Intersting news about the new smoking bill. I smoked for fifteen years, and I've been quit for two (cold turkey). My wife quit as well (Chantix), and our kids hopefully have no memory that we ever smoked.
But these new laws are certainly stepping up to the line (if not over it). They include FDA regulation, as well as the following:
- Cigarette packages will have warning labels that cover 50 percent of the front and rear. The word "warning" must be included in capital letters.
- Any tobacco-related sponsorships of sports and entertainment events will be banned, as will giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product. A federal ban will be imposed on all outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.
- Point-of-sale advertising will be limited to adults-only facilities, and remaining vending machines will disappear except in places restricted to adults. Retailers who sell to minors will be subject to federal enforcement and penalties.
- A ban on cigarettes sweetened by candy flavors or any herb or spices such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon or vanilla. Cigarettes advertised as "light" or "mild," giving the impression that they aren't as harmful to health, will no longer be found on store shelves.
A lot of this feels vague and forced to me, and it makes me wonder how well this bill was thought out. Like last year's "test everything for lead" ban that nearly put secondhand stores and work-from-home mothers out of business, this ban has a few loopholes:
- Herbal cigarrettes are used as a method to control cravings for people trying to quit. And the manufacturer's are hardly big business. What happens to the little shops who purchase these and the companies who produce them? They aren't harming anyone.
- Imported products, like Strawberry Bidi's from India. Hardly marketed to children, these products are pricey and usually imported by small entrepeneurs.
- Farmers who're growing tobacco and those producing clove cigarretes. With "light" cigarrettes and product being pulled from the shelves, cost is going to skyrocket. And it'll be farmers who feel the pinch.
A long-term phased plan would have been much more market friendly. Do we really need changes of this magnitude right now?
And though I'm certainly not going to advocate smoking, I feel that the decision to smoke is one that the government shouldn't interfere in. It's a personal choice. Sure, regulate it on a local level, keep it out of my face or allow me to live somewhere where it is; but the federal government interfering in personal choice and natural markets is always asking for trouble.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
But maybe they should have looked at e-Cigarretes, if they're trying to keep kids away from nicottine addiction.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
New laws or new bills? Have they passed yet?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
It's been passed in both the Senate and the House, and Obama has stated that he'll "quickly sign it into law".
I swear, that man is constantly switching back and forth between independant moderate and hyper-liberal.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I swear, that man is constantly switching back and forth between independant moderate and hyper-liberal.
I'm always confused when people say this. It seems like "moderate" means changes I agree with and "liberal" means changes I don't agree with. I'm not sure whether or not I agree with this particular legislation or not, but it doesn't strike me as being the most extreme things Obama's done. I'm still thinking giving big business a trillion dollars in tax revenue gets my "hyper-liberal" stamp. Alas, that was a joint Republican and Democrat thing, which further clouds the definition of "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal."
Anyway...let's think about this new legislation:
quote: Cigarette packages will have warning labels that cover 50 percent of the front and rear. The word "warning" must be included in capital letters.
Ok. They want to make sure people see it. I get that. It's a psychological ploy but as long as the packs don't send a jolt of electricity into your body when you pick them up....
quote: - Any tobacco-related sponsorships of sports and entertainment events will be banned, as will giveaways of non-tobacco items with the purchase of a tobacco product. A federal ban will be imposed on all outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds.
I'm ok with the last part -- no advertising near schools and playgrounds -- but I'm not as ok with banning the tobacco companies from advertising in these ways. It's an infringement of free speech. You can shout about how evil cigarettes are all you want, but unless cigarettes are outright illegal (not something I would support), then they get to advertise.
quote: - Point-of-sale advertising will be limited to adults-only facilities, and remaining vending machines will disappear except in places restricted to adults. Retailers who sell to minors will be subject to federal enforcement and penalties.
Getting rid of vending machines except in places where only adults are allowed makes sense. Otherwise, there's no way to keep minors from purchasing them.
quote: - A ban on cigarettes sweetened by candy flavors or any herb or spices such as strawberry, grape, orange, clove, cinnamon or vanilla. Cigarettes advertised as "light" or "mild," giving the impression that they aren't as harmful to health, will no longer be found on store shelves.
Not cool. Cigarettes are either illegal or they're not. I would agree with requiring them to remove the "light" or "mild" from labels as those are misleading, but they should be able to sell them and any flavors they like.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I remember reading a study that suggested warnings on cigarettes actually made people more likely to want to smoke, not less (or maybe it was warnings on things other than cigarettes, can't quite recall).
On one hand, I do think it sets bad precedent for cigarette companies to be specifically targeted with limits on advertising. On the other hand, before they put the current restricts on television advertising, kids were so inundated with cigarette ads that more children recognized Joe Camel than Mickey Mouse.
A suggestion I've heard that I think is more all around useful and fair (which wasn't actually related to cigarettes) was to limit the amount of money companies could spend on advertising, period. (The purpose of which was to eliminate the huge disparity between how easy it was for an established company to launch a product vs a new company, to put everyone on a more even footing).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Not cool. Cigarettes are either illegal or they're not. I would agree with requiring them to remove the "light" or "mild" from labels as those are misleading, but they should be able to sell them and any flavors they like.
I'm a little torn here. On one hand, again, this sets bad precedent on what the government can restrict. However, one of things I find most despicable about tobacco companies is they continue to find ways to target minors, because they know perfectly well that if someone hasn't started smoking by the time they turn 18 the chances of them starting is pretty slim.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Not cool. Cigarettes are either illegal or they're not. I would agree with requiring them to remove the "light" or "mild" from labels as those are misleading, but they should be able to sell them and any flavors they like.
I'm a little torn here. On one hand, again, this sets bad precedent on what the government can restrict. However, one of things I find most despicable about tobacco companies is they continue to find ways to target minors, because they know perfectly well that if someone hasn't started smoking by the time they turn 18 the chances of them starting is pretty slim.
I'm not sure how much I agree with any of this either. Growing up, advertisements didn't affect my decision to smoke in the slightest. Peer pressure was far and away the biggest factor. I was enticed to smoke Camels instead of Marlboros because of the cool stuff in the Camel catalogue (hats, leather jackets, pool tables), but that went away years ago.
And when I joined the military, lots of people who never smoked before started smoking. People change when they leave home. Maybe they're not going to end up the long term smokers, but military smoking rates are above 50% right now. So this "hook-em-young" philosophy doesn't seem to hold a lot of water --- at least to my personal experience.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I swear, that man is constantly switching back and forth between independant moderate and hyper-liberal.
I'm always confused when people say this. It seems like "moderate" means changes I agree with and "liberal" means changes I don't agree with. I'm not sure whether or not I agree with this particular legislation or not, but it doesn't strike me as being the most extreme things Obama's done. I'm still thinking giving big business a trillion dollars in tax revenue gets my "hyper-liberal" stamp. Alas, that was a joint Republican and Democrat thing, which further clouds the definition of "conservative," "moderate," and "liberal."
