posted
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?
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
