Nanny State Targets Tobacco, Again

[Mabus]

Nanny State Targets Tobacco - NewAmerican.com, Patrick Krey (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/1252)

An excerpt:

The term "Nanny State" refers to the increasing government intrusion in personal life decisions for the "peoples' own good." Advocates of a nanny state argue that it is the role of government to assume a parenting role for adult citizens. The very notion of a nanny state illustrates how those in power truly view us "little people": we are far too dumb to know how to manage our own lives and we need a leviathan federal bureaucracy to tell us what to eat or drink or what to abstain from. The most recent example of the nanny state in action is the legislation by Congress to expand the regulatory powers of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to include tobacco. President Barack Obama, himself an admitted smoker who has struggled to quit but suffers frequent relapses, has vowed to sign the legislation into law.
Worth a read, even if you are a fanatical anti-smoker.

[Geshron]

Not a fanatical anti-smoker, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. The same logic could apply to weed, inhalants, prescription drugs, whatever. So long as it doesn't turn human beings into murderers and thieves I'm okay with it.

No, drugs don't make that happen either, the black market and cartels do that.

[Bhuryn]

To many lazy people want to be taken care of. Until people give up the "me me, I wanna spend all my money on a new lexus ever three years and have the government take care of the rest" bullshit it'll never change.

[Latrinsorm]

Tangent: Did you guys see the Congressman claiming that people smoking lettuce would suffer the same deleterious health effects as people smoking tobacco? It was pretty astonishing.

This, to me, is well within the government's bailiwick for the following reasoning: first, a person cannot make a relatively informed decision without a relatively full understanding of the consequences. Second, and most crucially, a person cannot understand how their body will react chemically with nicotine, by which I mean their level and quality of addiction. Hence, a person cannot make an informed decision about smoking cigarettes. Finally, given that smoking cigarettes is to a high degree a hazardous activity, the government ought to step in and regulate it to a high degree.

That people often do not want to make informed decisions is not relevant to their rights as people. Animals get comparatively very few rights, and ours is a government not of animals but of people.

[Bhuryn]

Tangent: Did you guys see the Congressman claiming that people smoking lettuce would suffer the same deleterious health effects as people smoking tobacco? It was pretty astonishing.

This, to me, is well within the government's bailiwick for the following reasoning: first, a person cannot make a relatively informed decision without a relatively full understanding of the consequences. Second, and most crucially, a person cannot understand how their body will react chemically with nicotine, by which I mean their level and quality of addiction. Hence, a person cannot make an informed decision about smoking cigarettes. Finally, given that smoking cigarettes is to a high degree a hazardous activity, the government ought to step in and regulate it to a high degree.

That people often do not want to make informed decisions is not relevant to their rights as people. Animals get comparatively very few rights, and ours is a government not of animals but of people.

My favorite response to this (It's Ron Paul from the 80's):

You're alittle overweight, maybe the government should force you to go on a diet.

Regulating freedom of choice is a slipperly slope. One I'd perfer we stay off.

[Mabus]

This, to me, is well within the government's bailiwick for the following reasoning: first, a person cannot make a relatively informed decision without a relatively full understanding of the consequences.
...

Tobacco packaging warning messages - Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages)

* Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health (1966-1970)
* Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health (1970-1985)
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy. (1985-)
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Smoking Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks to Your Health. (1985-)
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Smoking By Pregnant Women May Result in Fetal Injury, Premature Birth, And Low Birth Weight. (1985-)
* SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Cigarette Smoke Contains Carbon Monoxide. (1985-)

Looks pretty informed to me.

I have never, ever met a smoker that did not know there were harmful affects to smoking.

As one comedian said (paraphrasing), "You could make the pack all black, with a skull and crossbones on the pack, and name them 'Tumors' and people would still smoke them."

Ahh, here it is (at the beginning):
YouTube - denis leary-cigarettes (warning, bad language) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulKfMR2stdo)

[Mikalmas]

This issue becomes very real for you when you lose someone you love because of a lifelong smoking habit. My mother died from complications related to COPD/emphysema (with a tracheotomy, daily suctioning, oxygen, etc).

My aunt, who was like a second mother, died of lung cancer at 53.

Both lifetime smokers. I quit smoking after watching the first one die, but still had to watch the second one continue to smoke then eventually die a horrible, painful, miserable death as well.

I only wish the government had regulated cigarettes 40 years ago.

Admittedly, this is an emotional response, but its true, your perspective on an issue varies greatly with the degree and nature of your experience with it.

[Mabus]

Admittedly, this is an emotional response, but its true, your perspective on an issue varies greatly with the degree and nature of your experience with it.
And while I feel for your losses, I still do not see the authority or need for federal intervention into an issue that is a personal choice.

I have had friends die from motorcycle accidents, yet I do not believe the federal government should regulate, outlaw or overtax motorcycles.

I know people that have died from heart conditions related to their weight. Let's force everyone to swipe a card at the grocery store, and then the cashier can say, "I am sorry, but you have to put the potato chips and bacon back. You are overweight.".

Let's do this with hikers, rock climbers, joggers, and the local little league as well, because we cannot allow people the possibility that they might hurt themselves with a personal choice, now can we?

[4a6c1]

Smoking is a crutch!!!!!!

Try running 5 miles without drinking any water for an entire day. That will give you a buzz.

Then you can stumble around and be all like 'WHOA MAN, I'm so buzzed....I shouldnt have ummm, done something good for myself. Next time I will just go drink some beer'

*inards come forth onto sacred pavement and the stars collide....making little white dots sprinkle inside your eyeballz*

[radamanthys]

Smoking is a crutch!!!!!!

Try running 5 miles without drinking any water for an entire day. That will give you a buzz.

Then you can stumble around and be all like 'WHOA MAN, I'm so buzzed....I shouldnt have ummm, done something good for myself. Next time I will just go drink some beer'

*inards come forth onto sacred pavement and the stars collide....making little white dots sprinkle inside your eyeballz*

BLARGH CRUTCH BLARGH

hehe, just messin with ya.

I agree though. Not that I need to say it, but a nic buzz is way different than a running buzz. (Did both).


On topic:
Maybe they should regulate amateur sports because of the potential for injuries, too?

Shit, most crime happens at night, I do believe. Lets have a nationwide curfew!

Real slippery slope. I prefer freedom.

[RichardCranium]

I smoked for 13 years, I've quit for 3. The only thing I don't like about smokers is that they get 4 or 5 more breaks a day than I do.

As long as someone isn't blowing the shit directly into my face I could care less.

[Latrinsorm]

...As I specifically said, I was referring to "their level and quality of addiction". It's a subjective and personal experience, another person can't possibly tell you how it's going to feel for you going through nicotine withdrawals any more than they could tell you how it's going to feel for you going through heroin withdrawals. The slippery slope argument would therefore only apply to things or activities that are literally chemically addictive. Bacon is tasty - not chemically addictive. Little league is fun - not chemically addictive. The closest analogy you could find that is currently legal would be alcohol, which is a) heavily regulated and b) has addiction more related to genetics than biology.

I hope this helps you understand the distinction.

[Bhuryn]

As I specifically said, I was referring to "their level and quality of addiction". It's a subjective and personal experience, another person can't possibly tell you how it's going to feel for you going through nicotine withdrawals any more than they could tell you how it's going to feel for you going through heroin withdrawals. The slippery slope argument would therefore only apply to things or activities that are literally chemically addictive. Bacon is tasty - not chemically addictive. Little league is fun - not chemically addictive. The closest analogy you could find that is currently legal would be alcohol, which is a) heavily regulated and b) has addiction more related to genetics than biology.

I hope this helps you understand the distinction.

Except food addiction can be just as powerful as anything else. Or how asking a gambling addict how easy it is to control since it's not a chemical addiction. Clearly I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[Latrinsorm]

I did not say that nicotine addiction was the strongest addiction in the world, or even that it was stronger than any other addiction. The fact remains that it is literally a chemical addiction, and is therefore clearly separated from every other addiction so far listed on the terrible "slippery slope".

Nobody thinks pocket knives are going to be outlawed because rocket launchers are outlawed. You guys are (collectively) seeing an intimacy where none exists.

[Back]

Not a fanatical anti-smoker, I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. The same logic could apply to weed, inhalants, prescription drugs, whatever. So long as it doesn't turn human beings into murderers and thieves I'm okay with it.

No, drugs don't make that happen either, the black market and cartels do that.

I didn’t really read the article or all of the posts, but this I can agree with.

My issue is with the term “nanny state”. Ok, we have a government set up for a reason, one of the big ones being, to protect us and our rights. There are some government institutions that protect us from each other and from ourselves and justifiably so. It seems to me that arguing against a so-called “nanny state” is arguing against government in general and somewhat anarchist.

[Bhuryn]

I didn’t really read the article or all of the posts, but this I can agree with.

