backtop


Print 171 comment(s) - last by JediJeb.. on Jun 24 at 6:23 PM

Cigarette producers have until Fall 2012 to comply with the placement of the new labels

We've been told for years that smoking tobacco cigarettes causes health complications. The Surgeon General's Warning mentions health hazards like lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and pregnancy complications. Now, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing new graphic cigarette labels in an effort to encourage users to quit smoking. 

The FDA is releasing new warning labels that show the negative health effects of tobacco cigarettes in great detail, and it's easy to see why since recent studies have found that cigarettes can cause genetic damage in a matter of minutes and that the pollutant third-hand smoke can linger in homes long after smokers move out. Tobacco is the cause of 443,000 deaths in the U.S. annually. 

For these reasons, the FDA has created the graphic labels to reinforce the negative side effects of smoking. The nine new labels show images of rotting teeth and gums, a man with a tracheotomy smoking, the corpse of a smoker, a mother holding a child with smoke around them, and diseased lungs. In addition, the labels will include phrases like "Cigarettes cause cancer" and "Smoking can kill you." Also, a national quit smoking hotline number is included on each pack.

"These labels are frank, honest and powerful depictions of the health risks of smoking," said Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services secretary. 

The labels are part of a law passed in 2009 that gave the federal government the right to regulate tobacco. Part of these regulations includes the authority to set guidelines for labeling, marketing and banning the products. The labels were put in place after reviews of public comments, scientific literature and the results from an FDA-contracted study.

The labels will be placed on the top half of the package, both on the front and back. They must also be placed in advertisements as 20 percent of the ad. 

While the U.S. was one of the first to introduce warning labels saying, "Cigarettes may be hazardous to your health" in 1965, it isn't the first country to introduce graphic cigarette labels. Over 30 countries have released labels similar to the FDA's. In 2000, Canada released graphic warning labels portraying gory images of the side effects of smoking, and since then, smoking rates have been reduced from 26 percent to 20 percent. It is unclear whether the labels were entirely responsible for the decline, as other anti-smoking efforts were put in place at the time. 

John R. Seffrin, American Cancer Society CEO, was ecstatic about the new FDA labels saying they will "encourage adults to give up their deadly addiction to cigarettes and deter children from starting in the first place." 

In some areas, this has already started to work. According to the World Health Organization, a survey conducted in countries with graphic warning labels showed that 25 percent of smokers ended up quitting because of the labels. 

But not everyone is applauding the new effort. Smokers have complained about the graphic nature of the labels, saying they're a little too much. 

"This isn't about doing what's pleasant for people," said David Hammond, a health behavior researcher at the University of Waterloo in Canada. "It's about fulfilling the government's mandate if they're going to allow these things to be sold. What's bothering people is the risk associated with their behavior, not the warnings themselves."

As expected, cigarette companies are not too happy with the new labels either. In fact, there is a pending federal lawsuit regarding the new graphic labels, which was filed by Winston-Salem, Reynolds American Inc. (parent company of R.J. Reynolds), Lorillard Inc. and others. The lawsuit claims that the companies' brand names would be placed at the bottom of the package where they cannot be seen since the labels would be placed at the top.

Smoking tobacco costs the U.S. economy about $200 billion in annual medical costs and lost productivity. The FDA estimates that the number of smokers will be reduced by 213,000 in 2013 thanks to the new graphic labels. It also predicts that smaller reductions will occur through 2031 as well. 

Producers of cigarettes have until Fall 2012 to comply with the new graphic warning labels. Labels and official information can be found here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

LoL...Nanny State....
By AEvangel on 6/21/2011 1:26:26 PM , Rating: 3
You know if you don't know yet...then why bother harassing the cigarette companies with these stupid add on their product.




RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Sazabi19 on 6/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By rubbahbandman on 6/21/2011 1:48:50 PM , Rating: 5
I understand that most anti-smoking campaigns are stupid, and people are going to make their own decisions regardless of what they see and hear, but this seems like a reasonable approach. I'm no expert, but I'd say that smoking's main draw is that it's "cool". It may not seem like a big deal, but going from a classy looking marlboro red pack to a picture of some dude's blackened lungs is not going to help cigarette companies sell more packs, and I think that's the whole point.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 2:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but this seems like a reasonable approach.

If I agreed with you I would then ask why is this not also required of alcohol products to show mangled bodies in a car wreak on every can or bottle? Taking someone else's life is worse then taking your own, no? Why are we starting with cigs?

Or let's get really wacky and require pictures of the bodies of drowning victims be posted around all pools? There are other dangers out there besides drugs.

I'm sorry but this is retarded and it is the will of the many being imposed on the few (mob rule). We've tried education and that is proven to work.

There will always be a self-destructive element of society out there. Live and let die.

Like I said, if you have a problem with someone's smoke, take it up with them, not the gov't, and certainly not the federal gov't. Are we going to regulate perfume and flatulence next because it stinks up 'your' air? Give me a break!


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Sazabi19 on 6/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 2:40:38 PM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not. I do not agree with the previous guy and therefore find a picture on a pencil to be useless and I could've used that as one of my supporting hypotheticals.
quote:
I drink on some weekends but i plan for it and i dont drive, usually stay at home or a buddys house when doing so or have a DD lined up.
Well its nice that you are responsible but that doesn't help me from Drunky McDangerpants when my wife and kids get t-boned and die.

2nd (and 3rd lol) hand smoke is bad for others but not as bad as alcohol from the scenario I just laid out. Do you work for AB or something?

And besides this isn't a contest to see which is worse. If this is such a great idea let's get to labeling everything in like fashion. We don't have to pick and choose. As a matter of fact we shouldn't pick and choose because that would be unfairly discriminatory.

I know, who do you root for? Big tobacco or morons? When faced with such a dilemma just root for freedom and save yourself a headache.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 3:22:35 PM , Rating: 3
Oh I forgot about tax. So you are a responsible drinker, right? And you are for taxing 'bad' things, right? How about we tax you for all the mayhem that irresponsible drinkers cause? Because that is what you propose. There are people aout there who do not "dirty up" others' air and you propose we tax them to hell?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By rs2 on 6/21/2011 7:40:21 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry, but big tobacco companies number among the small handful of organizations that are even more morally bankrupt than Apple, when viewed from a business-practices standpoint. Screw their freedom. They have shown that they are unable to use it responsibly, and when people start harming others by being irresponsible with their freedom they have that freedom taken away.

The rules for companies and the rules for individuals should not be so vastly disproportionate that if I get drunk and then kill someone with my car I get sent to jail, but if I start a company that sells products that I know are gradually lethal and which kill thousands of my customers each year I get rewarded for it with untold riches. If that's the kind of "freedom" you support, then you're part of that aforementioned group of morons.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Kurz on 6/21/2011 9:13:24 PM , Rating: 3
They are just providing a product the people want.
Stop bringing your morals into this.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By rs2 on 6/21/2011 9:39:10 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are just providing a product the people want.


You might say the same of drug dealers, pimps, assassins, foreign spies, Chinese hackers, and any number of other providers of generally illegal goods and services. By your logic people want these things, so they might as well be legal. And I suppose I should be able to start a business peddling weaponized anthrax because there are some people who want that product, too.

Even setting aside morals, one doesn't have to look too hard at precedent to see that society does in fact have no qualms about imposing restrictions on certain goods and services that it deems unsavory, regardless of how popular those goods and services may be. And at the very least one can say that whatever laws we have ought to be consistent for everybody. If it's not legal for me, as an individual, to go around poisoning people who want to die, then it shouldn't be legal for a company to do effectively the same thing.

But if morals are excluded, then what's the point of having any laws whatsoever? What do you suggest basing such ethic-less laws on if not some rational and objective concept of morality and justice?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By someguy123 on 6/21/2011 11:15:30 PM , Rating: 1
When it comes to cigarettes they're proving a product people want that doesn't necessarily cause harm to others. Cigarettes are basically illegal to smoke in all enclosed areas, and everyone is aware that cigarettes will damage your body.

People still want it anyway. I know this 5000 calorie burger could end up clogging my arteries, but I don't care. Give me my delicious burger.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By someguy123 on 6/21/2011 11:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
providing*


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2011 11:16:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You might say the same of drug dealers, pimps, assassins, foreign spies, Chinese hackers, and any number of other providers of generally illegal goods and services. By your logic people want these things, so they might as well be legal. And I suppose I should be able to start a business peddling weaponized anthrax because there are some people who want that product, too.


Those are illegal! Are you an idiot? Why can't you people understand this and stop using stupid analogies.

quote:
But if morals are excluded, then what's the point of having any laws whatsoever? What do you suggest basing such ethic-less laws on if not some rational and objective concept of morality and justice?


