Smoking

SB..You can bet the tobacco lobbyist are in the pockets of the politicians on the e-smokes. In fact all of those things you mentioned have lobbyist and/or large corporations behind them to induce the population from doing or not doing something or ignoring things that should be legislated. Can you say kick backs and campaign funds. Hell, with the SuperPacs now, they don't even have to have under the table kick backs anymore, they can just spend the donations how ever they want, no strings attached apparently.
 

Katybug said:
Now, how in the world are they going to enforce that??!!!
Click to expand...

Corrupt-Cop.jpg
 
Wow ... sending cigarettes to guys in hospitals ... those were definitely different days.

I've never regretted wrapping my lips around a Camel. :eek:

How mild, how mild, how mild can a coffin-nail be ...

C'mon, kids - follow the bouncing cancer cell!
 
I remember where and when I quit - on a trail up in Yosemite - the Summer of 1969. I had just turned 19 - at each switchback on the trail I had to stop and have a smoke. It was pretty obvious I was going to have to give up smoking or hiking. I don't regret my choice!
 
UK is conducting trials into e-cigarettes, in case they are harmful.
they are banned in some places, because people can't tell the difference, allegedly...(you would have thought that the smell would give the real cigarette away!)
E-cigarettes are not available on the NHS, as there is no control over production, ingredients etc, although patches etc are.
who knows what next?!
 
Diwundrin said:
Exchange sucking in one set of dodgy chemicals for another, yeah sounds legit. E-cigs seem to be around to benefit the 'passive smoking obsessed' more than for the quitters.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I never see ads that mention quitting. I believe the law here that bans smoking in public places covers E cigs too. Smoking is smoking depending on what the definition of is is I guess.
 
My wife quit smoking in '99. She was still working but I had retired three years earlier. I'd wait until she went to work then Id light up outside. I didn't want to quit but didn't want to be the cause of her going back smoking. One Saturday I needed to go to the bank and to the library. I was standing at the teller window and had just made a deposit, when the teller asked if I needed anything else, but I couldn't speak. Pain began shooting down my left arm to my wrist, back up o my center chest and down and down to my right arm to my elbow. I finally said no, thank you and sat down in a nearby chair. I asked myself, "Is this a heart attack?' I got up and went to my car. The library was nearby and by then I was feeling better. I went in. I had volunteered at the friends of the Library for several years and knew everybody. When I got to the shelf I wanted to look, I could not read anything. A librarian I knew spoke to me, then stopped. She asked if I was alright, she asked if I needed an ambulance, said she thought she should call my wife. I left the library, fearing I might shortly become a public spectical, I drove home with much difficulty. My wife had been notified and had called my daughter, a nurse on the teaching staff of our largest hospital. I was having a heart attack. After being stabilized in the hospital, and a stint inserted, I had another heart attack. I quit smoking then and it was one of the hardest things I've ever done, maybe the hardest.
 
An unexpected result from the introduction of hideous cigarette packaging last year in OZ. It was supposed to deter new smokers by making it much harder for the tobacco merchandisers to appeal to them but the effect has been quite pronounced on existing smokers. There has been a sustained spike in the number of smokers wanting to quit, according to the Quitline.

It was said that the absence of branding would make no difference to people hooked on tobacco but it does seem to have strengthened the resolve of those considering giving it up. There are now more ex-smokers in Australia than there are smokers.
 
Not to mention the spike in the number of self righteous do gooders who get their kicks out of depriving people who don't have much else to enjoy in life from doing something they don't themselves care about because it isn't what they enjoy.

Warri I'm surprised that you would equate the number of calls to a result driven, venally interested, profit based organization with actual facts.

Many people give up because of health reasons as they age, they always have, or due to pressure from thoughtless families, or cave in to a societal fad or just plain can't afford it on a pension. I doubt it's the piccys on the packs that drive it. Nor do all who call Quitline use them to quit or even quit at all.

i've asked the proprieter of the store where I buy mine, whom I've achieved chatting acquaintance with, and his overall sales of cigarettes hasn't changed in years. Still orders the same amounts of the same brands he was 5 years ago.

