No Smoke - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Dec 17, 2005

No Smoke

Date: Dec 19, 2005

If I recall, The intent of the Tobacco settlement monies was that they were supposed to be spent on Anti-Smoking educational programs and health care programs related to the evil of smoking etc...You open up the barn door on this and the Legislature will spend it on roads, parks, "legislatived equipment", stadia,...you name it, and they will find a way to spend it...universities and colleges will have to get in line with everyone else...

Date: Dec 19, 2005

Let's see. Our governor was a lobbyist whose biggest client was big tobacco. Now he want to evicerate an anti-smoking program that has been demonstrated to be an absolute success. hmm--must be just a coincidence.

Date: Dec 19, 2005

The tobacco settlements were excessive and a joke. Just more big government telling individuals what they can and cannot do with their money and their lives. What really burns the libs up is that you can't have socialized medicine in the U.S. as long as individuals have the freedom to make choices like the choice to smoke or not.

Date: Dec 19, 2005

Horsecollar wrote:

The tobacco settlements were excessive and a joke. Just more big government telling individuals what they can and cannot do with their money and their lives. What really burns the libs up is that you can't have socialized medicine in the U.S. as long as individuals have the freedom to make choices like the choice to smoke or not.

I don't mind people smoking if they sign a release that my health insurance can't go up and they can't go to the emergency room with health problems unless they have health insurance.

Date: Dec 19, 2005

Tax Payer wrote:

I don't mind people smoking if they sign a release that my health insurance can't go up and they can't go to the emergency room with health problems unless they have health insurance.

What's next, then? Consumption of fried food contributes to obesity, high cholesterol, and heart disease. "If you go to Popeye's you can't get health insurance?" "You went to Popeye's too much, so we won't treat you for your heart failure because you don't have insurance?"

How about poor people who contract diseases because they drink well water? Should we force them to pay extra so they can be hooked up to treated water? Alcohol abuse increases liver disease and contributes to poor health. Same thing for drinkers?

When we're all drinking nothing but purified water and eating cream of wheat, who will be the outcast? "You drink Dasani, so you can't get insurance. If you drink Evian, you're OK."

Please. The desire of some to order others around will never end. Nonsmokers are no better than smokers. Not smarter, not more refined, not better people. Nonsmokers have made a different choice than smokers.

By the way, breast cancer mortality rates for women who have children are lower than for those who have no children. Should all women be forced to have children so that their breast cancer rates will fall and preserve your precious insurance premium?

Date: Dec 19, 2005

Horsecollar wrote:

Tax Payer wrote: I don't mind people smoking if they sign a release that my health insurance can't go up and they can't go to the emergency room with health problems unless they have health insurance. What's next, then? Consumption of fried food contributes to obesity, high cholesterol, and heart disease. "If you go to Popeye's you can't get health insurance?" "You went to Popeye's too much, so we won't treat you for your heart failure because you don't have insurance?" How about poor people who contract diseases because they drink well water? Should we force them to pay extra so they can be hooked up to treated water? Alcohol abuse increases liver disease and contributes to poor health. Same thing for drinkers? When we're all drinking nothing but purified water and eating cream of wheat, who will be the outcast? "You drink Dasani, so you can't get insurance. If you drink Evian, you're OK." Please. The desire of some to order others around will never end. Nonsmokers are no better than smokers. Not smarter, not more refined, not better people. Nonsmokers have made a different choice than smokers. By the way, breast cancer mortality rates for women who have children are lower than for those who have no children. Should all women be forced to have children so that their breast cancer rates will fall and preserve your precious insurance premium?

Your logic and method of reasoning are not up to par for this board, Horsecollar. No one said to "force" people to stop smoking. What was stated is they take responsibility for their actions. The cost to society is very high from smokers.

The other examples you try to expand the logic to is more complicated, for example, there are many causes for obesity. You can't compare apples and organges or jump to general rules from logic correct for another situation.

Remember no one said to force people to stop smoking, just pay their own way.

Date: Dec 19, 2005

My ex, a moderate smoker with low cholestrol, had five blocked coronary arteries. The bill was $61,000. Now what if that had been Medicaid?

Oh, and he's an ex-smoker now, as far as I know.

Date: Dec 19, 2005

No, Philosopher, it is your sense of reality that is off. Ridiculous tobacco settlements have led to higher prices and ridiculous excise taxes have compounded the issue to the point that certain groups are trying to tax smokers into quitting, which is tantamount to coercion. Smokers do pay their way...one pack's worth of excise tax at a time.