"Morality" is too subjective and is often used to remove personal freedoms. Go live in some parts of the Middle East, you'll just LOVE their morality and how they enforce it.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/22/2011 11:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You might say the same of drug dealers, pimps, assassins, foreign spies, Chinese hackers, and any number of other providers of generally illegal goods and services. By your logic people want these things, so they might as well be legal.
If you are Chinese, then Chinese hackers aren't illegal. If you live in Nevada, then prostitution is not illegal. You should know where I am going with this. Yes, they all provide goods/services that are useless/bad to use from my point of view.
So when you say...
quote:
But if morals are excluded, then what's the point of having any laws whatsoever?
...you are talking about YOUR morals and not those of the people who choose to smoke.
Because though it is addictive (along with alcohol, porn, sex, prescription or OTC drugs, gambling, video games, etc. etc. etc.) it is ultimately a choice.
quote:
And I suppose I should be able to start a business peddling weaponized anthrax because there are some people who want that product, too.
I'll agree with you here because I am not an absolute anarchist but rather a minimal gov't libertarian. What substances are and are not illegal is not my call. But I take it you think tobacco should be catorigized with anthrax and banned altogether to go the way of marijuana.
quote:
one doesn't have to look too hard at precedent to see that society does in fact have no qualms about imposing restrictions on certain goods and services that it deems unsavory, regardless of how popular those goods and services may be.
That is the problem I have with these comments. We should at least have some qualms about limiting freedom, but I see little of that here or in my surrounding society. We may as well pack up all the Japanese-Americans and send them to Manzanar while we are at it. I mean since you think the majority should be the rule in this case.
quote:
What do you suggest basing such ethic-less laws on if not some rational and objective concept of morality and justice?
"Rational?" "Objective?" Show me rational and objective and we can talk.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By xyzCoder on 6/22/2011 8:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'm an ex-smoker (I was addicted for ten years, from 15-25). It was brutally hard to quit (it took quite a few tries, too), and no matter the pleasure one quickly starts to feel from smoking tobacco, here is the mechanism it is built on: you feel pain because of nicotine withdrawal, so the pleasure and relaxation that comes from smoking is actually just due to the temporary removal of the artificially painful state that inevitably follows massive doses of nicotine getting dumped on the system. The 'pleasure' is a lie.

Smoking is a dirty lie on so many levels: smokers reek, kissing a smoker tastes nasty, and 2nd-hand smoke is a proven killer. Smoking is not cool.

Regarding the type of dude I'm replying to: they love to think all-encompassing thoughts like 'more liberty is better' or 'less government is better', when in fact it should be 'less bad government / more good government', 'more good liberty, less bad liberty', etc.

As such, it is worthwhile to compare tobacco with other addictive substances: if you are (very) careful and remain moderate, you can have a good time and maybe even benefit a bit from drinking alcohol, getting high on marijuana or playing friendly poker with your buddies. The benefit from each is generally hard to argue (eg: getting rich at poker means your buddies became poorer, so you need to make sure it stays harmless), especially in the face of all the risks, but at least it is possible to use each one without damaging yourself the way you automatically do with smoking tobacco.

Smoking feels good, but on a deeper analysis it never is good. Wait enough years and you will regret the heart disease and other premature aging your body will have suffered, no matter how fun it was to be a teenager and just want to try it out.

And as far as his "Show me rational and objective and we can talk": people naturally assume others are like themselves, so people who are not coherent in their own thoughts assume that others are the same. They lack the ability to be rational and objective (largely because they refuse to be, but it does remain a skill to be developed) and hence are typically pointless to communicate with, as they just don't (want to) 'get it'.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/23/2011 10:29:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm an ex-smoker (I was addicted for ten years, from 15-25). It was brutally hard to quit (it took quite a few tries, too), and no matter the pleasure one quickly starts to feel from smoking tobacco, here is the mechanism it is built on: you feel pain because of nicotine withdrawal, so the pleasure and relaxation that comes from smoking is actually just due to the temporary removal of the artificially painful state that inevitably follows massive doses of nicotine getting dumped on the system. The 'pleasure' is a lie. Smoking is a dirty lie on so many levels: smokers reek, kissing a smoker tastes nasty, and 2nd-hand smoke is a proven killer. Smoking is not cool.
Agreed. But that is my opinion. There are many people who have commented who have said that they agree with the labeling yet they choose to smoke an occasional cig or cigar.
quote:
Regarding the type of dude I'm replying to: they love to think all-encompassing thoughts like 'more liberty is better' or 'less government is better', when in fact it should be 'less bad government / more good government', 'more good liberty, less bad liberty', etc.

People have been saying that since the dawn of time and the result is always the same...bigger bad gov't, less good liberty. I agree your idea is nice, but history shows that is a pipe dream.
quote:
'more good liberty, less bad liberty'
The same freedom that gives tobacco companies the right to make cool logos and advertisements, is the same right that we have as individuals and activist groups to speak against them.
quote:
Smoking feels good, but on a deeper analysis it never is good. Wait enough years and you will regret the heart disease and other premature aging your body will have suffered, no matter how fun it was to be a teenager and just want to try it out.
I know that, you know that, but there are people here who have read all of this and commented that they still choose to smoke. So I do not see what these labels will do other than sadden/gross people out...and most offensively: set a precedent for the gov't to curb our rights to free speach when the majority deems it just.
quote:
And as far as his "Show me rational and objective and we can talk": people naturally assume others are like themselves, so people who are not coherent in their own thoughts assume that others are the same.

No actually he/she is coherent to me...but only if I use their moral standard. And that is why it is not objective at all. I rarely give up on people, because I am just like them in their eyes. It would be nice if I was 'right' in my opinion but being proven wrong is better than continuing through life spewing falsehoods. So I will debate until I am shown to be incorrect because I value my freedom which at times is worth giving up. But this is certainly not one of those times IMHO.

On top of this all I have read a good portion of these comments and I don't think I have once seen someone say that this will effectively reduce the number of smokers with a logical explanation. I think there were 3 guys from Canada saying that they have had these labels for years...1 said that they were effective, the other 2 said that they didn't work at all, and none of them gave an explanation.

The education is out there, the numbers of smokers are dropping. For every ugly set of teeth smokers see on a pack, they see 20 pairs of smokers' pearly whites when they go out with their friends. This is patently rediculous.

IMO, there was a time when smokers held a monopoly on the air of America. Gov't intervention was called for and the monopoly was broken up. This is 'just' gov't at work. Monopolies screw the free market and therefore are an enemy to freedom. The funny thing is that gov't often become the same thing.

Again, I am not anti-gov't, but I am a person who thinks that we need to always be watchful of our rights being stepped on.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/22/2011 10:51:48 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Sorry, but big tobacco companies number among the small handful of organizations that are even more morally bankrupt than Apple, when viewed from a business-practices standpoint. Screw their freedom. They have shown that they are unable to use it responsibly, and when people start harming others by being irresponsible with their freedom they have that freedom taken away.
I'm suggesting freedom for ALL. That includes smokers, non-smokers, and yes, tobacco comps. That also includes firework companies who do nothing but burn peoples houses down and pornographers who do nothing but peddle what you (and I) probably consider destructive smut. The list can and will get bigger and bigger. And I find everyone's moronic comments on the matter even more amazing with the push to legalize MJ at its strongest ever.

quote:
The rules for companies and the rules for individuals should not be so vastly disproportionate that if I get drunk and then kill someone with my car I get sent to jail, but if I start a company that sells products that I know are gradually lethal and which kill thousands of my customers each year I get rewarded for it with untold riches. If that's the kind of "freedom" you support, then you're part of that aforementioned group of morons.

Yes, VOLUNTARILY smoking a cigarette is the same as INVOLUNTARILY getting killed by a drunk. Spot on comparison! Oh and we should ban the manufacture of guns while we are at it since gun manufacturers are evil too! Our soldiers can use tazers instead since they kill less people.</sarcasm>

First of all you just made my point again re: alcohol should also be labeled if we are to label tobacco. Secondly, you just condemned fast food McDonald's, BK, CJ's and restaurants like Red Robin, TGIF, Outback oh and don't forget the girl scouts ;-0 (which contributes to masses of early deaths by heart disease) and ironically Auto manufacturers (which contributes to masses of early deaths by car accident).

In your 100% safe, 100% efficient world, there is no freedom. I'm sorry but that is what I value most because you and I do not value the same things and freedom is the only way we can live in peace as such. Otherwise you may as well figure out which religion is correct and make us all practice that at the point of a gun. People have different views. This is America. Live with it.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/22/2011 12:00:57 PM , Rating: 2
Ooo! A ban on Apple?! This legislation proves that we can do it if we come together as freedom lovers!


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By JediJeb on 6/21/2011 3:59:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Alcohol is safe for you (in quantity) and others around you provided you don't do anything stupid while drinking (your example of drinking and driving).


If you drink less than an ounce per day then you are in the safe zone, but then if you are drinking less than an ounce per day you wouldn't need to play ahead for it either.

Alcohol is a toxin to your system just like the toxins in tobacco and many other things. Your body has to expend resources to expel it and purify itself and repair any damage done by it just as with any other toxin. Some alcoholic beverages do have beneficial tannins and other phytochemicals in them but that still doesn't override the effects of alcohol. Alcohol causes damage to the liver, brain, circulatory system and many other parts of the body in and of itself, and the side effect of intoxication (notice toxic is part of that word itself) can cause you to do harm to others just as second hand smoke does except in worse case situations the harm is much more extreme and immediate.

As stated in another post there are studies that show second hand smoke is not as dangerous as some say it is, but that is kept hush hush by the ones wanting to sensationalize the ill effects to promote their views. The article even says a study shows that smoking only one cigarette will cause genetic damage, but guess what, so will spending one day in the sun with no sun screen. Why don't we put up big billboards at every beach with huge photos of melanoma tumors on someones back they got from sunbathing?

If tobacco is done away with by the government, the they will be emboldened to attack other things they perceive as harmful to us. Alcohol will be one of the next ones, and instead of trying all out prohibition for moral reasons as before, they will slowly attack it for "health" reasons as they have tobacco. Once you start making people wonder about it harming them then the regulations can begin to increase. Next thing you know a can of beer will cost you $15 because they need to tax it to help cover the health costs it causes. If the manage to nix alcohol then beaches, ,steaks, fast food, mountain climbing, skateboarding, auto racing, ect, will become targets to help make us more healthy.

