Re: The Decline of American Capitalism

emily2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 17:13:30 -0800, Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

emily2@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 14:08:50 -0800 (PST), Ron Peterson
<ron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 24, 9:06 am, emi...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 21:23:40 -0800 (PST), Ron Peterson
Banning the use of tobacco would be most effective thing to improve
the health of the population. One might need to be more powerful than
a dictator to pull that off.
Oh, what a great idea! Shall we lump tobacco in with the other drugs
and just allocate several more billions to the War on Drugs, or should
we have a separate bureaucracy to enforce it? One benefit of that
would be that the people who used to work in the tobacco factories
could be hired on in the War on Tobacco agency.
Tobacco is going away, I have one relative that still smokes despite
having to use an oxygen tank when walking.

You're missing the point of my comment. Considerable improvements in
the health of the citizens can be made without excessive costs.
I didn't really miss the point, I just felt like running with the
idea. I'm a smoker, I'm violently opposed to the War on Drugs, I
think the federal bureaucracy is full of people who couldn't get a job
in the real world without taking a serious pay cut, and the last thing
I want to see if more bureaucracy. This may explain where I'm coming
from.

If you consider the abolition of smoking will result in a general
improvement in the health of the nation, be assured that it will
happen. In my lifetime, we've gone from smoking during congressional
hearings to having to stand outside in the sleet, snow, rain, hail,
and freezing temperatures to have a smoke most places. And it's the
first place everybody wants to tack on more taxes. Eventually, very,
very few people will be smokers.

As for excessive costs, perhaps it is possible to make improvements
without them, or even making money from sin taxes, but I maintain
there are costs to individuals, like having to give up something you
enjoy that really isn't hurting anyone else.
What should we tackle next? Alcohol or food? A lot of those smokers
who turned to food when their tobacco was taken away will doubtless
add several unwanted pounds, increasing the number of obese people.
Obesity isn't good for you, you know, and if we want people to be
healthy, so something will have to be done. This is going to be a bit
more complicated than banning tobacco because smokers are already
treated as if they're lepers, but it's not politically correct to make
snide remarks about people the size of trailers.
Transfats would be a good candidate because it is extremely unhealthy
and doesn't taste good.

So maybe alcohol should be next. I think that was tried once before
but failed probably because we just didn't throw enough money at it.
The alcohol ban worked and reduced drunkenness which was a severe
problem at the time.
Surely you jest. That experiment gave us the Mafia and people went
blind from drinking bathtub gin. I don't believe there was anything
positive to come out of Prohibition.

Yes, I can see that improving the general health of the populace could
have all sorts of benefits, including giving birth to enough new
government agencies that the unemployment problem could be solved
quickly.
Providing health care is much more burdensome than prevention.

"I never trust a fighting man who doesn't smoke or drink."
Adm. William Halsey
I wouldn't trust Typhoon Halsey.
Would you trust W. C. Fields, who said he'd never trust a man who
didn't drink? I guess W. C. didn't care about smoking.
I'm sorry to hear that you smoke. My wife does too and my personal feeling about it is that it does hurt others. She doesn't smoke in the house, so my objection is not the secondary smoke issue. Rather, I feel that it is a very selfish thing for her to do because it increases the likelihood that she will die a horrible death from lung cancer. That is be a terrible thing for her to do to me and to others who love her. It is like the worst form of suicide in that respect.

Dying of anything is horrible but unfortunately unavoidable. I admit
I have a reaction to the idea that she'd be doing something to you by
dying of lung cancer. I suppose that's partly because of the
assumption that if it were lung cancer, it would be the direct result
of her smoking. If she had a heart attack, would you be as quick to
assume it was because she did something wrong?

No, because in all other ways my wife is about as perfect as one can get. No brag, just fact. I'm a very lucky man and I love her in a way that most people never experience. Her death, especially such a horrible death, would be devastating to me.

