CVS Health Quits U.S. Chamber Over Stance on Smoking(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
CVS Health Quits U.S. Chamber Over Stance on Smoking
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/business/cvs-health-quits-us-chamber-over-stance-on-smoking.html?smid=fb-share
211 comments
A great deal of the Chamber's funding comes from Tobacco companies. In fact there are conference rooms named for them. If you haven't seen Last Week Tonight's take on the international bad behavior of the Tobacco companies I really encourage you to check it out.
It's about 18min long, but well worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8
They've responded to a shrinking market in the US and other highly developed nations, by doubling down on their efforts to sell to everyone in the rest of the world. And woe to the country with a smaller GDP than Phillip Morris who decides to try to put restrictions on a pack of smokes.
It's about 18min long, but well worth it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UsHHOCH4q8
They've responded to a shrinking market in the US and other highly developed nations, by doubling down on their efforts to sell to everyone in the rest of the world. And woe to the country with a smaller GDP than Phillip Morris who decides to try to put restrictions on a pack of smokes.
With passage of the TPP, Tobacco companies may have almost every country on the Pacific Ocean caught inside a legal structure that would consider, respect, and perhaps even sustain the claims they have made against smaller GDP countries.
You say that like the TPP has passed?
Congress passed fast-track authority for the TPP, and so its approval will be straight up-down vote; it can't be filibustered. The GOP overwhelmingly supports TPP and has majorities in both houses; the TPP also has Democratic support.
It's going to pass.
It's going to pass.
It will.
It's not just shame, this is literally evil. Cigarettes don't merely kill people, they addict them as well. And what's worse, is the US Chamber of Commerce has decades of extremely conclusive research on this matter. It's one thing to kill someone accidentally, but to take a gun and point it for power and profit...
[deleted]
Anybody curious about the topic should check out the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library:
https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
I once happened to meet a researcher who spent some time with the data set and they had all sorts of horrific stories about how consciously evil the cigarette companies were. The one that sticks with me is the people planning marketing campaigns for mentally handicapped adults. I had no words. I still don't, really.
https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/
I once happened to meet a researcher who spent some time with the data set and they had all sorts of horrific stories about how consciously evil the cigarette companies were. The one that sticks with me is the people planning marketing campaigns for mentally handicapped adults. I had no words. I still don't, really.
"Cigarettes kill people. That's it. Deciding it's ok to not only sell these death sticks, but actively fight against the championing of healthier living and longer lives is absolutely, totally, and completely shameful."
Cigarette makers shouldn't be allowed to lie about their product or mislead the public, but I believe they should still be allowed to sell it. Freedom means having the ability to do something that other people disapprove of or even to do things that are self-destructive, so long as they don't directly harm others. I hate cigarettes but I would not support a legal prohibition against them.
Cigarette makers shouldn't be allowed to lie about their product or mislead the public, but I believe they should still be allowed to sell it. Freedom means having the ability to do something that other people disapprove of or even to do things that are self-destructive, so long as they don't directly harm others. I hate cigarettes but I would not support a legal prohibition against them.
>so long as they don't directly harm others
What is second-hand smoke for $300, Jim?
E:
I say this as someone who suffered a SHS-induced asthma attack that nearly killed me when I was 6 years old. That incident got my father to quit smoking cold-turkey. Smoking can directly harm others and second-hand smoke can travel and affect those around the smoker.
Unless the point is that SHS is "indirect" harm. In which case I argue that releasing mustard gas is "indirect" harm.
1 out of 10 smoking-related deaths are non-smokers [0]. We can demonstrate it causes harm to other people and it fails to follow the criteria of "it shouldn't cause direct harm to others".
[0] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/seco...
What is second-hand smoke for $300, Jim?
E:
I say this as someone who suffered a SHS-induced asthma attack that nearly killed me when I was 6 years old. That incident got my father to quit smoking cold-turkey. Smoking can directly harm others and second-hand smoke can travel and affect those around the smoker.
Unless the point is that SHS is "indirect" harm. In which case I argue that releasing mustard gas is "indirect" harm.
1 out of 10 smoking-related deaths are non-smokers [0]. We can demonstrate it causes harm to other people and it fails to follow the criteria of "it shouldn't cause direct harm to others".
[0] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/seco...
Smoking cigarettes does not create second hand smoke, smoking in enclosed spaces with other people does.
You're thinking third-hand smoke, which is the residue of the smoke that remains on furniture/walls and such in enclosed places.
The burning end of the cigarette? That smoke trail is SHS, as is the smoke that the smoker exhales. The exhaled smoke isn't as harmful as the burning cigarette.
People are exposed to larger amounts of SHS in enclosed places that traps the SHS inside. You don't have to smoke to create SHS, you merely have to light a cigarette.
How much and how concentrated SHS needs to be to be considered harmful is another story. Are designated smoking areas enough? How much distance does there need to be to let the smoke dissipate into smaller amounts and be less harmful?
I don't know the answers to the above questions - and I'm not going to trust any study funded by a tobacco company.
The burning end of the cigarette? That smoke trail is SHS, as is the smoke that the smoker exhales. The exhaled smoke isn't as harmful as the burning cigarette.
People are exposed to larger amounts of SHS in enclosed places that traps the SHS inside. You don't have to smoke to create SHS, you merely have to light a cigarette.
How much and how concentrated SHS needs to be to be considered harmful is another story. Are designated smoking areas enough? How much distance does there need to be to let the smoke dissipate into smaller amounts and be less harmful?
I don't know the answers to the above questions - and I'm not going to trust any study funded by a tobacco company.
It's clear that secondhand smoke does harm others, but the extent to which it does is a matter of debate. There's non-tobacco funded research that indicates it's not a significant risk unless you live with an in-home smoker for 30 years[1] (lung cancer only, not sure about heart disease). There are studies that paint a far more extreme situation, I'm sure, but I think this puts occasional outdoor exposure into perspective.
[1] http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/1/221.short
[1] http://annonc.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/1/221.short
Nobody is saying they shouldn't be allowed to sell it. This is about warning labels. They don't want to have any warning labels on the product.
Cigarettes kill people. I don't care.
As long as the public is well informed, I'm strongly in favor of allowing individuals to make their own choices. The cult of anti-smoking needs to come to an end. The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places, and nobody reasonable has any question about the overall health effects of cigarettes. It's time to let people make their own choices.
As long as the public is well informed, I'm strongly in favor of allowing individuals to make their own choices. The cult of anti-smoking needs to come to an end. The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places, and nobody reasonable has any question about the overall health effects of cigarettes. It's time to let people make their own choices.
"The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places" only because of "the cult of anti-smoking". The antismoking laws that the Chamber of Commerce is lobbying against are those very same ones that ended smoking in public places in much of the developed world.
I guess you didn't RTFA, where it says the United States Chamber of Commerce is helping sue other countries for public health measures such as eliminating second hand smoke and ensuring people are well-informed of the risks they're taking?
As long as smokers can smoke freely in their own homes and cars while their children are there and unable to escape it, the second-hand smoke nuisance has not been eliminated.
Let's play a game:
As long as X can X freely in their own X while their children are there and unable to escape it, the X has not been eliminated.
...
As long as parents can endlessly stock junk food freely in their own homes and cars while their children are there and unable to escape it, the influence of junk food has not been eliminated.
The problem, fundamentally, is that people can be inconsiderate of others. I would classify someone who smokes in their car with non-smokers in their presence, children and adults alike, as jerks. It's a dick move. But don't try to legislate against every dick move - teach people to be more thoughtful of others.
As long as X can X freely in their own X while their children are there and unable to escape it, the X has not been eliminated.
...
As long as parents can endlessly stock junk food freely in their own homes and cars while their children are there and unable to escape it, the influence of junk food has not been eliminated.
The problem, fundamentally, is that people can be inconsiderate of others. I would classify someone who smokes in their car with non-smokers in their presence, children and adults alike, as jerks. It's a dick move. But don't try to legislate against every dick move - teach people to be more thoughtful of others.
Having junk food in the house doesn't force it into childrens' bodies. Smoking in a room with them does. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Having junk food in the house doesn't force it into childrens' bodies.
Food doesn't fly from the pantry into the child's mouth however children can only eat what their parents buy them. There are minor deviations from this rule e.g. the child has money to buy something nutritious or they can source food from another household. Otherwise having junk food in the house pretty much guarantees it'll find its way into the child's stomach.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
For the sake of the exercise I can compare apples to oranges. The exercise is to identify fundamental flaws in the OP's reasoning, not make simple analogies. The OP wants to ban passive smoking in the most private of spaces - feel free to explain how you do that in a way that won't be worse than exposing a child to passive smoking.
Food doesn't fly from the pantry into the child's mouth however children can only eat what their parents buy them. There are minor deviations from this rule e.g. the child has money to buy something nutritious or they can source food from another household. Otherwise having junk food in the house pretty much guarantees it'll find its way into the child's stomach.
You're comparing apples to oranges.
For the sake of the exercise I can compare apples to oranges. The exercise is to identify fundamental flaws in the OP's reasoning, not make simple analogies. The OP wants to ban passive smoking in the most private of spaces - feel free to explain how you do that in a way that won't be worse than exposing a child to passive smoking.
"It's a dick move", no we have a word for that it's evil.
PS: Risking others lives for fun or profit seems to exist in a weird mental place. Drink and drive? Speed? Drive while really sleepy? Second hand smoke? Pollution? CO2? Fire a gun randomly in the air?
PS: Risking others lives for fun or profit seems to exist in a weird mental place. Drink and drive? Speed? Drive while really sleepy? Second hand smoke? Pollution? CO2? Fire a gun randomly in the air?
it's evil
As outlined in a separate comment in this thread, your solution is unenforceable unless you want to erode some pretty fundamental freedoms. THAT'S evil. No, wait...it's not evil. "Evil" is a gross oversimplification of things. It's anti-intellectual and avoids any sort of meaningful discussion of why people do the things they do.
You feel compelled to help prevent potential respiratory issues and cancer in children exposed to second hand smoke by policing what people do in their own homes. But in the process of policing this issue you potentially do more harm than good - how do you solve the issue? Fines? Makes the family poor. Criminal record? Makes the family poor. Take away the children? Your intentions are good but I can only see the medicine being worse than the malady.
As outlined in a separate comment in this thread, your solution is unenforceable unless you want to erode some pretty fundamental freedoms. THAT'S evil. No, wait...it's not evil. "Evil" is a gross oversimplification of things. It's anti-intellectual and avoids any sort of meaningful discussion of why people do the things they do.
You feel compelled to help prevent potential respiratory issues and cancer in children exposed to second hand smoke by policing what people do in their own homes. But in the process of policing this issue you potentially do more harm than good - how do you solve the issue? Fines? Makes the family poor. Criminal record? Makes the family poor. Take away the children? Your intentions are good but I can only see the medicine being worse than the malady.
I suggested no solutions.
I just suggested that risking lives should be viewed as more than just 'a dick move'. Cutting in a school lunch line is 'a dick move' dumping lead into a towns drinking water is worse than that.
PS: We used to think beating children was ok so times change even if few people in up in prison.
I just suggested that risking lives should be viewed as more than just 'a dick move'. Cutting in a school lunch line is 'a dick move' dumping lead into a towns drinking water is worse than that.
PS: We used to think beating children was ok so times change even if few people in up in prison.
I suggested no solutions
I did put words in your mouth but the implication of your original comment, that smoking around children be banned in the home, was that there would need to be some sort of policing of this activity. To police an activity in an individuals home we need to impinge on some pretty important freedoms. So we have a choice - a severe nanny state where we address shitty behavior on a case-by-case basis or teach people to be more thoughtful so that we can prevent shitty behavior from the outset.
PS: We used to think beating children was ok so times change even if few people in up in prison.
Sending a parent to jail for beating their child is wise because beating a child imperils the child's life. On the other hand, sending someone's parents to jail for smoking around them will be more damaging than exposure to cigarette smoke. The medicine is worse than the disease. What's more, you assume all people are rational actors which we know is fantasy - just because some people have gone to prison in the past for some random transgression won't be enough to stop another person from doing the same.
Even though this unfortunately isn't the case, jail should only be used to separate violent people from the general population - there are far better methods for dealing with non-violent offenders, chiefly community service or a fine.
I did put words in your mouth but the implication of your original comment, that smoking around children be banned in the home, was that there would need to be some sort of policing of this activity. To police an activity in an individuals home we need to impinge on some pretty important freedoms. So we have a choice - a severe nanny state where we address shitty behavior on a case-by-case basis or teach people to be more thoughtful so that we can prevent shitty behavior from the outset.
PS: We used to think beating children was ok so times change even if few people in up in prison.
Sending a parent to jail for beating their child is wise because beating a child imperils the child's life. On the other hand, sending someone's parents to jail for smoking around them will be more damaging than exposure to cigarette smoke. The medicine is worse than the disease. What's more, you assume all people are rational actors which we know is fantasy - just because some people have gone to prison in the past for some random transgression won't be enough to stop another person from doing the same.
Even though this unfortunately isn't the case, jail should only be used to separate violent people from the general population - there are far better methods for dealing with non-violent offenders, chiefly community service or a fine.
I think you vastly underestimate other tools a state had to influence behavior. Education for example is a ridiculously powerful tool that's underused in the US. Don't assume you need to fix things in a week states can have 100+ year time horizons.
Also, if you have 10 equally valid issues at a national level. Then 100% fixing one of them almost impossible and probably extremely expensive where making a 20% dent in all 10 of them is more valuable and probably far less costly.
Also, if you have 10 equally valid issues at a national level. Then 100% fixing one of them almost impossible and probably extremely expensive where making a 20% dent in all 10 of them is more valuable and probably far less costly.
The inconsistency this game reveals, that different objectionable habits with similar health consequences receive different legal treatment, as they are not interchangeable in your X template, is cultural. If some other deadly thing can not take the place of X, I would argue that culture is invoked to support the otherwise useless, apparently unsupported assertion, "but, this is different."
but, this is different.
The game isn't to find something exactly analogous to something else in order to expose the flaw in the structure of someones thinking. Example: take a gospel, replace every instance of the word God with Mickey Mouse. Is Mickey Mouse analogous to God? No, but the trick helps us analyze the original text in a more objective way.
My conclusion don't try to legislate against every dick move - teach people to be more thoughtful of others was an objective response to more laws governing what people can do in their own homes. Now let's explore it further because the concept of banning smoking in someone's home is fundamentally flawed:
How do you enforce such a law? Can someone just barge into your home, slap the cigarette out of your hand and give you a fine or take your children away? Could it be abused much the same way neighbors might falsely report you for neglecting a child because they have a beef with you? How much do you fine a person if the purpose of the law is to protect the children when fining the parents will leave the children with fewer resources? Do you give the parent a criminal record? Will that help the children more? What evidence is required before barging into someones home? Do you even barge into someones home or do you politely ask them at the font door "Have you been smoking in front of your children?"
The game isn't to find something exactly analogous to something else in order to expose the flaw in the structure of someones thinking. Example: take a gospel, replace every instance of the word God with Mickey Mouse. Is Mickey Mouse analogous to God? No, but the trick helps us analyze the original text in a more objective way.
My conclusion don't try to legislate against every dick move - teach people to be more thoughtful of others was an objective response to more laws governing what people can do in their own homes. Now let's explore it further because the concept of banning smoking in someone's home is fundamentally flawed:
How do you enforce such a law? Can someone just barge into your home, slap the cigarette out of your hand and give you a fine or take your children away? Could it be abused much the same way neighbors might falsely report you for neglecting a child because they have a beef with you? How much do you fine a person if the purpose of the law is to protect the children when fining the parents will leave the children with fewer resources? Do you give the parent a criminal record? Will that help the children more? What evidence is required before barging into someones home? Do you even barge into someones home or do you politely ask them at the font door "Have you been smoking in front of your children?"
The irony of people complaining about smoking in cars, when diesel fumes kill way more people than passive smoking....
There's also some evidence that smokers die earlier and are less of a burden on the health services than non smokers. I mean it's a terrible reason to support smoking, but I kind of support your viewpoint. I don't think there are any smokers out there anymore who don't know it's bad for you. Though I would never ask to go backwards in terms of where we arrived at now - packs with warnings and no indoor smoking is a great thing.
> I don't think there are any smokers out there anymore who don't know it's bad for you
I suspect this is not necessarily the case in countries with less public health education, especially developing or poor countries which is where Tobacco has shifted its efforts to grow or maintain revenue.
I suspect this is not necessarily the case in countries with less public health education, especially developing or poor countries which is where Tobacco has shifted its efforts to grow or maintain revenue.
For sure. But this article isn't about that.
That is exactly what this article is about. It talks specifically about fighting smoking regulations in Moldova, for example.
Isn't it? The US Chamber of Commerce apparently supports those actions.
nah... as a smoker, i can tell you it's damned clear that it's bad for you when you wake up in the morning. there's no internal dialogue telling you "maybe this isn't bad for me".
there's an external dialogue though, for sure... "it's more/less bad than you think"
there's an external dialogue though, for sure... "it's more/less bad than you think"
>The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places
Reduced, but not eliminated. People still smoke in far too many public spaces in the US. Try standing at the curb outside baggage claim at SFO or SJC. Or, outside many large office buildings.
The only place smoking should be legal is in the privacy of your own single-family detached home. Even then, only if you don't have any minors living there.
Reduced, but not eliminated. People still smoke in far too many public spaces in the US. Try standing at the curb outside baggage claim at SFO or SJC. Or, outside many large office buildings.
The only place smoking should be legal is in the privacy of your own single-family detached home. Even then, only if you don't have any minors living there.
> The cult of anti-smoking needs to come to an end. The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places.
That's a bit like saying "the cult of modern medicine needs to end now that I'm healthy", isn't it?
That's a bit like saying "the cult of modern medicine needs to end now that I'm healthy", isn't it?
No, because they aren't stopping. To use your analogy, you must stop taking your antibiotics once the course is done and the infection clear.
Having won all the battles they should have won, the cult is reaching to win battles they shouldn't. Keeping people well informed about the choices they make is good. Keeping public places reasonably free of smoke is good.
But once you inform smokers about the consequences of their choices and prevent them from affecting those who don't want to make those choices ... it's time to step back and allow people to make their own decisions.
If somebody wants to make an unhealthy choice for themselves, I don't have a problem with it. Maybe they'll need to pay a different health insurance premium to make up for it, and that's okay, but otherwise it is not the prerogative of my self or any government to intrude on personal choices which have effects limited to the individual.
Having won all the battles they should have won, the cult is reaching to win battles they shouldn't. Keeping people well informed about the choices they make is good. Keeping public places reasonably free of smoke is good.
But once you inform smokers about the consequences of their choices and prevent them from affecting those who don't want to make those choices ... it's time to step back and allow people to make their own decisions.
If somebody wants to make an unhealthy choice for themselves, I don't have a problem with it. Maybe they'll need to pay a different health insurance premium to make up for it, and that's okay, but otherwise it is not the prerogative of my self or any government to intrude on personal choices which have effects limited to the individual.
The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places
Only in the West. Here in SE Asia you're hard pressed to find a cafe or restaurant that isn't completely engulfed in cigarette smoke during business hours. Public smoking bans seem a long way off here.
Only in the West. Here in SE Asia you're hard pressed to find a cafe or restaurant that isn't completely engulfed in cigarette smoke during business hours. Public smoking bans seem a long way off here.
As long as the public is well informed, I'm strongly in favor of allowing individuals to make their own choices.
It's not much of a choice when you're psychologically manipulated through marketing to start smoking and then physically dependent and mentally addicted thereafter.
The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places
This is nonsense. I can't walk into my office without going through a giant cloud of smoke. Smokers are literally smoking right next to the signs that say, "No smoking within 30 feet of door" that are less than a foot from the door.
It's not much of a choice when you're psychologically manipulated through marketing to start smoking and then physically dependent and mentally addicted thereafter.
The second-hand smoke nuisance has been eliminated in public places
This is nonsense. I can't walk into my office without going through a giant cloud of smoke. Smokers are literally smoking right next to the signs that say, "No smoking within 30 feet of door" that are less than a foot from the door.
>It's not much of a choice when you're psychologically manipulated through marketing to start smoking and then physically dependent and mentally addicted thereafter.
I have no respect for this abdication of personal responsibility.
>This is nonsense. I can't walk into my office without going through a giant cloud of smoke. Smokers are literally smoking right next to the signs that say, "No smoking within 30 feet of door" that are less than a foot from the door.
I likewise have no sympathy. There's a difference between an actual public health concern (my intention using 'nuisance') and the nonexistent right to not be offended. Sharing public space means being inconvenienced sometimes. There's a big difference between working in a smoky bar for 10 hour shifts, and smelling cigarettes for 30 seconds as you walk in a building.
I have no respect for this abdication of personal responsibility.
>This is nonsense. I can't walk into my office without going through a giant cloud of smoke. Smokers are literally smoking right next to the signs that say, "No smoking within 30 feet of door" that are less than a foot from the door.