The other thing I hate is when they talk about tobacco causing so many deaths, and if we eliminate it what is going to happen? Will those people who would have been killed by tobacco live forever? Someone once made a statement that war increases death rates, but that isn't true either. The rate of death is equal to the rate of birth, it is a 100% correlation over each generation.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 4:31:44 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If tobacco is done away with by the government, the they will be emboldened to attack other things they perceive as harmful to us. Alcohol will be one of the next ones, and instead of trying all out prohibition for moral reasons as before, they will slowly attack it for "health" reasons as they have tobacco. Once you start making people wonder about it harming them then the regulations can begin to increase. Next thing you know a can of beer will cost you $15 because they need to tax it to help cover the health costs it causes. If the manage to nix alcohol then beaches, ,steaks, fast food, mountain climbing, skateboarding, auto racing, ect, will become targets to help make us more healthy.
Yeah and compound that with socialized medicine and you will see things like the "tan tax" that is included in Obamacare. The wheels you speak of are already in motion.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:35:56 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly. That's what frustrates me so much about people who do NOT understand Socialized medicine. Because once you have it, the Government can pass ANY measure it want's to under the guise of public health, safety, or cost cutting. People just do NOT get it.

A country with centralized socialized medicine cannot be free. Cannot.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By rs2 on 6/21/2011 9:41:47 PM , Rating: 5
All I see here are three people who don't understand what a "slippery slope" argument is, and why such arguments are invalid.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/22/2011 11:31:10 AM , Rating: 1
No one boiled down smoking to "it is bad for us and therefore should be banned" except the people who are proponents of this stupid legislation. So don't talk to me about slippery slopes.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By xyzCoder on 6/22/11, Rating: 0
RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By xyzCoder on 6/22/2011 8:37:09 PM , Rating: 1
Heh - I guess I got auto-down-moderated for saying ~BS'er?

I will be more careful with my language, but I can't help but feel that the list of words in the filter is a bit absurd.

It's not like this is a site for 8 year olds, is it? "Nanny Site", indeed.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By MindParadox on 6/21/2011 5:01:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Someone once made a statement that war increases death rates, but that isn't true either. The rate of death is equal to the rate of birth, it is a 100% correlation over each generation.


umm, yer a moron, thought I'd let ya know. If birth and death rates are 100% correlation, how is the population expanding year for year?
do you honestly think that ~12 million+(to be conservative) babies were born between 1939-1945?

think about your statements before you make them, I was with you right up until you made this monumentally idiotic statement


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Bad-Karma on 6/22/2011 5:44:24 AM , Rating: 3
I think you're missing his point and the intended sarcasm.

A higher birthrate just means that there will be a higher death rate later on.

Everyone dies eventually, your mortality is a 100% guarantee. No one has yet has successfully eluded the reaper.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By JediJeb on 6/24/2011 6:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
My statement is correct unless you know some people who have lived forever and never died. You are born, you die, that is a 100% correlation.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By delphinus100 on 6/22/2011 7:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
"The other thing I hate is when they talk about tobacco causing so many deaths, and if we eliminate it what is going to happen? Will those people who would have been killed by tobacco live forever?"

Wait, what? By that logic, you shouldn't bother with any medical intervention, either.

("Why should I keep him from bleeding to death...I mean, he'll just die of something else eventually, right?")

Even when we learn to stop and reverse aging, you'll still die of something, at some time. Life-extension is not immortality. (As I often put it, if I have to die, I'd rather it was on an exploding starship, 400 years from now, and not withering away in a nursing home, 40 years from now.)

Nobody will live 'forever.' If nothing else, the Universe itself will ultimately run down. How is that any kind of argument??

"Someone once made a statement that war increases death rates, but that isn't true either. The rate of death is equal to the rate of birth, it is a 100% correlation over each generation."

Then why are there more people on Earth than there were, say, 200 years ago? Why do we bother with a Census?

Oh, that's right. Antibiotics. Sanitation. Assorted other things that lowered the death rate, without changing the birth rate much. Who knew?

No, you can't (and perhaps shouldn't...Darwin always rules) protect people from everything they may do, but 'you'll die of something else anyway,' while true, is insane as a defense of that position.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By JediJeb on 6/24/2011 6:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Someone once made a statement that war increases death rates, but that isn't true either. The rate of death is equal to the rate of birth, it is a 100% correlation over each generation." Then why are there more people on Earth than there were, say, 200 years ago? Why do we bother with a Census?


I guess you missed the "each generation" part. One generation may be larger than another which is why we now have more people on earth than two generations past, but what I said is true within a generation. I don't see many 60 year old "Baby Boomers" being born today, only that would change the population within a given generation. Maybe if we learned to clone them and they came out the same age as the cloned person that might do it.

I am also not saying we should not work to prevent smoking, or work on treating the health problems it causes. What I was mainly refuting was the belief that only tobacco causes such things and we should just leave alcohol alone since so many people think it is an untouchable recreational drug. I read an article just yesterday in the paper that said there were 2000 college students killed from drinking too much last year, and another 600,000 were injured by it. It is also estimated that 100,000 babies are born each year with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome because the mothers consumed alcohol during pregnancy. When you add it all up alcohol ends up costing at least half as much in health care costs as tobacco each year yet it is just fine to have advertisements for it on TV where children can see them. It seems a bit of a hypocrisy to push so far on stopping smoking while continuing to promote alcohol. I think they are both bad, but let's be fair about how we treat everyone's pet pleasures.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By GreenEnvt on 6/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 4:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Alcohol isn't inherently dangerous to you or to other peoples health. Alcohol in moderation doesn't damage your body, many studies actually show it is beneficial. Alcohol is only an issue when it is abused.

Yeah but not everyone smokes through their neck (as in the labeling) either. Some people smoke in moderation too (like you) and don't have to worry about those things pictured. So I still don't see how it is different since you are saying the same about alcohol. That is: not everyone "abuses" these drugs to the extent that they harm either themselves or others in any significant manner.

And who the hell cares if it is 'inherently' dangerous or not? Would you be ok with an A-bomb parked in your neighbor's yard? It will only hurt you if it is detonated. So what's the problem?

It is either dangerous or it isn't. Period.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Strunf on 6/22/2011 4:59:40 AM , Rating: 2
"It is either dangerous or it isn't. Period."
You can die from drinking too much water, you can die from eating too much meat, you can die from eating too many fruits, hell you can die from too much sunlight... are they dangerous or not?

The truth is almost everything can kill you... depending on the dose you take!



RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Bad-Karma on 6/22/2011 5:46:20 AM , Rating: 2
Well said!

I had a pharmacist once tell me that the only difference between a medicine and a poison is the dosage.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/22/2011 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 2
So you are for the labeling or against? These are my points exactly. Therefore we should have freedom to smoke and drink and whatever, though I personally abstain from (and can't stand) both.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Bad-Karma on 6/22/2011 1:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
I enjoy the occasional cigar or one of my pipes with a nice brandy or cognac. I have a glass of red whine each night for my health, a beer or bourbon when with good company.

I enjoy my vises and my rights to them. But if I'm causing someone else discomfort I'll gladly desist, but only if they are polite when asking. Rudeness will only expound their discomfort.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/22/2011 6:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
It is great to meet people like you who act responsibly this way. I think that there wouldn't be any smoking bans or taxes if there weren't any ahole smokers out there. But through the years we have all met at least one or two who ruined our evenings at a restaraunt or whatever and that set people off to an extent where they wanted to take the freedom to smoke away.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RITE-FiW5Gg&feature...

;-)


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 4:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming that your view is just, would you then want to require all smokers such as yourself to wear shirts with a picture of a guys smoking out of his throat then? (While you are smoking around others of course.)


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By rubbahbandman on 6/21/2011 3:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I agreed with you I would then ask why is this not also required of alcohol products to show mangled bodies in a car wreak on every can or bottle? Taking someone else's life is worse then taking your own, no? Why are we starting with cigs?


I wouldn't say we are starting with cigs per se. You might recall the sale of alcohol was entirely prohibited in the U.S. for 15 years. I'd say putting some pictures on a product is a lot less drastic. You do bring up a good point about the consequences of irresponsible drinking, but I guess going by the numbers game, drinking is responsible for maybe 1/6 of smoking related deaths, so smoking seems like a better place to try this imagery approach.

quote:
Or let's get really wacky and require pictures of the bodies of drowning victims be posted around all pools? There are other dangers out there besides drugs.


Sorry, this is just a bad analogy. I can feel myself rolling down the slippery slope.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 4:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I guess going by the numbers game, drinking is responsible for maybe 1/6 of smoking related deaths, so smoking seems like a better place to try this imagery approach.

Yeah but the numbers game shows more self-inflicted deaths with smoking. When you talk about freedom of speech this has to be a factor, because my freedom ends where yours begins.

And again, it is not a competition to see which causes more death. They are saying that smoking is bad and therefore needs labels on the packaging. Everyone agrees that drinking is similar in the tragedy that it causes, just maybe to a (possibly much) lesser extent.
quote:
Sorry, this is just a bad analogy. I can feel myself rolling down the slippery slope.
My point exactly.
To be honest that was just off the top of my head but you can use anything as an example. How about hammers with pictures of smashed thumbs or skill saws with pictures of one-armed carpenters on them.

Why don't they require that the cigarettes smell like a skunk? Then the smokers will know how the rest of us feel.
That wouldn't be as wacky as these stupid pictures.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By M4gery on 6/22/2011 1:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I agreed with you I would then ask why is this not also required of alcohol products to show mangled bodies in a car wreak on every can or bottle? Taking someone else's life is worse then taking your own, no?


Since when!? I'd much rather kill someone else than kill myself.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Omega215D on 6/21/2011 4:31:16 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's not the cool factor when you're an adult. Most people I know who are either soldiers or work in restaurants smoke to keep the nerves down.

My grandfather would tell me about people who didn't smoke before WW II would start after coming into some fierce fire fights or after landing from missions. Cigarettes were a treat for those recovering in those military hospitals back then.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By MrBlastman on 6/21/2011 1:49:01 PM , Rating: 5
I approach smoking like this. When I'm sitting in my car and I get behind someone smoking--it pisses me off. I can't stand that foul stench being quaffed into my humid, summer air. It turns already a sweltering drive into a noxious, sweltering test of endurance. I dream of pulling up along side them and telling them to shove their cancer sticks right up their backsides, burning their rectum.

