What Is Wrong with This Picture

[luvmydog2]

This was printed in an area newspaper today. as some of you already know, Virginia is highly tobbaco country. Tobbaco is the main farm crop in some areas of the state.

Consider these facts: 19,000 young people start smoking each year in Virginia and 21 percent of the state’s high school students are smokers. Also, 9,100 adults die each year in Virginia of smoking-related diseases and 164,000 of the state’s children will eventually die an early death from smoking.

I don't understand how the gov't can allow this to happen.

[daggiesmom]

I don't understand it either. My theory is that the tobacco companies make money by selling it, the government makes money taxing the smokers and the population is kept in check. This is a win-win situation for the government and the tobacco companies. After reading a thread tonight about "light cigarettes" and how the public is kept in the dark about that, once again I ask "where is the government in all of this. How do they allow this to happen?" MONEY.

Joanie

[Connie B]

Joanie,

You hit the nail right on the head! Sad isn't it? They would put you and I in jail if we did that! hummmmm!

Love the new picture! Very nice!

Love & Hugs,

Con

[Remembering Dave]

Yup, yup, yup. Phillip Morris is (or used to be) the largest employer in the Richmond VA. metropolitan area and from what I understand they pay very, very well. The farmers also make a pretty good buck from what I understand too. To ban tobacco the entire Richmond area would go bankrupt. Don't get me wrong I am not saying it should not be banned but this is a huge reason why the government will not ban tobacco outright. It would be like closing all the car manufacturing plants in Michigan along with all the support companies that go along with Auto manufacturing-the entire community would collapse.

David C

[Justakid]

Dave's right. Phillip Morris is a mess, now they have their little public service annoucements. Yeah right.

They own Kraft foods.......they just need to make some more macaroni and cheese and stop with the tobacco!

[DebsSky]

Sad is definitely the word for it for sure. Up here in Canada, Saskatchewan has just banned smoking in all public places and now, Alberta is urged to do the same. The city I live in does not allow smoking in public places and the city I take my mother to for treatment does not either, that is Edmonton, Alberta. All in all, maybe there is some hope for government to wake up!!

Deb

[Remembering Dave]

well, I hate to play Devil's advocate, but parents have a big role to play in kids' tobacco use. Just don't let them. Play hardball. Monitor where they are and what they are doing. I don't think the government is always responsible - people need to do some parenting. I know it's not easy and I don't have a teenager yet so I don't know how hard that can be, but parents need to be parents and be responsible for what their minor children are doing.

Karen

[SDianneB]

Ditto what Karen said about parents. And the fact that this is a country where people make choices and take responsibility for them. I understand the sentiment, but the last thing I want is for the government to take control out of my hands for the choices I make in this regard.

I'd turn the question around, and rather than ask why the government "allows" this to happen, why do we -- people -- keep finding things that will shorten our lifespan? We drive cars. Some people drive cars while under the influence of drugs/alcohol. We smoke. We eat too much. We don't eat enough. And then expect the government to save us from ourselves?

I agree that there should be penalties - and stiff ones - for minors in possession of alcohol, drugs, tobacco, etc., but maybe there should be penalties for their parents as well, IMO. And for those of us who see them on the street and do nothing. Once they grow up and are of legal age, however, they'll do what we all do - make their own choices, and then live with the consequences.

Yes, I'd like to have a country where we don't have harmful things, but when it's a country that values liberty and freedom like ours is, there is a price for that, and making bad choices is just part of it. Ban smoking, and something else will come along to replace it.

For a long time now, it hasn't been a secret that smoking is harmful and potentially fatal. We have societal evidence of that back to the start of the 20th century, at least. By now, there shouldn't be a human being on our continent who doesn't know that. What they do about it is really up to them rather than the government, IMO.

Di

[Remembering Dave]

Sorry honey, sweetie, wife o' mine, can't let you get away with the parent thing. There was not a thing in the world my folks could have done to prevent me from smoking. I agree that there needs to be more responsible parenting in this day and age but an individual makes his or her own decisions and if he/she has made the decision too and wants to smoke then there is not a single thing any parent can do to stop them. I have to agree with Di who has stated her position much more eloquently than I could have.