Again, it's amazing how obtuse some of you can be. How about the alcohol argument? No medicaid for drinkers? No medicaid for women with breast cancer who haven't had children?

It must be nice to live in a world where your judgment is flawless.

Date: Dec 19, 2005

Have there been any reliable studies that quantify the amount of money brought into public coffers through the cigarette taxes? Can some states get by without smokers and the taxes that they generate?

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Horsecollar wrote:

No, Philosopher, it is your sense of reality that is off. Ridiculous tobacco settlements have led to higher prices and ridiculous excise taxes have compounded the issue to the point that certain groups are trying to tax smokers into quitting, which is tantamount to coercion. Smokers do pay their way...one pack's worth of excise tax at a time. Again, it's amazing how obtuse some of you can be. How about the alcohol argument? No medicaid for drinkers? No medicaid for women with breast cancer who haven't had children? It must be nice to live in a world where your judgment is flawless.

Sorry Horsecollar, but what smokers pay is nowhere near the expense smokers cause society. Yes, the price you pay has gone up because research has made us aware of the cost. You are complaining about the price of tobacco without comsidering the expense to society.

Now alcohol, while causing problems, is nowhere near the expense caused by smoking. That is why your extension of the argument to alcohol without qualifications is ridiculous. If you can't pay the expense of smoking then you have two choices: 1) quit, or 2) do like other people hooked on drugs they can't afford, steal. Good luck, Horsecollar.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Philosopher, Again my question stands -- are there serious studies that back up what you propose (a serious question, I would love to see them) or are your statements on the relative costs of smoking vs alcohol just your own opinions? Again if smokers cost society much more than they pay I would love to know, rather than just guess. For instance do studies take in the cost to society of the myriad drunk driving accidents, their costs to insurance, their costs to loved ones? In looking at that I do not think that expanding the argument to alcohol is incorrect.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Actually, smokers save the government money because they collect Social Security for about seven years less than non-smokers. If everyone quit smoking, the Social Security shortfall would be much greater in the future.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

The history of the cigarette, cigarette marketing, and the smoking-health controversy is the current subject of my research, and I’d like to clear up some of the misconceptions that have appeared on this thread.

Teens and smokers still underestimate the health hazards cigarette smoking. Smoking still remains the leading cause of preventable death in hte U.S., accounting for over 400,000 deaths each year.

Comparisons to fast-food are a red herring. Nicotine addiction is comparable to opiates like heroin. The tobacco industry publicly denied this (and every other medical fact about tobacco) until forced otherwise by the Master Settlement Agreement brokered by our own Mike Moore.

Where’s the choice in smoking when it’s a chemical addiction begun in the pre-teen or teenaged years? The vast preponderance of smokers begin before they are 18 years old.

The claim that smokers actually save society money by dying early is a view held only by the tobacco industry and it litigation apparatus, and was devised as a means of contesting the damage claims in the state tobacco suits of the 1990s. The whole issue has been thoroughly explored in Frank A. Sloan et al. _The Price of Smoking_ (MIT, 2004). Sloan, a health economist at Duke, estimates that each pack of cigarettes incurs social and economic costs of approximately $40/pack. That’s well below the current level of taxation. Mississippi taxes cigarettes at something like 15 cents per pack.

Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi has been successful in lowering teen smoking rates. We are one of the few states to dedicate its MSA proceeds to public health efforts. The state’s anti-smoking programs are saving lives and lowering future health care costs by cutting the rate of teenage smoking. This is one area where we are a positive model for the nation. I hope it stays that way.

By the way, I wonder how many viewers of this thread know what "LSMFT" stands for? At one time, it was among the nation's most widely recognized advertising slogans. [the answer is "Lucky Strike means fine tobacco"]

If you want to learn more, try these sources:

U.S. Centers for Disease Control, National Center For Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Tobacco Information and Prevention Source, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/

Michael S. Givel Ph.D. and Stanton A. Glantz Ph.D., "Political Reform and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Mississippi From 1990 to 2001" (March 1, 2002). Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Tobacco Control Policy Making: United States. Paper MS2002.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmus/MS2002

Merry Christmas, y'all
Louis K.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Louis K. in the History Department wrote:

