Was Tobacco Control ever really about tobacco?
- Thread starter philoshop
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Every time I cross international borders I have to fill in some form where I have to declare how many cigarettes I have with me. I doubt this is due to concerns regarding my health.
I think I read once that the first pre-rolled cigarettes were developed during WWI and given out free to the soldiers in the trenches, because it was too hard to keep a pipe functioning in a wet muddy trench. I'm not sure when the current anti tobacco regs started happening. Was it after the health concerns became known? I'm sure they were taxed long before that but I don't know that its use was discouraged.
I threw out a bunch of old magazines that were full of these.
https://www.google.com/search?q=vin...yfgwT_1ICQCA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1093&bih=545
https://www.google.com/search?q=vin...yfgwT_1ICQCA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1093&bih=545
Well, of course in a thread like this I can't pass up the opportunity to post this again...
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
It chronicles the recent history of tobacco control efforts, and their plan on how to reach their end game.
Those plans have been in place for over three decades now, and they have been working.
Rampant Antismoking Signifies Grave Danger
It chronicles the recent history of tobacco control efforts, and their plan on how to reach their end game.
Those plans have been in place for over three decades now, and they have been working.
I guess the anti tobacco lobby, whether real, or imagined, isn't doing a very good job, if they have been around for centuries, yet cigarettes are still legal to buy and use...
I disagree with your conclusion. While tobacco products are still legal, their use in public has been severely curtailed, sin taxes are extremely high, users pay for higher health insurance and life insurance and users are now social pariahs. These all partly the result of the anti-tobacco lobby that is coming for the vaping industry.
Perhaps it is just that far less people smoke now than decades ago. Tobacco is just an easy target for the Deciders to tax. The majority now doesn't want the smell or mess. Insurance is all about risk. Smokers cost insurance companies more than non smokers.
You left out the whole "denying employment to nicotine users" thing.
But yeah, what you said.
They don't WANT to do a very good job. They just say they want to do a good job.
Because once they really succeed, they'll be obsolete...
Out of funds, out of 'cause' out of a raison d'etre...
Isn't gonna happen.
If you can control it, you can tax it.
If people don't like something, and you can beat your anti-tobacco drum loudly enough, those people will give you money to continue.
If you are doing something and enjoying it, then people who don't like it (whatever 'it' maybe) will want to control/curtail it.
If people don't like something, and you can beat your anti-tobacco drum loudly enough, those people will give you money to continue.
If you are doing something and enjoying it, then people who don't like it (whatever 'it' maybe) will want to control/curtail it.
If they wanted to do a good job, they would embrace Tobacco Harm Control instead of trying to destroy it.
There are many other factors at work here, and they all add up to money.
The ones that got me were these and all their ilk:
I even got a keychain from them, probably 30 yrs ago, which I still have, and still have on my keyring: "You've come a long way, baby." And yes, I really have -- all the way from cigarettes!!!!
Andria
PS: and I just noticed something... if women have come such a long way, why are all the women in these ads WEARING DRESSES???
Last edited:
Certainly! The unemployment line is not a good place for someone who specializes in an area which may no longer be pertinent.
But why would a government (or wanna-be governing body) show the level of continued concern that we see today?
Last edited:
Because they really ARE concerned... that their sin-tax-base is disappearing. Concern for anyone's health? Not even a random thought in their heads.
Andria
I don't think that they want to terminate "the industry". If that would be the goal, then they would let a few of these go through:
UPDATE 1-Florida jury awards record $23 billion against RJ Reynolds | Reuters
until the whole industry gets completely bankrupt.
What the govt is actually doing is to shelter them from liability - "mandating" graphic warnings on the cigarette packages, and keeping smokers at a distance from the general public - so no side stream lawsuits possible either.
The ANTZ mentioned in your link are either shills or "useful idiots". They help the govt justify the policies they're enacting as "being for your own good".
Prove this conclusively!
Insurance companies Insure Far less Smokers than Non Smokers and while a Smoker may end up needing additional medical care related to their smoking< Everything is automatically related if you smoke> Insurance companies pay out far more for Total Claims across the non-smoking board. There are Many High Risk groups ignored or cautiously approached as to increasing Cost, i.e. reduced Profits, but Smokers are a Free Ride to the Bank for Insurance companies.
45 years a Smoker and never cost insurance a Dime or spent a single night in a Hospital.
There is no free lunch, just Bullies trying to steal your lunch money.
The morality busybodies have been around forever. Tobacco is just another random thing they decided to pick on. Watch the news and recognize similar tactics being applied against alcohol, sugar, fat, salt, video games, etc. Basically, anything that's fun the anti-everything crowd will jump on and demonize.
Per those insured; insurance companies pay more for smokers. Is that even in dispute? It would be like saying obese people in general don't cost insurance companies more...
One case doesn't set a precedent...
Individual plans do charge more based on a health screening, so [obese people] and those with other conditions do pay more. If you have group insurance and don't want to pay more for being a nicotine user, seeking private insurance with a company which doesn't charge more to those who use nicotine is an option, or not having insurance, at all and paying the ACA fine...
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you want to live in a society where people aren't free to voice opinions contrary to yours? I know I don't, but I know there are many who do...
- Status
Similar threads
