I heard as I was about to slip into a wondrous night of sleep that O-Prez will sign a bill allowing the FDA to regulate the tobacco industry which has for all these years eluded them. I am not posting this to discuss the do's and don'ts of smoking (I did for most of my life and now have the COPD to prove it). Why I am posting this is because giving a government agency the power to regulate an industry smacks of socialism to me or am I off the mark? Since he has been in office, he bailed out the banks with loans meaning the government owns them, took over the auto industry by bailing them out, and moved the Census department to another government agency. Now he wants the FDA to regulate the tobacco industry. What's next? Well, there are the utilities such as the phone companies, etc. That would be a little tougher, but, hey, he is the president and can do what he wants. I have noticed that more congressmen are beginning to doubt his ability to lead the country as a result of his stand on the Iranian elections. What else? Well, there is the ICC which has regulations for truckers on how long a day they can drive or permits to drive through different states, but what if the ICC is allowed to tell the truckers what they can or can't carry to different regions of the country? What if the government wants to punish a state for not backing an administration decision and say that state is Kansas and the government says to the truckers, "you can no longer haul farm equipment to Kansas until they see the light."
I am sorry but all of this smacks of too much socialism to me or maybe I am getting paranoid in my old age. Maybe I will go east and visit Warph at the nineteenth hole and just drown my sorrows .
Larryj
I'm agreeing with you.
A little bit of socialism is way too much and we are in over our heads
with the feds. It would be good to see more Kansas state flags flying
at the county courthouses as there are too few these days, sometimes none to be
seen on the flag poles or inside the buildings.
Don't forget about H.R. 5, you know, the one that wants to end the two year term limit for the president. Yes, it has been tried before, but that was before the country became addicted to the Kool-aid.
One thing that makes no sense is their reasoning for allowing the FDA to regulate tobacco. They say that this way the FDA can dictate how much nicotine is in cigarettes, that if they cut down on the nicotine it will make it easier for folks to stop smoking, thus more people will. I say that their logic is flawed. I think that if you cut the level of nicotine, folks will only smoke more.
Quote from: larryJ on June 22, 2009, 09:40:42 AM
I am sorry but all of this smacks of too much socialism to me or maybe I am getting paranoid in my old age. Maybe I will go east and visit Warph at the nineteenth hole and just drown my sorrows .
Larryj
Come on ahead, Larry and don't forget to bring your clubs because sometimes we do play a little golf when we get the itch too... You'll probably have to sit outside on the patio with Slappy as he too has COPD and can't tolerate the cigar smoke inside. Did I mention the temp got up to 106 degrees today on the patio.... and that was in the shade. LOL. Normally this time of year, we would be hitting 110- 112 degrees. Maybe I'll write Al Gore and find out what the problem is. Sounds like his global warming ain't working too well. ::)
Thanks Warph, maybe some day. Tell Slappy he has it all wrong. Those who are smoking should be out in the heat and he should be in the A/C room to help with his breathing. And, second question. Don't they have misters around the edge of the patio? And, sorry but I never learned to play because I was spending all my time inside. But, I would definitely enjoy the company . ;D
Larryj
Plenty of misters.... and you are right.... Slappy, bless his ol' black miserable soul, agrees with you. He wants to march us all down to see his pulmonary doctor Chu We Fu and have us all checked out. Slappy says that, "COPD is nothing to sneeze about." I don't know what that means but I have all ideas that most of us old geezers have COPD of some sort. I quit smoking many years ago but my doctor has said it has taken a toll on my lungs and has put me on Spiriva once a day and prednisone when ever I think I need it, so I guess I qualify for COPD. What meds do you take for yours? I heard Advair is a good one.
Sorry to hear you are "one of us". I was diagnosed some years ago with emphysema, but didn't have problems until a year ago when I began to need surgeries for various things. So I have been on Spiriva for about a year. After my latest adventure in hospital land in January, it was decided that I would need oxygen therapy. This was an off and on thing until my last trip to said land when it became 24/7. So I now have a nebulizer next to my recliner which I use to inhale Albutriol three times a day. I use a concentrater with a fifty foot hose while in the house and to a limited distance outside. I have E tanks on a cart when I go anywhere in the car. I have Qvar inhalers if I am short of breath and need rescueing. I rarely use those. Other than that life is just peachy. My wife and I are currently working on getting me and her to Ireland in September to meet up with our son and daughter-in-law while they are traveling the world. As of May 2009, airlines were required to allow portable nebulizers on the planes so things are looking up.
It is good that you get out and play golf. Exercise is the key to maintaining your breathing as well as other health issues. It is weird that I generally require the oxygen all the time except when I go outside and walk up and down the driveway with the walker. I don't use oxygen during those times and don't seem to need it until I stop.
Spirival and the Albutriol from the nebulizer are designed to open up the bronchial tubes to make breathing easier. Advair contains an anti-inflammatory which is not known to affect COPD. It does work in opening up the bronchial tubes. I am pretty happy with what meds I take now.
Larryj
As for the Original Post, the banks and auto industry were bailed out by the Bush administration, not the Obama administration.
This is true. Bush's Treasury Secretary proposed the idea and Bush and the congress of which Senator Obama was a member of made it so. In the meantime, Senator Obama became President Obama and: (1) failed to see that the banks did what the government wanted them to do with the money, causing more bailout moneys to be proposed. (2) Initiated another bailout plan adding more to the money to be given out formally known as TARP II.
I personally believe that the government was making these loans to the banks and the auto industry to shore up their financial picture and get them back on track, not to own them. In an ideal situation those who received the bailout would balance their financial sheet and make changes to bring them "back to black" and repay the government. That is the capitalist way of looking at it. In reality, those who received the bailout money are still trying to swim in the quicksand and only a few are actually paying back the money. So if the loans are defaulted on the government now owns those who defaulted and fires the CEO's and runs the company. That is the socialist way of looking at it.
According to what I read, this is no pure socialism or pure capitalism anywhere in the world. The obvious definitions of these systems of government are that a socialist government owns and runs everything and all production is controlled by that government. In capitalism, all production is done by private corporations, companies, and individuals.
The point I was trying to make was that with all these moves whether by Bush or Obama, the government is moving to take over and run too much. And that scares me.
Great Post Larry and very well written. I agree 110% with what you say.
Larry, thanks for the clarification, i agree with your second post. I think part of the problem is that people are too caught up in bickering over the whole republican vs democrat thing and not paying attention to the real issues. I think there are people on both sides who recognize we are heading down the road to disaster and it doesn't really matter who the president is.
Every once in awhile, we get a presidential candidate that truly cares for America, and he wants the job so he can save the country. I think Ron Paul was that candidate, and the last before him was Ross Perot. It befuddles me why people don't vote for these men.
Anmar you're right.
The debate amongst the Democrats & Republicans is not the direction
we ought to be headed. Ron Paul knows what the founding fathers
intended and that's where the debate ought to be.
QuoteIt befuddles me why people don't vote for these men.
Surprise surprise surprise.......I did.
To be honest, up until this last election I did not know who Ron Paul was. And only then I just heard the name but did not pay attention to his campaign. In going back now and looking at his qualifications I can agree with most of his ideas. However, we have what we have and have to deal with it. I think that you are both correct about the partisanship. It is getting in the way. All presidents, including Obama, always say we need bipartisanship which sounds good, and ain't gonna happen. The way to change is to write your congressman and let them know how you feel. You will probably get the stock standard form letter like I have in the past which states that they are glad that you wrote and happy that you, as a citizen, have voiced your opinion as you are constitutionally allowed to do. There may or may not be any answer to the problem you are writing about. So, it requires more letters insinuating that you feel he/she is not doing anything to solve your problem. (CAUTION! No physical threats.) If enough people start writing then it becomes more noticeable and forces some sort of action. If that particular Representative still doesn't write back and tell you what they are specifically doing to solve the problem, remember that in the next election and elect someone who will.
