It seems to me that Public Health has lost its way and redefined its role far, far too broadly when it moved into attempting to focus on behavior rather than actual disease. The war on smokers is certainly a prime example, as is the war on the overweight (even the mildly overweight).

In cleaning out some of my files, I came across an op-ed entitled "The Tyranny of Health" that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1994 ["Sounding Board," July 21, Vol. 331, No.3]. The piece was written by Dr. Faith T. Fitzgerald of the University of California, David, Medical Center, and she warned about Public Health going too far.

quote:

We must beward of developing a zealotry about health, in which we take ourselves too seriously and believe that we know enough to dictate human behavior, penalize p[eople for disagreeing with us, and even deny people charity, empathy, and understanding because they act in a way of which we disapprove....If we redefine health, I hope we can discover a definition that does not include a medical or social mandate to control people's behavior for the sake of their mortal bodies; this would seem to me particularly compelling in a nation founded on the belief that one should not legislate behavior even for the sake of the immortal soul

It's a pity that at the time there were too few willing to heed Dr. Fitzgerald's words.

It's also a pity people aren't heeding her words today. They are as true now, if not more so, as the 'war on smoking' is turning into nothing less than an attempt to turn smokers into the only minority it's okay to hate.

quote:

We must beware of developing a zealotry about health, in which we take ourselves too seriously...

And then she was beheaded.

Just kidding (I think)

Why is country so worried about the Supreme Court trying to legislate from the bench when these Executive Departments are doing it every day. No one elected these people to anything but their flawed reports are taken as gospel.

It seems that smokers like to use the Boston Tea Party as an example of when we "conquered over the tyranny of unfair taxes" to support their arguement that taxes on their cigarettes is unfair and tyrannical.

It also seems that smokers fail to recognize the direct correlations between health and their habit on more then an individual prospective. From what I've seen, smokers arent concerned with anything beyond their own personal cost to smoke...

"I live in a free country, I have a right to make this choice for myself."

I agree. Free country equals freedom of choice... under most conditions.

The previous statement can be used to rationalize almost anything.

Unfortunetly, in this country, you do not have ultimate freedom to do anything and everything you desire and its hard to think of this when you only consider yourself and not others with a sociological prospective.

Anyone can rationalize anything. If I wanted to speed I could say, "This is a free country, I have a constitutional right to drive as fast as I want." But this isnt true. Its statistically proven that speed can kill... but as a speeder my rational is this, "Its only a risk. Dont try to tell me that speeding is dangerous. People speed all the time and are perfectly fine." So if everyone in the world drove as fast as they wanted and as crazy as they wanted, what affects would this have on more then the individual? Sociologically, there are so many things this could influence: Death, gas, injury, health care costs, psychological affects on the friends and family of the dead and injured, etc.

This is where we get confused on fuzzy lines. Where is the distinction between individual rights and the rights of the many? When the right of the individual impinges on the right of the many, can the individual say that the many doesnt matter? That the individual has more rights then everyone else?

Philosophically where do we draw these lines?

In Washington State alone, $1.52 billion is spent annually on health care costs related to smoking. Would you try to tell me that "only smokers are paying for this cost"? If you did, I wouldnt believe you.

The entire state population is paying for a small percentage of the population who thinks that its their individual right to smoke, but dont consider the sociological affects their habits have.

Rational aside and partisism aside, how is it fair for a small percentage of the population to impact the whole?

If you dont care about your life, fine, I dont care either. Do what you want as long as you pay for everything related to your health. If you can do that, I wont bug another smoker about their habit.



(This was written by Aaron in response to "Public Health." Aaron wants to know what your thoughts are. Please respond.)

I need some charts and graphs to see where this 1.52 billion dollar number comes from. Sounds like the state is trying to justify higher taxes.

What crap! First of all, Aaron, such impeccable sources as the Congressional Research Service did an analysis of smokers' "costs" and found that "society" makes a net gain on smokers--IF it's true that smokers die younger. Ergo, since you seem only to care about monetary costs, you should be encouraging people to smoke.

Secondly, since you care so much about monetary costs, you must be absolutely in favor of mandatory death sentences for most felons--and for Alzheimer's patients, and for very premature babies, and for anyone who sustains severe head/spinal trauma at a relatively young age. All these represent an enormous economic burden on "society."

And, by the way, smokers are not a "small minority." They constitute roughly a quarter of the adult population.

When you start talking about human beings and their legal behaviors as liabilities, you are treading on VERY dangerous grounds, unless you're a big fan of the Ultimate Solution or a socialist.

