Smoking rate for U.S. adults drops to record low...

[FA_Q2]

Fast food probably kills more Americans than smoking now. Fat people drive up health care costs enormously. Where's the outrage?

Where it should be - non-existent because it is no ones business what you do with your body. I think you understand that though - most here do not.

Of course, the libs here disagree with that - the government should be all over your body in almost every situation unless there is an innocent involved....

 

[FA_Q2]

Marty, please, pay attention. We are talking about second hand smoke.

Iceweasel, yes, the fatties are a real health problem, and there should be outrage.

Only if you detest freedom and rights. Then again....

 

[FA_Q2]

Fast food probably kills more Americans than smoking now. Fat people drive up health care costs enormously. Where's the outrage?

I'm outraged that you have the nerve to bring it up. Whenever Michelle Obama brings it up, it's the right that becomes outraged that she did. I'm afraid you're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

However, the key difference is that MO is directly talking about government intervening. It is not the problem that the right is outraged at - it is the pretentious government thinking that 'fixing' people's poor decisions is more important than freedom. And they are correct.

 

[Mr. H.]

I've done a myriad of drugs in my career booze, weed, hash, hash oil, coke, meth, angel dust, acid, mushrooms...

And yet tobacco is the one and only truly addictive drug to have entered my system.

Go figger, bitches.

 

[Katzndogz]

The government didn't cause such a dramatic reduction in smoking. Tobacco is being replaced by something better.

Cigarette makers see the writing on the wall and making their own vaporizers.

 

[FA_Q2]

I'm throwing this out there because I have no answer, just going by what I have learned.

You cannot fail a drug test breathing in second hand marijuana smoke.

Knowing this, I question second hand cigarette smoke.

I have never smoked either and have stayed away from those that do either, so I am not real sure what the difference would be.

You can fail a drug test by inhaling 2nd hand marijuana smoke. That's the most common defense.

For me, the argument about 2nd hand smoke comes down to this question; Would I rather live in an authoritarian utopia with pure air, or would I rather live in a free world where I might have to tolerate a little smoke? I prefer the latter.

My main source of heating is wood. I've always had a wood stove. Not only that, but I run a dirty 2-stroke chainsaw to cut the wood. It's dirty. I get that. But that's outweighed by the positive ideal of being able to produce my own heat source.

I was told by a DOT physician that 2nd hand smoke would not create a positive test for marijuana, unless you are directly in front of the person exhaling and they were exhaling in to your mouth and even that is questionable.

And he was wrong. I don't actually think that is the whole situation though. Under what circumstances was this physician imparting this knowledge? Any teenager should be able to enlighten you on the process of 'hot boxing.' I know many people that were able to get high without doing any drugs at all (because they didn't have any) and simply getting high when their friends who had some pot were hot boxing. You certainly can get high from second hand smoke with pot. This is not applicable to all drugs though. I dont think you can get a contact high with meth or coke.

 

[OKTexas]

Fuck you fakey how about you provide a study done with the same scientific integrity that refutes it. No hurry I'll wait.

Typical far right boob remark by you. One, your long outdated report is of no worth. Two, we know the recent studies contract your silly point. Third, no one cares about silly libertarian principles. Health of all outweigh property rights of those who live in communal property.

Try reading this one fakey, I'm sure it won't change a damned thing, but it will prove that you prefer to ignore the facts and hold to your propagandist views.

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade Cato Institute

LOL...the Cato Institute.

So what you're saying is you got nothing to say about the information provided so you attack the source. Unlike you they didn't pull their facts out of thin air, you're as bad a fakey in denying reality.

I for one am not inclined to attack the messenger but the Cato Institute, really, information from the Cato Institute about tobacco - really?

Are you aware that the Cato Institute is not a science institute but-----but receives a large part of their funding from the Tobacco Industry to write political papers/articles about secondhand smoke.
Do you think their junk science might be skewed in favor of their patrons?

Coordinating with some of the most lucrative tobacco companies to limit government regulation of tobacco products and advertising in the United States since the early 1990s, the Cato Institute continues to work directly and indirectly2,3 with the tobacco industry to prevent smokefree policies that protect public health.

Big Tobacco has a vested interest in the Cato Institute. The money trails say it all.
● The Cato Institute received a $10,000 “philanthropic contribution” from Philip Morris in 1991.
...the Cato Institute received funding from both R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Altria, the parent company of Philip Morris. . . .

