metalpeter - 04/12/09 10:41
I saw that advertised some place and I had never heard of it but it looks like it could be very good.

metalpeter - 04/07/09 20:30
One thing I think I should ad that I didn't think about before is the ad side of this. I'm not old enough to have seen ads on TV. But in lots of corner stores there are lots of really nice ads that some where in the mind tell you it is ok to smoke or make it look good at least. Think about all the camel ads and how they are low so kinds can see them, or that hot sexy black girl standing there smoking. It doesn't tell kids to go out and smoke but it makes them know brands. When the name fits the picture it makes it real easy to buy them. There is a big money making business to this. A good example of that is Marlboro gear. Someone if they don't make it at least have to ad there name to it.

tinypliny - 04/07/09 16:46
@(e:metalpeter): Chewing tobacco is just as horrid if not worse. Oral cancers have a shorter latency than lung cancer; they take less time to develop following tobacco exposure. It is important to remember that alcohol is an important additional risk factor for oral cancers. People who drink and smoke are at a higher risk than the general population.

In terms of lethality, lung cancers are associated with a higher mortality. However, later stages of both kind of cancers are deadly.
More often than not, oral cancers are detected when they have spread beyond the mouth cavity into regional lymph nodes. That makes them difficult to treat.

@Libertad: I know. Those are really vexing points. I totally agree with you that restrictions need to be placed on tobacco companies' grand evil ways. However, these restrictions cannot be viewed as support for the end-product that comes out after these restrictions have been met.

I agree with massive taxation as a means of making smokers feel the pinch of this destructive habit - except for one very small reason of justice. I have been reading (e:Jason)'s links about tobacco taxes and I am not sure that I totally disagree with him that taxes are unfair. They are unfair because (and only because) the government seems to snap all restrictions into place at the consumer level. There is next to NO regulation at the industry level - just because they are more influential and arm-twisty than your regular customer on the street?

I think taxation should extend both ways, and for the industry, taxation should be at the highest levels.

Addiction is a totally crazy facet of any drug that messes with signalling in the nervous system. It is almost a biological kind of demand-supply economics within the body and is exploited by the tobacco companies. I cannot however see addicts as completely blameless. I don't think ANYONE - be it an adult or a kid is unaware that smoking is bad for health. Thus, by willingly smoking, they are partially responsible for taking the risk of addiction.

Recent research shows that not everyone is genetically susceptible to being addicted to substances. Thus, we can't really say that once people start smoking, they cannot quit entirely because of the level of addictive substances in the cigarette. A lot depends on how your body and your genetics handle the addicting substance. For some people, even a small amount of nicotine (or other substances in cigarettes) can be really addictive and yet for others they might not make any difference - and these people can often stop smoking whenever they wish.

I am sure that the tobacco companies will hold these genetic differences as arguments for bypassing any kind of restrictive laws in place to limit use of addictive substances in their cigarettes.

I agree with all the points that you and (e:metalpeter) make about prohibition and bans opening backdoors to drug trade but a part of me asks if heroin and other hard drugs are really accessible by school kids in corner stores. Because that's when smoking starts and that's when the habit takes root. I argue that the free availability of cigarettes everywhere is partially the reason for children easily getting them when they shouldn't. Banning them would be a step toward delaying the availability of tobacco and tobacco based products to a later age - when hopefully they won't be subject to that much peer pressure as they are when they are in school.

If, as responsible adults, they feel the need to go to drug-dealers for their tobacco, then it is no different from going to the dealers for other drugs. The point I am trying to make is that a universal ban would reduce new and younger addicts from entering the vicious cycle. The scenarios that you describe are valid for older addicts and I am vexed that there is no real solution to that problem even after 50 years of research. :/

jason - 04/07/09 08:56
Richard Daines. You can read about it here if you wish.

:::link:::

libertad - 04/06/09 22:51
@(e:metalpeter), chewing tobacco and snuff are in my opinion the worst as far as horrible cancers that start early. Not sure if the medical peeps would back me on that but it is my feeling. When I talk to people who are on these products (chew and snuff) I practically beg them to stop. I never want to see anyone develop the type of cancers that develop from the use of those products.

