Cigarette laws and pharmaceutical conspiracy

I stumbled upon this article:

http://www.joejackson.com/smokingissue.htm

It all started when I heard about graphical warnings coming to Finland soon. In Canada these warning pictures will soon hide 75% of the cigarette packs. These little collectable yu-gi-oh cards are said to prevent teens from picking up smoking. Well the incontrovertible fact is that if anything, those pictures will disgust the hell out of not only smokers but non-smokers as well. The material in these pictures is INJURIOUSLY gruesome for especially children to see, whether it is on ground, on parents or at the shelf of a grocery store. The fact that a cut-off lungs of human or a dead body at the morgue look disgusting in a picture has NOTHING to do with smoking. Hell this is inappropriate, 15+ rated stuff. It is more than understandable that smokers won't like this. Would you like having disturbing pictures on your beer or ON YOUR CAR? In China, chinese women have one of the highest rates of lung cancer, even though only 2% of them smoke, this is cause of air pollution.

Not only are the pictures disgusting, but the question is: Are the government doing this because they care about health of the citizens?

Because based on the essay above, and various other sites, the pharmaceutical companies aren't playing it all fair. Not talking about smoking here, about medicines in general. Think of it. We have pills for depression, pills to lower cholesterol, pills and milk to boost immunity system, pills to give good vitamins. Some even say that medicines are ordered to people without actual need of it, even though some of these medicines are known to pose serious side-effects.

And hell, why would the nanny state want to protect the health of people who live unhealthy? If smokers actually will get a lung disease, all that means is less retirement to be paid by tax-payers because the survival rate of lung cancer is only 10%.

While I don't smoke so these laws don't affect me, I will have to question the freedom of a person in modern countries. We are guided way too much. Way too much. Pretty much everything is bad for you or causes cancer according to media, because they quote small junk science results that have no scientific approval. This all just to get a good selling headline.

Why can't we let the fully grown adults to do as DAMN WELL as they please? Let's say that most things won't harm you in moderation. AND THERE'S PROOF FOR THIS. Some things like smoking and alcohol pose more risk than other pasttimes, but it's simply a choice of whether to take the risk or not. You are supposed to live your life to the fullest, there's no scientific study that proves healthier life always being better life. There is ZERO need for a nanny state.

Or what do you think?

When one person gets a serious disease, the entire country pays for their treatment.
This is direct where there is national healthcare, and indirect where there is private health insurance and companies raise premiums to cover their expenses.

When one person gets a serious disease, the entire country pays for their treatment.
This is direct where there is national healthcare, and indirect where there is private health insurance and companies raise premiums to cover their expenses.

And they die earlier, thus you dont pay for their retirement as much -> it actually costs less.

And they die earlier, thus you dont pay for their retirement as much -> it actually costs less.

My mother's lung cancer racked up a three million dollar medical bill in six months.
Her cost of living from 65 to 105 would've only been $1.4 million if she were above median income.

Now imagine someone who lives for two or three years fighting it.

Your math is flawed. It also doesn't account for the fact her illness, like many in the US, was due to working in hospitality and being exposed 2nd hand for hours upon hours a day.

Why can't we let the fully grown adults to do as DAMN WELL as they please?

Because they hurt a large amount of people around them. It's not physically possible to avoid them without stopping them smoking.

ban smoking in general

pomegranate does more harm than good

Or what do you think?

I don't have any issues with smokers, as long they pay for all of their treatment themselves and doesn't smoke around other people without their consent. But, guess what, in Nordic countries, they never pay for all their treatment (or do they?), and most people who smoke doesn't think about other people nearby.

ban smoking in general

pomegranate does more harm than good

Seconded slightly. I say ban cigarettes to make people go to smoke stores to smoke hookah or something. Cigarettes in general are disgusting to deal with, specially when you dont smoke at all.

ban smoking in general

pomegranate does more harm than good

That's an argument that could be used on almost anything that doesn't affect you personally. Like Alcohol, Sodas, Candies, Fat food, Lady Gaga, cars, United States of America.

Because they hurt a large amount of people around them. It's not physically possible to avoid them without stopping them smoking.

In what way? You should read the article.