When the price was due to go up last December the Government put a clamp on him ordering more than was usual so we smokers couldn't stock ulp in advance to avoid the new tax hike.
They got his normal supply order amounts from his tax records over the last 3 years. He actually showed me the letter he got. They didn't reduce his order which they would have had his sales dropped over that span. What's that tell you?

Don't just believe the 'good' news Polly.

It's fashionable to kick smokers these days, we are the new whipping boys. Seems people always need someone to feel superior to. Who's next? Booze seems to be drawing the Nannies' attention these days, hope no anti smokers enjoy a drink too much. I sure won't be carrying any protest banners for you when your turn comes.

Came across this long article on a blog site. It points out that attitudes to smokers often prevents them from seeking health care early or often enough as they fear being stigmatised and lectured for their weakness or IQ deficiency. Rings true. Happens all the time. If people are so concerned about our health then why this disparity in research funding? Do we only approve of 'goody' diseases? What about AIDS research funding? That's acquired virtuously but lung cancer isn't?

Do the anti-smoking lobby care about smokers' health or are just using that as the excuse for getting their jollys dragging down a big industry that they don't like for an ego 'win.'?

According to a recent article published by The Orange County Register, “In 2011, the two federal agencies providing most of the research money funded breast cancer research at a rate of $21,641 per death while spending $1,489 per lung cancer death.” The article further cites National Institutes of Health estimates concerning research grants for fiscal year 2012: NCI invested about $712 million on breast cancer versus about $221 million in research on lung cancer.
Click to expand...


I'll quote another interesting view on it, that smoker-ism has become the new racism. Think about it.

Another name for the “stigma of smoking” is smoker-ism. Racism denigrated many generations of American citizens who were from non-white minority groups. In today’s emerging post-racial era, it is judicious that we also contemplate how smoker-ism is damaging another class of citizens, censuring their lack of character for not beating the addiction or for succumbing to the habit during youth. By making individuals fully responsible for this malicious habit, we deny the tectonic political, social, and business forces that for more than a century combined influence to hook a nation on cigarettes.
Smoker-ism diminishes the potential for longer, healthier lives among current and former smokers, significantly represented by citizens over age 50. If the nation would have the collective resolve to spend more research dollars on the most pernicious metastatic disease of our time, and in proportion to the impact that disease has had on adult mortality, then many more lives could be spared and greater social justice would prevail for a maligned group.
Click to expand...

http://boomers.typepad.com/boomers/2012/12/smoker-ism-the-cancer-thats-killing-post-50-adults.html
 
Warri I'm surprised that you would equate the number of calls to a result driven, venally interested, profit based organization with actual facts.

Many people give up because of health reasons as they age, they always have, or due to pressure from thoughtless families, or cave in to a societal fad or just plain can't afford it on a pension. I doubt it's the piccys on the packs that drive it. Nor do all who call Quitline use them to quit or even quit at all.
Click to expand...
Agreed but the point being made was that the number of calsl to the number advertised on the new packs spiked once they came on sale and the spike has not fallen away since. Make of that fact what you will. It is surprising because it was thought that the new packes would not have any effect on current smokers but hopefully would deter new ones.

Many smokers want to quit as they grow older, for all sorts of reasons, health and cost being just two. It would seem that the packs are having an influence in bringing them to the point of decision. Of course not everyone who rings Quitline will follow through but the more people who make the move, the more people who will succeed and the public purse will benefit. The tax on cigarettes does not pay for all the health care that smokers consume over a lifetime.
 
But the TAXES they pay on cigarettes does cover it! That aspect is never mentioned by the Pollyanna Nannies. I haven't cost the taxpayers a dime for my smoking related ailments because I don't have any. But the taxpayers sure owe me a heap, I, and all smokers contribute to the revenue coffers big time.

Where do you draw the line at that attitude anyway? No treatment for AIDS sufferers, self inflicted? Or is that too unPC?
What about permanently disabled car drivers and bike riders that drain the health budget for near a lifetime? Only those not speeding or at fault entitled to live?
No treatment for diabetics because they didn't stick to the Nannies recommended nutrition regimen?? Hell, they don't even pay tax on sugar! How unfair to the taxpayer is that!??