I dream this.

I never go any further than that. Why? I remind myself of something. Something called freedom. Freedom, something that used to mean something in this place called America--the same freedom millions of Americans died to protect.

So what do I do? Not a thing. At most I might try and pass them and move on with my day but that is about all. If they want to kill themselves smoking, then let them do so, it is their freedom. Our freedom. This is what America is all about, hate it or not.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Sazabi19 on 6/21/2011 2:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
Your freedoms stop when they infringe on someone else's rights, especially when they are harmful to the others around them. I'm all for freedom and hearing someone say something i don't like (freedom of speech) is one thing, i can cover my ears or go away. When someone is putting toxins into the air depending on where i am i cant just stop breathing. I'm not saying go fanatical on them and outlaw cigs or kill those that smoke, just don't make it to where i have to suffer for it as well. You want to kill yourself fine go for it, don't try to take me with you.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/11, Rating: -1
RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By idiot77 on 6/21/2011 2:36:12 PM , Rating: 5
Shut up stupid.

You trot out one opinion against a sea of others going the opposite direction. That's called a tsunami.

Same with global climate change.

Same with the idiot saying cell phones cause cancer.

Quit being a religious fanatic.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 2:45:50 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Quit being a religious fanatic.


Wait, what??


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Solandri on 6/21/2011 2:50:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Get real. There is no measurable risk to occasionally inhaling second hand smoke.

1. Risk or no, it's very, very unpleasant to a non-smoker. Would smokers mind if I spit on them? As long as it's not near their mouth, there's no measurable risk from that too.

2. There is a shared economic cost in the form of health care for smokers via Medicare/Medicaid and hospital emergency room laws (they have to treat you regardless of your ability to pay). I'd probably agree with you that health care costs should be left up to the individual, and thus this shouldn't be relevant. However, when making decisions, you have to consider the way things are, not the way you wish things could be. The reality is that the additional health care costs of smoking are substantially borne by the general non-smoking public via current programs and laws. Since non-smokers are helping pay for it, they get to have a say in whether you should be allowed to do it.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Solandri on 6/21/2011 3:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's absurd! You're directly violating my personal space and putting bodily fluids on me! You can't believe this is the same thing as wisps of smoke that don't smell good.

That's absurd! You're directly violating my personal space and putting carcinogenic substances in me! You can't believe this is the same thing as 98% water that has some organic matter in it.

If you're going to dismiss anti-smoking arguments based on risk, you cannot suddenly ignore risk and make an emotional appeal as a counter-argument. Like I said, as long as the saliva doesn't get near your mouth, it's as safe as second-hand smoke. Hence the risk of both is the same.

If you're going to argue based on the fact that being spit upon is gross and emotionally disturbing to you, then that is my point - non-smokers can make the same argument against being forced to endure second-hand smoke.

quote:
Same thing as fat people, drinkers, and those who participate in extreme sports and other hazardous lifestyles. Do we really wanna go down this road?

Yes I do. I think carrying it out to that extreme would elucidate more people to the folly of it all. But that's another debate.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 3:50:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That's absurd! You're directly violating my personal space and putting carcinogenic substances in me!


No, because it's not carcinogenic. And even if it WAS, there's so little of the substances in second hand smoke you might as well accuse me of the same thing when I drive my car. That pollutes as well, doesn't it? Taking your argument to the extreme, I shouldn't even be able to drive my car past your house because I'm "putting carcinogenic substances" in your air.

The "spitting" argument is stupid and gross. If you spit on someone, you would probably get punched or at the very least cursed out. Why don't people punch out smokers? Smokers aren't singling you out and deliberately violating you. By spitting on me you are intentionally disrespecting me as well as violating my personal space on purpose. It's not even a comparison.

Some things you just have to live with. Smoke is one thing, being spit on is totally different. Just stop, you aren't making any headway with such an absurd hypothetical argument.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 3:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, because it's not carcinogenic.


AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAH AHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHA HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH AAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!

Heh... wow...


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:11:32 PM , Rating: 1
If second hand smoke was a carcinogen, there would be alarming numbers of non-smokers with lung cancer. Which we do NOT see.

Again, I'm going to try and explain this to you, because something is technically a carcinogen does NOT mean you will absorb the required toxicity level to actually GET cancer from it. We breath in, eat, and drink carcinogens EVERY day. Why don't we all always get cancer? Toxicity levels!

So type all the "AHAHAHA's" you want, you are just proving you cannot grasp something a first year med student innately knows and that you cannot think for yourself!


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 4:33:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Again, I'm going to try and explain this to you, because something is technically a carcinogen does NOT mean you will absorb the required toxicity level to actually GET cancer from it. We breath in, eat, and drink carcinogens EVERY day. Why don't we all always get cancer? Toxicity levels!


Glad to know you're an idiot when it comes to your knowledge of what a carcinogen is. Even minimal trace amounts of carcinogens are enough to cause cancer. It simply becomes a statistical model of more carcinogen = more cancerous cells.

The polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons found specifically in cigarette smoke are like mutagenic catalyst in that they are not changed or consumed when they damage DNA and can do damage in even the smallest amounts.

What's more interesting, is that groups like the those producing a lot of the tripe you're spewing, are almost always funded both by tobacco companies and petroleum companies that are the leading sources of PAH.

Do you think they might have an agenda?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Omega215D on 6/21/2011 4:35:54 PM , Rating: 2
Inhaling smoke of any kind is still bad for the very sensitive lung tissue and hairs. I'm all for designated smoking areas as people should choose whether or not to smoke.

Tobacco has been around for centuries, it's just the added preservatives are doing the most harm and that nicotine, in small amounts, is a bit beneficial. Still inhaling smoke is not the best way to get it but to each their own. Just please be courteous and be mindful of young children whose lungs are still developing.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 5:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1. Risk or no, it's very, very unpleasant to a non-smoker. Would smokers mind if I spit on them? As long as it's not near their mouth, there's no measurable risk from that too.
Now I'm going to get crass but it is too funny...

If I cut one next to you should I be required to tattoo your disgusted face on my a$$?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 3:12:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Get real. There is no measurable risk to occasionally inhaling second hand smoke.


Really, is that why the supreme court unanimously upheld a racketeering lawsuit decision under RICO that the defendants had:

- conspired to minimize, distort and confuse the public about the health hazards of smoking
- publicly denied, while internally acknowledging, that secondhand tobacco smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, and
- destroyed documents relevant to litigation.

You can read the entire court finding here:

http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/litigation/cases/DOJ/20...

It outlines various studies that were undertaken under payment from the cigarette companies. The majority of the studies (which corroborated the surgeon generals findings) were discarded and the few studies that suggested ran contrary to consensus were widely and aggressively publicized. It outlines how the cited cigarette companies have been knowingly undertaking a campaign of denial, distortion and disinformation since 1953.

Further, almost 200+ pages of internal documents were provided to the court as proof that they not only new from internal studies that occasional second hand smoke causes increased health risks. Another 100+ pages of memorandum were provided as evidence that despite their own internal findings, they willfully attacked external studies that had drawn the same conclusion.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 3:29:35 PM , Rating: 2
So what? A federal judge in 1998 ruled the EPA had no proof to the claim of second hand smoke dangers. The EPA abused it's power by committing to a conclusion before ANY research had actually begun.

Also you do yourself a great disservice by linking this witch hunting CIVIL trial, which has different guidelines and a far more lax burden of proof than a criminal trial would have. It's a special interest show trial, I mean TOBACCO-FREE KIDS ACTION FUND and AMERICANS FOR NONSMOKERS’ RIGHTS!?? LOL, give me a break!

This is a trial, not a scientific study. It doesn't prove or disprove a factual and testable second hand smoke risks. Obviously I'm not going to read something this massive, but a large majority of it seems mostly concerned with weather or not Phillip Morris "knew" tobacco products were addictive. Which has nothing to do with our discussion.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 3:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously I'm not going to read something this massive, but a large majority of it seems mostly concerned with weather or not Phillip Morris "knew" tobacco products were addictive. Which has nothing to do with our discussion.


Actually it covers all bases, from addiction to the health risks from primary and secondary exposure.

It also includes internal scientific studies conducted by the companies or on their behalf along with accompanying memorandums stating things like: (paraphrased) "Our study confirmed the results of the British study on increased risk of skin cancer, figure out how to attack their study."

They basically accepted the consensus, but attacked it anyway in an attempt to misinform denialist consumers.

Even as recent as 2010, the surgeon generals report has stated that second hand smoke causes immediate damage to ones organs.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/tobaccosmoke...

But by all means, feel free to believe that the world is against the poor little tobacco industry and that they and the studies they fund (then cherry pick through) are the only ones to be believed.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
LOL I love how your link was the Surgeon Generals website. With no opposing argument or studies linked so we can make an informed decision. What an unbiased combination!

quote:
Even as recent as 2010, the surgeon generals report has stated that second hand smoke causes immediate damage to ones organs.


If you knew ANYTHING about toxicology you would automatically have suspicions about a claim so ludicrous. Immediate organ damage? That's not even possible. To quote something from my link:

A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.


This is nice read explaining the flawed methodology, the ignoring of toxicological principles, and other biased conclusions the Government (EPA/Surgeon General) use to make their claims. It's, unlike yours, a VERY quick and concise read. And I would very much like to hear your thoughts on it.

Or you can believe I'm some quack who's "against the world", even though I don't smoke and could care less what you think.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/23399/S...