I likewise have no sympathy. There's a difference between an actual public health concern (my intention using 'nuisance') and the nonexistent right to not be offended. Sharing public space means being inconvenienced sometimes. There's a big difference between working in a smoky bar for 10 hour shifts, and smelling cigarettes for 30 seconds as you walk in a building.
> nobody reasonable has any question about the overall health effects of cigarettes.
This is probably not true. Sure, smokers know that cigarettes are harmful and that their live is probably going to be shortened by smoking, but they do not know the rates or severity of the various health problems.
For example Most men do not know that smoking is a leading cause of male impotence. People don't understand why their surgeon wants them to stop smoking (reduced risks during surgery; better healing after).
This is probably not true. Sure, smokers know that cigarettes are harmful and that their live is probably going to be shortened by smoking, but they do not know the rates or severity of the various health problems.
For example Most men do not know that smoking is a leading cause of male impotence. People don't understand why their surgeon wants them to stop smoking (reduced risks during surgery; better healing after).
> Cigarettes kill people. That's it.
That's not it. Cigarettes also bring a large amount of pleasure to people. If you think that doesn't matter, replace it with candy bars, or any food that isn't part of the healthiest possible diet.
That's not it. Cigarettes also bring a large amount of pleasure to people. If you think that doesn't matter, replace it with candy bars, or any food that isn't part of the healthiest possible diet.
That's not it. Cigarettes also bring a large amount of pleasure to people. ...
Of course things are more nuanced, when it comes down to the matter of lifestyle and individual choice.
But it's kind of beside the main point. Which is: when it comes to their tireless efforts to tear down nearly any reasonable safeguards (whether in the form of health warnings on packaging, or access to minors) -- and especially the extent to which they resort to FUD and blatant anti-intellectualism to achieve these ends -- the tobacco lobby simply has no case.
Of course things are more nuanced, when it comes down to the matter of lifestyle and individual choice.
But it's kind of beside the main point. Which is: when it comes to their tireless efforts to tear down nearly any reasonable safeguards (whether in the form of health warnings on packaging, or access to minors) -- and especially the extent to which they resort to FUD and blatant anti-intellectualism to achieve these ends -- the tobacco lobby simply has no case.
Yeah, now swap that with heroin.
The Chamber is pro heroin. Sounds nonsensical, doesn't it?
The Chamber is pro heroin. Sounds nonsensical, doesn't it?
Cigarettes don't merely bring pleasure, they also bring physical addiction. High fructose corn syrup is also another problem.
I generally think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they're not being influenced by others in a way they can't control or are not fully aware of, which is what advertising and marketing generally is.
When you add in underlying physiological effects like chemical addiction to nicotine and sugar (and an ignorance of), this is clearly a case where individuals freedom and security is being infringed upon.
When the day comes that we can structure our society such that might does not make right, I'll agree with you, we should relax our laws and encourage more a more libertarian outlook. Until then, centers of power and capital need to be constrained by our legal system to protect the vulnerable.
I generally think everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want to themselves, as long as they're not being influenced by others in a way they can't control or are not fully aware of, which is what advertising and marketing generally is.
When you add in underlying physiological effects like chemical addiction to nicotine and sugar (and an ignorance of), this is clearly a case where individuals freedom and security is being infringed upon.
When the day comes that we can structure our society such that might does not make right, I'll agree with you, we should relax our laws and encourage more a more libertarian outlook. Until then, centers of power and capital need to be constrained by our legal system to protect the vulnerable.
So you also support restrictions on the sale of recreational drugs.
Personally, my main opposition is to the industrial-scale production and sale of recreational drugs, because addiction and capitalism are a terrible combination.
As an example, the park nearest my house has a guy who comes by occasionally on some busy weekends to sell pot truffles. I'm sure he makes a modest living, but I have no worry about people getting dangerously hooked. If we were to let Coca Cola put the cocaine back in, though? Or to let 7-11 sell hash and crack, with prominent placards outside and a billion-dollar ad budget? No thanks.
My other half-serious plan is for licensing. Imagine that to be able to legally buy and take LSD, you have to take a 12-week class with practical exams where you drop acid with your instructor. I can think of no better way to remove the appealing mystique of drugs than to make kids turn up after school every Wednesday for a semester and have some teacher drone at them about mechanisms of action and key safety considerations.
As an example, the park nearest my house has a guy who comes by occasionally on some busy weekends to sell pot truffles. I'm sure he makes a modest living, but I have no worry about people getting dangerously hooked. If we were to let Coca Cola put the cocaine back in, though? Or to let 7-11 sell hash and crack, with prominent placards outside and a billion-dollar ad budget? No thanks.
My other half-serious plan is for licensing. Imagine that to be able to legally buy and take LSD, you have to take a 12-week class with practical exams where you drop acid with your instructor. I can think of no better way to remove the appealing mystique of drugs than to make kids turn up after school every Wednesday for a semester and have some teacher drone at them about mechanisms of action and key safety considerations.
> addiction and capitalism are a terrible combination.
Have we ever seen that play out for hard drugs, when capitalism is also allowed to work on treatment and rehab?
Have we ever seen that play out for hard drugs, when capitalism is also allowed to work on treatment and rehab?
The cigarette problem does seem to make a compelling case for recreational drugs being a more complicated problem than most people anticipate.
Most people put themselves firmly in a pro- or anti- legalization camp, but in reality there are major problems (and solved problems) with both approaches.
Fully legalize and you'll encounter this horrible scenario where big companies emerge to profit off addictions. They'll lobby governments domestically and abroad. They'll engage in all kinds of shady practices to protect their businesses, just as cigarette companies have. (the oft-proposed solution to the flawed status quo)
Don't legalize and you'll miss many opportunities to help addicts, allow the black market to continue, etc. All the things you're already familiar with. (the status quo)
It's complicated.
Most people put themselves firmly in a pro- or anti- legalization camp, but in reality there are major problems (and solved problems) with both approaches.
Fully legalize and you'll encounter this horrible scenario where big companies emerge to profit off addictions. They'll lobby governments domestically and abroad. They'll engage in all kinds of shady practices to protect their businesses, just as cigarette companies have. (the oft-proposed solution to the flawed status quo)
Don't legalize and you'll miss many opportunities to help addicts, allow the black market to continue, etc. All the things you're already familiar with. (the status quo)
It's complicated.
Yeah, definitely. I think if you want to grow some pot plants in your backyard, go crazy. But if you start to sell them? No thanks.
Sure, but the health effects are smoking are well documented and significantly worse than eating candy bars, or even most other poor diet habits that people have. In addition, cigarettes negatively impact the health of non-smokers that have the misfortune of having sustained contact with a smoker (for example, children) due to not only second-hand smoke but also the toxins that cling to clothing and other surfaces.
It would be different if smoking only affected the smoker, but as it affects the wider population (such as higher overall health care premiums), it deserves stricter controls.
It would be different if smoking only affected the smoker, but as it affects the wider population (such as higher overall health care premiums), it deserves stricter controls.
Second hand smoke has a much weaker connection to health issues than actual smoking.
And the "collective cost" argument is silly, because it can be applied to any personal liberty that negatively affects health.
And the "collective cost" argument is silly, because it can be applied to any personal liberty that negatively affects health.
Second hand smoke has been debunked years ago. Watch the "Penn and Teller Bullshit" on it.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
No it hasn't. There was a study that came out after that episode which confirmed secondhand smoke, and caused them to issue a retraction.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s8yqj3EL7A
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3s8yqj3EL7A
Two points:
1) From your link, "The study doesn’t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else’s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease." So not debunked exactly.
2) Penn & Teller are entertainers (and illusionists). They present controversial opinions for the sake of a TV show. It is not journalism and shouldn't be accepted at face value.
ETA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!
Penn says, "right now, as I sit here, there probably is danger in secondhand smoke".
1) From your link, "The study doesn’t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else’s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease." So not debunked exactly.
2) Penn & Teller are entertainers (and illusionists). They present controversial opinions for the sake of a TV show. It is not journalism and shouldn't be accepted at face value.
ETA: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_%26_Teller:_Bullshit!
Penn says, "right now, as I sit here, there probably is danger in secondhand smoke".
Your link only says it doesn't cause cancer, not that it is harmless.
Asthma sufferers, for example, have all sorts of additional breathing difficulties when forced to breathe smoke (of any kind).
Asthma sufferers, for example, have all sorts of additional breathing difficulties when forced to breathe smoke (of any kind).
P&T's Bullshit is a really bad source of information.
"but the health effects are smoking are well documented and significantly worse than eating candy bars, or even most other poor diet habits that people have"
Heart disease is a bigger killer than cancer in many countries.
Heart disease is a bigger killer than cancer in many countries.
Smoking causes heart disease.
Plenty of non smokers get heart disease as well.
Plenty of non smokers also get cancer.
Plenty of non smokers also get cancer.
The occasional cigarette might bring pleasure to people. But typical cigarette smoking has the opposite effect.
A tobacco addiction works by screwing with your brain's ability to perceive pleasure. The result is that most cigarette smokers do not get pleasure added to their lives by tobacco. It's just that they need to keep smoking just to keep getting themselves back up to feeling normal.
A tobacco addiction works by screwing with your brain's ability to perceive pleasure. The result is that most cigarette smokers do not get pleasure added to their lives by tobacco. It's just that they need to keep smoking just to keep getting themselves back up to feeling normal.
Agreed. It's like wearing shoes that are too small so you can have the "pleasure" of taking them off.
Or exercising strenuously so you can have the pleasure of being in better shape later.
It's a stimulant, very similar to caffeine.
With the amount of caffeine addicts in the world I'm surprised at the hostility towards nicotine.
With the amount of caffeine addicts in the world I'm surprised at the hostility towards nicotine.
It's not chemical nicotine that people abhor. It's nicotine specifically in conjunction with a bunch of awful toxins that we collectively call "tobacco."
Similarly, people are much more against caffeine in the form of sugary energy drinks than caffeine in the form of tea, because energy drinks are bad for you while tea is moderately good for you on the whole.
Similarly, people are much more against caffeine in the form of sugary energy drinks than caffeine in the form of tea, because energy drinks are bad for you while tea is moderately good for you on the whole.
Which raises the question of why so many of these people are vehemently opposed to e-cigarettes, which are essentially just a mechanism for delivering nicotine with some inert vapor.
> Which raises the question of why so many of these people are vehemently opposed to e-cigarettes
I'm a smoker myself (quit a few times, for periods up to a year, I will quit again, but damn that addiction is going to chase me for life).
I'm not "vehemently" opposed to e-cigs, but I don't like them either. When they first appeared, I saw a few friends switch to e-cigs, and considered perhaps getting one for myself. But after a week or two, every single one of them "cheated" and occasionally smoked a real cigarette, citing that it just wasn't really the same. By now, nearly all of them have switched back to smoking real cigarettes.
