|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 2:37:30 PM |
Not bullshit.
Read up on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and who funds them. They are just one.
"Big Medicine" estimate they have a potential 6 million person market for their smoking cessation products. 6 million. And the only way to drive those 6 million to their products is government intervention in the form of bans, higher taxes and general harassment of smokers, anything to force smokers to quit. And they are dumping millions into politicians coffers to achieve their goal. And that doesn't take into account groups like the American Lung Association, MPAAT/Clearway and others spending tobacco lawsuit settlement money on ban efforts, which btw is against the terms of the settlements.
The one thing I find funny is the anti-smoking Nazi's raised holy hell when one of the tobacco companies started flavoring their cigarettes in an attempt to boost sales. Go to the Nicorette website and you'll find a glaring advertisement for Nicorette Cinnamon Surge gum. They are even offering "Quit Rewards", coupons, gift cards, Ipods, digital cameras and DVD players based on how many pieces of their product you use, 750 pieces earn the Ipods, digital cameras and DVD players. Again, a marketing method they slammed the tobacco industry for using (ie: Marlboro Miles). It doesn't look like their product is too effective if your still smoking after chewing 750 pieces of their gum. My guess is it's not suppose to be.
BTW, 750 pieces of 4mg Nicorette at 55.99 per box of 100 (you would need 8 boxes to get the 750 pieces) comes to $447.92 plus tax at a nationwide discount pharmacy. I'll let you figure out what $447.95 x 6,000,000 comes out to.
It has nothing to do with health. It's all about money and control.
Yes , it is about money and government control. Billions in tax revenue.Government control , and big pharma gets big bucks from a steady market of smoking cessation products.
Tobacco companies still have a very nice steady profit and secure market .They aren't too worried .
Also , smoking is a scape goat for cancer and other serious illness .
It's easy , just blame smoking for all of our ills.
Takes the heat off big pharma and the medical complex for what they are doing with their big fat profit$ to find cures.
But , most annoyingly , it gives those pesky "do-gooders" a reason to try to micro-manage society...and a reason to feel "special"
I would think that energies would be better spent doing some actual good.
| |
|
WNYman
|
Joined: 8/2/2006
Msg: 103 | |
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 2:46:26 PM |
"Also, drinkers are much more likely to smoke as well"
ummmm ok... so why the ban on smoke in bars then?
NY banned smoking in bars and restaurants.....geez, must be 5 years at least now.
Why in bars ? Who knows. I personally know 2 small bar owners that were put out of business because of it. The giant clubs can make it through, but the corner bars and taverns are a different story. There's one nearby that allows people to smoke inside, and if someone comes in to check it out and a smoker gets fined, the bar will pay the fine for them. It honestly has to be killing small businesses off quite well if they are willing to do that.
There's no way the government wants people to stop smoking cigarettes. There is too much money coming in from taxing cigarettes. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 5:51:05 PM | This information I posted on another thread.
Alberta forum, Alberta going smoke free.
That Thread has been deleted. HMMM
1-
$890,000,000 in tobacco taxes (Ref B-2)
$471,000,000 spent per year on smoking related illnesses (Ref-C)
So that leaves $419,000,000 In general revenue.
2-
There are 658,070 smokers in Alberta. 3,290,350 x 20%. (1 in 5) (Ref-C)
$1,107,860,845 Tax @ 18.5 pes cig. (Ref B-1) 658,070-Smokers, smoking 1 pack of smokes a day 364 days.
$471,000,000 spent per year on smoking related illnesses
So that leaves $636,860,845 In general revenue.
REF:
A)
During the 2001 to 2006 period, Alberta's population passed the 3 million mark and 3,290,350 persons were enumerated on May 16, 2006
2006 Census. Stats Can
B)
1-Alberta tobacco tax is applied to all tobacco products: cigarettes, tobacco sticks, cigars, cigarillos, pipe, water pipe, raw leaf and loose tobacco, snuff and chewing tobacco purchased in Alberta. Most of the tax is collected from sales of cigarettes taxed at 18.5 cents per cigarette, effective 12:01 a.m. April 20, 2007.
2-The 2007-08 tobacco tax revenue is expected to be $890 million. This revenue goes into general revenues to help pay for all provincial services including healthcare.
finance.alberta.ca/publications/tax_rebates/tobacco/overview.html
C)
Alberta Gov’t
2-They also mentioned that 1 in 5 Albertans is a smoker. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 6:23:22 PM | see ... stress kills too. the stress of listening to angry people is truly disturbing, so much so that it's rubbing off on me - not a good thing.