Corporate sponsors
In 2006 Cato raised approximately $612,000 from the following 26 corporate supporters:
* Altria (the report identifies Altria Corporate Services as the contributor)
* American Petroleum Institute . . .
* Ebay Inc
* ExxonMobil . . .
* R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
* TimeWarner
* Toyota Motor Corporation
* UST Inc
* Verizon Communications
* Visa USA Inc
* Volkswagen of America
* Wal-Mart Stores

Coordinating with some of the most lucrative tobacco companies to limit government regulation of tobacco products and advertising in the United States since the early 1990s, the Cato Institute continues to work directly and indirectly2,3 with the tobacco industry to prevent smokefree policies that protect public health.

http://archive.tobacco.org/articles/category/lobbying/?starting_at=525
.

What you seem to be forgetting is the source of their information, they didn't just make it up, did you bother to actually read the article?

From the link:

Are those the views of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hardly. They are the sober conclusions of a gutsy federal district court judge in North Carolina named William Osteen, whose recent ruling invalidated the very foundation of the EPA report. Judge Osteen’s views coincide with a Congressional Research Service analysis released in late 1995 that had serious reservations about the EPA report.

 

[Politico]

I found the advice helpful because an "addiction" is something that controls you, whereas a "habit" is just a pattern you can continue or break. Or to look at it upside down, "addiction" offers an excuse, "habit" doesn't.

Any kind of pattern-break I find is easier when done in bulk -- change the furniture around, paint the room, get up at a different time of day, take a different route. The new patterns reinforce each other.

Former smoker. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances out there. More so than cocaine.
And unfortunately, some people have more addictive personalities than others.

I mean when you have lung disease and are still smoking, you are serving an addiction. Not a habit.

Then how is it that I can smoke a Cigar only 2-3 times a year if it is so addictive?

Because it is a habit. And if you look at the usual advice given including here it is about changing habits and patterns.

 

[TooTall]

.
Smoking rate for U.S. adults drops to record low...

Cigarette smoking among U.S. adults last year touched its lowest on record, a drop spurred by higher prices, smoke-free policies and anti-smoking campaigns, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said on Wednesday.

About 17.8 percent of American adults smoked cigarettes in 2013, down from 20.9 percent in 2005 and 42.4 percent in 1965, when the U.S. government began keeping records on smoking, the federal health agency said.

<snip>

The U.S. Midwest has the highest adult cigarette smoking rate, and the West has the lowest, according to the study.

Lesbians, gays and bisexual adults smoke about 50 percent more cigarettes than heterosexual people, the CDC said.

<snip>

States With Smoking Bans Tend to Have Lower Smoking Rates

​

The life expectancy for a smoker in the United States is about 64, which is 14 years shorter than the national average (which includes smokers), according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Going by these numbers it becomes clear that few pastimes, habits or addictions are deadlier than smoking. Only Russian roulette and scorpion juggling come to mind.

Much more than cancer

Part of the problem of the misconception of real risks is the emphasis on smoking and lung cancer. The greater danger is from vascular diseases leading to heart attacks and stroke, which kill more smokers than all cancers combined. Toxins in the tobacco smoke cause inflammation and hardening in the arteries.
Nearly as common as lung cancer among smokers is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which entails the narrowing of airways in the lung, largely in the form of chronic bronchitis or emphysema. Bronchitis is a result of smoking-induced inflammation; emphysema stems from cigarette smoking hardening the alveoli, the little sacks in the lungs where oxygen meets blood.

If painful death as a middle-age adult doesn't move you, consider life-quality issues. Smokers get sick more often because smoke paralyzes tiny hair-like structures in the lungs called cilia, which otherwise sweep dirt and bacteria out of your lungs. Smokers have less endurance, particularly sexual endurance, because carbon monoxide replaces oxygen in the blood.

Yet the core argument of ardent smokers remains firm: Smoking doesn't kill everyone. About 50 percent of smokers do reach old age, albeit with diminished taste buds, diminished endurance, diminished eyesight, yellow teeth and bad breath.

As with Obamacare, rightwing/Republicans will say passing regulations/laws that "force" people to live longer, healthier, more productive lives is... is a bad thing? And-----and they'll say they should have the right to become a burden on society, their families, loved oines and-----and to commit suicide by cigarette.
.

I don't smoke, but it is legal to commit suicide in Oregon, so what is the problem? Do people still smoke Marijuana? If so, are they counted in this poll as smokers?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Poor Government losing more revenue, where will they find more for more growth?

 

[martybegan]

Healthcare for those HIV positive is higher.

Are you still paying US income or SSI taxes? Is your healthcare from America?

