@AmericanButterfly True indeed. Luckily it's less and less frequent to get secondhand smoke in the West, unlike in the past. Back when my parents were young, a doctor might have been smoking in their office before asking the patient what's ailing him/her. When I was young, bars and restaurants were still full of smokers. Nowadays smoking is banned in all public places, aside from dedicated, isolated smoking areas.
@Louhikaarme oh I didn't know Finland banned public smoking honestly I thought that was just an American thing and Europeans didn't care I guess it depends on the country
@AmericanButterfly
Well in much of western Europe at least its heavily restricted - probably more so than in the US I suspect given the latter's often rather outspoken views on personal rights, which have been used in some cases to block government measures to prevent such hazards affecting others. May be less restraint in parts of southern Europe and probably parts of the former eastern bloc.
@AmericanButterfly Surprisingly enough it seems to be most of the world, with a few holdouts, at least according to Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smoking_bans
Back in latter half of the zeroes, Denmark banned smoking in indoor public places. Only some small bars are allowed to still smoke, but I expect it to change at some point as well. Cigarettes are also required to be hidden away in stores now (newer law) so their presence doesn't temp people. Hopefully smoking will go the way of the dodo in a generation or two here.
@Lora Wonder if that really works? Maybe stops kids who would get curious about why some products are locked away; but for the people already addicted they treat it as a inconvenience. Maybe I am so accustomed to the homeless problem from USA politics seeing homeless beg for cigarettes or worse looking for partially used ones tossed on the ground.
@AmericanButterfly He didn't say that.
He said "If you are a smoker, cancer is a choice".
He did NOT say "Cancer is a choice, because the only way to get cancer is by choosing to smoke". But still, that seems to be how you interpreted his statement. Why did you interpret his statement that way?
@Vendura yeah when you're an adult and can choose who to be around but when you're a child with parents the smoke and have friends who smoke not really a choice there.
I have memories of cigarette smoke blowing in my face during car rides
Yeah, she's a national embarrassment. But on the plus side, she's a great argument for those of us who want to dissolve the undemocratic relic that is monarchy.
Oh, and to quote Tim Minchin: "By definition, alternative medicine has either not been proved to work, or been proved not to work. Do you know what they call alternative medicine that's been proved to work? Medicine."
@Lugus Um no, don't use that as en excuse. You'll just end up looking at several congressmenor what ever they're called in your government) spreading that nonsense.
Here in Finland literally not a day goes by without Ano Turtiainen saying something at least that stupid. And he's not the only one. Our MEP is shouting it in in EU etc
Your monarchy lets you keep it under control by having official distributor.
@piir2 At least the democratically elected nutcases can be voted out, and won't (necessarily) sit on their positions until they die or in extremely rare cases abdicate, and hand their position of privilege (money aside) over to their children.
@Lugus Good luck! Monarchies are a tumor on many societies worldwide. Sometimes the tumor is benign, sometimes it's malignant, but always a tumor.
And remember, when you get rid of them, while we're all too civilized now to get rid of them the old way, that doesn't mean you should let them get away with anything. ALL the wealth of royals is ill-gotten gains, and is rightfully the property of the people. Leave them destitute.
@VictorMortimer With all due respect, it doesn’t seem like you know a lot about the current Norwegian monarchy. The decision to become a constitutional monarchy after separation from Sweden in 1905 was reached by a public vote/referendum, and the royal family was “imported” from Denmark/Great Britain. That happened because the Norwegian royal family line died out already during the Middle Ages, and from that point on, Norway was either under Danish or Swedish rule. Hence the royal families of Norway were also not Norwegian.
So, again with all due respect, I very much doubt your claim that the current Norwegian royal family’s wealth is ill-gotten gains, given that the earliest they could have started accumulating it is 1905. Which, while more than a 100 years ago, is still well beyond the age of feudalism, slavery or whatever else you may be referring to by “rightful property of the people”.
Modern Norwegians may not agree with the outcome of the 1905 referendum these days, and that’s perfectly fine, but the fact remains that Norwegian voters in 1905 made a democratic decision to have a royal family and were willing to accept the financial burden that comes with having a royal house.
Would they still make the same decision today? I haven’t got a clue, but that’s another question entirely.
@VictorMortimer
Many presidents and prime ministers world wide are also a cancer on society and I dare say that the worst countries in the world are not monarchies, but republics such as Russia, China or North Korea.
@Skyhunteren North Korea arguably is a monarchy. Three generations of the same family have now held the head of state position; it's become hereditary. Also, Saudi Arabia gives monarchies a bad name.
Actual real live cancer survivor here. Cancer is not a choice.
But what IS becoming a choice is how it's treated. The treatment approaches in oncology these days are so much more nuanced than they were just 15 years ago. Depending on the person and depending on the cancer, chemo and radiation aren't always necessary. They can be declined in favor or quality of life, when the advantages of doing them are miniscule. Some prostrate cancers are simply monitored rather than treated at all.
@miryasan85 A few things wrong with that:
1. She wouldn't try to outlaw cancer. Just cancer *treatment.*
2. She would say it's a Democratic conspiracy.
3. She'd find a way to blame the Jews.
I was about to post "What the actual fuck," but decided to look into it first.
What the actual fuck?
I hope these leeches on humanity are the first up against the wall when the revolution comes. I'm sure she's a nice person and all and may actually believe in this nonsense, but people who prey on the desperate and hopeless are terrible people. Even if they do believe they're helping. Perhaps they're even worse for believing they're helping because they're not just deluding themselves. They're deluding other people. Often for profit.
@Tarmaque This Durek guy she's married is American.
So while we will take responsibility of our airhead princess, we will not take responsibility of that shaman.
@Tjalve There's plenty of Dureks here. I don't take responsibility for them but I acknowledge their existence. And the fact that they are a poison to our society. I wish I knew how to fix it but I don't.
@Tarmaque Just from a quick scan of his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durek_Verrett) I see that there are many people in this man's past that have testified to his lying and manipulative tendencies. It seems to me that a serial abuser has dug his claws into the juiciest prize he could find, and if the princess's family cares about her wellbeing, they should keep her far, FAR away from him.
But heck, what do I know! The internet has lied before, it could be so now.