The truth is, (my truth) the government still sells the crap. It sold it to me and continues to do so; to top it all off, it has begun a steady hate-mongering campaign that is surprisingly accepted in a world that is supposed to be civil, and yet it won't stop cashing in. hypocrits? or just clever manipulators of a society they BANK ON being sheep?
How much does the government really care about YOUR health? Why haven't they stopped selling tobacco? I see it this way: Make it illegal, and then come and find me wherever I've moved to, to spew forth ill-focused hatred ... certainly I will exercise my freedom of choice by moving to a place that suits both myself and any undesirable habits I may have, or will have acquired by then. and trust me .. North America is happily not the only country in the world - I would like to believe we all have choices left. Manifest Destiny is, in my opinion, a crock, for all those who may think it's happening.
The moment the government is handed this kind of power on a silver platter, and they enter my living space to dictate that I cannot smoke in it, while they continue to SELL it, is the minute that I will take the most pleasure from removing myself and taking my horrible smoking ass somewhere else. then I will sit back and laugh as they proceed to ban your bbq's. Hell, even if I quit I'm outta here. Never know what they'll be coming up with next.
ah .. that felt good. what a spew. thanks for listening.
afterword: and no, I don't smoke at bus stops but I have to inhale the crap coming out of the idling cars every time the light turns red. I don't smoke around people who I know don't like it, and if I was asked to move away I would. I don't need a LAW to tell me to do this. It's called courtesy. and could people PLEASE sneeze into their elbows next time they find themselves an inch away from someone on public transport???? (oops wrong issue - but it could kill you too, you know) | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 7:51:41 PM | OK, I'm a resident of Texas, so I don't assume to know anything about Canada.
The truth is, (my truth) the government still sells the crap. It sold it to me and continues to do so
Is this poster referring to ideological "crap" "sold" by the Canadian government, or am I to take her statement(s) literally? Are tobacco sales effected through some state entity?
Or is she "blowing smoke" in the sense that tobacco is really sold just as it is here in the U.S., through private retailers?
Sorry if this is a dumb question. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 8:16:07 PM | | thank you wokerdummy and cedar77 for answering many of the questions I was just getting ready to ask (myself) I thought since tobacco was gov't taxed then WHY on earth would 'they' try to slow it down, you answer my inquiry quite thoroughly! | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 9:03:01 PM | Texas .. no need to apologise for any questions, as this poster is guilty of blowing smoke, on occassion. Thank you for prompting a clarification:
... the government still allows the crap to be sold (so how can they entertain the notion that it would be okay to pass a law banning it in someone's personal abode?) ...
| |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 10:06:06 PM | and then let's proceed to set shady precedents by passing other laws which will allow us to enter anyone's home to check if they are using it"
Heck, "they" don't even need to "enter my home"; all that would be needed would be to enter my back yard to see that I grow everything from Echinacea to Digitalis (foxglove). Not to mention my "Heavenly Blue" morning glories, whose seeds are known to be hallucinogenic.
Many years ago, Louise, a high school partner of mine, submitted a proposal for a science class project. I grew up in Washington, D.C., so the idea of small-cropping tobacco wasn't an outrageous proposal, considering the histories of Virginia and Maryland.
It helped that her family were established as tobacco farmers and already possessed tractors and drying barns.
Nevertheless, her crop was ripped-off from the drying shed. Such was the value of even raw tobacco 30 years ago! Today in Texas the equivalent would be "cattle rustling".
It would be interesting to compare the damage to human health due to traditional intoxicants versus "modern" dietary choices. Who dies first? The fatties or the smokers? Is there a compound effect? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 11:12:55 PM | Well, when comparing statistics, it looks like the smokers arent the epidemic health scourge we are led to believe they are. Twinkie eaters win that award:
Tobacco-Related Monetary Costs in the USA as of 2002, , according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.
Healthcare Costs. Total annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking: $75+ billion
- Annual Federal and state government smoking-caused Medicaid payments: $23.5 billion
[Federal share: $13.4 billion per year. States share: $10.1 billion]
- Federal government smoking-caused Medicare expenditures each year: $20+ billion
- Other federal government tobacco-caused healthcare costs (e.g. through VA health care): $8 billion
~TOTAL: $126.5 billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Health care cost of diabetes in the United States, 2002, according to the American Diabetes Association
~Direct medical costs: $92 billion
~Indirect costs: $40 billion (disability, work loss, premature mortality)
~TOTAL : $132 billion
If cigarettes costs $40 a carton, likewise a box of Twinkies should cost the same. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/28/2007 11:16:22 PM |
It would be interesting to compare the damage to human health due to traditional intoxicants versus "modern" dietary choices. Who dies first? The fatties or the smokers? Is there a compound effect?
