So Long, Cigs: Michelle Obama Praises CVS For Pulling Tobacco

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Trust me, for 24 years I made it my obsession to have close to hand all the personal liberty and macroeconomic reasons that government regulation of smoking (and here I mean local ordinances, mostly) was a bad if not catastrophic thing.

Your argument above focuses on two elements: (1) government shouldn't regulate heavily at the level of daily living and (2) there would be massive unemployment if Big Tobacco suddenly "went away."

(1) I've made many of the utopian libertarian arguments in the past, myself, and I understand the logic. However, I also understand observing the evidence before me. It seems self-evident to me that the People are anything but capable of looking out for themselves. People do not act in their own best interest without guidance and direction from somewhere. That is my conclusion based on what I have observed. I know it flies in the face of the idealistic liberties that some folks believe in, and I'm saddened by that fact. It is real. Government, whether at the Federal, State or local level is the only way to intervene. Yes, most people do need the equivalent of a "nanny," and that might be the most disappointing thing I've ever written.

2). Efforts to make the health-destroying effects of cigarette smoking blatantly clear are not going to send Big Tobacco into a tail-spin overnight thus creating massive unemployment nationwide tomorrow. The effort to make the public more aware of the clear and present danger has had an effect over time. We need to do more. Things change. We need to have the deadly effects of this drug in people's faces all the time. You need folks like me to demonstrate that after a lifetime of exercise and good nutrition, at 47, I can't walk up a short flight of stairs without gasping for breath. That is the outcome of cigarette use.

They can sell whatever they want. It's their business. That being said ... I find it funny that the Obama's come down on cigarette smoking, but say that dope smoking isn't all that bad. There's a misconnect there somewhere ...

FlyersFan
They can sell whatever they want. It's their business. That being said ... I find it funny that the Obama's come down on cigarette smoking, but say that dope smoking isn't all that bad. There's a misconnect there somewhere ...

cigarettes= 30,000 deaths a year from smoking them
pot= 0 deaths a year from smoking it
where's this "misconnect" you speak of.

jimmyx
cigarettes= 30,000 deaths a year from smoking them
pot= 0 deaths a year from smoking it
where's this "misconnect" you speak of.

Smoking anything isn't good for you. While I endorse legalization, regulation and taxation of dope, the fact is that it does cause negative health issues - drug abuse - gov't publication ; it's also a gateway drug for further abuse just like alcohol is; and it has cancer causing elements.

In addition, marijuana has the potential to promote cancer of the lungs and other parts of the respiratory tract because it contains irritants and carcinogens—up to 70 percent more than tobacco smoke. It also induces high levels of an enzyme that converts certain hydrocarbons into their cancer-causing form, which could accelerate the changes that ultimately produce malignant cells. And since marijuana smokers generally inhale more deeply and hold their breath longer than tobacco smokers, the lungs are exposed longer to carcinogenic smoke.

MISCONNECT.

Cigarettes make you sick and kill many costing the rest of humanity billions in unneeded health care. Personally I think people should be able to smoke if they want as long as I don't have to breath it and as long as I am not paying for their health care. If you smoke and get cancer I really don't care what happens to you and I refuse to pay for your stupidity.

If we can figure out how to exclude smokers with smoking related health issues from tapping into healthcare dollars that come from tax payers or raise hospital midcap care prices I am all for keeping smoking legal. Just don't make the rest of us pay for their stupid choices and it is all good.

It is my opinion that the spirit of the Constitution, as well as the letter, acknowledges that Government will work for the General Welfare both of the Union and the People that comprise it. I am aware that the Preamble does not bestow legislative authority.

HOWEVER, it is also obvious that the role of Government is not and never has been the deux ex machina that so many ideologues imagine today. You can't just roll it on stage when you want protection from Russia or Katrina or influenza or market crash or ... whatever ... and then roll it back off stage when you don't want to pay your taxes and abide by the laws that you don't like.

US Government, at the Federal, State and local levels, IS constituted to provide for the general well-being (welfare) of the citizenry. That, along with providing the basic infrastructure that enables the economy to thrive, is the raison d'etre of the whole thing.

In my opinion; yours will vary. Don't bother calling me an idiot, because I'm not one. If you disagree, then disagree, but use logic, don't merely invoke the gods of this faux modern commercialized libertarianism.

reply to post by FlyersFan


There's always brownies...

Gryphon66
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Trust me, for 24 years I made it my obsession to have close to hand all the personal liberty and macroeconomic reasons that government regulation of smoking (and here I mean local ordinances, mostly) was a bad if not catastrophic thing.