A lot of people feel that Obama is centrist on defense and on terrorism:
He's also being rather middle-of-the-road on foreign policy, even if his policies differ from normal Republican practice.
But spending, health care, energy, and this have all shown a hyper-liberal tendency. He's also talked rather favorably about Marijuana decriminalization and gay rights, though he's being extremely cautious with those two.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I'm not a fan of cigarettes, but I think a ban on flavorings, herbs, and spices is ridiculous. I never bought the "flavorings means they're being advertised for children" idea. I haven't actually read the bill; does that mean things like beedis and clove cigarettes can't be sold anymore?
[ June 13, 2009, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Rappin' Ronnie Reagan ]
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I'm not a fan of cigarettes, but I think a ban on flavorings, herbs, and spices is ridiculous. I never bought the "flavorings means they're being advertised for children" idea. I haven't actually read the bill, so does that mean things like beedis and clove cigarettes can't be sold anymore?
That's what it seems to mean.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Not cool. Cigarettes are either illegal or they're not. I would agree with requiring them to remove the "light" or "mild" from labels as those are misleading, but they should be able to sell them and any flavors they like.
Excellent point. Might as well ban flavored rum or schnapps.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: I never bought the "flavorings means they're being advertised for children" idea.
I assumed they were for stoners.
I'm a bit torn on this bill myself. On the one hand, I'm suspicious that the FDA got control so they can regulate the amount of nicotine allowed in cigarettes. This could lead to smokers having to buy nicotine patches or gum to supplement their habit - shifting the money and power from Big Tobacco to Big Pharma. I freely admit it's a paranoid conspiracy theory, but that's where I worry about this leading.
On the other hand, Obama wants to play around with public healthcare options. If they include publically funded healthcare, I'd rather we encouraged people not to engage in behaviors that will cost me money. I know intellectually that as someone with insurance it already does, but there'll be a psychological difference when I see it as a line item deduction on my paystub.
I think in the end I have to go with dislike tempered by the inevitability of phasing out legal tobacco over time.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Well, there's a few ways to look at this:
- The FDA is specifically restricted from being able to ban smoking.
- They'll be able to control additives in cigarrettes.
- They'll possibly be able to control other nicottine products and e-cigarrettes.
Point 1: Controlling additives may be a good thing. Or at least forcing manufacturers to list the additives used. It all depends on how they use their power.
Point 2: But controlling additives may be a bad thing. Selective breeding and genetic engineering aren't regulated. If additives are removed or controlled, especially addition of extra nicottine, cigarrette manufacturers are going to lean more heavily into modifying the plant than they have in the past.
Point 3: Advertising changes will have little to no impact on the industry, but it WILL have an impact on everything the industry sponsors. From baseball to the dwindling magazine industry, tobacco spends a LOT on ads and sponsorships.
Point 4: Controlling flavorings does nothing other than please some politicians and infringe on civil liberties. Some kids buy clove cigarrettes, but they're certainly already smokers by that point.
We'll see how it all plays out. . . .
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Perhaps a cottage industry for shake-on cigarette flavors will now spring up.
*rolls eyes* I'm so glad Congress is spending time on this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
With the possible exception of the flavors thing, I don't really have a problem with any of those rules.
I do however think they'll be largely ineffective.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have a lot of problems with every single one of them. Because the only possible justification for them is that the product is unconscionably deadly. And if that is the accepted fact of the matter, we shouldn't be permitting their sale.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
No, you should still permit their sale. Because at least then their production is still government regulated. Cigs would go under a sort of an 'unbannable' category, where any attempt to do so would work out about as well as Prohibition.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I have a lot of problems with every single one of them. Because the only possible justification for them is that the product is unconscionably deadly. And if that is the accepted fact of the matter, we shouldn't be permitting their sale.
If banning cigarettes would stop people from using them, I'd be on the front lines pushing for it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: I'm not a fan of cigarettes, but I think a ban on flavorings, herbs, and spices is ridiculous. I never bought the "flavorings means they're being advertised for children" idea. I haven't actually read the bill, so does that mean things like beedis and clove cigarettes can't be sold anymore?
That's what it seems to mean.
Interestingly, there does seem to be an exception.
quote:Then there's the bill's exemption for menthol from the ban on flavored tobacco products. Menthol happens to be the most popular cigarette flavor, and the Journal reports that the Congressional Black Caucus pressed for the carve-out. Menthol brands account for less than 30% of the U.S. market but are favored by 75% of black smokers. Black public health officials understandably have opposed the exemptions. But black lawmakers apparently believe that banning an unhealthy product used by a disproportionate number of black voters is the greater evil.
What's also clear is that prohibiting menthol would especially hurt Lorillard, the top menthol cigarette maker, and Philip Morris, whose Marlboro Menthol is the second-leading menthol brand after Newport.
Which brings us to the real cynical beauty of this bill: It lets the politicians claim to be punishing Big Tobacco while further cementing their financial partnership. It's no coincidence that Philip Morris, the market leader, is squarely behind a bill that allows the FDA to curb advertisements. The Altria Group subsidiary is hoping to solidify its market share, and any regulation that impedes the ability of smaller rivals to advertise and lure away Philip Morris customers can only benefit the Marlboro Man and his shareholders.
I don't know what to make of it, but there does seem to be a Canadian bill that pretty much does only the flavoured cigarette ban (I think the other measures are effectively in place in Canada already)
The bill was introduced last month by our conservative government.
Some details:
quote:In September 2008, Prime Minister Harper committed to taking action on tobacco marketing practices aimed at youth. The Government is fulfilling its commitment by:
* Banning the use of fruit -flavourings in little cigars, cigarettes and blunt wraps, as well as those additives that taste like candy; * Addressing the resurgence of tobacco advertising in publications that can be viewed by children and youth; and * Requiring that little cigars and blunt wraps be sold in packages of at least 20.
The growing trend of fruit and other flavours (such as grape, cherry, peach, banana split, tropical punch, and chocolate) being added to little cigars and blunt wraps serves as an inducement to youth smoking. Sales of little cigars have jumped from 53 million units in 2001 to 403 million in 2007; they are the fastest growing tobacco product on the market and children and youth are smoking them.
Oh, the U.S. and it's wacky, wacky relationship with tobacco. For years it's seemed to amount to "We can't find tobacco to be that dangerous! If we did, why... We'd have to ban it!"
Yes, it really is dangerous. And no, you're not going to put a whole bunch of farmers, factory workers, executives, convenience-store operators and the like out of work, especially right now. Next question.
Some of this bill does seem at least a little over-the-top. And I find I regret the idea of banning clove cigarettes, as one of the few types of cigarettes that people smoke around me without making me want to gag.