Oh hell yes their's a compound effect. Heart disease is encouraged by both obesity and smoking.
Anyway nobody has yet explained why if this is all a money grab for the government, why the government is putting so much effort into reducing smoking, and prevention. Smoking rates are down significantly in Alberta after all.
If it's because of Big Pharma, then why the investment in prevention by the federal and provincial governments? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 11/29/2007 7:45:49 PM |
If it's because of Big Pharma, then why the investment in prevention by the federal and provincial governments? Not many drugs for emphysema, or lung cancer.
However, there are plenty of drugs for allergies and asthma, which are markedly affected by industrial pollution. Wonder why governments aren't advertising that they are investing in protection against industries that pollute, and encouraging the people to stop buying from companies that pollute?
Also, there are plenty of drugs and surgical techniques to help against obesity. If the government really wanted to stop obesity, why don't they just order the dismantling of MacDonalds? It's practically a monopoly, and aren't governments supposed to dismantle monopolies?
Also, there are plenty of drugs being fed to depressed and mentally ill people. Yet there is a lot of evidence to support that basic fish oils markedly improve the mental well-being of such people. Why aren't the governments requiring that all depressed and mentally ill people who are given a regimen of drugs, who usually require at least 2 pills a day, and in some cases 6 or 7 pills a day, all for free, are given a dose of basic fish oils in addition. The evidence seems to imply that such fish oils could eliminate the need for drugs at all in many cases, and in others could markedly reduce the dosage?
Also, a lot of evidence indicates that the families of the mentally ill are quite often the primary caregivers of such people, but are very frequently the primary instigators and enablers of such issues. Given that such people very rarely receive even a 1-day training course on how to deal with their mentally ill close family relatives, which would help them tremendously, and could lead to the illness disappearing completely over time, why don't governments run a simple 1-day training course for such people, or even evening classes?
Maybe it's easier to give them these drugs, because the main effects of these drugs are sedative in nature, and that the politicians and doctors who endorse them get huge benefits from the drug companies for promoting their drugs?
Could it be that if they cured such people, then their "cash cows" would cease? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/1/2007 11:42:10 AM | However, there are plenty of drugs for allergies and asthma, which are markedly affected by industrial pollution. Wonder why governments aren't advertising that they are investing in protection against industries that pollute, and encouraging the people to stop buying from companies that pollute?
Excellent point. Ive noticed that a large percentage of rabid anti-smokers are NOT exposed to 2nd hand smoke...they just dont like the faint smell of ANY tobacco smoke. Still, others profess a tobacco smoke "allergy". If they smell tobacco smoke on YOUR clothing in their presence, they have a "reaction". Hence the paranoia and ensuing crusade.
This all seems to be policy created to appease annoyingly selfish human beings who cant cope in the real world. If just the scent of cigarette smoke moves them to such drastic measures, perhaps they need not even be exposed to society at all. If this scent disables them, other scents will surely do the same. As absurd as it is to ban all scents, the practical solution is they should seek treatment, the same as someone with severe allergies must do in order to cope with everyday life in the real world.
Using this their logic, I should demand that the dogwood tree outside my workplace be banned and destroyed, due to "allergies". | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/1/2007 12:03:44 PM | As a number of you have mentioned, this is hypocrisy, but without diving head-long into conspiracy theory, two facts exist - at least in the US:
1. The Federal Government still subsidizes tobacco farmers like every other form of agriculture
2. Yes, obesity is a far greater health threat, BUT, they're untoucable! They are protected under the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act! And, due to this...yep! One can claim benefits from said govt. entity for this "disability." In short, the government will give someone money to continue eating and growing fatter and fatter.
Due to #2, smokers get targeted because they're "low hanging fruit." As far as revenues, you bet they're a lucrative target. These are traditionally called "sin taxes" and are levied on items like tobacco products and liquor. Invariably, the smoker ends up supporting the efforts to make them quit, etc., while contributing financially to the "greater whole" as well.
And, no, I don't smoke. It simply angers me that we can have such hypocrisy. | |
|
| |
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/1/2007 12:28:05 PM | | Smoke is getting in your condo from someone thats in your building???LMAO What kind of cheap ass shack do you live in?? I am involved in Condo and apartment construction and they all have to be fire caulked and insulated to avoid any smoke or fire traveling to an adjacent apartment. Even the wood floors have a layer of concrete to deaden noise, and there is a full inch of sheetrock, and airspace and insulation between units. If you are smelling someones smoke, or anything I would **** to the owner or builder because as soon as the other unit catches on fire, you will be too. If you can smell smoke from someone 2 floors above you, you have got problems. In this case, you smell cigarettes, someone has to smell you when you take a crap....go outside . | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/1/2007 4:28:37 PM |
Smoking rates are down significantly in Alberta after all
You talking percentage? Yes the percetage has been dropping by1 to 2 % per year.