Then I realized, e-cigs just keep the cravings and addiction going. I knew I wanted to quit, and quit for real. For me personally, from experience, only the first week or so of quitting is the hardest, after that the craving subsides (for some people this takes longer). Then comes the period where you're really happy you're no longer a smoker, feel cleaner, smell more things (not always good, but very worth it, and sign of progress). Then comes the long stretch where you just need to never, ever smoke a cigarette again, for the rest of your life. Because even just smoking one, after half a year, weakens that resolve, and I should consider myself "on notice" for at least a couple of weeks, because the threshold for smoking another one becomes so much lower, and before you know I'm back at step 0. It's (for me) not particularly hard on the day-by-day basis, it's the part that you can't ever give in to it again, for the rest of your life, that makes it hard to keep up.
That's why I don't like e-cigs. For someone who is really addicted, it just keeps the door open to fall back to regular cigarettes any time, because you don't do anything about the habit and nicotine addiction, you just make it less unhealthy as long as you stick to e-cigs only.
The only positive thing I have gained from smoking, is learning what addiction really means, therefore understanding other people's addictions better, and decidedly staying away from other addictive substances.
I'm a smoker myself (quit a few times, for periods up to a year, I will quit again, but damn that addiction is going to chase me for life).
I'm not "vehemently" opposed to e-cigs, but I don't like them either. When they first appeared, I saw a few friends switch to e-cigs, and considered perhaps getting one for myself. But after a week or two, every single one of them "cheated" and occasionally smoked a real cigarette, citing that it just wasn't really the same. By now, nearly all of them have switched back to smoking real cigarettes.
Then I realized, e-cigs just keep the cravings and addiction going. I knew I wanted to quit, and quit for real. For me personally, from experience, only the first week or so of quitting is the hardest, after that the craving subsides (for some people this takes longer). Then comes the period where you're really happy you're no longer a smoker, feel cleaner, smell more things (not always good, but very worth it, and sign of progress). Then comes the long stretch where you just need to never, ever smoke a cigarette again, for the rest of your life. Because even just smoking one, after half a year, weakens that resolve, and I should consider myself "on notice" for at least a couple of weeks, because the threshold for smoking another one becomes so much lower, and before you know I'm back at step 0. It's (for me) not particularly hard on the day-by-day basis, it's the part that you can't ever give in to it again, for the rest of your life, that makes it hard to keep up.
That's why I don't like e-cigs. For someone who is really addicted, it just keeps the door open to fall back to regular cigarettes any time, because you don't do anything about the habit and nicotine addiction, you just make it less unhealthy as long as you stick to e-cigs only.
The only positive thing I have gained from smoking, is learning what addiction really means, therefore understanding other people's addictions better, and decidedly staying away from other addictive substances.
Just a small counterpoint, I'm a huge cigarette hater and I love the fact that e-cigarettes are catching on. They still smell crappy and suck to be around, but they're nowhere near as unpleasant and vomit-inducing as cigarettes are. Addicts are going to be addicts; for my sake, I'd much rather have them vaping than smoking.
Nicotine is directly harmful to your heart.
One of the more interesting bits of trivia about nicotine and caffeine is it is the mode of delivery that makes nicotine so addictive. If you smoked caffeine it would be as addictive as nicotine. Given we now have vaping it should be possible to smoke caffeine - I haven’t looked, but I would not be surprised if someone out there is selling smokable caffeine.
One of the more interesting bits of trivia about nicotine and caffeine is it is the mode of delivery that makes nicotine so addictive. If you smoked caffeine it would be as addictive as nicotine. Given we now have vaping it should be possible to smoke caffeine - I haven’t looked, but I would not be surprised if someone out there is selling smokable caffeine.
> Nicotine is directly harmful to your heart.
Yes, but it's worth noting that the increased risk of heart disease from smoking is due to more than just nicotine.
Yes, but it's worth noting that the increased risk of heart disease from smoking is due to more than just nicotine.
Sure - the harm is is going to be greater when you add in all the other nasty compounds in tobacco smoke.
It in not only smoke that is harmful as people who chew tobacco suffer an increase in mouth cancer. While vaping should have a lower risk than smoking, it is not risk free. Since it is so new we won’t know for sometime how dangerous it is.
It in not only smoke that is harmful as people who chew tobacco suffer an increase in mouth cancer. While vaping should have a lower risk than smoking, it is not risk free. Since it is so new we won’t know for sometime how dangerous it is.
We are all going to die anyway. Non-smokers often seem to overlook that fact.
The problem with cigarettes is not just that they kill you a little bit sooner, but that they cause many years of life of reduced quality. There's a bunch of stuff like COPD or stroke that don't always kill smokers but do make their lives much less pleasant.
Non smokers often make smokers lives unpleasant.
:)
I'm not sure if you were making a distinction between vaping and smoking, but I checked and there is indeed vapeable caffeine (plus taurine and flavoring.) I feel weird dropping a link, but search "Energy Shisha" if you're interested.
I have no issue with the nicotine. I have issues with the acetone, ammonia, arsenic, butane, cadmium, formaldehyde, lead, etc.
When caffeine contains the above and my act of consumption means others also inhale those chemicals (SHS) then I'll care about caffeine as much as I do tobacco smoke.
When caffeine contains the above and my act of consumption means others also inhale those chemicals (SHS) then I'll care about caffeine as much as I do tobacco smoke.
It's quite clear to me that I'm addicted to caffeine. If it had carcinogenic effects even beginning to approach those of cigarettes, I would quit immediately. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have a similar relationship with caffeine.
"Stimulant" is a very broad category of drugs. Bath salts also fall into that category, for example.
Are you meaning to suggest that they have the same pharmacokinetics, or similar acute or chronic use symptoms?
Are you meaning to suggest that they have the same pharmacokinetics, or similar acute or chronic use symptoms?
[deleted]
[deleted]
This statement makes no sense. Besides the fact that literally everything works by manipulating your brain, no one has ever measured a quantum of pleasure, so it can't be “added” to your brain like a unit of flour.
Actually, his explanation is basically how addiction ends up working on the brain. Smoking becomes the new normal, so not smoking makes you go to an extremely bad mood.
This is where the whole "cold turkey" thing comes from and why quitting is so difficult for so many people
This is where the whole "cold turkey" thing comes from and why quitting is so difficult for so many people
That's all true, and like I said, it's more than "cigarettes kill people."
I smoke about once every month or two. Sometimes a cigarette, sometimes a cigar and sometimes in the winter a pipe. If it is as addictive as they claim, it has yet to show. I have no feeling of "needing" to smoke. I do it because it is a very enjoyable experience.
I feel as though the addiction springs from the person and not the drug, just as some people are addicted to gambling or facebook or video games. Some people just get addicted to anything that once gave them a positive emotion.
I feel as though the addiction springs from the person and not the drug, just as some people are addicted to gambling or facebook or video games. Some people just get addicted to anything that once gave them a positive emotion.
Are you challenging the notion that cigarettes are addictive? I can't imagine this was your point. If you would like, I will provide evidence citing that cigarettes are, in fact, very addictive.
Edit: well you edited your comment twice since my reply, so I'll be right back with some information for you.
Overall synopsis: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/cigarettes-o...
Mainstream overview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/cigarettes-more-add...
> Nicotine is a drug found naturally in tobacco, which is as addictive as heroin or cocaine: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/ques...
Onset of addiction: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117976
Finally, understanding addiction of nicotine: https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/content/featured-study-understandin...
Edit: well you edited your comment twice since my reply, so I'll be right back with some information for you.
Overall synopsis: http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/cigarettes-o...
Mainstream overview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/17/cigarettes-more-add...
> Nicotine is a drug found naturally in tobacco, which is as addictive as heroin or cocaine: http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/ques...
Onset of addiction: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=117976
Finally, understanding addiction of nicotine: https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/content/featured-study-understandin...
I vaped unflavored nicotine for about 2 years. Intermittent at first, heavy daily use during the second year, equivalent to a pack of cigarettes per day or more. I quit because enjoyment decreased to the point where it was no longer worth the hassle.
I experienced zero addiction for the first three months, and even after the full two years addiction was mild. I reduced my dose gradually over two weeks. There were no physical withdrawal symptoms, and only minor craving which went away after a few months abstinence. I'm no expert on heroin addiction, but I find it hard to believe it's equal to nicotine. Perhaps whole tobacco would be different.
I experienced zero addiction for the first three months, and even after the full two years addiction was mild. I reduced my dose gradually over two weeks. There were no physical withdrawal symptoms, and only minor craving which went away after a few months abstinence. I'm no expert on heroin addiction, but I find it hard to believe it's equal to nicotine. Perhaps whole tobacco would be different.
No, the difference is, at least from what I've seen (am not sure if the research supports this, but it would be interesting if it did not), some people (like myself) seem to be more susceptible to smoking addiction than others. I know quite a few people who have no trouble smoking intermittently, with months in between, and then quitting with hardly any effort. Maybe they just have more resolve or willpower, but I've seen them smoke more than enough to "catch" the addiction like I did, then stop, never really getting stuck into a daily habit. Yes I'm jealous :) On the other hand, I don't want to smoke just "occasionally" either, I just want to quit.
> I feel as though the addiction springs from the person and not the drug
It springs from the interaction between the two; different drugs have different addictive qualities, different people have different susceptibilities to those addictive qualities. Individual extreme outliers -- in both the more easily addicted and less easily addicted directions -- for any particular drug are to be expected, and don't disprove the general feature.
It springs from the interaction between the two; different drugs have different addictive qualities, different people have different susceptibilities to those addictive qualities. Individual extreme outliers -- in both the more easily addicted and less easily addicted directions -- for any particular drug are to be expected, and don't disprove the general feature.
> I feel as though the addiction springs from the person and not the drug
The only people who claim that are ones who haven't been addicted to cigarettes :-)
If you're only smoking once a month, the nicotine isn't building up enough to make withdrawal a problem. I'm not even sure there's enough nicotine in one cigarette that you would notice any withdrawal symptoms. And in a month, the nicotine from the previous cigarette is long gone.
Besides that, the hardest part of quitting is getting rid of the habits around it, and if you're only smoking once a month, you're not forming any habits. Try smoking a cigarette with your coffee first thing every morning for 6 months, and see if you still believe it's not addictive :-/
That said, I'm sure the strength of the effect can vary from person to person.
The only people who claim that are ones who haven't been addicted to cigarettes :-)
If you're only smoking once a month, the nicotine isn't building up enough to make withdrawal a problem. I'm not even sure there's enough nicotine in one cigarette that you would notice any withdrawal symptoms. And in a month, the nicotine from the previous cigarette is long gone.