In the case of smoking, the statistics are clear. "Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, causing an estimated 438,000 deaths - or about 1 out of every 5 - each year. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women in the United States, with 90 percent of lung cancer deaths among men and approximately 80 percent of lung cancer deaths among women attributed to smoking," - National Cancer Institute

Yes, it is terribly addictive and it is more difficult for some to quit than for other ex-smokers like me. (I quit twice with seven years in between. Stupid! But, I have not smoked for 25 years now.) Still, it is a terribly self-destructive thing to do and really does hurt those who love you.

I have known a couple of people who could quit at the drop of a hat.
One woman would start smoking whenever she needed to lose a few pounds
and quit when she reached her goal. My husband smokes on the weekends
sometimes. I did quit one time, briefly, but I missed it more than
any reward I got from not smoking so I started again and have never
seriously considered quitting since.

Believe me, there will not be widespread wailing and beating of
breasts when I breathe my last so that particular argument really
doesn't impress me.

I've been reading you long enough here to not believe that for a minute! I, for one, enjoy your company here and would miss you.

I also advocate ending the War on Drugs and sympathize with organizations like LEAP. http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

According to drugsense.org, federal and state governments have already
spent almost $8 billion on the War on Drugs this year. It's insane,
and although I keep hoping Obama will surprise me, I really don't
expect any change in my lifetime.
But, we are not well served by an industry that continues to do damage to our health without regulation. Alcohol and tobacco are drugs and like other drugs, legal or illegal, should be under the control of the FDA, IMV.

What kind of regulation would you favor? The tobacco industry simply
provides a product that some of us choose to buy. They don't coerce
people into buying their products. Shucks, they can't even advertise
on TV. They probably can't even give away freebies anymore.

What kind of control would you envision the FDA exerting? Would you
want them to test each brand of cigarettes and alcoholic beverages
before allowing them to be sold, as they do with pharmaceuticals? I
was just imagining the trials they'd have to go through -- the test
groups with control subjects, for instance. It was an amusing
thought.

How would the FDA be an improvement over the ATF?

FDA has the mission, resources and talent to regulate the use of drugs and relies on other law enforcement agencies to enforce those regulations. ATF is, for all practical purposes, only an enforcement agency. Just to show how badly out of whack things are, the FDA budget for 2009 is only $2.4B Compare that with the *$40B per year* for the War on Drugs!

If it were up to me, the industry would be required to eliminate nicotine from tobacco products. That would at least give people a fighting chance to quit.

I didn't realize that was even a possibility. But I also remain
unconvinced that the majority of smokers continue to smoke because
they're addicted. I think we all have our own reasons, whether
conscious or unconscious, that we do it.

Yes, but the purposeful acts of the tobacco to increase the level of nicotine in cigarettes speaks volumes. The primary reason that most people smoke is because they are suffering from a physical addiction.

"Most smokers use tobacco regularly because they are addicted to nicotine9. Addiction is characterized by compulsive drug seeking and use, even in the face of negative health consequences. It is well documented that most smokers identify tobacco use as harmful and express a desire to reduce or stop using it, and nearly 35 million of them want to quit each year7. Unfortunately, only about 6 percent of people who try to quit are successful for more than a month11."

http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Nicotine/nicotine2.html#addictive
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Decline of American Capitalism
    ... Shall we lump tobacco in with the other drugs ... the health of the citizens can be made without excessive costs. ... If you consider the abolition of smoking will result in a general ... I'm sorry to hear that you smoke. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The Decline of American Capitalism
    ... Shall we lump tobacco in with the other drugs ... the health of the citizens can be made without excessive costs. ... If you consider the abolition of smoking will result in a general ... and freezing temperatures to have a smoke most places. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The Decline of American Capitalism
    ... Shall we lump tobacco in with the other drugs ... the health of the citizens can be made without excessive costs. ... I'm sorry to hear that you smoke. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: The Decline of American Capitalism
    ... Shall we lump tobacco in with the other drugs ... the health of the citizens can be made without excessive costs. ... I'm sorry to hear that you smoke. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • ASCERS IN DENIAL
    ... Public health experts are warning that more effort needs to be made to ... alert people in the developing world to the dangers of smoking tobacco. ... Heart experts said the Lancet study was further evidence smokers should ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
Loading