Has anti-smoking movement gone too far?

[Vocalek]

I think their goal is 50k less smokers rather than 5k, but it's still ridiculous.

A 10% reduction? They are dreaming---unless they plan to apply tobacco Harm Reduction methods. The 2001 Institute of Medicine Report stated, “Indeed, it has been predicted that even with the most intensive application of the most effective programs for abstinence and cessation, at least 10 percent to 15 percent of adults in the United States would continue to smoke.”

Stratton, K., Shetty, P., Wallace, R., & Bondurant, S. (2001). Clearing the smoke: assessing the science base for tobacco harm reduction. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine National Academies Press.

 

[Semiretired]

I would bet that they would get their 10% goal if they used the money to research and then if the research was positive to turn around and promote ecigs...

 

[t9c]

Yes, that's correct. The report I cited has it wrong. So, make it $1,080 per smoker wasted (assuming 100% success), instead of invested on harm reduction applications. And since it's the CDC heading this up. is smoking now considered a pandemic?

I think their goal is 50k less smokers rather than 5k, but it's still ridiculous.

 

[Petrodus]

Kinda sorta off the subject...but it relates to the Nanny State going too far
Food Police: Bloomberg Bans Home-Cooked Meals for the Homeless
LINK

 

[boz]

I don't get it. They say smoking is so bad for you, yet they don't force cig makers to stop putting thousands of dangerous chemicals into them. Why aren't they doing that?

 

[Thulium]

I don't get it. They say smoking is so bad for you, yet they don't force cig makers to stop putting thousands of dangerous chemicals into them. Why aren't they doing that?

Because the worse you make people feel about their inability to permanently abstain from recreational nicotine/tobacco, the more likely they are to feel so ashamed and worthless that they'll believe it is their duty to pay exorbitant taxes and/or buy expensive drugs to treat diseases caused by continued smoking.

Instead of requiring manufacturers to reduce or eliminate potentially dangerous additives, the FDA has instead required cigarette manufacturers to ADD potentially dangerous RIP/FSC additives that allegedly make abandoned cigarettes less likely to start a fire but have never been tested for safety.

 

[DietSalem]

It's way out of control. I'd say even ECF is out of control, personally. The constant "cancer sticks" and stuff. This negative image that even we portray isn't helping the cause.

 

[sailorman]

My friend just saw a commercial on TV about the Stop Smoking Campaign...I believe it's the same one mentioned here- it's national...they are spending over $10K on each of the 5000 people they hope will stop...

She said the slogan is "Just Say No." Can you believe it? Who was that? Betty Ford or Nancy Reagan? Anyway, it didn't work then- it won't work now- If it was as easy as just saying No to cigs, I would have quit 20 years ago. Oh, and it's our tax payer money hard at work- Give me a Break. :Roll Eyes:

That was Nancy Reagan, wife of Mr. "gubmint's not the solution, gubmint's the problem".
This isn't entirely, or even predominately a government failing. Government responds to pressure. For years, government did nothing about smoking or tobacco. It wasn't until PRIVATE pharmaceutical companies and PRIVATE tobacco corporations and the dozens of non-profit PRIVATE self-appointed guardians of your health started applying pressure that government bodies did anything against smoking, then tobacco, now nicotine. Government simply reacts to pressure. It's all these PRIVATE entities that are running amok with their zealotry. They claim credit for all these draconian measures, so they deserve the lions share of the blame.

 

[sailorman]

It's way out of control. I'd say even ECF is out of control, personally. The constant "cancer sticks" and stuff. This negative image that even we portray isn't helping the cause.

Good point. I don't recall anyone here ridiculing the oft-stated claim that "there's no safe exposure level for secondhand smoke". Even though that statement is laughable on it's face, it's given a pass, as if it was an axiom of natural law.

I think there's a psychological phenomenon among ex-smokers at work here. We've spent years or decades being demeaned, dehumanized, ostracized, belittled and demonized. To a great extent, we've drank the Kool Aide and developed an inferiority complex that's hard to shake, even after we've quit smoking.

That accounts for how many vapers are hyper-sensitive to the unreasonable and illogical demands of non-smokers, calling it "consideration". It explains why so many vapers, especially newbs, see nothing wrong with being segregated and herded into smoking areas. They feel that somehow a tax on e-cigs is reasonable. They don't have any big objection to being subject to anti-smoking regulations. They think all this is deserved and slinking around like a junkie is just being "considerate". In their minds, they're still smokers, full of guilt and self-loathing and still experiencing the pathology of a smoker.

 

[Thulium]

Good point. I don't recall anyone here ridiculing the oft-stated claim that "there's no safe exposure level for secondhand smoke". Even though that statement is laughable on it's face, it's given a pass, as if it was an axiom of natural law.

It's given a pass because they use the carefully chosen "safe" word. The statement is technically true that there's no safe exposure because NOTHING is completely safe so the FDA has not established any safe level. However, just because no safe level has been established doesn't mean that any level is necessarily dangerous. They also like insisting that "Smokeless tobacco is not a safe alternative..." Which is also certainly true, but again only because nothing in existence is 100% safe the statement is technically correct. Toothpaste contains many of the same "chemicals" found in smokefreE-liquid and 4 times greater percentages (and hundreds of times greater total amounts) of diethylene glycol was detected in toothpaste, but nobody is trying to ban all brands just because of a mistake that was corrected before anyone even was hurt or killed. Should the FDA put a warning on toothpaste anyway? WARNING: Cleaning your teeth is not a safe alternative to anything...

 

[kristin]

Good point. I don't recall anyone here ridiculing the oft-stated claim that "there's no safe exposure level for secondhand smoke". Even though that statement is laughable on it's face, it's given a pass, as if it was an axiom of natural law.

You must have missed my posts on that topic then.

 

[Sleddie]

EDIT: thought what I posted was a recent news story, but I see its was rather old. Nevermind.

 

[Petrodus]

Edited:
Reply "Deleted" ... was just a rant