And in addition to my previous comments, we’re now hearing that the FDA wants to force the tobacco industries to put graphic (I’d have to add: Viewer discretion advised!!) images or photos on all cigarette packs and advertisements. While they’re at it, why not also have ads calling for the repeal of Obama-care, or health care reform/deform?? They say a picture paints a thousand words. Imagine seeing the corpses of those who were denied health care due to rationing or death panels, or the long lines at national health centers, or pictures of Britons using pliers to extract their own teeth because they can’t get dental care!! I could go on. Thus this would be a perfect warning message to all the drones, diehard liberal morons and other naïve individuals who are oblivious to what Obummer-care is really like!!

I heard the Great One comment on this on the radio; suggesting 2 things. 1st, maybe all cars and/or automobile ads should include pictures of the thousands of people who die each year due to the CAFÉ standards imposed on us. 2nd, maybe there should be photos of the millions of children who die in Africa, etc., of malaria, thanks to the ban on DDT…..Now let me add to that – if this law is forced onto the tobacco industry, then why not also require all abortion providers to have posters at their clinics’ front entrances, and photos in their advertising, showing aborted fetuses?? “WHY??” you may ask me?? 1st, abortions (of unborn infants) outnumber tobacco deaths (among adults) 2 to 1!! 2nd, despite all the fear-mongering from the control freaks and ninny-nanny leftwing statists, the fact is that NOT ALL smokers die prematurely or suffer the fate shown on such images. BUT – with abortions – EVERY abortion performed results in the death of an unborn child!!!! Need I say more??

We’re all different. Genetics has so much to do with any diseases we may or may not get. I quit smoking for about 7 years twice. The last time I picked it up again was 5 years ago. I have no other vices and barely smoke a half a pack a day. I am a pretty healthy person except for aches and pains. I believe I will quit again when my life settles down and I’m ready. Otherwise, c’est la view!

Smoke and mirrors – does anyone seriously believe that Congress is motivated (and individual Representatives and Senators, alike) by anything but their individual desires to increase a power base, increase their personal wealth at taxpayers’ expense… Whether the purported issue is smoking, or pollution, or high finance, or medicine, or insurance, or healthcare, or whatever, no law is passed without fattening the pocketbooks of elected legislators who vote for it.

I suspect that the individual issues are raised only to engage a segment of the population in the process of increasing their own wealth.

As a senior with congestive heart failure who has been through many
Dr checkups, I am always amused when after being checked out the Dr
will ask if I smoke. I tell him yes and get the stop smoking speech.
If the smoking was such a nasty thing, why does he even need to ask me
that? I quit once for over 7 years then through a very stressful period of losing a great job and selling house in IN and moving to AZ, I took it up again. Had always been a pack a day, or less smoker.

This study points out that smoking over 2 packs a day seems to be
the problem. Had to smile at FlaJim’s comments and agree. Hard to
explain all the people who have never smoked getting lung cancer.

Many years ago, I stumbled across an obscure website that they said
exposed the lung cancer from smoking idea. It was started by our very
own government due to results they started finding from the A bomb
tests in Nevada. The radiation fallout was much worse for our health
than they figured on. Lung cancer was starting to show up a lot more
in the years following and to avoid the blame game and possible law
suits, it was decided to start the smoking causes lung cancer agenda.
If you aren’t aware of it, the wind blows from west to east and by
popping these off in the west, the rest of the US got the doses of
radiation.

Agree or disagree, all up to you. Personally with the history of our
government and other tests they have done to us and our troops, I have
no problem buying it.

I think many states talk out of both sides of their mouths. They put
huge taxes on smokes and fund many programs with the millions they
make from it and at the same time try to promote no smoking.

I had also read an article years ago telling people who don’t smoke,
not to be so happy about what is happening with all the no smoking
rules being passed. He predicted that when they are done with smokers,
they could come after things like fast food and other things they deem
harmful. I didn’t doubt it then, and now look what’s happening in
Liberalville. No toys in Happy Meals unless it’s certifiable healthy
food. Salt is the enemy. Soda’s, are under attack. I don’t drink soda
or eat fries and watch my salt, but who am I to legislate away your
choice to consume any of these? Welcome to the Nanny state.

How does that saying go that ends up with When they came for me, there was no one left to protect me. We lose our freedoms a little
at a time.

Except for a few cigars in his younger years, my father never smoked. But he died of Alzheimer’s last year. I can appreciate your wanting to inform us of risky products, behavior, etc. However, regardless of how you feel about tobacco, don’t let your feelings or emotions stand in the way of good judgment and common sense. I.e., these lawsuits against tobacco industries are frivolous, trying to pass victims off as duped, when in reality we’ve all known that smoking is harmful for nearly 5 decades!! And liberal/statist politicians talk about protecting children by lashing out at the tobacco and fast food industries.

I don’t advocate tobacco use. But it’s a free nation, thus individuals should be free to choose which risks to take or not take. The anti-smoking nuts/control freaks don’t appreciate that. They tell us smoking kills 400,000+ Americans a year. HOWEVER, they’re careful not to break down the 400,000 into age groups. I guess it’s because doing so would show a majority of deaths are at an age when people will get the shaft under Obama-care (unless it’s repealed) even if they never smoked!! And very few, if any, deaths are under age 20 or 30, so that discredits their effort to appeal to our emotions by saying they’re protecting children!! LOL!! As we know, car crashes are a leading cause of death among youths. Some deaths could be prevented were it not for the mandated lighter and less safe vehicles due to CAFÉ standards. Given that younger drivers are more accident prone, I bet CAFÉ standards alone kill more youths than the tobacco and food industries. If the liberals/statists really care about kids, why won’t they lash out at the abortion industry, which kills (unborn children) double the 400,000+ figure (adults)?? And what about the millions of kids who die or have died of malaria?? Most of these deaths could be prevented if our leaders would stop catering to the environmentalist wacko fascists and lift the ban on DDT. We know the enviro-fascists have killed far more kids than the tobacco and food industries conbined!!!!!

I’m also tired of hearing about tobacco killing more than AIDS. First, I lost my (gay) cousin to AIDS when he was only 35. How many smokers die that young?? Second, unlike with tobacco use, it doesn’t take years of risky behavior to become HIV infected and develop full blown AIDS. My understanding is that my cousin made only one error – spending one night with the wrong person who he met in a gay bar. Ask yourself – how many people have died from only one night of tobacco use?????!!!!!

I do not know what dementia is nor do I care to know.I would still be a smoker but I can never find my lighter or butts.Good day

45, just a lttle to much refinement of the NMCDUP mantra of total government control, over everything in your life, down to what you eat. When Big Mamee, decided to play the food police for everyone. It has always been the socialist democrat party mantra, of government control over your life, down to who lives and dies, even TR, Wilson,FDR and other slugs of liberal presusanion have promoted this perverted crap mindset, down to Onumnutts.

Smoking can contribute to other health problems later in life. Well, so can living.

I don’t smoke and haven’t smoked in over forty years. But I think these people worrying about someone else’s health to the point of trying to make their choices illegal is going a touch too far.

We need to improve our health care system and dramatically reduce its cost! We should stop messing around and go to single-payer national health insurance.

Single-payer national health insurance is a system in which a single public or quasi-public agency organizes health financing, but delivery of care remains largely private.

Currently, the U.S. health care system is outrageously expensive, yet inadequate. Despite spending more than twice as much as the rest of the industrialized nations ($8,160 per capita), the United States performs poorly in comparison on major health indicators such as life expectancy, infant mortality and immunization rates. Moreover, the other advanced nations provide comprehensive coverage to their entire populations, while the U.S. leaves 46.3 million completely uninsured and millions more inadequately covered.

The reason we spend more and get less than the rest of the world is because we have a patchwork system of for-profit payers. Private insurers necessarily waste health dollars on things that have nothing to do with care: overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay. Doctors and hospitals must maintain costly administrative staffs to deal with the bureaucracy. Combined, this needless administration consumes one-third (31 percent) of Americans’ health dollars.
Single-payer financing is the only way to recapture this wasted money. The potential savings on paperwork, more than $350 billion per year, are enough to provide comprehensive coverage to everyone without paying any more than we already do.

Under a single-payer system, all Americans would be covered for all medically necessary services, including: doctor, hospital, preventive, long-term care, mental health, reproductive health care, dental, vision, prescription drug and medical supply costs. Patients would regain free choice of doctor and hospital, and doctors would regain autonomy over patient care.

Physicians would be paid fee-for-service according to a negotiated formulary or receive salary from a hospital or nonprofit HMO / group practice. Hospitals would receive a global budget for operating expenses. Health facilities and expensive equipment purchases would be managed by regional health planning boards.

A single-payer system would be financed by eliminating private insurers and recapturing their administrative waste. Modest new taxes would replace premiums and out-of-pocket payments currently paid by individuals and business. Costs would be controlled through negotiated fees, global budgeting and bulk purchasing.

http://www.pnhp.org/

In reading all the studies over the years, I can conclude only that smoking may exacerbate pre-existing conditions or tendancies to certain conditions, not that it causes them. How else can one explain one who chain smokes for decades outliving someone else who smokes less than a pack a day?

My doctor listens to my 57 year old chest each time I’m in for a checkup and always nods approvingly while commenting, “Non smoker, huh?” In fact, I still smoke a pack a day (3 a day for many years) and have done so for over 40 years.

And so we have another case of one study contradicting another. Years ago I recall a study that concluded just the opposite, i.e., that smoking actually reduced the chances for Alzheimer’s.