• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Surgeon General adds to List of Smoking's Harms.....

polgara said:
The only explanation I have is that most politicians love to spend money, even if they have to borrow that money from others. Unfortunately, most of them are lawyers, not economists. The handwriting is on the wall, though. For the past 50 years a country such as Australia, or Chile, or France, as examples, who wanted to buy oil from Saudi Arabia had to first convert their currency into dollars to pay for that oil, since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, and was accepted by everybody for buying and selling. Recently, though, more and more large countries are in the process of bypassing the dollar, since they are becoming alarmed by our inability to control our debt, and hence, the dollar's worth. If enough countries join in the argument, it will not be good for us, since we enjoy some monetary perks by being the reserve currency for the world, such as borrowing at a lower cost, which saves us at least $ 100 billion dollars a year in interest charges. I don't want to see us losing our reserve currency status, but it looks like we might, and sooner than anyone expects. When the MSM, and the wealthiest people in the world, start talking about the possibility, which they are, we'd better pay attention! :shock:
For the moment, perhaps. It apparently is in the process of changing, as more and more countries are becoming alarmed at our inability to control the dollar's worth.
Click to expand...

It is completely illogical that the dollar is worth anything, let alone being the hottest currency out there.

Money is not quite real. It's an artifice. It's a representation of value printed on nice paper. So once you recognize that money is a form of theater, you can see that the show must go on. The world simply has to have a monetary god they can believe in and worship. The more dollars we create (and exchange for things of substance) the more money floats around the world. Lets imagine the US with no foreign debt and a perfect balance or surplus in balance of trade. What would these other people use? Drachmas? Francs? Yen? these countries can't supply that much money. So, attacking the dollar is like burning down the theater with your family inside. Oh, yeah, another thing. Who would they store their money with? Bank Of China?

As I watched the debt soar from the first billion (yes, billion) to the current 17 trillion, I knew this wasn't right. But this is where I found my proof that my theater theory was correct. Pissing away money is what we are destined to do. If we stop, everything stops.

Sound crazy? Think about it for a bit.
 
specklebang said:
Three Score and Ten. The age of wisdom and approaching oblivion. Biblically speaking, I am now on borrowed time. May I ask why you ask? :)
Click to expand...

Thank you. I was surprised to see you absolving yourself of responsibility, or some responsibility, for smoking but considering your age...you started when everyone smoked. It was a common part of society and I'm pretty sure today that younger people dont realize that ashtrays used to be decorator items part of home and office decor and they were commonly given as wedding gifts. And of course, you remember the cigarette commercials. So do I, barely.

How many people here can remember being on airlines when smoking was still allowed?
 
Lursa said:
Thank you. I was surprised to see you absolving yourself of responsibility, or some responsibility, for smoking but considering your age...you started when everyone smoked. It was a common part of society and I'm pretty sure today that younger people dont realize that ashtrays used to be decorator items part of home and office decor and they were commonly given as wedding gifts. And of course, you remember the cigarette commercials. So do I, barely.

How many people here can remember being on airlines when smoking was still allowed?
Click to expand...

f_whistle.gif


th
 
Lursa said:
Thank you. I was surprised to see you absolving yourself of responsibility, or some responsibility, for smoking but considering your age...you started when everyone smoked. It was a common part of society and I'm pretty sure today that younger people dont realize that ashtrays used to be decorator items part of home and office decor and they were commonly given as wedding gifts. And of course, you remember the cigarette commercials. So do I, barely.

How many people here can remember being on airlines when smoking was still allowed?
Click to expand...

I believe it was 1985 when smoking on planes ended. I left for Asia in 1963 so for 22 years I smoked thousands of cigarettes on airplanes, along with all the other passengers.

Even today - the warnings on cigarettes address health and pregnancy. They hardly clarify the depth of addiction you can almost certainly expect. Oddly, Doctors issue pain pills that don't make it clear that they are pharmaceutical heroin.

So, yes, I still place a share (a lesser share but still...) on the manufacturers and their enablers.

That has nothing to do with personal responsibility. Earning a living is a responsibility regardless of addictions. For tobacco, it's only been 3 years since a viable alternative has been available and I'm shocked at the passion with which the solution (Ecigs) is despised and demeaned to protect the cigarette manufacturers/dealers.

To illustrate the partnership between the "dealers": and the government, there are only 2 escapes from opiate addiction. Methadone, which is a ludicrous substitute for who you dealer is (instead of crackpipe Mike you get as sleazy Doctor) and Suboxen, an easily used substitute which can not be used recreationally and was refillable. Now, I see they are going after Suboxen to protect the Methadone dealers.

A usual, it's all about the Benjamins.
 
I think the New Zealand approach could work, just double taxes every year.
 
Carjosse said:
I think the New Zealand approach could work, just double taxes every year.
Click to expand...

How cruel to the poorer people who are addicted. Eventually, they might turn to crime, just as some heroin addicts do.

What I would like to see is ending the sale of cigarettes. They should be sold in pharmacies to only those with a prescription evidencing they are already addicts. These permits would be issued for 3 months after the law passes and no more after that. That would end the problem without harming those already trapped. Of course, that would cost billions to the Big Tobacco people and has zero chance of happening.
 
specklebang said:
How cruel to the poorer people who are addicted. Eventually, they might turn to crime, just as some heroin addicts do.

What I would like to see is ending the sale of cigarettes. They should be sold in pharmacies to only those with a prescription evidencing they are already addicts. These permits would be issued for 3 months after the law passes and no more after that. That would end the problem without harming those already trapped. Of course, that would cost billions to the Big Tobacco people and has zero chance of happening.
Click to expand...

Once the baby boomer generation is gone that probably won't be that much of an issue and we can use some of the tax revenue to fund subsidies for products to help quit smoking.
 
