Health and the Surgeon General

[Fandango 1,440]

People demonize smoking because there is a second hand effect to those around them who choose not to smoke. If someone chooses to be fat, there's no detrimental effect to those around that person. Well, unless you're in an airline seat next to them.

[Texanadian 10]

Obama smokes. He doesn't smoke as often as he used to. But he still does have the occasional cigarette. McCain is a skin cancer survivor. But he lives in Arizona. Not exactly the friendliest climate for skin cancer.

I don't care if the surgeon general smokes or is overweight.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Obama smokes. He doesn't smoke as often as he used to. But he still does have the occasional cigarette. McCain is a skin cancer survivor. But he lives in Arizona. Not exactly the friendliest climate for skin cancer.

I don't care if the surgeon general smokes or is overweight.

Indeed - if the only qualification to be Surgeon General were to be physically fit and live a healthy lifestyle, then we'd have Gillian Michaels in the role. As it isn't simply a symbolic position - I could care less about the lifestyle of the person holding the job.

[Danno 1,228]

To be fair, now that people know the risks of smoking behaviour has changed. If there were health warnings on other products, it might influence behaviour - of course it would have to be easy to understand because the information is pretty much available by reading the contents label but most people either don't read those, or don't understand what they mean.

You think it was the warning but I'm betting it was raising the prices of smokes like 10 fold per pack.

If Donuts were 8 dollars each, I bet the consumption would drop also.

[scandal 951]

You think it was the warning but I'm betting it was raising the prices of smokes like 10 fold per pack.

If Donuts were 8 dollars each, I bet the consumption would drop also.

Have you seen the warning labels on Canadian cigarettes? Very graphic, they don't fuckaround. They should do that here in the US too.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You think it was the warning but I'm betting it was raising the prices of smokes like 10 fold per pack.

If Donuts were 8 dollars each, I bet the consumption would drop also.

Probably, but I doubt it would be easy to define what foods would fall under the high-tax category.

[Danno 1,228]

Probably, but I doubt it would be easy to define what foods would fall under the high-tax category.

Don't underestimate these folks, if it will rake in money, they can parse the details.

[Danno 1,228]

Have you seen the warning labels on Canadian cigarettes? Very graphic, they don't fuckaround. They should do that here in the US too.

No they shouldn't.

Using unreasonable scare tactics is deplorable.

Nearly every person in my life smoked at one time, many their whole life and I don't know one that had anything like that happen.

If we are basing it on the fact that it "could" happen, we need to post pictures of Sonny Bono on ski gear.

My mom was a serious Chain smoker since 16, who quite like 5 years ago, she has grade-A set of lungs according to tests.

Obesity is the real killer in so many ways.

[scandal 951]

No they shouldn't.

Using unreasonable scare tactics is deplorable.

They're not unreasonable outcomes at all. The fact that your Mom is one of the lucky ones is fantastic for you and her, and I wish her the best of ongoing health. The tobacco companies in the US settled a multibillion dollar lawsuit precisely because there is conclusive scientific evidence of the harm cigarettes cause. This is not in dispute.

[Danno 1,228]

They're not unreasonable outcomes at all. The fact that your Mom is one of the lucky ones is fantastic for you and her, and I wish her the best of ongoing health. The tobacco companies in the US settled a multibillion dollar lawsuit precisely because there is conclusive scientific evidence of the harm cigarettes cause. This is not in dispute.

Smoking does increase ones risk... I suspect not nearly as much as the pictures suggest.

If we used pure statistics to guide us, it would be hard to justify those photos on cigs and no photos at all, on any other product or food.

This ties right back into why a Smoker would not be selected as Atty Gen but an obese people would.

I have known many 50- 60 year old smokers in Good health, every overweight person by 50 is in trouble.... every one.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Don't underestimate these folks, if it will rake in money, they can parse the details.

It's not practical Danno.

Cigarettes are conclusively linked to hugely increased risks of heart disease and various cancers.

You can't easily legislate against food because pretty much everything (save from raw eggs, chicken etc) are perfectly fine in moderation. You can't tax moderation - or even excess.

[scandal 951]

Smoking does increase ones risk... I suspect not nearly as much as the pictures suggest.

If we used pure statistics to guide us, it would be hard to justify those photos on cigs and no photos at all, on any other product or food.

This ties right back into why a Smoker would not be selected as Atty Gen but an obese people would.

I have known many 50- 60 year old smokers in Good health, every overweight person by 50 is in trouble.... every one.

Are you a smoker Danno? Just curious. (oh, you meant Surgeon General, not Attorney General. Some on VJ would be pouncing all over you for that, but I'm kinder than those .

I started to Google a bit for smoking and lung cancer correlations, but of course that's pointless, right? We both know the data is overwhelming, it has been known for decades. That's precisely why Altria (Philip Morris) etc. all settled - they knew they were responsible. The point of the shocking graphical warning labels is to scare people stiff (esp. young kids, potential new smokers) so they will put the pack down. Simply giving them tables and charts of lung cancer mortality rates will glaze anyone's eyes over. The point is to SCARE THEM STIFF. Is it effective?

Seems to be.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-069575/en/

Effectiveness of warnings

Evidence for the greater potential impact of pictorial warnings have come from focus groups and interview studies, experimental exposure studies1 and population-based surveys among Canadian smokers,3–5 Australian youth,1 Dutch smokers1 and from several countries of the 20-country ITC Project: prospective cohort surveys of adult smokers in Australia, Canada and the United States of America (USA),3,5–8 smokers in New Zealand,9 smokers in Canada and Mexico,10 smokers11 and youth12 in Malaysia and Thailand. In addition to the ITC surveys, there are other research studies that support the use of pictorial warnings, notably in the European Union. Taken as a whole, the research on pictorial warnings show that they are: (i) more likely to be noticed than text-only warning labels;3,4,6–8,10–12 (ii) more effective for educating smokers about the health risks of smoking and for increasing smokers’ thoughts about the health risks;7,10 and (iii) associated with increased motivation to quit smoking.3,6–9

[Danno 1,228]

Are you a smoker Danno? Just curious. (oh, you meant Surgeon General, not Attorney General. Some on VJ would be pouncing all over you for that, but I'm kinder than those .

I started to Google a bit for smoking and lung cancer correlations, but of course that's pointless, right? We both know the data is overwhelming, it has been known for decades. That's precisely why Altria (Philip Morris) etc. all settled - they knew they were responsible. The point of the shocking graphical warning labels is to scare people stiff (esp. young kids, potential new smokers) so they will put the pack down. Simply giving them tables and charts of lung cancer mortality rates will glaze anyone's eyes over. The point is to SCARE THEM STIFF. Is it effective?

Seems to be.

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/87/8/09-069575/en/

No, I'm not a smoker but I have been in the past, last time I quit was about 3-4 years ago.

I never developed a real addiction so it was always (fairly) easy to quit.... which also ironically made starting back up, easy.

I doubt I will ever start back up, seems the older I get, the less pleasure I find in it.

[scandal 951]

No, I'm not a smoker but I have been in the past, last time I quit was about 3-4 years ago.

I never developed a real addiction so it was always (fairly) easy to quit.... which also ironically made starting back up, easy.

I doubt I will ever start back up, seems the older I get, the less pleasure I find in it.

Stay healthy. Chew on some carrot sticks

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Personally I think Jack Nicholson would be a good choice for Surgeon General.