I do find the idea of shake-on cigarette flavors amusing. "Why Joe, what is that... Ah... Interesting smell coming from that cigarette?" "Why, it's Zesty Garlic Parmesan, Fred. Care for a drag?"
Maybe hookahs will come back into fashion.
Combining the "warnings may make some people more interested in smoking" with the "no advertising in sporting arenas and entertainment venues" also brings to my imagination the compromise of allowing cigarette advertising in such venues, but only ones that consist of warnings: "Virginia Slims. Cool Menthols. Increases Your Risk of Cancer, Heart Disease, and Emphysema."
I do appreciate the idea of forcing the tobacco companies to finally reveal what actually goes into their cigarettes other than tobacco. But I guess as a non-smoker, most of my reaction seems to be to shake my head gently and laugh.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I kind of think anyone who smokes in spite of the torrential barrage of anti-smoking propaganda is pretty much immune to further influence. And I don't think saving people from messing up their own lungs is important enough to expand the war on drugs to yet another drug.
All this effort would be FAR better spent on research toward addiction treatment, IMO.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Maybe hookahs will come back into fashion.
They already have. Hookah bars and cafes are one of the fastest-growing niche cafe/bar markets in the greater L.A. area, from what I've been told.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Maybe hookahs will come back into fashion.
They already have. Hookah bars and cafes are one of the fastest-growing niche cafe/bar markets in the greater L.A. area, from what I've been told.
It's been a big thing around here for awhile, but I'm not sure if that has to do with what's in vogue, or because we have so many middle eastern restaurants and neighborhoods around here. One might chalk it up to a cultural thing rather than a trend thing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Except that it's most popular among white kids. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Maybe hookahs will come back into fashion.
They already have. Hookah bars and cafes are one of the fastest-growing niche cafe/bar markets in the greater L.A. area, from what I've been told.
Really? jesus. they've been passé here for a while. They're folding faster than Cybercafes did.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No, you should still permit their sale. Because at least then their production is still government regulated. Cigs would go under a sort of an 'unbannable' category, where any attempt to do so would work out about as well as Prohibition.
I completely agree with this.
I also have no problems with any of the proposed measures.
But I think that's because they are, in most part, already the law here in Australia. Also, I have no issues with federal government - but that is also an Australian/American difference I think. (Federal control over 20 million people isn't such a big deal.)
Edit: For example, this is a cigarette pack as sold here. Warning - graphic pictures!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Except that it's most popular among white kids.
Heh. It's probably more 50/50 here. I can't think of any of my white friends who go to any place with hookahs more than once every several years. But I have a couple friends who go to those kinds of places on a regular basis who are middle eastern.
There's a place about a mile away from where I live that has an outdoor patio with hookahs at all the tables and it's constantly full (except in winter obviously), and, anecdotally, I'd say it's probably half young white guys, and half middle eastern people of various ages and genders. I've never been myself, so I don't see the draw, but apparently young white guys think it's pretty cool, for whatever reason.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I have a lot of problems with every single one of them. Because the only possible justification for them is that the product is unconscionably deadly. And if that is the accepted fact of the matter, we shouldn't be permitting their sale. "
A lot of this seems to be targeted at keeping cigarettes and cig advertising away from kids... kinda like the rules about alcohol, sale of which we permit.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Doctors pretty much agree that obesity is more dangerous to health than smoking. So, how about a 400% tax on that pie you're about to eat. . . .
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Do they really agree that obesity is more dangerous to health than smoking? I'm not sure I can take that claim at face value.
With that out of the way, I think there's enough differences, and significant enough differences, between alchohol, tobacco, and food, that trying connect the first two to food is only building a strawman.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Doctors pretty much agree that obesity is more dangerous to health than smoking. So, how about a 400% tax on that pie you're about to eat. . . .
How often can you smoke cigarettes and remain completely safe Herblay?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Health risks are pretty much neck and neck between obesity and smoking. Some British studies say that obesity is more dangerous. Here's a few articles:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Doctors pretty much agree that obesity is more dangerous to health than smoking. So, how about a 400% tax on that pie you're about to eat. . . .
How often can you smoke cigarettes and remain completely safe Herblay?
It's not a question of remaining "completely safe". But both smoking and excessive eating are addictions that cause a great long-term health risk. The media villefies smokers and trumps up excessive taxes, because they're "making a choice" that causes an increased burden on the health care system. Well, obese people are providing just as much a burden to the system.
Let the blameless one ban the first cigarrette.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The media villefies smokers and trumps up excessive taxes, because they're "making a choice" that causes an increased burden on the health care system.
Absolutely. But I think you'd have difficulty proving that any given type of food has as strong a causative link to obesity as cigarettes do to various cancers.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: Doctors pretty much agree that obesity is more dangerous to health than smoking. So, how about a 400% tax on that pie you're about to eat. . . .
Just think of all the fun, wacky ways the government will start taxing and regulating items and behavior once socialized medicine is established in our country.
Anything that affects health can fall under the governments right to regulate since they are footing the bill. Pie tax? Yeah, that is not that far off in the future.
Edit: Language Warning.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I don't know, you don't see too many skinny people eating Twinkies. . . .
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Anything considered a snack or junk food in England has a higher sales tax than real food. No reason we couldn't do something like that. A lot of states have a reduced tax rate for food. Maybe you shouldn't receive it for prepared food, chips, junk food, candy, etc. Tax them all at the normal rate (or an increased rate).
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
There already are states and local communities that regulate junk food- such as bans on certain types of fats and limits to new fast food places being built.
Also, I know skinny people who eat donuts. They do run marathons in their spare time so those extra fat and calories means nothing to them. Why should they be punished with higher taxes when their actions are perfectly responsible? Is there a way to smoke responsibly?
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I do know some people who smoke responsibly. I know two people who smoke 4 or less cigarrettes per day. I know several people who only smoke when drinking alcohol. I know quite a few people who only smoke cigars in social situations or rarely.
According to most health data, all of people using tobacco like that have health risk factors close to non-smokers.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For obesity, perhaps the most obvious step would be to stop subsidizing foods with low-value calories.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: ... Maybe you shouldn't receive it for prepared food, chips, junk food, candy, etc. Tax them all at the normal rate (or an increased rate).
IIRC, we already have this in Ontario. Prepared foods are subject to the normal provincial tax rate while "raw" foods are exempt.
I don't know if you can draw a link between just that and the significant difference in obesity levels between Canada and the United States though, correlation vs. causation and all that.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: ... Maybe you shouldn't receive it for prepared food, chips, junk food, candy, etc. Tax them all at the normal rate (or an increased rate).
IIRC, we already have this in Ontario. Prepared foods are subject to the normal provincial tax rate while "raw" foods are exempt.
I don't know if you can draw a link between just that and the significant difference in obesity levels between Canada and the United States though, correlation vs. causation and all that.
I think that it's like cigarrettes: you can increase taxes, but it doesn't change behaviors too much. Most people aren't going to notice it.
One of the problems with cigarrettes (and I hate to generalize, but. . . ) is that levels of use increase inversely-proportional to income. There's a lot more poor smokers, and when taxes increase it can tend to mean less food in the house for the children. Because addictions tend to come first.
But then, again, it's a lot easier to villanize tobacco.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: ... Maybe you shouldn't receive it for prepared food, chips, junk food, candy, etc. Tax them all at the normal rate (or an increased rate).
IIRC, we already have this in Ontario. Prepared foods are subject to the normal provincial tax rate while "raw" foods are exempt.
We do here too. Herblay apparently has never noticed the difference in taxes on milk, cheese, bread, fruit, etc. versus prepared foods.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I do know some people who smoke responsibly.
I'm going to call BS on this one. How long have they been able to smoke "responsibly?"
I knew somebody who did cocaine "responsibly," too.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: ... Maybe you shouldn't receive it for prepared food, chips, junk food, candy, etc. Tax them all at the normal rate (or an increased rate).
IIRC, we already have this in Ontario. Prepared foods are subject to the normal provincial tax rate while "raw" foods are exempt.
We do here too. Herblay apparently has never noticed the difference in taxes on milk, cheese, bread, fruit, etc. versus prepared foods.
Depends on where you're at. In Utah, the food rate covers "substances in liquid, concentrated, solid, dried, or dehydrated form that are sold for ingestion or chewing by humans and consumed for the substance's taste or nutritional value."
SO, everything for human consumption is taxed at the same rate, whether it's baklava or broccoli.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I do know some people who smoke responsibly.
I'm going to call BS on this one. How long have they been able to smoke "responsibly?"
I knew somebody who did cocaine "responsibly," too.
One of my friends has been smoking one to two cigarrettes a day for about 10 years now. He considers himself a non-smoker, and his wife smokes. My mother-in-law has been smoking four cigarrettes a day for years. My grandfather smoked about 2 cigars a week playing poker with his friends.
"Call BS" all you want. I firmly believe that everyone who is moderately overweight is compulsively addicted to cheesecake. In fact, cheesecake billboards are illegal in most parts of the country because they contribute to automobile accidents. (This is poor irony)
You can't generalize anyone --- especially with lawmaking. I'm sure that there IS someone out there who uses cocaine responsibly. Matter of fact, before it was made illegal, it was frequently prescribed for decades.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: ... Maybe you shouldn't receive it for prepared food, chips, junk food, candy, etc. Tax them all at the normal rate (or an increased rate).
IIRC, we already have this in Ontario. Prepared foods are subject to the normal provincial tax rate while "raw" foods are exempt.
We do here too. Herblay apparently has never noticed the difference in taxes on milk, cheese, bread, fruit, etc. versus prepared foods.
That's not true here in Kansas.
I'm actually annoyed that groceries are taxed at all, but when people talk about dropping taxes on food there is always a question of which types of food...do you count sandwiches from the deli or potato chips or sodas?
I guess I'm not that sympathetic, though. I almost never go down the junk food aisle at all. (I manage to be overweight anyway...not obese anymore but I was back in college when I ate fast food all the time.)
I don't have a problem seeing how obesity may carry more risk than smoking, and not just of death. I've been surrounded by obesity my entire life and the people I know who suffer from this condition, even in their teens and twenties, begin to develop innumerable health problems -- arthritis, diabetes, heart problems, breathing problems....they are weak, unable to move, and so problem compounds problem.
On the other hand, my father smoked from the age of 18 until he was about 50 and quit cold turkey. He's never had exceptional health problems and now that he's quit for nearly 10 years, his lungs should pretty much look like a non-smoker's.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: One of my friends has been smoking one to two cigarrettes a day for about 10 years now. He considers himself a non-smoker, and his wife smokes. My mother-in-law has been smoking four cigarrettes a day for years. My grandfather smoked about 2 cigars a week playing poker with his friends.
So? Do you think these people are healthy just because they don't chain smoke? An addiction doesn't necessarily mean you do something all day every day. These levels of smoking suit these people, but I cannot think of any definition of the word in which someone who smokes 2 cigs a day can consider himself a non-smoker. That's insane. And I'd wager his lungs don't look all that great, either.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I do know some people who smoke responsibly. I know two people who smoke 4 or less cigarrettes per day. I know several people who only smoke when drinking alcohol. I know quite a few people who only smoke cigars in social situations or rarely.
According to most health data, all of people using tobacco like that have health risk factors close to non-smokers.
Close to non-smokers? What information is leading you to that conclusion?
Several studies have shown that smoking even a pack a week or less leads to significant change in health outcomes. Macular degeneration, stroke, atherosclerosis, none of these require a pack or more a week to show significant changes in risk. As for cancer, the main indicator may be lifetime exposure -- so smoking 4 cigarettes a day for 5 years looks at this time to be roughly equivalent to a pack a day for 1 year, at least from a cancer risk perspective. It can take you longer to get there, but you still get there.
(e.g., see Social Smoking Tales a Lasting Toll from The New York Times, October 2008, for a lay media discussion)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Or what CT said. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Or what Christine said.
[edited to remove potentially inflammatory comment; my apologies]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Interesting. I always thought the food tax was a federal issue, and related to what WIC will and will not cover.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: One of my friends has been smoking one to two cigarrettes a day for about 10 years now. He considers himself a non-smoker, and his wife smokes. My mother-in-law has been smoking four cigarrettes a day for years. My grandfather smoked about 2 cigars a week playing poker with his friends.
So? Do you think these people are healthy just because they don't chain smoke? An addiction doesn't necessarily mean you do something all day every day. These levels of smoking suit these people, but I cannot think of any definition of the word in which someone who smokes 2 cigs a day can consider himself a non-smoker. That's insane. And I'd wager his lungs don't look all that great, either.
I never said that any of them were healthy. But they're certainly a lot healthier than someone who smokes three packs a day. And they're certainly less of a burden on the health care system than someone who weighs 350 lbs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I firmly believe that everyone who is moderately overweight is compulsively addicted to cheesecake.
The thing about this joke is that it actually goes to disprove your point.
Think about it: do people become obese who have never consumed cheesecake? Yes. Do people consume cheesecake who never become obese? Yes. In fact, I imagine there's a very weak correlation between cheesecake and obesity. On the other hand, there's a strong correlation between cigarettes and a variety of cancers.
I'm a fat person who pretty much never consumes junk food. I just don't exercise and eat (comparatively) too much otherwise healthy food. For your taxation idea to work, you'd have to weigh people every year and apply some kind of personalized tax. I imagine that'd be a bit difficult.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
I'm not going to hunt all day for the Cancer Society link, but here's a quote from the study:
"In an American Cancer Society study of over one million persons, for example, less-than-a-pack-per-day smokers had less than half the lung cancer risk of two-pack-per-day smokers. People who smoked 1-9 cigarettes per day had about half the lung cancer risk of people who smoked 10-19 cigarettes per day." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109244,00.html
My only points are these: 1. That tobacco use is a health risk that people choose to make. But there are also many other unhealthy choices. It's not fair to villainize smokers without also pointing a finger at quite a few other high risk groups.
2. If we're going to tax tobacco so excessively to offset health burden, there are certainly other things that could be taxed more heavily. Junk food, alcohol, and equipment associated with risky behavior added to the mix.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: One of my friends has been smoking one to two cigarrettes a day for about 10 years now. He considers himself a non-smoker, and his wife smokes. My mother-in-law has been smoking four cigarrettes a day for years. My grandfather smoked about 2 cigars a week playing poker with his friends.
So? Do you think these people are healthy just because they don't chain smoke? An addiction doesn't necessarily mean you do something all day every day. These levels of smoking suit these people, but I cannot think of any definition of the word in which someone who smokes 2 cigs a day can consider himself a non-smoker. That's insane. And I'd wager his lungs don't look all that great, either.
I never said that any of them were healthy. But they're certainly a lot healthier than someone who smokes three packs a day. And they're certainly less of a burden on the health care system than someone who weighs 350 lbs.
Actually, what you said was that they were responsible..."I do know some people who smoke responsibly."
I did agree that obesity was a worse health risk but frankly, I don't know why it's a contest. They are both health risks.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: My only points are these: 1. That tobacco use is a health risk that people choose to make. But there are also many other unhealthy choices. It's not fair to villainize smokers without also pointing a finger at quite a few other high risk groups.
2. If we're going to tax tobacco so excessively to offset health burden, there are certainly other things that could be taxed more heavily. Junk food, alcohol, and equipment associated with risky behavior added to the mix.
So because there are other unhealthy choices, we should leave a seriously bad choice (smoking) alone? I'm not following that. Now, if you think we should tax cheesecake or potato chips, we can discuss that separately, but I don't see why it has to be all or nothing.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: [QUOTE]Actually, what you said was that they were responsible..."I do know some people who smoke responsibly."
I did agree that obesity was a worse health risk but frankly, I don't know why it's a contest. They are both health risks.
But there are a lot of health risks, from driving too fast or having unprotected sex to heroin abuse.
My only point is that just because it's easy and convenient to villainize smokers, doesn't mean it's right. It's easy to sway public opinion to tax tobacco, far easier than taxing condoms or sugary soda. But that doesn't make it right or okay.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: According to most health data, all of people using tobacco like that have health risk factors close to non-smokers.
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I'm not going to hunt all day for the Cancer Society link, but here's a quote from the study:
"In an American Cancer Society study of over one million persons, for example, less-than-a-pack-per-day smokers had less than half the lung cancer risk of two-pack-per-day smokers. People who smoked 1-9 cigarettes per day had about half the lung cancer risk of people who smoked 10-19 cigarettes per day." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109244,00.html
Dude, with regard to smoking, "cancer risk" != "all associated health risks."
And the period of follow-up matters. Were the cohorts in any given particular study followed long enough for relevant differential outcomes to show?
But -- most significantly for me -- "half the risk" (or even "less than half the risk") != "no added risk." The difference between a social smoker and a non-smoker might still be orders of magnitude apart.
---
I'm not involved in the broader discussion, and I don't see anything I can add to it at this point, anyway. But something like 90% of people who smoke in their lifetimes start smoking before age 18. We have many in that age group who read this forum. It is irresponsible in the extreme to claim in front of them that smoking a few cigarettes a day essentially doesn't raise one's risk for any health problems.
That is flat out wrong, and it would be irresponsible not to correct the impression.
---
Added to note: And any single link is not going to give you access to "most health data," at least not mass media reports on single studies. For that, you need summary articles in the medical literature, such as the Cochrane Reviews. Even then, you are vastly unlikely to find everything in one report.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: [QUOTE]Actually, what you said was that they were responsible..."I do know some people who smoke responsibly."
I did agree that obesity was a worse health risk but frankly, I don't know why it's a contest. They are both health risks.
But there are a lot of health risks, from driving too fast or having unprotected sex to heroin abuse.
My only point is that just because it's easy and convenient to villainize smokers, doesn't mean it's right. It's easy to sway public opinion to tax tobacco, far easier than taxing condoms or sugary soda. But that doesn't make it right or okay.
You think taxing condoms would prevent UNprotected sex?
As far as those others, we have ways of dealing with them too. Driving too fast comes with fines and if you're downright reckless, revoking of license or jail time. Heroin is illegal. So I still don't see how smokers are being made into some villified example.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: You think taxing condoms would prevent UNprotected sex?
You have to admit that it would be a novel approach.
*grin
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: My only point is that just because it's easy and convenient to villainize smokers, doesn't mean it's right.
And when you can quantify the risks posed by the consumption of cheesecake per cheesecake, and moreover can quantify the danger to people around the person who is eating the cheesecake, you might have a case. Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: I'm not going to hunt all day for the Cancer Society link, but here's a quote from the study:
"In an American Cancer Society study of over one million persons, for example, less-than-a-pack-per-day smokers had less than half the lung cancer risk of two-pack-per-day smokers. People who smoked 1-9 cigarettes per day had about half the lung cancer risk of people who smoked 10-19 cigarettes per day." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109244,00.html
Dude, with regard to smoking, "cancer risk" != "all associated health risks."
And the period of follow-up matters. Were the cohorts in any given particular study followed long enough for relevant differential outcomes to show?
But -- most significantly for me -- "half the risk" (or even "less than half the risk") != "no added risk." The difference between a social smoker and a non-smoker might still be orders of magnitude apart.
---
I'm not involved in the broader discussion, and I don't see anything I can add to it at this point, anyway. But something like 90% of people who smoke in their lifetimes start smoking before age 18. We have many in that age group who read this forum. It is irresponsible in the extreme to claim in front of them that smoking a few cigarettes a day essentially doesn't raise one's risk for any health problems.
That is flat out wrong, and it would be irresponsible not to correct the impression.
But there is a difference between using vague slander and facts.
I'll agree that smoking is probably one of the worst addictions that anyone can pick up. Quitting smoking is one of the hardest things that I ever did. And frankly, emphysema scared me FAR more than the 1 in 80 chance that I had of getting lung cancer. In a way, smoking is worse than heroine addiction --- smoking's legal, and most people hide behind a false validation that their addiction is somehow okay.
But when people fight against something hippocritically, the kids aren't going to believe them either. They'll just roll their eyes, nod their heads, and ignore everything you say. You have to fight the right fight.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: But there is a difference between using vague slander and facts.
What on earth are you talking about?
I'm insisting on us referencing correct facts, not misinterpretations or vague slander.
quote:But when people fight against something hippocritically, the kids aren't going to believe them either. They'll just roll their eyes, nod their heads, and ignore everything you say. You have to fight the right fight.
