Congress perhaps doing something right for a change?

[George Fergusson]

Well The House has passed a bill to regulate tobacco, by a pretty hefty margin. It goes to the Senate now, and the White House has indicated it doesn't like this bill at all.

There are some neat issues to discuss here. I've gone on the record as being in favor of lining up tobacco company executives and shooting them. But regulate them? I don't know... That could be a fate worse than death. Or maybe they deserve a fate worse than death :)

So I'm torn on this one. The former smoker in me says YEAH! Regulate them into freakin oblivion! But then the Libertarian in me says government intervention in business is to be strongly discouraged... free market and all that... Then the reformed smoker in me says screw `em, the world would be better off without tobacco companies.

So I don't know what to say except perhaps "Smoke `em if you got `em" :) I'm sure I'll be taking both sides of this discussion before we're through.

House Passes Bill to Regulate Tobacco

By STEPHANIE SAUL
Published: July 31, 2008

More than 40 years after the surgeon general first warned that cigarettes were a health hazard, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation on Wednesday that would for the first time give the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products.

Citing the long history of warnings about the dangers of smoking, Representative John D. Dingell, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that it was hard to believe that the federal government had not yet regulated the tobacco industry.

“With this legislation, we change this,” said Mr. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat.

The White House has signaled its opposition to the bill. And while the legislation has strong support in the Senate, which could take up the measure this fall, it is not clear whether the bill has a veto-proof majority there.

The show of support in the House, which passed the bill by a vote of 326 to 102, illustrated not only the strength of antismoking sentiment in the country but the benefit of enlisting a powerful ally. The legislation was partly the result of negotiations with Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest cigarette company, which split with other companies by endorsing it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/washington/31tobacco.html?ref=business

[Sundance]

Regulate and tax the living heck out of it.

[JPK1NH]

But then the Libertarian in me says government intervention in business is to be strongly discouraged... free market and all that...

I personally agree with this portion of your argument...imho any time you limit personal choice you decrease freedom....its fine to provide a warning...sort or a "buyer beware" reminder but beyond that its about personal choice....if someone wants to pollute themselves..have at it....its not like they are making an uneducated decision....

Look at the nonsense that is going on in LA where they are banning the introduction of any new fast food restaurants under the false premise of improving people's health....lets be honest...its not about Health...its about Control.

Same argument with Trans Fats.

[iddee]

1..Totally outlaw it.

2..Legalize pot and cocaine.

3..Take the limitations off alcohol.

Everyone knows tobacco kills more non users than alcohol or drugs that are now illegal.

4..Vote for Obama.

5..One last request....Put me on the next flight to mars.

[Eaglerock]

the White House has indicated it doesn't like this bill at all.

There are some neat issues to discuss here. I've gone on the record as being in favor of lining up tobacco company executives and shooting them. But regulate them?

The former smoker in me says YEAH! But then the Libertarian in me says government intervention in business is to be strongly discouraged... Then the reformed smoker in me says screw `em, the world would be better off without tobacco companies.


Who knows... however I don't smoke..
The more laws you make, the more laws you have to make to enforce the laws you make.

[dragonfly]

5..One last request....Put me on the next flight to mars.

Got room in that spaceship for me? ;)

[dragonfly]

Anyone here ever watch "Demoliton Man" more than once?
I know, I know, Stallone isn't the best actor God ever created, but that is a serious in a funny way movie about the future, when nothing that is bad for you is legal. Smoking is bad for you, hence it is illegal. There's only one restaurant to choose from- Taco Bell- and they serve food that is good for you. Sexual contact is illegal. You get repimanded by a friggin computerized ATM-looking machine for having negative feelings. Am I the only one who sees this as a possibility in the future?

Yes smoking is bad for your health. So is eating too much, drinking too much, sitting too much, jogging too much, stressing too much, having multiple sex partners, driving too much, and a whole multitude of normal enjoyable human endeavors. I get so weary of everyone's good intentions encroaching on the ability to just be human.

[dragonfly]

The former smoker in me says YEAH! Regulate them into freakin oblivion!

Come on George. Now that you have quit and seen the light, everyone else should?

[George Fergusson]

Come on George. Now that you have quit and seen the light, everyone else should?

Yeah that's pretty much right dragonfly.

Here's an interesting news item. Tobacco companies are targeting "emerging markets" as profit starts to slide in the more developed world due to increased regulations. Of course they would, as they're motivated solely by profits.

BAT Net Rises 11% on Emerging-Market Demand for Kent (Update3)

By Thomas Mulier

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- British American Tobacco Plc, Europe's largest cigarette maker, said second-quarter profit rose 11 percent after smokers in emerging markets from Russia to Malaysia switched to higher-priced Kent and Dunhill cigarettes.

Net income climbed to 650 million pounds ($1.3 billion), or 32.35 pence a share, from 584 million pounds, or 28.52 pence, a year earlier, the London-based company said today in a Regulatory News Service statement. That beat the 622 million- pound median estimate of 10 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg. Revenue gained 17 percent to 2.92 billion pounds.

...

Tobacco use is increasing most quickly in lower-income countries, and China and Indonesia are among the 10 nations where almost two-thirds of the world's smokers live, according to the World Health Organization. European Union tobacco demand probably will fall 1 percent to 2 percent annually in coming years, PMI said last week.

BAT has shut factories in western Europe and North America, helping to save 1 billion pounds last year, as government restrictions on smoking eroded demand. The company set a goal in February of this year of cutting a further 800 million pounds from costs annually by 2012.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=aH2T4uyBq8k0&refer=uk

[George Fergusson]

More tobacco industry news. Just a coincidence.

Altria Profit Increases on Higher Marlboro Prices, Cigars

By Chris Burritt

July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Altria Group Inc., the largest U.S. tobacco company, said second-quarter profit rose because of increased demand for cigars and higher Marlboro cigarette prices.

Earnings from continuing operations climbed to $930 million, or 45 cents a share, from $715 million, or 34 cents, a year earlier, the Richmond, Virginia-based company said today in a Business Wire statement. Excluding some items, profit beat analysts' estimates by 1 cent. Year-ago results don't include the international unit, spun off in March.

Top-selling Marlboro increased its share of U.S. smokers even after Altria Chief Executive Officer Michael Szymanczyk reduced a distributors' discount in May. The company also trimmed promotions and raised prices on its other cigarettes while earning more from last year's acquisition of John Middleton Inc., the maker of Black & Mild cigars.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a5fR56A6OaZo&refer=home

[Bodo]

Regulate and tax the living heck out of it.

You'll just be punishing the poor and/or uneducated since they're the most likely to smoke. Down here in Wakulla County it seems like the people who smoke are the ones that shouldn't be able to afford it, but they find a way. It's a cultural thing maybe?

[dragonfly]

Yeah that's pretty much right dragonfly.



There's no more fervent evangelist than the reformed sinner.

[George Fergusson]

There's no more fervent evangelist than the reformed sinner.

Yeah that's pretty much right dragonfly.

[George Fergusson]

It's a cultural thing maybe?

It's a drug addiction thing.

[tecumseh]

does this mean smokers will be banned... if yes then perhaps I should call kelley and stock up?

[Galaxy]

That was good tecumseh!

[JIm in Annville]

I am a former four pack a day smoker. I chose to quit. I made the choice. Not some rabid dogooder in Congress. I personaly don't feel like I need someone else telling me that I should quit. That is my choice. This is about as stupid and INFRINGING ON PEOPLES RIGHTS as these stupid seat belt laws are. And before someone tells me that this is all for my good ask yourself this . Do you drink coffee or pop?????? Get ready their next.:mad::mad:

[dragonfly]

That is my choice. This is about as stupid and INFRINGING ON PEOPLES RIGHTS as these stupid seat belt laws are. And before someone tells me that this is all for my good ask yourself this . Do you drink coffee or pop?????? Get ready their next.:mad::mad:

That's the point I've been trying to get at, but so far, you're the first one who seems to understand. It's always the "other guy's" habit that needs to be banned.