I am, and have been, very passionate about flag burning. I view it as a sign of disrespect. It is destroying a symbol of freedom that many have fought for. So, I wrote a letter to my congressman that I thought a law should be introduced to make it a crime to burn the flag. I copied the letter to the President and to the editor of the local newspaper. The president responded by saying that it was indeed a terrible thing to burn a flag and he didn't like it either. I never heard from the congressman, but the letter was published in the paper and received a few responses in favor of the idea. Nothing ever came of it though.
So change is hard to come by, but it can be done.
Larryj
I live in Pete Starks' district, and even though he is one of the most liberal dems in the house, he's open and approachable. Been to his office a few times and he has regular town hall meetings where he will meet anyone living in his district and answer any question. I think he's one of those guys that really mens well also, even though i might disagree on some minor policy issues. I know he's honest and isn't beholden to the lobbyists like the other 95% of the congress.
Obama's talk about bipartisanship is pretty much just lip service, proven by his appointment of Rahmbo, who is just as partisan as Cheney and Rove are/were.
Hasn't the govt already been regulating the tabacco industry for years? Wasn't there essentially a "tobacco buyout" program about 5-6 years ago where they shut down tobacco farms? The govt paid the farmers to grow other things (cattle, other crops, etc).
Indeed the govt did bailout the tobacco industry some years ago but it wasn't a loan. sorry for the length of this article but it says what happened. I believe this was from a CBS news source.
Apr 2, 2009 12:00 pm Anti-smoking forces won a long-awaited victory Thursday as the House passed legislation that would give the federal government key controls over the tobacco industry for the first time.
The measure, passed 298-112, gives the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate - but not ban - cigarettes and other tobacco products.
The Senate could take up its version of the bill later this month, and supporters are confident they can overcome opposition from tobacco-state senators. The White House supports the legislation, a shift from the Bush administration which threatened to veto a House-passed measure last year.
President Barack Obama has spoken publicly about his own struggles to kick a smoking habit.
"This is truly a historic day in the fight against tobacco, and I am proud that we have taken such decisive action," said Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the bill's sponsor. "Today we have moved to place the regulation of tobacco under FDA in order to protect the public health, and now we all can breathe a little easier."
(I just reread this. Pun intended?)
Waxman and his Senate counterpart, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., have promoted legislation giving the FDA regulatory powers over tobacco products since the Supreme Court in 2000 ruled that the agency did not have that authority.
That ruling came after years of lawsuits and debate on the issue, including Waxman's memorable 1994 hearing where the heads of big tobacco companies testified that nicotine was not addictive.
Waxman's Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act wouldn't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency would be able to regulate the contents of tobacco products, make their ingredients public, prohibit flavoring, require much larger warning labels and strictly control or prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.
Kennedy plans to introduce his version of the bill after Congress returns from its April recess. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., is expected to lead the opposition, but supporters are confident they can clear the 60-vote threshold needed to break a filibuster.
"FDA regulation of cigarettes - the most lethal of all consumer products - is long overdue," Kennedy said Thursday. "I am confident that the Senate will approve it expeditiously."
Opponents from tobacco-growing states such as top-producing North Carolina argued that the FDA had proven through food safety failures that it's not up to the job. They also said that instead of unrealistically trying to get smokers to quit or prevent them from starting, lawmakers should ensure they have other options, like smokeless tobacco.
That was the aim of an alternate bill offered by Rep. Steve Buyer, R-Ind., who would leave the FDA out and create a different agency within the Health and Human Services Department. His proposal failed on a 284-142 vote.
"Effectively giving FDA stamp of approval on cigarettes will improperly lead people to believe that these products are safe, and they really aren't," Buyer said. "We want to move people from smoking down the continuum of risk to eventually quitting."