David C

[daggiesmom]

Just a thought -

Eating, if done in moderation, will not kill you.

Alcohol, if used responsibly will not kill you.

Smoking even ONE cigarette CAN kill you.

Tobacco is the only legally sold substance which, if used correctly, is guaranteed to hurt and/or kill you. The government knows this, yet allows it to be sold.

I don't like the idea of Big Brother either and I agree that children should be taught the vices of smoking, but i deeply resent the government making money by allowing this to be sold knowing full well it will kill us. If they didn't have all the revenue from the taxes collected on cigarettes, how would they get the money?

I thought government was supposed to be FOR the people.

Anyway you look at it tobacco causes misery, sickness and death.

Joanie

[SDianneB]

David, when I first started smoking, I was like lots of kids I guess -- didn't inhale. I didn't inhale for years, in fact!! It was "just for show," mostly. My parents, of course, figured it out, and the only thing my dad said was to let me know how bad it was for me, and that if I was going to smoke, I might as well just smoke in the house and not hide it. Well, I could NOT bring myself to do that, because they would actually SEE me. Once I knew that they knew, the ruse was up, but the forbidden aspect to it was all gone.

He knew that I wasn't going to stop from him just telling me to stop. He had smoked and quit - cold turkey - in one day. I, of course, was a young person who was invincible, nothing bad was ever going to happen to me, yada, yada, yada. I will say this for him though -- he confronted me about it, didn't let me just smoke and get away with it, and never failed to "remind" me why I should stop.

Di

[SDianneB]

Joanie, I don't disagree with how bad smoking is -- not at all.

But, the fact is that tobacco, in and of itself, isn't the enemy -- it's the additives they put with it to make cigarettes, chewing tobacco, etc., that are addictive and harmful. And we, as adults, know that. We, as adults, make our choices. Try as we might, I just don't believe we can save everyone from him/herself. And I don't believe that's up to the government.

One drink can kill you too -- if someone else drinks it, can't handle it, then smashes into you on the freeway.

IMO, if someone opens a bar/restaurant, they should be able to decide if they allow smoking or not inside their own business. If they do, they should be required to place warnings around the establishment, and provide warnings to employees, and then carry out their business as they see fit. It's then our choice if we go there or not, and the marketplace will either support the place or it won't last long. I can't agree with any kind of ban by the government on such things, because in this country, we are supposed to be protected from that kind of thing -- not have it imposed on us by our own government.

I'll not stop warning people -- especially young people -- about the perils of smoking. Never. But I will never start looking to the government to solve the problems created by our own choices in life.

Di

[Elaine]

Di

Most people start smoking in their mid teens. How wise are 16 year olds when it comes to making decisions that will impact quite possibly the rest of their lives?

Nicotine is a drug. ALL other drugs are regulated by the government. Only nicotine is not. It is because of a "deal" struck between tobacco farmers and the govt early in the 20th century.

People don't seem to mind when the government takes another drug like VIOX off of the market. Why not just put a warning on it?

Should heroin be legal and a choice? If not, then why should nicotine be a choice that you say some should be able to make?

Add to that is the fact that cig manufacturers manipulated the amount of nicotine in cig gradually increasing it to make certain that people became as addicted as possible. ANd like all things, some people have more addictive personalities than others What 16 year old knows THIS?

What 16 year old is truly able to make that kind of decision?

The tobacco companies now are marketing fruit flavored cig. Who are they trying to entice?

Did yiou know this? It was found with tobacco company research that many Blacks had a physical aversion to the "taste" of tobacco. KInd of like an allergic reaction. Well they sure wanted those millions of potential customers, so they came up with menthol cigerettes. Hmmm

And light cigarettes: those were marketed to women in order to get that huge market. AND it is a fact that those cig were marketed as being safer. The truth is they are probably more dangerous as they are inhaled deeper.

It's not about choice, IMO. It is about criminal behavior on the part of the companies that knowingly kill millions, now spreading their market to underdeveloped nations. It is about irresponsible government policiies.

We are so worried about the recent tsumani that we send billions in aid, but at the same time we are killing millions in China with our product.

