Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ban Cigarretes? Nay, ban alcohol! Alcohol causes 20,000 cancer deaths in the U.S. annually

page: 1
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Alcohol causes 20,000 cancer deaths in the U.S. annually
www.cbsnews.com...

Smoking often gets the attention, but new research shows alcohol is one of leading causes of preventable cancer deaths in the U.S. A new study published in the April 2013 issue of the American Journal of Public Health shows that about 20,000 cancer deaths in the U.S. a year -- about 3.5 percent of all cancer-related deaths -- are caused by alcohol consumption.

"The relationship between alcohol and cancer is strong, but is not widely appreciated by the public and remains underemphasized even by physicians," senior author Dr. Timothy Naimi, an associate professor of medicine at Boston University School of Medicine, said in a press release. "Alcohol is a big preventable cancer risk factor that has been hiding in plain sight."

The World Health Organization has labeled alcohol as the world's third largest risk factor for disease burden, saying it can cause neuropsychiatric disorders and other chronic diseases such as heart diseases, cirrhosis of the liver and various cancers. It added that 30 percent of cancer deaths are caused by five behavioral and dietary factors, including high body mass index, low fruit and vegetable intake, lack of physical activity, tobacco use and alcohol use. Previous studies have shown that drinking alcohol can increase risk factors cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, liver, colon, rectum and breast, the study authors noted. Other worldwide statistics show that alcohol is a cause for about 4 percent of cancer deaths worldwide, but before this study, not that much research has focused on the U.S.


So alcohol is now linked to causing cancer and it is time we tax it at an equivalent or greater rate than tobacco. When people engage in alcohol use they are at a much greater risk of being involved in car accidents (possibly fatal ones), domestic violence, and on occasion even urinating in public (ladies you know who you are).

Is it time to attack and scapegoat alcohol users as heavily as those dirty smokers?

Has anyone ever been rufied while smoking a cigarette?

Should we begin suing every company that promotes the image of incredibly hot people having a great time while drinking?

Should we remove the beer goggles and reveal the horrid monstrosity we are in bed with?

ATS what say you?



-EDIT-
This article does not call for a ban on alcohol. It has merely been presented by the OP (yours truly FBB) to ridicule attacks and scapegoating of cigarette smokers with new studies showing that America's most popular drug also causes mass cancer.

Apologies if some thought otherwise.
-Edit-
edit on 15-2-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101




posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


The government should just butt out of private enjoyments. Regulate everything? Are we in need of new prohibitions and 1st rate employment opportunities for the masses of the unemployed? After all the smugglers need drivers, ware-house workers, security, bouncers etc.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


SSSSH that's next after gun's.Nanny State



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:38 PM
link   
In Australia, it’s already taxed to the hilt and beyond. Both alcohol and tobacco. A slab of our standard beer, eg VB or Carlton Draught, is around the $40 mark - $36 if you can get it on special. A tad over $15 of that price is tax. A standard pack of cigarettes here, say Peter Jackson 30’s, is about $18+. The vast majority of that price is tax. I’m not sure on a exact figure but I have read that if not for the tax a pack would be around $3. Then again, here we get raped for everything.

Anyway, when will people start taking responsibility for themselves?! Of course alcohol in large quantities will cause a lot of damage. Anything and absolutely everything will be dangerous in large doses or for prolonged periods of table; salt, sugar, caffeine. Sh!t, even drinking too much water can kill you as it flushes out minerals and salt and when those levels drop too low you develop hyponatremia. Though rare, it’s still possible.

I don’t see why normal, average people who enjoy the occasional drink and perhaps the odd big night out should be punished with higher prices and taxes or even bans and restrictions, for the very small minority of people who abuse the stuff. It’s like banning cars because a relatively tiny percentage of the population crash them and are either severely injured or killed.

Life is life; it’s full of dangers. Wrapping everyone in cotton wool will solve nothing and lead to a boring, insular society.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Why don't they ban everything and dole out what they think is best for us?
Isn't that what this really is about? Ultimate control?

I honestly believe that telling someone they "aren't allowed to consume this" is absurd.
Especially coming from a group of people who can't even control a budget.
We all, as humans, have choices to make.
Usually we know when things are bad for us, or will harm us.
It's our own fault we abuse them, or "die by the drop" per say...
But we don't learn unless it's the hard way.
Why allow someone else to make decisions for us?
Why can't we just take care of ourselves...


Good grief, this is ridiculous.







posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Guenter
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


The government should just butt out of private enjoyments. Regulate everything? Are we in need of new prohibitions and 1st rate employment opportunities for the masses of the unemployed? After all the smugglers need drivers, ware-house workers, security, bouncers etc.


Depends on what level of Government you are referring to here. As far as the United States, the Federal Government should have no say in how a State and/or city handles the issue of alcohol (or any other substance for that matter) as they all fall under the 9th and 10th Amendments.

For a State, if the People of that respective State has willfully abdicated their political power in this instance regarding alcohol, than it is fine; same with a city (hence dry counties, etc.) Rest assured though is that political power abdicated is only on loan so long as the People allow it to be.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 07:58 PM
link   
Yeah because prohibition really worked before right?
It is much easier to make your own alcohol than it is to grow your own tobacco. Anyone with some common sense and a little time can make a consumable alcohol, and with just a little knowledge and time they can make a consumable liquor.
edit on 2/15/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by havok
Why don't they ban everything and dole out what they think is best for us?
Isn't that what this really is about? Ultimate control?

