Log in

View Full Version : A Billion Smokers Up in Smoke



Pages : 1 [2]

Yekhefah
02-14-2008, 07:25 PM
Well, of course it was simplistic. It was meant to illustrate the different concepts we have of the word "government." And yeah, no one here is saying smoking is wonderful, just that it would be better for free adults to choose to quit rather than throw them in prison and push cigarettes into the black market with cocaine.

My point regarding the "it's no different from what they're already doing" argument is that what they're doing is NOT working, so why compound the existing problem? And just because they're already doing other things they don't have a right to do, that means we should just let them do MORE things they don't have a right to do?

threlayer
02-14-2008, 07:29 PM
to punish us for bad behavior that harms no one but those who choose to do it

The point is that smoking and some other things unavoidably harm more than those who partake. There is a significant social cost beyond the cost of that pack, to those who do not agree to smoke but are affected health-wise and cost-wise. That is not a matter of which political side one is on.

Jenny
02-14-2008, 07:51 PM
Well, of course it was simplistic. It was meant to illustrate the different concepts we have of the word "government."
Okay but the thing is - I don't think that the simplistic model is particularly useful to illustrate our conceptions of the word "government".


My point regarding the "it's no different from what they're already doing" argument is that what they're doing is NOT working, so why compound the existing problem? And just because they're already doing other things they don't have a right to do, that means we should just let them do MORE things they don't have a right to do?
Okay - well here is an efficiency issue; not a "big brother is rising" issue. And honestly - jurisdictional issues between the federal government and the states is not particularly conducive to a "big brother is rising issue" either; the argument there is not "these laws are overly repressive" but "the wrong party has made these laws".

jester214
02-14-2008, 08:03 PM
Last I checked, pedophilia is a deviant behavior , and not something that is developed like a gambling addiction (the "high" of the endorphin rush vs. a learned deviation- usually caused by abuse in the pedophile's own development). This is comparing apples and oranges.

As is comparing a prohibition of alcohol to a prohibition of cigs.

jester214
02-14-2008, 08:08 PM
I think the source of the disagreement here is that Paris and I have a different view of the nature of governments and freedom. The leftist idea is that government is like a parent, protecting us from bad people and bad decisions, encouraging us to do good things, punishing us for doing bad things, with the ultimate authority to decide what is good or bad for us. Conservatives, OTOH (true conservatives, not the religious right) view politicians as employees, subject to our previously established restrictions, there to keep everything organized but not to the point it intrudes upon our autonomy.

So it seems to me that jester and Jenny are asking why smoking should be allowed when it's bad, while Paris and I are asking what gives government the authority (within its established restrictions) to punish us for bad behavior that harms no one but those who choose to do it.

We're not even asking the same question here.

I was originally asking how you could find it ok for local govs. to pass laws to stop things, but no for the feds. Cigs were the example at hand, and then I mentioned I thought they should be banned, and we digressed furthur.

My "new" question, what I've wanted to know all along... Is where do you draw the line?

Paris is arguing about addiction...

Again cigs do harm others, directly. Even if you send people out of bars and restaraunts to go smoke, others are still breathing it in...

Yekhefah
02-14-2008, 08:23 PM
Jenny, you are far better at debate than me. That isn't something I get to say very often but you are. I'm sorry that I'm not making my point as eloquently as you're able to make yours.

And I do think this is a Big Brother issue.

Paris
02-14-2008, 08:39 PM
Again cigs do harm others, directly. Even if you send people out of bars and restaraunts to go smoke, others are still breathing it in...

If you want to go there...

Alcohol harms non drinkers directly, also. Ever live with a drunk?

Where would I draw the line? Legalize everything. Then tax and regulate the quality of the substances that are being sold.

Wanna use cocaine? Go buy some at Walgreens. Ditto with cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opium etc. etc. At least this way there is quality control and recommended doses by certified pharmacists. They can also warn of drug interactions and possible side effects. They'd be sort of like liquor shop owners, you know, not selling to kids or people who are obviously impaired.

What do you think?

Jay Zeno
02-14-2008, 08:43 PM
If it were anything but tobacco, very, very few would be questioning the right and ability of the government to ban the development, production, and sale of an addictive and usually fatal toxin with virtually no health, nutritional, or entertainment benefit.

By the pro-tobacco arguments here, my Heroin&Hemlock, Inc., business model is just fine, as long as the dose isn't immediately fatal.