Phillip Morris isn't going anywhere soon. They, like all other major tobacco companies diversified when it became clear they might be held liable. These companies own much of the food processing companies and health and beauty aid manufacturers (ironically) so don't feel bad for them.

As for farmers, hemp would be a crop to look at. It is a useful product. It is not marijuanna. There are solutions to anyone looking to find them and not looking to buy into the age old propaganda that smoking is a choice.

I bought that for many years, and look where I am...

BTW, nicotine occurs naturally in tobacco in an amount that I think I read is not addictive. It is the manner in which the companies mess with the nicotine that makes it addictive. Nicotine occurs narurally in most plants, from my understanding.

elaine

[Remembering Dave]

Dear sweet husband of mine (LOL):

I disagree. My parents said NO SMOKING OR THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. so we didn't smoke. My parents were a bit tougher than yours I do believe.

Not only that, my father told us as we became teenagers - IF I CATCH YOU WITH DRUGS I WILL CALL THE POLICE. Trust me, that was enough to keep the evil weed out of my mouth!

Did I resent them? Sometimes. Did I hate them? Sometimes. But it worked, as a teenager, I didn't do any of these things. Do I hate them now? Absolutely not! I got over that in my 20's (LOL again).

Love,

the wife

[SDianneB]

I have no problem banning nicotene or harmful chemicals. Tobacco isn't one of them. Tobacco is rather a nothing until additves are put with it. And there's a difference between a tobacco farmer and a tobacco company too -- a big one. Vioxx was something prescribed to people -- they were told to take Vioxx by health care professionals who went from the best information they had at the time. They don't usually prescribe or direct people to smoke or drink or to inhale glue fumes or whatever.

We know as a 16 year old what is good/bad if we've been raised that way. We get some independence, and we start making choices. Sometimes they are bad ones. But when we're 16, we're still not adults, and have parents or guardians who are supposed to watch over us. Lacking that, then there are laws and regulations about harmful influences on minors already.

I'm not at all arguing that smoking isn't an awful, dangerous, and deadly habit. I just don't believe that it's up to the government to try and make sure we don't make poor choices.

Di

[Elaine]

Well, what is the governments role then? Why do they even bother making sure highways and roads are safe? Wny do they bother to set speed limits?

Why does the government have a defense system? Isn't safety, health and welfare the supreme role and responsibility of government?

elaine

[SDianneB]

Government has a clearly defined role in our Constitution. It provides for, among other things, individual liberties and rights, and an unequivocal protection of rights of each state in the union. Long ago, the federal government started crossing those lines, and I doubt it will stop any time soon.

It is necessary to have rules that we can all agree on when driving on public roads, going into public buildings, etc. But when things are in private hands, and the highways clearly aren't private, I believe those things are left to us as free people to decide. We the people set the rules and laws we live under in each state. For the same reasons I don't believe the government should come into my house and tell me who I can/can't love or marry, I don't believe they get to come into my house and say I can/can't smoke.

Di

[Elaine]

Well, I suppose you want safe food. I suppose you want safe water.

If you leave it up to business, I doubt if you would have either one.

I suppose you don't want your neighbor in the privacy of his home building bombs, especially if he is 16 years old and might get pissed off if you look at him wrong. I bet there are a lot of things you dont think people should be doing in the privacy of their own homes if you think a bout it. Sending threatening emails? Luring kids into the home in order to sexually assault them?

I don't want the govt legislating who can marry whom--IMO, since no one gets hurt. But abuse of one adult to another IS something I want govt to legislate. That most often happens in the home. I don't care if it's the state or the federal government, someone needs to make and enforce laws that will try to curb that harm.

I think there is proof enough that an adult smoking in a home or in a car with children present does pose a health risk to children. I did it. I am guilty.

The constitution was written so that it could incorporate change. There wern't factories or cars etc etc when it was written. It was written with a lawmaking body and checks and balances to that law making body. It could not forsee the laws that would be needed and the writers knew this.

That is why the const has held up all these years--it is designed for change.

There is enough evidence that cig are harmful and if they are harmful in a public place they are twice as harmful in a private place--(smaller places with less sophisticated vehhilation etc).

