Anti-tobacco ads

[Doc]

I just heard on the news that the government intends to step up the number and the grossness of anti-smoking commercials. Now let me start out with the fact that I have been off cigarettes for more than 4 years and I am in no way a fan of smoking. So really I have no dog in this fight other than the fact that I am getting more than a bit disgusted with seeing pictures of diseased lungs and other disgusting health maladies being posted on my TV set. I payed good money for my TV, and I also pay a hefty amount monthly for cable, and I don't feel that a TV should be used to disgust the viewer. Yes we can turn it off if we don't like it, and I have indeed switched channels because of some of that garbage advertising. And it has happened where I turned from one channel to another and ran into the same kind of advertisement. There comes a point where the rest of us (who are now in the vast majority) are being put through a campaign of poor taste and disgusting images simply because of the over-the-top zeal that has gripped the entire mentality of those concerned with insisting what's best for the rest of the population.

This all has been bad enough, but when I heard that they are going to be going deeper into this bizarre and repulsive campaign I started to wonder just when people are going to say "enough is enough". It no longer matters whether we are fans of smoking or not. It's getting into an area involving just plain decency and good taste of forced TV programming (at taxpayer's expense I might add). I don't smoke and I am offended by these gross images constantly being forced into my TV viewing.

Just a little rant that was touched off by that news item ...... It doesn't do a bit of good and yet I feel just a little better having written all that down ..... lol.

[Paula]

I do agree that these ads are pretty graphic and yet because of that and violence in a film it would be restricted to kids under 13. Its been a year and half since I have quit smoking and I hated to see those adds when I was smoking mostly because of the guilt I had for what I was doing to myself, but I also think they help. I don’t remember the last time I have seen one of these ads. I would sit through one if it at all has a chance to help my brother quit smoking. If it helps anyone then I would applaud those nasty ads.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I used to see them when I smoked, didnt make a difference to me, I quit when I was ready to. I DVR most things I watch, so I skip the ads anyway lol.

[virgil]

Keep in mind the massive public expense involved in medical care for patients suffering the effects of smoking. These ads are disturbing. But, they are intended to be. I think that the public would be more disgusted by the dollar figures associated with medical costs related to smoking.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Well I will be off of Cigs for 6 weeks this coming Tuesday. It was the easiest time I have had quitting (I have done it lots of times before...lol) But this tme is for good....why because I was ready. When I wasn't ready these ads would not have made a difference to me. I could see how they could make the effects more real to family members of a smoker and ramp up pressure that way.

I will be curious what all these politicians will do when the campaign to stop smoking really works....They would crap themselves at the loss of tax money.

Virgil...I know the costs are very high. It is a slippery slope though. Where do we stop it. How about obese people? Do we tax fast drivers? Do we impose a tax to cover costs for homes that heat with wood because they statistically have a higher rate of fires and cost the public tax money? How abot a tax on booze? that is one with high public costs. Do we tax people with a genetic tendency for a problem? It is easy to vilify a sect of the public....not so easy when we are IN that sect.

Another one of those "no easy answer" issues

[virgil]

Virgil...I know the costs are very high. It is a slippery slope though. Where do we stop it. How about obese people? Do we tax fast drivers? Do we impose a tax to cover costs for homes that heat with wood because they statistically have a higher rate of fires and cost the public tax money? How abot a tax on booze? that is one with high public costs. Do we tax people with a genetic tendency for a problem? It is easy to vilify a sect of the public....not so easy when we are IN that sect.

Congrats on quitting and good luck. Honestly, i do believe that we are headed in the direction where there will be penalties associated with life choices that effect a person's health, and ultimately cost the public. I think we will see a day when insurance coverage is affected for smokers and the obese. We are already seeing employers who will not hire smokers due to the associated cost- higher insurance premiums, more use of sick time, etc.

As for your examples- we do 'tax' fast drivers, when they're caught, they pay a fine and an increase in their auto insurance. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that homes whose heating system put them at greater risk for fire pay higher home owners insurance premiums.

The use of the 'genetic tendency' argument is a bit misleading. The absolute fact is, tendency or not, if a person makes the CHOICE not to drink, they will never become an alcoholic. If a person makes the CHOICE not to smoke, they will not become addicted to cigarettes. If a person consumes as many calories as he/she burns, they will not become obese. These are physical diseases that result purely and only from behavioral choices. When people are held accountable and are forced to pay a price for their decisions, that's when there's potential to change their behavior. Children who suffer from asthma as a result of exposure to toxic second-hand smoke are victims, smokers are not.