My issue is with the term “nanny state”. Ok, we have a government set up for a reason, one of the big ones being, to protect us and our rights. There are some government institutions that protect us from each other and from ourselves and justifiably so. It seems to me that arguing against a so-called “nanny state” is arguing against government in general and somewhat anarchist.

That's just ridiculous. I don't need a government to tell me what I do with my spare time thanks. When I cross over and violate your personal rights then they can get involved. Until then, I'd perfer that they left me alone.

The fact that some people favor a government that doesn't take care of the people unwilling to put in the effort to take care of themselves and meddles in the personal affairs of it's people simply because they might do something unhealthy isn't anarchist at all. Personally, I think it's much more reasonable then what the government is doing now.

[Back]

That's just ridiculous. I don't need a government to tell me what I do with my spare time thanks. When I cross over and violate your personal rights then they can get involved. Until then, I'd perfer that they left me alone.

The fact that some people favor a government that doesn't take care of the people unwilling to put in the effort to take care of themselves and meddles in the personal affairs of it's people simply because they might do something unhealthy isn't anarchist at all. Personally, I think it's much more reasonable then what the government is doing now.

I agree here because I can’t think of anything someone could do to themselves to get arrested. I tend to think of ourselves as us meaning everyone, but thats just me and realistically a little far fetched.

But in these kinds of Socratic debates I like to throw out extreme examples.

So, just to discuss...

Do you consider abortion a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

Do you consider gay marriage a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

Do you consider drunk driving a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

Do you consider drug addiction a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

[Bhuryn]

I agree here because I can’t think of anything someone could do to themselves to get arrested. I tend to think of ourselves as us meaning everyone, but thats just me and realistically a little far fetched.

But in these kinds of Socratic debates I like to throw out extreme examples.

So, just to discuss...

Do you consider abortion a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

Do you consider gay marriage a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

Do you consider drunk driving a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

Do you consider drug addiction a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

-I'm prolife, I've had a child and I'm not sure you can be prochoice after that. Now the extreme instances of rape/etc. I can bend on.

- I have no problem with gay marriage rights. I do take offense when gay rights activists assume they have the right to force churchs (a private organiziation) to accept them.

-Drunk driving is a threat to others and is clearly against the law for this reason specifically.

- Drug addiction is self-damaging. The problem is we combat it through the justice system instead of clinically like we do other addictions. The war on drugs causes the majority of crime surrounding drugs, not drug addiction. I think there was a thread on this very subject not to long ago =P....

[Bhuryn]

Forgive my typoes, I can't edit my post for some reason :(.

[radamanthys]

I didn’t really read the article or all of the posts, but this I can agree with.

My issue is with the term “nanny state”. Ok, we have a government set up for a reason, one of the big ones being, to protect us and our rights. There are some government institutions that protect us from each other and from ourselves and justifiably so. It seems to me that arguing against a so-called “nanny state” is arguing against government in general and somewhat anarchist.

That'd be arguing against a police state, not a nanny state.

Nanny state implies a government that oversteps its bounds in protecting the citizenry from itself.

Seatbelt laws, on infringement, don't betray the rights of another. Same with motorcycle helmet laws. Is it smart to wear one? Yes. Should you have the choice? In a society based on freedom, I say yes. I think we all have the right to be stupid. The same thing applies drug laws. And a similar argument is used in the gay rights debate- the government has no business regulating these ideas.

It's the backbone of many a libertarian (if not the ideal American) social premise: "Government, leave me the hell alone, unless I fuck up someone else's shit"

Seems we've been getting away from ourselves.

[Back]

Forgive my typoes, I can't edit my post for some reason :(.

No worries. I think this is a productive discussion without having to devolve into NO U arguments. I’ll rebut.


-I'm prolife, I've had a child and I'm not sure you can be prochoice after that. Now the extreme instances of rape/etc. I can bend on.

In the sense that someone has interfered with another person.


- I have no problem with gay marriage rights. I do take offense when gay rights activists assume they have the right to force churchs (a private organiziation) to accept them.

Understandable. See, there are some common grounds here.


-Drunk driving is a threat to others and is clearly against the law for this reason specifically.

Again I see your intrusion of other’s rights viewpoint on this... but what if its just an empty road with no one else around?


- Drug addiction is self-damaging. The problem is we combat it through the justice system instead of clinically like we do other addictions. The war on drugs causes the majority of crime surrounding drugs, not drug addiction. I think there was a thread on this very subject not to long ago =P....

Very very good point. And something I think Latrin agrees with... we won’t need to be afraid of each other, and ourselves, if we meet those problems with more prevention and not punishment.

[Back]

Tangent: Did you guys see the Congressman claiming that people smoking lettuce would suffer the same deleterious health effects as people smoking tobacco? It was pretty astonishing.

This, to me, is well within the government's bailiwick for the following reasoning: first, a person cannot make a relatively informed decision without a relatively full understanding of the consequences. Second, and most crucially, a person cannot understand how their body will react chemically with nicotine, by which I mean their level and quality of addiction. Hence, a person cannot make an informed decision about smoking cigarettes. Finally, given that smoking cigarettes is to a high degree a hazardous activity, the government ought to step in and regulate it to a high degree.

That people often do not want to make informed decisions is not relevant to their rights as people. Animals get comparatively very few rights, and ours is a government not of animals but of people.

Here is an extreme example of how a so-called “nanny state” is somewhat justified despite “caveat emptor”...

Someone is selling snake poison as a cure all to the people. The government has the resources to research and knows thats bullshit. The people don’t have the resources the government does. If the public listens to the government they won’t waste their hard earned wages on bullshit.

[Bhuryn]

Here is an extreme example of how a so-called “nanny state” is somewhat justified despite “caveat emptor”...

Someone is selling snake poison as a cure all to the people. The government has the resources to research and knows thats bullshit. The people don’t have the resources the government does. If the public listens to the government they won’t waste their hard earned wages on bullshit.

But at the same time, even with all the money the FDA/government spends, we still have snake oil today. I think that people and the market tend to weed out what works and what doesn't faster then the government can.

[Mabus]

Here is an extreme example of how a so-called “nanny state” is somewhat justified despite “caveat emptor”...

Someone is selling snake poison as a cure all to the people. The government has the resources to research and knows thats bullshit. The people don’t have the resources the government does. If the public listens to the government they won’t waste their hard earned wages on bullshit.
Bad analogy, but I'll play along.

Someone is selling snake poison pellets as a rat poison. After a few years they make no efforts to say it does anything but kill. On the bottle they put a large warning that says "Warning: Snake poison inside. Ingesting snake poison causes death!". Everyone knows that the snake poison causes death. The feds decide to tax the snake poison to fund weekly tiddly-wink conventions for senior citizens, and then they tax people that own land with snakes on it more, because these people do not buy the prepackaged snake poison. They then decide that people must love the rats and not poison them, because some idiot could eat the pellets. In order to get the law passed they allow the company that manufactures the snake poison pellets to write major parts of the legislation. This allows the company to maintain market share against others that also produce snake poison pellets.

I hope that makes as little sense as your analogy.

By the way, where do you get that great ganja you smoke before you post? ;)

[Bhuryn]

I will add this though:

Selling snake oil could be considered a violation of my personal rights if it was sold as a safe cureall and turned out to be dangerous.

This does go both ways though. My uncle had a strange rare form of cancer (Multiple myoloama something or other). There was a drug produced by a foreign company that worked very well but the FDA was taking so long to approve it (years and years) that my uncle ended up flying to Mexico to get it. Now, if the FDA had the ability to say "this is dangerous! or this is snake oil!" but didn't hvae the power to prevent someone from buying it, wouldn't that potentially be equally effective on both sides?

[Back]

But at the same time, even with all the money the FDA/government spends, we still have snake oil today. I think that people and the market tend to weed out what works and what doesn't faster then the government can.

I can agree with that in one sense... if people see other people dying because the “snake oil” sales are killing people, then yeah, hopefully people are going to (or should) obviously self-regulate by not buying the snake oil.

This does go back to your argument that something someone does to oneself is different than something someone does to another... which I agree with.

But how is one entity who has knowledge of the damage telling another entity who does not know the damage to avoid that damage a nanny state?

[radamanthys]

I will add this though:

Selling snake oil could be considered a violation of my personal rights if it was sold as a safe cureall and turned out to be dangerous.

This does go both ways though. My uncle had a strange rare form of cancer (Multiple myoloama something or other). There was a drug produced by a foreign company that worked very well but the FDA was taking so long to approve it (years and years) that my uncle ended up flying to Mexico to get it. Now, if the FDA had the ability to say "this is dangerous! or this is snake oil!" but didn't hvae the power to prevent someone from buying it, wouldn't that potentially be equally effective on both sides?

The FDA is a necessary entity. This has been proven in the early part of the century when Upton Sinclair first brought it to light, and now in China.

I'm thinking that it might not be a bad idea to let them regulate tobacco (my mind isn't made up yet). I'm not sure what additives they put in. Under the FDA, this isn't about taxing them or banning them. It's about making sure that they are as safe as possible.