I think it was about 25% in 2002 Now it is about 20%. You forget our population has increased. So from around 5oo odd thounsand in 2002. it is 658070 now.
Yes the rate dropped, but the smokers increased.
Ref from statscan & alberta gov'ts | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/1/2007 5:19:14 PM | /\/\/\ But the 2 of us posters dont smoke cigarettes. Perhaps we come by our opinions from an unbiased perspective, unlike anti smoking crusaders. We have no agenda to support and realise that certain behaviours are learned, such as rabidly reacting to a faint smell of tobacco smoke in a condo.
I can smell when my neighbour who lives about 40 metres away fries pork. I can also faintly smell their septic system aroma from their leach bed. I certainly dont become para-militaristic, nor proceed to browbeat them as some sort of pariah. Its part of everyday living on this planet that I share with 6 billion others. I have no right to control them, directly nor indirectly. Nor do I expect the real world to placate me.
| |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/1/2007 9:02:57 PM | I not for the smoking ban at all. I'm not a smoker ,I never have never would. But the smoking ban is going to far. As a business owner my rights are being taken away. It's my right to tell the smokers Put It Out or Get Out! So just one more of our rights is gone with the wind. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/2/2007 1:58:56 AM | Wanna sniff some crack??
Let me drop my pants.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/2/2007 2:22:14 AM |
But the 2 of us posters dont smoke cigarettes. Perhaps we come by our opinions from an unbiased perspective, unlike anti smoking crusaders. We have no agenda to support and realise that certain behaviours are learned, such as rabidly reacting to a faint smell of tobacco smoke in a condo.
Why are you any less biased than me? I'm not a smoker either. I've never been a smoker.
I hate the smell of smoke, but I certainly make no claims to allergies. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/2/2007 5:02:32 AM | >>>Why are you any less biased than me?
There are people who smoke and fight against smoking legitlation to have their stance enforced- there are people who do not smoke and fight for smoking legislation to have their stance enforced- this user is saying they do not smoke, but have a live and let live policy and see nothing wrong if a grown adult chooses to smoke. The first two have agendas(to make the world better for themselves, and damn all others), the last does not. Thats why they are less biased. | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/2/2007 9:20:45 AM |
Why are you any less biased than me? I'm not a smoker either. I've never been a smoker.
Because you posted this(post #117):
Heh I love how smokers seem to all be conspiracy theorists, but ignore the proven activities of the tobacco companies
...in response to the previous post #116:
And, no, I don't smoke. It simply angers me that we can have such hypocrisy.
His last line stated that he was not a smoker, but maybe you didnt get past the "conspiracy theory" part of his post.
We see this all the time - if you support smokers rights, you are automatically branded a filthy smoker by anti smoker. This is a perfect example, even though clarification was provided prior. It is a knee jerk stereotype, no better than classifying those who look ethnic. I am victim to this all the time, so I am a bit sensitive to it, no matter which mask it wears.
I hate the smell of smoke, but I certainly make no claims to allergies.
This is exactly what drives the anti smoking crusade, and fuels the debate of this very thread. It is merely a selfish agenda. The reason tobacco continues to take front & center stage is because of anti smokers jumping on the bandwagon & keeping it in the forefront in order to further their self interest of the fact they basically dont like the smell of tobacco smoke. Period. It has nothing to do with anybody else's health or well being...only their own agenda. They use the tobacco health issue as a hijacked vehicle to impose their intolerance on others.
| |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/3/2007 12:52:20 PM | Also, drinkers are much more likely to smoke as well.
Based on this statement
The ban smoking in public places. (Health reasons)
Non and ex-smokers wanting to breath clean air.
So if a bar want to be smoking. (That should be a freedom of choice)
Why do non and ex-smokers want to deprive a smoker to be able to go into a bar that is smoking.
If the bar say it is smoking, Then the non and ex-smokers have the choice of not going into that bar. Makes sence to me, it is your choice.
Besides the new laws and health reasons. Is there any other reason that that you can think of, why this bar can not be a smoking bar? | |
|
| Smoke-free crusaders may now be at your door
Posted: 12/3/2007 1:57:53 PM | I would have thought it would have made a hell of lot more sense for campaigners to wage war on the USA's huge problem with obesity and pollution from cars instead of trying to ban people from smoking in their own homes!
So you can be hugely overweight and pollute the air with fumes from your 5 litre car but God forbid you should light up a cigarette within 100 feet of a non-smoker huh?
Ridiculous and just shows how wrong some people's priorities really are. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