[Paula]

Congrats on quitting culvercreek

[nyslowhand]

Keep in mind the massive public expense involved in medical care for patients suffering the effects of smoking. These ads are disturbing. But, they are intended to be. I think that the public would be more disgusted by the dollar figures associated with medical costs related to smoking.

Somewhere in the range of $8B/year for NYS medical expenses for tobacco related issues.

Last time I got medical insurance they asked if I was a tobacco user because the premiums were higher than for non-smokers.

BTW - NYS collects ~$2B from tobacco taxes supposedly for motivating New Yorkers to achieve a healthier lifestyle, including these ads.

Typical of NYS, a lot of these funds get swept into the general fund.

New Yorkers are the highest state in the US for taxes on tobacco products.

Tax on cigarettes is about $4.40/pack in NY and about $6.50 in NYC.

So what is NYS going to do to replace the $2B in revenues when they achieve their goal of all NY'ers being smoke-free?

Like others, I also finally quit smoking after decades of failed attempts.

Those that belittle an individual's ability to quit smoking, refrain from eating in excess or abusing alcohol are unaware of those habits or behavioral disorders.

In a perfect world - CHOICE would be an ideal motivator, but since everyone's mind works differently freedom of choice isn't always achievable.

Unrelated fact; NYS alcohol related motor vehicle deaths are about the same/year as tobacco (cancer) related deaths.

[fasteddie]

I had my last cigarette at 8 am December 24 , 1979 . I was a carton a week smoker . I lost my Dad the previous month ( Nov 11 , 1979 ) to lung cancer . He smoked all his life .

I think the disgusting ads make people think about what smoking does .

The only problem I have with the ads is they are sponsored by a government that subsidized Tobacco Growers for many years !

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Virgil...I know the costs are very high. It is a slippery slope though. Where do we stop it. How about obese people? Do we tax fast drivers? Do we impose a tax to cover costs for homes that heat with wood because they statistically have a higher rate of fires and cost the public tax money? How abot a tax on booze? that is one with high public costs. Do we tax people with a genetic tendency for a problem? It is easy to vilify a sect of the public....not so easy when we are IN that sect.

Congrats on quitting and good luck. Honestly, i do believe that we are headed in the direction where there will be penalties associated with life choices that effect a person's health, and ultimately cost the public. I think we will see a day when insurance coverage is affected for smokers and the obese. We are already seeing employers who will not hire smokers due to the associated cost- higher insurance premiums, more use of sick time, etc.

As for your examples- we do 'tax' fast drivers, when they're caught, they pay a fine and an increase in their auto insurance. I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine that homes whose heating system put them at greater risk for fire pay higher home owners insurance premiums.

The use of the 'genetic tendency' argument is a bit misleading. The absolute fact is, tendency or not, if a person makes the CHOICE not to drink, they will never become an alcoholic. If a person makes the CHOICE not to smoke, they will not become addicted to cigarettes. If a person consumes as many calories as he/she burns, they will not become obese. These are physical diseases that result purely and only from behavioral choices. When people are held accountable and are forced to pay a price for their decisions, that's when there's potential to change their behavior. Children who suffer from asthma as a result of exposure to toxic second-hand smoke are victims, smokers are not.

Amen!! Did you hack Virgil's account? I want verification...lol., Great post

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Congrats on quitting culvercreek

Thanks...you too. It isn't easy

[virgil]

So what is NYS going to do to replace the $2B in revenues when they achieve their goal of all NY'ers being smoke-free?

Slowhand, i think you answered your own question. As you stated, the medical expenses to the state are $8B, and the reveneues from taxes are $2B. If you eliminate both, you have a $6B windfall- unless i'm misunderstanding you.

Amen!! Did you hack Virgil's account? I want verification...lol., Great post

Clarification from me? Or, was that meant for someone else?

[Paula]

first 2 wks are the hardest then it just flies by.

[nyslowhand]

As you stated, the medical expenses to the state are $8B, and the reveneues from taxes are $2B. If you eliminate both, you have a $6B windfall- unless i'm misunderstanding you.

Think I misspoke.....

Medical expenses for NY'ers are paid by insurannce companies and patients to medical facilities, drug companies & care-givers.

Assuming a small portion might be in the form of medicare/medicad if that's what you're referring to..?

In general, nothing into or out of the NYS budget.

Yes, these medical expenses for individuals will cease, hopefully eventually.

But indeed NYS might lose the $2B tax revenues on tobacco products.

Good for a healthy NY, but bad for NYS & the tax payers.

Someone will have to make up this deficit in lost revenues.

God knows what they'll tax then to sustain the size of the current NYS govenment.... Sorry, that's another topic!!