[shawnwri]

does this mean smokers will be banned?

A bit off your pun, but here in Ohio it was announced that people who test positive for nicotine will not be hired by a hospital up north. So yes, smokers will be banned.

[JohnK and Sheri]

We have had this discussion before and not too long ago. No resolutions then and I doubt we will all agree this time.

I am a former smoker who chose to quit, before my mother died of smoking induced lung cancer. Her generation was taught it was actually HEALTHY to smoke, taught by the tobacco companies. YES, regulate the manufacturers, by forcing the notices on packaging, the education. High prices help people make that choice to quit. My sister quit because she could no longer afford to smoke. The money earned there, use to educate. I am not a bit torn on this one. I had a part time single mom employee who smoked 2 packs a day. She had 4 kids under 6, who not only got the second hand smoke, but did without necessities so their mother could afford cigs. If they were cheaper would she smoke 4 packs? If more expensive would she quit? Maybe this is the incentive that she needs. Yes, I think smoking is an addiction thing and a cultural thing. Those kids are more likely to grow up to be smokers, because of example and probably because they are exposed to so much smoke toxins from birth (and before, really). And by the way, she was receiving welfare payments. A nice way to spend tax payer dollars, no? I am sure the tobacco companies appreciated it.

But I would not force anyone to quit. If they want to pollute themselves fine, as long as I don't have to be sickened by their poison. Let them smoke in their homes or in clubs, as long as any children are protected. They should also be REQUIRED to pay for insurance for the greater likelihood of illnesses associated with smoking, I shouldn't have to pay for that either.
But while we are at it, take away the illegality of other, much less harmful drugs, if used in like conditions, ie in the privacy of your home or club.
Sheri

[dragonfly]

They should also be REQUIRED to pay for insurance for the greater likelihood of illnesses associated with smoking, I shouldn't have to pay for that either.



Should fat people have to pay for extra insurance, should drinkers have to pay for extra insurance, should sedentary people have to pay for extra insurance, should stressed out type A people have to pay for extra insurance....? I'm sure you can see what I'm alluding to.

[HAB]

Tax it into oblivion.

[George Fergusson]

Ok thanks all for responding, I know it ain't over but I wanted to get a jump on this and respond to some posts while I got the time.

its not like they are making an uneducated decision....

It's exactly like they are making an uneducated decision. And part of the proposed legislation would be to make sure that people are given the information necessary to make an informed decision BEFORE they start smoking.

1..Totally outlaw it.

2..Legalize pot and cocaine.

3..Take the limitations off alcohol.

Everyone knows tobacco kills more non users than alcohol or drugs that are now illegal.

4..Vote for Obama.

5..One last request....Put me on the next flight to mars.

iddee, I don't know if you're pulling both legs or just one of them, but I always enjoy your contributions. I agree with items 1, 2, and 3. Item 4 is irrelevant- vote for Obama or don't vote for Obama, he's still going to be the next president. Sigh. As for item 5, I'd hate to see you go.

Anyone here ever watch "Demoliton Man" more than once? ... Am I the only one who sees this as a possibility in the future?

Yes, I think you are.

You'll just be punishing the poor and/or uneducated since they're the most likely to smoke.

Right! We should make it easier and MORE AFFORDABLE for poor people to smoke, not harder and more expensive! Perhaps even re-institute the tobacco subsidies to encourage the tobacco companies to keep offering cheap smokes so the po folks can enjoy them.

I am a former four pack a day smoker. I chose to quit. I made the choice. Not some rabid dogooder in Congress. I personaly don't feel like I need someone else telling me that I should quit. That is my choice. This is about as stupid and INFRINGING ON PEOPLES RIGHTS as these stupid seat belt laws are. And before someone tells me that this is all for my good ask yourself this . Do you drink coffee or pop?????? Get ready their next.:mad::mad:

Wow. Well, OK Jim, first, congratulations on quitting. Been there, done it, also chose. As for the rest of your remarks, I don't believe there are any rabid dogooders in Congress telling people they got to stop smoking. There is nothing in the proposed legislation about requiring people to quit smoking, so you can relax.

I am a former smoker who chose to quit, before my mother died of smoking induced lung cancer. Her generation was taught it was actually HEALTHY to smoke, taught by the tobacco companies. YES, regulate the manufacturers, by forcing the notices on packaging, the education. High prices help people make that choice to quit. My sister quit because she could no longer afford to smoke. The money earned there, use to educate. I am not a bit torn on this one.

God Bless you Sheri. I'm not a bit torn on this one any more either.

Should fat people have to pay for extra insurance, should drinkers have to pay for extra insurance, should sedentary people have to pay for extra insurance, should stressed out type A people have to pay for extra insurance....? I'm sure you can see what I'm alluding to.

No, I can't. Spell it out for me. It sounds like you think there is something wrong with the idea of people being required to assume responsibility for their actions and pay for the consequences of their choices in life. It sounds like you think these responsibilities and consequences should be assumed and paid for maybe out of some general fund? You know, socialize the costs? Tobacco companies make the profits and everyone else picks up the tab for the health problems of smokers?

Say I choose to smoke. I smoke for 30 years. This causes me to get throat cancer, which requires I have several expensive operations and undergo lots of expensive therapy and receive lots of expensive drugs and finally, an nice expensive vibrator box I hold to my throat to vibrate the air I'm breathing much in the way my former vocal cords did so I can thank YOU for picking up the cost of my medical expenses resulting from my decision to smoke and also for contributing to my welfare check to support me while I'm out of work getting all this done.

So tell me again now who is it that should be responsible for paying the costs association with my decision to smoke?

Tax it into oblivion.

Aye now you're talking :)

Have any of you actually bothered to read about the proposed legislation? Any idea what the bill proposes?

[Bodo]

So now they might require tobacco companies to reduce or cute nicotine and other compounds in their product.

While that sounds fine and good, where does it end? There can't be a single person alive today that smokes that thinks that they're good for you. Heck, even back in the 50's they called them coffin nails. These people are choosing to smoke. No one is making them. If they want in inhale all those toxins, it's their life to ruin.
I smoked for several years and I knew they weren't good for me. Will I blame the tobacco companies? Not a chance. It was my decision.

What's next? Banning cell phones b/c it causes brain cancer? I can see the lawsuits now...

[Derek]

Yes smoking is bad for your health. So is having multiple sex partners

GREAT! :(

I'm a goner! lol

[Bodo]

OK maybe cell phones aren't the best analogy. But you get the point...

[JohnK and Sheri]

Should fat people have to pay for extra insurance, should drinkers have to pay for extra insurance, should sedentary people have to pay for extra insurance, should stressed out type A people have to pay for extra insurance....? I'm sure you can see what I'm alluding to.

Yes, they all should, and in fact, they DO. The insurance companies already have smokers' risks and the risks of other high risk lifestyles built in and we all pay higher premiums because of them. I don't think specifically targeting higher risk lifestyle decisions is a bad thing at all. For a subsidized industry such as tobacco to benefit from peddling poison (to, as some have pointed out, a majority of poor and uneducated people) and then for the taxpayers to pay to treat the effects of this addiction seems a bit outrageous to me. Perhaps the tobacco companies could be persuaded to carry the additional costs they create? I doubt it. Then why should the taxpaying public?
Insurance, whether it should be required, and our health system in general are all good topics for another debate.
Sheri

[JohnK and Sheri]

PS I would like to point out that drinking in moderation has been shown to be good for a person. :)
Sheri

[MapMan]

PS I would like to point out that drinking in moderation has been shown to be good for a person. :)
Sheri

Whew! That's a relief.;)

MM

[cow pollinater]

I'm a part time drinker and a part time cigar smoker and a full time stress junkie. I can tell you with great certainty that nicotene and alcohol have saved alot more lives than they've taken! Sometimes it takes a few puffs and a few beers before civility even sounds like an option.
I think there are alot of people(like me) that use tobbacco as a stress cure rather than get on the anti-depressant/anxiety treadmill. Smoking is bad, but so is stress. If a cancer stick helps... it's your choice. Half the stupid little pills that people swallow on a doctors advice are almost as addictive and you get zero enjoyment from swallowing them.

[cow pollinater]

Also, the government will never ban smoking outright or even tax it to the point where people begin to quit in droves. The tax revenues are to important to them.

[mike haney]

i'm old enough to remember tobacco co execs testifing before congress and in court that cigarettes were NOT harmfull and their studies proved they were NOT addictive- all the while they were manipulating the nicotine levels so they were a SATISFYING smoke. and i am here to tell you smoking is not a choice but an addiction and a powerful one. reading these smug, self-rightious "i chose to quit" so make it hard on the rest of the smokers comments tells me things.

[iddee]

Actually, George, I was going overboard on all accounts, to the point of being ridiculous. Sorta like your take on the tobacco industry.

If tobacco kills more than DDT, why hasn't it been banned?
Anything else that even hints of causing cancer is banned outright.
There is only two possible answers.
1...The government can't prove it causes cancer, so it just turns the media loose to convince the people. Remember, "tell'em until they believe it."

2...They knowingly allow poison nicotine to be sold when they ban raw milk, DDT, and anything else they get a hint of being dangerous.

My guess is #1, since I've met more 90 year old smokers than 90 year old doctors.

PS...I smoked my last cigarette Oct. 31, 1998, after 45 years of steady smoking.

[JohnK and Sheri]

reading these smug, self-rightious "i chose to quit" so make it hard on the rest of the smokers comments tells me things.
If you are offended by my stating I chose to quit, I am sorry. I am being neither smug nor self righteous. It was fairly easy for me as I had only smoked for a couple years. Long time smokers indeed have a much tougher time. My mother was so addicted she smoked up until about a month before she died, as she was so weak and short of breath she could no longer hold the cigarette. Watching someone you love die of this terrible addiction makes you want to help others from slowly killing themselves and sparing their loved ones the needless agony of watching them do it.

I know from observation it is a terrible addiction. I also wouldn't give up trying to quit; there are several hopeful new means to help those who are trying.

But to address the original topic, I think it is unbelievable the manufacturers and distributors of this terrible drug avoided oversight for so long, especially in light of our various "wars on drugs" politicians have been so hyper for. It is about time.
Sheri

[dragonfly]

No, I can't. Spell it out for me. It sounds like you think there is something wrong with the idea of people being required to assume responsibility for their actions and pay for the consequences of their choices in life.


Where did I say that?

It sounds like you think these responsibilities and consequences should be assumed and paid for maybe out of some general fund?


Where did I say that?

Tobacco companies make the profits and everyone else picks up the tab for the health problems of smokers?



That's not what I said or implied. Tobacco companies make the profits, yes, and eventually everyone else picks up the tab for the health problems of all of us. You smoke for 30 years? You MAY have chronic lung disease, you may have lung cancer, you may have throat cancer. You eat like a pig for 30 years, you may have heart disease or chronic lung disease, gut disease of one type or another, diabetes, chronic peripheral circulatory disease. You drink for 30 years, you may have chronic liver disease, cirrhosis, severe gut problems, heart disease. You sit on your butt too much for 30 years, you may have cardiac disease, peripheral circulatory disease, stomach and gut diseases, chronic respiratory problems from deconditioning. You stress too much and have a type A personality, you may have a myocardial infarction at a reasonably young age, you may have a major stroke, you may have gastric and gut problems from the stress..... Do you see what I am alluding to?

You live to be old without having any significant "habits", you eat right, you don't smoke or drink, you exercisie in moderation, you have a sedate lifestyle. You eventually have cardiovascular disease or heart failure, because after all, that old pump is eventually going to tire out and stop pumping effectively. Or you may have Alzheimer's disease or some other type of dementia, or you have high blood pressure which leads to a stroke which leaves you incapacitated. You end up in a nursing home where eventually the taxpayer picks up the tab, sometimes for years and years.

My point is this: If smokers should pay extra for their health insurance, why should everyone else with unhealthy habits not do so?

I'm middle-aged. I eat a good diet, am lean and in good condition for my age. I rarely go to a doctor for any reason besides routine checks. I don't take any prescription or non-prescription medications. Should I get "extra points" for behaving and pay less? (which I don't due to my age)

[dragonfly]

I think there are alot of people(like me) that use tobbacco as a stress cure rather than get on the anti-depressant/anxiety treadmill. Smoking is bad, but so is stress.

I like the way you think:) and you probably have a valid point.

[dragonfly]

GREAT! :(

I'm a goner! lol

We all are;) so dont worry. You're included in 100% of the population.

And it depends, of course, on who your multiple partners are, but if the Valtrex commercials are right, 1 in 5 adults has genital herpes, and if my gyn is right, 75% of women eventually have the HPV virus which supposedly causes cervical cancer.

[dragonfly]

The tax revenues are to important to them.

That's exactly right. They have no vested interest in really getting people to quit. If they did, their coffers would suffer. Same as with the new rumblings about raising the federal gas tax. Americans are consuming less gasoline than we were one year ago. This means their revenues are down. They reportedly want to raise the gas tax. I wonder why??;)

[JohnK and Sheri]

They have no vested interest in really getting people to quit. If they did, their coffers would suffer.
If that wasn't enough of a deterrent, lobbyists and political contributions have assured no actions were taken for a very long time. I guess being on the wrong side of this argument finally got just too embarrassing.
Sheri

[miele]

>3..Take the limitations off alcohol.
>
>Everyone knows tobacco kills more non users than alcohol or drugs that are now illegal.


Maybe. But alcohol sure causes a heck of a lot of broken and messed up households. Personally, I see a lot more lives messed up by alcohol than tobacco.

[dragonfly]

Maybe. But alcohol sure causes a heck of a lot of broken and messed up households. Personally, I see a lot more lives messed up by alcohol than tobacco.

Me too.

[JPK1NH]

So, is the problem the inanimate object or the person that makes a concious choice to imbibe/smoke the inanimate object......

We need to consider for a moment that in this day and age its IMPOSSIBLE to not be aware that both Alcohol and Tobacco both have health risks......again we're back to Personal Responsibility and the loss of Freedom when we surrender rights.

[JohnK and Sheri]

I see a lot more lives messed up by alcohol than tobacco.
Tobacco is a slow motion killer. It doesn't cause car wrecks or domestic abuse, but this does not mean it isn't deadly. And you are correct, tobacco doesn't "mess up a life" in such a spectacular, often public way as alcohol can; tobacco victims pretty much just die younger than they would have otherwise, on average 14 years younger, and their families carry on without them.
For those who haven't seen the statistics: From the CCD.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/Factsheets/tobacco_related_mortality.htm
* Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.1 Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 438,000 deaths, or about 1 of every 5 deaths, each year.2,3 This estimate includes approximately 38,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure.2
* Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 259,500 men and 178,000 women in the United States each year.2
* More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
* On average, adults who smoke cigarettes die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.5
* Based on current cigarette smoking patterns, an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, including 5 million people younger than 18.6

I know some won't believe the statistics, or feel they are exaggerated or misrepresented. Cut them in half they are still disturbing. Cut them in quarters, they are still daunting. Why anyone would defend this industry is beyond me.
Sheri

[Trevor Mansell]

Do we really need more of these nanny-state laws? "We are going to tell you what to eat,drink ,watch on tv and who to have sex with" I dont smoke and never will but thats my right to choose .
"first they came for my neighbors ,I did nothing. Then they came for me ,and there was no one left to defend me" With everyone of these laws , is just that much less freedom.