The history of the cigarette, cigarette marketing, and the smoking-health controversy is the current subject of my research, and I’d like to clear up some of the misconceptions that have appeared on this thread. Teens and smokers still underestimate the health hazards cigarette smoking. Smoking still remains the leading cause of preventable death in hte U.S., accounting for over 400,000 deaths each year. Comparisons to fast-food are a red herring. Nicotine addiction is comparable to opiates like heroin. The tobacco industry publicly denied this (and every other medical fact about tobacco) until forced otherwise by the Master Settlement Agreement brokered by our own Mike Moore. Where’s the choice in smoking when it’s a chemical addiction begun in the pre-teen or teenaged years? The vast preponderance of smokers begin before they are 18 years old. The claim that smokers actually save society money by dying early is a view held only by the tobacco industry and it litigation apparatus, and was devised as a means of contesting the damage claims in the state tobacco suits of the 1990s. The whole issue has been thoroughly explored in Frank A. Sloan et al. _The Price of Smoking_ (MIT, 2004). Sloan, a health economist at Duke, estimates that each pack of cigarettes incurs social and economic costs of approximately $40/pack. That’s well below the current level of taxation. Mississippi taxes cigarettes at something like 15 cents per pack. Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi has been successful in lowering teen smoking rates. We are one of the few states to dedicate its MSA proceeds to public health efforts. The state’s anti-smoking programs are saving lives and lowering future health care costs by cutting the rate of teenage smoking. This is one area where we are a positive model for the nation. I hope it stays that way. By the way, I wonder how many viewers of this thread know what "LSMFT" stands for? At one time, it was among the nation's most widely recognized advertising slogans. [the answer is "Lucky Strike means fine tobacco"] If you want to learn more, try these sources: U.S. Centers for Disease Control, National Center For Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Tobacco Information and Prevention Source, http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/ Michael S. Givel Ph.D. and Stanton A. Glantz Ph.D., "Political Reform and Tobacco Control Policy Making in Mississippi From 1990 to 2001" (March 1, 2002). Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Tobacco Control Policy Making: United States. Paper MS2002. http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmus/MS2002 Merry Christmas, y'all Louis K.

Thanks for this information, Louis. You did my homework for me.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Louis K. in the History Department wrote:

. . . . The whole issue has been thoroughly explored in Frank A. Sloan et al. _The Price of Smoking_ (MIT, 2004). Sloan, a health economist at Duke, estimates that each pack of cigarettes incurs social and economic costs of approximately $40/pack. . . .

Louis, this may have come out of Duke and may have been published by MIT, but I'm afraid it doesn't pass the laugh test. According to this analysis, my old man cost our society well in excess of one million dollars with his nasty habit. I continue to be amazed at the things well-educated and ostensibly intelligent people will believe.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Mr. Wizard wrote:

Louis K. in the History Department wrote: . . . . The whole issue has been thoroughly explored in Frank A. Sloan et al. _The Price of Smoking_ (MIT, 2004). Sloan, a health economist at Duke, estimates that each pack of cigarettes incurs social and economic costs of approximately $40/pack. . . .

Louis, this may have come out of Duke and may have been published by MIT, but I'm afraid it doesn't pass the laugh test. According to this analysis, my old man cost our society well in excess of one million dollars with his nasty habit. I continue to be amazed at the things well-educated and ostensibly intelligent people will believe.

I don't follow your argument, Wizard. Are you saying since you can't believe your "old man" cost society in excess of a million dollars, the analysis is wrong? Intelligent people don't believe this, but rather that is what the data says. You take the estimated cost and divide by the number of packs sold. As they say, "it isn't rocket science" (or religion) so no need to believe.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Once again, you've all missed the point. My question is WHERE DOES IT STOP? Once smoking has been eradicated, some other vice will become the #1 costliest medical drain on society and someone will call for an exclusion of individuals who participate in that activity, whether it is alcohol, fast food, etc. I am not comparing smoking to these habits, just pointing out that there are other unhealthy decisions that people make and that these decisions cost society money.

Once smoking is gone, will it stop there? History says no.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Horsecollar wrote:

Once again, you've all missed the point. My question is WHERE DOES IT STOP? Once smoking has been eradicated, some other vice will become the #1 costliest medical drain on society and someone will call for an exclusion of individuals who participate in that activity, whether it is alcohol, fast food, etc. I am not comparing smoking to these habits, just pointing out that there are other unhealthy decisions that people make and that these decisions cost society money. Once smoking is gone, will it stop there? History says no.

