Province takes tough stance on tobacco

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Are you actually reading any of this?

How is it my job to prove where the $10 billion dollar gap comes from. Your figure is "cost to the economy". It's not a cost to the government / tax payer. Presumably it includes an imprecise calculation of figures like man hours lost.

I've already clearly explained the difference between the two figures we are talking about.

That 50 billion settlement was based on historic costs that did not include current cigarette taxes. 50 years ago when there was basically no taxes on cigarettes and way more people smoked, it was an entirely different scenario. Currently, taxes are huge and far smaller proportion of the population smokes full time.

The figures in this scenario are pretty clear. And smokers are more than paying their share of health care costs.

Recover medical costs. Do you know what that means?

Mr. Cunningham said all 10 provinces, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have adopted legislation that would facilitate the recovery of medicare costs through litigation against the tobacco industry.

There you have it folks. Smokers are a drain on our economy and provinces across our great nation are trying to get back all the associated costs through litigation of the tobacco companies. And the the Canadian judicial system agrees.

Where exactly are your figures showing that smokers are covering their costs? You've done nothing. You've made some blanket statements without any supporting data or expert opinion.

That's cool. Keep telling yourself that so you don't feel so guilty about being an idiot and smoking.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

It's well known that smokers as a demographic are uneducated and low income. I can't believe you are surprised by this. All the smart people quit when we learned smoking directly causes COPD and lung cancer. That was about 25 years ago. You've gotta be an idiot to gleefully smoke with all the science and health effects we now know.

But he said that some so-called vulnerable populations, a grouping that includes aboriginal people, lower-income and less-educated Canadians, seem to have a higher rate of smoking compared with the average.

.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-is...nada-1.1297530

If this is news to you it really shows how much you know about smoking, it's impact on the healthcare system and who is smoking. It's time you educate yourself.

Your anecdote of you and your hard working buds smoking is not doing much to dispel the statistical data.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

It's well known that smokers as a demographic are uneducated and low income. I can't believe you are surprised by this. All the smart people quit when we learned smoking directly causes COPD and lung cancer. That was about 25 years ago. You've gotta be an idiot to gleefully smoke with all the science and health effects we now know.


.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-is...nada-1.1297530

If this is news to you it really shows how much you know about smoking, it's impact on the healthcare system and who is smoking. It's time you educate yourself.

Your anecdote of you and your hard working buds smoking is not doing much to dispel the statistical data.

That article kind of jumps all over the place before that paragraph and after that paragraph you quoted.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

It's well known that smokers as a demographic are uneducated and low income. I can't believe you are surprised by this. All the smart people quit when we learned smoking directly causes COPD and lung cancer. That was about 25 years ago. You've gotta be an idiot to gleefully smoke with all the science and health effects we now know.


.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-is...nada-1.1297530

If this is news to you it really shows how much you know about smoking, it's impact on the healthcare system and who is smoking. It's time you educate yourself.

Your anecdote of you and your hard working buds smoking is not doing much to dispel the statistical data.

Key word to you little thing there: "SEEM".

There are smokers in all walks of life. Not just the poor and uneducated or Aboriginal. POTUS smokes! Many celebrities smoke, authors smoke. Artists smoke, lawyers smoke.

I get the anti smoking thing your posting and appreciate the articles. The Arrogant D-Bag thing you're going about doing so is too much though.

You don't like smoking, cool. Don't be a turd about it.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

That article kind of jumps all over the place before that paragraph and after that paragraph you quoted.

Is this your way of questioning the low income and education of smokers?

Have at er:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/SmokinginCanada-2005.pdf

Some highlights:
-problem gamblers were twice as likely to smoke
-smoking prevalence is twice as high in the lowest family income compared to the highest income
-almost one half of of workers who are supported by workers compensation or EI smoke
-smoking prevalence is almost twice as high for single mothers and fathers compared to 2 parent families
-smoker prevalence is 1/3 lower for home owners compared to non home owner in every income category
-one in 3 smokers is unhappy, compared to 1 in 5 non smokers
-educated Canadians less likely to be smokers than less educated Canadians

More on education levels:
http://www.mantrainc.ca/assets/tobac...anada_2014.pdf
-In 2012, there were significant differences in smoking prevalence by level of educational attainment12. Notably, university graduates had much lower smoking prevalence than other educational groups (Figure 1.8). Educational
differences were particularly large for daily smoking13, at 6% for university graduates, and 13-15% in other groups; there were no significant differences in non-daily smoking14
-Someone with a university degree is half as likely to smoke as someone who has never graduated high school.