Besides that, the hardest part of quitting is getting rid of the habits around it, and if you're only smoking once a month, you're not forming any habits. Try smoking a cigarette with your coffee first thing every morning for 6 months, and see if you still believe it's not addictive :-/
That said, I'm sure the strength of the effect can vary from person to person.
Smoke a pack of cigarettes over the course of a few weeks, and then pay close attention to your body the first week you stop. You WILL crave cigarettes during that week. That is the feeling of physiological dependence. The pack of cigarettes has affected your body in ways you can't control. It isn't a "personality" thing (like other addictions which are purely psychological). Although, obviously, people will react differently to this subsequent craving, and will have different levels of strength in resisting it, if they desire to do so.
I do agree with you that the occasional cigarette can be very pleasurable.
I do agree with you that the occasional cigarette can be very pleasurable.
Well, you can control it by not smoking for a week or so. Admittedly I don't know of any proper studies, but I have always heard rules of thumb around 1 to 2 weeks. For myself it was about a week, and not really that bad of a week compared to what I expected.
The difference is that a candy bar only kills the person who is consuming it (and kills them much slower than a cigarette), while the cigarette kills the people around the smoker too.
Another difference is that cigarettes STINK and are disgusting.
If you want to do something disgusting do it in private.
If you want to do something disgusting do it in private.
Whether it's done in private is an entirely separate issue.
What people find disgusting differs from person to person though, that's why it's the other way around, if you don't ever want to see anything you find disgusting, you have to stay at home or plan your routes extremely carefully, possibly wear blinders.
Not so. The whole "second hand smoke" thing is BS.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/12/12/study-fi...
From your link, "The study doesn’t cover the many other ill effects of breathing somebody else’s cigarette smoke, of course, which include asthma and possibly cardio-pulmonary disease."
My anecdotal evidence says otherwise. I get a headache whenever I'm near a smoker, even if I didn't know they were smoking until after I got the headache (I have a bad sense of smell and sometimes I don't smell it).
Precisely. I'm a non-smoker, non-drinker, non-narcotic. I am quite fond of chocolate.
I find it disingenuous to vilify cigarettes and smoking when alcohol is considered not just okay but popular and socially acceptable. In social routines, as a non-drinker, I am an outlier.
Neither alcohol or cigarette smoking appeal to me. I personally find being around a smoker to be slightly more annoying than being around drunkards. But neither is pleasant.
Still, although I personally wouldn't be directly affected by alcohol prohibition, I am glad that I didn't live during the United States' experimentation with prohibition and I don't want alcohol prohibition today. Similarly, I don't particularly like the current prohibition of narcotics due to secondary effects. I also don't like where things are with tobacco—wherein smokers are essentially painted as evil or weak, and certainly not partaking in a habit they actually enjoy.
I find it disingenuous to vilify cigarettes and smoking when alcohol is considered not just okay but popular and socially acceptable. In social routines, as a non-drinker, I am an outlier.
Neither alcohol or cigarette smoking appeal to me. I personally find being around a smoker to be slightly more annoying than being around drunkards. But neither is pleasant.
Still, although I personally wouldn't be directly affected by alcohol prohibition, I am glad that I didn't live during the United States' experimentation with prohibition and I don't want alcohol prohibition today. Similarly, I don't particularly like the current prohibition of narcotics due to secondary effects. I also don't like where things are with tobacco—wherein smokers are essentially painted as evil or weak, and certainly not partaking in a habit they actually enjoy.
I personally have no problem with people smoking but for two things: smokers often smell bad and many of them seem to feel that the world is their ashtray.
I've noticed that whenever discussions about smoking come up, people tend to reference other things that are also bad for health (vehicle emissions is a common one, as is junk food) as though it shouldn't be addressed unless other things are being addressed in the same way at the same time.
Obesity through junk food is a problem as well. It's being addressed separately.
Obesity through junk food is a problem as well. It's being addressed separately.
That's a terrible comparison. Most people eating a candy bar are doing do because they like candy and want to eat it. Most people consuming cigarettes are doing do because they are addicted and wish they weren't.
Or because they enjoy nicotine/tobacco. Not everyone is drowning in self-hatred because they like a little head-buzz. Witness the outrageous growth of tobacco-based vaping products in the last few years.
Look at dosage. You can smoke an integer number of cigs a day. I am not aware of anyone smoking 1/3rd of a cig at a time or at least its very unpopular.
I can and do limit my sugar intake but for a treat once in awhile I'll buy one of those extremely expensive yet extremely tasty imported dark chocolate bars and eat one little square as treat per day for a long while. I bet if I ate the whole bar in one sitting I could reignite my sugar cravings, but its just a gram or so of carbs so I'm good.
The counterexamples are I suppose e-cig vape people could just sniff the bottle, or people who drink one unit of soda no matter if its a 6 oz mini can or 64 oz giant cup.
Given the tobacco companies have historically been guilty of pretty much every evil known to mankind I would not be surprised to discover the "unit size cigarette" is at least partially constrained geometrically to maximize addiction, and a smaller or larger dose would result in lower addiction rates.
There might be a maximal addiction dosage of dark chocolate, but non-unit consumption of candy bars is so normal that it might not work as an addiction strategy.
I can and do limit my sugar intake but for a treat once in awhile I'll buy one of those extremely expensive yet extremely tasty imported dark chocolate bars and eat one little square as treat per day for a long while. I bet if I ate the whole bar in one sitting I could reignite my sugar cravings, but its just a gram or so of carbs so I'm good.
The counterexamples are I suppose e-cig vape people could just sniff the bottle, or people who drink one unit of soda no matter if its a 6 oz mini can or 64 oz giant cup.
Given the tobacco companies have historically been guilty of pretty much every evil known to mankind I would not be surprised to discover the "unit size cigarette" is at least partially constrained geometrically to maximize addiction, and a smaller or larger dose would result in lower addiction rates.
There might be a maximal addiction dosage of dark chocolate, but non-unit consumption of candy bars is so normal that it might not work as an addiction strategy.
I think more people are actually addicted to sugar, but socially we don't recognize that in the same way we recognize alcohol or drug additions.
There's an interesting question that arises from this though: are more people now addicted to sugar because everyone is now aware of the terrible results of long term smoking (but aren't as aware of the problems with sugar)? Should we have warning labels on packs of sugar too?
I've heard people talk about how 40 years ago, or less than that, if you asked someone to put out their cigarette in the office, everyone would think you were some kind of jerk.
Now no one smokes, but we have an obesity/diabetes epidemic, and people bring in homemade cookies or brownies every day.
I can just imagine the uproar if anyone proposed a sugar free office though.
Now no one smokes, but we have an obesity/diabetes epidemic, and people bring in homemade cookies or brownies every day.
I can just imagine the uproar if anyone proposed a sugar free office though.
Thankfully brownies don't make everyone stink.
I think some people's cologne/perfume stinks, but I don't see anyone trying to ban that. Some people have asthma complications due to second hand fragrance.
Should we mandate showers too? I've known some people who didn't practice proper hygiene and had a rather repulsive smell. Maybe we should forcibly scrub them down.
Should we mandate showers too? I've known some people who didn't practice proper hygiene and had a rather repulsive smell. Maybe we should forcibly scrub them down.
> Most people consuming cigarettes are doing do because they are addicted
Is that true? How many "social smokers" are there? I ask, because I do not know.
Is that true? How many "social smokers" are there? I ask, because I do not know.
I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that most "social smokers" are physically addicted.
That's probably not true (nb: I'm a "social smoker" in the sense of, if I'm out drinking, I'll follow friends out for a smoke break; that makes me a "pack a year" smoker) --- the demographics on smoking have changed to the point where it's become useful to study "light" smoking and not just daily addicted smoking. In studies, young smokers smoke much less than older people. Addicted smokers smoke all the time. From this, I conclude that there are, like me, people who smoke non-addictively.
And, as the Surgeon General made clear:
http://www.theonion.com/video/surgeon-general-smoking-fine-a...
And, as the Surgeon General made clear:
http://www.theonion.com/video/surgeon-general-smoking-fine-a...
My experience is very similar. I probably consume about 1 pack a year or so with friends in social environments. The other things is I do a fair amount of traveling and don't want to be rude or reject someone's hospitality if someone offers me a cigarette while I'm abroad.
As I said above, I'm jealous of people that can manage this :)
I was hopelessly addicted to cigs from ages 18 to 21. I'm talking two packs a day, lighting up before getting out of bed, smoking while eating, etc.
I quit nearly cold turkey (one month ramp down) and didn't touch one for about a decade. A few years ago I went through a "social smoking" phase for a few months where I'd bum a couple while out drinking, or during the day here and there. Maybe totaled like ten cigs a week or so.
There is a huuuuge difference. Social smoking is real.
I quit nearly cold turkey (one month ramp down) and didn't touch one for about a decade. A few years ago I went through a "social smoking" phase for a few months where I'd bum a couple while out drinking, or during the day here and there. Maybe totaled like ten cigs a week or so.
There is a huuuuge difference. Social smoking is real.
There must be a rate below which physiological dependence is impossible. I doubt you can be dependent on, say, 2 cigarettes a week.
Many people smoke and don't have any sincere desire to quit.
Candy doesn't poison the cardiovascular systems of all of those around you.
I can see how businesses and its representatives (the chamber) may make the case that companies ought to have freedom of speech. Just like citizens united, businesses have lately been able to lobby for certain rights that were originally created for people.
But I disagree. Free speech and the right to vote protections were given to individuals as basic human rights, and corporations are not people. More money should not equal more voting or lobbying power. I realize that is impossible to avoid entirely. Still, the more we let stuff like this happen, the more we dilute the value of our individual democratic rights.
But I disagree. Free speech and the right to vote protections were given to individuals as basic human rights, and corporations are not people. More money should not equal more voting or lobbying power. I realize that is impossible to avoid entirely. Still, the more we let stuff like this happen, the more we dilute the value of our individual democratic rights.
I've read that the drug store chains don't think they have a future selling products that people can buy online, and are switching to healthcare services (flu shots, mini-clinics, etc.), and that they see advocating for health issues as marketing, while selling something like cigarettes is incompatible with their new image and mission.
In the UK drugstores are pretty much extinct, and are most commonly found as a desk in a supermarket. The UK is a bit different though in that supermarkets have sold non-prescription drugs and similar items you'd only find in a drugstore elsewhere for a long time.
Cigs bring lots of people in the door, like fuel at a gas station. Probably not a profitable decision. Will lose plenty of regular customers. Could be exec has personal reasons for it, like a family member death.
[deleted]
John Oliver effect, anyone?