Aaron, you're blaming smokers, but your problem actually lies with a government that forces you to pay for other people's health care, smokers and nonsmokers. Go write your governor and bitch.

Downhill snow skiers break their legs more often than smokers. After writing your governor why don't you go find one of their forums and bitch?

quote:

... you seem only to care about monetary costs, you should be encouraging people to smoke.

For the purpose of this discussion, I'm not only concerned with monetary costs. It is a concern, but its not my only conern. Something I tell my dad when he smokes is that his life isnt the only thing in balance. If he dies, gets cancer, etc., he's not only affecting his own life, he's affecting the lives of everyone in contact with him. My mother, my sister, and little brother, myself, his friends, his parents; the list could easily continue. No, I'm not only concerned with money. As with everyone here, I have a personal stake in this discourse, but i'm still completely willing to hear your side.

quote:

Since you care so much about monetary costs, you must be absolutely in favor of mandatory death sentences for most felons--and for Alzheimer's patients, and for very premature babies, and for anyone who sustains severe head/spinal trauma at a relatively young age. All these represent an enormous economic burden on "society."

Yes, your absolutely correct. I'd like to see premature babies, felons, and old people put to death[disclaimer: do not use this out of context, Aaron is being facetious and sarcastic.]

I dont think our society has only two options for dealing with every situation. Pay vast sums of money or kill everybody... whats your choice? Its a good thing I dont think in those terms. If you say, "You have a choice between A and B." I'll ask, "what about C or D?" I'd be happy to discuss this if it were actually relavent.

quote:

When you start talking about human beings and their legal behaviors as liabilities, you are treading on VERY dangerous grounds, unless you're a big fan of the Ultimate Solution or a socialist.

The Ultimate Solution.... Are you refering to the Ultimate Solution of solving a Rubriks cube? Seriously, is it just the governments job to 'talk about human beings and their legal behavoirs?' Why is this taboo?

And as far as your socialist comment... would you prefer Fascism? Why the extremes?

quote:

Originally posted by squeezer:
Aaron, you're blaming smokers, but your problem actually lies with a government that forces you to pay for other people's health care, smokers and nonsmokers. Go write your governor and bitch.

Yeah, I know that the government is the force behind this.

quote:

Downhill snow skiers break their legs more often than smokers. After writing your governor why don't you go find one of their forums and bitch?

Isnt this why we're all here? To discuss these issues in open forum, hear both sides of the argument, defend yours and challenge the other?? uh.. or is this a 'smokers only' forum?

I'm fully capable of writing my representative or senator and i'm fully capable of running for office.... hm.. didnt think of that did you? I'm completely capable of both. But at this point, I'm here to discuss this openly and as unbiased as possible... not to "bitch." It just so happens I'd rather discuss the issue of smoking with smokers because I understand your opinion matters and I need to consider both sides.

I'll write my senator later, thanks for the input. [salute]

Aaron, you are correct that we are hear to discuss tobacco and other lifestyle related issues. That being the case please back up the societal costs you claim accrue to smoking. Please provide proof, not some statistical analysis from anti-smoking outfits or their "partners" in the particular governmental organizations that smokers "cost" society any more than do nonsmokers.

quote:

statistical analysis from anti-smoking outfits or their "partners" in the particular governmental organizations that smokers "cost" society any more than do nonsmokers

uh.. actually those stats are from exactly that source... interesting choice of wording Andy... HAH.

When you think about it though, i can have the same response..... YOU show me proof that smoking doesnt have the affect shown in those statistics. I dont see many smokers doing these studies and gathering data... I have a hypothesis as to why, but thats not important at the moment.

Why is it so hard for folks to believe the data in these "anti-smoker" statisics? I've been looking... i cant find too much evidence to support the habbit besides these (I'll cite my source at the end):

1) [For kids]one perceived benefit is that it communicates a social image of precocity and adultlike status.

2) [For kids]Adolescents may be influenced by their beliefs that smoking can control body weight. WHICH INFACT, SMOKING DOES SUPPRESS BODY WEIGHT.

3) Control over negative moods and urges [as stated by heavy smokers]


"The motivation to smoke cigarettes is multifaceted. No single, monolithic motive accounts for cigarette smoking across individuals and development. The complexity of smoking motivation is reflected by the range of factors associated with the initiation and maintenance of smoking. These factors include stress, genotype, peer and parental relations, personality/temperament, expectancies, and presence of affective symptomatology (Gilbert 1995)."

Seriously, I cant find too much to support the habbit.

