Posted on 08/24/2017 12:43:25 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
The National Institutes of Health is spending roughly $200,000 on a study of tweets about electronic cigarettes.
The project, "Toward Fine-Grained E-Cigarette Surveillance on Social Media," will analyze hashtags and "follower-friend connections" of people talking about e-cigarettes online.
Operating on the premise that the popular smoking cessation products are harmful, researchers say it is necessary to document what is being said on Twitter and Reddit for one year.
{..snip..}
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
This sounds like a good use for our federal tax money - NOT!!
What else do they spy on?
Skip the money, just ban the d$mn things. They are disgusting.
So the government inspects tweets?
Very much disagree, they are dang convenient for the pot smoking, no more processing, cutting, rolling, lighting, coughing, smell or hunger, I am north of 60 and smoked for 40 years. The vapor thingy is great.
Sheeet... I woulda done it for 100K.
Yup, outlaw everything... booze, gambling, cigars, cigarettes, guns, knives...
“Skip the money, just ban the d$mn things. They are disgusting.”
—
You ARE aware that this is a conservative website?
.
.
This falls under Dr. Tom Price’s budget...
I, for one, am glad that our government is basing health policy on what “VapeLord92” says on Facebook.
Spoken like a true totalitarian.
I really wonder if you are on the correct site. Every time I see one of your comments it’s pro-big government and anti-freedom.
The government doesn’t gain constitutionally enumerated powers because you find something “disgusting”.
This nation fought a war over crony capitalism. The cronys won.
Michelle Obama’s bud was paid $1,000,000,000.00+ for a website .
This sh!t ain’t going away anytime soon.
Yes, an excuse to spy.
It might be interesting sometime to do a vanity survey on FR to see just what it means to be conservative. We are not a monolithic group. Not at all.
You missed the point.
We all dislike certain things but don’t want the government getting involved and banning them.
The banning is the problem,not the personal likes and dislikes.
.
Ah, but I do think there is a role in the government banning some things. Where’s the line in what is acceptable, how does it get set, evolve, etc., sure that is a challenge. Cigarettes are bad, kill people, even people I know, my Dad for one. They are filthy, they cost us taxpayers and society billions of dollars. E-cigarettes are not really any better. Yes, I know some people argue differently but in the end, they are filthy, they stink, and they are unhealthy. Okay, government banning things... good that government puts limits or bans some things that might cause people to be hurt or killed. Require seat belts—common sense but yes, law has to require it to protect idiots from themselves, protect society from having to pay the consequences. Rambling here, not time to discuss in detail. Anyway, I do think there is good and bad banning, a time and place for government to step in. The challenge is the reason, the need, the society agreement for it. We don’t like it, we replace our leaders. Like now, Trump is reversing some regulations, removing some bans that turned out unpopular, unnecessary, and poorly thought out. Others he and no one will touch. Things change.
you forgot sex ( man and woman ) of course
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.