To summarize. Poor are twice as likely to smoke as rich, and uneducated twice as likely to smoke as educated. It really is that simple.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Key word to you little thing there: "SEEM".

There are smokers in all walks of life. Not just the poor and uneducated or Aboriginal. POTUS smokes! Many celebrities smoke, authors smoke. Artists smoke, lawyers smoke.

I get the anti smoking thing your posting and appreciate the articles. The Arrogant D-Bag thing you're going about doing so is too much though.

You don't like smoking, cool. Don't be a turd about it.

It's not seem. It's fact. See the two studies I posted.

Usually I don't go on anti smoking tirades but when somebody claims that they are propping up the Canadian medical system by smoking, they need to be put in their place. I've never heard such a ridiculous claim in my life.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

Citation needed.

Burning and smoking anything will cause lung damage. I've personally had patients who don't smoke tobacco but smoke 5-6 joints a day and have severe COPD.

How about weed is fairly natural and cigarettes are fairly not?

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known cancer-causing (carcinogenic) compounds and 400 other toxins. These cigarette ingredients include nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide, as well as formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and DDT.

http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/whatsinit.htm

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

How about weed is fairly natural and cigarettes are fairly not?



http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02...ith-citations/

Opium is fairly natural. Hemlock is fairly natural.

I'm very aware of how toxic cigarettes are as you can tell by my posting history in this thread. Your link is from the Obama thread but I'll believe that it tells how toxic cigarettes are.

I am very interested to see some studies being done on long term weed smoking and rates of COPD.

[waner]

I don't really care either way which way the argument goes but I do find it interesting that ExiledFlamesFan is throwing around phrases like uneducated, idiots, stupid yet it is him that has to resort to petty name calling to try and get his point across.

You may be right but it seems like if that is the case you could make your point without being such a ###### bag about it.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

Opium is fairly natural. Hemlock is fairly natural.

I'm very aware of how toxic cigarettes are as you can tell by my posting history in this thread. Your link is from the Obama thread but I'll believe that it tells how toxic cigarettes are.

I am very interested to see some studies being done on long term weed smoking and rates of COPD.

Ha, I'm an idiot. Fixed the link.

I just can't believe the chemicals in cigarettes aren't going to do more damage than smoking anything.

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Ha, I'm an idiot. Fixed the link.

I just can't believe the chemicals in cigarettes aren't going to do more damage than smoking anything.

This is a common misconception. It's the combustion that causes the majority of this damage. When you burn anything and inhale it over and over again you are going to destroy your lungs. We see a lot of bad lung damage in third world countries where people live in poorly ventilated small residences and are cooking with open flames.

You're right, all those added chemicals certainly aren't helping, and we see oral cancers in people who chew tobacco, so the product itself is dangerous. Lots of carcinogens as the website pointed out.

This is why I've seen COPD in exclusive marijuana smokers. They are still smoking the product, whether it is tobacco or marijuana. And smoking anything is terrible for your lungs

[blankall]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

This is a common misconception. It's the combustion that causes the majority of this damage. When you burn anything and inhale it over and over again you are going to destroy your lungs. We see a lot of bad lung damage in third world countries where people live in poorly ventilated small residences and are cooking with open flames.

You're right, all those added chemicals certainly aren't helping, and we see oral cancers in people who chew tobacco, so the product itself is dangerous. Lots of carcinogens as the website pointed out.

This is why I've seen COPD in exclusive marijuana smokers. They are still smoking the product, whether it is tobacco or marijuana. And smoking anything is terrible for your lungs

They add relatively few harmful chemicals to cigarettes these days. Most of the harmful products from the smoke, as you say, come from the natural burning process. Although many come from the agricultural process too. Heavy metals are common in fertilizers. They get into the tobacco through the fertilizers, and then are burnt. There are regulations about how much heavy metals you can have in goods consumed by humans, but the limit is not zero. Tobacco products grown outside of North America will often have more, as the regulations are less strict/not well enforced.

The idea that cigarettes have been filled with all sorts of harmful chemicals is largely untrue. The most harmful "chemical" is straight out ash, which is filled with carcinogens like cyclobenzene. It's also the physical material of the ash itself which blocks and destroys the lung capillaries.

So, yeah there's no way Marijuana smoke is better for you, because it's "natural". It's probably much worse as it's unfiltered.

I think that Marijuana smoke is less harmful, because people generally smoke less of it. It's the repeated and heavy exposure, which makes cigarettes so dangerous. Our lungs are designed to filter and clean out low levels of pollutants. It's fairly uncommon to find someone who smokes the equivalent of a pack/day (or even 1/4 of a pack) of cigarettes worth of marijuana over a long period. So basically even a heavy marijuana smoker would be smoking the equivalent of 4-5 cigarettes a day, which is in no way good for you, but not as harmful as a pack+/day.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by ExiledFlamesFan

Is this your way of questioning the low income and education of smokers?

Have at er:
http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/SmokinginCanada-2005.pdf

Some highlights:
-problem gamblers were twice as likely to smoke
-smoking prevalence is twice as high in the lowest family income compared to the highest income
-almost one half of of workers who are supported by workers compensation or EI smoke
-smoking prevalence is almost twice as high for single mothers and fathers compared to 2 parent families
-smoker prevalence is 1/3 lower for home owners compared to non home owner in every income category
-one in 3 smokers is unhappy, compared to 1 in 5 non smokers
-educated Canadians less likely to be smokers than less educated Canadians

More on education levels:
http://www.mantrainc.ca/assets/tobac...anada_2014.pdf
-In 2012, there were significant differences in smoking prevalence by level of educational attainment12. Notably, university graduates had much lower smoking prevalence than other educational groups (Figure 1.8). Educational
differences were particularly large for daily smoking13, at 6% for university graduates, and 13-15% in other groups; there were no significant differences in non-daily smoking14
-Someone with a university degree is half as likely to smoke as someone who has never graduated high school.

To summarize. Poor are twice as likely to smoke as rich, and uneducated twice as likely to smoke as educated. It really is that simple.

So why does it say that there is three times as many smokers in the higher income bracket vs the lower tax bracket? Just a question because wouldn't that contradict the poor twice as likely to smoke? I probably am miss reading it

[ExiledFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So why does it say that there is three times as many smokers in the higher income bracket vs the lower tax bracket? Just a question because wouldn't that contradict the poor twice as likely to smoke? I probably am miss reading it

"These two seemingly opposing truths result from the differing perspectives
that emerge through measuring ‘prevalence’ (the percentage within a group) and population (the number of people). "

The smoking rate is double for the poor compared to the rich, but Canada is a rich country, so there are lots of rich people.

The proportion of rich and poor who smoke is the important figure.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Fair enough

[Red Potato Standing By]

Though still says there are a lot of stupid rich educated people compared to poor people even if the percentage is higher.

[blankall]

Generally poorer people engage in more self destructive activities. That includes smoking, drinking, etc.. Could also be reverse causation. Engaging in self destructive behavior could lead to poverty.

[BBQorMILDEW]

We are quickly becoming a "do what you are told to" society.

Democracy my ass.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

How about weed is fairly natural and cigarettes are fairly not?



http://www.quitsmokingsupport.com/whatsinit.htm

Doesn't mean it is healthy for you. Obviously weed is a lot better than any manmade product.

Smoking naturally grown tobacco isn't healthy either.

[Azure]

The true solution to the smoking problem is to educate our younger generation on why they shouldn't smoke. As someone who is part of that generation, I feel the province and country have done a great job of this. Going back 30 years, a much higher percentage of the grade 12 class were smokers. When I graduated, only 2 or 3 students smoked. That is remarkable progress.

But you should be paying taxes if you want to smoke. Every single shred of evidence points out that smokers cause the health care system money.