I'm an American citizen and I have a right to comment on anything and everything to do with American life.

Never said you didn't, did I? Are you paying taxes or is your healthcare from America?

I'm an American citizen and I have a right to comment on anything and everything to do with American life. There are literally millions of Americans living and working outside the States; in no way does that mean they cannot comment on and have opinions on, and vote on anything and everything having to do with America.

I was born, raised, lived in and worked in the US for over 50 years. How long have you lived there? You have no business and no right to question anyone's American citizenship and rights or to pry into their personal business.

Again, I never said that you didn't have a right to comment, I never questioned you or anyone else's citizenship, you are setting up a smokescreen and a poor one at that.

If you have any evidence that I called out your right to an opinion or citizenship post it or I caught you in a lie.

I never questioned you citizenship, did I?, I know why you won't answer my question and pretending to be all hurt over it and lashing out emotionally at me, you don't pay taxes or healthcare here and even though you have an entitled opinion, the fact that you tried to include yourself as those paying for the smokers in the Southeast is a lie.

My son lives in Europe and works all over the world. Even if you don't have citizenship or live here, you are free to comment and I have no issue. I will continue to call you out on bullshit and lies. Which I caught twice in this thread.

I am not bsing about anything. And you have no right whatsoever to question someone on their personal business or status, or to make assumptions thereof. You've no idea what my personal situation is, and you are making assumptions about it. Shame on you. And you are a sexist. I didn't get emotional, but it's the kind of accusation sexist men level at women to try to win an argument. Basically, you seem to be not much more than a worthless asshole.

He has just as much right to ask you as you have to either answer or tell him to piss off. Also, bringing up the "sexist" thing? What sexism? Poor form in my opinion.

Also, your butthurt is delicious.

 

[martybegan]

I found the advice helpful because an "addiction" is something that controls you, whereas a "habit" is just a pattern you can continue or break. Or to look at it upside down, "addiction" offers an excuse, "habit" doesn't.

Any kind of pattern-break I find is easier when done in bulk -- change the furniture around, paint the room, get up at a different time of day, take a different route. The new patterns reinforce each other.

Former smoker. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances out there. More so than cocaine.
And unfortunately, some people have more addictive personalities than others.

I mean when you have lung disease and are still smoking, you are serving an addiction. Not a habit.

Then how is it that I can smoke a Cigar only 2-3 times a year if it is so addictive?

Because it is a habit. And if you look at the usual advice given including here it is about changing habits and patterns.

Then what about the claim that nicotine is far more addictive than cocaine? Hell in my case World of Warcraft was more addictive than anything (2.5 years clean now).

 

[rightwinger]

Fast food probably kills more Americans than smoking now. Fat people drive up health care costs enormously. Where's the outrage?

Where it should be - non-existent because it is no ones business what you do with your body. I think you understand that though - most here do not.

Of course, the libs here disagree with that - the government should be all over your body in almost every situation unless there is an innocent involved....

There is no government regulation that you can't smoke. You are free to kill yourself, you are just not free to take others with you

 

[rightwinger]

The government didn't cause such a dramatic reduction in smoking. Tobacco is being replaced by something better.

Cigarette makers see the writing on the wall and making their own vaporizers.

How government impacted smoking
Public warnings
Taxes on cigarettes
Restrictions on smoking at work
Restrictions on smoking in public places

You don't see many people chain smoking or smoking three packs a day anymore

 

[Politico]

Then what about the claim that nicotine is far more addictive than cocaine? Hell in my case World of Warcraft was more addictive than anything (2.5 years clean now).

It is a claim.

 

[SwimExpert]

The government didn't cause such a dramatic reduction in smoking. Tobacco is being replaced by something better.

Cigarette makers see the writing on the wall and making their own vaporizers.

How government impacted smoking
Public warnings
Taxes on cigarettes
Restrictions on smoking at work
Restrictions on smoking in public places

You don't see many people chain smoking or smoking three packs a day anymore

That's a pretty far fetched theory. First of all, taxes on cigarettes do not deter smoking. And nobody in the government expects it in the first place. It's merely a relatively easy way to cast out the next for more tax money. The typical results are for the same people to continue smoking, with the added taxes being spread out across the manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. At most, higher prices due to taxation may cause people to slightly reduce their consumption, which leads manufacturers and retailers to adjust their prices in an attempt to maximize revenues. But people continue to smoke, and they continue to smoke at very nearly the same rate.

Also, public health warnings have no demonstrable effect on smoking. Do you really think that anyone smoking does not know that there are substantial health risks? Do you think people who begin smoking for the first time don't know the risks?