Carjosse said:
Once the baby boomer generation is gone that probably won't be that much of an issue and we can use some of the tax revenue to fund subsidies for products to help quit smoking.
Click to expand...

Why new smokers are created every day is a mystery but right now some 14 year old is trying his first smoke. Until they are truly restricted, they will endure long past the baby boomers.

I've thought about this a lot and only my genius permit approach has any hope of solving the problem. As long as cigarettes are widely old and advertised, they will not go away and yet they should.
 
specklebang said:
How cruel to the poorer people who are addicted. Eventually, they might turn to crime, just as some heroin addicts do.

What I would like to see is ending the sale of cigarettes. They should be sold in pharmacies to only those with a prescription evidencing they are already addicts. These permits would be issued for 3 months after the law passes and no more after that. That would end the problem without harming those already trapped. Of course, that would cost billions to the Big Tobacco people and has zero chance of happening.
Click to expand...

But there's already a black market in cigs....I can only see that growing and creating more crime. At least for another generation or so.

Besides...I know humans...;) as do you...and the 'threat' of being cut off will not be taken seriously and they'll still put it off until the last minute and it really wont make any difference for them. I speak for myself of course...not with cigs but I have been positively reinforced for procrastination so many times in life that I find that am willing to risk it. :)
 
specklebang said:
Why new smokers are created every day is a mystery but right now some 14 year old is trying his first smoke. Until they are truly restricted, they will endure long past the baby boomers.

I've thought about this a lot and only my genius permit approach has any hope of solving the problem. As long as cigarettes are widely old and advertised, they will not go away and yet they should.
Click to expand...

I still dont believe your 'genius permit' approach would work for current smokers but you may have a point about keeping new ones from starting.
 
Lursa said:
I still dont believe your 'genius permit' approach would work for current smokers but you may have a point about keeping new ones from starting.
Click to expand...

No, I don't want to tamper with existing smokers. Let them get their permits after signing off that they understand the risks and they may not sell or transfer their purchases. The main idea is to keep new ones from starting.
 
Lursa said:
But there's already a black market in cigs....I can only see that growing and creating more crime. At least for another generation or so.

Besides...I know humans...;) as do you...and the 'threat' of being cut off will not be taken seriously and they'll still put it off until the last minute and it really wont make any difference for them. I speak for myself of course...not with cigs but I have been positively reinforced for procrastination so many times in life that I find that am willing to risk it. :)
Click to expand...

No, I don't want to cut anyone off. I just want to make it unlikely for new addicts. Let the current addicts have their permit and smoke if the want. There won't be much of a black market that way. Purchases can be tracked in the same system they track ephedrine now. They don't stop you from buying it - but they track how much you buy. Limit it to 3 packs a day or so, thats 90 packs a month, enough for even the heaviest smoker.
 
specklebang said:
No, I don't want to cut anyone off. I just want to make it unlikely for new addicts. Let the current addicts have their permit and smoke if the want. There won't be much of a black market that way. Purchases can be tracked in the same system they track ephedrine now. They don't stop you from buying it - but they track how much you buy. Limit it to 3 packs a day or so, thats 90 packs a month, enough for even the heaviest smoker.
Click to expand...

I thought you said they would be cut off after 3 months?
 
Rocketman said:
Judges around here won't even hear a case, people were told and ignored the warnings, it is on them
Click to expand...

Member that big ol' Tobacco case that was gonna fund schools and set up health funds for smokers?
 
Lursa said:
I thought you said they would be cut off after 3 months?
Click to expand...

No, I meant that they had 3 months to get registered. Then, the permit is good for life. Make more sense now?
 
specklebang said:
No, I meant that they had 3 months to get registered. Then, the permit is good for life. Make more sense now?
Click to expand...

It makes sense but I would only support it if the program paid for itself and not tax dollars (well cig taxes fine). I am NOT a fan of more bureaucracy, period.
 
Lursa said:
It makes sense but I would only support it if the program paid for itself and not tax dollars (well cig taxes fine). I am NOT a fan of more bureaucracy, period.
Click to expand...

Neither am I a bureaucracy fan but sometimes, it is all we have. The permits can be charged for. The Doctors charge for the exam. The cigarette taxes are a lot of positive revenue even in decline. And this way someday we can be smokefree. The tracking system is already in place so no extra cost.

This is more law but it is society positive and deprives nobody. Or should we just let new addicts come on board forever on behalf of Lorillard or Philip Morris? The time has come.
 
Lursa said:
Thank you. I was surprised to see you absolving yourself of responsibility, or some responsibility, for smoking but considering your age...you started when everyone smoked. It was a common part of society and I'm pretty sure today that younger people dont realize that ashtrays used to be decorator items part of home and office decor and they were commonly given as wedding gifts. And of course, you remember the cigarette commercials. So do I, barely.

How many people here can remember being on airlines when smoking was still allowed?
Click to expand...

I do and I am just in my mid 30s.

To echo some of what you are saying.. Even Generation X and Y grew up around smoking. It wasn't banned by Uncle Sam in a federal work place until 1997, FAA/Airlines didn't ban completely until 1998 (short flights 2 hours or less was banned in 1988, 1989 6 hour flights or shorter), States didn't start getting gung ho about banning it until the late 90's and 2000's (California being the first in 1995), Ads started getting banned in 1997, and Cities then got involved. This idea of smoking being massively bad for you and being "banned" out of existence is fairly new. Some States have no ban still, some states ban smoking places but not some places.

But now for the irony.. we fund a children's healthcare program (CHIP/SCHIP) through tobacco taxes. So Uncle Sam needs smokers to pay for it, if smoking declined that program would have no funding.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom