FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Banning the Smoke - Cigarettes and the Obama Regime (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Banning the Smoke - Cigarettes and the Obama Regime
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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)

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
Or what CT said. [Smile]
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
Or what Christine said. [Wink]

[edited to remove potentially inflammatory comment; my apologies]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Interesting. I always thought the food tax was a federal issue, and related to what WIC will and will not cover.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile]
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kamp101
Member
Member # 684

 - posted      Profile for kamp101   Email kamp101         Edit/Delete Post 
Sex isn't bad.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
You know what the problem with statistics is? That 89% of them are made up.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
I think I got lost somewhere around "sex is bad."
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile] )

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
But it doesn't.
No argument there. But that's a different conversation.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
There is an interesting article talking about cities jacking up cigarette taxes for city revenue from the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=4506

It does seem a little one sided.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=4506

It does seem a little one sided.

*grin

Given that the banner headline is "Invest in Liberty: Give Today," I'd have to agree. Not to mention the article itself.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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. . . .
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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.


Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dread pirate romany
Member
Member # 6869

 - posted      Profile for dread pirate romany   Email dread pirate romany         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1021 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Herblay:
3. Smokers are all poor, and taxing them to subsidize your liposuction is bad.

[Roll Eyes]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ClaudiaTherese
Member
Member # 923

 - posted      Profile for ClaudiaTherese           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post 
93

(providing opening for Raymond)

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AchillesHeel
Member
Member # 11736

 - posted      Profile for AchillesHeel   Email AchillesHeel         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
HollowEarth
Member
Member # 2586

 - posted      Profile for HollowEarth   Email HollowEarth         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DarkKnight
Member
Member # 7536

 - posted      Profile for DarkKnight   Email DarkKnight         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2