Politics As Usual

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
She was writing in the context of the proposed ban on smoking on the beach - given the above, I assume you wouldn't have an issue with that.

Not so long as it's windy.

I have a problem with the smokers who believe that the world is their ashtray, and feel free to discard their butts wherever they happen to be standing, especially so on the beach, but the way to deal with this problem is to bust their ass for littering, in the same way that dog owners who do not clean up after their pets should be busted, but beaches/parks/etc. should not be declared off-limits to dogs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The pulmonologists in my family ... also made sure to take their kids (pre-HIPAA) on rounds with them. Every time a kid would ask why a patient had a tube in his throat, the response was always "smoking." None of the kids smoke.

My uncle the neurosurgeon did this too. The people with severe head injuries hadn't been wearing seat belts, or had been riding motorcycles.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My uncle the neurosurgeon did this too. The people with severe head injuries hadn't been wearing seat belts, or had been riding motorcycles.

Oh, yeah, the pulmonologists help quads breathe. It sucked. Practically every activity is a neck-breaking one, and if we protested as to why we couldn't have, say, a trampoline, we'd be marched to the rehab unit and introudced to someone who'd broken their neck on a trampoline.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Oh, yeah, the pulmonologists help quads breathe. It sucked. Practically every activity is a neck-breaking one, and if we protested as to why we couldn't have, say, a trampoline, we'd be marched to the rehab unit and introudced to someone who'd broken their neck on a trampoline.

Well, did you explain that the plural of anecdote is not evidence?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I have a problem with the smokers who believe that the world is their ashtray, and feel free to discard their butts wherever they happen to be standing, especially so on the beach, but the way to deal with this problem is to bust their ass for littering, in the same way that dog owners who do not clean up after their pets should be busted, but beaches/parks/etc. should not be declared off-limits to dogs.

I have known many smokers. They were of varying levels of good citizenship generally, but even the best of them were not above tossing aside a spent butt if they could do so discreetly. I think this is because they believe their first responsibility is to put them out, which generally involves grinding them with the balls of their feet. Once it's on the ground, it seems somewhat less of their responsibility to pick it back up. And check the car ashtrays of your smoking friends --- either they're remarkably empty, or not quite as full as your math indicates they should be.

They will tell you it biodegrades. Don't ask me how I know this, but it typically takes a modern cigarette filter 5 to 10 years to break down, depending on environmental conditions.

I'm not against smoking; I've enjoyed cigars from time to time (note: no filter; much quicker to biodegrade, and usually smells nicer until it does). But the Good Citizen Smoker is a very rare bird.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Well, did you explain that the plural of anecdote is not evidence?

You think I wanted to be stuck reading a bunch of medical journal case studies?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
They will tell you it biodegrades.

So does dog shit, but most smokers whom I know would think it distasteful to discover a fresh deposit.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The studies I have read indicate that smokers, because they die younger, actually pick up a greater percentage of the group insurance tab than non-smokers, so the tax is actually counterintuitive. We should be incouraging people to smoke.

What study? The one I read was published in JAMA. It showed that because of the tax on cigarettes, smokers made up for the increased costs they cause by smoking. It wasn't their insurance premiums that made up for it, though. It was the tax on the cigarettes.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/261/11/1604

FYI - the study found that drinkers do not pay their way.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Don't ask me how I know this, but it typically takes a modern cigarette filter 5 to 10 years to break down, depending on environmental conditions.

Don't ask me how I know this, but they then combine with the Earth's mantle and turn into oil.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I've already had 2 wins on this one!
sitting presidents have conventions late august to early Sept. bush in 04 will end within 2 days of the end of the Clinton '96 convention. you see conspiracy everywhere Ty. It is really sad.

42-4

Dredging up an old thread, I know, but I was reminded of it when I saw this article in the Chicago Sun-Times:

From it we learn --

• The GOP convention this year is "latest nominating convention in U.S. history."
• Positioning it so late required the Administration to seek amendments to laws in 8 states, where state law requires the nominees to be finalized at an earlier date.
• They didn't get it done in time in Illinois. Now, in order to make an exception, GOPers will need to push through a 3/5ths majority in the legislature, which is unlikely. (Whoopsie!) Or, go to Fed Court to try and fix it.

I am not unsympathetic to the point that it makes little sense to deny Illinoins voters the ability to vote for a GOP nominee, but there's something to be said for asking why the courts should let Bush off the hook. It's not as though the GOP has no idea about the rule, and was caught completely by surprise, right?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Not Me
Don't ask me how I know this, but they then combine with the Earth's mantle and turn into oil.

Post a link to one conservative crackpot website, and I'm tarred for life. Oh, the humanity! I feel as though I've just forwarded the Neiman Marcus cookie recipe to all of my friends or something.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's not as though the GOP has no idea about the rule, and was caught completely by surprise, right?

Even if they were, they should not have been.

Who all has been arguing they are the smart ones?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
What study? The one I read was published in JAMA. It showed that because of the tax on cigarettes, smokers made up for the increased costs they cause by smoking. It wasn't their insurance premiums that made up for it, though. It was the tax on the cigarettes.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content...ct/261/11/1604

FYI - the study found that drinkers do not pay their way.

I can't recall. I worked on this question in law school for a professor, but that was years ago, so my info may be out of date.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I am not unsympathetic to the point that it makes little sense to deny Illinoins voters the ability to vote for a GOP nominee, but there's something to be said for asking why the courts should let Bush off the hook.

I think that would all depend on Illinois law regarding how Illinois selects its electoral college electors and probably the Illinois state constitution whether the courts should let the GOP off the hook. I don't know a hill of beans about either of those.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I can't recall. I worked on this question in law school for a professor, but that was years ago, so my info may be out of date.

I don't question that your assertion is right. I just sincerely wanted to know if you could point me to the study. It is an interesting topic to me. I wouldn't be surprised if what you said is correct.

FYI - there is another study I am aware of but it was not a study published in a journal. It was a study done by an agency of the UK government. The agency was interested in learning how much money could be saved if they raised the cigarette tax to discourage use. Well, the study was a very well done study because it looked not just at health care costs, but also the government's expenditures on other elements of its cradle to grave welfare system, including nursing home care and retirement benefits. The study showed that any monies saved in health care costs would be significantly less than the increased spending on nursing home care and retirement benefits. From what I remember, they did not raise the tax at that time and did not publicize the study.

I think subsequently, they did raise the tax, though.

If you understand that the most prevalent cause of death of smokers is cardiovascular, this makes sense. It costs the health care system very little when someone dies suddenly of a heart attack. The stats for first heart attacks are that 1/3 die from their first heart attack.

In those with smoking related lung cancer, for about 1/3 there is no good treatment. There really is nothing to offer other than keeping the person comfortable as they die. When medical science has nothing to offer to treat a disease, it doesn't cost much to treat.

Diseases that are expensive to treat are disease where we do have an effective treatment that doesn't cure the disease, but treats it and allows the person to continue to live but with complications that require more treatements - like diabetes.