C-SPAN2 starting tobacco coverage now
- Thread starter TropicalBob
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- altsmoke
- Status
not to help the thread get any more off-topic, but... There was a study recently that indicates that HPV may be a significant cause of some cases of non-small-cell carcinoma (non-small-cell lung cancer). Study Links HPV to Lung Cancer - ABC News
For the same reason the government is trying to stop me, money.
Actually, you're wrong on this point. Anarchy is a lack of government. He hasn't said anywhere that we should do away with government, he's simply saying the government shouldn't interfere with individual rights so long as those individual rights don't infringe upon the lifel, liberty and pursuit of happiness of others. I agree with him on this point, and think most rational people would do the same.
I think the government is keeping us as safe as they possibly can already. Now they are just snatching freedoms.
Sorry if I was not clear - I do agree with that -
And I was not arguing for the right to smoke ANYWHERE I choose - I have no problem with rules about where it is allowed as it pertains to others - Just that it not be banned outright or made criminal and that NO SMOKING signs should not apply to my HOME!
But - I was talking about E-Smoking not tobacco -
There is simply no logical or scientific basis for that rationale to apply to E-smoking! However - I would still not expect to do either in a place where it bothers or otherwise violates other's freedoms - This is just common courtesy
Still - I do find it odd to see self professed conservatives arguing FOR government intervention - Realistic or not -
DON'T TREAD ON ME!
Last edited:
So, health concerns don't figure into it? If that's the case, so be it. Fair enough.
The point was that practically anything can be made into a "personal rights" issue. If the government is going to get out of the business of legislating behavior, they're going to be out of business altogether.
Thank You! Let's not reward the stupidity and the CORRUPTION of the system with our money. Besides, there are so many ways to consume tobacco and/or nicotine stealthily, such that the anti-smoking fascists have not a clue you are even using, unless you tell them. If I visit a friend in the local 'tobacco-free' hospital, I wish them all the luck in the world detecting the mini-portion of snus in my mouth. How will they know a Stonewall in my mouth is dissolvable tobacco and not a breath mint? They can't get in your business if they don't know your business. Government doesn't get paid. Big Tobacco doesn't get paid. Big Pharma doesn't get paid. What's not to love?
Last edited:
If that's in reference to me, you've got it backwards. I'm not a conservative. I'm a centrist progressive (dumb term but probably the closest available definition.)
Agree 100%. One of the best things about e-cigarettes is that they channel my money away from R.J. Reynolds and federal/state taxes.
Thanks for the support man.... Its surprising to me that not everyone feels this way. Some people seem very quick to accept the fact that the government tells them what they can and can not do...Everyone wants to feel protected by their government. We want to be protected from murder, theft, and extortion. We need the government for contract enforcement. The government was designed to protect our most basic rights.
We do NOT need the government dictating to us aspects of our personal lives that don't directly effect the wellbeing of others. The Federal government was meant to be small.... not the overpowering force it has now become.
My fear is the government will see that as the PERFECT reason to ban them. The e-cigs really screw up the game plan, since, the consumers can no longer be raped with tobacco taxes and neither of Big Tobacco or Big Pharma's profits insured. (And why should Big Pharma's profits be insured with thier piddly 1.6% success rate for NRT after one year of use?) Best of all, the fascist antis no longer have any arguments left to manufacture societal pariahs out of thin air.
Last edited:
An article from 2002 on webmd
Obesity Health Costs Outweigh Smoking
Researchers say being obese increases how much a person spends on medical services by 36% and on medications by 77% compared with what a normal-weight person would spend.
In comparison, even with all the known health risks of smoking and alcohol abuse, the researchers found only a 21% rise in health care costs and a 28% rise in medication costs with active smoking, and even more modest cost increases with alcohol abuse.
In fact, the report suggests that being obese effectively ages you 20 years, putting an obese 30-year-old in the same risk group as a normal-weight 50-year-old for developing lifelong medical problems like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.
The entire article -
Obesity Health Costs Outweigh Smoking
Another interesting medical report from 1997
The Health Care Costs of Smoking -Jan J. Barendregt, M.A., Luc Bonneux, M.D., and Paul J. van der Maas, Ph.D.
Background Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.
Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.
Entire article here: NEJM -- The Health Care Costs of Smoking
It just irks me that they use the rising medical costs as an excuse and because everyone knows smoking is unhealthy it is accepted as a fact. What laws will be created to combat obesity? I would guess that overweight people can expect a law empowering an employer to use that as a basis not to hire.
As for the second it just plain says the world would financially be a better place if everyone smoked. As long as they don't quit ; )
Obesity Health Costs Outweigh Smoking
Researchers say being obese increases how much a person spends on medical services by 36% and on medications by 77% compared with what a normal-weight person would spend.
In comparison, even with all the known health risks of smoking and alcohol abuse, the researchers found only a 21% rise in health care costs and a 28% rise in medication costs with active smoking, and even more modest cost increases with alcohol abuse.