[Bhuryn]

The FDA is a necessary entity. This has been proven in the early part of the century when Upton Sinclair first brought it to light, and now in China.

I'm thinking that it might not be a bad idea to let them regulate tobacco (my mind isn't made up yet). I'm not sure what additives they put in. Under the FDA, this isn't about taxing them or banning them. It's about making sure that they are as safe as possible.

Not necessarily with the same power they have currently however.

[Back]

By the way, where do you get that great ganja you smoke before you post? ;)

Some people don’t need some artificial chemical in their brain to reach a... certain plane of thought.


Bad analogy, but I'll play along.

Someone is selling snake poison pellets as a rat poison. After a few years they make no efforts to say it does anything but kill. On the bottle they put a large warning that says "Warning: Snake poison inside. Ingesting snake poison causes death!". Everyone knows that the snake poison causes death. The feds decide to tax the snake poison to fund weekly tiddly-wink conventions for senior citizens, and then they tax people that own land with snakes on it more, because these people do not buy the prepackaged snake poison. They then decide that people must love the rats and not poison them, because some idiot could eat the pellets. In order to get the law passed they allow the company that manufactures the snake poison pellets to write major parts of the legislation. This allows the company to maintain market share against others that also produce snake poison pellets.

I hope that makes as little sense as your analogy.

WTF are you smoking?

[Mabus]

Some people don’t need some artificial chemical in their brain to reach a... certain plane of thought.

WTF are you smoking?
After reading your "example" I had to come to some conclusion. I would rather think you were on something then you were being serious.

So I played along, and posted something a little closer to the truth of how tobacco has been handled (while still maintaining your stoner-logic).

I didn't want to "F" with your high, dooooood. ;)

And while I used to smoke mj (and still advocate for its legalization, as a matter of fact I am doing a flyer for a local NORML chapter event as I post this) I find I am more productive without its use. Hard to code and be stoned. And it didn't take the "Nanny State", nor the legal system, to have me come to that conclusion.

[ElanthianSiren]

My main problem with smoking is it harms not only the person who chooses to smoke but people around them.

Barring that, if you want to blacken your lungs, weaken your bones, paralyze the cilia in your lower respiratory tract that prohibits infection, and poison your air, I'm all for it in 99.9% of cases. But don't come around me with that. I have enough problems.

That's one thing all those warning labels never addressed, and it is one thing that makes smoking a public issue, subject to punative measures to try to dissuade it or at least pay for some of the inevitable damage done to the public as a result.

[Junarra]

I hate that I smoke, and it's also, yes, incredibly expensive now.

If the federal government starts taxing more to supposedly stop us from smoking, they better be handing out free meds and nicotine replacement therapies. I cannot quit cold turkey, I've tried and failed.

I'd use my health insurance to quit, but the last time I used it, I wound up with an $850 bill for TWO office visits with labs, the end result being I have something wrong, but it's considered "normal" even though I can't function at work when it happens and I consistently lose money. So I'm dead scared to even attempt seeing a doctor again, I can't afford bills like that!

Fucking ridiculous, all of it.

[Bhuryn]

I hate that I smoke, and it's also, yes, incredibly expensive now.

If the federal government starts taxing more to supposedly stop us from smoking, they better be handing out free meds and nicotine replacement therapies. I cannot quit cold turkey, I've tried and failed.

I'd use my health insurance to quit, but the last time I used it, I wound up with an $850 bill for TWO office visits with labs, the end result being I have something wrong, but it's considered "normal" even though I can't function at work when it happens and I consistently lose money. So I'm dead scared to even attempt seeing a doctor again, I can't afford bills like that!

Fucking ridiculous, all of it.

Those costs are associated directly with the fact we live in a nannystate.

[Mabus]

My main problem with smoking is it harms not only the person who chooses to smoke but people around them.
Like the guy that was a a painter for years that lives in a old asbestos-laden house next to a freeway near a nuclear test site that dies of lung cancer. Since he didn't smoke cigarettes he MUST have died from second-hand smoke.

Most of the studies (especially the ones that put out hard estimates on the deaths, eg 400,000 second hand smoke deaths a year!) are junk science. Accepted by the non-smokers, but still junk.

[ElanthianSiren]

Like the guy that was a a painter for years that lives in a old asbestos-laden house next to a freeway near a nuclear test site that dies of lung cancer. Since he didn't smoke cigarettes he MUST have died from second-hand smoke.

Most of the studies (especially the ones that put out hard estimates on the deaths, eg 400,000 second hand smoke deaths a year!) are junk science. Accepted by the non-smokers, but still junk.

So cigarette smoke doesn't prompt asthmatics to convulse in allergic response? It doesn't contain the same tar that blackens smokers lungs? When you put it against light, you don't see all types of particulate that you're then breathing unfiltered? It doesn't coat everything in a smoker's home with brown tar? It's not been associated causitively in Montana with myocardial infarction? The gas phase doesn't contain carbon monoxide? The National Cancer Institute hasn't found almost 70 compounds in cigarette smoke that likely cause cancer and are extremely dangerous for children?

From the U.S. Surgeon General June 2006.
“There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can cause immediate harm.”

The report goes on to conclude “the scientific evidence is now indisputable. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

These are the same people who put the warnings on the cigarettes that you use in an earlier rebuttal in this thread.

[Bhuryn]

So cigarette smoke doesn't prompt asthmatics to convulse in allergic response? It doesn't contain the same tar that blackens smokers lungs? When you put it against light, you don't see all types of particulate that you're then breathing unfiltered? It doesn't coat everything in a smoker's home with brown tar? It's not been associated causitively in Montana with myocardial infarction? The gas phase doesn't contain carbon monoxide? The National Cancer Institute hasn't found almost 70 compounds in cigarette smoke that likely cause cancer and are extremely dangerous for children?

From the U.S. Surgeon General June 2006.
“There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure to environmental tobacco smoke can cause immediate harm.”

The report goes on to conclude “the scientific evidence is now indisputable. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."

These are the same people who put the warnings on the cigarettes that you use in an earlier rebuttal in this thread.

We could dig outselves pretty deeply into a hole here but there are plenty of unhealthy things we live with and around that are far more dangerous and people tend to ignore them. Your chances of dying from second hand smoke if you live with, and around non-smokers (read: you walk by a smoker occasionally) is so small i doubt you could find a study that showed any deaths outside a reasonable margin of error.

[Jorddyn]

I hate that I smoke, and it's also, yes, incredibly expensive now.

If the federal government starts taxing more to supposedly stop us from smoking, they better be handing out free meds and nicotine replacement therapies. I cannot quit cold turkey, I've tried and failed.

I'd use my health insurance to quit, but the last time I used it, I wound up with an $850 bill for TWO office visits with labs, the end result being I have something wrong, but it's considered "normal" even though I can't function at work when it happens and I consistently lose money. So I'm dead scared to even attempt seeing a doctor again, I can't afford bills like that!

Fucking ridiculous, all of it.

I've set my official quit date as 7/1, so I wish you the best of luck in whatever you decide to do. I'm going back on Chantix (after seriously considering the side effects I had last time), and was pleasantly surprised to learn that my insurance covered it in full. Never before have I looked so dumb as at the pharmacy counter, debit card in hand, trying to comprehend my $0.00 bill. Since smoking is so bad for you, and those who smoke can have very serious medical bills, I wonder why more insurance companies aren't taking this path.

[ElanthianSiren]

A montana study was done in 2004 where they enforced a no smoking ban and trips to the hospital for myocardial infarctions dropped significantly. Once the ban was lifted, they increased again.

While its true that in statistics that's called correlation, which isn't equal to causation, the reversal raises a pretty dramatic question. It's not one that I want to gamble with to be honest.

[Jorddyn]

A montana study was done in 2004 where they enforced a no smoking ban and trips to the hospital for myocardial infarctions dropped significantly. Once the ban was lifted, they increased again.

Smoking bans have the effect of encouraging a large number of people to quit, so a reduction in heart attacks isn't overly surprising. Now, if they could show a reduction in heart attacks among those who do not smoke, have never smoked, and don't live with smokers*, I'd be interested.

*On the theory that they'd skew the results by still being exposed to a high amount of second hand smoke.

[ElanthianSiren]

Smoking bans have the effect of encouraging a large number of people to quit, so a reduction in heart attacks isn't overly surprising. Now, if they could show a reduction in heart attacks among those who do not smoke, have never smoked, and don't live with smokers*, I'd be interested.

*On the theory that they'd skew the results by still being exposed to a high amount of second hand smoke.

It wasn't a ban of smoking totally. It was a public ban, (no smoking in public areas), but yes, I see what you're saying.

The nature of smoke (mobile) makes it hard to say, "this distance is safe," and with the disorders associated with cigarette smoking often being the result of chronic unhealthy exposures (ie cancer, heart attack), it's hard to say this specifically caused x. I find the 400,000 death studies to be suspect, but I'm also not sitting here trying to argue that cigarette smoke doesn't hurt anybody not sucking on the cigarette.