I'm yet to see convincing figures that smokers are a lifetime drain on the health budget anyway. They don't seem to get sick any more often than anyone else that I can see. The spin put on blaming every sniffle on cigarettes has become, like other do gooding crusades, farcical.

My mother got a lecture from a Doctor about giving up smoking because she had pleurisy, she'd never smoked a cigarette in her life and it was even before I started and no one else in the house smoked either.

More recently she received a dressing down from an anti-smoking crusader nurse who informed her that her Osteoporis and wait for it... arthritis,... was caused by her smoking!. She still at the age of 88 hadn't smoked her first cigarette. If I'd had the time and energy I'd have hounded that nurse and demanded to see her qualifications and asked her what she thought had caused it among so many of Mum's relatives down through the generations when most of them had never smoked at all!

I have it now, at the same age it hit my non smoking mother, but much later than it affected her father, most of his sisters, some of their children and now grandchildren. Smoking isn't genetic. Neither apparently is common sense.
 
There is an entire family tree of righteous finger-pointers that is divided into several branches: the Race Baiters, The Smoking Demons, The Weed Slayers, The Demon Rum Crew - all are descended from common ancestors somewhere way back down the line.

I was just looking at some magazine ads ranging from the late 1880's until the 1970's, specifically the ones that targeted the then-current views of what a woman should be. Thus, you had Lysol being sold as a douche as well as facial clamps designed to eliminate those terrible lines.

The point is, within each of those ads was a not-so-subtle accusation along with a suggested cure, a technique that is being utilized today by these so-called crusaders.

Like Di, my personal habits have never cost the public a dime, so I don't feel I need to listen to them.
 
Diwundrin said:
But the TAXES they pay on cigarettes does cover it!
Click to expand...
For some individuals, maybe, but overall the government pays more than the taxes it raises.
Don't forget that the state governments don't get any of the excise on tobacco, just the GST and if smokers are not buying cigarettes, they will spend the money they save on something else.

A scholarly article here that covers the gamut of the costs.

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17-2-the-costs-of-smoking

For hospitalisation costs alone, these are the sort of results the studies show.

17.2.2.1 Smokers' health service utilisation and costs

Studies comparing actual health care utilisation rates (or health care costs) for smokers and non-smokers consistently report higher health service usage and costs for smokers. The following are examples of such studies.

  • English et al. compared the hospitalisation rates of smokers, former smokers and never smokers over the period 1978–94 in Busselton, Western Australia.[SUP]16[/SUP] Smokers' hospitalisation rates were 1.32 times higher than never smokers and their use of hospital bed-days was 1.4 times higher.

Former smokers' rates for hospitalisation and bed-days were 1.13 and 1.22 times higher than never-smokers, respectively. English and colleagues point out that these rates give estimates of the number of hospitalisations and bed-days in Australia attributable to smoking that are about 40% higher than estimates obtained using the aetiological fraction methodology normally used, and described in Section 17.1.4.1.

In other words, the health care costs attributed to smoking are usually underestimated. Hurley used the rates calculated by English et al. to estimate hospital costs attributable to smoking in 2004–05.[SUP]17[/SUP] She estimated that almost 300 000 hospitalisations and 1.47 million bed days costing $682 million could be attributed to smoking in Australia in 2001–02 alone.[SUP]17[/SUP]

Hurley noted that this estimate was still conservative; the actual costs would be even greater than $682 million because costs for those aged 80 years and over, and costs of pharmaceuticals provided from hospital, were not included. In comparison, Collins and Lapsley's estimate for the gross costs of hospitalisation attributable to smoking in 2004–05 was $669.6 million.[SUP]5
[/SUP]​

  • In the United States, Vogt and Schweitzer, surveyed about 2500 members of a health maintenance organisation between 1967 and 1974 and found that current smokers used 20% more hospital days than non-smokers.[SUP]18[/SUP] Bland et al. studied almost 8000 members of a Minnesota health plan in 1999 over 18 months.[SUP]19[/SUP] They found that medical costs were 16% higher for smokers than never smokers.

