Posted on 11/26/2002 4:58:07 AM PST by SheLion
Yeah, those no name drugs are the cause of the problem. :-)
Oh your not going to pin that on ME! I am NOT after Free Speech.
But when like-minded Conservatives come into our smoking threads and bash and trash us, it get's my fur up. And rightly so. I thought being a Conservative meant that a person is for all rights for all people.
How wrong I was.......considering SOME of the people that come into our smoking threads.
Tobacco is still a legal commodity. Remember that?
Sounds like you should never go to that establishment again.
But I'm guessing you want a law to outlaw smoking in private establishments.
Which is precisely the same as outlawing property rights.
The problem is that the health effects of obesity far outweigh the negative effects of smoking. Two Rand researchers, health economist Roland Sturm and psychiatrist Kenneth Wells, examined the comparative effects of obesity, smoking, heavy drinking and poverty on chronic health conditions and health expenditures. Their finding: Obesity is the most serious problem. It is linked to a big increase in chronic health conditions and significantly higher health expenditures. And it affects more people than smoking, heavy drinking or poverty.
Early deaths caused by obesity already are well over 300,000 annually, and are growing. Obesity-related health-care costs have grown to over $100 billion a year and now consume over 6 percent of all health-care spending.
Isn't it peculiar how the left tries to proscribe smoking everywhere without being willing to try to actually make tobacco illegal...
I know what Ditter says re: tastes is so - at least is for me. I know my sense of smell is more acute since quitting - but that too took about a year afterwards....
That is exactly what the antis all want.
Which is precisely the same as outlawing property rights
Yes, it is.
And in 10 hours and 20 minutes the property rights of private business will be gone in Delaware when the most extensive and intrusive statewide smoking ban in the nation goes into effect.
Okay, we'll concede that fact on one condition. Break those figures down in health cost per year of life attained and see how smokers and non-smokers compare....
I've said that all along, Argh. If smoking tobacco was like spewing Mustard Gas, they would have banned it 50 years ago. Heck, my own parents told me back in the 50's "IF YOU SMOKE WE WILL KILL YOU!" "SMOKING ISN'T GOOD FOR YOU." That was back in the "50's!!!!"
But the anti-smoking health fanatics of today make it sound like something that was just discovered. And the money they make, well, it's no wonder! The sad thing is: the Tobacco Settlement money that they are funded with is paid for 100% by smokers who pay taxes on cigarettes through the Tobacco Settlement Money. NOT big Tobacco and NOT the Government. The smokers.
My mother-in-law quit 15 years ago. She said all that stuff is a bunch of hooey. There is no difference for her today in taste and smell then back when she was smoking.
So very sorry, engrpat. But listen. I had cancer twice in my life! If you keep your spirits up, you will be ok! Just keep a positive attitude. Promise me?
ALL of us are paying for the uninsured people that are on welfare. But, that's another thread.
The Tobacco Settlement money was supposed to pay for any sick smoker on welfare, should there be any, but the states are using the money to balance budgets. So.......SOMEONE has to pay for the sick uninsured smoker on welfare, when there is any. And that is ALL of us!
Dear Lord,
Please hear my prayer for AppyPappy. He is not a smoker, Lord. Can you please move his number down a little bit, so he can live a longer life?
Thank you, Lord.
Darlene
And do NOT come back at me for making a joke of this. I am very serious.
Again, break those figures down in health cost per year of life attained and see how smokers and non-smokers compare.
The increase in costs shown in the NEJM appear only to be in reference to the increased cost of care due to the increased lifespan of those individuals existing to receive those benefits. Those latter years are many times filled with increased medical concerns, whether smokers or non-smokers. More non-smokers, on average, attain those ages, hence the increased costs. They (those at the NEJM) were not advocating smoking nor continuing to smoke....
I know a lot of people who have said the same thing. Same thing with a sense of smell.
There's a chemical plant, just a couple miles from my house, and even though they are within the limits of emissions there are certain chemicals that I know they are dealing with on certain days because of the smell. Yet many people I know don't smell it - and they're all non-smokers.
Background. Although smoking cessation is desirable from a public health perspective, its consequences with respect to health care costs are still debated. Smokers have more disease than nonsmokers, but nonsmokers live longer and can incur more health costs at advanced ages. We analyzed health care costs for smokers and nonsmokers and estimated the economic consequences of smoking cessation.
Methods. We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs -- one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.
Results. Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
Conclusions. If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs. (N Engl J Med 1997;337:1052-7.)
Source Information From the Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam, the Netherlands, where reprint requests should be addressed to Mr. Barendregt.
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.