[Bhuryn]

I think this got off track somewhere.

The government has every right to tell people they can't smoke on public property (it falls into their rights being violated). That's not the issue though. The issue is the government can't tell me I can't smoke on my own property. Just like they shouldn't beable to tell me what drugs I can take (pharma and otherwise), what food I choose to eat (with obvious limitations on domestic animals!), etc.

[Jorddyn]

It wasn't a ban of smoking totally. It was a public ban, (no smoking in public areas), but yes, I see what you're saying.

That's what I figured it was, and was what my statement related to.

It'll be interesting to see what happens in Iowa in the next couple years thanks to our "Clean Air" act - No smoking in public buildings except casinos (because apparently second hand smoke is good for you there), no smoking in a fenced in area of a business unless food is not allowed in said area.

[Jorddyn]

I think this got off track somewhere.

The government has every right to tell people they can't smoke on public property (it falls into their rights being violated). That's not the issue though. The issue is the government can't tell me I can't smoke on my own property. Just like they shouldn't beable to tell me what drugs I can take (pharma and otherwise), what food I choose to eat (with obvious limitations on domestic animals!), etc.

I agree. Except for the limitations on domestic animals - what do I care if you eat a dog, so long as it isn't my dog? And if you do eat my dog, it's already covered under theft laws.

PETA doesn't like me.

[ElanthianSiren]

go for puppies. they're the most tender. I've heard too that different breeds taste different; this from my neighbors' parents growing up who were from Seoul.

[Mabus]

I find the 400,000 death studies to be suspect, but I'm also not sitting here trying to argue that cigarette smoke doesn't hurt anybody not sucking on the cigarette.
Me either. Breathing in the smoke of anything is hazardous.

Campfires, burning food in your kitchen, trucks and buses going by as you walk and yes, cigarettes, are unhealthy.

The "400,000 deaths a year from second-hand cigarette smoke" is often used as part of the argument. I find it to be junk science and propaganda.

[Mabus]

It is sometimes tough to tell a Mabus and a ClydeR post apart.
Strange, I sometimes mistake you for Back.

Does that make you feel better? Is it helpful to the discussion?


Why be anti drug if you're pro smoking? Question that afflicts a bunch of Republicans.
I am neither a repulicrat nor a demopublican.

And if you read my posts on legalization you would know I am not "anti drug".

Two fails in one post. You are on a roll.

[Warriorbird]

You're an "independent"? How many Democrats have you voted for lately? Who went on a thousand post plus anti Obama rampage?

I'm still wondering how putting up links to obviously biased articles counts as incisive thought.

As to the rest? Where's the Republican support for drug legalization? But you "independents" never ask about that.

[Mabus]

You're an "independent"?
Yep. Small "l" libertarian.


How many Democrats have you voted for lately?
Several. Especially the ones I meet face to face. I was a big supporter of Stephanie Tubbs-Jones (D) for instance, but I am not fond of Marcia Fudge (who replaced her after Stephanie died). I voted for Ted Strickland (D) for governor of Ohio in the last gubernatorial race as well.


Who went on a thousand post plus anti Obama rampage?
And who warned about how campaigning was different then governing, and how he would raise the deficit while still disappointing his fanatics?

I still feel his policies are bad for this country. But as I said during GW's term, "The republic will survive.".


I'm still wondering how putting up links to obviously biased articles counts as incisive thought.
And I am wondering if you doing anything but trolling in this thread is worthy of a response. I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt.


As to the rest? Where's the Republican support for drug legalization?
How about William F. Buckley, George Shultz, Ron Paul and many other prominent republicans and conservatives that have long called for an end to the "War on Drugs"? I suppose they do not count, at least to you.


But you "independents" never ask about that.
What the hell does that even mean?

Unlike you (at least from what you seem to be saying) many people have individual thought that does not need to bow to their party's line.

Independents come with many, many reasons for being so, and have many schools of thought. Their dislike (and even distrust) for the enforced "two party system" is often grounded in facts that it may be hard for someone indoctrinated (as you seem to be) in a line of party BS to understand.

I prefer individual liberty, along with individual responsibility, to the passing of arbitrary laws that reflect the fashionable thoughts meant to reelect the incompetent. If you prefer to be told exactly what you are able to do by some "higher power" (in this case the federal government) then you have some serious growing up to do (in my opinion).

[Warriorbird]

... and look. I drew you into something worthwhile, Mabus.

Buckley's dead, Schulz is disregarded (sadly, he's an actual intellectual), and many in your party consider Ron Paul nuts.

I'd love to see some actual libertarian notions from the folks who are really in charge on the Republican end.

It seems mostly classed in the same category you rail against people liking Obama for, "stuff to get them elected."

[Mabus]

... and look. I drew you into something worthwhile, Mabus.
I really do not consider your off topic trolling worthwhile. I am humoring you because you do, at times, post rational, intelligent thought. Unfortunately, this thread is not one of those times.

Buckley's dead, Schulz is disregarded (sadly, he's an actual intellectual), and many in your party consider Ron Paul nuts.
Yes, Buckley is dead. But he was also considered one of the founders of modern conservatism.

"For an entire generation he was the preeminent voice of American conservatism and its first great ecumenical figure." -George H. Nash

Another fail.

I don't have a party, so "your party" is incorrect.

And another fail.

Is that four in one thread? Already?

And let's not forget others of conservative thought that are against the "War on Drugs" (why the hell are we discussing this in a thread about tobacco and the Nanny State?), like Milton Friedman, Tucker Carlson or Grover Norquist. Two of them are alive, if you are counting.

Even Pat Buchanan and Glenn Beck are coming around to see legalization as a viable option. Both alive.

Perhaps if you looked at the issue without those party-colored glasses you would not make these mistakes. I am unsure if that is possible for you, however.

[Bhuryn]

... and look. I drew you into something worthwhile, Mabus.

Buckley's dead, Schulz is disregarded (sadly, he's an actual intellectual), and many in your party consider Ron Paul nuts.

I'd love to see some actual libertarian notions from the folks who are really in charge on the Republican end.

It seems mostly classed in the same category you rail against people liking Obama for, "stuff to get them elected."


Man's a genius, people are just to dumb to recognize it =P.

[4a6c1]

I think stuff that does not contribute to the integrity of our country should be taxed and taxed and taxed. There is no good reason NOT to put more tax on cigarettes.

Any government action past that is scifi weird.

[CrystalTears]

I think stuff that does not contribute to the integrity of our country should be taxed and taxed and taxed. There is no good reason NOT to put more tax on cigarettes.

Any government action past that is scifi weird.
There are a lot of things that don't "contribute" but people like consuming them anyway. It doesn't mean that they should be taxed more, it moves towards a slippery slope.

Eating too much meat, candy or drinking too much soda is bad for you, but in moderation is fine. Are you going to start taxing after you purchase a certain quantity that "society" deems is sufficient? People snort empty cans of whipped cream, are you going to tax that extra as well? And as much as they regulate emissions, standing in the middle of a parking lot of idle cars can't possibly be good for your health either, when should they start overtaxing cars and gas too?

If I knew that the extra taxes were going towards helping people get weened off cigarettes, I'd be more for it. But aside from that, you can tax the shit out of it and it won't make a lick of difference for those who want to continue to smoke. They'll find the means to afford it.

[Mabus]

If I knew that the extra taxes were going towards helping people get weened off cigarettes, I'd be more for it.
I hear you on that.

None of the funds from the last federal tax increase on tobacco went toward smoking cessation. None. Zero. Nada.

When they tax the addicted poor, yet provide no aid for them to stop, it does seem rather insensitive.

But aside from that, you can tax the shit out of it and it won't make a lick of difference for those who want to continue to smoke. They'll find the means to afford it.
Or if the costs become to prohibitive, a black market will form and expand, possibly leading to higher crime.

[Bhuryn]

I think stuff that does not contribute to the integrity of our country should be taxed and taxed and taxed. There is no good reason NOT to put more tax on cigarettes.

Any government action past that is scifi weird.

I bet you've eaten a chip, cookie or some other snake food this year. How'd you like to pay 9 dollars for it?

[4a6c1]

:rofl:

i did not chain-eat oreos for a killer focus to get sharpshooter on every machine gun

people dont take 7 oreo breaks a day

peope dont wear oreo patches

[Fallen]

There was talk not that long ago to actually tax Soda. Caffeine is addicting, physically and otherwise. Does that mean it should be taxed? Fuck no. That is the type of slippery slope bullshit that comes to mind when I see all this litigation and taxes thrown at big tobacco. People are now fully aware of the risks of smoking. If they aren't, then they have greater problems than smoking. Like a form of mild retardation.

[Back]

I bet you've eaten a chip, cookie or some other snake food this year. How'd you like to pay 9 dollars for it?

Now you are referencing the transfat bans that foreign countries have already done.

This is my snake oil scenario. Denmark (home of the delicious pastry known as the danish) reduced the levels of transfats used in foods due to their high level of heart disease. This falls under the “if it harms someone else it needs to be delt with” idea.