BTW - I've seen those disgusting anti-smoking campaign ads picturing the cancerous lungs since the 1960s.

Haven't seemed to have made much of an impression or reduced smoking like the exorbitant taxes on tobacco have accompolished.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Amen!! Did you hack Virgil's account? I want verification...lol., Great post

Clarification from me? Or, was that meant for someone else?

It was humor VIrgil...we almost never agree..lol

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Here's an idea. The government should stop wasting our money on anti tobacco ads. Like Nyslowhand said, let the taxes do the talking.

[virgil]

Think I misspoke.....

Medical expenses for NY'ers are paid by insurannce companies and patients to medical facilities, drug companies & care-givers.

Assuming a small portion might be in the form of medicare/medicad if that's what you're referring to..?

Medicare is both state and federally funded. I don't have exact numbers. But, I can assure you that a large percentage of the cost associated with the medical care for smokers is paid by medicare, not private insurance companies.

[virgil]

Here's an idea. The government should stop wasting our money on anti tobacco ads. Like Nyslowhand said, let the taxes do the talking.

Another brilliant contribution. Go ahead, continue to complain about 'the governement wasting your tax dollars' on these types of ads. Then, on another thread you can whine about the government overspending on 'entitlement programs' like medicare and medicaid. Imagine how many of your tax dollars would be needed to care for the medical needs of smokers if there were as many people smoking today as there were 30 or 40 years ago. Some of you just complain for the sake of complaining.

[ELMER J. FUDD]

Because you have all the answers. Some of YOU argue for the sake of arguing.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Actually, the money for the ads comes from the settlements the states got when the Tobacco companies were sued. At least, thats supposed to be what that money was for.

[Doc]

You know, I have been hearing these statistics about how much tobacco costs in health expenses, and I still believe that that particular stat is a very heavily massaged one that fails to take into consideration how much quicker smokers actually leave the health and insurance system. Does anyone imagine that when people quit smoking that they begin a long life that will never wind them up in a hospital, intensive care or extended care? Do people think that non smokers simply pass away peacefully in their sleep? How about those non smokers that are now living to ages that they would never see if they smoked? I'm talking about the 80 and 90 year olds that are sucking up nursing home space and being kept alive at the massive expenses of constant daily medication and intensive care for many more years than smokers. Doesn't that make some of those statistics seem just a bit over-inflated. kind of like somebody left another half of the calculations out. Certainly there are plenty of reasons for people to quit smoking, but I don't buy that these are the people who are driving health costs out of sight. Most of us are going to exit this world and leave behind a bundle of medical expenses both preventative, maintenance, and desparate attempts to extend our lives. And that will be true whether we die of smoking related causes or something else.

Yes it may sound a bit cold-blooded to contemplate, but it is very likely that smokers have been actually cutting short their drain on society's medical resources by dying younger. And it may very well be that the non-smokers and other health obsessed people are the ones who live to that very old and medically expensive time of life. Make sense or no????

[Fishin Magician]

sure wish I could quit....

[Doc]

However, to get back to the topic, I have done my thing with quitting tobacco, and I believe that I have earned the right not to be harrassed nightly by ghastly images of disgusting health problems on my TV.

I realize that not everybody is so damned sensitive to these disgusting displays, but it does upset my evening to see somebody plop a black oozing lung into a stainless steel bowl (especially if I am about to dig into a nice meal of venison liver and onions ..... lol). I do wonder how such images affect young children. If it upsets me, I can imagine that there are some children who don't need to be looking at that kind of crap. And then there is the actual question as to whether any of it is really doing any good. Believe it or not that is a question that even the government experts didn't seem to be able to definitively answer on this news broadcast that I was talking about in the opening post. And yet they intend to pursue this same ghastly display in an even more graphic fashion at assumedly an ever increasing expenditure of our tax dollars.

Several here have talked about how they quit when they were finally ready, and how that had nothing to do with the government behavior modification activities. I know exactly what they are talking about. When I quit, this medical pornography was not polluting the airwaves. I simply made up my mind that it was time to quit.

[nyantler]

Keep in mind the massive public expense involved in medical care for patients suffering the effects of smoking. These ads are disturbing. But, they are intended to be. I think that the public would be more disgusted by the dollar figures associated with medical costs related to smoking.

much like alchohol, fatty foods, too much sugar, automobile exhaust... the list goes on and on.. so why cherry pick one potential health risk? Because they were the ones with the most money when it came to filing law suits.. there just wasn't enough money in french fries and fruit loops..lol

[Fishin Magician]

fruit loops?.....are you referring to people on here?