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 3
I find it more interesting that the publisher is one of the same ones cited in the civil case as having done preferential studies on behalf of one of the defendants in the case (Phillip Morris). Or perhaps more interesting that they are still receiving funding from Phillip Morris to this date and that they have successfully lobbied senators on behalf of Phillip Morris.

Nope, they couldn't possibly be biased at all... not one bit.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:18:44 PM , Rating: 3
Then everyone is biased. Because you cannot say the EPA and the Surgeon General is unbiased, can you? Almost every major study is funded by someone, and if you follow the money you can make an argument that the findings aren't genuine. So I guess ALL science is flawed, nice attitude.

The logic in my link is inescapable. The way our bodies absorb and collect toxins doesn't change just because the EPA or Surgeon General (who is just a puppet for whatever administration appointed him/her) says it does. Also the fact that the Government studies only show correlation, NOT causation, is 100% undeniable. But don't let facts get in your way.

I was hoping you would read it, but alas, whatever.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 4:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was hoping you would read it, but alas, whatever.


Who says I didn't? I simply didn't accept it because it was of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" attitude. It constantly harps on the 1992 EPA study (of which parts are still valid) and said that just because aspects of it were wrong or preconceived, that the entire report should be thrown out despite it's incorporation of valid information from accepted studies.

It then tries to state that any and every report to site them (regardless of which apportionment is cited) is therefor demonstrably false and should be thrown out.

This is logically bankrupt.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:44:43 PM , Rating: 5
Wait what? So we have a study that "parts" were fudged by the Government or just flat out lied and made up, and you don't think that completely casts doubt on the whole thing?

I admit I'm not a scientist, but I'm pretty sure I don't remember learning in school that's it's "OK" to forge data as long as the end results supports your conclusions and it's for the greater good. That's not how the scientific method works. How can you support such behavior? That's intellectually and ethically bankrupt.

Sorry but if I have to choose between a biased private citizen or corporation, and an obviously biased Government who's goal is 100% politically motivated, then it's not even a contest who I'm going with.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 5:02:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How can you support such behavior? That's intellectually and ethically bankrupt.


I didn't say that now did I?

I said that parts of it were legitimately thrown out.

What you twisted around are that there were conclusions in the report, drawn exclusively from other legitimate studies as supporting statements that were still perfectly valid.

You're little tobacco lapdog site said that referencing these still valid apportionment is flawed, when in reality, the author could have just as easily cited the root study and reworded the apportionment. Lazy? Yes. Invalid? No.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By cyberguyz on 6/22/2011 9:00:46 AM , Rating: 1
Who cares about occasional? Trouble is it is not just one or two people smoking around us.

The fact is that there is documented proof out there of people dying of cancer caused by seconds hand smoke. You think not? google is your friend - look it up.

Also, I no longer smoke (I smoked for 30 years and am paying the price for that stupidity). However if I walk into a closed room with people smoking in it, I end up smelling like a damned ashtray? Why should I? I don't freaking smoke!

Your smoke is a natural byproduct of burning tobacco. It gets into the air and settles on everything around you. don't believe me? Go into a 'smoking room' sometime. If the chair doesn't stick to you from all of the tar covering it I would be profoundly surprised.

Anyhow you like to smoke your cigarettes and the natural byproduuct of that ends up all over me. I like to drink beer. How would you like it if I sprayed the natural byproduct of that all over you? What's the difference? Both byproducts are filthy and make you stink. So you should really have no exception if you are smoking beside me, for me to whip it out and hose you down, right?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2011 9:19:22 AM , Rating: 2
Aren't you a hypocrite? You smoked for 30 years, and while doing it that was fine and dandy. But now here you are vilifying those who are doing the same things you did for three decades!?

quote:
The fact is that there is documented proof out there of people dying of cancer caused by seconds hand smoke. You think not? google is your friend - look it up.


Correlation, not causation.

quote:
However if I walk into a closed room with people smoking in it, I end up smelling like a damned ashtray? Why should I? I don't freaking smoke!


The only "closed room" in public where a bunch of people would be smoking is a designated smoking section. Why are you in there? If the closed room is in somebody's house, well tough cookies, they set the house rules and it's their right to allow smoking. You can leave if you don't like it, that is YOUR right.

Oh and here we go with another "spraying fluids/spitting on someone is the same as smoking" analogy. That is ridiculous! It's not the same, not even close.

You smoked for 30 years, you shouldn't even be talking. If you really believed second hand smoke caused cancer deaths, then you must have one hell of a guilty conscious. Personally I find your post highly hypocritical and sophomoric. You're just another guy who enjoyed a right and now regrets it, so that gives you the prerogative to try and take it away from others.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By cyberguyz on 6/22/2011 9:53:03 AM , Rating: 1
Hypocrite? Maybe, but I don't do it to other people anymore do i? Nor did I smoke while doing so around other people. So yeah, I guess i am ;) Sure I may be guilty of the same thing early on, but guess what? I Grew Up.

Well, your argument is that they didn't die of second hand smoke because you think there is no proof (apparently the Surgeon General (your 'Quack') thinks differently. However you likewise have offered up no proof at that they didn't. Catch 22? Frankly I the people who put the argument up that second-hand smoke is dangerous appear a little more credible than the people funded by tobacco companies that state otherwise.

Closed areas : cars, houses, subway platforms, bus shelters... should I continue?

Frankly I find the smoke you and people with your attitude blow on me offensive. Sure smoking is legal. And spraying your toxic chemicals all over the place is legal too, right? Well son, so is drinking. Nothing illegal about taking a piss, right? But if I turn around piss on you, you might have a case that I assaulted you. I wonder if anyone has charged someone that blew their secondhand smoke on them with assault. After all the evidence just as much there - simple forensics on the clothes would show the toxic chemicals you spewed on me.

Some interesting reading for you: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n12...


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/22/2011 10:51:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Frankly I find the smoke you and people with your attitude blow on me offensive.


I like how because I bring common sense to an argument and defend people's rights, I'm automatically a smoker. I don't smoke, never have, and don't "blow" anything on people. Except when I'm out in public and I've eaten a lot of vegetables..oh boy, but I digress.

Smoking is just becoming another casualty of political correctness and nanny state politics. That's why I speak about it.

You think I have a deathwish or something? If I truly thought second hand smoke was harmful to my health, damn right I would have a different opinion.

quote:
Frankly I the people who put the argument up that second-hand smoke is dangerous appear a little more credible than the people funded by tobacco companies that state otherwise.


Like the studies that showed we would all be burning alive by the year 2000 from exponentially increasing global warming? Yeah those government and special interest group studies sure have been accurate. Why is a study by the EPA or Surgeon General assumed to be less biased than one by the tobacco companies? Because they have "your health" in mind? Please. They just don't want to be blamed for allowing a product they make gillions in tax dollars on to continue. So they talk about public safety from one side of their mouth, while robbing addicts blind with the other.

quote:
I wonder if anyone has charged someone that blew their secondhand smoke on them with assault. After all the evidence just as much there - simple forensics on the clothes would show the toxic chemicals you spewed on me.


I don't know. How about I charge you with assault for driving your car. Your blowing toxic fumes on everyone, forensics would show it (in ridiculous trace amounts just like cigarette smoke). Let's go down that road. Where does it end?

You're just another ex smoker who has "seen the light" and thinks that qualifies him to demonize others who enjoyed the same freedoms. You're a hypocrite, your analogies suck, and you have a guilt complex. You aren't more enlightened, you are just trying to cope with the 30 years that YOU regret.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By ClownPuncher on 6/21/2011 2:40:33 PM , Rating: 3
Nobody is infringing on your freedoms by smoking. You have every right to move away from them.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 3:57:47 PM , Rating: 1
Oh... so then I have a right to spray the air around you with chemicals when I want you to move? Thanks for clearing that up for me.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 2
Stop being an idiot. Spraying toxic chemicals on people is illegal. Smoking is not, unless like my city, there are public smoking bans.

Just deal with it. For fuks sake, we have way bigger problems. Stop being a Libtard. If you breathed second hand smoke every day for a year, you would only have accumulated 10 cigarettes worth of smoke. 10! Nobody died or got cancer from smoking 10 cigarettes, and you would be lying if you told me you breathed second hand smoke for hours every day.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 4:44:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
toxic chemicals


Who said anything about toxic or spraying them directly on to people. No, I'm apparently entitled to make the environment around me as unpleasant for others as I please. :P


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
No because that's public harassment. Sorry but smoking is legal, so just because YOU feel harassed doesn't make it so. You do NOT have a right to not be offended. But you do NOT have the right to go around spraying people with chemicals.

It's time to grow up and deal with the reality of the argument. Stop with the stupid analogies and hypothetical. Tobacco use is legal, if you want to change that, fine. But stop trying to make smokers out to be evil doers looking to harm your health.

Grow up, stop being a dumbass, and deal with reality.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 5:06:44 PM , Rating: 1
I didn't say I was spraying it on to people now did I?

You just can't beat this argument because deep down you know I am right.

Smokers (weather they recognize it, or not) deliberately create a hostile and unpleasant environment for non-smokers. If a non smoker attempts do do the exact same thing deliberately, it's harassment.

Double standard much?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By ClownPuncher on 6/21/2011 5:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
Having a chance to be exposed to smoke in a public place does not infringe on your freedoms.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 5:18:27 PM , Rating: 2
You directly implied that when you wanted someone to move, you would "spray" chemicals. Now you're being cute and making a distinction when I blew your stupid analogy apart where none was previously present.

You can spray all the chemicals or whatever you want in the air, as long as they aren't controlled substances. I don't care. It's only your money you'll be wasting. And you'll probably be the one who ends up breathing it in lol.

However I'm pretty sure if you were in public and just started spraying something into the air and a cop saw you, he would probably want to have a discussion with you about it.

quote:
You just can't beat this argument because deep down you know I am right.