The government of Denmark knew how bad it was for people and did something about it. And guess what? You don’t need transfats to make a flaky and tasty delicious danish.

[Wesley]

Things

Excuse me, sir, where are you Back from? Did you take a trip? Additionally, why does the Pikachu in your signature appear as if it has been anally violated by that annoying child from the show on my television machine who likes to throw his balls around?

[Junarra]

I've set my official quit date as 7/1, so I wish you the best of luck in whatever you decide to do. I'm going back on Chantix (after seriously considering the side effects I had last time), and was pleasantly surprised to learn that my insurance covered it in full. Never before have I looked so dumb as at the pharmacy counter, debit card in hand, trying to comprehend my $0.00 bill. Since smoking is so bad for you, and those who smoke can have very serious medical bills, I wonder why more insurance companies aren't taking this path.

I think I'm going to call them and tell them straight up 'You tell me now how much going on Zyban or Chantix is going to cost me, I don't really need an appointment, but I fully expect you will ONLY charge me the copay if I have to have one. If that's not how it works, then figure out how to make it work.'

And good luck to you, too!

[Back]

Excuse me, sir, where are you Back from? Did you take a trip? Additionally, why does the Pikachu in your signature appear as if it has been anally violated by that annoying child from the show on my television machine who likes to throw his balls around?

rofl. I guess it does look like its getting an anal poke from a bang. Thats Ling Ling from the series Drawn Together on Comedy Central.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=77982&title=toots-donkey-show

I am back from a meltdown, a subsequent ban, a change of heart and yesterday night/this morning. Formerly known as Backlash.

[Mikalmas]

I think I'm going to call them and tell them straight up 'You tell me now how much going on Zyban or Chantix is going to cost me, I don't really need an appointment, but I fully expect you will ONLY charge me the copay if I have to have one. If that's not how it works, then figure out how to make it work.'

And good luck to you, too!

Pssst...

Zyban= the smoking cessation form of Bupropion, generally not covered by insurance.

Wellburtrin= the antidepressant form of Bupropion, almost always covered by insurance.

Ask your doc for Wellbutrin for "depression" rather than Zyban for smoking cessation.

For the record, according to my insurance carrier:

Chantix: $91.20
Zyban: $195.29
Wellbutrin XL: 162.67
Bupropion (Generic): $20.82

These are for the "most commonly prescribed" dose and frequency, and priced at Walgreens.

[Junarra]

Ask your doc for Wellbutrin for "depression" rather than Zyban for smoking cessation.

Thank you, good tip, because I think we all know how disconnected the medical profession is from the pharmaceutical reps, they'd never push the spendy stuff on someone.

That was always the plan, I've known quite a few people who've successfully quit using Wellbutrin, before Chantix and Zyban were put so broadly on the market. I'm also scared shitless of the whole "you might want to murder people or yourself" aspect of Chantix. I'm already homicidal enough going cold turkey, no need to enhance that!

And yes, it's pathetic, I've been planning this for years. :club:

[Bhuryn]

I think I'm going to call them and tell them straight up 'You tell me now how much going on Zyban or Chantix is going to cost me, I don't really need an appointment, but I fully expect you will ONLY charge me the copay if I have to have one. If that's not how it works, then figure out how to make it work.'

And good luck to you, too!

You have to run a few tests to get chantix I believe. Blood pressure and the like.

[Mikalmas]

Thank you, good tip, because I think we all know how disconnected the medical profession is from the pharmaceutical reps, they'd never push the spendy stuff on someone.

That was always the plan, I've known quite a few people who've successfully quit using Wellbutrin, before Chantix and Zyban were put so broadly on the market. I'm also scared shitless of the whole "you might want to murder people or yourself" aspect of Chantix. I'm already homicidal enough going cold turkey, no need to enhance that!

And yes, it's pathetic, I've been planning this for years. :club:

It's not pathetic. At least you're working on it. The good news is people tend to have a better chance at success on their second or third attempt. The first attempt you're never prepared for, because you don't know what to expect. With the second attempt, though, you're better equipped because you know what to expect. That's what my doctor told me, and it was true enough. failed the first time (after 2 weeks), but the second time I'm almost 5 years smoke-free.

Good luck!

[Jorddyn]

I think I'm going to call them and tell them straight up 'You tell me now how much going on Zyban or Chantix is going to cost me, I don't really need an appointment, but I fully expect you will ONLY charge me the copay if I have to have one. If that's not how it works, then figure out how to make it work.'

And good luck to you, too!

The only drawback to that plan is they make you go back a month after starting Chantix to check your blood pressure, since it's been known to raise it. So, it is costing me two co-pays. But I was going in for something unrelated on my first appointment anyhow.

[ElanthianSiren]

So you're paying a copay to wait for 30 minutes in a waiting room full of sick people for your doctor to do essentially what you can do at a super market for free in a minute and a half or 3-5 minutes if you want to repeat your values to check the validity of them.

I'm glad I never got addicted to nicotine because that's a complete rip imo and like inviting getting sick.

I should edit in that I despise doctors, their waiting rooms, and interacting with them, which often turns into me correcting them via more recent medical studies and revisions to their training. My sympathies.

[Bhuryn]

My wifes family just passed around their extra chantix (since a few of them bought a 6 month supply). There's one month left I'm going to probably snag and give it a go.

[Gan]

As long as I'm not forced to breathe someone elses smoke (primary or 2nd hand) while enjoying a pursuit of happiness (meaning being in a public place), thats why I support smoking ordinances.

I'm glad they dont allow smoking on airplanes now. I remember when they did :( . I'm glad the City of Houston has a smoking ordinance that prohibits smoking inside a resturant or bar - that means I can enjoy places that serve good food without the cigarette smoke attacking me while I eat.

If I'm outside, being around others that smoke isnt as bad - but if I have the option I usually move away simply because I dislike the smell and what the smoke that I am exposed to does to my allergies.

[Bhuryn]

I'm a smoker and I support smoking ordinances in bars and resturants (so long as you can smoke somewhere near by =)).

[TheRunt]

Pssst...
Ask your doc for Wellbutrin for "depression" rather than Zyban for smoking cessation.

Very good advice, except for one thing. For some background checks and such you have to list if you have ever been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. If it wont effect you or you don't care, do it. If it will effect your employment or other issues be careful.


As long as I'm not forced to breathe someone elses smoke (primary or 2nd hand) while enjoying a pursuit of happiness (meaning being in a public place), thats why I support smoking ordinances.

I'm glad they dont allow smoking on airplanes now. I remember when they did :( . I'm glad the City of Houston has a smoking ordinance that prohibits smoking inside a resturant or bar - that means I can enjoy places that serve good food without the cigarette smoke attacking me while I eat.


I'm a smoker and I support smoking ordinances in bars and resturants (so long as you can smoke somewhere near by =)).

I'm a smoker and I don't support ordinances such as these, and I know non-smokers that don't either. It is the business owners property, if he/she chooses to allow a legal activity their it is between him and his customers. If you don't like being around smoke go to a non-smoking establishment.


I agree here because I can’t think of anything someone could do to themselves to get arrested. I tend to think of ourselves as us meaning everyone, but thats just me and realistically a little far fetched.

But in these kinds of Socratic debates I like to throw out extreme examples.

So, just to discuss...

Do you consider abortion a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

A threat to others, your not killing yourself are you?

Do you consider gay marriage a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

I don't consider it a threat. Except that it endorses homosexuality, which I don't and how it effects how I raise my children. There was a school teacher in CA when gay marriage was first passed that took her early grade school class to a gay marriage as a field trip, and others that have taught it in the classroom without parental notification or the ability to opt out your children.

Do you consider drunk driving a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

Impaired driving I consider a threat to others. But I don't agree with most of the DUI laws out there. How about the guy that was arrested for DUI that was mowing his own lawn and did not travel off his property?
http://www.avvo.com/case/view/man-on-riding-lawn-mower-arrested-for-dui-in-his-o-2827

Or the quote from this officer. "Holmes says even if you're in your own backyard and your drunk on any type of vehicle, you can be arrested for operating a vehicle impaired."
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51855


Or a person who is not impaired but is above the legal limits? A person is intoxicated in my state at .08,a guy is driving along and is followed by a LEO for a couple of miles, the cop does not notice any impairment in his driving, and pulls him over for a burned out tail light, during the stop the cop talks to him and he doesn't seem impaired, but he smells alcohol so the officer asks him to perform a field sobriety test, the guy passes, the officer then gives him a breathalyzer and he blows .09. Is he guilty of a dui? In my opinion no.

Do you consider drug addiction a threat to others or a threat to themselves?

I consider the addiction a threat to themselves.

[Gan]

If you don't like being around smoke go to a non-smoking establishment. .

If you want to smoke, go to an establishment that allows smoking.

Personally, I despise your attitude when the practice you partake in by its nature adversely imposes itself upon others nearby.