Horsecollar, I don't think any of these activities will be end under a free democratic system. All that is being done is having people take responsibility for these actions. It is like the history of car insurance. At first no one had it because the damage that could be done was minor. As the number, size and speed of vehicles increased so did the cost to society and that resulted in increase in car insurance, which is now required by law.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Philosopher wrote:

Horsecollar, I don't think any of these activities will be end under a free democratic system. All that is being done is having people take responsibility for these actions. It is like the history of car insurance. At first no one had it because the damage that could be done was minor. As the number, size and speed of vehicles increased so did the cost to society and that resulted in increase in car insurance, which is now required by law.

Right. One day, someone will say "Those damn alcoholics need to take responsibility for their drinking" or "Those obese people need to be responsible for their actions." Once you start discriminatory policies based on choice, it's a slippery slope. Some of the anti-smoking crap I've read on this thread reminds me of anti-gay sentiment, which we all know is now politically incorrect.

Date: Dec 20, 2005

Horsecollar wrote:

Right. One day, someone will say "Those damn alcoholics need to take responsibility for their drinking" [....]

Well, in "The Taxes of Sin: Do Smokers and Drinkers Pay Their Way?" Manning WG, Keeler EB, Newhouse JP, Sloss EM, Wasserman J, Journal of the American Medical Association 261:11 (March 17 1989) 1604-1609, the conclusion is: "On balance, smokers probably pay their way at the current level of excise tax on cigarettes ... in contrast, drinkers do not pay their way: current excise taxes on alcohol cover only about half the costs imposed on others."

In fact, that seems to be the conclusion of every study I can turn up. I know it's not what some people want to hear-- but can anyone cite a credible counter study?

Date: Dec 21, 2005

Now that we can biochemically detect predispostions to many costly human health conditions, let's do a complete genetic profile at birth (and you thought that heel sample was just for PKU testing), allow evaluation by the insurance companies, and then communally house all of the uninsurables at a lovely isolated location, say Plum Island.

Date: Dec 21, 2005

Philosopher wrote:

I don't follow your argument, Wizard. Are you saying since you can't believe your "old man" cost society in excess of a million dollars, the analysis is wrong? Intelligent people don't believe this, but rather that is what the data says. You take the estimated cost and divide by the number of packs sold. As they say, "it isn't rocket science" (or religion) so no need to believe.

Philosopher,

I wasn't really trying to craft any sort of argument in my post. However, I can understand why someone might think that I was trying to use a single example as my basis for being skeptical of the $40/pack cost estimate. Actually, the reference to my father was an afterthought. But if this cost estimate is an accurate reflection of the real world, then it would be common for a heavy smoker to cost society millions of dollars in his or her lifetime by smoking. And since I do not feel compelled to accept every study as definitive, I retain my right to question.

But your real confusion seems to lie in your interpretation of my use of the word "believe". If I told you that I believe it will rain tomorrow, would you think my statement was based on religious considerations? And I certainly can't imagine "knowing" something is true without believing it to be true, so I don't think knowledge precludes belief.

Finally, dividing the estimated cost (incurred by society due to smoking) by the number of packs of cigarettes (over some prescribed period of time) should indeed be easy, particularly if you have a calculator at hand. The "rocket science" part is obtaining a good estimate of these costs.

Date: Dec 21, 2005

Mr. Wizard wrote:

... But your real confusion seems to lie in your interpretation of my use of the word "believe". If I told you that I believe it will rain tomorrow, would you think my statement was based on religious considerations? And I certainly can't imagine "knowing" something is true without believing it to be true, so I don't think knowledge precludes belief. ...

Mr. Wizard, I didn't really think you meant "believe" in the way I did the interpretation. However, you didn't present any evidence except the story about your father, so maybe I wasn't sure you weren't hearing voices. As far the weather, I would assume anyone making the statement was using weather service information rather that religion.

For me knowlege does preclude belief. I use the word "believe" or "belief" to mean "hold something to be true without evidence it is or in spite of evidence to the contrary". If I have evidence supporting a position I use the word "think" as in, "I think it will rain tomorrow". (I used a logical thought process on the evidence provided by a weather service.)

I know, I know, why be so technical. Answer: That is the way you do clear thinking and approach truth. Fuzzy thinking keeps everyone arguing, talking about the meaning of words and selling books, but it makes knowledge harder to find.

I enjoyed our chat.

(P.S. Don't smoke or drink too much over the holidays.)

P.P.S. Or if you don't like someone you can always say "Drink up!!" and "can I light that one for you?"

Date: Dec 21, 2005

Does Shelby smoke? If not, can we get him to start?