I suppose it might be possible that cig would be less harmful or maybe not vey harmful if there was no cig manufacturers. In that case, IF that is the case, then rolling and smoking cig in the privacy of the home MIGHT be fine with me.

elaine

[SDianneB]

I just can't value the ethics or the intentions or morals of other people and what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Neither can the government, IMO, because we are all different. It just isn't possible to regulate everything and keep people "safe." Ain't gonna happen. We do the best we can.

I don't know if someone builds a bomb in their garage if they are going to blow something up with it, or just see if they can. If they blow up my house with it, then I expect an investigation and an arrest, because that's illegal. If someone breaks a law, I expect the same. I don't expect to have the government step into my home based on what "might" happen.

There's a distinction here that I may not be communicating adequately -- federal government vs. states. We aren't a democracy -- we are a republic with elements of democracy in our government.

People do harmful things to children way too often. There are many laws on the books against it, yet it happens over and over. There is no way that any government will ever stop that, short of taking control of all children at birth, locking them up in a secured facility, and raising them. Still, there will be those among us who will figure out ways around that.

People who carry genes that cause fatal diseases reproduce. People addicted to drugs reproduce. People with HIV/AIDS reproduce. To keep children "safe," would require that all that stop too, and those people be sterilized so that they can't harm children. Are we ready for that? I don't think I am.

Di

[daggiesmom]

Tobacco is the means by which nicotine and other toxins are delivered into our systems. The tobacco industry has admitted, I believe, to adding nicotine to addict smokers and keep them coming back for more. Nicotine doesn't cause cancer, but I believe the burning tar and paper does. Seems to me they are guilty of delivering poison to the American public. What I meant to say earlier was that tobacco is the only substance which if used ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS is guaranteed to harm/kill you. As far as alcohol goes, having even ONE DRINK and then getting behind the wheel is, IMO, using alcohol irresponsibly.

I wish someone would find a good use for tobacco!

Joanie

[Elaine]

You are missing my point. I didn't say that the government can stop all harmful behavior; it is impossible. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't try when there is clear evidence that harm is being done. Especially in instances where it is clear that a law could stop a great deal of harm.

I didn't say I cared which government--it just seems logical that in the case of cig that it would be a federal law. LOL, smoke crosses state borders--

You actually make MY point, when you say people shouldnt do things because there is a law against it. The only thing stopping cig from doing harm is that there is NO law against it. You clearly believe that there are some things that should be unlawful and you seem to suggest those things are things that cause harm or potential harm.

I guess I see your point, about making a bomb (which in some cases IS illegal depending) vs actually setting it off... but do you really want people making bombs? Do you really want plutonium in the hands of just anyone? Do you really want people being able to go around threatening people without that being illegal?

You also pose a red herring when you begin to talk about who should or should not reproduce. My argument implies nothing about reproduction. There is a big difference between a genetic "defect" and a social harm.

I think it shold be against the law to knowingly get pregnant if you have HIV/AIDS if there is no way that the baby can be protected agaisnt the disease (I am not up to date on that). It IS against the law to have unprotected sex with a partner if you have AIDS/HIV and your partner does not know you have the virus. Babies should have the same protection, IMO--especailly since the baby almost always will get the virus from the mother, whereas, not all sexual partners will become infected.

I never said we were a democracy. If we were, then many harmful things MIGHT be legal. Slavery might sill exist. There might be no speed limits. Drinking and driving might be legal. The whole idea of a federalist govt was to protect people from their own ignorance. ANd if you don't believe that people are ignorant, I could point you to lots of proof that people most certainly are,...

Most people are too busy trying to make their way in a capatilist society that they don't have time to keep up to date of every scientific discovery etc etc. Heck, our education system is so bad that most people read with the skill of a fourth grader. I am NOT willing to live in a true democracy. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for a day, and I bet you wouldnt either.

No law is perfect. If a law need be perfect and stop ALL harmful behavior to be worth a dang, then there would be NO laws....

Are all laws good? No. Not at all. There are many things that have been legal in this nation that had no business being legal. There were and are many policies that are unjust and should be illegal.

I appreciate having someone to "argue" with. Thanks.

