The war on Tobacco

[BarG]

It recently dawned on me after the "thought provoking thread posted by FmGrowit" that we are the first generation to experience the war on tobacco. You rarely hear how this got started and why. But I certainly believe it has gotton out of hand. I pointed this out to my daughters the other day and realized I had no clue as to how and why this began other than a major campaign to keep people from doing something they have been doing since the primordial swamp days. I tried to point out how many cultures depend on tobacco related rituals and certain newly discovered health benefits in medicine. That was as far as I got. We all just shook our head and said I don't know. Neither one of them smoke so they will never give it a second thought.

BarG

 

[deluxestogie]

Since the first voyage of Columbus, and the subsequent introduction of tobacco into Europe--and across the world, various countries at various times have banned tobacco, forbidden the growing of tobacco, persecuted those who used it, and almost without exception reaped windfall profits by taxing it. Are we the first generation to suffer such ignominy? Not by a long shot. It all goes in irregular cycles.

Czar Alexander (in the early 19th century) imposed a hefty tax on beards, since he felt their appearance presented Russia in an unfavorable light. Czar Nicholas II (the last Czar) wore a beard to the day he was shot.

Some cycles of oppression are longer than others. The US prohibition of alcohol--a constitutional amendment, for heaven's sake--didn't last long. The Spanish Inquisition lasted 500 years.

At the moment, we have managed to conceptually tie the use of tobacco by the minority to the wallets of the non-user majority. Potent politics there.

Bob

 

[BarG]

Since the first voyage of Columbus, and the subsequent introduction of tobacco into Europe--and across the world, various countries at various times have banned tobacco, forbidden the growing of tobacco, persecuted those who used it, and almost without exception reaped windfall profits by taxing it. Are we the first generation to suffer such ignominy? Not by a long shot. It all goes in irregular cycles.

Czar Alexander (in the early 19th century) imposed a hefty tax on beards, since he felt their appearance presented Russia in an unfavorable light. Czar Nicholas II (the last Czar) wore a beard to the day he was shot.

Some cycles of oppression are longer than others. The US prohibition of alcohol--a constitutional amendment, for heaven's sake--didn't last long. The Spanish Inquisition lasted 500 years.

At the moment, we have managed to conceptually tie the use of tobacco by the minority to the wallets of the non-user majority. Potent politics there.

Bob

Bob, I should have amended my post to specify perhaps not past civilized cultures [in their time], although everything listed above is news to me. At any rate I suppose my mind was focused on the here and now of american culture, and including Native American culture. Thanks for another thought provoking insight.

 

[BarG]

Bob,To people like me for the first time participating in a forum it's nice that you can learn and be kept on your toes at the same time. Good practice for everyday living. Thats one of the reasons I like it here.

BarG

 

[deluxestogie]

During the long reign of Queen Victoria (almost 2/3 of the 19th century), the use of tobacco was strongly discouraged in her presence and in public. Her son, Prince Albert, assumed the throne after her death as King Edward VII, and regularly smoked cigars. Now we have Prince Albert tobacco, and King Edward cigars.

Bob

 

[BarG]

During the long reign of Queen Victoria (almost 2/3 of the 19th century), the use of tobacco was strongly discouraged in her presence and in public. Her son, Prince Albert, assumed the throne after her death as King Edward VII, and regularly smoked cigars. Now we have Prince Albert tobacco, and King Edward cigars.

Bob

I could have sworn they stuffed Prince Albert in a can, They must have let him out. I had no Idea tobacco was ever discriminated against and forbidden. I guess it was about control of something important to the elite and rulers at the time, which seems to usually be the case . Its interesting how things change with the times. Give us a hundred years or so and see where we end up, right.

BarG

 

[Tom_in_TN]

I read on another forum, about cigars, a long time ago....It was rumored that whenever Winston Churchill wanted to impress some important official or throw them off their game, he would prepare a stunt for the occasion by inserting a straightened paper clip into the foot of a cigar. When the official came to see him, Churchill would light the cigar and as time went by the cigar ash keep growing longer and longer without falling off.

OK, back to the topic of this thread.....

Neither one of them smoke so they will never give it a second thought. BarG

Tobacco has become so demonized in (cough,cough) civilized society non-smokers treat smokers as people treated lepers in past years. The indoctrination of the populace is deeply implanted...cemented in the Psyche of the masses that nothing short of a lobotomy will cure it or purge it from their mushified brains.

 

[johnlee1933]

At the moment, we have managed to conceptually tie the use of tobacco by the minority to the wallets of the non-user majority. Potent politics there.

Bob

Bob,

Is there any evidence that the most ardent anti tobacco legislators have financial "big tobacco" backing? If I were in that business I would like help stamping out the competition.
They sure have enough $$$'s to buy the votes they need.

This reminds me strongly of big distillers helping the government destroy all the small "bootleg" (read "moonshine") distilleries.

John

 

[Jitterbugdude]

I always liked the fact that King James put an extremely high tax on it so no one would but it, and published the book "Conterblaste to tobacco". He saw so much money rolling in that he then openly embraced it and allowed the tax coffers to overflow with tobacco tax money.

 

[BarG]

Bob, I should have amended my post to specify perhaps not past civilized cultures [in their time], although everything listed above is news to me. At any rate I suppose my mind was focused on the here and now of american culture, and including Native American culture. "Thanks for another thought provoking insight."

I had enough thought provoking last night to last me a good while. Time for my nap. I'll try to pick this up later.

P.S. You don't know what you got till it's gone.

 

[Eagle]

if it wasnt for tobacco there would be no America.The only cash crop for the colonies.

 

[CoralReefs]

Alright,
I have been staying out of this one, but I guess I can't resist anymore. Gotta play devils advocate here. You guys raise the point about the war on tobacco. The argument has been made that claims of adverse health effects are over bloated at best. Eagle has raised the very interesting point that Tobacco has played such an important role in our history that it can be argued that America would not be here if it were not for tobacco.

My thought? I think smoking leads to cancer. I am not a doctor, I can't specifically sit down with you and explain why it causes it (above and beyond what little background in basic physiology I have), but the medical community seems pretty unified on this one.

True, that reasoning is far from infallible. Just because every doctor in the world thinks bleeding people cures the plauge and all disease can be traced to demons does not make it true. But today's doctors have a deeper knowledge of cancer and how it works. They are far from understanding it completely, but I think they generally have a decent enough idea of what they are doing, I am willing to trust them on this one.

So, the argument can be made that the AMA, American Cancer Society, etc... is being bought off by big tobacco, or is trying to distract us. What I wonder is- what reason should I have to believe that? Is there any evidence? Yes, it is true that tobacco use is very ancient. Keep in mind; however, that ancient ritual use did not entail walking out to the back every hour or so for a smoke break. Here in the US, tobacco use is far from ritualized. It is something that we do in great excess IMO. Afterall, could not similar arguments be made about candy? Candy leads to diabetes. Candy leads to obesity. Both of which are major killers. Is candy bad? Heck no- not unless you make a buffet trip out of candy every day. The occasional candy bar usually wont hurt you.

Does tobacco kill? I think so. Does that stop me from having an occasional cigar? Does it keep me from some nice pipe tobacco from time to time? Nope. I think if you do not indulge excessively, you are probably fine.

A major problem as I see it is the addiction potential of tobacco- particularly cigarettes. Its easy to get hooked (I have known many), its hard to quit (I have known few). Should the government step in and stop us from smoking? I do not think so- I think personal choice needs to be factored in here. Should companies like Camel be allowed to advertize with cartoon characters which have been shown to have appeal to children? Should children be allowed to buy cigarettes? No way. Kids do not have a deep enough appreciation for the potential issues tobacco can cause. They are simple not mature enough to make that decision yet- and there are too many idiots out there with kids, that should not be parents. Of course, I do also buy the argument that the government may have exacerbated the issue by making a big deal out of it. After all, do European kids handle alcohol like we do?

I think tobacco control is necessary- specifically with children. I am not sure where one needs to draw the line but I think the line needs to be drawn. Do I think tobacco should be illegal? No. Do I think there are health benefits? Absolutely, in fact there are very few things out there that completely lack some health benefits. The health benefits, unfortunately do no eclipse the potential health problems which tobacco can cause. Much like the potential for the use of digitalis as a heart medication does not negate the fact that if you made a salad out of digitalis leaves- you would likely die (it would stop your heart). My thought, enjoy smoking, but don't overdo it.

 

[Daniel]

CoralReefs. WIth all respect to your comments. Allow me to reply. "I think smoking leads to cancer." I agree, right along with 10,001 other things like sun wind and water. Cancer happens, So do lightening strikes, train wrecks and bad marriages. all lead to death. some of them long and painful ones. I have head of people choking to death eating in fine restaurants. IS the calm subduing atmosphere causing them to be less vigilant in chewing their food? That may sound stupid. But it is exactly what I think anti smokers are doing. They try to claim for the smoker that we are victims. that the choice has been removed from us and we are victims of an addiction. Of course they would never take the chance of asking me. THey might find out that I still choose to smoke even if they want to stand on a pedestal and scream about how bad it is. I Think getting all worked up abotu what others do is bad for you also. I once knew a lady that was very well known and devoted to helping others mend their marriages and other relationships. She became very popular right up to the time that her marriage dissolved and others found out her children woudl not have anything to do with her. All the while she had been so devoted to others. She had totally neglected her relationships. This is a true story.

SO why do I think there is such a huge anti smoking movement going on? There is money in it. money for researches. money to activate. money to advertise, It has nothing to do with health or the truth if smoking really is bad for you. It is about some organization getting the money to do what they do. The science is bogus on both sides. What I know is I have smoked for nearly 40 years and can run circles around most. My grandfather chewed tobacco into his 90's. I was told smoking woudl stunt my growth. I was 5'7" then. I am now 6'2". So all I can say is thank God I smoked.

I say that if yo smoke and you get cancer. You would have gotten cancer anyway. Did smoking help? Maybe. But then so did everything else you ever did from the time you where conceived. The leading cause of death, is birth.

 

[johnlee1933]

​ With respect to all -- I believe there are truths in what CoralReefs and Daniel say and there are other truths out there also. I am nearly 80 years old and have smoked, on and off, since I was 16. I have smoked them all and I guess with cigars chewed a bit too. No snus yet. I may die of lung cancer. I may not. I believe excess in anything has ill effects. Too much alcohol, speed, sun, food, tobacco, medicine, anything will do you harm and maybe kill you. After all something eventually will.

I have other questions. Is the data skewed by people living longer? Someone who would have died of a ruptured appendix 100 years ago now dies of cancer 50 years later. The numbers are duly noted but many other factors are routinely ignored i.e. Increased, life span, general level of air borne pollutants, stress, level of additives in everything, etc.. Figures don't lie but liars figure. Can you say conclusively one thing elicits a higher death rate than another?

The anti tobacco forces have amassed a huge amount of data supporting their arguments. They may be right but perhaps their conclusions are skewed or just wrong. And I agree that lots of money and political clout are a huge factor. The big distilleries convinced the government that the small distilleries weren't paying any taxes and produced a poisonous product. They ran the small distillers (bootleggers) out of business but still produce the same "poison" they were against without competition and make vast profits.

It is a complex problem and I have no answer. As a demonstration consider the following chart

http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm

An interesting question might be why does the USA have the highest cancer death rate and yet be in one of the lowest "smokers/100,000" group?
Is it a byproduct of being one of the most developed nations? Could it be living longer changes what eventually kills you?
Could the high amount of "cancer laden" oil vapors from fast food vendors really be the culprit? Who knows. I feel there is no solid answer.

Perhaps moderation and taking responsibility for your actions is the answer.
All that said I still smoke in moderation and will accept the consequences of my actions.

John

 

[Chicken]

they sure do like to teach the kids early in life { pre-school,,elementry,,,and high school } that smoking is ssssooooo bad...

my son who is 9 tells me constantlly that smoking is bad, why does he tell me this,,,,,because i send him to school to learn,and all i get for my tax dollars is them INDOCTRINATING him with propaganda..

