this thread might get deleted. alcoholics want me to stop smoking. people addicted to fossil fuel want me to quit smoking. if smoking kills, then why am i still alive? i have seen police smoke, old people smoke. pregnant women suddenly find it easy to quit smoking. do people who get sick, do they all smoke? are all people who get cancer smokers? one more thing, 70 per cent is pure tax. now, does smoking give me pleasure, a sense of freedom and power??? does that bother you??? even if i could "quit" would that make you shut up about it??? quit the lying, quit spreading propaganda. quit your false assumptions.

also forgot to mention...you're immortal perhaps??? everyone dies, now THAT is a FACT

No, not everyone who smokes will die of smoking and not every one who ever died was a smoker. No sane person would say that.

But a sane person (even a smoker) would also have to admit that smoking does add to the risk of dying an early and often painful death. Of course, you could argue that many things in our daily lives do, but avoiding cigarettes is a lot easier than, say, avoiding driving a car.

I wouldn't try to force anyone, apart from close friends and family members (because I simply care about their health a lot more) to quit/stop smoking, as long as they don't do it in the proximity of children. Like you say, if it gives you pleasure and makes you more happy (regardless of the health risk and the huge financial loss), go for it. Still, I feel like I should inform my fellow humans that there is scientific proof that smoking cigarettes is very, very unhealthy (yes, just like drinking booze) and that this is not any kind of "propaganda" (whatever it is you're implying).

I used to be a smoker for four years myself (20-30 fags a day), so I know the appeal, don't worry. But once I heard and understood about what it actually does to a body (and mind! I didn't want to believe any of it, because I was simply an addict - physically and mentally), I simply forced myself to stop. It was very difficult, granted, and I still wake up with the taste of a fag in the morning from time to time having to force myself not to go for it, but in the end smoking simply isn't worth the enormous health risk.

i have tried to quit so many times. i just get upset when people say things like "lets make it 40 dollars a packet" and they themselves say eat unhealthy, or live unhealthy, or say make babies they don't care for. why is it disgusting to smoke, i find alot of things disgusting, like eating meat or create babies but in society you can't say that, you are praised and honored if you make a baby. and to me it is not a miracle at all. so, i may be disgusting to you so be it. i don't want anyone to smoke, but i don't go around like a meglomanic wielding the sword of authority just because i am self righteous.

flyorra said:

i have tried to quit so many times. i just get upset when people say things like "lets make it 40 dollars a packet" and they themselves say eat unhealthy, or live unhealthy, or say make babies they don't care for. why is it disgusting to smoke, i find alot of things disgusting, like eating meat or create babies but in society you can't say that, you are praised and honored if you make a baby. and to me it is not a miracle at all. so, i may be disgusting to you so be it. i don't want anyone to smoke, but i don't go around like a meglomanic wielding the sword of authority just because i am self righteous.

It sounds to me that you're talking about the hypcricy of some people (which of course exists everywhere in heaps!) and not about what they actually say about smoking, because, even though they may be hypocrites, they're correct, unfortunately...

Everybody should be free to do whatever they please, but all of us should be educated and strong enough to choose the right things by ourselves (e.g. not smoking). Plus, I must say that I agree that cigarettes and strong booze should be more expensive and that people who smoke and drink a lot should be put under more pressure (whereas the price of proper, healthy food should be lowered in return). It's everybody's personal choice, but the government should make the most healthy and reasonable route the most easily achievable and affordable route of all.

where do we go? where do all the smokers go then? i think the government should deport people to a country where they are free to smoke because that is democracy gone out of hand. you no longer have any sort of minority. luckily alot of people do get sick, how are you going to define health? but to go around blaming smokers for all the ills in society is something else. hypocricy indeed.

flyorra said:

where do we go? where do all the smokers go then? i think the government should deport people to a country where they are free to smoke because that is democracy gone out of hand. you no longer have any sort of minority. luckily alot of people do get sick, how are you going to define health? but to go around blaming smokers for all the ills in society is something else. hypocricy indeed.

Well, like I said, nobody sane is "blaming smokers for all the ills in society", and every should definitely be free to harm their own health at will, but I am in huge support of those who don't want to be harmed by other smokers (by introducing non-smoking bars and basically making public non-smoking areas). If you want to smoke and harm your own health, do it by all means, but so that it doesn't affect other peoples' comfort - do it in nature (but pick up the dog-end!!) or do it at home. This is something I respected even when I was a smoker.

sorry. i am going to try to quit smoking, i have tried so many times, it's really hard for me.