[JohnK and Sheri]

..again we're back to Personal Responsibility and the loss of Freedom when we surrender rights.
Yes, we should retain "rights" but without stepping on others', I would assert. If anyone still wants to smoke, (I don't think most smokers really WANT to smoke), I don't think anyone should say they cannot (with restrictions of age and of place).

Some anarchists/libertarians out there seem to think any restriction is a bad one; most people accept that this is not the case. The question is where do we draw that line. Most reasonable people feel the guy that smokes that big ol stogy in the restaurant, blowing his smoke on the families trying to eat dinner with their kids has stepped over that line, as witnessed by the wave of related legislation. The legislation and restrictions are not written for reasonable people who are responsible and considerate, but the wackos who think their "rights" include infringing on everyone else's.

Sheri

[Tom G. Laury]

Sheri is telling the truth.

[JPK1NH]

Yes, we should retain "rights" but without stepping on others', I would assert. If anyone still wants to smoke, (I don't think most smokers really WANT to smoke), I don't think anyone should say they cannot (with restrictions of age and of place).

Some anarchists/libertarians out there seem to think any restriction is a bad one; most people accept that this is not the case. The question is where do we draw that line. Most reasonable people feel the guy that smokes that big ol stogy in the restaurant, blowing his smoke on the families trying to eat dinner with their kids has stepped over that line, as witnessed by the wave of related legislation. The legislation and restrictions are not written for reasonable people who are responsible and considerate, but the wackos who think their "rights" include infringing on everyone else's.

Sheri

Sherri, I would agree on some of that.

I would and have to disagree with the analogy you use with smoking bans and the restaurant example you use. Bans on smoking in restaurants are an infringement on the owners rights. We had a long thread on this very topic a while back.

We don't have a right to be on that landowners property or demand that they create a certain environment...we CAN vote with our dollars and choose to go to a restaurant that IS smoke free and let the free market decide if these places sink or swim.

[JPK1NH]

Sheri is telling the truth.

Sherri is voicing her opinion which you appear to agree with....whether it is "True" or valid is not an absolute.

[Ken&Andria]

Some anarchists/libertarians

I'm guessing you really didn't mean to equate Anarchists with Libertarians. After all, Anarchists support anarchy. Libertarians do not support anarchy.

[iddee]

Absolutely, Miele. Read post #33. I was totally "tongue_in_cheek" with the first post.

[dragonfly]

Tobacco is a slow motion killer.


Living is a slow motion killer.

Why anyone would defend this industry is beyond me.


I don't defend the industry, but I do defend the right to smoke if you want to without being made to feel like a lesser human for doing so. The anti-smoking campaign is just one of a string of attempts to control behaviors through fear. The anti-fat campaign has not worked so far, probably because there are many more fat people than there are smokers.

[dragonfly]

Sheri is telling the truth.

That's a pretty big statement there. How can it be proven?

[JohnK and Sheri]

Living is a slow motion killer.
I like that:D. I guess what I should say is " Tobacco is a quicker slow motion killer than life" How's that? Of course, that is if you believe the statistics. It might just be another of those gov'mnt conspiracies, right?

I don't defend the industry, but I do defend the right to smoke if you want to without being made to feel like a lesser human for doing so. The anti-smoking campaign is just one of a string of attempts to control behaviors through fear...
I would defend your right to smoke as well, while encouraging you to quit, encouraging you to educate yourself and to not stand in the way of attempts to discourage others. I would also hope smokers would insure themselves against the increased health risks. There is no law requiring that. We as taxpayers will pay, of course. Oh, most of the folks against "regulation" are also against taxes, hmmm, what a dilemma.

As for a campaign of fear, if you aren't afraid of the increased health consequences of smoking you just aren't paying attention.

But I am curious. Are you against the proposed oversight of the FDA or against the proposal on general principle? I am not one to have a great deal of positive thoughts on the FDA, they have had their fair share of controversy, but if I was an habitual user of a particular drug I wouldn't mind a little oversight, especially of this particular industry, given their history of murderous cynicism.
Sheri
PS To all those who commented on my telling the truth or not...I always speak the truth!!:D No proof needed, take my word for it. Oh, and BTW, Tom speaks the truth too!;)

[JohnK and Sheri]

I'm guessing you really didn't mean to equate Anarchists with Libertarians. After all, Anarchists support anarchy. Libertarians do not support anarchy.
You are quite right, I didn't mean to equate one with the other, only pointing out some of both are against a broad spectrum of regulation on general principle. I shouldn't have lumped them together like that. I apologize to the anarchists and libertarians out there reading.

We don't have a right to be on that landowners property or demand that they create a certain environment...
Yes, I remember that thread and we probably disagreed there as well. IMO, just as restaurants are required to have fire extinguishers and back doors to protect their clientele, they should provide a non toxic atmosphere. I will concede that there could be smoking 'clubs', as long as there are sufficient non-smoking choices. Many communities choose to outlaw alcohol intake on certain premises, and/or limit the number of liqueur licenses, I see no difference. Of course, if your opinion is such that you think having fire extinguishers are an infringement of landowners rights I guess we will just have to disagree.
Sheri

[George Fergusson]

I apologize to the anarchists and libertarians out there reading.

The Libertarians probably weren't offended and the anarchists were probably secretly pleased :)

[JohnK and Sheri]

The Libertarians probably weren't offended and the anarchists were probably secretly pleased :)
:DThat's funny, George:D but I won't laugh too hard or I might have to apologize again.
Sheri

[Bodo]

I am amazed by the calls to 'tax the heck' out of tobacco. It seems like a great idea, doesn't it? We'll make all those people pay extra for killings themselves and we can use all this 'extra' money to fund other stuff I like.

Here's the problem. What happens when people stop buying tobacco? Income to the government (higher tobacco tax) will decrease and we all know how easily government likes to spend less. So you know what they'll do? They'll increase taxes on something else to make up the difference.

It's already happening to gasoline. People are driving less (using less fuel) so money to the government is decreasing and they're already talking about increasing the fuel tax to make up the difference. Current federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon (twice what the oil companies make, btw).

[JohnK and Sheri]

Here's the problem. What happens when people stop buying tobacco? Income to the government (higher tobacco tax) will decrease and we all know how easily government likes to spend less. So you know what they'll do? They'll increase taxes on something else to make up the difference.
Ummm, you aren't really suggesting encouraging people to kill themselves for the sake of tax revenues, are you? If you are, rest assured the government will save a lot of money not having to treat those who DO quit. Plus the individuals that quit will save 100s of thousands of $$ in cigarettes and not having to pay for smoking related health issues.
Of course, it is reasonably speculated that smokers actually save Medicare $$ by dying off at a younger age, so the gov may win on both ends. Get the tax plus kill them off before they qualify for health care. What a deal!
In the overall picture, given the personal savings from not smoking, people could afford higher taxes if they did appear (not that I am endorsing this possibility). If you figure $5 a day (how much is a pack now?), that is over $1800 a year a person could spend on other things.
Sheri

[George Fergusson]

I am amazed by the calls to 'tax the heck' out of tobacco. It seems like a great idea, doesn't it? We'll make all those people pay extra for killings themselves and we can use all this 'extra' money to fund other stuff I like.

Here's the problem. What happens when people stop buying tobacco?

That's a problem? That sounds like success to me :) Maybe by the time people stop buying tobacco marijuana will be legalized and the government can tax the beejesus out of that. In any case, I think a use-tax or consumption tax is more fair than taxing people's labor, which is outright theft IMHO. With a use-tax people at least can choose to consume something, or not consume it, based on their willingness to pay the tax, or not.

In any case, tobacco consumption may diminish if taxed sufficiently, maybe diminish significantly, but it will never cease, no matter how much the tax. You could package cigarettes in a black pack, with a skull and cross bones on the front, called "Tumors" and charge $50 a pack for them and people would still buy them :)

You need to consider the whole idea behind taxation first. In a real sense, one effect of taxation is to reduce consumption of the taxed item. This holds true whether you're talking cigarettes or capital gains; raise the tax rate on capital gains and people will defer taking capital gains income if they can. So taxation can have diminishing returns.