No, you can't be right. Because I'm arguing with you. Reclaimer is NEVER wrong, you should know this by now.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 5:32:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can spray all the chemicals or whatever you want in the air, as long as they aren't controlled substances. I don't care. It's only your money you'll be wasting. And you'll probably be the one who ends up breathing it in lol.


JUST LIKE A SMOKER!!! :P


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By MindParadox on 6/21/2011 5:12:09 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
No because that's public harassment. Sorry but smoking is legal, so just because YOU feel harassed doesn't make it so. You do NOT have a right to not be offended. But you do NOT have the right to go around spraying people with chemicals.


two wrong things here, first, there is no law against hairspray/febreeze/air freshener NOR is there a law against non toxic chemicals that may smell bad. otherwise, no one would be able to put Off on their kids at the park in public :P

and secondly he/she never said "Spraying people with chemicals" he/she said "Spraying chemicals in the air when i want you to move"

personally, i quit smoking in 2007, and i can tell you that i feel like crap for a couple days if i go with my friends to a bar that doesnt REALLY agressively filter the air inside, and i know non-smokers who feel the same way

(by feel like crap i mean, athsmatic symptoms, croaky voices and raw throats, runny noses, watering/red eyes and such)


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By ClownPuncher on 6/21/2011 5:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Infringing on a persons freedom and being exposed to something that smells bad are two completely different things.

Unless you are in an enclosed space with someone who is smoking, you aren't being exposed to dangerous levels of toxic chemicals. Trace amounts, at most.

Smokers these days have to use designated smoking areas a certain distance from entrances to buildings. You can avoid that.

Your stance is an attempt to legislate against other peoples freedom, not to protect your own.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By 91TTZ on 6/21/2011 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Your freedoms stop when they infringe on someone else's rights, especially when they are harmful to the others around them.


But where do you draw the line? Just about everything can be proven to have an external effect.

I could say that by you eating a nice juicy steak that you're causing others to pay more for your health insurance since it's been proven that eating red meat leads to health problems. Do I have a case that I should be able to control what you eat and prevent you from eating steaks?

I could prove that playing sports causes more injuries, leading to needed healthcare. Can I prevent you from playing sports?
What if I see you sunbathing? Everyone knows that increased sun exposure is bad for you. Can we ban sunbathing also?

What about be exercising their second amendment rights and owning a gun. Should that be banned too?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Solandri on 6/21/2011 3:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But where do you draw the line? Just about everything can be proven to have an external effect.
...

^^^^^
Best post of the topic thus far.

I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Society does not have the right to dictate everything you can and cannot do. But neither does Society have no right to dictate certain things you must do or cannot do. Society gets to debate and decide where to draw the line. Which is what we're doing with all the discussion going on here.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 3:30:20 PM , Rating: 1
Nice bait and switch, but no...

All of the examples you cited to support your argument are isolated to the individual alone or to groups of consenting adults.

You have no more a right to cause someone else to inhale carcinogens from cigarette smoke against their will, than you do to spray the air around you with colorless toxic fumes. You can try and cry "but if they didn't want to, they wouldn't have breathed in!", but the fact is that your attempt to slowly destroy yourself should be limited to yourself alone.

Living in a world of negative liberty is a bitch...


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 3:37:44 PM , Rating: 2
How toxic? If I sprayed a can of tile cleaner in the air, nobody would care because in such an open space, the small amount of toxic chemicals in tile cleaner have no health impact.

Second hand smoke, like other carcinogens (if it even IS one), need to reach a certain toxicity level in your body to have an effect. Which just cannot happen if you are just breathing in trace amounts of smoke on rare occasions.

I think the "health" angle is just something you and others hide behind to push a political agenda. You don't like smoking, you don't like the smell, so you feel justified in using any excuse you can in making it go away.

This argument is mute where I live. Because there is a public places smoking ban.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 3:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(if it even IS one)


Actually, it's recognized to be a combination of over 70 different proven carcinogens (depending on the brand).


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 4:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but again, dose makes the poison. There isn't ENOUGH toxicity in second hand smoke to have real-world health impacts.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 4:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, but again, dose makes the poison. There isn't ENOUGH toxicity in second hand smoke to have real-world health impacts.


Wrong.

A different process for determining toxicity is used for chemicals that are known or suspected to cause cancer in humans.

For carcinogens, data from animal experiments and human exposures are analyzed to determine whether a safe dose can be identified. If there is no dose below which the chemical is considered safe, the standard is set at the lowest concentration that can feasibly be achieved with available technology.

For example, the experiment where one of these PAH's dilutes was painted on the skin of lab rats. It was concluded that there was no known safe dose as even rats that had only been treated once with the smallest quantity of the weakest dilute possible developed skin cancer. Further study demonstrated that instances of skin cancer in the rats were directly proportional to the concentration of the mixture, the number of applications and time.

But you can keep quoting that as your denialist mantra if you like.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 5:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but the simple fact is that if you were right, we would ALL be walking around riddled with all kinds of cancers. It's not "denialist", it's logic.

If NO level of second hand smoke was safe, and second hand smoke was a highly toxic carcinogen, almost ALL of us would have lung cancer.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By MindParadox on 6/21/2011 5:18:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry but the simple fact is that if you were right, we would ALL be walking around riddled with all kinds of cancers. It's not "denialist", it's logic. If NO level of second hand smoke was safe, and second hand smoke was a highly toxic carcinogen, almost ALL of us would have lung cancer.


Sorry, but you are forgetting the simple fact that our bodies to a certain extent REPAIR THEMSELVES. Thinking with that fact, and knowing that it is a variable rate(from really fast healers to people who barely heal at all) the fact that something is a known carcinogen now being put on someone becomes more a matter of "what can that specific person in that specific instance bear"

your logic is flawed, and therefore, not logic at all

Gravity is a 100% of the time effect

Immune response is not.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 5:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you. That was basically what I was getting at.

No known safe exposure levels for a carcinogen means that the onus is completely on the body of the individual.

The greater the exposure level and the more frequent the number of exposures, the more likely that a cancerous cell is not destroyed by the bodies immune response and is allowed to run amok.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 5:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry, but you are forgetting the simple fact that our bodies to a certain extent REPAIR THEMSELVES.


I haven't forgotten at all. Which is why I can confidently say that inhaling trace amounts of tobacco smoke simply can't have a quantifiable chance to give me cancer over, say, inhaling car exhaust fumes.

quote:
the fact that something is a known carcinogen now being put on someone becomes more a matter of "what can that specific person in that specific instance bear"


Except the other side isn't saying that, are they? They are saying second hand smoke WILL increase your risk of cancers. So which is it? Will you get cancer or not?

See that's the whole problem, a lot of absolute statements are being thrown around here. But very little rational discussion.

I used to work in a restaurant years ago. I was put in the smoking section EVERY NIGHT. So I guess by Illakins logic, I should be getting cancer about any day now...


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Iaiken on 6/21/2011 5:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If NO level of second hand smoke was safe, and second hand smoke was a highly toxic carcinogen, almost ALL of us would have lung cancer.


Reduce arguments to the absurd much?

Just because trace amounts CAN cause cancer, doesn't mean that they WILL cause cancer.

Do you ever get tired of being an absolutist?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By MindParadox on 6/21/2011 5:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
quote: If NO level of second hand smoke was safe, and second hand smoke was a highly toxic carcinogen, almost ALL of us would have lung cancer. Reduce arguments to the absurd much? Just because trace amounts CAN cause cancer, doesn't mean that they WILL cause cancer. Do you ever get tired of being an absolutist?


umm, that was the very point i was making :P may wanna check which response ya reply to :)


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By 91TTZ on 6/21/2011 5:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For carcinogens, data from animal experiments and human exposures are analyzed to determine whether a safe dose can be identified. If there is no dose below which the chemical is considered safe, the standard is set at the lowest concentration that can feasibly be achieved with available technology. For example, the experiment where one of these PAH's dilutes was painted on the skin of lab rats. It was concluded that there was no known safe dose as even rats that had only been treated once with the smallest quantity of the weakest dilute possible developed skin cancer. Further study demonstrated that instances of skin cancer in the rats were directly proportional to the concentration of the mixture, the number of applications and time.


What you describe is called LNT (linear, no threshold) when dealing with radiation. It's been proven that there's no safe level, the rate of detrimental health effects is proportional to the exposure.

Since there's no threshold, can I tell someone not to stand near me since every living thing gives off some non-zero amount of ionizing radiation, and their presence is exposing me to some tiny dose of radiation?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 5:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
So basically his example has nothing to do with second hand smoke, and it's all bullshit?

Yeah, that's what I thought when I read that.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 2:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
Amen. Preach on!


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Do they really think that just by putting a few drawings on these packs/cartons will really do anything?


They are counting on it not. Without tobacco and cigarette taxes, the Federal government would collapse.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Motoman on 6/21/2011 1:54:27 PM , Rating: 1
These pics won't make any difference.

They've had similarly graphic photos of really gross stuff on cigs in Canada for, like, ever. Made no difference.

If you nailed a dead badger to each pack of cigarettes, it still wouldn't make any difference. People would still buy them.

...but at least you could install linux on the dead badger, I guess.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/21/2011 2:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
What if you nailed a live honey badger to a pack of cigs?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Sazabi19 on 6/21/2011 2:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
Then

*NEW!* Free facelife/mauling with every pack!


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Mitch101 on 6/21/2011 2:38:18 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you would get a low budget movie career?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWE6oPv3KLs


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Motoman on 6/21/2011 2:40:28 PM , Rating: 1
...who do you reckon you're going to get to agree to nail a live badger to the packs in the first place?

:p


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/21/2011 3:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
I nominate Chuck Norris.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By 91TTZ on 6/21/2011 3:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
All men should know that they can't get Chuck Norris to nail a badger to a pack of cigarettes because he's too busy nailing their wives.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By waykizool on 6/21/2011 4:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wait a sec,

Are you saying Chuck Norris nails badgers?