Major public health groups, including the American Lung Association and the American Medical Association, wrote to lawmakers asking them to oppose Buyer's bill, contending it would leave tobacco companies without meaningful regulation and able to make untested claims about the health effects of their products.
Buyer pointed out that Waxman's bill is supported by the nation's largest tobacco company, Marlboro maker Philip Morris USA. Officials at rival tobacco companies contend the Waxman bill could cement Philip Morris' market advantage.
Lorillard Tobacco Co. said in a statement that among other problems, Waxman's bill "leads to an industry monopoly by locking in the huge market share of our largest competitor while eliminating our ability to communicate with our adult smokers."
(© 2009 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Larryj
No, it wasn't a loan, it was a type of subsidy program. But I think it was funded by major tobacco companies, but govt mandated (actually I think it was a court ruling). The company I work for actually got some money out of it, indirectly, as they were able to use the money to fund other ag-related projects such as cattle marketing programs to help aid the former tobacco farmers make money in other sectors.
I do think smoking is bad for you, BUT, I'm not sure that government should have so much say-so in how it's regulated. I guess I do think that the ingredients of cigs should be printed on the carton, just like all food, so the FDA needs to get in gear to regulate that better. But as far as the government having a say-so in how much nicotine is in the cigs, I'm not sure about. Next they'll say how much chocolate can/cannot be in a candy bar? They haven't gone after alcohol this way (yet). Yes, they have certain warnings that need to be on packaging and in commercials (about drinking responsibly), but if they're going to regulate the industry, they may as well start trying to make it an illegal substance... because that's what it seems like it's going towards.
First hubby was from Kentucky, a tobacco growing area. A fellow who owned land wasn't considered important by the number of acres he owned, but by the number of tobacco lands he owned. Back in the 1920s, there were wars among the land owners with many raids by the KKK, trying to regulate the number of acres a farmer could put into tobacco; thus keeping the price up. The government stepped in, alotted so many acres for each land owner to farm tobacco and ended the wars. Those restrictions remain today; a settlement imposed by the United States Government when the locals could not/ would not settle it themselves. Interesting times, not often presented in modern history classes.
I know this is not the intended purpose for this thread but I have been a smoker for at least 15 years and just wanted you all to know that I quit as of 8:05 tonight...have a patch on right now... :)
Congratulations! That is the single best thing you can do for your health. Hang tough, it is not easy to do! 8)
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 26, 2009, 08:25:52 PM
I doubt anybody is going to force the tobacco companies to fess up to all the stuff that's in a cigarette besides the tobacco. The various kinds of cigarettes have recipes that I doubt they would share. Some even have molasses in them. The tobacco grown north of us is cigar wrapper tobacco.The Amish here still use the big slatted drying barns to hang it in after harvest.
You know i don't know why it matters if they fess up or not. They sold a product. People chose to use that product despite the warnings. Why should they be held liable for peoples choices and furthermore its not the Governments job to interfere in peoples choices.
That's right.
Instead of manufacturing cigarettes, maybe the "roll-your-own" will make a return.
Except that I'm not interested in either.
Quote from: redcliffsw on June 27, 2009, 05:30:47 AM
That's right.
Instead of manufacturing cigarettes, maybe the "roll-your-own" will make a return.
Except that I'm not interested in either.
I doubt it, they hit the roll your own tobacco with a 400% tax.
tobacco went from 12.40 a pound to over 50 a pound.
Kshillbilly, congratulations on your decision to stop. Please work very hard to quit. It is a tough thing to do, I know. The only way I could quit was when I couldn't catch my breath. Maybe when I ever post a picture under my name, it will be one with the tubing wrapped around my face. Anyway, you have just given yourself a chance to live a longer and better life.
Larryj
Quote from: srkruzich on June 26, 2009, 10:18:18 PM
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 26, 2009, 08:25:52 PM
I doubt anybody is going to force the tobacco companies to fess up to all the stuff that's in a cigarette besides the tobacco. The various kinds of cigarettes have recipes that I doubt they would share. Some even have molasses in them. The tobacco grown north of us is cigar wrapper tobacco.The Amish here still use the big slatted drying barns to hang it in after harvest.