@(e:tinypliny), Good points on the FDA but I still think that some type of government regulatory agency should monitor what they are doing with cigarettes. It is not fair to alter them to make them harder to quit. If prohibition isn't something that is likely because of numerous reasons, wouldn't the next best thing be forcing the companies to clean up their cigarettes? It would have to be heavily advertised that these were still dangerous cigarettes but if the addictiveness level were controlled people would have higher quit rates and would not get addicted as quickly. Studies are showing that it only takes a few cigarettes for youth to get addicted.

The thing about smoking is that very intelligent people become addicted. Everybody that I have ever interviewed that wants to quit ever thought that they would become addicted, they had no idea. Cigarettes do seem harmless for those who don't have experience with them. This is what needs to be changed. I am positive that crystal meth ads have changed peoples views regarding that devastating drug. Quit smoking ads will continue to motivate people to quit as they are in NYS.

Sometime I would like to talk pharmacology with you in regards to smoking cessation. I would love your thoughts.

@(e:paul), thank you for recovering my comment!

@anyone trying to quit, It is DEFINITELY worth your efforts and you do need help. 1-866-NYQuits

metalpeter - 04/06/09 19:36
I think that smoking should be legal. I think that as long as you don't do it around anyone else. Maybe they could even have a place like how they used to have Opium lounges (maybe they still do) where only smokers could work there and people could smoke and relax. Making Cigarettes illegal would just cause more problems and I'm sure some underground system would arise and the drug war would become worse then it already is.

I think though that we need to admit that their is a difference between Cigarettes and the Tobacco industry. Yes cigarettes are big business. Yes burning anything and breathing it in, is bad for you in most cases. What tobacco does on its own I'm not sure. But what I do know is what does the damage to people is all the other stuff that they ad to Cigarettes to give them taste and make them more addicting but not have so much nicotine that you get sick right away. But to be honest Nicotine is the only reason why it is hard to quit smoking. Unlike a lot of other drugs it is a Habit. You have great sex you smoke. You have a drink you smoke. You know there are some people that the only time they would smoke is when they where in a bar drinking. You are working and you take a smoke break. Some people quit and don't know what to do with there hands and fingers with out a cigarette.

What is your view on Chewing Tobacco or Snuf or is that snus. They used to have tiny pieces of glass that you would never notice or feel that would cut your tuonge and mouth so that you would taste it more, plus that stuff is nasty and causes other problems to.

tinypliny - 04/06/09 18:07
(e:Jason): Whom are you talking about? What did noodlehead (Who is this?) say about tobacco taxes? Reference please? :)

tinypliny - 04/06/09 15:21
@Libertad: I read your comment in the comment graveyard (I have written to Paul to restore it). I agree with most of your points. I was at a seminar earlier today. A Harvard based investigator came to Roswell to talk about how they had researched the constituents of Marlboro Ultrasmooth (PDF here: :::link::: ). They used reverse engineering methods to find out what kind of flavours were incorporated into the cigs to make them more appealing to consumers. The researcher said that the flavour chemistry scientists that the tobacco industry employed were the most advanced in the field.

What I want to know is why can't the government mandate that the tobacco industry list all the ingredients of cigarettes up front just like other consumable manufacturers? Why make the scientists go to all these crazy lengths to determine what's in the cigarettes?? It seems like a colossal waste of effort and money.

The point about FDA regulation of the tobacco industry also came up at the discussion session. Our VP had a very valid point when he said that it was a double-edged sword. If the FDA starts regulating the tobacco industry, all the crafty PR agents at the tobacco industry can well spin the FDA approval of any of their products to imply that they are somehow "safer" than the products in the non-FDA regulated era. FDA regulation certainly does not mean FDA approval and support - how many people are aware of this distinction? For many FDA regulation simple denotes a stamp of approval from the scientists who are concerned about product safety. Considered in the context of tobacco, this would be disastrous! Think of the implications in lawsuits. People would be saying "Oh, the FDA approved this so why did I get COPD?? It was supposed to be safe!" Seriously, the FDA approval might be more of a detriment to the anti-tobacco lobby than anything, given the tobacco industry's penchant for distorting truth.

