Posted on 02/10/2014 7:14:43 AM PST by NKP_Vet
A Times editorial about the decision by CVS to stop selling tobacco products speaks of the need to "drive home the message that the availability of this lethal consumer product should be curtailed as much as possible and that tobacco use is socially unacceptable."
Contrast that with the Times' much more permissive attitude toward smoking marijuana, which a January 30 Times editorial recommended as a pain treatment for football players, and which a January 7 Times editorial recommended making widely available in New York even to non-football-playing customers.
The distinction seems to be that marijuana has magical elixir-like qualities on par with green tea, oatmeal, almond milk, and other health foods, while tobacco is bad for you. The problem, however, is that science, which the Times regularly faults Republicans for ignoring on issues such as climate change, doesn't exactly bear this out.
A 40-year study of Swedish men that was published in 2013, for example, found that "heavy" cannabis use, or more than 50 times over a lifetime, "was significantly associated with more than a twofold risk of developing lung cancer over the 40-year follow-up period, even after statistical adjustment for baseline tobacco use, alcohol use, respiratory conditions, and socioeconomic status." The study observed that "Cannabis (marijuana) smoke and tobacco smoke contain many of the same potent carcinogens."
In other words, the Times editorial position isn't based on what is or isn't "lethal," but on what is or is not "socially acceptable," which the Times itself is shaping with its coverage in articles such as this one from last year on "The etiquette of pot smoking in social settings....given pot's increased presence in the mainstream."
(Excerpt) Read more at smartertimes.com ...
Next, tobacco smokers will have to eschew commercially manufactured ciggies and roll their in such a way that they resemble a joint in order to be socially acceptable.
Pot affects the mind in a way that tobacco doesn’t.
Pot makes liberals.
The magic elixir line is so true.
Or might just be an issue CVS had with failure to follow local laws in getting licenses for their retail locations, and the ending of sales is an agreement to avoid fines...
Don’t forget about E-Cigs.
Cigarettes? Not so much.
I had a feeling that’s what it was. Why would places like CVS voluntarily want to cut 2 billion profit from their business? What better place to sell what are illegal drugs when you are pretty much set up to do so. What kind of deal was struck between the government and CVS. I would think doping would be as bad for you as cigarettes since they both tear up your lungs.
“Pot affects the mind in a way that tobacco doesn’t.”
A stoned populace is a compliant populace.
Stoners gave us Obama. Twice.
Doubt me? He couldn’t have won with the black vote alone.
Exactly. How many conservatives you know that want to be in a drug-induced state all the time. Every pot smoker I have ever known in my life....IF THEY VOTED, voted democrat. The drug makes you lazy as hell. I used to work in a VA hospital and there were many potheads employed. Most all were in the lower pay-grades. The drug causes AMS, as in Anti-Motivational Syndrome. They fall asleep a work, have no attention to detail and are a danger to be around. This is the world of potheads, whether liberals want to believe it or not. And this garbage about medicinal pot in just that, garbage. All it does is numb your senses and there are many safe, legal drugs on the market that do the exact same thing.
Brilliant!
The link between marijuana smoking and lung cancer was first shown decades ago and is not as recent as 2013. However, the "more than two-fold risk" finding is about the same order of risk for cigar and pipe smokers, and much less than the ten to twelve fold risk for heavy long-time cigarette smokers.
No mention in the posted article, however, about the effects of marijuana, acute and long-term, on brain function, including operating a motor vehicle under the influence. That's certainly a factor that any rational evaluation of making pot more readily available should consider.
I would think doping would be as bad for you as cigarettes since they both tear up your lungs.
...I would posit that pot smoking is manifestly more damaging to the lungs...if it is smoked properly...
The next time you buy a cup of Starbucks coffee please be advised you’re supporting abortion on demand and sodomite “marriage”.
I once went to starflakes with a client a couple of years ago. Its just not on my lists of must haves
They never mention the adverse effects of smoking pot on the lungs.
That could be part of it, but this was a national decision on the part of CVS.
The Times editorial is undoubtedly flawed in so far as the main motivation of CVS in stopping the sale of tobacco products (primarily cigarettes, one would assume).
Rather than "to drive home the message that the availability of this lethal consumer product should be curtailed as much as possible and that tobacco use is socially unacceptable," the impetus for CVS's decision was largely economic. Retail selling of cigarettes yields a relatively low percentage profit for the retailer in comparison to most other products that CVS would carry. Plus, it involves a lot of legal expenses and bureaucratic paperwork with licensing and tax collections for federal, state, and sometimes local governments. (The lion's share of the retail price of cigarettes is these taxes.) Furthermore, the publicity generated in the MSM by announcing this decision might give CVS enough of a favorable PR boost to generate momentum for more customer traffic and sales of their various health-promoting products - or at least that was CVS was likely thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.