Can someone give the cynical spin on this? I know a lot of these companies purport to care about stopping smoking, but is there also a profit motive?
I've heard scattered accounts that when a convenience store stops carrying cigarettes they also draw fewer problem customers, but haven't validated it.
I've heard scattered accounts that when a convenience store stops carrying cigarettes they also draw fewer problem customers, but haven't validated it.
The profit motive is that it's rarely smart to fight a battle that you know you're going to lose. When lions fight, they stop as soon as they know who's going to win -- the losing lion would rather walk away with his life than force the winner to kill him.
CVS has basically decided that smoking is on its way out the door, and they've decided to forgo the remaining profits in selling a smaller number of cigarettes each year for the next few years. They've decided that they'll be better off getting ahead of this trend, shifting to more health-oriented branding, and opposing smoking publicly and vocally.
CVS has basically decided that smoking is on its way out the door, and they've decided to forgo the remaining profits in selling a smaller number of cigarettes each year for the next few years. They've decided that they'll be better off getting ahead of this trend, shifting to more health-oriented branding, and opposing smoking publicly and vocally.
What is the cost of maintaining sales of the product?
What is the value of the PR CVS gains by being a leader?
I'm the cofounder of a health tech startup. This is my opinion.
The cynical spin was healthcare pre-2008. Today, our healthcare industry is finally making meaningful changes to its model, moving from fee-for-service toward value-based care and risk sharing. [1]
This means payers, providers, and everyone in between is now incentivized to get IN FRONT of problems (like smoking) before it creates an even bigger, high-cost/high-risk patient population (heart disease, cancer, etc). Those who don't will get phased out / merged.
The reality is ~75% of the $2.2 trillion we spend on healthcare per year goes toward fighting said chronic conditions. From a distribution perspective, 20% of the population is responsible for ~80% of costs... 5% of population, ~50% of costs. Moving the needle a small amount matters a lot.
[1] This is one example of a brand changing due to industry consolidation. Prices are being commoditized across the board for care, for drugs, etc. As others have said, CVS & Walgreens are no longer just pharmacies selling drugs. They are diversifying and growing into providers just like payers.
The cynical spin was healthcare pre-2008. Today, our healthcare industry is finally making meaningful changes to its model, moving from fee-for-service toward value-based care and risk sharing. [1]
This means payers, providers, and everyone in between is now incentivized to get IN FRONT of problems (like smoking) before it creates an even bigger, high-cost/high-risk patient population (heart disease, cancer, etc). Those who don't will get phased out / merged.
The reality is ~75% of the $2.2 trillion we spend on healthcare per year goes toward fighting said chronic conditions. From a distribution perspective, 20% of the population is responsible for ~80% of costs... 5% of population, ~50% of costs. Moving the needle a small amount matters a lot.
[1] This is one example of a brand changing due to industry consolidation. Prices are being commoditized across the board for care, for drugs, etc. As others have said, CVS & Walgreens are no longer just pharmacies selling drugs. They are diversifying and growing into providers just like payers.
I can understand that much, but CVS doesn't (privately) reap the returns from healthier customers. That dynamic would apply to a health insurer or provider, not a glorified convenience store.
> I can understand that much, but CVS doesn't (privately) reap the returns from healthier customers.
Assuming that customer retention is cheaper than acquisition, it directly reaps the returns from not killing its customers.
> That dynamic would apply to a health insurer or provider, not a glorified convenience store.
CVS is, among other things, an insurer (or, rather, a pharmacy benefit management company serving insurers, but the incentives are pretty similar with regard to not killing the insurers customers), and also operates the nations largest walk-in clinic brand in its in-store clinics (so, its also a provider, and not just in the sense that every pharmacy is.)
Assuming that customer retention is cheaper than acquisition, it directly reaps the returns from not killing its customers.
> That dynamic would apply to a health insurer or provider, not a glorified convenience store.
CVS is, among other things, an insurer (or, rather, a pharmacy benefit management company serving insurers, but the incentives are pretty similar with regard to not killing the insurers customers), and also operates the nations largest walk-in clinic brand in its in-store clinics (so, its also a provider, and not just in the sense that every pharmacy is.)
>Assuming that customer retention is cheaper than acquisition, it directly reaps the returns from not killing its customers.
Public goods problem -- you have to subtract off all the customers you lose to other companies that have extra money due to not cutting off the cigarette revenue stream.
Public goods problem -- you have to subtract off all the customers you lose to other companies that have extra money due to not cutting off the cigarette revenue stream.
In fact, wouldn't they lose profits on tobacco cessation products and medications used by smokers with health problems?
Agree. If people smoke and are unhealthy they in theory would need a larger amount of prescription drugs which CVS sells and profits from.
> If people smoke and are unhealthy they in theory would need a larger amount of prescription drugs which CVS sells and profits from.
If people smoke and die sooner, they will in theory (and practice) need no more of the prescription drugs which CVS sells and profits from. Heck, statistics showing that smoking reduces total health care costs (and, less relevantly to the immediate discussion, pension costs) by killing people younger have been used by cigarette smoking companies as part of campaigns against government anti-smoking campaigns around the world.
Aside from the moral aspects of that argument, the financial aspects work exactly the opposite for people selling health care services -- which CVS does, both as a pharmacy and a clinic operator -- as they would on people funding health care costs.
If people smoke and die sooner, they will in theory (and practice) need no more of the prescription drugs which CVS sells and profits from. Heck, statistics showing that smoking reduces total health care costs (and, less relevantly to the immediate discussion, pension costs) by killing people younger have been used by cigarette smoking companies as part of campaigns against government anti-smoking campaigns around the world.
Aside from the moral aspects of that argument, the financial aspects work exactly the opposite for people selling health care services -- which CVS does, both as a pharmacy and a clinic operator -- as they would on people funding health care costs.
CVS is actually a health insurer, or at least a component of one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVS_Health#Strategic_Business_...
CVS is not really an insurer, they are a provider of retail pharmacy, specialty pharmacy, home infusion, etc.
They are actually paid by the insurance companies to provide these services.
They are actually paid by the insurance companies to provide these services.
As a PBM, they might actually be making some money back by not supporting tobacco products as well. If the anti-tobacco stance gets an extra health plan or insurer to sign with Caremark, the increased revenue from scripts, and potential added trips from customers, can make up for losses in tobacco-related revenue.
Might also help them position themselves to shift more and more towards being a credible health care service provider.
Might also help them position themselves to shift more and more towards being a credible health care service provider.
alive customers are the best kind.
CVS is a pharmacy so keeping patients alive longer means more money on perscription medication.
CVS is a pharmacy so keeping patients alive longer means more money on perscription medication.
By making it harder to maintain bad habits, CVS is looking at long-term goals. Getting a customer to stop smoking means a good probability that they're going to buy more things from CVS in the extra years they live.
They said they would take a $2bn hit to annual revenue [1] when they originally announced this. But I imagine long-term the issue is that having acquired a pharmacy benefits management company, they maybe determined that a plan member who doesn't smoke is a plan member who is more profitable?
CVS's PBM subsidiary last year was also proposing charging an additional fee to members who filled their prescriptions at pharmacies that also sold tobacco.[2] Not sure if this ever happened or not; that seems anti-competitive. I don't see why filling my prescription at Walgreens instead of CVS should cost me more, only because you can buy a pack of smokes at Walgreens.
[1] http://www.cvshealth.com/newsroom/press-releases/pharmacy-se...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/20/a...
CVS's PBM subsidiary last year was also proposing charging an additional fee to members who filled their prescriptions at pharmacies that also sold tobacco.[2] Not sure if this ever happened or not; that seems anti-competitive. I don't see why filling my prescription at Walgreens instead of CVS should cost me more, only because you can buy a pack of smokes at Walgreens.
[1] http://www.cvshealth.com/newsroom/press-releases/pharmacy-se...
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/20/a...
> Can someone give the cynical spin on this?
Customers dying younger because they are buying an addicting, health-damaging product may produce some money if you are selling them the product, but if you are selling other products -- especially other expensive, long-term regular-purchase products that they will reliably come back to you for -- it can be a net loss. Perhaps CVS has decided that there's more return on customer acquisition dollars if it gets out of the cigarette business (both selling and promoting indirectly via USCC) and stops actively killing off its own reliable customer basis (and, incidentally, other people).
I don't know that that's really all that "cynical" of a spin, but its a self-interest profit motive rather than an altruistic one.
> I've heard scattered accounts that when a convenience store stops carrying cigarettes they also draw fewer problem customers, but haven't validated it.
That's quite possibly a factor, but CVS isn't just a "convenience store"; they are drugstores (that is, a key feature of their stores is the pharmacy) and they also have and are expanding in-store clinics (so they are also health-care providers.)
Customers dying younger because they are buying an addicting, health-damaging product may produce some money if you are selling them the product, but if you are selling other products -- especially other expensive, long-term regular-purchase products that they will reliably come back to you for -- it can be a net loss. Perhaps CVS has decided that there's more return on customer acquisition dollars if it gets out of the cigarette business (both selling and promoting indirectly via USCC) and stops actively killing off its own reliable customer basis (and, incidentally, other people).
I don't know that that's really all that "cynical" of a spin, but its a self-interest profit motive rather than an altruistic one.
> I've heard scattered accounts that when a convenience store stops carrying cigarettes they also draw fewer problem customers, but haven't validated it.
That's quite possibly a factor, but CVS isn't just a "convenience store"; they are drugstores (that is, a key feature of their stores is the pharmacy) and they also have and are expanding in-store clinics (so they are also health-care providers.)
Well, CVS obviously doesn't want to compete against companies that can profit from selling cigarettes as they will be at a disadvantage. CVS is also looking to burnish their brand by showing they truly look out for public health. That's as cynical as I can get. On the whole, they are doing a pretty good job at burnishing their brand in my eyes...
CVS is rolling out walk-in clinics in their stores. So for them it makes a lot of sense and helps them make the case they're a health focused company.
They still have whole aisle's dedicated to beer and junk food, so it's about more than just eliminating unhealthful offerings from their stores.
Tobacco is on the way out in the US, in 10 or 20 years you'll have to buy tobacco in specialty stores. I think CVS just saw the writing on the wall and seized a convenient opportunity to jettison the business.
Tobacco is on the way out in the US, in 10 or 20 years you'll have to buy tobacco in specialty stores. I think CVS just saw the writing on the wall and seized a convenient opportunity to jettison the business.
I'm not too into the "beer and junk food" line. I see a fairly large difference between offering choices that can be unhealthy if a person overdoes them, and helping to lobby governments to keep markets open for an addictive, harmful drug.