Probably this is a good topic for another thread.

[dragonfly]

The Libertarians probably weren't offended and the anarchists were probably secretly pleased :)

:D :D
You're probably right. Notice I didn't state "George is telling the truth".;)

[dragonfly]

If you are, rest assured the government will save a lot of money not having to treat those who DO quit.

I don't believe that to be the case. We will all be "treated" regardless of whether or not we quit smoking. We are all gonna get sick and die of something, or get killed accidentally, in which case, government expenditures on one's health would be minimal (with accidental death). That is assuming that you die instantly and don't spend time in an ICU.

[George Fergusson]

PS I would like to point out that drinking in moderation has been shown to be good for a person. :)
Sheri

Good for which person, and while you're at it, define "moderation" :)

Heh.. I'm not busting your chops. I've heard the reports and I can honestly and unequivocally state that for some people, myself included, alcohol is a very potent and dangerous poison.

>3..Take the limitations off alcohol.

Maybe. But alcohol sure causes a heck of a lot of broken and messed up households. Personally, I see a lot more lives messed up by alcohol than tobacco.

No contest there. Alcohol is hugely destructive. The difference is that nicotine is addictive. Alcohol is not.

[cow pollinater]

* Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.1 Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 438,000 deaths, or about 1 of every 5 deaths, each year.2,3 This estimate includes approximately 38,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure.2
* Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 259,500 men and 178,000 women in the United States each year.2
Did they die directly from smoking a cigarette or from an illness common to smokers?

* More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
I've never heard of someone having such a bad reaction that they keeled over and died.

* On average, adults who smoke cigarettes die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.5

Is it possible that smokers are risk takers and stress junkies by nature and smoking fits a lifestyle that is already unhealthy?

* Based on current cigarette smoking patterns, an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, including 5 million people younger than 18.6Sheri

I'll buy this one because of the "smoking-related" part.
I know smoking is indeed a horrible thing to do to yourself, but I honestly believe that it appeals to risk takers and stress junkies that are going to die early from that lifestyle regardless of whether they smoke or not.

[George Fergusson]

That is assuming that you die instantly and don't spend time in an ICU.

That's my plan.

[cow pollinater]

The difference is that nicotine is addictive. Alcohol is not.

I have to disagree here. I can take the nicotine or leave it and there isn't much differance, but I have to keep a close tab on how much I drink. If I let it turn into a habit, my body KNOWS when happy hour is. Alcohol addiction is a very real threat if you are blind enough to let it get ahold of you.

[NeilV]

Nicotine is very, very, very, very addictive. I have been an addict myself. I still am, I suppose. Its also very unhealthy. My Dad is an addict, has had open heart surgery, still smokes, has recently had a heart stress test, quit for about 2 weeks, started up again. I have two brothers who smoke. One of them quit for SEVEN YEARS and started up again. Based on my own experience, I don't blame them. In my Dad's case, he's already nearly 70. I don't really blame him for keeping it up.

That being said, everybody ought to know its addictive and bad for you.

That also being said, tobacco has its benefits, in the form of stress control and, to be perfectly honest, it makes the user feel good. The stuff makes me think better and feel better. Being totally honest, there are plenty of times I wish I had not quit. Being even more honest, if it had not been so ridiculously hard to quit, I'd probably take it up again. Though it may be politically incorrect to say so, there are good reasons for people to use tobacco.

If I won the lottery (which probably won't happen because I very rarely buy lottery tickets) I think I'd probably smoke a pipe and/or chew again. I absolutely love nicotine. I have not had very little for about 6 years, and I still miss it.

Bottom line, for me its a personal decision. I think the government's job is not to tell people how to live. I know that tobacco use has its costs, both social and personal. However, it ultimately ought to be up to the user to decide whether to use the stuff. The government should just butt out and let people decide what they want to do.

However, I do agree with GeorgeF on one thing. Those tobacco industry dudes who swore under oath that "I believe that nicotine is not addictive" deserved to be lined up and shot, simply because they are so totally dishonest that they needed to be removed from the gene pool.

ndvan

[Bodo]

No contest there. Alcohol is hugely destructive. The difference is that nicotine is addictive. Alcohol is not.

Look up the terms Alcoholic and Alcoholism. I'll wait. :)

[George Fergusson]

I have to disagree here. I can take the nicotine or leave it and there isn't much differance, but I have to keep a close tab on how much I drink. If I let it turn into a habit, my body KNOWS when happy hour is. Alcohol addiction is a very real threat if you are blind enough to let it get ahold of you.

I don't think we're really disagreeing here CP. I would say that alcohol is habit-forming, perhaps strongly so for some people, but not addictive- not addictive in the sense that nicotine and opiates for example are addictive where you experience cravings and other physical and psychological symptoms of withdrawal. Not to be confused with a hangover or delirium tremens which can also involve strong physical and psychological symptoms but which are really just symptoms of alcohol poisoning :)

That said, some people are prone to forming habits or dependencies and can become "addicted" to just about anything but these are habits, not addictions. Likewise, some people are much less susceptible to forming habits or experiencing addictions than most other people.

[George Fergusson]

Look up the terms Alcoholic and Alcoholism. I'll wait. :)

I don't have to look `em up Bodo. I'm a friend of Bill W. :)

[Bodo]

No not alchohol poisoning at all but actual dependance. Lack of the drug can and will kill some addicts.

Alcohol withdrawal differs significantly from most other drugs because it can be directly fatal. While it is possible for heroin addicts, for instance, to die from other health problems made worse by the strain of withdrawal, an otherwise healthy alcoholic can die from the direct effects of withdrawal if it is not properly managed. Heavy consumption of alcohol reduces the production of GABA, which is a neuroinhibitor. An abrupt stop of alcohol consumption can induce a condition where neither alcohol nor GABA exists in the system in adequate quantities, causing uncontrolled firing of the synapses. This manifests as hallucinations, shakes, convulsions, seizures, and possible heart failure, all of which are collectively referred to as delirium tremens. All of these withdrawal issues can be safely controlled with a medically supervised detoxification program.

[Bodo]

I don't have to look `em up Bodo. I'm a friend of Bill W. :)

hehe, gottcha.

[JohnK and Sheri]

Good for which person, and while you're at it, define "moderation" :)
Oh, please don't make me look it up!! I am talking the general population as you well know, not those addicted, or allergic. It is somewhere in the realm of 2 glasses (LITTLE glasses!)of wine a day, if I am remembering correctly. Red is better than white, more antioxidants too. I think even a beer or two or a shot of your favorite hard liqueur qualifies, but no more than that. It lowers blood pressure and is a good stress reliever, so instead of cigs, CP (which I thought were a stimulant not a relaxant?) try a couple glasses of vino instead.:).

.... I can honestly and unequivocally state that for some people, myself included, alcohol is a very potent and dangerous poison.

Yeah, I hear ya there. I am talking averages tho, as again you well know. You gotta go by the averages. There aren't enough exceptions out there, otherwise they would be..... the average.
Sheri

[dragonfly]

The difference is that nicotine is addictive. Alcohol is not.

Not true. With enough chronic intake, your body becomes dependent on it.

[JohnK and Sheri]

Did they die directly from smoking a cigarette or from an illness common to smokers?
Is this a convoluted argument or am I being dense here? Are you implying there is a coincidental factor at work here? If so I don't buy that. I don't think it is just bad luck that so many smokers get lung cancer, the cigarettes cause it, it is a death caused by smoking.

I've never heard of someone having such a bad reaction that they keeled over and died.
Again, smoking doesn't kill people overnight, it causes decease that kill in various amounts of time. My mom smoked for 28 years before she was diagnosed with lung cancer. It took two years after that for her to die. So I guess you could say it took 30 years for cigarettes to kill her, at age 49. Your mileage may vary.