I honestly believe that telling someone they "aren't allowed to consume this" is absurd.
Especially coming from a group of people who can't even control a budget.
We all, as humans, have choices to make.
Usually we know when things are bad for us, or will harm us.
It's our own fault we abuse them, or "die by the drop" per say...
But we don't learn unless it's the hard way.
Why allow someone else to make decisions for us?
Why can't we just take care of ourselves...


Good grief, this is ridiculous.


Would you support a law banning misfortune then?

I am pretty sure there would massive support for it if we could word it in a way which made some politicians a few bucks.

This law would most likely result in the curing of cancer, HIV, obesity, unemployment, and poverty.

At least that is what the initial polling suggests, but further research and polling must be done to see whether there is enough public support to pass such a bill without harming anyone's reelection campaigns.


Next we could tax offensive facial expressions which have been proven to insight fight or flight reactions in others and contribute to a less utopian utopia.

The fine would be along the lines of;
1st offense results in forced viewing of kittens playing for 20 minutes
2nd offense results in actually playing with kittens for 20 minutes
3rd offense results in facial reconstructive surgery to remove the muscles involved in offensive facial expressions.

Now that is a law I can get behind!



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


Love the satire.....good job ol' chap...good job.

2nd and all that nonsense...



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   
You should ban idiots who care about other peoples health, espeicially strangers healths. I like sniffing glu, so what. I like to drink battery acid ,so what? I like to drive in cars so what? Id rather die likeing what i do than have concerned people stopping me. Jeeze



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:08 PM
link   
How is this news? It's been common knowledge for years that excessive consumption can lead to liver cancer. My Uncle Alan died of it and he was an alcoholic.

This is a strange thing to even talk about. They tried banning booze once and that didn't work out so well did it? As for cancer sticks, they will not be banned. They are becoming socially unacceptable but they are too widely used to be banned. So really, we are just discussing something that will never happen.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Ban alcohol instead of nicotine?

I thought 1 drink a day (especially of red wine, full of resveratrols & grapeskin catechins) has been study healthful!?

Would the alcohol ban include healthful red grape wine and hard cider??



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
How is this news? It's been common knowledge for years that excessive consumption can lead to liver cancer. My Uncle Alan died of it and he was an alcoholic.

This is a strange thing to even talk about. They tried banning booze once and that didn't work out so well did it? As for cancer sticks, they will not be banned. They are becoming socially unacceptable but they are too widely used to be banned. So really, we are just discussing something that will never happen.


Would you support equal demonization of alcohol users and cigarette smokers?

I posted this article mostly as satire on what I see as one of the next major issues to be brought forth by those with a utopian agendas.

What do you think the odds would be of laws being proposed to increase alcohol taxation rates?

[snip]
edit on 18-2-2013 by elevatedone because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli


Would you support equal demonization of alcohol users and cigarette smokers?


No, there is evidence booze actually does have health benefits in small amounts. Cigarettes have no redeeming value to them. In the case of addicts, addiction is addiction, i don't demonize either one. It's not a good thing, but those people suffer enough, they don't need my derision.


I posted this article mostly as satire on what I see as one of the next major issues to be brought forth by those with a utopian agendas.


Well, You are wrong. No one with sense is going to try to ban booze or cancer sticks. It's too expensive and it would never work.


What do you think the odds would be of laws being proposed to increase alcohol taxation rates?


Sin taxes go up whenever there is a revenue shortage, it has nothing to do with attempts to lower consumption in most states. It's just a way of generating revenue.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli


Would you support equal demonization of alcohol users and cigarette smokers?


No, there is evidence booze actually does have health benefits in small amounts. Cigarettes have no redeeming value to them. In the case of addicts, addiction is addiction, i don't demonize either one. It's not a good thing, but those people suffer enough, they don't need my derision.


I posted this article mostly as satire on what I see as one of the next major issues to be brought forth by those with a utopian agendas.


Well, You are wrong. No one with sense is going to try to ban booze or cancer sticks. It's too expensive and it would never work.


What do you think the odds would be of laws being proposed to increase alcohol taxation rates?


Sin taxes go up whenever there is a revenue shortage, it has nothing to do with attempts to lower consumption in most states. It's just a way of generating revenue.

smoking is the only way we can have the air quality of our ancestors,smokey caves. Since smoking in public places was banned in public places ,childhood asmah rates have gone down. People are smoking in the home more making their kids less likly to suffer attacks. Why are you so concerned about people enjoying themselves? Kill joy



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


I don't remember saying I was concerned with what they did. I said there was no redeeming health benefit to it. Honestly though, I couldn't understand most of what you said so I may be misinterpreting it.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


I don't remember saying I was concerned with what they did. I said there was no redeeming health benefit to it. Honestly though, I couldn't understand most of what you said so I may be misinterpreting it.
well there is some redeeming health benefits. One cig a day will make you cough and clean out your lungs. One cig wont kill you. Its not like a car crash or exhaust fumes.you wont live forever anyway.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


Can you produce any data to back up your assertion?



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


Can you produce any data to back up your assertion? [/quot. No i cant im affraid. Your are just going to have to disbelive me.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by symptomoftheuniverse
 


Well, if you have no evidence then I won't "believe" you. It's not about belief, it's about knowing. Facts are facts and they should be the deciding factor. Either way, simply because I am destined to die does not mean I should take unnecessary risk. You do no need an outside agent to cough as you can will yourself to do that quite easily. If you like to smoke just say "I like to smoke" and be done with it. My opinion on the matter is of no consequence.
edit on 15-2-2013 by antonia because: added a thought





new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join