Smoking as a societal issue to be determined by governmental laws?

1. 65

   Debby Bruckposted 12 years ago

   I was not sure whether to post this under political or health care issues because the widespread ramifications of smoking reach from the individual's needs and rights to the laws of the land here and abroad.  The issue of pro's and con's regarding smoking laws can be supported by research on both sides, and also to the high-strung responses of people who feel government has overstepped their bounds to determine what people do in their apartments, homes, cars, taverns and other public buildings. Government takes many actions all in the name of protecting our 'health,' yet we can always question motivations. I understand the 'emotional' aspect and the 'physical' dependency to the chemicals. Now, on top of all this we add the marketing, money-making, health related and political aspects of smoking. It couldn't be a more complicated issue for society today.
   
   As for myself, I'm ambivalent due to the intricacies of politics and personal freedom. I don't smoke and never have, as a health advocate. I'm not sure the actions that government takes helps or harms. I'm not sure what 'business' controls what people do and hear in the media. Will repackaging make a difference? Will placing penalties prevent people from smoking? Will classes in school deter kids from starting early or will peer pressure win out? What about the film and magazine industries, what part do they play? Now with internet marketing how do people get these messages of good, right, wrong and preserving health? Cancer scares the daylights out of most people, and still people light up. On the other hand we know without a doubt that smoking negatively effects lung function. Plus, we also know that smoking cannabis can alleviate the pains of cancer. Have your say on this forum.

   replyreport
2. 59

   EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

   Nice honest piece. More creative thinking is needed. Have a look see at why I think innovation in thinking and doing is possible. How does the government and the public deal with the health issue of fast, unhealthy food polluting all the is good. Same kind of issues. I have created an idea that I jokingly call Burgers Against Obesity to showcase that there are different ways to build a system that uses incentives, the free market and the trust and credibility of government (on a minor level) for the good of all our menus that support change. We just have to be prepared to think and act a bit differently. (http://www.NickelaMeal.Wordpress.com)

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Epower ~ It sounds like an interesting idea to put an automatic tax on a person's fast food purchase, but I'm not sure how it all works. Aren't cigarettes taxed? Where does that money go? So, in essence because the government can make money on every purchase they actually benefit from people smoking. Now, why didn't I think of that? Not good. Can we develop a system where those who do harm to themselves receive a penalty and where the government does not have monetary gain? Can someone develop a win-win situation where people naturally select good health care choices without government intervention?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         every time I take a puff I know Im helping the country because of the tax....I dont smoke for myself, I smoke for the USA

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You sir are a Patriot.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               thank you sir...Ill smoke to that!

               replyreport
         2. 65

            Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I told you that our minds are a wonder to behold. They play a part in every decision.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               but to answer your question as I see it no the gov or no one can convince people to not do something....and dont they have more to be concerned with than cigs and fast food

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I concur

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     also what I want to know is if cigs are so bad why doesnt the secret service tackle the cig box when Obama reaches for one?

                     replyreport
                     1. 65

                        Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I guess he's special. I'm beginning to think that being addicted to Hubpages is more detrimental to your health than smoking, so I shall go out for a walk.

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           good idea I ran a few miles earlier

                           replyreport
         3. 55

            obiageli2009posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            The question is are taxes not been paid to the US government by this companies that produce tobacco so its a source of revenue for the government.Besides as an adult ,you should know what is best for you.

            replyreport
3. 61

   lady_love158posted 12 years ago

   Your assumption is people are stupid, incapable of making the "right" decisions regarding their health, are are easily manipulated by marketers, and therefore government must step in to protect us and when necessary nudge us into making the "right" decision. Nothing can be further from the truth. There is no one in civilized society unaware of the risks of smoking. People smoke because they want to, and freedom dictates that their decision be theirs and theirs alone.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I'm so glad liberals are a minority.

      replyreport
   2. 65

      Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I make no assumptions. I'm asking people their opinions about the intricacies of governmental policies into a person's right to choose whether to smoke or not. We have conclusive evidence it is harmful to health. We know smoking is an addictive substance. I believe in freedom to choose, the rights of the individual, yet I also support the idea that when a mother smokes it can harm her newborn infant, that second hand smoke can irritate those around the smoker, that lung and oral cancer may result from such activities and someone must pay. I also think that government should not have the right to tell people what to do in their own home, apartment or living quarters. I'm really not sure how to deal with these issues. The government sets policies to restrict the locations where people may smoke. They also attempt to instill fear using images on packages and educate with warning on labels. Does it do any good? Are there methods that would make a difference? Should it make a difference?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Here us something you may not know, nicotine prevents alzhimers and parkinsons disease and has other benefits as well.
         http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton … cotine.htm
         Funny you express concern about a fetus subjected to the effects of smoking and how someone.should pay, should someone also pay for the murder of a fetus via abortion?
         