Is it possible that smokers are risk takers and stress junkies by nature and smoking fits a lifestyle that is already unhealthy?

"Men who smoke increase their risk of death from lung cancer by more than 22 times and from bronchitis and emphysema by nearly 10 times. Women who smoke increase their risk of dying from lung cancer by nearly 12 times and the risk of dying from bronchitis and emphysema by more than 10 times. Smoking triples the risk of dying from heart disease among middle-aged men and women.1"
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/factsheets/cig_smoking_mort.htm
These deceases are not caused by risky behavior, unless you are counting the very risky behavior of smoking. Of course, if you climb mountains without ropes or sky dive for a living, smoking may be the least of your worries, agreed. Most smokers live ordinary lives and would expect a normal life span if not for the tobacco.

I'll buy this one because of the "smoking-related" part.
I know smoking is indeed a horrible thing to do to yourself, but I honestly believe that it appeals to risk takers and stress junkies that are going to die early from that lifestyle regardless of whether they smoke or not.

This seems a very romanticized view of smoking to me, having seen it up close and personal. Dying of lung cancer, bronchitis or emphysema are decidedly unromantic. May you beat the odds and never have to learn their harsher reality.
Sheri

[Keith Jarrett]

I think it's darn time to start chopping up sub.

[NeilV]

J&Ky say " . . . so instead of cigs, CP (which I thought were a stimulant not a relaxant?)"

The really crazy thing about nicotine is that, however you want to label it, it seems to take you the direction you need to go.

Also, I want to add to my prior post that I am not endorsing tobacco use. If you have not used tobacco, I would highly recommend that you don't.

ndvan

[George Fergusson]

Not true. With enough chronic intake, your body becomes dependent on it.

Well that's exactly right dragonfly. With enough chronic intake, your body *does* become dependent on it. But that's not addiction. That's true dependence- chemical dependence- in the sense that maintaining a "satisfactory" blood-alcohol level becomes necessary to survive, or to function if you will, for some value of the term "function". But it's not addiction. If alcohol was addictive, achieving chemical dependence wouldn't require chronic intake.

On the other hand, you don't have to smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day for a few months to get hooked on nicotine. You only need to smoke 1 cigarette to want another cigarette. Nicotine is addictive. Alcohol is not.

The terminology is complicated by people often referring to themselves or others as being "addicted to alcohol". If alcohol was addictive, everyone who drank alcohol would be addicted to to it, and we know that's not the case. Not everyone who drinks has a drinking problem. That said, I'd suggest that far more people have a drinking problem than is commonly suspected.

[George Fergusson]

Oh, please don't make me look it up!! I am talking the general population as you well know, not those addicted, or allergic. It is somewhere in the realm of 2 glasses (LITTLE glasses!)of wine a day, if I am remembering correctly.

I remember hearing the reports about how some small daily amount of alcohol is supposedly good for you. This news was always received with great fanfare and laughter at AA meetings everywhere :)

In reality, the reports generally state levels of alcohol consumption which appear to have no discernible deleterious effects i.e., a beer or 2, or a glass of wine a day isn't going to kill you, or necessarily cause any problem that can be correlated with drinking that booze. This is no doubt true, but the fact remains that something being "not bad for you" is a far cry from it being "good for you".

From the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) web site:

For most adults, moderate alcohol use--up to two drinks per day for men and one drink per day for women and older people--causes few if any problems. (One drink equals one 12-ounce bottle of beer or wine cooler, one 5-ounce glass of wine, or 1.5 ounces of 80-proof distilled spirits.)

Certain people should not drink at all, however:

* Women who are pregnant or trying to become pregnant
* People who plan to drive or engage in other activities that require alertness and skill (such as driving a car)
* People taking certain over-the-counter or prescription medications
* People with medical conditions that can be made worse by drinking
* Recovering alcoholics
* People younger than age 21.


Notice the inclusion of recovering alcoholics in that list of people who should not drink at all. Alcoholics can't drink in moderation.

Yeah, I hear ya there. I am talking averages tho, as again you well know. You gotta go by the averages. There aren't enough exceptions out there, otherwise they would be..... the average.
Sheri

I am personally of the opinion that people for whom alcohol does not present a challenge and can have a few drinks every day without danger, damage, or risk, are a distinct minority. Furthermore, considering the growing incidence of under age drinking in this country and the significantly higher risk that under age drinkers run of developing long-term alcohol-related problems, that the problem is getting WORSE, not better. But we can agree to disagree on this.

There is perhaps not surprisingly a high correlation between alcohol abuse and cigarette smoking. Heavy smokers (more than a pack a day) are also very likely to be heavy drinkers.

Alcohol abuse and alcoholism cut across gender, race, and nationality. In the United States, 17.6 million people--about 1 in every 12 adults--abuse alcohol or are alcohol dependent. In general, more men than women are alcohol dependent or have alcohol problems. And alcohol problems are highest among young adults ages 18-29 and lowest among adults ages 65 and older. We also know that people who start drinking at an early age--for example, at age 14 or younger--are at much higher risk of developing alcohol problems at some point in their lives compared to someone who starts drinking at age 21 or after.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/FAQs/General-English/default.htm

[JPK1NH]

Time for a little tongue in cheek commentary......

This thread almost sounds like a bunch of addicts fighting for the bragging rights of who's addiction is worse. :eek:

Maybe you should solicit a few Heroin and Cocaine addicts to join the debate as well or are you limiting the discourse to legal drugs?

I bet if we started a thread to debate why a donut has a hole in it we would get several pages of vigorous debate......:rolleyes:

[Barry]

Furthermore, considering the growing incidence of under age drinking in this country and the significantly higher risk that under age drinkers run of developing long-term alcohol-related problems, that the problem is getting WORSE, not better. But we can agree to disagree on this.

George -

This doesn't seem to be the problem worldwide. So is it age, or is it not cultural also. What about countries where alcohol is consumed far more frequently such as France, Spain, etc.? Do they have the same problems with alcoholism as the U.S.?

[Galaxy]

George -

This doesn't seem to be the problem worldwide. So is it age, or is it not cultural also. What about countries where alcohol is consumed far more frequently such as France, Spain, etc.? Do they have the same problems with alcoholism as the U.S.? The conventional wisdom here and in France and Germany is that European youth do not binge drink like youth here. I've even heard in Germany, that they look down on American youth because some of them drink excessively (and they certainly do). The attitude is that we Germans are better than that.

But, the conventional wisdom is not true. Americans are trend setters for the world, unfortunately in this case. See:

WASTED YOUTH: Germany Reports Surge in Teenage Binge Drinking (http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,551532,00.html)

France to crack down on under-age binge drinking (http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSL1329672120080713)

And, it is even worse in Britain. One in four British adults are binge drinkers:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-302531/Special-report-Binge-drinking.html

The mid-life bingers Click here... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/dietfitness.html?in_article_id=407106&in_page_id=1798&in_a_source=)
Pupils aged eight are 'hungover' at school Click here... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=395769&in_page_id=1770)
Middle-class girls 'most a risk of becoming binge drinkers' Click here... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=394840&in_page_id=1774)
Addiction danger for child drinkers Click here... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=394078&in_page_id=1774)
Third of men use alcohol to deal with stress Click here... (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=373905&in_page_id=1774)


Perhaps it is cultural, Western Culture.

Another cause could be socialism. Remember the former USSR had a terrible drinking problem. Taking away all hope (seems like I've heard that word before) of financial success may drive many to escape with drugs and alcohol.

[Galaxy]

I have a potential solution to the smoking hazard problem. Let's have the government mandate that all cigarettes be organic only. Organic cigarettes, now that is an idea whose time has come. Organic is always good for you, isn't it? ;)

[Barry]

But, the conventional wisdom is not true. Americans are trend setters for the world, unfortunately in this case.

Then perhaps it's true to say conventional wisdom WAS true? The drinking problem may now be reaching into these other countries, but I believe it didn't use to be that way, which tells me this has a lot to do with family values/attitudes.