  • Hvidtfeldt et al. in Denmark studied hospital admission data over a 20-year period for approximately 12 000 people enrolled in the Copenhagen City Heart Study in 1981–83.[SUP]20[/SUP]


  • Smoking increased hospital admissions and the duration of hospitalisations for all diseases, not just smoking-related illnesses. For example, for men who smoked more than 20 gm of tobacco per day in 1981–83, the risk of an admission to hospital over the next 20 years for a smoking-related condition was 2.77 times that of a non-smoker, and the risk of admission for other conditions was 1.32 times higher than for non-smokers.


  • A 1995 study of 43 408 people living in rural Japan found that male smokers' medical costs were 11% higher than those of non-smokers over a 30-month period. Costs for female smokers were not higher.[SUP]21[/SUP]
Click to expand...

What we need now is a figure for the amount of excise and other taxes collected in the same years.
If you read right through to the end, there are some figures comparing costs vs excise and other taxes.
 
I will just say this i went through a 7 week course called "Smoke enders" which dealt with all the addictions and associations etc and on March 14th 2002 i quit never to smoke again after smoking 40 sometimes 50 a day, i was well and truly addicted i had tried giving up numerous times without success.
Smoke enders asked Little Johnny Howard the then PM for subsidy but they were knocked back.
I believe it is a money grab for them, they are not serious about stopping the people from smoking as they will then be out of pocket
 
Smokers' hospitalisation rates were 1.32 times higher than never smokers and their use of hospital bed-days was 1.4 times higher.
Click to expand...

Warri be kind to a numerical dyslexic and explain that '1.32 times higher' in terms of how many more out of 100 people are indicated here.
I keep getting confused by that 1. Does it mean point 32 time higher? Isn't 1 redundant? Isn't one smoker the same as 1 non smoker? Is it really 32% of 1% or how does that work? I can kind of get the 2.77 times as mean twice as many plus 77% of 1% but that doesn't seem right either. Just do one of those little cut out doll graphs they use to show .33 of a family etc as a set of legs and kid cutout or something.

... note I'm not kidding, I don't do numbers well at all, I was never wired for it. That's why I leave it to you ferret out the figures.

  • Smoking increased hospital admissions and the duration of hospitalisations for all diseases, not just smoking-related illnesses. For example, for men who smoked more than 20 gm of tobacco per day in 1981–83, the risk of an admission to hospital over the next 20 years for a smoking-related condition was 2.77 times that of a non-smoker, and the risk of admission for other conditions was 1.32 times higher than for non-smokers.
Click to expand...

There's that magic 1.32 times again. What's the risk rate for those fat and sugar tax evading diabetics being admitted "for other conditions," any figures on that?



Diwundrin wrote: Where do you draw the line at that attitude anyway? No treatment for AIDS sufferers, self inflicted? Or is that too unPC?
What about permanently disabled car drivers and bike riders that drain the health budget for near a lifetime? Only those not speeding or at fault entitled to live?
No treatment for diabetics because they didn't stick to the Nannies recommended nutrition regimen?? Hell, they don't even pay tax on sugar! How unfair to the taxpayer is that!??
Click to expand...

btw, any word come in yet as to the stance to be taken and buzz phrases to be used to toe the Pollyanna Party line on that attitude line drawing thing?

Yeah, yeah, I'm stooping to sarcasm already, I'm tired. I'm not defending smoking per se, I'm under no illusions that it's beneficial except to keep some of us sane through stressful times and seemed the better option than heroin or Wild Turkey.

I'm simply defending the right to be allowed to go to Hell in the manner of my choice without interference from people whipped to a fervor by bodgied figures, twisted terminology, scare campaign furfys and illusions of gaining heavenly brownie points for harrassing the fad pariahs of the moment.

It's the same tactics we've fallen for since gods were invented, divide and conquer. Them and us. Goodies and baddies. Believers and skeptics, smokers and non smokers. Everyone wants to clamber onto the heaven bound train... hallelujah.
Lies and creative figures are produced by both sides of this crusade just as they are by others. There's bucks in it for both sides.
Somewhere down the middle is the closest to the truth.