Paris
02-14-2008, 09:06 PM
If it were anything but tobacco, very, very few would be questioning the right and ability of the government to ban the development, production, and sale of an addictive and usually fatal toxin with virtually no health, nutritional, or entertainment benefit.

By the pro-tobacco arguments here, my Heroin&Hemlock, Inc., business model is just fine, as long as the dose isn't immediately fatal.

Let's go into business, shall we?

Jay Zeno
02-14-2008, 09:20 PM
After seeing what smoking did to my relatives over the last couple painful eroding decades of their lives, I'd just as soon take the Socrates-sized dose of hemlock than bring that miserable shit to people.

What if I found out that the paper that I print reports on was causing my clients to get more reports from me out of some tactile addiction and was also killing them? I would hope that I would be horror-stricken and find something else to print reports on immediately, or find a different business entirely. But if I were a tobacco executive, I'd buy more of that paper and find more clients.

I'm more strident on this than most subjects because the tobacco issue is one of our most extreme illogics. Protect and preserve a function within society that brings on death and health detriment in the hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of human life-years of misery. I mean, that's obviously what we want, or we wouldn't do it. And certainly, humans don't have to make sense with their actions. And certainly, I might want to point that out now and then.

PookaShell
02-14-2008, 10:15 PM
Its horrible that I'm smoking a cigarette whilst reading this thread.

jester214
02-14-2008, 11:50 PM
If you want to go there...

Alcohol harms non drinkers directly, also. Ever live with a drunk?

Where would I draw the line? Legalize everything. Then tax and regulate the quality of the substances that are being sold.

Wanna use cocaine? Go buy some at Walgreens. Ditto with cigarettes, alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, opium etc. etc. At least this way there is quality control and recommended doses by certified pharmacists. They can also warn of drug interactions and possible side effects. They'd be sort of like liquor shop owners, you know, not selling to kids or people who are obviously impaired.

What do you think?

If we're sitting together and I take a drink, does it effect your health? Not really, you'd probably be taking one with me. If I light up a cig while sitting next to you, does it effect your health? YES! Alcohol might hurt others directly, cigarettes will hurt others for sure. Yeah I have lived with a drunk, never saw the guy lay a finger on anyone, sober or three-sheets... Although I am sure he is the exception, I'm just answerig your question.

Are you serious? What if you child who was of legal age walked into Walgreens bought some coke, took it, and died... Which can happen with no fault to the user. Recommended doses?? Are you nuts? Please enlighten me, whats the recommended does of coke? Not that it matters, because one dose is just going to make me want another...

Melonie
02-15-2008, 04:34 AM
There is a significant social cost beyond the cost of that pack, to those who do not agree to smoke but are affected health-wise and cost-wise. That is not a matter of which political side one is on.

but it is a matter of which economic side one is on. Smokers will die 10 years sooner than non-smokers, statistically speaking. Since it is justified for health insurance companies to charge higher rates to smokers, by the same justification smokers should get a LOWER rate for Social Security and Medicare taxes ... since they will be collecting benefits for a much shorter time period between retirement age and the inevitable dirt nap.

Lapaholic
02-15-2008, 07:40 AM
I just saw a factoid on the very same thing Mel - tho they focused on the fact the skinny people have higher health costs than obese folks because they live longer. Again employers ( those that do provide coverage ) bear the brunt of the obese bills while its medicare that sucks up the costs for the skinny ...

Jenny
02-15-2008, 08:24 AM
Ah. It is better for the economy if you are dead than if you alive. Now THERE'S a winning argument.

Lapaholic
02-15-2008, 08:28 AM
Prolly better for the environment too - lol

threlayer
02-15-2008, 08:48 AM
... by the same justification smokers should get a LOWER rate for Social Security and Medicare taxes ... since they will be collecting benefits for a much shorter time period ....

The effect is the same since they are paying the mandated rate for a shorter time period.

All those substances discussed here are addictive, both those regulated and those prohibited. The reason for the concern is that if substances are addictive, and likely to be deleteriously abused and blackmarketed, and many people can't control it for themselves by definition, then who else is left to control it? -- private enterprise? schools? family? neighbors? church? the militia? Any of those groups, have you've noticed, are doing an effective job?

Now you could say that government is doing an ineffective job too, and you're right. But at least government workers get paid for doing it and that helps the economy. Sad that people profit from the weaknesses of others. Hmmm, sounds like a red side campaign plank.