In fact, the report suggests that being obese effectively ages you 20 years, putting an obese 30-year-old in the same risk group as a normal-weight 50-year-old for developing lifelong medical problems like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes.
The entire article -
Obesity Health Costs Outweigh Smoking
Another interesting medical report from 1997
The Health Care Costs of Smoking -Jan J. Barendregt, M.A., Luc Bonneux, M.D., and Paul J. van der Maas, Ph.D.
Background Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.
Results Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
Conclusions If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.
Entire article here: NEJM -- The Health Care Costs of Smoking
It just irks me that they use the rising medical costs as an excuse and because everyone knows smoking is unhealthy it is accepted as a fact. What laws will be created to combat obesity? I would guess that overweight people can expect a law empowering an employer to use that as a basis not to hire.
As for the second it just plain says the world would financially be a better place if everyone smoked. As long as they don't quit ; )
Easy. I want to vape in places where smoking is banned. My main reason for wanting that is my hatred of the anti smoking movement. And that was my SOLE reason for buying an e cig. I found, as many have, that I eventually came to like the e cig, so now I use it more than cigarettes. However, after getting two new ones this week, neither of which work, I am losing patience quickly with e smoking.
The funny thing in this very interesting discussion is that Surf Monkey is articulating Sen. Richard Burr's arguments about allowing less harmful alternatives for those who choose not to quit nicotine. Sen. Burr should be our hero. He's right. The present bill is severely flawed.
An argument not brought up much here is that the FDA will be "approving" deadly products with its hands tied as far as eliminating them goes. The bill forbids a ban. So all the FDA can do (and likely will) is mess up everything an addicted smoker enjoys.
Tomorrow at 4:30 is the vote scheduled on the alternative bill proposed by Sen. Burr. It is anti-tobacco -- expect that -- but avoids giving control to the FDA and allows harm reduction alternatives .. snus, dissolvables, e-cigs .. to remain as available options for the smoker wanting to leave cancer sticks behind.
Burr's alternative bill is the last hope we have of non-pharmaceutical nicotine alternatives remaining on the market. Remember, this is the Philip Morris bill - and that company wants to keep Marlboro atop the best seller list.
I did note with sadness that every time Richard Burr spoke so reasonably of his concern over the FDA bill, he was orating to an empty chamber. Minds were made up long ago. The votes are formalities -- for the record.
An argument not brought up much here is that the FDA will be "approving" deadly products with its hands tied as far as eliminating them goes. The bill forbids a ban. So all the FDA can do (and likely will) is mess up everything an addicted smoker enjoys.
Tomorrow at 4:30 is the vote scheduled on the alternative bill proposed by Sen. Burr. It is anti-tobacco -- expect that -- but avoids giving control to the FDA and allows harm reduction alternatives .. snus, dissolvables, e-cigs .. to remain as available options for the smoker wanting to leave cancer sticks behind.
Burr's alternative bill is the last hope we have of non-pharmaceutical nicotine alternatives remaining on the market. Remember, this is the Philip Morris bill - and that company wants to keep Marlboro atop the best seller list.
I did note with sadness that every time Richard Burr spoke so reasonably of his concern over the FDA bill, he was orating to an empty chamber. Minds were made up long ago. The votes are formalities -- for the record.
Surf Monkey,
I think you've bought a bit of a line about smoking. As bad and costly as it is, it's not nearly as bad as you seem to think. The figures I hear among public health people I work with is that a smoker's lifetime medical expenses are about 70% of a nonsmokers in the U.S. (Smokers live about 9 years less than non-smokers, on average, and are therefore less prone to long term, lingering health issues, including dementias, Parkinsons, etc.) As a matter of fact, most public health people I know think the health care system would be completely bankrupted if everyone stopped smoking. Smoker's have about a 4% rate of lung cancer (which is about 20 times that of non-smokers) and a 20% chance of obstructive lung disease (including emphysema, etc.) Many smokers who die of these smoking related problems are in their 70s and 80s and about two thirds of smokers die of something unrelated to smoking. This is all a far cry from the public perception about tobacco smoking. On this forum there is a lot of support for exaggerated views about smoking. I guess it's the convert syndrome. Also, the U.S. is in a huge denial about death and a lot of people seem to feel that if they stop smoking they might live forever. Non-smokers just get something else and die of it.
Wally
Just to address this particular statement...
It's my understanding, based on decades of reading about smoking and its effects on the health care system, insurance and so forth, that it does have a major impact. I know that there are differing opinions, but even if the risk is half what most people think it is, that's still a major risk. As I've been saying all along, the issue here is one of risk management. The assumption is that e-cigarettes represent a significantly lower risk level than traditional smoking. Therefore, it should be covered by separate legislation. The problem is that alternatives like e-smoking are being lumped in with cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