[Galaxy]

Barry, I agree.

[JohnK and Sheri]

George -

This doesn't seem to be the problem worldwide. So is it age, or is it not cultural also. What about countries where alcohol is consumed far more frequently such as France, Spain, etc.? Do they have the same problems with alcoholism as the U.S.?

Good questions Barry
Anecdotally, my mom grew up in Panama. Their legal drinking age was "If you are tall enough to put a dime on the counter we'll serve you." Everyone grew up drinking if they wanted to, and beer or wine were often served as a mealtime beverage. Myself, siblings and cousins etc, on feast days, had a glass of wine with dinner, and sometimes as a special treat a very small portion of brandy after dinner, if we wanted. None of us grew up to be alcoholics. I think the status given liqueur in this country as a restricted substance gives it an additional aura that leads to many first time drinkers drinking to excess. I am not minimizing the addictive nature of overuse; I am saying our culture leads to overuse at a young age, perhaps contributing to alcoholism. We, as children, grew up knowing what moderate drinking was. We thought of alcohol as just another beverage, as did much of the world for countless generations prior to refrigeration.
Sheri

[George Fergusson]

George -

This doesn't seem to be the problem worldwide. So is it age, or is it not cultural also. What about countries where alcohol is consumed far more frequently such as France, Spain, etc.? Do they have the same problems with alcoholism as the U.S.?

I expect they do but we just don't hear about it Barry. I don't find this surprising because most people aren't aware of the magnitude of the problem in this country.

The fact of the matter is, colonial Americans drank like fish. Here's a great page on the Colonial Williamsburg site. It's entertaining and educational. Here's an excerpt:

Rattle-Skull, Stonewall, Bogus, Blackstrap, Bombo, Mimbo, Whistle Belly, Syllabub, Sling, Toddy, and Flip: Drinking in Colonial America
by Ed Crews

Editor's note: Autumn and winter holidays bring to festive American tables all manner of drink, from fine wines to grocery store eggnog. The celebrations of Thanksgiving, Chanukah, Christmas, and New Year's are traditional justifications for raising a convivial glass with friends and family. Early Americans neither needed nor waited for such excuses.

Colonial Americans, at least many of them, believed alcohol could cure the sick, strengthen the weak, enliven the aged, and generally make the world a better place. They tippled, toasted, sipped, slurped, quaffed, and guzzled from dawn to dark.

Many started the day with a pick-me-up and ended it with a put-me-down. Between those liquid milestones, they also might enjoy a midmorning whistle wetter, a luncheon libation, an afternoon accompaniment, and a supper snort. If circumstances allowed, they could ease the day with several rounds at a tavern.

Alcohol lubricated such social events as christenings, weddings, funerals, trials, and election-day gatherings, where aspiring candidates tempted voters with free drinks. Craftsmen drank at work, as did hired hands in the fields, shoppers in stores, sailors at sea, and soldiers in camp. Then, as now, college students enjoyed malted beverages, which explains why Harvard had its own brewery. In 1639, when the school did not supply sufficient beer, President Nathaniel Eaton lost his job.

http://www.history.org/Foundation/journal/Holiday07/drink.cfm

[dragonfly]

But that's not addiction.

Nicotine is addictive. Alcohol is not.



So what is your definition of addiction? This one from a medical website seems pretty satisfactory to me:

"Addiction is a biological and psychological condition that compels a person to satisfy their need for a particular stimulus and to keep satisfying it, no matter what"

To me, this covers an array of substances including both nicotine and alcohol.

[JohnK and Sheri]

"Addiction is a biological and psychological condition that compels a person to satisfy their need for a particular stimulus and to keep satisfying it, no matter what"
To me, this covers an array of substances including both nicotine and alcohol.

I agree. Some addictions are almost totally psychological, but can be every bit as debilitating to quality of life as addictive substances. A compulsive over shopper or gambler can ruin their family just as efficiently as an alcoholic, albeit it may not be a physical addiction. Research suggests, however, the serotonin produced by acting out the compulsion replaces a deficiency in the addict, likewise suggesting physical addiction.

Making these activities or substances illegal is usually fairly pointless and counterproductive. Society needs to figure out how to deal with the individuals with usage levels that harm the user, his family or the public, without restricting or punishing those that don't.
Sheri

[Keith Jarrett]

I agree. Some addictions are almost totally psychological,.
Sheri

Yes.... Beekeeping comes to mind. LOL

[JohnK and Sheri]

Yes.... Beekeeping comes to mind. LOL
Well, society has to know it's limitations. Some addictions are just incurable!!
Sheri

[George Fergusson]

So what is your definition of addiction? This one from a medical website seems pretty satisfactory to me:

"Addiction is a biological and psychological condition that compels a person to satisfy their need for a particular stimulus and to keep satisfying it, no matter what"

To me, this covers an array of substances including both nicotine and alcohol.

That's a fine description, as good as any, better than most. But I don't think it applies to alcohol :)

If you want to call alcohol an addictive substance, then you really need to call people who drink, addicts. Are you ready to do that? You won't get an argument from me but I think people who can drink without becoming addicted or exhibiting any addictive behavior might take exception to the label :)

In my mind, for something to be addictive it must be addictive always and for everyone, under all circumstances. Nicotine fits that description. I don't believe alcohol fits that description. If one person who drinks becomes an alcoholic and can't control their alcohol use and another person drinks and does not have a problem, then what have you got? Addiction or dependence? Hooked or habit?

Can alcohol really be considered an addictive substance if many people drink with no real ill effects? I don't think so.

[Keith Jarrett]

society has to know it's limitations. Sheri

Gee, and now we just have to work on our Government.

[dcross]

I don't understand all the fuss, it's been regulated and taxed for a very long time, what's the change?

[JohnK and Sheri]

I don't understand all the fuss, it's been regulated and taxed for a very long time, what's the change?
I think the change is tobacco will now be under the thumb of the FDA, as opposed to the BATF. FDA are those folks who determine if drugs are safe. It will be interesting to see if and how they regulate levels of nicotine, and the various toxins in cigarettes, to maintain "safety". I assume that is what the hub bub is about, nicotine addicts are worried about losing their nicotine.
Sheri

[NeilV]

George,

I absolutely agree that nicotine is much more addictive than alcohol. Nearly anybody who fools around with tobacco will get addicted. Many people who drink alcohol won't. Also, most of the alcoholics I know who have quit drinking also smoke, and they all agree that its easier to give up alcohol than nicotine.

However, there certainly are some folks who are affected by alcohol in in way that is truly a hard core addiction. To those people, alcohol is addictive. I makes no difference to those folks that other folks do not have an addiction issue.

Bottom line, its a matter of degree.

ndvan

[dragonfly]

In my mind, for something to be addictive it must be addictive always and for everyone, under all circumstances.

How can you prove that to be the case? (regarding nicotine as opposed to other chemicals?)

[George Fergusson]

However, there certainly are some folks who are affected by alcohol in in way that is truly a hard core addiction. To those people, alcohol is addictive. I makes no difference to those folks that other folks do not have an addiction issue.

Yup. Those folks are called alcoholics. There is something different about alcoholics that causes them to be more susceptible to developing a dependency on alcohol. Perhaps it's a chemical thing, or a psychological thing, or very likely, a combination. There's some evidence that it may be partly a genetic thing too- alcoholism tends to run in families. There are people who believe you are born an alcoholic and people who believe that people become alcoholics as a result of events in their lives. Finally, the general consensus is these days is that alcoholism is a disease which suggests that it might be something you can catch.

The bottom line is we don't know why some people become alcoholics and some people don't.

I can't however say that alcoholics are literally addicted to alcohol in the sense that people are addicted to say nicotine, or opium. I understand what you mean when you say it. A lot of people say it, including many alcoholics, but you can't trust what they say... they're alcoholics :)

Bottom line, its a matter of degree.