No need to apologise to me!

I just wanted to inform you that what some smokers feel is some kind of "unfair propaganda" is actually scientifically proven and true - smoking kills. It does not always lead to death and many other things may lead to death much earlier, but the risk of dying a horrible death becomes quite huge for regular smokers.

I would definitely ancourage you to try and quit. I'd never try to force a stranger, but whenever someone brings it up, I encourage them and tell them how much better I feel since I quit myself and that they should go for it and never give up.

Let me give you a small tip, if I'm allowed to: conbine your effort with an overall radical change of your life, style, habits and way of thinking: eat healthily and spend the money you would spend on fags on proper food, exercise (start running every evening, start slowly and try to do more and more each week; feel how your body gains strength and stamina), learn to dislike the smell of fags and associate it with dirt, chemicals, ugly teeth, burnt lungs and your past life and, lastly, have lots of sex.

It'll help

smoking does kill and i know people that never smoked but lived with heavy smokers only 2 find out they; and their partner have cancer

as selfish as u r to smoke you should care enough to at least not smoke around the people you love

ThisOne said:

smoking does kill and i know people that never smoked but lived with heavy smokers only 2 find out they; and their partner have cancer

as selfish as u r to smoke you should care enough to at least not smoke around the people you love

Not every smoker is "selfish" just because they smoke. You can smoke without harming people around you.

Dave1992 said:

ThisOne said:

smoking does kill and i know people that never smoked but lived with heavy smokers only 2 find out they; and their partner have cancer

as selfish as u r to smoke you should care enough to at least not smoke around the people you love

Not every smoker is "selfish" just because they smoke. You can smoke without harming people around you.

yes they r selfish mainly because they are not considering the people who love and care about them

and every time they light up those ppl are affected

take my brother for example, i love with so very much and i worry about his health, ever time he smokes i know he is doing so much harm to his health and that just kills me!!!

ThisOne said:

Dave1992 said:

Not every smoker is "selfish" just because they smoke. You can smoke without harming people around you.

yes they r selfish mainly because they are not considering the people who love and care about them

and every time they light up those ppl are affected

take my brother for example, i love with so very much and i worry about his health, ever time he smokes i know he is doing so much harm to his health and that just kills me!!!

Well, he could call you selfish in return, for not letting him handle his own life at will (which everybody should have a right to do) and for trying to make him feel guilty for what he does. You can (and should, in my opinion) try to persuade him to stop and lend him a helping hand, but don't judge people and call them selfish just because you don't want to live without them and they might do things that harm their own health. It really doesn't help the cause.

As an ex smoker myself, lemme tell you that you will ALWAYS miss it... I sometimes have dreams about smoking and its just pure pleasure! But, as a runner, I can tell you the difference in my lung capacity from when I used to smoke is HUGE.. I dont have nearly 99 percent of the sinus problems I used to... And Yes, as a smoker you do smell bad... Smoke a cig, then go get in the shower... When that warm wet water hits your hair, you will smell it...

But oh how I miss the first cup of coffee and a cig out on my balcony in the early warm mornings...

But, I love how I feel and smell smoke free! I wasnt even a heavy smoker! Probably 6 cigs a day... I just quit cold turkey, for me there is no other way.. You CAN control your mind and body... you just have to want to ...

Dave1992 said:

ThisOne said:

yes they r selfish mainly because they are not considering the people who love and care about them

and every time they light up those ppl are affected

take my brother for example, i love with so very much and i worry about his health, ever time he smokes i know he is doing so much harm to his health and that just kills me!!!

Well, he could call you selfish in return, for not letting him handle his own life at will (which everybody should have a right to do) and for trying to make him feel guilty for what he does. You can (and should, in my opinion) try to persuade him to stop and lend him a helping hand, but don't judge people and call them selfish just because you don't want to live without them and they might do things that harm their own health. It really doesn't help the cause.

that was very good word twisting u just did!!!

ppl that smoke are selfish ok!!! its not just me who worries, he has a wife, they want to make babies, he has parents who are also concerned and many friends who care

if a smoker can visit the feeling a loved one experiences every time they light up.....

well i am sure thats when they will stop.....

the feeling is not judgmental or controlling ~ its a sinking feeling combined with fear, disappointment and helplessness

Look, just stop complaining about that shit and quit smoking.

