsian economic principles of, essentially, deliberately wasteful government justified on the basis of stimulating effective demand, etc. Anyway, to spare Dave the rant, I'll leave it at that.

I will say that I have been a socialist all my life - in a lot of ways I still believe in the principles of socialism, at least the idea that government should be structured to help all people and especially not let down the poor. I've just been exploring the ideas of neoclassical libertarian economics quite recently by comparison and have been forced to question a lot of my assumptions about the effectiveness of traditional socialist policies. I'm not sure my mind is entirely made up, but I like to debate anyway, just to see what kind of ideas fall out 8)

[Stargazer]

Non profit doesn't mean it loses money - it just means that net revenues (profits) are re-invested into the business rather than given out to shareholders. In this case, any profits would go to improvement of the hospital, for example.

I was talking about total private healthcare. the kind where the insurance
companies lose money every time you resive you resive treatment.
Whit the non profitt system I can see many advantages.
maybe with a help for the poorest that can't afford treatment.

I'm not sure.

Not to get into it too much, but I would probably advocate something closer to Austrian School economics rather than anarcho-capitalism. Economies need basic laws just like society does - no killing, no extortion, no fraud, no bribery, etc. The main issue I have with current systems is the adherence to Keynsian economic principles of, essentially, deliberately wasteful government justified on the basis of stimulating effective demand, etc. Anyway, to spare Dave the rant, I'll leave it at that.

I can understand your concerns. I do in no way believe that there is a
system of government that is perfect.
I just have a strong belief in the social democratic model that is represented in Scandinavia. But it's probably not for everyone.
A system of government must be suited for the people it will govern.

I will say that I have been a socialist all my life - in a lot of ways I still believe in the principles of socialism, at least the idea that government should be structured to help all people and especially not let down the poor. I've just been exploring the ideas of neoclassical libertarian economics quite recently by comparison and have been forced to question a lot of my assumptions about the effectiveness of traditional socialist policies. I'm not sure my mind is entirely made up, but I like to debate anyway, just to see what kind of ideas fall out 8)

I also question my own beliefs regularly, and like the challenge of
a debate. Being narrow minded and setting your beliefs in stone is a bad idea.

[brendo20]

Interesting that in one of the articles linked to the BBC website, obtained from the first post in this thread, a swedish scientist states that snus is a known cause of pancreatic and oral cancers.

Gothiatek, we have read about the former...

But the latter is well disguised....

[Zero]

Sounds like a cooked study. You can prove anything in a box. Swedish statistics don't lie and they have one of the lowest rates of oral cancer in Europe, despite using massively more oral tobacco. If snus was such a contributor to oral cancer, I can't help but feel that those numbers would be different.