Your argument above focuses on two elements: (1) government shouldn't regulate heavily at the level of daily living and (2) there would be massive unemployment if Big Tobacco suddenly "went away."

(1) I've made many of the utopian libertarian arguments in the past, myself, and I understand the logic. However, I also understand observing the evidence before me. It seems self-evident to me that the People are anything but capable of looking out for themselves. People do not act in their own best interest without guidance and direction from somewhere. That is my conclusion based on what I have observed. I know it flies in the face of the idealistic liberties that some folks believe in, and I'm saddened by that fact. It is real. Government, whether at the Federal, State or local level is the only way to intervene. Yes, most people do need the equivalent of a "nanny," and that might be the most disappointing thing I've ever written.

Quite statist.

People don't "need" a nanny. You may believe that they do, and that is one opinion. Another would be that they don't, and should be allowed to walk willingly into hell if they so choose. The only life experience I control is mine, and for a short while that of my children. I don't wish to control anyone else's life experience. And I realize that it is ludicrous to believe I will.

Take meth as an example. It has never been good for you by any stretch. But what is made today....much more dangerous and much more debilitating. Had government not involved itself, we would have the blight of the designer drug, meth. Now that they have intervened and made it harder to get the chemicals used in the orginal recipes, other methodology is utilized to achieve a similar, but more damaging result. You see them walking the streets....that is what providing a nanny to The People does for you: makes the problem worse.

If humans weren't problem solvers, it likely would be easy to control them. But they are expert problem solvers.....and will find all manner of ways around any law created.

2). Efforts to make the health-destroying effects of cigarette smoking blatantly clear are not going to send Big Tobacco into a tail-spin overnight thus creating massive unemployment nationwide tomorrow. The effort to make the public more aware of the clear and present danger has had an effect over time. We need to do more. Things change. We need to have the deadly effects of this drug in people's faces all the time. You need folks like me to demonstrate that after a lifetime of exercise and good nutrition, at 47, I can't walk up a short flight of stairs without gasping for breath. That is the outcome of cigarette use.

edit on 8Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:21:23 -060014p082014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

No, it won't. You are right. however there tends to be a smugness that arises out of these sorts of things.

Its not the nicotine in the cigarettes (the "drug") that causes its damage. its the tar in the smoke. So calling it a "drug" isn't going to help your argument, as the drug aspect isn't the aspect that has caused your health issues. It is the tar.

Which is ONE outcome of cigarette use. There are others, as well. My grandfather died of esophageal cancer (caused by civil service work in missile silos) when he was in his 80's. He smoked Lucky Strikes from his 20's until the day he died. He also ran his AC and Heating company, crawling around in 110 degree attics, up until his diagnosis. His is another outcome that can be had with cigarette smoking.

Life is not without risks. I am a fairly bright 41 year old man. I manage to run a company, run a household, and pee without getting it on my hands. The last thing I need is government mandating my health.

Some insight into that: i grew up with the food pyramid. It recommended a carb/starch heavy diet. After following government guidelines for my entire life, I ended up at 490lbs when I was 35. I decided at that point that this food pyramid and calorie counting thing was a bunch of nonsense, and cut the top and bottom off the pyramid altogether.

In 1 year i lost 200lbs. I, like you, couldn't climb stairs without being winded (obviously different reasons). It was when I ignored the wisdom of the jackass government that I was able to free myself to live again.

Congratulations on your weight loss! I'm struggling with having my ability to work-out severely limited by my own current health issues, which makes dietary limitations the only means to maintain healthy weight (and that's a lot harder than it seems today), but I am hopeful that I can adapt over time and even perhaps reverse some of these negative effects. But, good on you! Losing 200# is AMAZING.

I refute the absolutist stance that ALL Government efforts to increase the health of the public (a specific instance of promoting the General Welfare) are failures. Also, I specifically disagree with the paean "let people go to hell if they want to." NO.

While that sounds like it's promoting some kind of idealized "freedom" or "liberty" it really isn't. Humans have always worked together cooperatively. Government is one of the ways we can do that. I will not stand idly by and watch people poison themselves, or do harm to themselves and others, directly or indirectly. To do so, in my opinion, is the height of selfishness, and in the long-term, would be self-destructive to my own living environment. I am not a unitary, separate individual. I depend on the societal and economic structures around me. That is a fact.

Smoking cigarettes is proven in hundreds of studies to be an incredibly detrimental behavior. Anecdotal evidence, like yours, or even like mine, is merely the voice of one data point. There are myriad examples of tobacco use's direct relationship to poor health, disease and premature death. That's just the facts.

