This week sees another large step throughout the world to reduce the number of smokers. The World Health Organization has adopted an anti-smoking treaty and other bans and laws have been introduced in various countries. One drastic measure will see "At least one third of the space on cigarette packets will have to be devoted to health warnings, including pictures of diseased lungs" Yummy!!
Can we assume that after this doesn't slow down cigarette sales that the States and their willing law firms will go after Big Tobacco now calling this "marketing to teenage boys"?
I have been kind of following this since March of this year. Never heard anything about pictures of "diseased lungs" on cigarette packages. Anyway, I wonder what this abrupt turn-about in participation is all about. Just two-three short months ago the US was adamantly against the principles of this treaty claiming that it would infringe upon the "free speech" of tobacco companies (yea right! I think they meant to say that it would infringe upon tobacco companies $profits$ which would piss off one of the republican party's largest financial contributor's.) Setback for anti-smoking treaty, 2/28/03 US 'should quit tobacco talks' 2/25/03 I am very suspicious of the motives here. I would like to think that Tommy Thompson is on the side of health, but is he just another puppet of the Bush administration?
There is absolutely no incentive whatsoever for the US to join this. Hardly anyone in the US smokes anymore, but your average European or Asian chain-smokes 12 packs of American cigarettes a day. The result is that tobacco poses little health risk to Americans but is a huge boost to our economy.
I'm not gonna comment on your hard-heartedness, but I would gonna question your numbers...if the average European and asian smokes 12 (Sic?) packs a day, then I guess you can say that hardly "anyone in the US smokes anymore." By your standards, a two pack a day man can hardly be called a smoker.
The Democrats are worse than Republicans on tobacco. They stole hundreds of billions from (mostly lower middle-class/poor) smokers and are now partners of the entire industry. They want people to smoke. How can we know this? Because only a miniscule fraction of this money is going for treatment.
Where on earth did you get this idea becuase it's dead wrong when it comes to where the political contributions from tobacco companies go. "...tobacco interests have given more than $26.3 million in political donations to federal candidates, national parties and non-party political action committees since 1997. Republican candidates and committees have received 81 percent of the tobacco industry's contributions ($21,216,699) and Democratic candidates and committees have received 18 percent of the industry's contributions ($4,832,828)." http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/contributions/ Want more? http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/contributions/april2003.pdf http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/prime/0730-121.html I highly doubt Bush is going to go along with anything as far as this tobacco treaty goes. Either that, or the current administration will try to screw the entire idea up by picking it apart piece by piece trying to make it advantageous to only the US, and only monetarily...just like every other damned thing this administration does when it comes to planetary issues.
I don't believe it's the job of the US government to protect Americans from their own stupidity, let alone people in other countries. 12 packs a day was an exaggeration (I thought that would be obvious), but Europeans and Asians do smoke a LOT more than Americans do.
The tobacco companies do give more money to the GOP, but this is most likely more because of geography (tobacco is mostly grown in Republican strongholds) than ideology.
I wasn't speaking about the narrow issue of political contributions. I was discussing stealing billions from low income smokers while spending next to nothing on helping these folks. Democrats' record on tobacco is shameful. Worse than Republicans who aren't quite as eager to steal from the poor in this case.
Of course, they can always come to Taiwan where none of this will be in effect unless the government decides to adopt the rules unlaterially as Taiwan is not a UN or WHO member.
What kind of help do you have in mind Ben? Income is irrelevant at this point. The warning has been out there in every type of media available. It is on the box. If you dont live cave, you are aware of the health risks regardless of income.. At some point, people have to help themselves..
Blame the addict is the easiest route. I'm not going to argue this here. Tobacco taxes and the de facto tax via the settlement are the most regressive taxes on the planet. It can only be justified if ALL the money goes to prevention and treatment. Unfortunately, very little money, paid for by smokers, actually benefits addicts. Instead, the USA and states are profiting immensely from their drug-dealing partnership with the tobacco industry. Drug dealers don't want their customers to stop using.
It isn't like this is a conscious decision on their parts. States are in a terrible mess, and have to use every trick in the book to balance their budgets. That includes taking from the tobacco taxes, and even selling future tobacco tax proceeds.
Undecided? Why dont we legalize everything then? Why should the government protect people from stupidity(ie commiting what once were crimes)? Let God sort 'em out eh?