Maybe to normal people. Not to an alcoholic. Though I'm not sure I know what we're talking about any more :)

ndvan

How can you prove that to be the case? (regarding nicotine as opposed to other chemicals?)

Prove what? The American Heart Association says nicotine is an addictive drug. The National Institute on Drug Abuse says nicotine is an addictive drug. Pretty much everyone who gets nicotine into their blood experiences the same physiological effects.

If you want to call alcohol an addictive substance, fine. Explain to me how it is that some people can consume alcohol without becoming addicted?

[Barry]

If you want to call alcohol an addictive substance, fine. Explain to me how it is that some people can consume alcohol without becoming addicted?

How is it that some people, like myself, can smoke without becoming addicted? I smoked a bit when I was in my early 20's, stopped, would smoke a pack here and there over a period of 20 years and now wouldn't touch a cigarette. A cigar every now and then is it. Never had any battle over stopping at anytime.

[JPK1NH]

How is it that some people, like myself, can smoke without becoming addicted? I smoked a bit when I was in my early 20's, stopped, would smoke a pack here and there over a period of 20 years and now wouldn't touch a cigarette. A cigar every now and then is it. Never had any battle over stopping at anytime.

Some people are predisposed to addition. That predisposition can be Social, Genetic or both.

[dragonfly]

In my mind, for something to be addictive it must be addictive always and for everyone, under all circumstances. Nicotine fits that description.

I was asking how you can prove that nicotine is addictive always and for everyone, under all circumstances. That's a pretty bold statement.

[dragonfly]

Explain to me how it is that some people can consume alcohol without becoming addicted?

The same way some people can smoke cigarettes without becoming addicted or use recreational drugs without becoming addicted. Some of us (myself included) are predisposed to addictive or compulsive habits. Call it personality, nervousness, thrill-seekers, whatever.

[George Fergusson]

How is it that some people, like myself, can smoke without becoming addicted? I smoked a bit when I was in my early 20's, stopped, would smoke a pack here and there over a period of 20 years and now wouldn't touch a cigarette. A cigar every now and then is it. Never had any battle over stopping at anytime.

As I understand it, there are several discrete phases in the process of becoming addicted to nicotine. You don't become clinically addicted immediately upon smoking your first cigarette. Addiction starts with an experimentation phase during which many people are able to stop without much difficulty. The experimentation stage is usually followed by the regular use phase at which point, you're pretty much there. Actual addiction involves various changes in both body chemistry and brain function. Once these changes have taken place, you're hooked. In the case of nicotine, the actual dosage isn't that critical, above a certain minimum. Someone who smokes a 1/2 pack of low tar/nicotine cigarettes a day is every bit as hooked as someone smoking 3 packs of Camel straights and each will likely have similar experiences trying to quit.

In your particular case Barry, I'd say you lucky, or perhaps you just didn't try hard enough :) Pretty much anyone can smoke one cigarette and give up smoking. Certainly there are people who smoke a bit and manage to give it up without getting hooked, but they are the rare exception. The longer you experiment with tobacco, the less chance you'll have of being able to stop at will.

Cigarettes are highly developed and engineered drug delivery devices, cigars much less so. Cigarettes are carefully designed to administer the correct dosage of nicotine to best produce and maintain addiction, but the smoker has to do their part- they have to keep it up for a little while. In my case, I was 16 years old and I distinctly remember about 1 week of intermittent experimental smoking, then I was hooked.

Developing dependence on other addictive substances seem to work pretty much the same way from what I can tell.

[George Fergusson]

The same way some people can smoke cigarettes without becoming addicted or use recreational drugs without becoming addicted. Some of us (myself included) are predisposed to addictive or compulsive habits. Call it personality, nervousness, thrill-seekers, whatever.

Very few people manage to mess with cigarettes without getting hooked. They are the rare exception. In fact, I don't know anyone who routinely smokes cigarettes who is not in fact clinically addicted to them. I know plenty of people who used to be addicted and quit, or who tried smoking and gave it up without ever getting clinically addicted. In comparison, LOTS of people drink to various degrees without ever exhibiting any signs or symptoms of alcohol addiction. If alcohol was addictive in the way nicotine is addictive, alcohol addiction would be the norm, not the exception.

As for so-called recreational drugs, some of them may or may not be addictive. I'm no expert on the subject. I hesitate to call such substances as opium, heroin, etc., recreational drugs.

Just because someone is a compulsive donut eater does not mean that donuts are addictive. It could be argued that they are habit forming however. Coffee on the other hand is addictive and people who quit drinking coffee usually experience mild withdrawal symptoms.

[tecumseh]

my other brother george writes:
Coffee on the other hand is addictive and people who quit drinking coffee usually experience mild withdrawal symptoms.

tecumseh replies:
well george this is definitely an extreme understatement. I hope to never have to do the 'withdraw' thingee with coffee... the once or twice I did get myself in some place without 'good coffee' (my days in north dakota were certainly one of those times) could have had me considering mass murder to get my hands on a good hot strong cup of joe.

[George Fergusson]

the once or twice I did get myself in some place without 'good coffee' (my days in north dakota were certainly one of those times) could have had me considering mass murder to get my hands on a good hot strong cup of joe.

Well yah, yer Navy :)

[Barry]

Brother George and Tec both mention coffee being addictive. I love coffee. I have a large cup of coffee pretty much every morning. Some might say I'm addicted to it. I don't consider myself addicted to it. How do we determine whether or not I'm addicted? If I stop drinking coffee for a month, would that prove a non-addiction? Two months? A year?

I think a person's make up plays a much larger role in addictions than the "addictive nature" of the item.

[dragonfly]

In fact, I don't know anyone who routinely smokes cigarettes who is not in fact clinically addicted to them. I know plenty of people who used to be addicted and quit, or who tried smoking and gave it up without ever getting clinically addicted.

As for so-called recreational drugs, some of them may or may not be addictive. I'm no expert on the subject. I hesitate to call such substances as opium, heroin, etc., recreational drugs.

Coffee on the other hand is addictive and people who quit drinking coffee usually experience mild withdrawal symptoms.

Cigarettes don't have severe withdrawal symptoms (from my experience). Nicotine is a mild stimulant (kind of similar to coffee). The reason that people get addicted to cigarettes much more easily than to alcohol or other drugs is that cigarette smoking is usually a substance that is frequently used throughout the day for the average smoker. This maintains a fairly consistent nicotine level in the body. Withdrawal from nicotine takes away the stimulant effect leaving one irritable and a little sleepy or "un-focused" feeling. It doesn't give you the shakes and severe withdrawal effects of stopping opioid or alcohol use (assuming that you are to the point of physical addiction). Yes, it's unpleasant, but it's not nearly as physically traumatic as cessation of other drugs.
Some drugs cause more psychological dependence than physical dependence (amphetamines or marijuana for example). I would say that nicotine is mildly physically addicitve, but strongly psychologically addictive, and the smoker's individual personality factors heavily into that.

[Barry]

In your particular case Barry, I'd say you lucky, or perhaps you just didn't try hard enough :) Pretty much anyone can smoke one cigarette and give up smoking. Certainly there are people who smoke a bit and manage to give it up without getting hooked, but they are the rare exception. The longer you experiment with tobacco, the less chance you'll have of being able to stop at will.

I tried as hard as a pack a day. Was that hard enough? :)
Is something an addiction if you choose to do it? Seems to me it's only when you choose to stop and can't, that it has become an addiction.

[dragonfly]

The longer you experiment with tobacco, the less chance you'll have of being able to stop at will.



It all boils down to whether you exert your will over your desire.

[George Fergusson]

It all boils down to whether you exert your will over your desire.

I'll take your word for it. But don't try to offer that solution at an AA meeting :)

[dragonfly]

I'll take your word for it. But don't try to offer that solution at an AA meeting :)


I don't plan to attend any. I have enough compulsions as it is;)