Yessss ... and when one says something is is a fact, one need to be accurate in that claim. You are certainly correct that whatever argument one is advocating, it can be only hurt by inaccuracy. That is true for speaking with adults, and it is (I agree) most definitely the case when speaking with young people.
Either way, though, playing loose and easy with either vague slander or careless and haphazard interpretations of the medical literature makes for poor discussions.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: So I still don't see how smokers are being made into some villified example.
The taxation isn't meant to keep people from smoking. Smoking is one of the worst addictions there is. The revenue is meant to educate and offset health care costs.
Again, my point is that you have what amounts to a risky behavior. Because it's easy to both quantify and measure that behavior, it's easy to tax. Because of the medical evidence, it's easy to sway public opinion.
So, you're basically scraping health subsidies off of lower class drug addicts, if you want to use all of these generalities.
It's a lot harder to make fat people into villains.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Eeeh, there's just too many people arguing with me. I'm mixing them all up. Again, here's my points:
1. Smoking's bad. 2. Smoking's not good, it's bad. 3. Smokers are all poor, and taxing them to subsidize your liposuction is bad. 4. Smoking's not the only thing that's bad. So is sex, hang-gliding, bungie-jumping, and McDonalds. In a perfect world, we'd tax them all. Since we can't, let's just tax the smokers. 5. Just because someone's a little bad, doesn't mean they're a lot bad. But they're still bad.
Posted by kamp101 (Member # 684) on :
Sex isn't bad.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: So I still don't see how smokers are being made into some villified example.
The taxation isn't meant to keep people from smoking. Smoking is one of the worst addictions there is. The revenue is meant to educate and offset health care costs.
I don't believe I ever said anything about what the tax is for, what the laws or for, or whether they accomplish their goals. This might well be a more productive course than the one we've been on, though.
quote: It's a lot harder to make fat people into villains.
Really? Because I've struggled with weight my entire life and I've never noticed this.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
You know what the problem with statistics is? That 89% of them are made up.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I think I got lost somewhere around "sex is bad."
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Really? Because I've struggled with weight my entire life and I've never noticed this.
Oh, come on --- now you're just being argumentative. I meant in the media. It's not like the media can just come out and villainize overweight people the way they can smokers. But in public, both smokers and overweight people can get snubbed equally.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The taxation isn't meant to keep people from smoking.
I'm pretty sure that IS what it's for. They just don't come out and say it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: Eeeh, there's just too many people arguing with me. I'm mixing them all up.
(Herblay, I didn't mean to dogpile, and I can see things are getting hard to follow. I haven't any need to say any more, and (from my perspective) you haven't any need to say anything more to me. That's perfectly all right.
Before I sign out, congratulations on quitting smoking. It is very difficult for most people, I think. You should be commended. )
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The taxation isn't meant to keep people from smoking.
I'm pretty sure that IS what it's for. They just don't come out and say it.
But it doesn't. Heck, most of the smoking families that I knew growing up, cigarrettes were the #1 priority. You could always get the Mormon cheese or drive less. But good old dad had to have his 'smokes. And not the generic ones, either.
It's easy to tax because it doesn't reduce consumption.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But it doesn't.
No argument there. But that's a different conversation.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Really? Because I've struggled with weight my entire life and I've never noticed this.
Oh, come on --- now you're just being argumentative. I meant in the media. It's not like the media can just come out and villainize overweight people the way they can smokers. But in public, both smokers and overweight people can get snubbed equally.
You never said anything about the media although even if you had, I still disagree. It's currently very in-fad for news shows to talk about our rising obesity problem. When they do, they like to do camera shots of very large butts walking down the street. Sometimes they don't even show faces. It's disgusting.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
Both obesity and smoking ARE problems caused by addictions or lifestyle choices -- and both can be exacerbated by genetic predisposition.
And to exploit either condition is wrong.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The taxation isn't meant to keep people from smoking.
I'm pretty sure that IS what it's for. They just don't come out and say it.
But it doesn't. Heck, most of the smoking families that I knew growing up, cigarrettes were the #1 priority. You could always get the Mormon cheese or drive less. But good old dad had to have his 'smokes. And not the generic ones, either.
It's easy to tax because it doesn't reduce consumption.
I'm not sure whether taxes help decrease smoking rates or not. I imagine it would be hard for a study to prove this one way or another, because part of the tax revenue goes to education programs and we would have to determine the effectiveness of those. I would also imagine that these taxes are more likely to stop new smoking than to get people to quit. Whatever the case, I haven't seen any compelling evidence one way or the other. If anyone has any, I'd be happy to discuss it.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
There is an interesting article talking about cities jacking up cigarette taxes for city revenue from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
It does seem a little one sided.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
There is an 1998 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the CDC on ""Response to Increases in Cigarette Prices by Race/Ethnicity, Income, and Age Group-United States, 1976-1993," cited in a WVU Department of Political Science technical report,Arguments For and Against a Cigarette Excise Tax Hike in the State of West Virginia, noting that an increase in cigarette tax tends to be more effective in decreasing the use of cigarettes amongst the relatively poor as versus the relatively wealthy.
Over time and over large groups of people, it is an effective way to decrease [tracked cigarette consumption]. Maybe not for a given person, but for a significant percentage of the population -- and moreso for the poor than the wealthy.
[ June 14, 2009, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Mind you, I don't know if hand-rolled tobacco was being tracked in that MMWR report, or just preformed cigarettes. If not, I seriously wonder if that isn't where those with fewer resources turned.
I would be surprised if that weren't accounted for by the CDC, however. It would be unusual for them to overlook it, but it's certainly possible.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Given that the banner headline is "Invest in Liberty: Give Today," I'd have to agree. Not to mention the article itself.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: There is an 1998 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report from the CDC on ""Response to Increases in Cigarette Prices by Race/Ethnicity, Income, and Age Group-United States, 1976-1993," cited in a WVU Department of Political Science technical report,Arguments For and Against a Cigarette Excise Tax Hike in the State of West Virginia, noting that an increase in cigarette tax tends to be more effective in decreasing the use of cigarettes amongst the relatively poor as versus the relatively wealthy.
Over time and over large groups of people, it is an effective way to decrease smoking. Maybe not for a given person, but for a significant percentage of the population -- and moreso for the poor than the wealthy.
But there's a lot that isn't measured by those studies. Just how much do you think that it's impacting the amount of fresh fruit that children have access to, for example, versus the amount that it's affecting cigarette consumption in a poor family. Some things go first. . . .
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: But there's a lot that isn't measured by those studies. Just how much do you think that it's impacting the amount of fresh fruit that children have access to, for example, versus the amount that it's affecting cigarette consumption in a poor family. Some things go first. . . .
You've read the study? *interested
---
Added: This is certainly not true for NHANES, for example.