Instituting educational programs, promoting truth in advertising, and establishing regulations that limit the impact of KNOWN POISONS on the People is not equivalent to "government meddling in EVERY aspect of people's lives." That's just more absolutist rhetoric.

Your comments about drug abuse are obviously driven by a good heart; however, I don't believe you have any evidence that proves that "if government had not done this, that would have happened." I think you're predicting a "future past" that is convenient to confirming your own bias.

If you do have evidence that proves that, please share.

One aspect of your post, Texan, I wanted to highlight a bit more:

You said-

Its not the nicotine in the cigarettes (the "drug") that causes its damage. its the tar in the smoke. So calling it a "drug" isn't going to help your argument, as the drug aspect isn't the aspect that has caused your health issues. It is the tar.

This is a very limited view and only narrowly true at best. Nicotine use, among other things, causes high blood pressure. That along with my own genetic propensities has resulted in my enlarged heart.

The emphysema is a bit more problematic. Yes, tar in the delivery system for the nicotine (tobacco) probably caused this disease, however, the constant inflammation caused by the negative nicotine effects also, according to the physicians treating me, contributed to my development of the disease.

Besides all that, it really is mere semantics in this context to point out that fine distinction. Tobacco is the drug that delivers the chemical nicotine. Other drugs deliver other substances (like THC). Taking exception to specific wording that makes no difference in overall meaning is just "straining at gnats."

Gryphon66
Congratulations on your weight loss! I'm struggling with having my ability to work-out severely limited by my own current health issues, which makes dietary limitations the only means to maintain healthy weight (and that's a lot harder than it seems today), but I am hopeful that I can adapt over time and even perhaps reverse some of these negative effects. But, good on you! Losing 200# is AMAZING.

I refute the absolutist stance that ALL Government efforts to increase the health of the public (a specific instance of promoting the General Welfare) are failures. Also, I specifically disagree with the paean "let people go to hell if they want to." NO.

While that sounds like it's promoting some kind of idealized "freedom" or "liberty" it really isn't. Humans have always worked together cooperatively. Government is one of the ways we can do that. I will not stand idly by and watch people poison themselves, or do harm to themselves and others, directly or indirectly. To do so, in my opinion, is the height of selfishness, and in the long-term, would be self-destructive to my own living environment. I am not a unitary, separate individual. I depend on the societal and economic structures around me. That is a fact.

Smoking cigarettes is proven in hundreds of studies to be an incredibly detrimental behavior. Anecdotal evidence, like yours, or even like mine, is merely the voice of one data point. There are myriad examples of tobacco use's direct relationship to poor health, disease and premature death. That's just the facts.

Instituting educational programs, promoting truth in advertising, and establishing regulations that limit the impact of KNOWN POISONS on the People is not equivalent to "government meddling in EVERY aspect of people's lives." That's just more absolutist rhetoric.

Your comments about drug abuse are obviously driven by a good heart; however, I don't believe you have any evidence that proves that "if government had not done this, that would have happened." I think you're predicting a "future past" that is convenient to confirming your own bias.

If you do have evidence that proves that, please share.

edit on 9Sat, 08 Feb 2014 09:29:42 -060014p092014266 by Gryphon66 because: Spelling.

Damn you. You are smarter than most people i talk to online. I LOVE IT.

First, if you need any ideas for how to cook low carb foods, let me know. You may not like everything....but I bet we can get you a core of stuff you can eat (that isn't difficult to make). Just U2U me.

I believe that the government is not the right point of entry to trying to protect the general welfare of the people. I think that is a family/community task. What invariably ends up happening is the whole "Ivory Tower" effect, where you h ave people like Nancy Pelosi and GW Bush saying the asinine things they say. Given what I hear, I am wholly unconvinced that government has any role in providing for our general welfare. Laws are written to enrich people, not protect people. Then again, when it comes to government I am wholly cynical.

I have an uncle that has gone from a raging libertarian to a pure socialist (by his own admission). He had a motorcycle wreck that has put him in a position to rely on government programs to survive. So I totally get your current viewpoint and how you arrived at it.

The biggest shame to me, despite any conversation we may be having, is your poor health. You are a very sharp mind, and I feel like I am better just for this small conversation with you.

Take care...and I am serious. If i can help with recipe ideas, hit me up. I happen to also have a recipe book for a fairly famous restaurant that we can pull from (like for vinaigrette recipes....)

reply to post by Xeven


You dont have to worry.

Insurance rates are much higher for tobacco users.

It's all factored in for you.