Depends on how you spin it. I know many people who would characterize ethanol as an "addictive, harmful drug". Large food companies spend lots of money trying to make their products more appealing, and by some evidence addicting.
The difference is that people can get drunk and blow out their liver or get fat and blow out their pancreas (usually) without direct effects to those around them. Since 90% of tobacco users have to use it in a way that blows every bystander's lungs out while they are blowing their own out, it gets much more vitriol.
The difference is that people can get drunk and blow out their liver or get fat and blow out their pancreas (usually) without direct effects to those around them. Since 90% of tobacco users have to use it in a way that blows every bystander's lungs out while they are blowing their own out, it gets much more vitriol.
>Since 90% of tobacco users have to use it in a way that blows every bystander's lungs out while they are blowing their own out, it gets much more vitriol.
What's funny about this is that it's not necessarily true. The whole "secondhand smoke" thing appears to be one of those convenient lies aimed at a greater good. It certainly isn't blowing out anyone's lungs. Still, the falloff in smoking is something I'm totally into, just because it stinks.
There is no science at all supporting the notion that the harm from ethanol approaches that of tobacco, so I'm not too worried about the people you know. In particular, the addiction rates are vastly different.
Basically, your opening sentence says it all: your point relies on spin to be sharp.
What's funny about this is that it's not necessarily true. The whole "secondhand smoke" thing appears to be one of those convenient lies aimed at a greater good. It certainly isn't blowing out anyone's lungs. Still, the falloff in smoking is something I'm totally into, just because it stinks.
There is no science at all supporting the notion that the harm from ethanol approaches that of tobacco, so I'm not too worried about the people you know. In particular, the addiction rates are vastly different.
Basically, your opening sentence says it all: your point relies on spin to be sharp.
Many second-hand smoke studies are performed on spouses of smokers, over long periods of time (living w/ a smoker for decades, basically). Second-hand smoke in say, a park (where smoking is frequently banned) is not a factor. It's a convenient lie to discourage smoking.
It doesn't matter. Objecting on the basis that it smells horrible is just as valid a concern as long-term health effects.
I think it could be argued that people that drink heavily harm more people around them then people that smoke. I don't have any studies to say which one is worse, but there is no way you can say people that get drunk don't have a direct effect on those around them.
[deleted]
Addicts drive the alcohol industry, same as tobacco. I don't see the difference.
What makes you think they won't address that in the future? They do need to balance the economics of their business. There's no point in removing every negative aisle at the same time if it will destroy (or make them lose control of) their business.
CVS is playing catch-up on walk-in clinics with Walgreens, which still stocks cigarettes.
This may not apply to the US: In my corner of the world, word on the street is that sellers of tobacco products make nearly no profit at all on it. Reason is that between sky-high taxes raising prices and anti-smoking propaganda lowering demand, sellers are squeezed out of a profit.
However, there still are a lot of smokers who would be less likely to visit your place of business if you stopped to stock tobacco products. So you continue to deal in it even though it makes you little money.
If a large player leaves a market like this, they drop a low-profit use of shelf space, but also lose smokers to competitors. In that position, the most desirable endpoint would be more bans on smoking, because less smokers mean less of an advantage for competitors.
However, there still are a lot of smokers who would be less likely to visit your place of business if you stopped to stock tobacco products. So you continue to deal in it even though it makes you little money.
If a large player leaves a market like this, they drop a low-profit use of shelf space, but also lose smokers to competitors. In that position, the most desirable endpoint would be more bans on smoking, because less smokers mean less of an advantage for competitors.
Where I live when they passed an indoor smoking ban in the county, certain businesses near the county line were up in arms because smokers will drive an extra 5 minutes to go to a bar/restaurant where they can have a cigarette too.
There were bars that were in danger of going out of business because they couldn't get a waiver and enough of their customers were going elsewhere.
There were bars that were in danger of going out of business because they couldn't get a waiver and enough of their customers were going elsewhere.
It's much higher in Europe, but in the US the number of smokers is a little below 20%, including those in prime bar-going age.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult...
I'm not convinced that's enough to make a significant dent in business, especially if you balance it out with those who will be attracted by the idea that their clothes will not smell like smoke.
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult...
I'm not convinced that's enough to make a significant dent in business, especially if you balance it out with those who will be attracted by the idea that their clothes will not smell like smoke.
You have not considered another factor. The non-smokers who will stop going to an establishment when their smoking friends go somewhere else. Drinking is often a social activity.
Non-smokers who drink already have established places where they go. Those places will have done nothing to alienate them and cause them to change their habits. They'll keep going where they have been going because for them, nothing will have changed.
Bars and restaurants don't always operate with huge margins. If 15% of their customers decided to go elsewhere overnight, I have no doubt that it would cause serious problems.
Non-smokers who drink already have established places where they go. Those places will have done nothing to alienate them and cause them to change their habits. They'll keep going where they have been going because for them, nothing will have changed.
Bars and restaurants don't always operate with huge margins. If 15% of their customers decided to go elsewhere overnight, I have no doubt that it would cause serious problems.
Also I'm skeptical that these numbers account for the drinking smoker. If you're a bar goer you should be well acquainted with the archetype - the person who "doesn't smoke" but the moment they're inebriated they start hitting others up for a cigarette or four.
> You have not considered another factor. The non-smokers who will stop going to an establishment when their smoking friends go somewhere else. Drinking is often a social activity.
Yes. Selecting a place to go is like the old days of renting a movie with a group of friends: it's the most insistently intransigent who get to make the choice, and the nicotine addicts will falt out to refuse to accommodate the non-addicts.
Yes. Selecting a place to go is like the old days of renting a movie with a group of friends: it's the most insistently intransigent who get to make the choice, and the nicotine addicts will falt out to refuse to accommodate the non-addicts.
The most likely cynical spin I can think of isn't that cynical; just trying to anticipate cultural trends they can use to their advantage in marketing and public opinion. Investing in sometimes-slightly painful positions earlier than their competitors.
Cost vs. profit.
Tobacco takes up valuable real-estate in your retail area (right at counter--right at checkout). Tobacco sales continue to fall so your gross sales are falling. Tobacco prices tend to be regulated heavily (minimum price that you can't sell under), so profit is probably fixed. Underage tobacco purchases are heavily penalized--so your cost due some store selling to a minor is minimized.
CVS took a bit of hit, but I suspect that they have numbers on the profit they gain by repurposing that space. I'm sure somebody crunched the numbers.
Tobacco takes up valuable real-estate in your retail area (right at counter--right at checkout). Tobacco sales continue to fall so your gross sales are falling. Tobacco prices tend to be regulated heavily (minimum price that you can't sell under), so profit is probably fixed. Underage tobacco purchases are heavily penalized--so your cost due some store selling to a minor is minimized.
CVS took a bit of hit, but I suspect that they have numbers on the profit they gain by repurposing that space. I'm sure somebody crunched the numbers.
This doesn't explain why they would actively fight to make it illegal.
What if they are planning to arrange their business profit motives around what they care about? If they are, you might be able to find something to be cynical about, but actually they might have structured their business in concert with their values.
Um, why is the chamber campaigning against anti-smoking laws? How strange.
Edit: Oh, because they're funded by tobacco companies. Welp.
Edit: Oh, because they're funded by tobacco companies. Welp.
[deleted]
The CVS in my neighborhood sells 24oz cans of 8.1% ABV malt liquor for $1.36/can. Have to wonder how those sales fit into their mission to improve public health.
I agree that isn't a health related choice. But fighting one battle doesn't mean they have to fight all of them.
I believe alcohol is a far more important battle to be fighting against than tobacco.
It's amazing people's beliefs in regards to alcohol. I had a friend, who was already drunk, rant at me about my use of cannabis because they didn't like the thought of something that takes away your control. Alcohol is so often thought of as a "nothing" drug even though it is probably one of the worst recreational drugs.
It's amazing people's beliefs in regards to alcohol. I had a friend, who was already drunk, rant at me about my use of cannabis because they didn't like the thought of something that takes away your control. Alcohol is so often thought of as a "nothing" drug even though it is probably one of the worst recreational drugs.
I think the big thing with alcohol is it's a lot harder to become addicted to. I don't disagree that alcohol addiction is a problem (and a more damaging social problem in some aspects - a smoker father is probably far less of an issue than an alcoholic father). But I don't agree that going back to prohibition would benefit the situation.
> I think the big thing with alcohol is it's a lot harder to become addicted to.
Supposedly a portion of a hangover is withdrawals (which is why the "hair of the hound that bit you" is effective). However the crux of your point remains true: alcohol withdrawals only last a morning (by my experience) where nicotine withdrawals last a few weeks to months (also personal experience).
The last time I drank was probably 5 days ago and I have no cravings. The last time I smoked was 8 months ago and I have cravings at least once every 2-3 days. Tobacco is much, much, worse.
Supposedly a portion of a hangover is withdrawals (which is why the "hair of the hound that bit you" is effective). However the crux of your point remains true: alcohol withdrawals only last a morning (by my experience) where nicotine withdrawals last a few weeks to months (also personal experience).
The last time I drank was probably 5 days ago and I have no cravings. The last time I smoked was 8 months ago and I have cravings at least once every 2-3 days. Tobacco is much, much, worse.
For heavy regular drinkers, alcohol withdrawals last a lot longer, with some symptoms (such as sleep-cycle disturbance) lasting years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome
[deleted]
For those who aren't aware, it's worth it to keep in mind that the US Chamber of Commerce is not a federal or government entity, and is rather a cleverly named US business lobbying group with deep ties to the Republican party which as been involved in very shady practices over the years. So it tends to be one of those places where big companies push legislation that runs out the small to medium sized businesses with redtape complexity to maintain market dominance.
Of course that doesn't stop the majority of Republican congresscritters from touting it as the best thing for "deregulation" since sliced bread...
Of course that doesn't stop the majority of Republican congresscritters from touting it as the best thing for "deregulation" since sliced bread...
It's pretty silly to suggest that the GOP is an enemy of small to medium businesses, since to a demographic first approximation, virtually every small-medium business owner is a Republican.
The CoC is shady, like you said. And it supports the GOP. It is not itself the GOP.
The CoC is shady, like you said. And it supports the GOP. It is not itself the GOP.
While I agree the CoC is not the GOP, it certainly heavily leans that way in practice and in policy. There are notable exceptions.
"It's pretty silly to suggest that the GOP is an enemy of small to medium businesses"
This I disagree with though. To me, having spent most of my time in GOP owned areas, my conclusion is that the GOP parades small/medium business values to their support base, but when it really comes down to someone writing legislation on K-street, it almost always favors the megacorps. The GOP is, indeed, in my mind at least, anti small/med business, but they sell themselves otherwise.