As I write this, 147 studies have been done on Secondhand Smoke (also known as ‘passive smoking' or Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS). Many of them are ridiculously flawed, since exposure to, and the effects of, S H S are extremely hard to measure. (36 of the studies are ‘childhood' ones, in which a group of people - often an insignificantly small group - are simply asked to recall who smoked around them when they were children, and how much, whether windows were open, etc). The vast majority of studies (including the biggest and most credible ones) are inconclusive: i.e. they show both positive and negative effects from S H S, do not reveal any consistent pattern, and have to be ‘thrown out.' Only 24 studies have managed to show a ‘statistically significant' risk, which, in this context, means simply that the data is ‘coherent'; i.e. it all falls on the ‘risk' side. But it's important to realise that the risks are still so small they would not be taken seriously in any normal scientific context. Your backyard barbecue produces far more carcinogens. Higher cancer risks have been found in eating mushrooms, drinking milk, using mouthwash, wearing a bra, and keeping pet birds. Statistically, you are much more likely to die in a bicycle accident, or from being left-handed and using right-handed things, than from exposure to smoke. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up!)

Not only that, but statistics in Finland marked 300 deaths "possibly related to" secondhand smoke annually, while dirty air killed well over 800 Finns annually.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl...vat%231359
+
It's even in Penn & Teller!

That's an argument that could be used on almost anything that doesn't affect you personally. Like Alcohol, Sodas, Candies, Fat food, Lady Gaga, cars, United States of America.

It's a very bully argument, because if we ban smoking in general, then the ban would cause more harm than no ban. Examples include alcohol-bans.

I'll just leave this here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health....html?_r=1

Granted it also includes obese people along with the smokers.

The gist of it is that cancer isn't the only way smoking / being obese kills you. There's also plenty of cheaper heart attacks to share with the whole class.

I'll just leave this here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health....html?_r=1

Good point there. However, the study doesn't tell us whether the country as a whole will gain on it or not.

Let's make one assumption here: People who smoke need smoke breaks during their work in order to function properly. If that is true, then it would be natural to think that the closer to a smoke break you are, the more unfocused you would be due to lack of nicotine.

Maybe non-smokers will be more focused on their work and save their company a lot of money.

Mind you, it may tick the other way - smokers might be better at work because they take more frequent breaks, or they may know other people better because they talk to people while smoking, etc. - but this is not information that this study take into account. It would be interesting if there's some sort of study that takes all of those effects of smoking into the calculations.

In what way? You should read the article.

In what way? You should stop being an ass and assuming I didn't read the article.

http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/healthy...vesmoking/
"Every year, second-hand smoke kills about 11,000 people in the UK from lung cancer, heart disease and strokes."

See I can play the numbers game too.

In what way? You should read the article.

But it's important to realise that the risks are still so small they would not be taken seriously in any normal scientific context. Your backyard barbecue produces far more carcinogens. Higher cancer risks have been found in eating mushrooms, drinking milk, using mouthwash, wearing a bra, and keeping pet birds. Statistically, you are much more likely to die in a bicycle accident, or from being left-handed and using right-handed things, than from exposure to smoke.

you don't try to breathe in all those carcinogens from a bbq, it may produce more in the 45 minutes the fire is going, but you only stand next to it for 10 of those minutes.

also, too much of anything causes cancer... i'll bet these statements are taken out of context because they exclude the damage done to the smokers and the fact that only in about the last 20 years have we actually decided to make smokers butt out of nonsmokers' faces while feeding their addiction. the only way one can possibly say bikes are more dangerous than cigarettes is by excluding the people exposing themselves.

this whole block of text is so biased towards cigarettes it's disgusting.

I smoke and I wholeheartedly agree on disgusting images put on cigarette boxes. Smoking is terrible and young people should be encouraged not to smoke anymore. It's not invasive, if you want to smoke you don't care. The cigarette inside is always the same and the package hardly changes.

you don't try to breathe in all those carcinogens from a bbq, it may produce more in the 45 minutes the fire is going, but you only stand next to it for 10 of those minutes.

also, too much of anything causes cancer... i'll bet these statements are taken out of context because they exclude the damage done to the smokers and the fact that only in about the last 20 years have we actually decided to make smokers butt out of nonsmokers' faces while feeding their addiction. the only way one can possibly say bikes are more dangerous than cigarettes is by excluding the people exposing themselves.

this whole block of text is so biased towards cigarettes it's disgusting.

It's not bias. It's called facts. Read it.

I personally don't like being around smoking, but it's disgusting what governments do to smokers in terms of taxes, ostracizing, and other mistreatment. The government has the justified power to ban substances, but these million little degrees of complication they inflict on smoking short of a ban is not fair (or legal, if you ask me).

Poison yourself slowly for all I care. Just don't poison others while you do so.

Banning smoking outright won't work, they tried that with alcohol during prohibition and we all know how that turned out. I think governments are trying something short of banning smoking in order to reduce and discourage it, because if they ban it outright there'll be smuggling and other stupid things.

It's not bias. It's called facts. Read it.

picking out the facts that support your viewpoint is actually pretty much the definition of bias...