There are comprehensive health and risk behavior assessments, you know.
quote:The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) is a program of studies designed to assess the health and nutritional status of adults and children in the United States. The survey is unique in that it combines interviews and physical examinations. NHANES is a major program of the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS). NCHS is part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and has the responsibility for producing vital and health statistics for the Nation. ... The survey examines a nationally representative sample of about 5,000 persons each year. These persons are located in counties across the country, 15 of which are visited each year.
The NHANES interview includes demographic, socioeconomic, dietary, and health-related questions. The examination component consists of medical, dental, and physiological measurements, as well as laboratory tests administered by highly trained medical personnel.
Findings from this survey will be used to determine the prevalence of major diseases and risk factors for diseases. Information will be used to assess nutritional status and its association with health promotion and disease prevention. NHANES findings are also the basis for national standards for such measurements as height, weight, and blood pressure. Data from this survey will be used in epidemiological studies and health sciences research, which help develop sound public health policy, direct and design health programs and services, and expand the health knowledge for the Nation.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: . I firmly believe that everyone who is moderately overweight is compulsively addicted decades.
I am moderately overweight, and allergic to cheesecake.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
All I have is empirical evidence. I came from a moderately poor household with two adult smokers. I became a smoker myself, experimenting at age 5 and smoking daily at age 15. In my house, at least, cigarettes and soda for my parents came before anything. When the price of either rose, the quality of our food fell.
I hope that I quit young enough that my children won't remember seeing me smoke.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: All I have is empirical evidence.
Yes, and larger surveys are empirical evidence, too. They are larger numbers of empirical observations gathered over groups of people in a standardized way.
quote:I came from a moderately poor household with two adult smokers. I became a smoker myself, experimenting at age 5 and smoking daily at age 15. In my house, at least, cigarettes and soda for my parents came before anything. When the price of either rose, the quality of our food fell.
That's such a shame, and it is a justified concern to bring to the table. I just want to reassure you that there are studies designed to take such things into account, and it is good to insist that such things be taken into account.
All interventions have unintended consequences. Good studies are designed to be sensitive (in the experimental sense) to picking up such important consequences, but this needs to be tracked over time.
For example, if parents in states with untaxed cigarettes were likely to smoke more and for the whole childhood of their offspring, that is a different overall risk than if cigarettes were taxed and the parents became much more likely to quit within a year or two after the tax, even if there was less fresh fruit at home meanwhile. (That would still be important to know, but it could be addressed by changing school lunches, for example.)
The risk to the children with regards to asthma and certain infections would be dramatically different, if that were the case. That may well be worth a price that can be paid in other ways. This is all debatable, based on the particulars, but I want to underscore that it isn't beyond the bounds of measurement going on at this time.
It's easy to assume people who do research don't do it well or even that they don't know anymore than the average person on the street about what is going on. In some cases, that is surely the case. In good research, it most definitely is not, and often it is such good research that is relied on for major policy determination. To lump the good research in with the poor research merely because one doesn't know the difference (or if one is just unaware of the range) does us all a disservice.
quote:I hope that I quit young enough that my children won't remember seeing me smoke.
Again, good on you. I do remember my parents smoking, and I remember their deaths from causes quite likely attributable to smoking. I understand how difficult it must have been, and I don't hold it against them any more than they held my (different) human frailties against me. Still, I wish it had gone differently.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: 3. Smokers are all poor, and taxing them to subsidize your liposuction is bad.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: It's easy to assume people who do research don't do it well or even that they don't know anymore than the average person on the street about what is going on. In some cases, that is surely the case. In good research, it most definitely is not, and often it is such good research that is relied on for major policy determination.
We have to know what good research looks like -- and that it is possible -- in order to insist that research be done well.
Part of my training involved "Journal Clubs." (dabbler is surely familiar with these!) The job is for junior members of the academic community to pick apart selected studies from major journals.
What did they leave out? What assumptions were unstated? What important factors might have been missed or conflated? How limited is the generalizability? etc.
Actually, the intent was evisceration. If you didn't have good, sharp, pointed critique, not only did your grade suffer, but you became known as a sloppy thinker. The goal was to push back against the study and see if it could stand up under all the relevant weight you could throw at it.
This is good training for being a journal article reviewer, but it was intended first and foremost to produce critical consumers of the literature. We weren't supposed to accept things blindly, but rather to assume a skeptical stance.
Of course, the world of medical academia has its own elements of corruption, sloth, and lax standards. That is so for any human endeavor. But it has a more sizable chunk of healthy rigorous debate than one might realize from the outside, and it is pretty clear to those within who is reliable and who is not.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: On the other hand, before they put the current restricts on television advertising, kids were so inundated with cigarette ads that more children recognized Joe Camel than Mickey Mouse.
I think you might be remembering a little incorrectly. There was a study that linked mascots to products. Joe Camel had the highest link for kids knowing it was a mascot for cigarettes while Mickey Mouse was the most known for Disney. Are there really people who think cigarettes are healthy? I'm still amazed that cigarettes are pure evil and must be banned as much as possible yet many push to smoke marijuana.
Posted by Herblay (Member # 11834) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: On the other hand, before they put the current restricts on television advertising, kids were so inundated with cigarette ads that more children recognized Joe Camel than Mickey Mouse.
I think you might be remembering a little incorrectly. There was a study that linked mascots to products. Joe Camel had the highest link for kids knowing it was a mascot for cigarettes while Mickey Mouse was the most known for Disney. Are there really people who think cigarettes are healthy? I'm still amazed that cigarettes are pure evil and must be banned as much as possible yet many push to smoke marijuana.
Marijuana's a different subject. Cigarettes cause an addiction that causes people to smoke incessantly.
Alcohol and Marijuana are both relatively non-addictive, and they don't require casual users to use constantly.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
93
(providing opening for Raymond)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
In general, while I think they are well intentioned and I whole heartedly agree with the motive behind them, I think "liberal" efforts to ban things in general are ineffective. (I'm not sure if banning drugs is a liberal thing or just a government thing, but either way I think better programs to provide addiction therapy and whatnot... yadda yadda okay I actually do kinda want to talk about this but first I want to solidify my reply alignment at 95.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:One of my friends has been smoking one to two cigarrettes a day for about 10 years now. He considers himself a non-smoker
I'm confused. Was this supposed to be an example of someone responsibly smoking?
And I'm confused about all these too:
quote:Smokers are all poor, and taxing them to subsidize your liposuction is bad.
quote:So is sex
[ October 09, 2009, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I work in a busy convenience store, and have for some time, it is no where near uncommon to have people buy large amounts of junk food with foodstamps only to purchase alcohol scratchers and tobbacco with thier own money. Recently, due to equipment failures we were unable to provide a pin pad for our customers, therefore you could not enter your EBT pin number to use a foodstamps card.