         The role of government is not to make our personal decisions for us, but to keep us free to make those decisions on our own.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Thanks for link to nicotine benefits. I could also say that homeopathic tobaccum alleviates many ill effects from smoking, dizziness, nausea, cancerous affections and much more. There are plusses and minuses to everything.

            replyreport
         2. 70

            Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Finally, something I agree with you on.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Two people agree in the forum! Hurrah!

               replyreport
4. 59

   EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

   You didn't read my site correctly. The nickel is voluntarily added by us consumers who want to use it to buy our way into the money transfer system. Government just helps facilitate that transaction. So, at best, it might be considered a consumer imposed assessment that gets instantly turned around to counter the ability of fast food to function without consumers having a voice in the process. When government collects tobacco tax money they mostly use them for other purposes, or they use them indirectly through outside educational efforts. Burgers Against Obesity builds the voice of empowered consumers right into the transactional process. I see nothing that capitalism, liberalism, even conservativism should complain about. And it would ensure that all of us who buy contribute to making change happen. The more often people eat these foods, the more money for social change and healthy eating is raised. Eating better is built in to the process.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for clarifying. I did not understand. Your concept is for the consumer to donate a nickel which goes to some educational program toward better nutrition. I never attend a fast food place, so not sure about its success.

      replyreport
5. 60

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   It is my understanding that nicotine is more addictive than cocaine. Genetics/DNA will crush willpower every time. It is not the smoker's fault, but it is their responsibility.  I think the government is on the correct path, i.e. stop people from starting, but show mercy for those already entrapped.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for comment paradigmsearch. Even if someone wanted to quit, making it more addictive than cocaine a person could intellectually want to change their habit, yet be unable due to the physical needs. Our minds can play strange tricks on us, as well. This means people who want to quit must overcome by some other means than willpower. The fact that many people DO QUIT means that there must be a way. [My grandfather who smoked for 40 years and then quit cold turkey and lived another 40 years is an example.]

      replyreport
6. 59

   EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

   The world is being taken over by American fast food institutions, so this is going to become a big issue as more and more people become victims of bad eating. So getting the public to WANT to undertake a collective action for their own benefit is the only way it will work. If, in America, the home of the burger monstrosity, we have the ability to build a model for change. But all in all, it doesn't matter whether one eats at fast food places or not. The issue is getting these kinds of pervasive unhealthy institutions to be part of the solution. We will never stop fast food from happening, but we can build into a force for good that ensures quality food and the option of convenience. Anyway, I just wanted to get you thinking otherwise. Government action has worked to slow smoking but it has not been enough. We have to create something better. And I think we can.

   replyreport
7. 59

   EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

   Nick - have you factored out all of the lost income of the kids and families you kill by igniting toxic chemicals for your own convenience? If you do, you might find not smoking is financially better for us all. Without even getting into the fact that it lessons the likelihood that you will be able to use too much of Medicare or Social Security since you will lose 10 or 15 years of life if you don't die sooner. But thanks for thinking of the USA.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Can you prove Nick has killed anybody? I doubt it, why do liberals always make such outlandish claims?

      replyreport
8. 59

   EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

   One can, Repairguy, if one believes in facts. But those pesky things just get in the way.

   replyreport
9. 59

   EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

   I'd rather you didn't. It's bad for you, us and the world. Perhaps with a chemical free body your mind would see other visions.

   replyreport
   1. 65

      Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      We may not want anyone to smoke for many reasons, including welfare of their health. But, that is their personal choice and freedom. Actually, it may sound strange, but some people can smoke their whole lives and not be ill. Probably a very small percentage of the population, plus smoking may reduce their stress and anxiety levels, which we know contributes to disease.

      replyreport
10. 59

    EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

    This kind of silly thinking is symbolic of why we can never get much good done as a society. Nicotine is not smoking. So don't be misled by uninformed representations as if they are balanced with informed representations. There is absolutely no value any longer for tobacco and smoking. None at all. And those who think otherwise do a disservice to all that it means to live in a world of many.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You have brought up an excellent point. Smoking today is MUCH more than simply tobacco and nicotine.

       replyreport
    2. 61

       lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       According to this study, sitting for long periods is WORSE for you than smoking!
       http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/0 … s-smoking/
       
       Should the government regulate how much we sit?
       