Heresy


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By rubbahbandman on 6/21/2011 3:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They've had similarly graphic photos of really gross stuff on cigs in Canada for, like, ever. Made no difference.


I'm not sure where you get your data from, but Health Canada seems to differ tremendously from your comments.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hc-ps/tobac-tabac/research-...

In 1999 25% of Canada's population were surveyed as currently smoking. By 2009 that number had decreased to 18%. That is a 28% drop in smoking in a decade. By the way, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the graphic ad campaign began in 2000.

Granted, I understand the limitations of surveys, but I'd rather rely on this than anecdotal evidence.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Motoman on 6/21/2011 4:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
...uh-huh. Similar trend in the US, without the ads. According to the CDC, about 20% of Americans smoke now - pretty darned close to the 18% you mentioned.

The point being, you can't attach any importance to the ads.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By idiot77 on 6/21/2011 2:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
This is a way to make it more real to people. Being in health care I still see far too many idiots that don't really understand. They "know" about it yet they do it. Part of it is that it is not real to them. Another part of it is "It won't happen to me" mentality.

If this makes it slightly more real, then great. My guess it does since people are very visual.

I suppose next you're going to tell me that advertising doesn't work.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Motoman on 6/21/2011 2:41:50 PM , Rating: 2
Advertising does work. Public education against the perils of doing something you enjoy doing...not so much.

As I noted above, such labels have been in use in Canada for a very long time. No effect.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Solandri on 6/21/2011 3:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I noted above, such labels have been in use in Canada for a very long time. No effect.

From the article: "In 2000, Canada released graphic warning labels portraying gory images of the side effects of smoking, and since then, smoking rates have been reduced from 26 percent to 20 percent. It is unclear whether the labels were entirely responsible for the decline, as other anti-smoking efforts were put in place at the time."

It seems it there was an effect. The only question being whether the effect is attributable to the ads.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Motoman on 6/21/2011 4:12:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It seems it there was an effect. The only question being whether the effect is attributable to the ads.


Yes. And as I mentioned above, similar declines were seen in the US during that time, without such ads.

Naturally whoever is responsible for the ads is going to take credit for it...but in all reality, there's no way to do that.

Talk to Canadian smokers and ask them if they give a rat's ass about the ads on their smokes. Ask them how much they affect their desire to buy smokes.

...makes no difference.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 2:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the role of the government to make what products we use "more real" to us. Our health is OUR business, not theirs.

You're in health care eh? "Health care" today seems to be the business of pushing pills 90% of the time, which cause liver disease. Would you be in favor of all medications having pictures of diseased livers on them?

Where do we stop?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2011 2:50:31 PM , Rating: 2
Or you could move.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By KFZ on 6/21/2011 2:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
Higher taxes aren't deterring smokers, either. In fact, they punish those whose bodies are already addicted and physically feel they can't live without nicotine. The level of taxation is completely unjustified and only serves wasteful governments with more revenue, destroying wealth of private citizens that could be investing that money back into the economy to support other businesses (and not by buying more cigarettes, as a precautionary note against your already proven high mental density).

Higher taxes are never the solution to anything and are not tools to demonize people out bad habits. I hate smoke as much as the next non-smoker, but all taxes do is oppress wealth and reward governments, milking citizens for all they're worth as if we don't pay the government enough in other taxes and fees. Governments depend on new smokers just as much as tobacco companies to replace the dead cash cows.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 3:04:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't smoke, but something about tobacco taxes really bothers me. The cost of a carton, or pack, of cigarettes has been completely artificially raised to insane levels. When was it the role of the Government to selectively manipulate the market price of certain products and not others? Why doesn't a bag of sugar costs $20 or a BigMac combo? When is beer going to start costing $50 a case?

Even worst, I feel like the government is deliberately taking advantage of smokers. They KNOW they are hooked, and that no matter how much they raise the taxes, that they WILL find a way to pay for them. So they just keep raising and raising to farm more money from them. It's so exploitative.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By IcePickFreak on 6/21/2011 4:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
Which is exactly why they don't want you to actually quit. They just don't want you to point the finger with "why didn't you tell me?!" when you get cancer. They get way more money when you buy a pack of cigarettes than the tobacco companies do.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Kurz on 6/21/2011 9:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sugar is already more expensive though (Sugar Tariffs).. :)
Dont forget the Soda Tax. :D


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By gamerk2 on 6/21/2011 2:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
Question: why should I pay for the healthcare costs of caring for people with cancer, due in large part to smoking?

Question: if you are against warning labels on products that are proven to be dangerous, are you also agaisnt banning simmilar products [cocaine, herorine, etc]


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 2:20:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Question: why should I pay for the healthcare costs of caring for people with cancer, due in large part to smoking?


The same reason you and I are paying for stupid bitches who can't afford their abortions.

Socialism.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By Sazabi19 on 6/21/2011 2:27:07 PM , Rating: 2
Lol very nice, so true. We are trying to get that one fixed in Indiana though :). Don't you live in Ft. Wayne or something?


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By maverick85wd on 6/22/2011 12:11:35 AM , Rating: 2
I'd rather pay for the abortion than welfare, etc.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By UNHchabo on 6/21/2011 2:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Question: why should I pay for the healthcare costs of caring for people with cancer, due in large part to smoking?


If we're talking purely in monetary terms, I would actually wager that the healthcare cost is less for a smoker that dies at age 70 of lung cancer than for the average non-smoker that survives to 90.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 2:23:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Question: if you are against gross excessive warning labels on products that are proven to be dangerous, are you also agaisnt banning simmilar products [cocaine, herorine, etc]

First, let's keep apples with apples then ask the question.
quote:
Question: why should I pay for the healthcare costs of caring for people with cancer, due in large part to smoking?

You know...You're right. I used to be pro-Obamacare (joking) but now I am anti-Obamacare now that you mention this.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By kerpwnt on 6/21/2011 3:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Unless you're uninsured or in an exclusively non-smoking insurance pool, you already are paying for their lung cancer. However, as someone else mentioned, smokers probably don't cost us much more than the people that die of heart disease 20-30 years later.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 6:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless you're uninsured or in an exclusively non-smoking insurance pool, you already are paying for their lung cancer.
Smoking is one of the only things they can and do base your rates on.
Check any health insurance site for reference.


RE: LoL...Nanny State....
By M4gery on 6/22/2011 1:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
These are hilarious, and if anything, its going to make the "kewl d00ds" go for them even more, imo.

The only problem I have ever had with people smoking is that there is no possible way they can do it (currently) without everyone around them having to inhale it too. You want to smoke yourself into a tarball? go for it, just leave me out of it.


Tobacco is the cause ....
By Souka on 6/21/2011 1:55:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tobacco is the cause of 443,000 deaths in the U.S. annually.


So if a dictator/ruler kills a few thousan people we go to war against him.

Tobacco lures young kids...teens..young adults...killing almost 1/2million poeple a year in the US alone (most are older people granted, but most started young).

Makes me wonder why we allow the selling of these "death-sticks"?

Just saying....




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 6/21/2011 2:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
Why else, money (taxes)...


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 2:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So if a dictator/ruler kills a few thousan people we go to war against him.


Absurd analogy. People choose to smoke. Dictators don't ask people if they would like to be a part of genocide or not lol.

quote:
Tobacco lures young kids...teens..young adults...


Lures? There goes that nanny state logic again. Maybe parents should notice warning signs that their children are smoking. There ARE legal age limits placed on cigarettes you know?

quote:
killing almost 1/2million poeple a year in the US alone


I call BS. Half a million out of 300+ every year just "from cigarettes"? No way, that's a biased statistic.

quote:
Makes me wonder why we allow the selling of these "death-sticks"?


Why do we allow alcohol or fatty foods? I mean, if we go down that road we'll soon become that dictatorship we were talking about.

Also there is a huge movement to legalize drugs like marijuana in the U.S. It's going to be kind of hard to justify people getting blazed if other people can't light up tobacco.


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By kerpwnt on 6/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By Kurz on 6/21/2011 9:32:13 PM , Rating: 3
Thats the point its natural selection. If you have a genetic trait that causes you to be easily addicted you should stay away from it otherwise you'll be subject to higher healthcare costs, Lower Income level (Since you are pissing away your earnings on something that brings you nothing), and Death.

The housing bubble was caused by artificial low lending rates from the Federal Reserve and it was the prime reason why we are in this mess. Houses shouldn't take 30 years to pay for. Its a bubble created by the government wanting higher and higher amounts of taxes because of property taxes.

Exploiting weakness is such a broad meaning...


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By kerpwnt on 6/22/2011 11:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The housing bubble was caused by artificial low lending rates from the Federal Reserve and it was the prime reason why we are in this mess

I would say the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act was equally as prime a reason. Some of the bigger banks wanted more lending flexibility, so they convinced their favorite congressmen to lift the restrictions that kept them from doing all that "toxic asset" trading we heard about. It wasn't sustainable.

I would even argue that our financial trouble is more rooted in the shift from a national focus on inventing, engineering, and manufacturing to our focus on financing and real estate. We've been too focused on having our money make money for us, instead of making money ourselves. I'm not sure when it gained so much popularity, but I'm going to blame the '70s!
quote:
Exploiting weakness is such a broad meaning...

I was going for the psychological weakness angle. Think of pyramid schemes, where people are convinced they'll make a fortune as they're losing all of their savings.

Basically I'm saying that most-everything bad that happens between two or more people in our society is the result of a strong personality exploiting a weaker one for personal gain.


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By UNHchabo on 6/21/2011 2:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
Because the statistic is crap. If someone dies of lung cancer at age 75, and they were a smoker from age 16 to age 35, then tobacco is counted as the cause of death, even if there were other factors that may have led to their lung cancer, like air pollution.