Next, restrictions on smoking in public places is an effect, not a cause. They come about when the public supports such measures, which only happens in locales where the public is especially adverse to cigarette smoking already, or at least strongly supports specific limitations. There are many people nowadays who smoke, but who do not allow smoking inside their own homes, and who similarly support smoking bans in public buildings.

 

[rightwinger]

The government didn't cause such a dramatic reduction in smoking. Tobacco is being replaced by something better.

Cigarette makers see the writing on the wall and making their own vaporizers.

How government impacted smoking
Public warnings
Taxes on cigarettes
Restrictions on smoking at work
Restrictions on smoking in public places

You don't see many people chain smoking or smoking three packs a day anymore

That's a pretty far fetched theory. First of all, taxes on cigarettes do not deter smoking. And nobody in the government expects it in the first place. It's merely a relatively easy way to cast out the next for more tax money. The typical results are for the same people to continue smoking, with the added taxes being spread out across the manufacturers, retailers, and consumers. At most, higher prices due to taxation may cause people to slightly reduce their consumption, which leads manufacturers and retailers to adjust their prices in an attempt to maximize revenues. But people continue to smoke, and they continue to smoke at very nearly the same rate.

Also, public health warnings have no demonstrable effect on smoking. Do you really think that anyone smoking does not know that there are substantial health risks? Do you think people who begin smoking for the first time don't know the risks?

Next, restrictions on smoking in public places is an effect, not a cause. They come about when the public supports such measures, which only happens in locales where the public is especially adverse to cigarette smoking already, or at least strongly supports specific limitations. There are many people nowadays who smoke, but who do not allow smoking inside their own homes, and who similarly support smoking bans in public buildings.

Paying $7.50 a pack vs 25 cents did affect the number of packs a day people smoked
So did restrictions of where you could smoke. You could no longer smoke anytime, anywhere you want. You have to physically remove yourself from other people and sulk off somewhere
In the end, smoking is no longer cool

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Smoking nicotine products suppresses appetite aiding in weight loss.

Muahhahaha! So much for lowering the rate.

 

[SwimExpert]

Paying $7.50 a pack vs 25 cents did affect the number of packs a day people smoked

Are you trying to say before taxes the price of cigarettes is 25c a pack? Come on, you're comparing hard prices across variant times. As always, prices come down to supply and demand. In the end, raising cigarette taxes by $1 a pack usually leads to roughly a 50c increase on the total price, which consumers may grumble and complain about, but it doesn't actually inhibit their spending behaviors. At most, taxation has simply changed how and where people buy their cigarettes, not their volume. Online discount bulk purchases are more popular than ever. The underground black market is stronger than ever. Corporate convenience stores like WaWa have become target purchasing locations for many people, while grocery stores and Walmarts have seen their cigarette sales take a nose dive, because they tend to sell at much higher prices.

So did restrictions of where you could smoke. You could no longer smoke anytime, anywhere you want. You have to physically remove yourself from other people and sulk off somewhere.

So, you have to go outside. Big deal. To call it "sulking" is ridiculous and nothing more than wishful thinking. It's also very odd that you apparently enjoy shaming people for what they do with their own bodies. Smoking is a powerful addiction, is it not? You really think it makes any sense to suggest that having to step outside is any kind of deterrent? Especially when, as I mentioned earlier by you are apparently ignoring, the most common preference among smokers nowadays is to avoid indoor smoking.

Do you know what happens when me and my friends are out having drinks and one of my smoking friends wants to smoke? It's pretty much like this -

Nate: I'm going to go smoke.
Rusty: Sounds like a good idea, I'll come with you.
Me: Guess I'll go with you guys and continue the conversation.
Brittney: (To Nate) Babe I want to come with you.
Shannon: Eww gross. Fine, I'll just stay here by myself. (Notices that the creepy guy across the bar is eyeballing her large boobs again.) On second thought, I'll come out with you guys.

Nobody is smoking less because they have to go outside.

In the end, smoking is no longer cool

You're right. But that's not an effect, it's the cause. That's why smoking is down, that's why smoking bans are more and more common. The reduction of smoking is not because of government dissuasion.

 

[Pogo]

Pretty ironic. You people only want the government and 'control freaks' to stay out of your lives regarding certain behavior and choices you are in favor of. When it comes to something you don't approve of, it is a completely different story.

No I want them out of everything.

So there should be no laws against, say, murder? Assault? Robbery?

How after all is inflicting tobacco smoke on someone who doesn't choose to ingest it --- not assault?