EU Iceland considering Cigarettes by Prescription only
- Thread starter rothenbj
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
It's always interesting how governments try to prevent children from smoking. Do they think this will really work? I don't because what stops the kid from stealing their parent's cigarettes? Nothing. This is just another way a government tells you what you can and can't do. Doesn't any government believe what the word "freedom" means anymore?
If this passes, I'll scratch Iceland from my ever-shortening list of civilized countries.
One astonishing remark in the article:
Is this true? Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath, or don't Swedish surgeons take the Hippocratic Oath? If this is indeed true, I'll scratch Sweden too.
One astonishing remark in the article:
Is this true? Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath, or don't Swedish surgeons take the Hippocratic Oath? If this is indeed true, I'll scratch Sweden too.
Nope. By very definition.
govern -- gov·ern
–verb (used with object)
1. to rule over by right of authority: to govern a nation.
2. to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide: the motives governing a decision.
3. to hold in check; control
Rule over, authority, restraining, influence over, control
No mention of freedom in "govern"
This is very similar to something Mark Kleiman (I think) suggested: raise taxes on cigarettes high enough that few young people could afford to pick up the habit, but issue confirmed addicts (exact details for confirmation left vague) a buyer's-card that allows them to buy in the usual places for much less than they pay now. It seemed a logical way to split the difference between discouraging people from starting, but not harassing and punishing people who were unable to quit (and with taxes already so high already, he reasoned most people who still smoked were incapable of being taxed into quitting).
The idea made me think of ...
Thomas Paine, quoted through Wikipedia here:
Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thomas Paine, quoted through Wikipedia here:
Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A lot of the information for the article is provided by "Thorarinn Gudnason, president of the Icelandic Society of Cardiology, who helped draw up the proposal."
Umm ... I would love to see that study and if it's peer-reviewed, but that isn't exactly what I'm getting at. It's my understanding that it would take a lifetime of exposure to have a heart-attack from second-hand smoke. Not five months. To continue ...
One, we see here that - simply because of the population of Iceland - there's a relatively small sample size to begin with. How many people were in that 'study' on heart attacks? 100? It couldn't be more, if you look at his number above. And not only is that 1 sample size, but that's just one set of data. What were the variations in that number the years before? I couldn't imagine there being a very consistent (as in - give or take 20 people in the country) level to compare to. But back to what I just quoted ...
He says that 300 of the 1500 deaths a year in Iceland (again - what? Each year 1500 people die in Iceland and 300 of them are from these diseases ... well at least things are apparently very stable over there) are related to "lung cancer, heart attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease." He then says that by limiting smoking, "We think that our proposals could lead to a significant reduction in smoking-related deaths perhaps down to just 100 annually." Stop. Right there he equated the 300 deaths from these 3 diseases to being 'smoking-related deaths.' Like they aren't linked to diet & obesity, industry exposure, other harmful products, genetics ...
Umm ... I would love to see that study and if it's peer-reviewed, but that isn't exactly what I'm getting at. It's my understanding that it would take a lifetime of exposure to have a heart-attack from second-hand smoke. Not five months. To continue ...
One, we see here that - simply because of the population of Iceland - there's a relatively small sample size to begin with. How many people were in that 'study' on heart attacks? 100? It couldn't be more, if you look at his number above. And not only is that 1 sample size, but that's just one set of data. What were the variations in that number the years before? I couldn't imagine there being a very consistent (as in - give or take 20 people in the country) level to compare to. But back to what I just quoted ...
He says that 300 of the 1500 deaths a year in Iceland (again - what? Each year 1500 people die in Iceland and 300 of them are from these diseases ... well at least things are apparently very stable over there) are related to "lung cancer, heart attacks, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease." He then says that by limiting smoking, "We think that our proposals could lead to a significant reduction in smoking-related deaths perhaps down to just 100 annually." Stop. Right there he equated the 300 deaths from these 3 diseases to being 'smoking-related deaths.' Like they aren't linked to diet & obesity, industry exposure, other harmful products, genetics ...
So have they legalized inter-species unions in New York? ("...sponsored by the Donkra.")
Behold, the Donkra | Ology
Shouldn't that be called a Zekey?
Behold, the Donkra | Ology
Shouldn't that be called a Zekey?
Last edited:
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
The proposal in Iceland (which was introduced by the country's former health director) is nothing more than back door prohibition that is being disguised as a medical intervention for smokers.
If the proposal is enacted (which I doubt will occur), any doctor who prescribes cigarettes will be quickly accused (by tobacco prohibitionists) of violating the Hippocratic Oath, committing medical malpractice, and will be targeted for medical license revocation. And any smoker who obtains a prescription for cigarettes and who subsequently is diagnosed with a smoking attributable disease will be encouraged by lawyers to sue the doctor (for prescribing cigarettes to the injured smoker).
Then again, its possible that one, two or a few doctors might become very wealthy very quickly by writing prescriptions for all (or most) of the nation's smokers. And since the new proposal also would completely eliminate the cigarette tax, its possible that cigarette sales/consumption in Iceland may actually increase if the proposal is approved.
If the proposal is enacted (which I doubt will occur), any doctor who prescribes cigarettes will be quickly accused (by tobacco prohibitionists) of violating the Hippocratic Oath, committing medical malpractice, and will be targeted for medical license revocation. And any smoker who obtains a prescription for cigarettes and who subsequently is diagnosed with a smoking attributable disease will be encouraged by lawyers to sue the doctor (for prescribing cigarettes to the injured smoker).
Then again, its possible that one, two or a few doctors might become very wealthy very quickly by writing prescriptions for all (or most) of the nation's smokers. And since the new proposal also would completely eliminate the cigarette tax, its possible that cigarette sales/consumption in Iceland may actually increase if the proposal is approved.