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By 91TTZ on 6/21/2011 2:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's fairly easy to compensate for that possibility though. Take 100,000 old people who didn't smoke and see what they died from. Take 100,000 old people who did smoke and see what they died from. Compare the incidence of lung cancer in the two groups.


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By UNHchabo on 6/21/2011 4:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
That would help, but my main point is that these statistics are disingenuous.

The main problem is that it's hard to account for people who smoked for only part of their life, or were exposed to second-hand smoke for a small part of their life. The CDC counts a "former smoker" as anyone who has smoked 100 or more cigarettes in their lifetime. If I smoked 100 cigarettes spread out over the next two years, then get lung cancer when I'm 80, I really doubt it would be due to my short time of being a smoker.


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 5:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
Funny kinda relevant side story, but my entire life I had always heard that John Wayne died to smoking related cancer. Well, wrong.

John Wayne didn't die of lung cancer that would be typical for a smoker. He shot a movie called The Conqueror in 1955. Miles away from where 11 nuclear bombs were tested just years earlier. Of 220 people who worked on the movie in location, 91 contracted cancer and 46 died. Including Wayne, the director, and his co-star. Cause of death, stomach and pancreatic cancer. Consistent with someone who was exposed to nuclear fallout that was absorbed into the organs.

Yet to this day we John Wayne is a poster child for smoking related cancers. Apparently if you've ever smoked in your life, the cause of death is smoking....


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By UNHchabo on 6/21/2011 8:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you ever get a chance to watch that movie, do it.

It's not a very good movie, but if you watch it with friends, you can get some unintentional laughs out of it. :)


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By Reclaimer77 on 6/21/2011 10:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
lol I heard it was TERRIBLE. Hokey Wayne strutting around as an Asian, complete with Waynesque' fake accent?? Just the premise seems comical, I agree.


RE: Tobacco is the cause ....
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2011 3:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
Please show me where they're advertising to kids these days. It's actually illegal. Nor are there any billboards. There are some magazines with the ads. But that's pretty rare as well.

Or forcing them or anyone else to buy their product. Don't want to smoke? Don't buy cigarettes. Pure and simple.

You could make selling cigarettes illegal entirely. People will still smoke. You know why? Because they want to. Because it takes the edge off. Or they think its cool. Or they want to eat less. Or another host of reasons.

Addendum: I have never smoked a cigarette in my life or even taken a puff on one.


Medicare
By XZerg on 6/21/2011 3:59:33 PM , Rating: 2
Wait till you have to bear even more burden of these cancer sticks smokers' health insurance/cost... Do you still argue that someone smoking should not matter to you as they are free to kill themselves at your money cost too?




RE: Medicare
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 5:20:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wow you make a great point... let's get rid of Medicare!!


RE: Medicare
By XZerg on 6/21/2011 10:17:30 PM , Rating: 2
Just because you aren't aware of the situation - don't be a smarty pants without getting your facts first. Here in Canada we have government health care plan and their numbers show billions of dollars going to health care for the smokoholics. No wonder why it was so easy for the province to pass the law to ban smoking indoors except houses and open locations.


RE: Medicare
By The Raven on 6/22/2011 11:52:14 AM , Rating: 2
Lol, no , I am actually serious about getting rid of Medicare. (Though I see why you took it that way now.)
Also, your statement about the ease of passing such legislation under a social medicine policy is proof positive that X number of things might be next here in the States. Luckily the alcohol and soft drink companies are big enough to stave off such elite pressure from Washington.

I guess it is sad day for freedom that people in this day and age don't take getting rid of Medicare seriously. Of course I'm not blaming you for taking it as a joke because of that fact.


Warning labels on money
By MeesterNid on 6/21/2011 2:33:28 PM , Rating: 3
Since we can't let people decide on their own that smoking is bad for them we definitely can't let politicians spend money any way they choose.

I propose graphic imagery, of homeless and starving children, on US currency notes depicting the horrors of uncontrolled spending and massive debt.




RE: Warning labels on money
By RedemptionAD on 6/21/2011 3:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
I have a problem with stupid people. I propose along with your proposal that people with an IQ below 150 be tatooed with Warning: I'm Stupid. and it must be in view at all times by law. I thinks everyone knows that stupidity is the biggest killer of people and economies as well as the cause of just about any thing bad that happens. Having masses of stupid people is like the real world version of the Zombie Apocalypse.


RE: Warning labels on money
By Noya on 6/21/2011 8:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Except you can't put one through their head without going to jail.


What about junk food?
By Noya on 6/21/2011 8:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't they slap it with labels of obese bodies and amputated limbs (Diabetes)?




RE: What about junk food?
By Noya on 6/21/2011 9:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Obesity affects far more people than smoking and costs billions more in medical coverage than smokers do. Heart disease is the #1 killer in the USA, and it's not caused from smoking. Cancer, joint pain, diabetes, liver disease, virtually everything can be traced to gluttonous eating habits. It's from gorging on poison processed foods.


RE: What about junk food?
By Kurz on 6/21/2011 9:36:54 PM , Rating: 2
The Subsidies placed on Corn goes a long way to causing obesity we see today. High Fructose Corn Syrup subsidized to the point its a bit cheaper than sugar. And quite a few studies state you are more susceptible to gaining weight from a high HFCS diet than a high sugar diet.


WTF
By FITCamaro on 6/21/2011 2:42:26 PM , Rating: 3
How in the hell is this any way tech news?




RE: WTF
By The Raven on 6/23/2011 2:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
lol good point, but I think it is being considered "science related." Though as you can see from the comments, it is more gov't related.


Go all the way
By Chaosforce on 6/21/2011 4:00:35 PM , Rating: 2
Might as well go all the way if we are going to single out cigs.

1) Cigars/Pipes and other forms of tobacco not inhaled now needs warning pictures of gum diseases.

2) Alcohol needs to have crashed cars with mangled bodies

3) Casino's need pictures of broken homes and homeless people.
Just to cover the legal things.




RE: Go all the way
By XZerg on 6/21/2011 4:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
should we have one for retarded politicians and their expenses that you will have to fork $$$ money over by selling your kidney and what not to pay for their ludicrous expenses?


WTF is this story doing on DT
By BZDTemp on 6/21/2011 5:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
If this is relevant then anything is :-(




RE: WTF is this story doing on DT
By Meatclap on 6/22/2011 3:23:40 AM , Rating: 2
It's relevant because who wouldn't want a sweet neck-hole or cool yellow pirate teeth?


Yes, but...
By 3minence on 6/21/2011 1:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Smoking is dumb and I do not oppose this... or do I? What's next, a picture of a diseased liver on every beer can? A foamy human lung on every SCUBA tank? A smashed open head on every rock climbing helmet?

Back off Big Brother, you're over the line.




Just Like Canada
By Flunk on 6/21/2011 1:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
They have been doing this in Canada for years, it doesn't work. The only thing that does work is shifting public opinion against smoking which is happening on it's own.




Get with the times
By esdubu on 6/21/2011 1:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
They've had these types of pictures on cigarette packs for years in the UK. Here's a link to the images used. http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/8/82223/1780110... As far as i know the statistics have shown that since they were introduced the numbers of smokers has reduced, although this could just be coincidence as the trend is downwards in most western countries.




Excellent?
By spread on 6/21/2011 2:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
Now that smokers are informed how damaging their lifestyle choice is, how about we mandate these pictures on cheeseburgers and large jugs of corn syrup laden soft drinks?




By The Raven on 6/21/2011 2:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
...so why don't we ban ALL tobacco advertising, stylish branding, distribution,... hell let's just ban it altogether and send it off to the peaceful farm where the cronic resides?




The article picture...
By SublimeSimplicity on 6/21/2011 2:56:54 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about smokers, but that nasty tooth/lib pic on the home page is making think twice about navigating to dailytech.com

So maybe it will work.




By Arsynic on 6/21/2011 3:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
People have a choice. If they choose to kill themselves, that's between them and their families.




This will do nothing
By Lanister on 6/21/2011 3:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
The kids that are going to start smoking already know the risks. Kids these days would prob just laugh at the pictures and make fun of them. Starting to smoke is not a logical decision, its peer pressure / wanting to look cool that is all.

What they should do is try and find a way to make smoking as something that is not viewed as a cool thing. I dont know how to do this but its the only way.




Attn: Smokers
By The Raven on 6/21/2011 3:56:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just read the following article, look at the pictures, and spare us all from the ugly packaging on our store shelves.
http://www.dailytech.com/FDA+Introduces+Graphic+Wa...




Change the picture....
By putergeek00 on 6/21/2011 4:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
Im sick of seeing the rotten teeth of some smoker who can't practice personal hygeine every time I open a browser window(one of my homepages). I'd rather see the guy with the extra lung.




By The Raven on 6/21/2011 5:22:50 PM , Rating: 2
...why do I feel like reading DT will lead to bad teeth?
</sarcasm>




Watch "Thank You For Smoking"
By Fenixgoon on 6/21/2011 11:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
If anyone's ever seen that...these ads are straight out of that movie.

Frankly, if you can't figure out that smoking is harmful, I question that person's intelligence. They can smoke all they want - but I doubt there is a smoker out there in the US today that doesn't know it's harmful to their health.




2031 predictions
By Visual on 6/22/2011 7:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
Wait, what?




By RivuxGamma on 6/22/2011 2:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"These labels are sensationalist, manipulative depictions of the health risks of smoking,"


Fixed it for ya.




First
By Sazabi19 on 6/21/2011 1:26:40 PM , Rating: 1
I was the 1st to comment on this because all the rest of you were out smoking... you bad bad people, don't you see what these can do to you? Just look at your label... next year.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki