Finland aims to eliminate smoking

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

See, I don't know about that. If you look at it from a cost benefit analysis, I think it's the lost taxes that figure in more. It is ridiculously more expensive to care for elderly long term, than to care for a young person dying of cancer. The lost taxes/GDP contribution would be a much higher cost to the country than healthcare costs. Any government that works to legislate a decrease in smoking is not doing it to save healthcare costs despite that argument

You are very, very right. According to Health Canada, the societal cost of smoking is $11B each year. Only $3B is in health care costs. The other $8B is in lost productivity because lung cancer attacks people that are working. 35% of all lung cancer diagnosis fall before the age of 64, so these people presumable would be still in the work force. And 11% fall before 55, so even the freedom 55 people could still have it before retirement.

[Flash Walken]

if some of the costs of smoking weren't externalized onto society so much, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

For the life of me I cannot understand the difference between someone throwing a butt on the ground and throwing a Styrofoam cup on the ground, as an example.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

if some of the costs of smoking weren't externalized onto society so much, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

For the life of me I cannot understand the difference between someone throwing a butt on the ground and throwing a Styrofoam cup on the ground, as an example.

Sytrofoam cups don't start Nose Hill on fire. Otherwise, yeah, pretty much the same thing.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

Because smoking is a revolting habit? And where does it say that smoking is a right?



The voting public?



I guess they're more concerned with human life then money.



This is an absolutely ######ed argument. You are aware that driving under the influence of alcohol is illegal right?



Smoking is a freedom? It's the exact opposite. It's an addiction.

Suck it. Signed all smokers.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Funny. You don't trust the government to get things right, and I don't trust corporations to do the right thing....

I actually wish the governments would start taking a look at salt content in foods and put in some strong regulations. I have reduced how much soup I eat because I don't have time to make it myself and you can't buy soup that doesn't have over you full limit of salt for the day.

Same with carbs. There is too much sugar in EVERYTHING. Have to squeeze my own OJ because everything in the store has way too much sugar added.

Somehow, I'm guessing we can't count on the producers of these products to make them healthier.

The solution rests in the consumers though. If we demand an 'organic' product that doesn't have added sugar, that isn't loaded with salt and other unhealthy substances, then we'll get it.

But then again, that could take a long time.

My solution is to go to the farmers market.

[RW99]

I don't care that much that people smoke. There are a million things people can do to cause harm to themselves that they can't make them all illegal because it costs the taxpayer money.

But 2nd hand smoke is a problem. In your home with your children, me walking behind you on the street or past you to get into a building, etc. I shouldn't have to jump off the sidewalk to stop breathing in your smoke. Not to mention the butts on the street. When other people's heath could be directly affected by your choices, that's where I draw the line.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

if some of the costs of smoking weren't externalized onto society so much, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it.

For the life of me I cannot understand the difference between someone throwing a butt on the ground and throwing a Styrofoam cup on the ground, as an example.

My problem is also the added cost onto the non-smoker because eventually we'll be the ones footing the bill when these guys get lung cancer.

I just don't think the solution is as simple as banning it.

Taxing it more? Well we're talking about an addiction here. Some people will sacrifice their family to satisfy those cravings.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

The solution rests in the consumers though. If we demand an 'organic' product that doesn't have added sugar, that isn't loaded with salt and other unhealthy substances, then we'll get it.

But then again, that could take a long time.

My solution is to go to the farmers market.

So that I can have access to healthier food, I need to:
(A) Wait for consumers to demand less salty/sugary food
and/or
(B) Sell my house and move somewhere that has a farmers market?

I think I'd like the government to try to work with industry to make it so that healthier food is easily accessible NOW to EVERYONE:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/...e-fff565888df2

[Azure]

I would like it too, but the government has screwed this up before. Their idea of healthier foods was the low-fat, high carb crap they promoted up till now.

Hell, the official 'food guide' still calls for people to eat WAY too many carbs.

You can't go into Walmart and buy healthy food? They have a HUGE selection of organic produce.

[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would like it too, but the government has screwed this up before. Their idea of healthier foods was the low-fat, high carb crap they promoted up till now.

Hell, the official 'food guide' still calls for people to eat WAY too many carbs.

You can't go into Walmart and buy healthy food? They have a HUGE selection of organic produce.

Umm... what?

Canada's food guide recommends 15%-20% protein, <30% fat and 50%-60% carbohydrates. It does not recommend simple carbohydrates (sugar), but rather whole wheats and complex carbohydrates. These recommendations are backed by exhaustive research.

Is that what this is? You think the government conspires against the general public, so anything they can do to eliminate smoking is tainted?

That's the vibe I get anyhow.

[dj_patm]

Thats just stupid. They're going backwards.

You make something illegal you create a Black Market, can no longer regulate it and lose all taxation on it as well.

So instead of people going to their local store to buy cigs, they now have to go to a drug dealer. Drug dealers don't care who they sell to so now minors will be able to get cigs much easier then before (If I wanted, when I was a minor, I could get pot way easier then smokes). Also drug dealers don't dispute stuff in a court room, they shoot each other in the streets and put others at risk.

If cigarettes go "underground" then they'll also lose the ability to control whats in it. When it is legal the government is able to put in rules about what can be in cigarettes and have some say about the poison people put in their body. Drug Cartels won't give a crap about you.

Lastly, tabacco industry is a billion dollar business, that pays hundreds of millions in taxes. Losing that income will do no country any good. Especially for a country like Finland who's GDP is smaller then a lot of Corportations.

Worst idea I've ever heard.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by dj_patm

Thats just stupid. They're going backwards.

You make something illegal you create a Black Market, can no longer regulate it and lose all taxation on it as well.

So instead of people going to their local store to buy cigs, they now have to go to a drug dealer. Drug dealers don't care who they sell to so now minors will be able to get cigs much easier then before (If I wanted, when I was a minor, I could get pot way easier then smokes). Also drug dealers don't dispute stuff in a court room, they shoot each other in the streets and put others at risk.

If cigarettes go "underground" then they'll also lose the ability to control whats in it. When it is legal the government is able to put in rules about what can be in cigarettes and have some say about the poison people put in their body. Drug Cartels won't give a crap about you.

Lastly, tabacco industry is a billion dollar business, that pays hundreds of millions in taxes. Losing that income will do no country any good. Especially for a country like Finland who's GDP is smaller then a lot of Corportations.

Worst idea I've ever heard.

You're probably just hoping your analogy works so that child porn can be legalized too.

[dj_patm]

Actually I just took the arguments from one of my papers and changed it from pot to cigs.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by skins

I would bet the savings on health care would more than offset the earnings from tobacco tax.

Hmm, just thinking about this. I bet you once you take into consideration, the cost a non smoker puts on the health care system as they get older, they would end up costing much more than that of a smoker.
I also think with the worlds population rapidly increasing and putting more and more stress on the environment, natural resources, health care... we should do whatever we can to encourage people to participate in activities that will shorten their life expectancy.
just an idea.
P.S. I don't smoke

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

Umm... what?

Canada's food guide recommends 15%-20% protein, <30% fat and 50%-60% carbohydrates. It does not recommend simple carbohydrates (sugar), but rather whole wheats and complex carbohydrates. These recommendations are backed by exhaustive research.

Is that what this is? You think the government conspires against the general public, so anything they can do to eliminate smoking is tainted?

That's the vibe I get anyhow.

To think that people should be consuming 50%-60% carbs on a daily basis is absolutely ridiculous. Most people leave VERY sedentary lifestyles. Outside of the carbs that their brain uses to function(even that is debatable)....there is absolutely no need for 400-500g of carbs.

I don't give a crap if its whole wheat or complex carbs either. Carbs are supposed to be used as an energy source and if people are not VERY active they're not getting burned. Maybe that exhaustive research ought to research some more what happens to carbs when they're not utilized by the body.

[GreenLantern]

Pretty sure this is how Skynet starts..

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by TheSutterDynasty

You leading a poor lifestyle doesn't justify your freedom to smoke.

Healthy people may enjoy bad food, or an office job and not risk any long term effects. Healthy people smoking a couple times per week greatly increases their risk for lung cancer, among other things (and, well, they likely wouldn't be deemed "healthy").

Why do you assume I lead a poor lifestyle? My diabetes and cholesterol problems are hereditary and have nothing to do with lifestyle. My son first tested high for cholesterol at 14 years old. He's fit, active and eats healthy. Diabetes and cholesterol problems along with a couple other health issues appear in my family all over the place, and they trace directly back to my maternal grandmother. With proper management we still tend to live into our 80s, but lifestyle alone won't prevent or control our hereditary health issues.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Azure

To think that people should be consuming 50%-60% carbs on a daily basis is absolutely ridiculous. Most people leave VERY sedentary lifestyles. Outside of the carbs that their brain uses to function(even that is debatable)....there is absolutely no need for 400-500g of carbs.

I don't give a crap if its whole wheat or complex carbs either. Carbs are supposed to be used as an energy source and if people are not VERY active they're not getting burned. Maybe that exhaustive research ought to research some more what happens to carbs when they're not utilized by the body.

You're bang on about carbs. If I ate 50-60% carbs of any kind I'd be dead in no time. 10% carbs is probably about as high as I should be eating, but it's pretty tough to cut them back that far.

In my case, lean protein is about my only friend. Raw veggies of course are safe too.

Even fruit, which I love, is something I have to watch how much I consume. Stupid fructose. And stuff like cereal, pasta, bread, etc., regardless of how wholesome, are terrible for me.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

Why do you assume I lead a poor lifestyle? My diabetes and cholesterol problems are hereditary and have nothing to do with lifestyle. My son first tested high for cholesterol at 14 years old. He's fit, active and eats healthy. Diabetes and cholesterol problems along with a couple other health issues appear in my family all over the place, and they trace directly back to my maternal grandmother. With proper management we still tend to live into our 80s, but lifestyle alone won't prevent or control our hereditary health issues.

#1 cause of high cholesterol for people under the age of 30? Genetics. Under the age of 40? Genetics. Once you turn 50, and you've been overweight and have led an unhealthy lifestyle for many years, suddenly those factors weigh in as well.

But that still doesn't change the fact that many people suffer from numerous health issues simply because it runs in the family.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

You're bang on about carbs. If I ate 50-60% carbs of any kind I'd be dead in no time. 10% carbs is probably about as high as I should be eating, but it's pretty tough to cut them back that far.

In my case, lean protein is about my only friend. Raw veggies of course are safe too.

Even fruit, which I love, is something I have to watch how much I consume. Stupid fructose. And stuff like cereal, pasta, bread, etc., regardless of how wholesome, are terrible for me.

Terrible for me too my friend, and I'm 21.

People simply don't realize what carbs are for. Cowperson posted an article a long time ago about a celebrity who said that the best advice he could give anyone who had weight problems was to learn how food is utilized by your body and what KIND of food you need to be able to stay healthy and still accomplish what you want to do.

Carbs are an athletes best friend. When I play hockey I'll carb load all day long. But when all I'm doing is sitting behind a desk all day, I want to cut back on the carbs because I don't need them.

The point in all of this? The government STILL doesn't realize that. Guide to healthy eating for Canadians still recommends 50-60% carbs. And they have been promoting this obscene and unhealthy way of eating for many years now. The results are quite obvious too.

So why should I trust them to do anything at all? This is the government we're talking about people. They manage to blow billion dollar surpluses and think throwing more money at a problem will solve it. They start wars based on faulty intelligence and then it takes them 5 years to realize the mistake in the way they executed that war. They've been subsidizing the corn industry for years(think HFCS).....thereby making it REAL simple for the food industry to create unhealthy, vile and otherwise disgusting products that pose as food in todays supermarket.

Thanks but not thanks, but I prefer that the government stay away from playing God and trying to decide for me what is healthy and unhealthy.