God damn.

Here's the thing: cigarettes are a legal product. And as long as that's the case, I don't think it's right to persecute smokers, ban them from public places - or force business owners to enforce anti-smoking laws in their private establishments.

Do I like being able to go to a bar and not feel like I have to shower or wash all my clothes when I get home? Sure. But I still think it's an inappropriate use of government to tell bar owners that they cannot allow people to smoke. In a bar, for crying out loud. If bar owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, there's nothing stopping them. The government just needs to sit down.

Of course, cigarettes are just the start - especially once the government gets into the health care racket. Watch for alcohol, sweeteners, fats, snacks, etc. to be taxed into oblivion once the gubmint really gets into the business of deciding what's "healthy" and what isn't.

Does smoking kill? I think we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it kills some people. The problem is, you don't know whether you'll be one of those people until it's too late - until you've had a massive stroke or coronary, or come down with emphysema or lung cancer.

Genesia said:

Here's the thing: cigarettes are a legal product. And as long as that's the case, I don't think it's right to persecute smokers, ban them from public places - or force business owners to enforce anti-smoking laws in their private establishments.

Do I like being able to go to a bar and not feel like I have to shower or wash all my clothes when I get home? Sure. But I still think it's an inappropriate use of government to tell bar owners that they cannot allow people to smoke. In a bar, for crying out loud. If bar owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, there's nothing stopping them. The government just needs to sit down.

Of course, cigarettes are just the start - especially once the government gets into the health care racket. Watch for alcohol, sweeteners, fats, snacks, etc. to be taxed into oblivion once the gubmint really gets into the business of deciding what's "healthy" and what isn't.

Does smoking kill? I think we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it kills some people. The problem is, you don't know whether you'll be one of those people until it's too late - until you've had a massive stroke or coronary, or come down with emphysema or lung cancer.

I agree with everything here.

If it's legal, why persecute them?

But smokers need to quit that shit anyway. nasty ass habit (former smoker here).

(Please understand I'm only talking about people who smoke cigarettes or other carcinogenic items--those of you who smoke pole, I highly encourage).

Genesia said:

Here's the thing: cigarettes are a legal product. And as long as that's the case, I don't think it's right to persecute smokers, ban them from public places - or force business owners to enforce anti-smoking laws in their private establishments.

Do I like being able to go to a bar and not feel like I have to shower or wash all my clothes when I get home? Sure. But I still think it's an inappropriate use of government to tell bar owners that they cannot allow people to smoke. In a bar, for crying out loud. If bar owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, there's nothing stopping them. The government just needs to sit down.

Of course, cigarettes are just the start - especially once the government gets into the health care racket. Watch for alcohol, sweeteners, fats, snacks, etc. to be taxed into oblivion once the gubmint really gets into the business of deciding what's "healthy" and what isn't.

Does smoking kill? I think we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it kills some people. The problem is, you don't know whether you'll be one of those people until it's too late - until you've had a massive stroke or coronary, or come down with emphysema or lung cancer.

I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the issue of non-smoking bars.

Austria is one of the last places in Europe where many bars are still "smoking-bars". Up until a certain size of the bar, the owner can choose whether it should be smoking or non-smoking.

Genesia said:

Here's the thing: cigarettes are a legal product. And as long as that's the case, I don't think it's right to persecute smokers, ban them from public places - or force business owners to enforce anti-smoking laws in their private establishments.

Do I like being able to go to a bar and not feel like I have to shower or wash all my clothes when I get home? Sure. But I still think it's an inappropriate use of government to tell bar owners that they cannot allow people to smoke. In a bar, for crying out loud. If bar owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, there's nothing stopping them. The government just needs to sit down.

Of course, cigarettes are just the start - especially once the government gets into the health care racket. Watch for alcohol, sweeteners, fats, snacks, etc. to be taxed into oblivion once the gubmint really gets into the business of deciding what's "healthy" and what isn't.