Customers would ignore the signs on the door alerting them to the fact that they could not use EBT to purchase food, shop as they normally would and then at the registar finnally understand that they would either have to go somewhere else or pay cash. Many pulled out thier own money, but not the majority, but in the majority that put the food back the customer would return to the counter to purchase restricted items (i.e. alcohol tobbacco and lotto) a remarkable number of these instances the customer had children with them.
They would tell the children to put the food away, and use cash to buy restriced items. This is not an arguement about foodstamps, I am merely using my experience as a seller of restricted items to point out that the anti smoking campaigns are not working. Especially when someone who has to rely on the govt. just to feed thier families is willing to put a pack of ciggarettes before food. Not to mention that the only true use of "flavored ciggarettes" is to remove the tobbacco and replace it with weed, that is if they even buy one with tobbacco instead of the innocuously named "blunt wraps" I fully support anything to curb our reliance on airborne toxins, called ciggarettes.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
How do you know they just didn't go elsewhere and buy the food? It can be inconvenient to purchase cigarettes or lottery tickets at a grocery store.
Also do you really think that this represents them not feeding their children since they couldn't buy these things at your store? Or that their children don't know that they smoke and buy lotto tickets?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am merely using my experience as a seller of restricted items to point out that the anti smoking campaigns are not working.
what you've written doesn't do anything to substantively suggest that anti-smoking campaigns have not been successful.
In addition, when you say that "the only true use" of flavored cigarettes is to convert them to marijuana, you're wrong, as there are plenty of consumers of flavored cigs.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I am merely using my experience as a seller of restricted items to point out that the anti smoking campaigns are not working.
The government gains too much revenue from taxes to truly want people to stop smoking.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I think a total ban is a bad idea. My mom smokes and would kill for tobacco if she had it taken away. I'm not joking.
But taxing it seems smart. Even smarter was banning it from the workplace, the thing that caused almost everyone I know to quit smoking. The ones I know who still smoke are either blue collar workers, who did much of their jobs outside and didn't have a ban, or else really old people. The last group of people I know who smoke are young kids, oddly enough.
When I started smoking at about age 13, it seemed to me like a cool thing to do, something older people did, that made me feel sophisticated and interesting. Odd now that it's something associated more with young kids, blue collar workers, the poor, and the old, groups not commonly considered the most glamorous or high-status of sectors. Does smoking seem interesting to young people anymore or just disgusting? Why do kids start nowadays? Does anyone know?
Weight is completely different because as many different theories as you read about it, nobody really knows why people get overweight, and why one person can be overweight and another isn't. Siblings who grow up with the same exact nutrition in their family, for instance, can have wildly different body mass indices.
Some people theorize that trans-fats are the reason people in developed countries got so fat and sick over the last 50 years. Now we're eliminating those from our diets. It will be interesting to see if the trend reverses in the next few decades.
Others say that animal proteins are the culprit. Obviously some people can eat animal proteins without problems. Should we put a huge tax on meat or dismantle the whole meat and dairy industries? I do believe we'd probably all be healthier if we did, but I don't see it happening.
I've got one cat who is way fat and another on the same diet who's perfectly thin. Why? Is the thin cat exercising superior self-restraint? I'm pretty sure she's not. She's just not as hungry for some reason. I think it's obviously true that obese humans aren't responsible for their obesity either. Our bodies have setpoints for weight and appetite and burn-rate that help them stay in a steady-state optimum condition. Fat people's setpoints are obviously messed up. It's not at all clear why.
I think obesity isn't going to be at all easy to tackle with taxation. Education, and banning smoking in public places seem to work better. Now how can we get people to stop drinking alcohol?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Others say that animal proteins are the culprit. Obviously some people can eat animal proteins without problems. Should we put a huge tax on meat or dismantle the whole meat and dairy industries? I do believe we'd probably all be healthier if we did, but I don't see it happening.
I really think the better solution would be a combination of taxes and regulation. The meat we eat is too unhealthy and too cheap. Make it healthier and more expensive. Mandate that beef must be grass fed rather than grown in little cattle factories that produce substandard beef prone to disease which results in nasty, fatty beef that's insanely unhealthy. If they maintain sustainable farming practices, just a few acres of land can yield prodigious amounts of various animal meats, and can even produce the foods that feed those animals as well. It can be a closed loop system that is better for the land, the animals, and the people who end up eating it, but the result is going to be more expensive beef. That's fine. It'll mean more people eat produce instead, and when they DO eat beef, it'll be higher quality and better for them.
On the other hand, I can't think of a responsible form of smoking. Sucking down poison is bad, regardless of the amount. It's just varying levels of bad. Eating meat isn't inherently bad.
I think taxes and education are the best way to combat smoking really. I've read some studies that show that those truth ads down south did have some measurable effect on teen smoking rates, and making cigarettes more expensive prices a lot of youth out before they can get hooked.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
with relation to all other industries, the tobacco industry is the bastard child; the only industry where the government controls the who, what, where, when and how of marketing and sales.
the tobacco companies (and therefore tobacco consumers) are often a piggy bank the government uses to fund various programs, especially in times of economic downturn.
if the government was really interested in reducing smoking, 100% of the revenue generated by taxing cigarettes would be used to educated the public, both young and old, as to the dangers of both tobacco use and nicotine addiction.
the carcinogenic properties of cigarettes are what lead to cancer but its the addiction to the nicotine (and the act of smoking that becomes a very strong habit) which enslaves the person.
addiction destroys self-confidence, strains relationships, reduces productivity and usually has enormous consequences financially.
like herblay said, on an addicts list of priorities, the drug comes first, with little or no thought of their own physical and financial harm, the familys physical and financial harm or societys physical and financial harm.
the government doesnt tax and regulate alcohol as heavily as it does tobacco because alcohol hasnt been vilified and is still very much socially accepted. this despite the fact that it has many numerous, and very serious, negative consequences which correlate directly to its use.
in summation, positive incentives and education would reduce smoking more than taxing users into oblivion. (i would say into poverty but most smokers are already at or below the poverty line.)
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: On the other hand, I can't think of a responsible form of smoking. Sucking down poison is bad, regardless of the amount. It's just varying levels of bad.
I don't get why, but cigarettes seem to stop a panic attack in its tracks. I have maybe 2/3 of a cigarette every 3 or 4 years. I seriously doubt I'm doing anything in particular to my chances of cancer or emphasyma in that amount, and it actualy helps me quite a bit in those situations.
Most of the smokers I know seem to do it because it helps them cope with stress or they're at the bar and that's what you do at the bar. I usually find a couple puffs helps me get drunk. I don't know if it thins the blood or interacts funny with the alcohol, but that's why I suspect people like it at the bar, anyway.
I'd propose a mandatory Stress Coping Skills course in middle school. Not only is it good for everyone, but many kids don't necessarily have good role models at home for it. And it might cut down on the rate of kids with depression (mine's the stress triggered kind, so stress is a big deal to me) as well as smoking.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)