A different take.....

  1. Hello everyone,
    I just thought I'd post this link.... While I have huge respect for our nursing colleagues in the US, this sort of explains why some of us non-americans get exaperated with some of the double standards coming out of Washington.

    http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/06...bacco%2B.shtml

    regards StuPer
    •  
  2. 42 Comments

  3. by   memphispanda
    You are missing quite a few things by comparing this to the whole Iraq deal.

    People CHOOSE to smoke. They don't choose to die because of some terrorist threat or because there is a madman running their country.

    Our cigarette packages already have a warning panel on them that isn't exactly small. Not to mention that smoking isn't illegal, it's just bad for your health.

    I swear if Satan himself showed up on earth there would be people comparing him to smoking or saying "eh, back off and let him run his country his own way".
  4. by   Mkue
    The US is getting more than it's share of criticism these days, fortunately we have broad shoulders.
  5. by   StuPer
    Hi Panda,
    While I agree people 'choose' to smoke (leaving out the cultural, socio-economic factors). That was'nt really the point, there is overwhelming evidence that supports tobbaco as being one of the most harmful things a human can take up as a habit, costing the worlds collective health industry billions annually. But because it does'nt suit this administrations backers then the health of all can go to hell, the dollar rules supreme.
    regards StuPer
  6. by   StuPer
    Hi Mkue,
    I'm sorry to say that the US is the architect of its own criticism's n regard to Iraq. But that the story is from an american paper, reporting on an international bodies efforts to improve the health of us all. Hardly an effort to belittle the US, just pointing out the facts, the Bush administration does not regard your health as important as the revenue it gets from cigarete purchases, and the donations it recieves from the tobacco industry.
    regards StuPer
  7. by   nurs4kids
    ummmm...i REALLY don't see anything in the link that the US hasn't ALREADY done..

    it's not like we're sitting over here smokin'..and the gov't has convinced us it's GOOD for us

    Advertisement is ALREADY greatly banned..

    however, there are MULTIPLE public service advertisements about the HAZARDS of smoking..

    EVERY pack has a warning label on it..and it even states that the "lights" are no less detrimental for your health than the regulars.

    i think the whole problem here, as usual..is that we're ahead of the game..
    we're being asked to do what we've already done..

    ever view that route, stu??

    regards..
    red blooded smokin' american
  8. by   rncountry
    Stu, the "story" may be from an American Paper, it is however only an opinion. It is on the Editorial/Opinion page. Plus I find it difficult to compare cigarette smoking to VX gas. I could drop hundreds of cigarettes on people and no own is going to do unless they decide to smoke those cigarettes and generally do so for a very long time. But if I were to spread VX gas I would kill hundreds right away. To me this op ed is just dumb. Oh, look the bad Americans are at it again, and refuse to do what the UN wants, and this from the same people who want to bomb Iraq. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
    This country is based on freedom to do things you wish to. Even if it is a dumb thing to do it ( and yes I do smoke). Unlike other countries in which the people are expected to be lemmens and comply with laws that are designed to make everyone row the same way, we pride ourselves on our individualism even when it makes us an ass. Why? Because we have a right to be an ass. Just because the US decides to not adapt recommendations from the UN does not mean that other countries cannot. The UN should never, never supersede the rule of the people of the US. NEVER. An individual making a decision to smoke is simply not comparable to a dictator gassing his own citizens. The US govn't does not encourage it's people to smoke. As Tracy pointed out we already have the programs in place that this article talks about.
    If other countries want American cigarette makers to do the same in their countries I suggest they implement laws to do so. Or are they not capable of doing so on their own? Maybe it's that lemmen thing.
  9. by   Mkue
    Brilliant posts Helen and Tracy
  10. by   Mkue
    Originally posted by StuPer
    Hi Mkue,
    I'm sorry to say that the US is the architect of its own criticism's n regard to Iraq. But that the story is from an american paper, reporting on an international bodies efforts to improve the health of us all. Hardly an effort to belittle the US, just pointing out the facts, the Bush administration does not regard your health as important as the revenue it gets from cigarete purchases, and the donations it recieves from the tobacco industry.
    regards StuPer
    Hi Stu, another thing you must understand about the US especially during this time of "conflict of interest", there are certain parties/people in this country that are flooding the media with criticism of their own country (US) whether it be tobacco or what have you.. . it's all politics. So take everything with a grain of salt (that is an expression).

    Regards,
    mkue
  11. by   Sally_ICURN
    Of course we have choices that we can make freely in the United States and smoking is one of them...no question about it. That's not what the article is about.

    Take the Iraq comparison out--it's there to make a point about a killer, but it's really not needed.

    I don't read this article as being about the free choices we make or taking those choices away or forcing anything on us. I read this article as saying bluntly WHY the US government doesn't want to participate in this treaty. And that reason is $money$. Tobacco is such an annoyingly obvious killer...nobody denies that, not even our government; not even the tobacco companies. So with that TRUTH, why wouldn't the US back such a treaty? Again, the reason is $money$, and well, okay, some will argue jobs.

    BUT, if smoking related illness KILLS countless people each year and many more suffer from it's bad effects, does that not contribute to our overall state of lousy health and bleed our already crippled health care system? Isn't THIS part of the problem? If it was more difficult to start smoking in the first place wouldn't that, in future years, ease some of the strain on our healthcare system? Why allow such a toxic drug to be so freely distributed? Why not place tougher restrictions?

    Oh yea, the reason is in StuPer's link:

    "In the 2002 election cycle, big tobacco gave $6.4 million of its $8.1 million in contributions to Republicans. Philip Morris, the world's biggest cigarette exporter, paid $3.4 million to buy influence, with 80 percent of its contributions going to Republicans or the Republican Party."

    This FACT has nothing to do with health, but EVERYTHING to do with why the US wants no part of it. My opinion of course, but isn't it OBVIOUS?! Even if the word "Republican" was replaced with candidate and "Republican Party" was replaced with running party...it would STILL say the same thing.

    It's just another pathetic example of big business running the US. Our government cares more about pleasing multi-million dollar fat cats than it does our health. And this refusal by the US to participate in something that could only be good for the health of the people is just one more piece of evidence to prove it. I can't be the only one who sees it this way (well, actually I know I'm not).

    TRUTH = $money$
  12. by   memphispanda
    Well, thousands of people are killed in car accidents each year also. People are always going to have danger in their lives--even in padded rooms people find ways to hurt themselves.

    Sure it's got a money angle to it. So what? Everything political has a money angle. It doesn't stop smoking from being a personal choice, while having a bomb dropped on your head is a choice someone else makes for you.
  13. by   Hardknox
    Being from Boston I read the Globe daily. Derrick Jackson is a left of left op/ed page writer. I read him and sometimes I agree with him. I have never read a column of his that is positive about anything. He was equally vitriolic about Bill Clinton.

    So anyone who wants ant-american fuel for their fire, read away!
  14. by   maureeno
    The US already has laws protecting its citizens against nicotine addiction. We have warning labels and advertising restrictions, high tobacco taxes and education campaigns funded by the tobacco companies.

    WE ARE AGAINST THE TREATY BECAUSE OF PROFITS
    the market in this country is shrinking
    the world market is where the money is.

    we put $$$ above human life.
    Two billion people live on less than $2 day; 1.3 billion live on less than $1 day.
    Can the poor nations afford to enforce expensive legistlation? No.
    That is why a world wide ban is needed.

close