If you could guarantee that none of the smoke that you or your cigarette/cigar/whatever would encroach upon others nearby then I wouldnt mind if you sat your stinky ashtray smelling ass in the same resturant.

But since your sloppy orally fixaated habit cant be kept to yourself - then it must be regulated because it infringes upon the rights of others who may not wish to partake in it.

[Tsa`ah]

Very good advice, except for one thing. For some background checks and such you have to list if you have ever been diagnosed with a mental health disorder. If it wont effect you or you don't care, do it. If it will effect your employment or other issues be careful.

This is actually nothing more than misinformation and paranoia.

You don't need a history of depression before your doc can prescribe budeprion, nor an insurance company to cover it.

That you suggest it will impact someone's employment ... laughable.


I'm a smoker and I don't support ordinances such as these, and I know non-smokers that don't either. It is the business owners property, if he/she chooses to allow a legal activity their it is between him and his customers. If you don't like being around smoke go to a non-smoking establishment.

I'm an ex-smoker of the non-annoying type. If you want to smoke, that's your problem. When I did smoke, I didn't smoke around non-smokers, I didn't smoke where the smell of my smoking would linger ... and I absolutely would not smoke around children.

That being said ... you do not have the right to expose anyone to the results of your addiction outside of your home. If you can't go an hour without a smoke ... don't go out to eat. If you can't enjoy a beer without a smoke, don't go to bars that don't have outdoor beer gardens.

In short, you do not have the right to induce asthma attacks nor expose the unwilling to carcinogens. Last but not least ... you don't have the right to make everyone around you smell as shitty as you do.

[Parkbandit]

I want to smoke a pipe, but it looks so gay.. So I'm stuck with the occasional cigar.

[Stanley Burrell]

In my old apartment, there was this woman who notoriously drenched herself in what must have been like eau'de five gallons of perfume. This lady I knew with severe asthma walked into an elevator with her and by the time they reached the first floor, she had to have an ambulance called to get her breathing.

I say before we crucify smokers, that we at least throw rat poop all over people who wear way too much perfume-y garbage. Though they'd probably just wear more perfume.

What the fuck.

[Tsa`ah]

In my old apartment, there was this woman who notoriously drenched herself in what must have been like eau'de five gallons of perfume. This lady I knew with severe asthma walked into an elevator with her and by the time they reached the first floor, she had to have an ambulance called to get her breathing.

Ironic ... I had to stick myself with solumedrol and suck down three doses of duonebs because of this chick in the bank saturday, obviously she showers herself with perfume.


I say before we crucify smokers ...

While I understand the correlation you're trying to make, perfume isn't a controlled substance (though it should be).

No one is attempting to crucify smokers ... they just don't want to be the unwilling subjects of their addiction.

[Mabus]

In my old apartment, there was this woman who notoriously drenched herself in what must have been like eau'de five gallons of perfume. This lady I knew with severe asthma walked into an elevator with her and by the time they reached the first floor, she had to have an ambulance called to get her breathing.

I say before we crucify smokers, that we at least throw rat poop all over people who wear way too much perfume-y garbage. Though they'd probably just wear more perfume.

What the fuck.
We also need to regulate peanut butter and peanuts!

People die from their allergies!

Tax these insidious herbaceous legumes into non-usage!

Do it, for the kids!

[CrystalTears]

I'm not a fan of overtaxing things that are bad for you since it could escalate into doing the same thing for other products, but you have to admit that there is nothing good or redeeming about smoking.

Making the comparison to peanuts is not as effective as they supply vitamins and minerals... and are damned tasty. And if you eat a peanut, someone next to you isn't going to go into a coughing fit or get bouts of asthma over it either.

Although I do wish we could do something about people who overperfume. We have a coworker who does that, and is known for it. The day I was going to meet her for the first time, instead of telling me where she sat, they told me to follow the scent. No joke.

[Mabus]

I'm not a fan of overtaxing things that are bad for you since it could escalate into doing the same thing for other products, but you have to admit that there is nothing good or redeeming about smoking.
Smoking tobacco can be self-medicating.

There are many physiological and psychological conditions that respond to the nicotine, as well as other substances, found in tobacco.


Making the comparison to peanuts is not as effective as they supply vitamins and minerals... and are damned tasty. And if you eat a peanut, someone next to you isn't going to go into a coughing fit or get bouts of asthma over it either.
Food allergies are deadly serious. It won't be that they "don't like the smell", or they would merely "go into a coughing fit", someone with a peanut allergy could die from anaphylactic shock. This allergy affects 1.2-1.6% of the population.

[CrystalTears]

Food allergies are deadly serious. It won't be that they "don't like the smell", or they would merely "go into a coughing fit", someone with a peanut allergy could die from anaphylactic shock. This allergy affects 1.2-1.6% of the population.Smelling the odor of a peanut does not cause allergic reactions. The person would have to be standing in a vat of peanuts, or in a small room where hundreds of people opened a bag of peanuts to get any kind of allergic reaction.

There needs to be contact of the peanut protein, or inhalation of it being airbourne because of cooking or processing... not because one person next to you ate one peanut.

C'mon man, you're reaching.

[Bhuryn]

I'm sorry but smelling a peanut does not cause allergic reactions. They would have to be standing in a vat of peanuts, or in a small room where hundreds of people opened a bag of peanuts to get any kind of allergic reaction. There needs to be contact of the peanut protein, or inhalation of it being airbourne because of cooking or processing... not because one person next to you ate one peanut. C'mon man, you're reaching.

While this might be the case in general -- it's not always this way. My mother teaches at a school that has a child with such an accute alergy to peanuts that children cannot bring peanut butter, peanuts or other foods made from it into the classroom at all as it can cause her throat to swell. A few years ago there was a child that was the same way with latex there. The whole class had to use special erasers because latex in his proximity caused him breathing issues.

[CrystalTears]

While this might be the case in general -- it's not always this way. My mother teaches at a school that has a child with such an accute alergy to peanuts that children cannot bring peanut butter, peanuts or other foods made from it into the classroom at all as it can cause her throat to swell. A few years ago there was a child that was the same way with latex there. The whole class had to use special erasers because latex in his proximity caused him breathing issues.
But you don't create laws and taxes built around the special cases and exceptions, is my point. You adjust for the individual, but you don't outlaw peanuts.

For the most part, smoking is not healthy. If it was JUST nicotine in the cigarettes, that would be fine, but it's filled with toxins.

There's a small part of me that calls bullshit of not even being able to smell peanut butter from across the room, but one should err on the side of caution and not even bother trying to overcome it. I think it's just psychological at that point.

[Bhuryn]

But you don't create laws and taxes built around the special cases and exceptions, is my point. You adjust for the individual, but you don't outlaw peanuts.

For the most part, smoking is not healthy. If it was JUST nicotine in the cigarettes, that would be fine, but it's filled with toxins.

Well, the list of toxins is impressive, but it includes nicotine since an few CCs of it in liquid form will kill a horse =P.

Frankly, The government should not be creating laws preventing me from putting anything in my body that I want. Only, when it effects someone else should they have a right to step in.



There's a small part of me that calls bullshit of not even being able to smell peanut butter from across the room, but one should err on the side of caution and not even bother trying to overcome it. I think it's just psychological at that point.

The scientific side of my brain agrees with you since there is no peanut protein in order, and the protein is what people are allergic to. You don't argue with your mother though!

[CrystalTears]

Frankly, The government should not be creating laws preventing me from putting anything in my body that I want. Only, when it effects someone else should they have a right to step in.Agreed. If you want to win the Darwin award, who am I to stop you? :)

[Bhuryn]

Agreed. If you want to win the Darwin award, who am I to stop you? :)

Your limiting your thought process to harmful products. What about drugs that might save your life that the FDA hasn't approved (or won't since the company doesn't have enough lobbying power).

[Mabus]

Smelling the odor of a peanut does not cause allergic reactions.
What causes the "odor"?

[Mabus]

But you don't create laws and taxes built around the special cases and exceptions, is my point.
Even 1% of the population is over 3,000,000 people in the USA. 3,000,000 people is hardly a "special case and exception".

Tax the peanuts!
;)

[CrystalTears]

What causes the "odor"?
I'm not going to get in a peanut allergy debate with you because it's not fitting to this conversation. I was basically saying that your comparison was weak because allergic reactions to anything that is on its own harmless is not the same as products that are toxic to begin with.

[Mabus]

Your limiting your thought process to harmful products. What about drugs that might save your life that the FDA hasn't approved (or won't since the company doesn't have enough lobbying power).
And that doesn't even bring the approved drugs that are not "life saving" (symptom relief, cosmetic, etc.) that can have extremely unhealthy side affects or even be deadly.

[CrystalTears]

Even 1% of the population is over 3,000,000 people in the USA. 3,000,000 people is hardly a "special case and exception".

Tax the peanuts!
;)
ONLY if the money taxing the peanuts goes to helping aid peanut allergic reactions.