Paris
02-15-2008, 01:48 PM
If we're sitting together and I take a drink, does it effect your health? Not really, you'd probably be taking one with me. If I light up a cig while sitting next to you, does it effect your health? YES! Alcohol might hurt others directly, cigarettes will hurt others for sure. Yeah I have lived with a drunk, never saw the guy lay a finger on anyone, sober or three-sheets... Although I am sure he is the exception, I'm just answerig your question.

Are you serious? What if you child who was of legal age walked into Walgreens bought some coke, took it, and died... Which can happen with no fault to the user. Recommended doses?? Are you nuts? Please enlighten me, whats the recommended does of coke? Not that it matters, because one dose is just going to make me want another...

On the drunk thing, I was thinking more along the lines of accidents caused by people under the influence of alcohol. Didn't the captain of the Exxon Valdez have a drinking problem? His personal choice to imbibe in alcohol effected the ENTIRE PLANET! I'm sure he wasn't thinking that his choice to have a few drinks would cause a global health crisis effecting the entire ecology of a region with a backlash that touched everyone.

On the drug accessibility argument:

This doesn't make sense. Walgreens sells lots of products that if taken beyond the recommended dose would be deadly. Tylenol, for instance. OTC sleep aids, cold medications, supplements etc.

If I get a cold, I don't drink the whole bottle of cold medication. Even though a little bit of medication makes me feel better, I don't automatically think a lot would make me feel blissful. This is where common sense comes into play. And if a person doesn't have enough common sense to not kill themselves in pursuit of pleasure, we have a name for those people:

Darwin Award Winners

Paris
02-15-2008, 01:52 PM
Ah. It is better for the economy if you are dead than if you alive. Now THERE'S a winning argument.

Well, the planet is very close to being over populated...

Jenny
02-15-2008, 02:07 PM
True. We should start a smoking lottery.

jester214
02-15-2008, 02:46 PM
On the drunk thing, I was thinking more along the lines of accidents caused by people under the influence of alcohol. Didn't the captain of the Exxon Valdez have a drinking problem? His personal choice to imbibe in alcohol effected the ENTIRE PLANET! I'm sure he wasn't thinking that his choice to have a few drinks would cause a global health crisis effecting the entire ecology of a region with a backlash that touched everyone.

On the drug accessibility argument:

This doesn't make sense. Walgreens sells lots of products that if taken beyond the recommended dose would be deadly. Tylenol, for instance. OTC sleep aids, cold medications, supplements etc.

If I get a cold, I don't drink the whole bottle of cold medication. Even though a little bit of medication makes me feel better, I don't automatically think a lot would make me feel blissful. This is where common sense comes into play. And if a person doesn't have enough common sense to not kill themselves in pursuit of pleasure, we have a name for those people:

Darwin Award Winners

I'll agree, sometimes drinking can effect others directly. SOMETIMES.

How often does someone O.D. on any of those things? Rarely, and usually it's because they're trying too.

How often does someone O.D. on coke, crack, heroin?? All the time, and usually they don't mean to. I'm pretty sure taking one tylenol can not kill a person, taking one line of coke can kill you.

Melonie
02-15-2008, 03:52 PM
The effect is the same since they are paying the mandated rate for a shorter time period.

Only true if the smoker dies before reaching age 62 ... the point where they stop paying SSI taxes and start creating SSI 'costs' i.e. their monthly retirement check. However if the smoker dies at age 65 instead of 75 the same amount of pre-retirement SSI taxes have been paid, but only 22% as much money must be paid out in SSI retirement benefits !


Ah. It is better for the economy if you are dead than if you alive. Now THERE'S a winning argument.

If you're talking cold hard economic facts, the same is true of minimum wage workers, chronic social welfare recipients, the mentally ill etc. who all consume far more in gov't benefits and create far more gov't costs than they actually are required to pay for. Of course this is an apples and oranges situation re smokers, since smokers pay exactly the same amount of tax as non-smokers.

Paris
02-15-2008, 06:48 PM
I'll agree, sometimes drinking can effect others directly. SOMETIMES.

How often does someone O.D. on any of those things? Rarely, and usually it's because they're trying too.

458 deaths last year in the US from Acetaminophen overdose. 81% accidential.


How often does someone O.D. on coke, crack, heroin?? All the time, and usually they don't mean to. I'm pretty sure taking one tylenol can not kill a person, taking one line of coke can kill you.

I spent about 15 minutes googling info on illegal drug deaths from overdose, and couldn't find any solid numbers like I did with Tylenol.

But I found some articles stating that more people die every year from taking their prescriptions than do from illegal drug overdose (Think Anna Nicole or Heath Ledger).

jester214
02-15-2008, 09:42 PM
458 deaths last year in the US from Acetaminophen overdose. 81% accidential.