I've been reading a lot of peer reviewed scientific journals, medical journals, and the like, but sadly it seems evidence keeps pointing away from your arguments folks.


Source:
Chassin, Laurie, Timothy B Baker, Thomas H Brandon. “MOTIVATIONAL INFLUENCES ON CIGARETTE SMOKING.” Annual Review of Psychology. Palo Alto: 2004.Vol.55 pg. 463. ProQuest. 13Oct05. Available HTTP: http://0-proquest.umi.com.oswald.clark.edu/pqdweb?did=57

quote:

Originally posted by ChainSmoker:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:
YOU show me proof that smoking doesnt have the affect shown in those statistics. I dont see many smokers doing these studies and gathering data... I have a hypothesis as to why, but thats not important at the moment.

Like I posted sir, if you read through the entire forum here at SpeakEasyForum, you may get the answers you so need without "stirring up the crock pot" with tantrum remarks. Please sir, there are references within this forum which point to the quote I presented back to you, thank you.

I hardly consider my remarks tantrum.

I restated a statement to benifit my purpose and show the reversibility of the remark.

When I have more time I'll be looking through this forum more thoroughly [as per your advice].

quote:

Originally posted by ChainSmoker:
And sir I can throw a "ton" of references your way, please direct your attention to:

http://www.smokershistory.com

If that isn't sufficient, then come on back and I'll give you another web site or two, eventually you'll catch on.

Sorry that isnt enough. I've already browsed through similar sites.

I'd like to see a peer edited scientific journal. Not too much to ask for is it...?

You'd be surprised.

I appreciate the response CS, and thankyou for serving the country. I'm also a veteran with an honorable discharge, though it seems you served about 40 years prior to me. So you have my respect in those terms.

Tantamount doesnt really fit the context either I'm afraid.

I'd like to suggest that we no longer compare Hitler's fascist [right-wing authoritarian] government to our society. Right now, if anything could be considered fascist, it would be Bush's administration, but thats not our topic of discourse. I hardly consider the atrocity of KILLING 6 million Jews comparable to the TAXATION of cigarattes for 55 million Americans. Hence, my reference to the smokers adage of "this being comparable to the the Tea tax that ignited the American Revolution," which more closely fits then any reference to Hitler.

quote:

The laws against smoking (banning it) fall directly along the lines of Nazism (if there is such a word) but has long been pronounced by all people who smoke cigarettes.

I dont agree. College may have helped with this particularly. Laws against smoking are more closely knit to laws for wearing your seatbelt.

Deaths when people didnt wear their seatbelt equated to public policy for enforcement. Likewise, deaths when people smoke is equating to public policy to 'encourage people' not to smoke [though enforcement may soon follow].

Also, you wont get a fraction of resistance from me on the argument of 'thinking for yourself.' Thats an area you and I both completely agree on. If it came down to simply that, there would be no debate on the issue of smoking. However, theres more than just making your own choices that influence this issue. I think we both know that.

quote:

Originally posted by ChainSmoker:
People wear seat belts because they are forced to. How many people have been injured seriously from wearing a seat belt just for braking to avoid an accident? How many people went off the road, down a hill and into a lake or river and hadn't they been buckled in, would have survived but instead drowned.

Surprising, I thought airbags were safe enough, guess not. So why then do car buyers have to pay for such a safety item which assured us total safety in the event of an accident? Hmmmmm, a con job, has to be.

There was never any such thing as 'total safety' in the hands of a human. As proven by those before us, people can kill themself with anything. I understand your logic but it doesnt reflect the issue at hand... analogies... analogies... analogies.. THEY GO BOTH WAYS!! STOP USING THEM!

I'm not a college graduate, I never said so.

I joined just after high school graduation ['01], before I was 18 [I'm a month from 22]. I had already been in college a year and a half before I graduated b/c of a program called Running Start, where HS students can attend college the last two years of HS.

I served my full service agreement of 3 years[an option now] as a 13F [Foward Observer] in Korea [2ID 1 year] and Iraq [82nd Airborne 9 months]. The other 13 months was training and I got lucky with my discharge, they didnt extend my time. I got out last August ['04] and have been in college since.

I understand I'm young but dont use that as an argument against me.

There's my 'credentials.'

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron:
And as far as your socialist comment... would you prefer Fascism? Why the extremes?

What extremes? Fascism and socialism are basically the same thing. One's just one step closer to Marxism than the other.

They both have a strong centralized government that allow private property, but dictate how they are to be run.

Socialist countries don't mind outright owning certain industries, but with Hitler and Fascism, for example, he dictated to them exactly what he wanted them to produce.