They're just good at propaganda.
"It's pretty silly to suggest that the GOP is an enemy of small to medium businesses"
This I disagree with though. To me, having spent most of my time in GOP owned areas, my conclusion is that the GOP parades small/medium business values to their support base, but when it really comes down to someone writing legislation on K-street, it almost always favors the megacorps. The GOP is, indeed, in my mind at least, anti small/med business, but they sell themselves otherwise.
They're just good at propaganda.
GOP tax policy strongly favors small business owners. They support lower rates across the board, and in particular disfavor the Democratic party's policy of boosting revenue with increased taxes on higher brackets (business owners are disproportionately in the highest marginal bracket). The GOP also wants to eliminate the AMT, and retain the mortgage interest tax deduction.
GOP health care policy strongly favors small business owners. For instance, the GOP opposes the employer health care mandate.
The GOP's stance on regulations strongly favors small business owners: they disfavor them pretty much across the board. On a message board, it may seem like environmental regulations matter primarily to giant extractive industry companies, but most industrial businesses in the US are small businesses.
I'd be interested in some specific examples of policies the GOP supports that the Democrats don't support that aren't beneficial to small businesses.
Two caveats:
* I'm a Democrat. "Do what's best for the public school system shalt be the whole of the law" is roughly what I believe.
* The calculus is different if by "small business" you really (perhaps accidentally) mean "small tech company".
GOP health care policy strongly favors small business owners. For instance, the GOP opposes the employer health care mandate.
The GOP's stance on regulations strongly favors small business owners: they disfavor them pretty much across the board. On a message board, it may seem like environmental regulations matter primarily to giant extractive industry companies, but most industrial businesses in the US are small businesses.
I'd be interested in some specific examples of policies the GOP supports that the Democrats don't support that aren't beneficial to small businesses.
Two caveats:
* I'm a Democrat. "Do what's best for the public school system shalt be the whole of the law" is roughly what I believe.
* The calculus is different if by "small business" you really (perhaps accidentally) mean "small tech company".
> I'd be interested in some specific examples of policies the GOP supports that the Democrats don't support that aren't beneficial to small businesses.
I suppose this is more of an example of a policy that they oppose, but some kind of healthcare reform to produce a working insurance market for individual and small-time purchasers (i.e. not big corporations buying group plans) comes to mind as something that benefits small businesspeople. Interestingly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did support Hillarycare in the '90s, but changed its mind later.
Maybe we have different definitions of small businessperson, but I also don't know any (across several industries) who make the $400k+ post-deductions needed to be in the top marginal tax bracket. Not only in tech, but also in traditional small-business areas like dry-cleaning, the restaurant business, repair shops, or small-scale retail, only the most successful owners clear anything near that. What definition of small businessperson has most small businesspeople being in this bracket?
I suppose this is more of an example of a policy that they oppose, but some kind of healthcare reform to produce a working insurance market for individual and small-time purchasers (i.e. not big corporations buying group plans) comes to mind as something that benefits small businesspeople. Interestingly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce did support Hillarycare in the '90s, but changed its mind later.
Maybe we have different definitions of small businessperson, but I also don't know any (across several industries) who make the $400k+ post-deductions needed to be in the top marginal tax bracket. Not only in tech, but also in traditional small-business areas like dry-cleaning, the restaurant business, repair shops, or small-scale retail, only the most successful owners clear anything near that. What definition of small businessperson has most small businesspeople being in this bracket?
> GOP health care policy strongly favors small business owners.
Most small business owners that I know would prefer single-payer health care to avoid the distraction of employer-sponsored coverage. Also, the people I've known who have expressed interest in quitting their jobs to start their own business cite health care as one of the main reasons for why they've been unwilling to pull the trigger, and this is especially true for those who have children. But the people I know may not represent the majority of small business owners.
Most small business owners that I know would prefer single-payer health care to avoid the distraction of employer-sponsored coverage. Also, the people I've known who have expressed interest in quitting their jobs to start their own business cite health care as one of the main reasons for why they've been unwilling to pull the trigger, and this is especially true for those who have children. But the people I know may not represent the majority of small business owners.
I agree with you, and have been tooting the horn about health care and entrepreneurship on HN for years, but most American small business owners hate the employee mandate and don't favor single-payer.
That just doesn't match reality. If anyone is helping small business owners, they're a colossal failure. The whole 99% thing. We can agree they some folks want to appear to be helping small business owners.
See Mad Men, Season 4, Episode 12, "Blowing Smoke".
And then a serious question:
What does it cost CVS to leave the Chamber of Commerce? The CoC is a conservative lobbying group. CVS already operates a 4:1 Republican-leaning lobbying operation. Were there any material benefits to CVS to remain affiliated with the CoC?
And then a serious question:
What does it cost CVS to leave the Chamber of Commerce? The CoC is a conservative lobbying group. CVS already operates a 4:1 Republican-leaning lobbying operation. Were there any material benefits to CVS to remain affiliated with the CoC?
Good for them. But I find it hard to take seriously their claim that they are committed to improving public health when their shelves are stuffed with homeopathic products - more all the time. Pushing this fake medicine is a direct threat to health. It preys upon the naive and poorly educated, who will waste their money on this quackery rather than seeking effective treatment for their medical problems.
I would like to agree, but most of the homeopathic remedy consumers I know are surprisingly crafty. If you ask them if they believe that it works, they will say yes. But if a serious illness comes up, they will immediately switch to real medical treatment.
Put differently, they seem to have an intuitive understanding to only use placebos for illnesses that are well served by placebos. They have no rational understanding of that, of course. But they do get a lot more benefits from placebos than I do, so I can't say they're entirely wrong.
Put differently, they seem to have an intuitive understanding to only use placebos for illnesses that are well served by placebos. They have no rational understanding of that, of course. But they do get a lot more benefits from placebos than I do, so I can't say they're entirely wrong.
I've observed similar behavior in regard to religion, etc. But it's generally unsound to extrapolate from the people we happen to know to whole populations (not that I have any actual data about who uses homeopathic medicines and how). What concerns me is that the way the stuff is shelved and advertised looks like it would lead to an uncritical person with, say, flu symptoms to just grab one of these boxes off the shelf.
Boots in the UK have homeopathy on the same shelf as herbal remedies. They ignore my gentle polite requests for them to place some distance between items that have active ingredients and items that have no active ingredient.
When they clear their shelves of all the soda, sugary and corn based snacks and fake medications (homeopathic garbage) then I'll begin to take their concern for health seriously. Obesity and diabetes is a far greater health risk than cigarettes. Cigarettes are awful for many reasons and they smell bad but corn and HFCS based foods make sick and kill a lot more people (and cost society much more!) than cigarettes.
It's no wonder than countries with high rates of smoking (France, Japan) who have diets that lack all the garbage the CVS's of the world peddle have some of the highest life expectancies.
Smokers are just an easy, minority target to vilify and it needs to stop.
It's no wonder than countries with high rates of smoking (France, Japan) who have diets that lack all the garbage the CVS's of the world peddle have some of the highest life expectancies.
Smokers are just an easy, minority target to vilify and it needs to stop.
They have to start somewhere.
I think this is just a sign that there's healthy decision making going on. If what the CoC claims is true, that Jamaica's law was passed without following the proper process, then that is a problem and it should be challenged whether you want the law or not. You can't have a law-making process, trademark protections, etc and then just walk over them when you decide it's an important law. The whole point of the process is to decide if it's the correct law in the first place!
The CoC's purpose is to support the interests of it's members. So they absolutely should be doing this. What good is a chamber of commerce that arbitrarily decides to throw some of its members under the bus when new laws threaten their businesses? The real complaint people should be making is that it allows tobacco businesses as members, or even that the government allows tobacco businesses to exist at all.
What shocks me the most is that the CVS pharmacy was selling cigarettes 1 year ago! What?! Pharmacies sell cigarettes in America?!
The CoC's purpose is to support the interests of it's members. So they absolutely should be doing this. What good is a chamber of commerce that arbitrarily decides to throw some of its members under the bus when new laws threaten their businesses? The real complaint people should be making is that it allows tobacco businesses as members, or even that the government allows tobacco businesses to exist at all.
What shocks me the most is that the CVS pharmacy was selling cigarettes 1 year ago! What?! Pharmacies sell cigarettes in America?!
> I think this is just a sign that there's healthy decision making going on. If what the CoC claims is true, that Jamaica's law was passed without following the proper process, then that is a problem and it should be challenged whether you want the law or not. You can't have a law-making process, trademark protections, etc and then just walk over them when you decide it's an important law. The whole point of the process is to decide if it's the correct law in the first place!
The CoC's purpose is to support the interests of it's members. So they absolutely should be doing this. What good is a chamber of commerce that arbitrarily decides to throw some of its members under the bus when new laws threaten their businesses? The real complaint people should be making is that it allows tobacco businesses as members, or even that the government allows tobacco businesses to exist at all.
Jamaica is one example, did you look at the others? In some cases it appears the CoC's stance goes beyond simple good faith defense of their members.
> What shocks me the most is that the CVS pharmacy was selling cigarettes 1 year ago! What?! Pharmacies sell cigarettes in America?!
To my knowledge, they all still do so with the exception of CVS.
Jamaica is one example, did you look at the others? In some cases it appears the CoC's stance goes beyond simple good faith defense of their members.
> What shocks me the most is that the CVS pharmacy was selling cigarettes 1 year ago! What?! Pharmacies sell cigarettes in America?!
To my knowledge, they all still do so with the exception of CVS.
> What shocks me the most is that the CVS pharmacy was selling cigarettes 1 year ago! What?! Pharmacies sell cigarettes in America?!
http://www.bbcamerica.com/mind-the-gap/2013/10/29/6-differen...
TL;DR pharmacies are located in convenience stores in the US.
http://www.bbcamerica.com/mind-the-gap/2013/10/29/6-differen...
TL;DR pharmacies are located in convenience stores in the US.
American drug stores have a complicated history. They also used to be ice cream parlors.
I know one that still is: https://plus.google.com/107851275537929467936/about?hl=en. You can still get a marshmellow coke at the soda fountain there.
e-cig to the rescue!
i like smoking. but it's bad for me. but i'd be bummed if i couldn't find tobacco to smoke.
Well, yes - it appears to mostly function as a front group for tobacco companies and is nothing to do with the US government, even if they imply it (as per last weeks article)
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/international/us-...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/international/us-...
And what a horrible shame on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I'm so sick of the idea of the dollar above all else. Cigarettes kill people. That's it. Deciding it's ok to not only sell these death sticks, but actively fight against the championing of healthier living and longer lives is absolutely, totally, and completely shameful.
[0] http://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-270B-850