Comments on: Hot Topic: How Much Should The U.S. Regulate Tobacco?

[MontrosMan]

So you're saying we should allow some smokers and non-smokers to get lung cancer to save taxpayers money?? You're an idiot.
Posted by Dave_P6 at 7:11 AM : Jun 12, 2009

Try reading my entire post. My point is simply this, if the gov't is using cost...exclusively...as their reason to control tobacco use, we may actually spend more per capita for non-tobacco users because they tend to live longer and utilize more gov't resources. I'm happy they live longer. I don't want to see people die. I don't believe the gov't should start a Logan's Run euthanization program to save money. But, I also don't believe the gov't can use the cost factor to justify eliminating even more of our freedoms if, in fact, a non-smoker ends up consuming more gov't resouces over their lifetime than a smoker.

[kds562]

The government has for years warned smokers about the dangers and the poisons cigarettes contain. A smoker not only endangers themselves but all others who get a whiff. If they are too addicted, independent, or ignorant,
the government has the right to protect their lives and others by stopping this senseless practice. It is the same morally as stopping someone from putting a gun in their mouth.

[8razman]

This is not about smoking. Its about the government forcing its will on the people. That is not how our government works. Washington works for us not the other way around. Get the government out of our businesses and keep it out.

[promaclaura]

Not under Universal Health-Care, I don't want to pay for their cancer treatment.
Posted by promaclaura at 6:02 AM : Jun 12, 2009

Why not? You expect me to pay for the cancer you get from eating too much sugar and preservatives, or drinking too much coffee, or from wearing too much deodorant and perfume. The fact is smoking doesn't cause cancer. In some people, It irritates it into growth.

Get your facts straight before you open your mouth. Cancer happens to non-smokers who have never been exposed to smoke.
Posted by phwtb at 6:47 AM : Jun 12, 2009

If you had read my other posts you will see that I mentioned all the other unhealthy habits that will now be monitored under universal healthcare as well. I don't want to pay for heart disease and Diabetes of the obese either. Nope, you're going to have to be a trim nonsmoker if you want me to pay for your healthcare. I'll only jump on Obama's healthcare bandwagon if he regulates everything that is bad for you, that is the only way to make sure our money is spent responsibly.

ps I'm in shape, so don't worry about paying for "fat" diseases for me.

[Dave_P6]

"So, if this poor soul dies in a year, we, the taxpayer, spent one year on their healthcare. Now, compare that to what we taxpayers pay for a non-smoker who lives to the ripe old age of 93 and dies of some other disease?"

Posted by MontrosMan at 6:41 AM : Jun 12, 2009

So you're saying we should allow some smokers and non-smokers to get lung cancer to save taxpayers money?? You're an idiot.

[abbe91]

I'd bet that 400,000 is conservative too. But that's not the point. The point is how MUCH they cost ME!
Posted by bannednancy at 6:52 AM : Jun 12, 2009

Comparing to the world statistics, it seems pretty coherent. At least the order of magnitude is right.

[abbe91]

"Kind of like a 5 year old saying: "My mommy says that eating potato chips will give you a heart attack!"
Posted by copasetic2 at 6:49 AM : Jun 12, 2009

Actually, FDA regulations require nutrition information to appear on most foods, including potato chips. Why should tobacco be exempt of such regulations, like the list of used additives ?

[mattcat25]

Don't smoke.

[copasetic2]

400,000 lives a year lost to tobacco smoking? I don't think so.
it's a shame journalists don't investigate facts any more. They have become a mouthpiece for government and institutional bodies and simply parrot what they've been told.

Kind of like a 5 year old saying: "My mommy says that eating potato chips will give you a heart attack!"

We smile at that innocent foolishness in a child but it's very disturbing to see it in grown men and women and it isn't just cbs. It's all the major networks and the vast majority of newspapers.

No investigation into the claims. No examination of the motives behind this move. No questioning of why this takes priority over infinitely more harmful problems in society.

What a pathetic inditement on modern-day journalism, no wonder more and more people are turning to internet blogs and sources for information as the national media has become a joke.

[phwtb]

Not under Universal Health-Care, I don't want to pay for their cancer treatment.
Posted by promaclaura at 6:02 AM : Jun 12, 2009

Why not? You expect me to pay for the cancer you get from eating too much sugar and preservatives, or drinking too much coffee, or from wearing too much deodorant and perfume. The fact is smoking doesn't cause cancer. In some people, It irritates it into growth.

Get your facts straight before you open your mouth. Cancer happens to non-smokers who have never been exposed to smoke.