Paceline smokers, come out of the closet!

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by gdw

Sure, why not? If we're going to be a nanny nation lets also tax the foods with high percentages of sugar or corn syrup at the same rate we tax tobacco. The folks who are addicted to overeating should pay for the burden they place on our health care system.

This argument is a lot like the argument against stricter gun control laws – car accidents kill more people every year, so why don’t we lower the maximum highway speed to 25 mph before we touch gun control laws? It would save so many lives!

The reason your argument (like my above example) is flawed: automobiles, like food, are 100% necessary for most people. More people are negatively impacted by a draconian speed limit restriction than realistic gun laws.

I’m not arguing that firearms aren’t necessary-quite the opposite. They are, however, far less necessary for the average person than an automobile is. Cigarettes are completely unnecessary, and therefore a far better (and easier) target for regulation.

All that being said – I’m a registered dietitian with a masters degree in nutrition. I have zero problem with a “fat tax” added to high calorie, low nutrient density foods, for example. I suspect, however, you aren’t really proposing that we do that. You just think we shouldn’t have any government intervention, and are therefore proposing something you see as ridiculous to illustrate your point.

[klasse]

Schick graduate here from the late 80's. Quit all forms of smoke 12-13y ago. I have a semi-close friend who is literally dying of cigarettes, around 45yo with a young daughter. I am seriously thinking about how to do an intervention.

If you want to quit, you can, but you really have to want it. And if you are not familiar with Schick, it was shock treatment BITD.

[gdw]

"I suspect, however, you aren’t really proposing that we do that. You just think we shouldn’t have any government intervention, and are therefore proposing something you see as ridiculous to illustrate your point."

Correct. Education and taxation have been very effective in decreasing the numbers of smokers in this country. Limiting the nicotine content of cigarettes is unnecessary and overreach in my my opinion. Smokers are already marginalized, even demonized, by our current culture so this just seems like another slap at a vulnerable minority. Obesity is a much bigger problem and unfortunately we tolerate and accept it despite the fact that it kills more of our population than tobacco.

[tommyrod74]

Originally Posted by gdw

"I suspect, however, you aren’t really proposing that we do that. You just think we shouldn’t have any government intervention, and are therefore proposing something you see as ridiculous to illustrate your point."

Correct. Education and taxation have been very effective in decreasing the numbers of smokers in this country. Limiting the nicotine content of cigarettes is unnecessary and overreach in my my opinion. Smokers are already marginalized, even demonized, by our current culture so this just seems like another slap at a vulnerable minority. Obesity is a much bigger problem and unfortunately we tolerate and accept it despite the fact that it kills more of our population than tobacco.

I don't think you understand the definition of "vulnerable minority".

Also, making a drug delivery device less potent (and therefore less addictive) isn't exactly violating anyone's civil rights.

Again, I've got no problem with regulation of certain food items to address obesity.

[Dude]

In an effort to keep this from getting locked, strawmanning cigarettes with obesity isn’t going to go over well.

Sure there are lots of things that can be dealt with, this thread is specifically talking about cigarette smoking and sometimes weed.