[Mabus]

I'm not going to get in a peanut allergy debate with you because it's not fitting to this conversation. I was basically saying that your comparison was weak because allergic reactions to anything that is on its own harmless is not the same as products that are toxic to begin with.
You stated "but you have to admit that there is nothing good or redeeming about smoking", I stated that there were medical uses.

You also stated "And if you eat a peanut, someone next to you isn't going to go into a coughing fit or get bouts of asthma over it either.", and this is also not the case. Many people have an allergy to peanuts, and could suffer because you are eating them sitting next to them.

But now that both of those have been shown to be false (or at least be at least in question) you state "it's not fitting to this conversation".

I get it.

You like peanuts and do not feel they should be taxed or regulated just because they might cause injury to others.

[Mabus]

ONLY if the money taxing the peanuts goes to helping aid peanut allergic reactions.
Certainly not the case with the tobacco taxes.

No smoking cessation programs for the addicted poor. No replacement therapy for those that currently benefit from tobacco self-medication.

[CrystalTears]

You stated "but you have to admit that there is nothing good or redeeming about smoking", I stated that there were medical uses. You stated that nicotine is beneficial in some cases, but you haven't proven that smoking cigarettes is not harmful. It's more harmful than helpful and is toxic to those around you in the meantime.


You also stated "And if you eat a peanut, someone next to you isn't going to go into a coughing fit or get bouts of asthma over it either.", and this is also not the case. Many people have an allergy to peanuts, and could suffer because you are eating them sitting next to them.Peanuts on their own merit do not automatically cause harm to everyone. That is not the case with cigarette smoke.


But now that both of those have been shown to be false (or at least be at least in question) you state "it's not fitting to this conversation".You have proven diddly. It's not fitting because this is about targetting tobacco, not peanuts. I just didn't want to continue down the allergy path.


I get it. No, I don't think you do.


You like peanuts and do not feel they should be taxed or regulated just because they might cause injury to others.Holy fucking leap, Batman.

I don't think anything should be overtaxed because I don't feel that the government will use that tax wisely. So rather than encourage that precedent, I'm just entirely against it. However if the government decided to shock me and say that a portion or all of the taxes will go towards weening people off said product, then by all means, be my guest. I just know that won't be the case.

[Clove]

Even 1% of the population is over 3,000,000 people in the USA. 3,000,000 people is hardly a "special case and exception".

Tax the peanuts!
;)Approx 21% of Americans smoke. Approx 1.3% of Americans have peanut allergies and it can be assumed that out of that 1.3% less than that are so allergic that the aroma of someone eating peanuts nearby would be harmful (let alone life-threatening); I'll go out on a limb and say much less.

Hmmm 63 million people engaging in a habit that will certainly worsen their health vs. 3.9 million with a sensitivity to an otherwise harmless food that can generally be avoided with some precautions.

That's quite a comparison Mabus.

[Bhuryn]

And that doesn't even bring the approved drugs that are not "life saving" (symptom relief, cosmetic, etc.) that can have extremely unhealthy side affects or even be deadly.

And never will because said companies will always get them approved for awhile atleast.

[Mabus]

Hmmm 63 million people engaging in a habit that will certainly worsen their health
So you are stating "all cigarette smokers see a marked decrease in health"? That would be untrue.

But when it comes to tobacco one can be assured that rumors, propaganda and junk science will always win out over facts and reason.

[Tea & Strumpets]

So you are stating "all cigarette smokers see a marked decrease in health"? That would be untrue.

But when it comes to tobacco one can be assured that rumors, propaganda and junk science will always win out over facts and reason.

You seem to be grasping at straws and using bad analogies. I haven't seen many people in this thread as heavily biased as you are...except maybe Gan when he told that guy he smelled like a stinky ashtray.

[4a6c1]

oreo patches ftw

[radamanthys]

This is the United States of America, the land of Freedom*. The question boils down to this: how much are others' rights being infringed on?

The two questions needing answers are these:
-Are tobacco companies infringing on the rights of smokers?
The FDA, in being able to regulate tobacco, should protect smokers. Being a political organization, however, could (and likely will) impede this ideal.

-Are smokers infringing on the rights of non-smokers?
Yes, second-hand smoke is harmful. But in what quantities and in what capacity? There is just not enough evidence to prove nor disprove the effect in all circumstances. It doesn't help that tobacco is vilified in public opinion- many of the facts are likely skewed, as Mabus rightly points out. It's probably another case of "your children are in danger, news at 11". More research needs to be done before any legislation is passed- it's inherently irresponsible for lawmakers to regulate based on media-driven public opinion (such as some of the anti-smoking rhetoric posted so far) and not solid fact.

[4a6c1]

It doesn't help that tobacco is vilified in public opinion- many of the facts are likely skewed, as Mabus rightly points out. It's probably another case of "your children are in danger, news at 11"..

Or it could be the more physically obvious symptoms of non-smokers coughing when in the vicinity of second hand smoke....

Although reports of "Your children are in danger!", even when half-baked, should be enough to warrant a cautionary prejudice to the effect of legislation until further research is provided.

[Apotheosis]

I'm all for regulating tobacco products, even tighter restrictions, and I'm conservative.

Tobacco products are the devil, as anyone who became addicted to them/is addicted to them knows all too well.

[radamanthys]

Or it could be the more physically obvious symptoms of non-smokers coughing when in the vicinity of second hand smoke....

Although reports of "Your children are in danger!", even when half-baked, should be enough to warrant a cautionary prejudice to the effect of legislation until further research is provided.

A cough doesn't necessarily mean harm is being done or that rights are being infringed on. We don't have the right to not be annoyed in a public place- in fact, freedom of assembly means that we can get together and annoy all the people we want. Now, if people were keeling over and being hospitalized, that'd be a different story- and we'd have already seen it legislated long ago.

The "Your children are in danger" metaphor was meant to imply the (typically sensationalist and fear-driven) media entertainment known as "the news". They rely on freaking people out in order to get ratings- it's typically about as responsible as a news outlet as the daily show. Cautionary prejudice doesn't belong in our legal codex. Fact does.

We were pretty convinced that blacks were nothing but savages and letting them work in our fields was a great thing. Cautionary prejudice based on public opinion is basically worthless as a responsible tool for the basis of legislation.



I'm all for regulating tobacco products, even tighter restrictions, and I'm conservative.

Tobacco products are the devil, as anyone who became addicted to them/is addicted to them knows all too well.

I think that people know the risks when they start smoking. I did. That said, insurance companies can be free to use the wtfpwn bat on smokers if they care to- I don't suggest giving smokers 'protected class' status or anything. I just don't think banning or censoring something really helps to curb its usage. If people want to do it, they will. And it really really really sucks for them.

[Back]

A cough doesn't necessarily mean harm is being done or that rights are being infringed on. We don't have the right to not be annoyed in a public place- in fact, freedom of assembly means that we can get together and annoy all the people we want. Now, if people were keeling over and being hospitalized, that'd be a different story- and we'd have already seen it legislated long ago.

I love a good huff of some quality tear gas.

[radamanthys]

I love a good huff of some quality tear gas.

Ever been gassed? It's hugely not fun.

(I wouldn't say that a little cough from walking by someone with a smoke equates to the choking and burning of tear gas. Neither have longterm effects, though. Other than the memory of it, that is.)


http://www.quizilla.com/user_images/T/TriggerHappyVashy/1053226461_kespike-a1.jpg

[Parkbandit]

All I know is that if we start making smoking less attractive to the younger generation, we're going to have to find another source of government revenue... we tax the absolute SHIT out of tobacco products.

[radamanthys]

All I know is that if we start making smoking less attractive to the younger generation, we're going to have to find another source of government revenue... we tax the absolute SHIT out of tobacco products.

It's about $20bn a year nationally and rising, I think.

[Mabus]

Or it could be the more physically obvious symptoms of non-smokers coughing when in the vicinity of second hand smoke....
People cough around cars, buses and diesel engine trucks all the time. Which carries more carcinogenic material; burning petroleum products or burning tobacco?

Petroleum, of course.
(With the caveat that with tobacco people inhale deeper and hold longer.)

I am not saying "smoking is healthy", it is not. Inhaling compounds left over from burning is not healthy.

What I am saying is that "anti-tobacco" has become its own big business, and one with a very effective propaganda arm. Vehement anti-smokers are worse then recovering heroin addicts, with the rich and connected (and those with a dog in the hunt) being the worst of the bunch.

There is also the issue that everyone has left unaddressed about the current legislation. Large portions of it were written by a single tobacco company. That is correct, the law was written in part by Philip Morris.

They wish to maintain market share, kiddies. The ban on advertising was not placed into the legislation to help your poor, ill-informed children to not learn to smoke from the advertisements. It was not put there because your Uncle Bob had a stroke when his cigarette got caught in his tracheotomy. It was put in there to maintain their dominance over their competitors.

Philip Morris also pushed for the high taxes on loose-leaf tobacco that was included in the SCHIP bill. They made loose-leaf as high in price as their pre-rolled product not to save people from the evils of tobacco, but to sell more (and maintain market share of) friggen Marlboros.