Another point while I think of it. They implore everyone to give up. They say that each year after you quit your risk of lung cancer reduces. My uncle died of lung cancer 54 years after he gave up smoking and took up driving us nuts as an anti smoking campaigner. What's the point of giving up, particularly late in life, if you're gonna die of something else before the full quitting benefits kick in anyway? 54 years seem a bit of a wait. Wasn't he supposed to live forever as a non-smoker?

... sorry sarcy again.
 
Just on the maths first - .32 times any number means it will become one third of its original value because you are multiplying by a number less than one, so it is correct to say 1.32 times a value, and it will then increase by one third of its value. i.e. 132% of the original value. I would take the research to say that the average numbers of days in hospital of the smokers in the study was 132% of the average number of days in hospital of the non smokers.
Diwundrin wrote: Where do you draw the line at that attitude anyway? No treatment for AIDS sufferers, self inflicted? Or is that too unPC?
What about permanently disabled car drivers and bike riders that drain the health budget for near a lifetime? Only those not speeding or at fault entitled to live?
No treatment for diabetics because they didn't stick to the Nannies recommended nutrition regimen?? Hell, they don't even pay tax on sugar! How unfair to the taxpayer is that!??
Click to expand...
Have you left the planet? Where was it suggested that smokers, diabetics or drivers who don't do the right thing shouldn't get medical treatment? The point made was that the cost of treating smoking related diseases is high and that smokers are more expensive over the long run than non smoker ON AVERAGE. The extra expense is related to more than health costs if you read the full report. I heard it said before that the extra costs outweigh the taxation revenue. If no-one smoked, not only would individuals be better off financially, the state would be too.

I'm simply defending the right to be allowed to go to Hell in the manner of my choice without interference from people whipped to a fervor by bodgied figures, twisted terminology, scare campaign furfys and illusions of gaining heavenly brownie points for harrassing the fad pariahs of the moment.
Click to expand...
You can go to hell any way you choose but your paranoia is breaking out again. The world and all the people in it are not plotting against you. And I'm not being sarcastic. You are paranoid.

:hide:
 
Yes, never denied that, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me though.

What I'm getting at is this. When was the last time you noticed someone pointing at and lecturing in public a Diabetic? When was it pointed out to them that they were costing the taxpayer heaps and they should be ashamed because their disease is self inflicted?

Can you imagine the reaction... well you don't have to, we've seen it... to someone pointing out the errors of gay AIDS suffers ways? Hell would descend. They must be treated with kid gloves, tolerated, accepted, comforted and told that's okay that they took stupid risks because it's just the way they're wired.

Smokers are obviously wired strangely too, to either enjoy, or need to continue to do it but they sure aren't comforted and tolerated for it are they?

Paranoia, okay if you say so. I say hypocrasy.
 
Phil, already women are not allowed to get old. Or at least not allowed to look old. Or fat.
It's enough to drive you to the fags and grog.

And Di, people are very judgmental these days, especially members of Gen Y. And oldies.
It's hard to tell if someone is Type II diabetic but their obesity is very visible and some people can be very vocal about that.
 
Warrigal said:
Phil, already women are not allowed to get old. Or at least not allowed to look old. Or fat.
It's enough to drive you to the fags and grog.
Click to expand...

I know, I know ...

It's hard to tell if someone is Type II diabetic but their obesity is very visible and some people can be very vocal about that.
Click to expand...

We have a commercial on TV here for one of those non-insulin "helper" drugs for diabetes, and every one of the people depicted having diabetes is obese.

It's hard to think differently when even the media is portraying them in a certain light and your opinions are formed exclusively from the tube..
 
Several years ago I had back surgery and was hospitalized for several days.

When I got back home, I realized that I hadn't smoked for those several days and wondered if I could keep it up.

And I DID ! COLD TURKEY ! For 6 years!

Then I met a girl (who happens to be a member here)who smoked like a chimney. One day when I went to see her, she and her girlfriend were out in
the patio smoking up a storm. It looked like so much fun, I said, "Give me one of those." And I've been smoking ever since.

OH....and the worst part....SHE quit, and I'm still at it. Such is life. :(
 
I'm glad I quit 30 years ago,it is just a shame that something couldn't be done about the over use of alcohol, by youth,in my opinion alcohol causes many more problems.
 


Back
Top