Re: Has it been proven that "zapping" works?

......Government organisation who spend millions in finding a cure for cancer and other diseases could invest as well.....

It's easy to be mislead upon seeing statements that portrays the GOVERNMENT as spending money on this or that. This makes it easy to overlook the fact that, theoretically, at least above the table, the government generally has no source of funds to spend on anything until it appropriates them out of other people's wallets. For instance, suppose the people's taxes are diverted to fund the building of an oil pipleline.... just for kicks, lets throw a dart and say....in Alaska.... many billions of dollars are spent paying many thousands of Halliburton (or fill-in your government contrator of choice) employees good-wages to build said plant. At some point, one must assume this pipleline goes into productive use. Who gets this oil? Where do the profits go? and before you propose an answer, do you still believe in the Easter Bunny, Santa Clause or are you interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn?....I'll be bleeped if I know where the oil and profits end up. In the future, anytime you see a statement that reads "government spends XXX on YYY" or "government funds XXXX", you can pretty much rephrase this to more accurately read "the people, wittingly and not, by choice or not, are funding XXX".



.......Why governments spends millions in anti-smoking campaigns ?.......

This seems a reasonable question until one realizes this is just another spin on the same "Government funds xxxx" myth. Also, I personally do not see the merits in questioning the motives of madmen (and madwomen, or PC-madpeople), and while it may be true that the government appropriates the spending of millions of other people's money to prop up their no-smoking stance, I'm pretty sure the government rakes in billions upon billions in tax revenues from the sales of tobacco.....seems a pretty favorable trade-off for them, one that allows the government to make themselves out as the good guys at minimal expense - a relatively skimpy few millions on the supposed campaign against a widespread addiction that, percentage wise, the average addict will not kick, which pretty much guarantees future billions upon billions of tobacco tax revenues will continue to roll in despite the governments best efforts to stop smoking.