On getting a sense of priorities

[andrewducker]

In the last ten years, smoking has killed 4,000,000 Americans. Traffic has killed 400,000. Terrorism has killed 4,000.

(Can't remember where I stole this from)

Comments

[andrewducker]

However, when the government is choosing things to work on it should choose at least partially due to the number of people it can effect. And while 4000 lives is clearly a lot of dead people to feel sorry for, there are _vastly_ more dying all the time of various things that the government could help with, but doesn't, due to having spent it all on wars that they justified with those 4000...

[dougs.livejournal.com]

Maybe our 40,000 is passive smoking?

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

Well, ITA that the government has flushed down the toilet a ton of money on bogus "we will save you from teh terroristz" wars, but then, I wouldn't mind nearly so much if said wars did a thing to protect us from teh terroristz.

I guess I feel like the government already does roughly as much as it can do regarding smoking deaths and auto accident deaths. I mean, the warning labels are there, cigarettes are taxed to hell and back. The research money is there for cancer. I haven't found the laws or the responses to broken laws (DUIs, etc.) to be inadequate. I think that the rub here is that smoking and auto accidents are due to a.) people's own personal choices, b.) people's own carelessness, and c.) sheer dumb luck. (Un-luck?) Terrorism *would* be a good deal more preventable by government, if the government had a fucking clue how to go about it. Clearly, though, they don't.

[drplokta]

The government doesn't do nearly as much as it could about smoking. Think about a ten-year-long expensive PR campaign to make smoking seem like something that only dorks and losers do, which is perfectly possible given the political will.

[slammerkinbabe.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm just missing whether it's the government's role *to* do that. Terrorist attacks on America's soil are the government's business, no brainer. I guess I don't really get why it would be their role to run that sort of ten-year anti-smoking campaign. Like I said, smoking's a personal choice, and frankly I think I'd be offended on behalf of the people I know who do smoke if the government started hammering it into us that smokers = dorks and losers.

I don't know. I guess I have a narrower view of what the government ought to be doing with taxpayer dollars than some. To my mind, that sort of PR campaign would be better suited to a private organization.

[stillcarl.livejournal.com]

Come to NZ...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3663549a7144,00.html