I'D LIKE TO BLOW SMOKE IN SOME OF THE SCHOOL'S FACULTY FACES<

 

[CoralReefs]

​ With respect to all -- I believe there are truths in what CoralReefs and Daniel say and there are other truths out there also. I am nearly 80 years old and have smoked, on and off, since I was 16. I have smoked them all and I guess with cigars chewed a bit too. No snus yet. I may die of lung cancer. I may not. I believe excess in anything has ill effects. Too much alcohol, speed, sun, food, tobacco, medicine, anything will do you harm and maybe kill you. After all something eventually will.

I have other questions. Is the data skewed by people living longer? Someone who would have died of a ruptured appendix 100 years ago now dies of cancer 50 years later. The numbers are duly noted but many other factors are routinely ignored i.e. Increased, life span, general level of air borne pollutants, stress, level of additives in everything, etc.. Figures don't lie but liars figure. Can you say conclusively one thing elicits a higher death rate than another?

The anti tobacco forces have amassed a huge amount of data supporting their arguments. They may be right but perhaps their conclusions are skewed or just wrong. And I agree that lots of money and political clout are a huge factor. The big distilleries convinced the government that the small distilleries weren't paying any taxes and produced a poisonous product. They ran the small distillers (bootleggers) out of business but still produce the same "poison" they were against without competition and make vast profits.

It is a complex problem and I have no answer. As a demonstration consider the following chart

http://www.kidon.com/smoke/percentages3.htm

An interesting question might be why does the USA have the highest cancer death rate and yet be in one of the lowest "smokers/100,000" group?
Is it a byproduct of being one of the most developed nations? Could it be living longer changes what eventually kills you?
Could the high amount of "cancer laden" oil vapors from fast food vendors really be the culprit? Who knows. I feel there is no solid answer.

Perhaps moderation and taking responsibility for your actions is the answer.
All that said I still smoke in moderation and will accept the consequences of my actions.

John

John,
Thanks for posting this. Very interesting chart. I want to take a closer look at his method and where he got his data (His links are broken but I found at least one of his data sources). As interesting as this is, I do have questions regarding the methods employed by the author. I think he left a lot of room for doubt. Nonetheless, I think his stats make an interesting case. I'll say more later on when I have had a chance to sit down a really look at this.

 

[Steve2md]

I personally think that living super healthy is just dying in the slowest possible way....none of us gets out of this alive.

 

[Tom_in_TN]

My argument is not with people who claim that the products produced by Big Tobacco are harmful and could very well lead to causing certain cancers. Virtually all tobacco companies add hundreds of chemicals to cigarettes using very complicated processes. Many of those chemicals have also been linked to causing certain cancers.

Some so-called scientist, as well as politicians and political activists have linked a widely used plant leaf to be the cause of certain cancers in the minds of the virtually everyone on the earth. I assert the only things to support that reasoning is SHODDY science. VERY SHODDY SCIENCE!!!

Anyone who touts that the tobacco leaf, if smoked, chewed or whatever by itself (not processed in a way that adds the sort of chemicals that have been linked to causing certain cancers) has ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENTIFIC FACTS to back up that assertion. All, or virtuually all, of the so-called scientific studies are done with the 'tobacco' products produced by BIG TOBACCO. Prove my statement to be false by directing anyone of us to any rigorous study, that was peer reviewed and that used scientifically accepted methods and that also conclusively indicates or links the act of smoking or chewing tobacco leaf THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROCESSED BY the above referenced tobacco companies is linked to causing certain cancers.

Tobacco has become so demonized in (cough,cough) civilized society, non-smokers treat smokers as people treated lepers in past years. The indoctrination of the populace is deeply implanted...cemented in the Psyche of the masses that nothing short of a lobotomy will cure it or purge it from their mushified brains.

I believe almost everyone associates tobacco grown for personal use with the 'tobaaco' products sold by Big Tobacco and taxed by the governing authorities.

 

[dkh2]

Is there any studies on cancer from people who smoked there own tobacco and not store bought products ?

 

[CoralReefs]

I personally think that living super healthy is just dying in the slowest possible way....none of us gets out of this alive.

True, but not all ways to die are created equal. I would rather blissfully drift off while in my sleep than get run over by a garbage truck personally. Cancer does not sound too nice either.