It is, IMO, very crafty that somehow we (universal we) were led to believe that we have the right to smoke.... There are many less dangerous things we do that are illegal and that we have NO rignt to do...

elaine

[Remembering Dave]

I think we need a constitutional expert here.

maybe we can add one to Ask the Experts.

KC

[SDianneB]

Elaine, you are one formidable debatress. Of course, you're one amazing woman, so why not?

There are lots of things that can be harmful -- as in potentially. Take the number of smokers in comparison to the number of total adults in the U.S. -- miniscule numbers. Same with drinkers. Did you know that each year, alcohol affects amost 4 times as many lives as smoking? As in from liver disease, death related to alcohol abuse, drunk driving, etc. I don't think there is a reported case of someone smoking 10 cigarettes, then getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone because of the cigarattes. But, I do get the point about smoking -- I do NOT condone it, and don't think anyone should smoke. Period.

I just draw the line -- and a big thick line -- between personal behavior and responsibility and what the government should be doing in our lives.

Yes, there probably should be someone trying to do something about harmful things, but I don't believe that's the federal government when it involves our privacy and personal freedoms. Trying to keep us "safe" is futile. We just won't ever be safe. The world is a dangerous place. We will all die from something. It's inevitable.

If nothing else, look at the "War on Drugs." They've been illegal for years now, and we've spent tons and tons of money to try and prevent the spread and use of illegal drugs to no avail. They are more prevalent today, cheaper, and more common in all walks of life than ever before. If that's how the government tries to keep us from harm, if nothing else, the sheer ineptitude of their efforts would lead me to believe they aren't the right place to look for help.

I'd like everything to be "safe." But it isn't going to be. And the federal government is the last place I'd look to help, given their track record.

Who was it -- Ben Franklin, I think, who said something like this: "He who would give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security."

IMO, if "we the people" decided that harmful tobacco products should be outlawed, then it should happen through legislation as that is the branch of government responsible for making law. Not the judiciary. Beating up the tobacco companies with lawsuits and monetary fines isn't doing very much, except spurring them to sell more to make up their losses.

If it were made illegal tomorrow, I could walk 2 blocks in either direction from where I work and buy cigarettes by the carton, and probably get them for half the price they are selling for over the counter. A whole new underground will open up, just for cigarettes. Your neighbors will become common criminals when they are caught sneaking a smoke that they just bought from their new dealer, the son of your boss. When people figure out there are folks in your neighborhood getting cigarettes, they'll be breaking in your houses to steal them.

All the things that go on now with illegal drugs will continue and even worsen with a ban on tobacco products.

IMO, we can do what we can do and no more. We can warn, admonish, keep our children from smoking, do whatever we can to influence people to stay away from cigarettes. People will do what people will do though, and that's the price we pay to live in a country where we have individual liberties, IMO.

(Sorry I wasn't clear on the reproduction thing -- I meant it in terms of things that are known to be harmful to children, such as passing on genetic defects, AIDS/HIV, crack addiction, etc. That happens as the result of people exercising their "rights" to reproduce at will. The results are devastating.)

Di

[Ry]

Elaine and Di...you can just skip past me cause this is for Karen...

As the mother of two teenagers I gotta tell ya I side with your husband (David C you own me big time ) While I am sure I have made an impact on them I tell you that peer thing is a force you can't believe. When they hit about 16, you know nothing and their friends know it all. The other thing is...driving. They are mobile they go where they want and you have no idea what's going on when they're out of the house. I know Tyler doesn't smoke and I'd like to think its because he sees what it has done to his dad...but you know, it's probably because no one in his crowd smokes. Fitting in is everything at that age.

[Remembering Dave]

Well, Ry, I guess it's a slightly different world than when I was a teenager, 'cause we received strict threats about our behavior, we were, I guess, scared straight and it worked. We had one car, a ford pinto, that the three of us teenagers shared, and believe me, our parents knew where we were going in it and when we were to be home. in fact, we could only drive it to legitimate things, band practice, or work, etc. (I always had a job, my brothers didn't because they were over achievers at school). In other words, we were on a short leash. My Mom worked, too. I just believe parents need to have their kids on a short leash, especially these days. Maybe it doesn't work that way any more. I guess I'll find out. But a little fear goes a long ways.

Just my opinion!

KC