Does smoking kill? I think we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it kills some people. The problem is, you don't know whether you'll be one of those people until it's too late - until you've had a massive stroke or coronary, or come down with emphysema or lung cancer.

From a smoker here to you which are a nonsmoker, I like the way you think. Great post getting your point across and at the same time, not trying to dictate and control how others live their life.

Dave1992 said:

Genesia said:

Here's the thing: cigarettes are a legal product. And as long as that's the case, I don't think it's right to persecute smokers, ban them from public places - or force business owners to enforce anti-smoking laws in their private establishments.

Do I like being able to go to a bar and not feel like I have to shower or wash all my clothes when I get home? Sure. But I still think it's an inappropriate use of government to tell bar owners that they cannot allow people to smoke. In a bar, for crying out loud. If bar owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, there's nothing stopping them. The government just needs to sit down.

Of course, cigarettes are just the start - especially once the government gets into the health care racket. Watch for alcohol, sweeteners, fats, snacks, etc. to be taxed into oblivion once the gubmint really gets into the business of deciding what's "healthy" and what isn't.

Does smoking kill? I think we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it kills some people. The problem is, you don't know whether you'll be one of those people until it's too late - until you've had a massive stroke or coronary, or come down with emphysema or lung cancer.

I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the issue of non-smoking bars.

Austria is one of the last places in Europe where many bars are still "smoking-bars". Up until a certain size of the bar, the owner can choose whether it should be smoking or non-smoking.

Oh, it's coming back to bite some of the bitchers and complainers in the ass. I've been out only twice since they placed those rediculous smoking bans in clubs and both times, the club was damn near empty because most of the people were outside on the patio smoking a cigarette and their nonsmoking friends were out there with them. There were just a handful of queens sitting around the bar area and one of them (a real goodie goodie prissy type bitch that used to always walk past smokers with that little fake cough of his) was sitting on the bar stool bitching because he couldn't get no dick because everyone was outside on the patio and not inside the club where he was. He didn't dare walk outside on the patio either because he knew his prissy little ass would have gotten cussed out because everyone out there knew him as the "prissy little bitch with the fake cough".

vainandy said:

Dave1992 said:

I absolutely agree with you when it comes to the issue of non-smoking bars.

Austria is one of the last places in Europe where many bars are still "smoking-bars". Up until a certain size of the bar, the owner can choose whether it should be smoking or non-smoking.

Oh, it's coming back to bite some of the bitchers and complainers in the ass. I've been out only twice since they placed those rediculous smoking bans in clubs and both times, the club was damn near empty because most of the people were outside on the patio smoking a cigarette and their nonsmoking friends were out there with them. There were just a handful of queens sitting around the bar area and one of them (a real goodie goodie prissy type bitch that used to always walk past smokers with that little fake cough of his) was sitting on the bar stool bitching because he couldn't get no dick because everyone was outside on the patio and not inside the club where he was. He didn't dare walk outside on the patio either because he knew his prissy little ass would have gotten cussed out because everyone out there knew him as the "prissy little bitch with the fake cough".

Oh. My. God.

vainandy said:

Genesia said:

Here's the thing: cigarettes are a legal product. And as long as that's the case, I don't think it's right to persecute smokers, ban them from public places - or force business owners to enforce anti-smoking laws in their private establishments.

Do I like being able to go to a bar and not feel like I have to shower or wash all my clothes when I get home? Sure. But I still think it's an inappropriate use of government to tell bar owners that they cannot allow people to smoke. In a bar, for crying out loud. If bar owners want to make their establishments non-smoking, there's nothing stopping them. The government just needs to sit down.

Of course, cigarettes are just the start - especially once the government gets into the health care racket. Watch for alcohol, sweeteners, fats, snacks, etc. to be taxed into oblivion once the gubmint really gets into the business of deciding what's "healthy" and what isn't.

Does smoking kill? I think we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that it kills some people. The problem is, you don't know whether you'll be one of those people until it's too late - until you've had a massive stroke or coronary, or come down with emphysema or lung cancer.

From a smoker here to you which are a nonsmoker, I like the way you think. Great post getting your point across and at the same time, not trying to dictate and control how others live their life.

Oh, I'm not a total non-smoker. I do like a smoky treat with a cocktail every now and then.

What I mostly am is a libertarian. I hate the government poking its nose into just about anything.