       What's really bad for our health is liberals and their crazy ideas! I'm sure if I search I'll find a study to support that! Lol!

       replyreport
       1. 0

          Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          no thats true....my blood pressure went up last night and I smoked and didnt sleep well after hearing obama....so obama and liberals are a danger to my health

          replyreport
          1. 61

             lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ … nis-prager
             
             Okay that explains it! Liberals are basically unhappy people, and we all know happiness is associated with good health!

             replyreport
             1. 0

                Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                right on....I smoke but I run and do other exercise and laugh a lot and the docs say im healthier than most...plus I avoid liberals haha

                replyreport
       2. 65

          Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I love the liberals because I don't think you can lump everyone into a basket and give them a category. Rather people have many opinions about issues that don't fit into one square peg. Nor do I think they are bad for our health. I do, however, appreciate the reference to sitting and heart health. I'm feeling more and more this Hubpages place and other social networks contributes to ill-health, addiction, and not enough physical exercise.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             Nick Lucasposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             I agree with you....there are some liberals who are moderate and I at times have agreed with.....just not the progressive ones who want to change this nation.....also you are right social networking can be bad for health.....I obviously use this to write but I make sure I exercise everyday in addition to the consulting work I do....health is very important to me

             replyreport
    3. 95

       wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Have you, then, appointed yourself as the sole judge of value?
       
       Or, just perhaps, the old notion that the buyer and seller shall together determine the value of a thing is more appropriate?
       
       As a smoker, I assure you that I find value in smoking; were it otherwise I would not spend the money.

       replyreport
11. 59

    EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

    Their Union won't allow it.

    replyreport
12. 59

    EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

    my, my, my ... there is a reason why that imaginary fellow found the need to claim association with the phrase, "Forgive them for they know no what they do!"

    replyreport
13. 59

    EpowerGuyposted 12 years ago

    BlendedValue.org is a great resource for understanding how to marry the desires of good and healthy money with good and social profitability. It presumes a model of business where we can fairly judge what is good for us and for those others who exist on the planet with us. I believe some of the older examples of "buyer and seller" interaction is poorly based on lies, deceptions and the credibility that comes with profiting from the misguided use of public dollars. As we grow smarter and wiser as a culture, we should learn from our mistakes. If we do that, then we can have new examples of consumerism that don't exploit some or do damage to people, places or things to exist. So smoke all you want. I would just ask that you not exhale until a better option arises that allows us all to judge your judgement on our way to the next best pleasure.

    replyreport
    1. 65

       Debby Bruckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Epower - you've provided quite a few reference links that creates awareness.

       replyreport
14. 75

    Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years ago

    Govt regulation on the use, sale, marketing and supply of tobacco and sales promotion of tobacco products?
    
    The USA is about 5 years behind Australia on this one.

    replyreport
    1. 70

       Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       In some places, it's(government) trying to ban outside smoking, which is absurd, considering there are other things in the air which are just as harmful. This in direct violation of Free Enterprise within America's borders.

       replyreport
       1. 75

          Kangaroo_Jaseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Heya Ray,
          
          If you Google smoking bans in Australia, and then search for packaging changes you will become horrified.

          replyreport
15. 60

    recommend1posted 12 years ago

    I just love the Chinese approach to this one - this year they introduced a smoking ban in restaurants and public buildings.  The law is very clear and simple - and there are no penalties !   The upshot is that nobody smokes in the bigger restaurants and cafe's where the business and new middle classes go and some of the smaller places also, but in the workers places smoking still goes on.  A nice ablanced and amicable way of dealing with it, if you don't like it go where there is no smoking, if you want to smoke then go where you can.

    replyreport
16. 68

    Teddletonmrposted 12 years ago

    Humans have and always will be a product of the environment in wich we live. Fire warms us, cooks our food and fills the air we breathe with harmful chemicals. What are we to do? Identify, Prioritize and accentuate the positive, or wait for folks with their self serving agenda win the day.

    replyreport