Where American taxpayers' money goes; subsidize the tobacco industry!
The
situation with crop-subsidies in USA: For other articles see events page or answer 20 or:
Where American taxpayers' money goes; subsidize the
tobacco industry!
The
situation with crop-subsidies in USA: For other articles see events page or answer 20 or:
The Health Care Costs of Smoking
The
Effect of Enforcing Tobacco Sales Laws on Adolescents' Access to Tobacco and Smoking
Behavior
Two Papers from the British Medical Journal
on Secondhand smoke
The HempCyberFarm is going to question the American “New Deal” agricultural policies, in place since the 1930’s!? This means that the picture below really started in the early 30’s. Yeah, that's right folks, for over 65 Years the American People have kept smoking cigarettes, cigars and chewing tobacco affordable! What a wonderful world!
Besides this, can you explain why President Bill Clinton has increased the kickbacks to the Tobacco Industries in his last years of tenure (see graph below)? It all makes us wonder? Is tobacco healthy after all?
No, we just found out (see articles below) that: “If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs.” In other words; keep em’ smoking...
What
is good about subsidizing tobacco?
Mmm... a clear case of pork-barrel if you ask us!
We quote from Investors Business Daily, October 8, 1997,
section B1:
“In the 1930s, the federal government started a system of price
supports for tobacco. Three big farm programs remained untouched, protected by strong
political allies.These programs cost consumers big bucks. Today, (67 years later
and still subsidizing! ed.) instead of giving money directly, the government
props up prices using a system of growing quotas and special loans.
In recent years, the world price for tobacco has been anywhere from 75 cents to $1.25 a pound. But the price US Farmers get has stayed around $1.70 a pound.”
Meanwhile the taxpayer picks up the tab. Why don't we subsidize beer as well?
Editor; the moral of this story is; buy all the cigars/cigarettes/chewing tobacco your credit can afford now. Yeah right!
Hopefully someday this MADNESS will end. Lord have mercy! Save the children!
Special; From The New England Journal of Medicine -- October 9, 1997 -- Volume 337, Number 15:
Methods. We used three life tables to examine the effect of smoking on health care costs -- one for a mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers, one for a population of smokers, and one for a population of nonsmokers. We also used a dynamic method to estimate the effects of smoking cessation on health care costs over time.
Results. Health care costs for smokers at a given age are as much as 40 percent higher than those for nonsmokers, but in a population in which no one smoked the costs would be 7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women than the costs in the current mixed population of smokers and nonsmokers. If all smokers quit, health care costs would be lower at first, but after 15 years they would become higher than at present. In the long term, complete smoking cessation would produce a net increase in health care costs, but it could still be seen as economically favorable under reasonable assumptions of discount rate and evaluation period.
Conclusions. If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs. (N Engl J Med 1997;337:1052-7.)
Methods. In a two-year controlled study, we assessed sales of tobacco to minors and young people's access to and use of tobacco in six Massachusetts communities. Three communities (the intervention group) enforced tobacco-sales laws, whereas three matched communities (the control group) did not. To assess compliance with the law, minors working for the study investigators attempted to purchase tobacco from all retail vendors in each community every six months. Three annual anonymous surveys of a total of 22,021 students in grades 9 through 12 (response rate, 84 percent) measured access to tobacco and smoking behavior.
Results. At base line, 68 percent of 487 vendors sold tobacco to minors. Compliance with the law improved significantly faster in the intervention communities than in the controls (P<0.001). By the study's end, 82 percent of the merchants in the intervention communities complied with the law, as compared with 45 percent in the control communities (P<0.001). However, adolescents under 18 years old reported only a small drop in their ability to purchase tobacco and no decline in its use. Communities with and those without enforcement programs did not differ with respect to these outcomes.
Conclusions. Enforcing tobacco-sales laws improved merchants' compliance and reduced illegal sales to minors but did not alter adolescents' perceived access to tobacco or their smoking. Test purchases of tobacco do not accurately reflect adolescents' self-reported access to tobacco, and reducing illegal sales to less than 20 percent of attempts -- the goal of a new federal law -- may not decrease young people's access to or use of tobacco. (N Engl J Med 1997;337:1044-51.)
Copyright © 1997 by the Massachusetts Medical Society
LONDON (AP) -- Breathing secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer and heart disease by about 25 percent, according to two papers published in the British Medical Journal.
In one paper, published in the Oct. 18 issue, scientists analyzed published studies of heart disease in lifelong nonsmokers, comparing those who lived with smokers to those who didn't. It concluded secondhand smoke increased risk by 25 percent.
``The effect of environmental tobacco smoke is not trivial, as is often thought. It is a serious environmental hazard and one that is easily avoided,'' said the team from St. Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London School of Medicine.
The second paper, which analyzed epidemiological studies of lung cancer in nonsmokers, concluded ``all the available evidence confirms that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke causes lung cancer.''
It said a woman who has never smoked has an estimated 24 percent greater risk of lung cancer if she lives with a smoker.
They also reported that tobacco-specific carcinogens are found in the blood and urine of nonsmokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke.
``The studies reinforce the already compelling case for reducing smoking rates,'' British Minister for Public Health Tessa Jowell said today. ``We are determined to tackle these rates, especially for the two-thirds of smokers who want to give it up and for the most vulnerable group -- young teen-agers -- who are smoking in increasing numbers.''
She said the government would release a white paper later this year spelling out how the government intends to reduce smoking levels ``for the health benefit of all.'' Plans include a tobacco advertising ban and promoting more smoke-free public places, she said.
The anti-smoking group Action on Smoking and Health drew on figures from a California study to conclude passive smoking worsens asthma symptoms in 207,000 children a year in Britain and leads to bronchitis or pneumonia in more than 60,000 infants, of which 3,000 need hospital care.
The California report by the state Environmental Protection Agency linked passive smoking to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, illness and death from heart disease, nasal cancer and triggering of asthma in children, the group said.
Extrapolating the numbers from the EPA report, it linked passive smoking to 208 deaths caused by Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in Britain, and the deaths of 44 children from bronchitis or pneumonia.
The group's director, Clive Bates, contended passive smoking causes 2 million illnesses in Britain every year.
``Children are seriously at risk of developing asthma and other lung diseases if they are exposed to tobacco smoke in the home,'' he said. ``This report ... should remove any doubt about the serious effects of passive smoking, particularly the effect it has on children.''
Do you know more about this? e-mail us at Matthew@HempWorld.com
*Industrial-Hemp has no psychoactive properties following definition of the European Economic Community (EEC); THC content is less than 0.3%. In general, low THC-seed varieties without psychoactive properties are those that have a THC content of less than 1%. (See also No-THC Hemp-seed.) THC= Delta-9 TetraHydroCannabinol.
Copyright © 1995-2003 HempWorld, Inc. and Massachusetts Medical Society and San Jose Mercury News, All Rights Reserved.