You have been had, and you like it. Your congress went along for the campaign donations, and you bought the lies; hook, line and sinker.

Got that, sheeple?

(this wake up call brought to you by the letter "Arrrrrrr!")
:)

[Gan]

Cigarette smoke and tear gas can be lethal in large doses, just like Carbon Monoxide.

You wouldnt want to sit at a table next to the exhaust of a running car or someone popping CS cannisters, so why would you want to sit next to a table full of chain smokers?

[ElanthianSiren]

There is also the issue that everyone has left unaddressed about the current legislation. Large portions of it were written by a single tobacco company. That is correct, the law was written in part by Philip Morris.

They wish to maintain market share, kiddies. The ban on advertising was not placed into the legislation to help your poor, ill-informed children to not learn to smoke from the advertisements. It was not put there because your Uncle Bob had a stroke when his cigarette got caught in his tracheotomy. It was put in there to maintain their dominance over their competitors.

Philip Morris also pushed for the high taxes on loose-leaf tobacco that was included in the SCHIP bill. They made loose-leaf as high in price as their pre-rolled product not to save people from the evils of tobacco, but to sell more (and maintain market share of) friggen Marlboros.

You have been had, and you like it. Your congress went along for the campaign donations, and you bought the lies; hook, line and sinker.

Got that, sheeple?

(this wake up call brought to you by the letter "Arrrrrrr!")
:)

Maybe some people know and don't care. If anti smokers are as vehement as you say, why would they care if Marlboro was trying to drive out Camel? The less nasty cancer sticks on the market, the better.

[TheRunt]

This is actually nothing more than misinformation and paranoia.

You don't need a history of depression before your doc can prescribe budeprion, nor an insurance company to cover it.

That you suggest it will impact someone's employment ... laughable.

I was responding to the poster that suggested "Ask your doc for Wellbutrin for "depression" rather than Zyban for smoking cessation."


That being said ... you do not have the right to expose anyone to the results of your addiction outside of your home. If you can't go an hour without a smoke ... don't go out to eat. If you can't enjoy a beer without a smoke, don't go to bars that don't have outdoor beer gardens.

I can go for an hour without a smoke, there are several restaurant that I go to that are non-smoking. That is their choice, same as the ones that I go to that allow smoking. I have no problem with a business owner making his place non-smoking, I do have a problem with the gov mandating it.

In short, you do not have the right to induce asthma attacks nor expose the unwilling to carcinogens. Last but not least ... you don't have the right to make everyone around you smell as shitty as you do.

In short, you do not have the right to tell someone that they cannot allow a legal activity on their property.


If you want to smoke, go to an establishment that allows smoking.

Good idea except there are cities I go to that do not allow establishments to allow smoking.


Cigarette smoke and tear gas can be lethal in large doses, just like Carbon Monoxide.

You wouldnt want to sit at a table next to the exhaust of a running car or someone popping CS cannisters, so why would you want to sit next to a table full of chain smokers?

While not a table I do enjoy going to a couple of drive-in restaurants. And for the CS if a establishment allowed it I wouldn't frequent it.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sure the Republicans totally want to pay the extra for the people who suffer from smoking related illnesses when we get managed care.

[radamanthys]

I'm sure the Republicans totally want to pay the extra for the people who suffer from smoking related illnesses when we get managed care.

So you're advocating a complete ban? Really think that that'll work?

[Mabus]

Maybe some people know and don't care. If anti smokers are as vehement as you say, why would they care if Marlboro was trying to drive out Camel? The less nasty cancer sticks on the market, the better.
It doesn't seem to be about "less tobacco-addicted" or "making people safer" (those are the ruses for the 'ignorant' public). It is about a specific company wishing to maintain market share colluding with the government.

The company already has a line of "smokeless" cigarettes and new tobacco pouches ready to go before the FDA for approval, as the legislation (that the company wrote) mandates.

[AnticorRifling]

I don't understand why people are so retarded about this issue. Allow the property owner to decide if he/she wants smoking in their place of business.

If yes: post a fucking sign on the door. If you don't smoke, hate smoke, it bothers you, you can't take it for medical reasons, wtf ever you see the sign and you don't go in....

If no: post a fucking sign on the door. If you have to smoke, want to smoke, etc stay the fuck out.

It kills me that people feel it's always a better solution for someone else to change than to make a choice themselves.

[4a6c1]

WTF MABUS CALLED ME SHEEPLE

I WINDEX U NOW ARGH ARGH ARGH

ps. cigarettes are bad, mkay?

[radamanthys]

WTF MABUS CALLED ME SHEEPLE

I WINDEX U NOW ARGH ARGH ARGH

ps. cigarettes are bad, mkay?

WINDEX FIGHT!!!!!

[Mabus]

WINDEX FIGHT!!!!!

Don't bring a bottle of Windex to a Mr. Clean fight...
;)

[Tsa`ah]

I was responding to the poster that suggested "Ask your doc for Wellbutrin for "depression" rather than Zyban for smoking cessation."

If your doc doesn't come up with the solution on his/her own, or won't prescribe the exact same med for cessation because of some bullshit policy ... fund another fucking doc because the one you have sucks ass.

What you spit out as a response was nothing but bullshit from start to finish, nothing more and nothing less.


I can go for an hour without a smoke, there are several restaurant that I go to that are non-smoking. That is their choice, same as the ones that I go to that allow smoking. I have no problem with a business owner making his place non-smoking, I do have a problem with the gov mandating it.

Actually, the government can mandate ... because it's a public health issue. If your establishment caters to the general public, you are subject to a number of laws when it comes to public health and safety. This happens to be one of them.

Now had a majority of smokers been considerate to begin with, this wouldn't be an issue.


In short, you do not have the right to tell someone that they cannot allow a legal activity on their property.

Yes, you do.


In short, you do not have the right to tell someone that they cannot allow a legal activity on their property.

Again ... Yes you do.

Just because an activity is legal, doesn't mean the activity can be done anywhere and everywhere.

[radamanthys]

Just because an activity is legal, doesn't mean the activity can be done anywhere and everywhere.

Sex is a good example.

[Clove]

Sex is a good example.Prostitution is legal in Rhode Island, as long as the transaction is conducted indoors.
Now had a majority of smokers been considerate to begin with, this wouldn't be an issue.Which brings me to the other non-sequiter. Considerate smoking has nothing to do with whether or not it's a public health and safety issue.

[Gan]

A cough doesn't necessarily mean harm is being done...
Cant believe I missed this.

You realize that coughing is a natural defense mechanism of the body to clear irritants, foreign particles, etc. from your lungs right?

You dont walk around coughing, you walk around breathing. You cough when your breathing passages are threatened with something your body has deemed as harmful.

And the physical act of coughing is a violent release of air against a closed glottis. Severe damage can be achieved through acute and repetitive severe coughing.

To wit:



The complications of coughing can be classified as either acute (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Acute_(medicine)) or chronic (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Chronic_(medical)). Acute complications include cough syncope (fainting (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Fainting) spells due to decreased blood flow to the brain when coughs are prolonged and forceful), insomnia (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Insomnia), cough-induced vomiting (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Vomiting), rupture of blebs (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Bleb) causing spontaneous pneumothorax (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Pneumothorax#Spontaneous_pneumothorax) (although this still remains to be proven), subconjunctival hemorrhage (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Subconjunctival_hemorrhage) or "red eye (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Red_eye_(medicine))," coughing defecation (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Defecation) and in women with a prolapsed (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Prolapse) uterus (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Uterus), cough urination (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Urination). Chronic complications are common and include abdominal or pelvic hernias (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Hernia), fatigue fractures (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Fracture) of lower ribs and costochondritis (http://forum.gsplayers.com/wiki/Tietze%27s_syndrome).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cough#Complications

[Back]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM

[radamanthys]

Cant believe I missed this.

You realize that coughing is a natural defense mechanism of the body to clear irritants, foreign particles, etc. from your lungs right?

You dont walk around coughing, you walk around breathing. You cough when your breathing passages are threatened with something your body has deemed as harmful.

And the physical act of coughing is a violent release of air against a closed glottis. Severe damage can be achieved through acute and repetitive severe coughing.

To wit:

Heh, I never had anyone go into a coughing fit just for being within my vicinity. Other than a couple "ahem" coughs to make a point.

[Gan]

Heh, I never had anyone go into a coughing fit just for being within my vicinity. Other than a couple "ahem" coughs to make a point.

That does not mean it does not happen. I know several people who have pretty bad reactions to cigarette smoke when exposed to it. To the point of coughing so bad that they become incapacitated. My wife being one of them.

[Mabus]

That does not mean it does not happen. I know several people who have pretty bad reactions to cigarette smoke when exposed to it. To the point of coughing so bad that they become incapacitated. My wife being one of them.
Incapacitated, huh?

When can I meet your wife?
:bananahit:

(kidding!)