jason - 04/06/09 14:19
I prefer to leave the dollar amount approximations to the experts in that area, and the scientific research to the experts in that area. I mean, you get the top health noodlehead from NYS coming out and talking about taxes? Tell me what the hell he knows about taxes (I'll give you a hint - jack and shit - he doesn't know anything about money). He's a useful idiot for the politicians when they want to pass cynical, regressive, senseless taxes to fund child health care.

libertad - 04/06/09 12:58
Thanks for this post Tiny. I enjoyed reading it. What would concern me most about banning cigarette manufacturing would be that we would see an increase in organized crime as we saw with the prohibition of alcohol. Many prohibitionists later came to oppose prohibition because it led to so much violence in society. Most smokers are not involved in a criminal element but if they begin to obtain their smokes from illegal means than they would also be exposed to other types of drugs and the money they spend can be used for other illegal activities including weapons trade or even human trafficking.

I am certainly for FDA control of the tobacco industry. These companies have been making cigarettes more and more addictive as time goes by. They have scientists working for them to change the chemistry of the cigarette so that the nicotine will hit the brain faster increasing their addictiveness. We know a lot about nictotine withdrawl but I doubt that much is known regarding withdrawl from all the other 4000 chemicals in a cigarette.

The tax I believe is fair and effective. Although people are relapsing frequently they do find that many people have several relapses before they can quit for good. I do not feel pitty on smokers complaining of the additional taxes as they are passing the cost of their smoking related illnesses on to everyone else in one way or another. People are successful in quitting and although they may relapse will probably quit again.

I hate these tobacco companies just as much as you do. I'm probably going to die myself because of smoking even though I have quit. I also talk to so many people everyday whose lives are being ruined by smoking. Even now I am not able to say with certainty that I won't relapse. If I have one moment of weakness I can start up as if I never stopped. I have talked to so many people who have quit for years or decades start up again because of this one moment of weakness.

I think with the FDA control the addictiveness levels of the cigarettes can be controled. Advertising should be banned and we should move to having visual warnings on the packages as they do in Canada and in some European countries. Of course more money into smoking cessation would be helpful. People get far more support getting off of illegal drugs than they do with cigarettes even though by far nicotine is the most addictive.

Of course, if we do have nationalized health care the government will have a much stronger need to get people to quit as whatever revenue they gain from cigarette taxes will be eaten away in smoking related illnesses, which as you said are under reported.

tinypliny - 04/06/09 10:27
Oh but I have issues against how that cost benefit ratio is calculated. I don't think they count the costs due to the *ALL* the health problems that are attributable even a little to smoking. Neither do they count the money poured into anti-smoking and smoking related research. I think they just limit themselves to lung cancer (which is, admittedly, a rare disease). I don't think they even completely count Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) that 100% of the smokers will get - because more often than not, it gets written off as a disease of old age.

So the health costs are grossly underestimated. Often these analyses are not even performed by the relevant scientists. They are done by the statistical and financial units of the government. I would be surprised if these bureaucratic agents kept up with current smoking health research! Quite unfortunately, Statistics is a notoriously smudge-able field if you know what outcome you really want. If you have a slightly deranged moral compass (read: have a conflict of interest with the tobacco industry) I don't see any reason why you would take any effort to accurately represent the real hit that health care takes due to smoking.

rory - 04/06/09 08:55
Tiny - you mentioned the exact reason why governments don't just ban this outright - tax. As long as it can be seen that the tax revenue generated is greater than the amount spent on treating people it makes economic sense to continue to sell it.

In the UK (I don't know about the US) 65% of the cost of a packet of ciggies is tax. The government pays lip service to getting people to quit, but I would bet that they simply can't afford too.

janelle - 04/05/09 15:09
You didn't run into the hordes of people and the jerks because you went at 8:00pm. I tried to whip in and out of Price Rite at 12:30pm on Saturday and was witness to almost 3 fights breaking out due to people shoving through the masses of flesh.

jim - 04/04/09 09:24
Thank you! :)