Genesia said:

vainandy said:

From a smoker here to you which are a nonsmoker, I like the way you think. Great post getting your point across and at the same time, not trying to dictate and control how others live their life.

Oh, I'm not a total non-smoker. I do like a smoky treat with a cocktail every now and then.

What I mostly am is a libertarian. I hate the government poking its nose into just about anything.

I'm afraid this might take the discussion off-topic and to another level, but I just feel like I have to mention that not everybody is educated and intelligent enough to take proper care of themselves (and the people in their vicinity) without the government "poking its nose into just about anything". If the government is alright and ruled by sensible people (who we have the right to vote for or against), we shouldn't have to be afraid of it interfering to a certain degree.

Dave1992 said:

Genesia said:

Oh, I'm not a total non-smoker. I do like a smoky treat with a cocktail every now and then.

What I mostly am is a libertarian. I hate the government poking its nose into just about anything.

I'm afraid this might take the discussion off-topic and to another level, but I just feel like I have to mention that not everybody is educated and intelligent enough to take proper care of themselves (and the people in their vicinity) without the government "poking its nose into just about anything". If the government is alright and ruled by sensible people (who we have the right to vote for or against), we shouldn't have to be afraid of it interfering to a certain degree.

Well, Dave - that's a difference due mostly to your age and where you were raised. You think government is helpful because the reach of government where you live has been always been long - and because you're young, idealistic and hopeful. I think government is more of a hindrance than a help because I've had a lot more years of watching it be the former.

I think the vast majority of people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Do they always make good choices? No. But it isn't the government's job to fix that - even if it could, which it can't. People make choices, people need to live with their choices - whatever that entails. The idea that government going to take my money (for which I have worked non-stop since I was 16) to bail out the stupid is patently offensive to me. And your idea that government will ever be "ruled by sensible people" is charming, but laughable. The people who run government are no different from the average bozos you meet walking down the street. We've seen some of the choices they make. Who's going to save us from them? I'm sure the people of Greece thought their government was sensible. How's that workin' out?

That is not to say that we shouldn't have a safety net for people who absolutely can't (because of a lack of mental or physical capacity) make a go of it on their own. But that's probably less than 10% of the population - not half of it (which is the approximate percentage of people who pay no US federal income tax). Everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone should take responsibility for their own lives.

Genesia said:

Dave1992 said:

I'm afraid this might take the discussion off-topic and to another level, but I just feel like I have to mention that not everybody is educated and intelligent enough to take proper care of themselves (and the people in their vicinity) without the government "poking its nose into just about anything". If the government is alright and ruled by sensible people (who we have the right to vote for or against), we shouldn't have to be afraid of it interfering to a certain degree.

Well, Dave - that's a difference due mostly to your age and where you were raised. You think government is helpful because the reach of government where you live has been always been long - and because you're young, idealistic and hopeful. I think government is more of a hindrance than a help because I've had a lot more years of watching it be the former.

I think the vast majority of people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Do they always make good choices? No. But it isn't the government's job to fix that - even if it could, which it can't. People make choices, people need to live with their choices - whatever that entails. The idea that government going to take my money (for which I have worked non-stop since I was 16) to bail out the stupid is patently offensive to me. And your idea that government will ever be "ruled by sensible people" is charming, but laughable. The people who run government are no different from the average bozos you meet walking down the street. We've seen some of the choices they make. Who's going to save us from them? I'm sure the people of Greece thought their government was sensible. How's that workin' out?

That is not to say that we shouldn't have a safety net for people who absolutely can't (because of a lack of mental or physical capacity) make a go of it on their own. But that's probably less than 10% of the population - not half of it (which is the approximate percentage of people who pay no US federal income tax). Everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone should take responsibility for their own lives.

There's a lot of things I could say to you and point out to you (even though I am still so young), but I can see this is useless and will take us nowhere.

Some of your arguments are just a bit flawed (like saying that my opinion will change when I get older/wiser; no country in Europe is run by children, still, most countries can trust in the government taking proper care of the peoples' basic needs and spending money properly and wisely and have been doing so for longer than the U.S. has existed. And one could argue that most European countries are a more hospitable place to live for all sorts of people, especially the middle class, lower class and the minorities. My parents (and their parents) grew up and haven't changed their opinion about how they want their country to be ruled, so...