I spent about 15 minutes googling info on illegal drug deaths from overdose, and couldn't find any solid numbers like I did with Tylenol.

But I found some articles stating that more people die every year from taking their prescriptions than do from illegal drug overdose (Think Anna Nicole or Heath Ledger).

I don't know if your trying to manipulate the wording or not but... More people die from PRESCRIPTION drugs (specifically pain killers) not drugs for which they have a legitimate prescription.

81% accidental? I find that hard to beleive, the only way Acetaminophen can kill you (barring some kind of alergy) is by shutting down your kidneys. To do this you need very high doses, in a adult your talking at least more than 15-20 tylenols... I hardly call taking that many tylenols an accident.

Paris
02-16-2008, 02:18 PM
I don't know if your trying to manipulate the wording or not but... More people die from PRESCRIPTION drugs (specifically pain killers) not drugs for which they have a legitimate prescription.

81% accidental? I find that hard to beleive, the only way Acetaminophen can kill you (barring some kind of alergy) is by shutting down your kidneys. To do this you need very high doses, in a adult your talking at least more than 15-20 tylenols... I hardly call taking that many tylenols an accident.

People don't read the labels on their OTC medications. They will take something like nyquil on top of a dose of tylenol with a liquid cough supressent chaser. Most folks don't realize they've just taken gobs of acetaminophen all at the same time.

It is your liver that fails with acetaminophen. Ibuprofen is the kidney killer. FYI

Jay Zeno
02-16-2008, 02:32 PM
Well, I'm not trying to be some anal retentive informational gestapo here, but my reading is that both acetaminophen and ibuprofen are hard on the liver. Acetaminophen is harder on the liver than ibuprofen. However, ibuprofen causes more gastric issues. Kidneys, not so much, with either.

Of course, acetaminophen and ibuprofen between them have clear and well documented benefits of pain relief, fever reduction, and antiinflammation. It's generally overdoses that cause the damage. I have a hard time imagining a doctor suggesting just two cigarettes for some health issue (unless the doc were to say, "try cutting back to two").

jester214
02-16-2008, 11:46 PM
People don't read the labels on their OTC medications. They will take something like nyquil on top of a dose of tylenol with a liquid cough supressent chaser. Most folks don't realize they've just taken gobs of acetaminophen all at the same time.

It is your liver that fails with acetaminophen. Ibuprofen is the kidney killer. FYI

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I had a friend who OD'd (on purpose) with Tylenol and he went into a coma... Liver Failure doesn't happen that fast, it takes at a minimum a few days, and thats generally when you're dealing with an alocoholic or an elderly person...

The doctors I have talked too, including a family member, have always told me the danger of Tylenol OD is it will cause the kidneys to shut down...

jester214
02-16-2008, 11:53 PM
^^^ I just read more about it... Looks like the liver failure causes kidney failure... Hmm, I'll have to ask my doctor friends again... perhaps the liver failure won't kill you but the kindey will...

Jay Zeno
02-17-2008, 07:21 AM
perhaps the liver failure won't kill you but the kindey will...Kidney dysfunction can be ameliorated with dialysis. But we'd need a chemical factory the size of the hospital to replicate what the liver does.

doc-catfish
02-17-2008, 07:28 PM
Constitutional and whatever drug kills whatever vital organ arguments aside....

I don't think that its unreasonable to suggest that by 2020, some jurisdictions here in the U.S. are going to propose outright bans on the sale or use of tobacco products, even in ones own home. Much like alcohol prohibition a century earlier, this matter seems to be going down the same path.

You only need to look at the state of affairs regarding cigarettes in prisons (where they're more often than not banned) to see what this is going to lead to.

threlayer
02-20-2008, 10:35 AM
My (mostly) constitutional solution for stopping the smoking demand is : STOP the ALL advertising, including posters in stores selling them, increase the taxes and use ALL the increased tax money for promoting cessation aids and for providing REE cessation services. Increase the number of states with public no-smoiking laws, possibly by governmental financial incentives. Provide agricultural consultation and assistance to convert tobacco growers to other crops, maybe something to help wean the country off foreign oil. Keep the efforts up for 20-30 years by LAW and wait for all the current smokers to die off.

You're NOT going to do any of that without governmental intervention; this is the one place where we need a Big Brother. We would still have slavery if the government did not interfere back in the 1860s. Too much financial incentive for too many to stop.