You know i don't know why it matters if they fess up or not. They sold a product. People chose to use that product despite the warnings. Why should they be held liable for peoples choices and furthermore its not the Governments job to interfere in peoples choices.
The person that smokes does not just injure himself/herself. That is the justification for government intervention, furthermore it causes economic damage to the healthcare system in providing maintenance to the person's health later in life.
If that is the case jerry, then the gov't better "intervene" with alcohol, fast food, red meat, twinkies, soda, ice cream, and pretty much anything else that makes life worth living. And while we are at, we had better implment a Fat Tax. Afterall, obesity is the largest growing health concern in this country.
Congralations, kshillbillys! I'm on Day 9 myself and hubby is 3 weeks quit! We're both using Chantix. There are several reasons why we quit (and we were longtime smokers), but our health and finances were the big ones. And even as someone who loved/hated smoking, I fully support any effort to regulate the tobacco industry at least as well as the alcoholic beverage industry. Any product that a person ingests/inhales or otherwise uses in a direct physical manner should be proved safe. Cigarettes are toxins. They contain more chemicals than most commercial poisons and have fewer warnings on the package. Why no skull/crossbones? Where is truth in advertising? They are horribly addictive ...much more so than painkillers, but do not require a prescription.
It's time for tobacco growers to find another cash crop, one that doesn't cost individuals and society so dearly. I've always thought hemp would be a logical choice, but that raises a lot of other concerns, so there ya go.
Quote from: kshillbillys on June 26, 2009, 09:10:14 PM
I know this is not the intended purpose for this thread but I have been a smoker for at least 15 years and just wanted you all to know that I quit as of 8:05 tonight...have a patch on right now... :)
Good job, KS...I'm keeping you in my thoughts and prayers...It's going to be a hard thing to get off of...But you can do it. I have faith in you.
Quote from: jerry wagner on June 27, 2009, 08:09:34 AM
Quote from: srkruzich on June 26, 2009, 10:18:18 PM
Quote from: Diane Amberg on June 26, 2009, 08:25:52 PM
I doubt anybody is going to force the tobacco companies to fess up to all the stuff that's in a cigarette besides the tobacco. The various kinds of cigarettes have recipes that I doubt they would share. Some even have molasses in them. The tobacco grown north of us is cigar wrapper tobacco.The Amish here still use the big slatted drying barns to hang it in after harvest.
You know i don't know why it matters if they fess up or not. They sold a product. People chose to use that product despite the warnings. Why should they be held liable for peoples choices and furthermore its not the Governments job to interfere in peoples choices.
The person that smokes does not just injure himself/herself. That is the justification for government intervention, furthermore it causes economic damage to the healthcare system in providing maintenance to the person's health later in life.
Well theres no proof anymore since they busted that theory that second hand smoke causes all those problems a few years ago. Economic damages? Ok if you say so. Isn't the healthcare industry a business? Provides jobs, creates cash.
It's been several hours. Am doing pretty good actually. Have only wanted to strangle people 2 or 3 times (Just haven't actually done it!!)...It's hard to keep the hands busy. It's also very hard to not reach for a cigarette after I'm done with a meal or driving in the car, but I've handled it so far. Decided to tell everyone I see that I've quit, that way I will be less likely to restart due to the failure factor.
Thanks all for your words of support!!! Indygal, you and hubby keep up the excellent work!! This is hard but I can do it, and get by with a little help from my friends!!! :laugh:
Hang in there, KS...if you want a great source of online support, go to Become An EX (becomeanex.org) It has lots of good info, coping mechanisms, and an online community of folks going through the same challenges. It really has helped me a lot.
A bonus for you both! Clean tasting kisses and a great smelling house! Very cool----- 8) 8)