England has been prescribing ...... to committed addicts for almost 100 years. It started getting phased out in the 60's but there are still 400-500 people receiving prescribed ...... and many high-ranking people (like Jack Straw) have said the practice should be more widespread. It is, as you might imagine, somewhat controversial but I don't think I've ever read of their being any issue with prescribing doctors being sued over it.
I doubt the measure would pass in Iceland today but some country somewhere is probably going to try this (or something like it) eventually. Shifting the punitive tax burden away from the people who can't quit and onto the people who can still choose to be addicts or not makes such intuitive sense. And if they have a state health care system like nearly every first world country except the US, they will probably include legislation to prevent themselves from being sued if it's not already on the books.
Oh, FFS...Google "England prescribed X" where X is a highly addictive drug from Afghanistan if you don't already know what I'm talking about. Switzerland and Holland have started doing it too.
I doubt the measure would pass in Iceland today but some country somewhere is probably going to try this (or something like it) eventually. Shifting the punitive tax burden away from the people who can't quit and onto the people who can still choose to be addicts or not makes such intuitive sense. And if they have a state health care system like nearly every first world country except the US, they will probably include legislation to prevent themselves from being sued if it's not already on the books.
Oh, FFS...Google "England prescribed X" where X is a highly addictive drug from Afghanistan if you don't already know what I'm talking about. Switzerland and Holland have started doing it too.
Last edited:
It's pretty common in the USA for a surgeon to "ask" that one refrain from smoking for at least a few weeks prior to going under the knife ..
I asked my cardiologist about that (after being a 40 year smoker my heart decided one day to give me a wake up call) .. he stated that due to the blood vessels being much more constricted in a smoker, the healing process can be more lengthy and the actual surgery can be more difficult .. adding that malpractice lawsuits filed by smokers is actually higher than with non-smokers .. just passing along the info, don't know where he got it from .. probably the malpractice lobby ..
This is an interesting topic. Nicotine is a vasoconstrictor, so it makes sense. This should pass on to high-nic juice PV users (myself included), I would think
You don't have to wait, Iceland's not the first. That goes to the small country of Bhutan, the small Asian Kingdom.
Bhutan's total tobacco ban a breath of fresh air - Orlando Sentinel
"The smoking ban is part of the king's plan for "gross national happiness," which he says is more important than the gross national product."
What has this happiness brought?
Visit Bhutan - Bhutan Travel Information, Visiting Bhutan, Bhutan Travel Guide, Bhutan Info: Bhutan Smoking Ban Ineffective
But lately-
Buddhist monk arrested under Bhutan's tobacco law
Two more arrests | Bhutan Observer Newspaper - Bhutan news
They even have a facebook group which can be found with a search, "Amend the Tobacco Control Act"
"Gross national happiness"? Talk about clueless! Try "gross national anhedonia". Apparently none of the Bhutan national government officials have ever gone to PubMed and searched on "smoking cessation depression".
You guys are giving those dumb ....s to much credits by trying to direct intelligent comments their way. Fact is Sif should be thrown in jail, and yes I completely mean that! The fact that Sif being a politician in a bankrupt country where people are loosing their houses and everything they own, is spending her time and effort to get something like this through is criminal. Not only is this woman a criminal but she is also stupid to say the least. While Iceland tethers on bakruptsy and the financial companies get all the leeway, families and middle classed ordinary people are suffering, all because Sif thinks smoking is so gross and thinks that because she has an oppinion everyone has to go her way.
Lets think about it a moment, what will happen when the cigs are put into pharmas? One thing that will happen according to this potential law is that prices of cigarettes will go up by 10 percent each year. Apart from that happening and despite it, the main issue that "will" happen is that icelandic politicians will have passed a new income on a silver platter to icelands drug dealers.
If I had a kid that started to smoke I would rather have him go hang outside a shop and bum smokes from people rather then go to the next drug dealer he finds.
What is also discussed is banning smoking on your own lawn, balcony and so on. Oh and smoking around pregnant women, because smoking is killing them already! Obviously we don't have to worry about exhaust from cars and other forms of pollution.
It disgusts me how stupid and ignorant people are. I bet she has a mac!
Oh and one more thing. While the ecig is not technicly banned in iceland, eliquid containing nicotine is! Because it's a dangerous drug! Soon your gonna have to get a written permission to buy drain cleaner in iceland. Because who knows you might be dumb enough to drink it!
Anyway I dilligently beleive what Arnie said, You can't ban adults from doing what they want to all the time.
JEEZ.
Rant over.
Lets think about it a moment, what will happen when the cigs are put into pharmas? One thing that will happen according to this potential law is that prices of cigarettes will go up by 10 percent each year. Apart from that happening and despite it, the main issue that "will" happen is that icelandic politicians will have passed a new income on a silver platter to icelands drug dealers.
If I had a kid that started to smoke I would rather have him go hang outside a shop and bum smokes from people rather then go to the next drug dealer he finds.
What is also discussed is banning smoking on your own lawn, balcony and so on. Oh and smoking around pregnant women, because smoking is killing them already! Obviously we don't have to worry about exhaust from cars and other forms of pollution.
It disgusts me how stupid and ignorant people are. I bet she has a mac!
Oh and one more thing. While the ecig is not technicly banned in iceland, eliquid containing nicotine is! Because it's a dangerous drug! Soon your gonna have to get a written permission to buy drain cleaner in iceland. Because who knows you might be dumb enough to drink it!
Anyway I dilligently beleive what Arnie said, You can't ban adults from doing what they want to all the time.
JEEZ.
Rant over.
- Status
Similar threads