The Smokers’ Surcharge

Texan:

Thanks for your compliment. Allow me to return it; I've read your postings for a while and noticed that you've given thought and considerations to your positions, even if they are horrifically and tragically misguided. (That's my humor there.)

Notice that I was commenting on "absolutist" ideology. I'm as stymied as anyone by the intransigent bureaucracy aspects of government, which is where a lot of our hatred of the process arises from. We have taken things too far and allowed things to go too far in terms of government control of our lives (*cough* NSA *cough* EPA) but, we can't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We have done good things with our government; we just need to remember them.

I would be the first to agree that the "welfare state" so often bandied about needs to change dramatically. People need help. Government can give it to them. But the overwhelming intention of every Government program MUST be to create independently functioning and productive citizens. No one, unless they are TRULY physically or mentally disabled should get a "free ride." That's insulting to human dignity, and to those of us who end up "paying" for their upkeep.

WE must stop pretending that all the answers are EASY ones though; that every question is a pure matter of left or right, R or D, liberal or conservative, "real American" or "life-sucking Communist/Atheist."

We have three basic issues in America 2014: lack of critical thinking, lack of personal responsibility, religious and political extremism.

Gryphon66

We have three basic issues in America 2014: lack of critical thinking, lack of personal responsibility, religious and political extremism.

I would be a liar and a jackass if i didn't agree completely with the above. That is absolutely true.

BTW, and for what its worth....my political thinking has been flavored very strongly by Thoreau. If that provides any insight for you.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.

I'm betting you're referring more strongly to Civil Disobedience than to Walden though.

Actually, we could probably overcome 99% of our problems with just one solution: personal responsibility.

I think we're faced with real challenges to the way we've lived in the last 50 years or so in this country. I agree that personal liberties and freedoms are constantly under attack. At heart, I'm an anarchist, and I'd like to see us all realize that we're in it together post-haste and figure out how the heck to work cooperatively. That needs to happen yesterday.

reply to post by Gryphon66


Walden has greatly influenced by outlook and philosophy on living. The political viewpoints, absolutely, derived more from Civil Disobedience. The whole affair with Mexico that prompted him to write that manuscript was my lead in. His response was spot on, and the viewpoint grew on me from there.

Not that I haven't had libertarian ideals from my earliest days. LOL, "MINE" is not that hard to learn.

Goldcurrent
Here in Canada, Pharmacies have been forbidden from selling tobacco for years now. The only places to get a pack of cigs, are gas stations, and they are required by law to hide them behind a curtain.

Honestly, they try making you feel like you're buying something perverted. Pretty soon, smokers will be forced to go into dark alleys and buy them off guys in trench coats.

Like in Canada, cigarettes here in Australia are also hidden, by law, from public view behind curtains. Which government is copy-catting which government?

Or is there another particular reason for this relatively recent, globally co-ordinated, and persistent attack on smokers? It's anybody's guess - and mine would be that smoking/nicotine interferes with HAARP and contrail effects on humans.

What would others suggest/guess at as the reason?

Maigret

Goldcurrent
Here in Canada, Pharmacies have been forbidden from selling tobacco for years now. The only places to get a pack of cigs, are gas stations, and they are required by law to hide them behind a curtain.

Honestly, they try making you feel like you're buying something perverted. Pretty soon, smokers will be forced to go into dark alleys and buy them off guys in trench coats.

Like in Canada, cigarettes here in Australia are also hidden, by law, from public view behind curtains. Which government is copy-catting which government?

Or is there another particular reason for this relatively recent, globally co-ordinated, and persistent attack on smokers? It's anybody's guess - and mine would be that smoking/nicotine interferes with HAARP and contrail effects on humans.

What would others suggest/guess at as the reason?

I would suggest that we apply a modicum of reasonability and realize that smoking is bad for overall health and deadly in the long run, and that the government, while remaining the bastion of all that is evil, ironically chose in this instance to do something helpful and work to limit smoking in this country, probably to keep us guessing about its real intent.

/eyeroll

HAARP, really?

crazyewok
There shop there rules.

Simple.

Dont like it dont shop there.


O wait sorry the above is only ok if you agree with there decsions otherwise they are evil dirty commie progressives.

It always cracks me up. The right is such a fan of free-market capitalism unless someone does something they personally disagree with! Then it's free-market tyranny of the left!!!

The slow American economic climate has helped make dollar stores an increasing part of the retail industry. As they expand, one such store is intending out an in-store drugstore. The fastest-growing retail sector was “dollar stores,” discount retailers selling sundry and grocery items for $1, or at least many items costing that much and offering others at steep discounts.