And, you seem to have over-read that I purposely pointed out that we vote and are responsible for deciding who is in the government.

But, it's all cool. I understand you and I've heard your arguments probably as often as you have heard mine (even though you're much, much older) and I'm sure we both have an endless amount of arguments to throw at each other, being convinced ours are the only ones that are "correct". I must admit, I know none of us is right per se. No matter what the government does, the individual still carries most of the power to either make this world a better or a worse place.

And I'm not sure you've read/heard enough about the situation in Greece, because what is happening there is actually the fault of people who share your point of view, only to a very extreme degree.

Dave1992 said:

Genesia said:

Well, Dave - that's a difference due mostly to your age and where you were raised. You think government is helpful because the reach of government where you live has been always been long - and because you're young, idealistic and hopeful. I think government is more of a hindrance than a help because I've had a lot more years of watching it be the former.

I think the vast majority of people are perfectly capable of taking care of themselves. Do they always make good choices? No. But it isn't the government's job to fix that - even if it could, which it can't. People make choices, people need to live with their choices - whatever that entails. The idea that government going to take my money (for which I have worked non-stop since I was 16) to bail out the stupid is patently offensive to me. And your idea that government will ever be "ruled by sensible people" is charming, but laughable. The people who run government are no different from the average bozos you meet walking down the street. We've seen some of the choices they make. Who's going to save us from them? I'm sure the people of Greece thought their government was sensible. How's that workin' out?

That is not to say that we shouldn't have a safety net for people who absolutely can't (because of a lack of mental or physical capacity) make a go of it on their own. But that's probably less than 10% of the population - not half of it (which is the approximate percentage of people who pay no US federal income tax). Everyone should have skin in the game. Everyone should take responsibility for their own lives.

There's a lot of things I could say to you and point out to you (even though I am still so young), but I can see this is useless and will take us nowhere.

Some of your arguments are just a bit flawed (like saying that my opinion will change when I get older/wiser; no country in Europe is run by children, still, most countries can trust in the government taking proper care of the peoples' basic needs and spending money properly and wisely and have been doing so for longer than the U.S. has existed. And one could argue that most European countries are a more hospitable place to live for all sorts of people, especially the middle class, lower class and the minorities. My parents (and their parents) grew up and haven't changed their opinion about how they want their country to be ruled, so...

And, you seem to have over-read that I purposely pointed out that we vote and are responsible for deciding who is in the government.

But, it's all cool. I understand you and I've heard your arguments probably as often as you have heard mine (even though you're much, much older) and I'm sure we both have an endless amount of arguments to throw at each other, being convinced ours are the only ones that are "correct". I must admit, I know none of us is right per se. No matter what the government does, the individual still carries most of the power to either make this world a better or a worse place.

Which is why so many European countries are in the toilet, financially. And why the US - with the dipshits we have in office now, who are following the European model - is headed down the same path.

It is your generation and those yet to come that will bear the brunt of this, Dave. Who will pay for you when you are old and no longer able to make your own way, as you are currently paying for your grandparents? The birthrate in most European countries isn't anywhere near replacement level. Moreover, the government has created a culture of dependency. So what you have are fewer people, with even fewer of those willing to work as hard as it should take to be completely independent. In the future, who will pay for the "hospitality" you are accustomed to?

Yours will ultimately be a much tougher life than your parents and grandparents had. Buckle up.

Dave1992 said:

And I'm not sure you've read/heard enough about the situation in Greece, because what is happening there is actually the fault of people who share your point of view, only to a very extreme degree.

No, my dear. The problems in Greece are due to generations of government spending way more than it was taking in. In a nutshell (from an article by David Malpass in the Wall Street Joural)...

Without a vibrant private sector, there is no capital - for the government or anything else. If you don't know it now, you will learn when it comes back to bite you in the ass.

Genesia, the situation with Greece is a tad bit more complicated than that, but I'm aware not everything reaches the U.S. and that your media is doing the best to shed a perfectly fair light on "The European System".

And, concerning the countries that are "in the toilet, financially" - in Europe, those are widely referred to as the countries which adapted an "American system".

But that's okay, once I get old and wise I probably won't have that much time to deal with the subject of politics and economy with a free and fresh mind anymore, either...