If the FDA Determine Tobacco? Health Freedom Supporter Says Criminalizing Cigarettes is really a Mistake
The U.S. In line with the CDC, tobacco kills 438,000 people annually in america alone (1). Now, due to the U.S. Congress, the FDA might soon function as government office responsible for letting these 438,000 deaths each year!
Think about it: Right now, FDA-approved drugs destroy around 100,000 Americans a year, and that's if you believe the figures in the American Medical Association (the real numbers have reached least double that). (538,000 deaths annually due to FDA-approved drugs, using government statistics.)
That is a level of fatalities that terrorists haven't even come near to approaching.
Why the FDA does not need to regulate tobacco
Obviously, the FDA does not need to find itself in this place, because if regulatory authority over tobacco is jammed onto the FDA, it would be required to state tobacco an unapproved, hazardous drug and prohibit its sale.
Why? And if it is considered a drug, then a FDA must use the same principles to tobacco that it pertains to other substances. And there is simply no way a series of clinical trials could show tobacco to become safe or capable of treating illness. (Unless, of course, Big Tobacco funds the studies, in which case cigarette smoke may be made to seem like it CURES cancer, as a result of damaged researchers.) and deceptive technology
Ergo, when the FDA were to follow its principles, it would need to prohibit tobacco outright, considering it an 'unapproved drug' and raid most of the tobacco companies, confiscating their supply and dragging them in to court just like the FDA does with weight loss supplements companies or cherry growers.
Naturally, the FDA could choose to uniquely MAYBE not impose its own rules against tobacco organizations, but that puts the company within an even worse position of creating an exception on its drug enforcement coverage, singling out probably the most dangerous 'drug' ever created together that suspiciously escapes regulatory action. That could make the FDA seem like a lot more of a regulatory failure than it can already, calling into question if the FDA simply bases its regulatory decisions about the size and influence of the organization affected rather than true public safety.
Because, let us face it: Cigarettes can kill you. There's no argument anymore. Even the medical practioners -- who are the slowest people in the world to accept new some ideas -- are up to speed with this one. Sure, it took them a few years to stop running Big Tobacco ads in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and health practitioners used to take money from the tobacco companies to state cigarettes are 'Recommended by doctors,' but those times are long-gone. Today, nearly every one agrees smoking cigarettes is one of the most dangerous activities a customer could engage in when it comes to health.
If it enforces its own principles, it'd just have to ban cigarettes entirely.
And I say excluding cigarettes completely is a huge mistake. Here's why:
Now, I'm the first to say that it'd be good if everybody in the united states stopped smoking. I've seen numerous members of the family die from cancers that were no doubt brought on by cigarette-smoke, so I've every reason to guide any reasonable attempt to outlaw them.
Except I do not believe government should be available of telling consumers what they can and can't smoke. Go right ahead, if someone really wants to light and kill themselves within their own living room! I just don't think the rest of the taxpayers should have to fund their medical care!
In the end, if they want to commit suicide with cigarette, why should the citizens purchase hospital stays, their cancer remedies and artificial lungs?
Non-smokers are subsidizing the catastrophic health care expenses of smokers, and I think it's time we stopped. All things considered, if people want to destroy themselves with cigarettes, why must we interfere with health care services that attempt to save yourself their lives? Should not we just give them the freedom to die the direction they have chosen by smoking cigarettes in the first place? If that is the direction they want to live and die, that is their choice!)
Use economic incentives to help people quit smoking
I think we must also offer health care company incentives to help people quit smoking, while I recommend we end providing taxpayer-funded health care services for people who smoke. For case, hypnosis programs, stop-smoking seminars, and other educational efforts should be offered for free (paid for with taxpayer dollars), and anyone who quits smoking should be openly approved back onto government-funded health care programs. (There are blood tests that can easily detect nicotine and other smoke chemicals in the blood.)
We should provide economic incentives for people to give up smoking while putting in place severe economic penalties for those who continue to smoke. That is the smarter way to keep specific liberty unchanged while encouraging consumers to take responsibility for their own behaviors.
The other option: double the prison citizenry and Turn smokers in to thieves.
Today's War on Drugs is a huge total disaster.
You see, many people misunderstand the correct part of government in a free of charge society. You cannot have 'freedom' if you've the government running around criminalizing everything it generally does not want customers to engage in. (In Singapore, they've barred bubble gum!) As an alternative, you have to use government to create financial incentives and penalties that permit free-market choice to drive customers away from those things that are poor for them and towards those things that are good for them.
Corn subsidies make high-fructose corn syrup artificially cheap, also, which explains why you will find that obesity-promiting ingredient in a lot of foods and drinks.
Excluding cigarettes will not work: Addicts will find approaches to smoke a little leaf, whatever the law. And turning them into thieves doesn't solve the problem. As an alternative, you should provide services, training and service that onto a wholesome life style and helps consumers get off cigarettes.
Many people who smoke, after all, would like to quit! Consumers are already trending in the proper way on this issue, and with a little help, we're able to get tens of millions of Americans off these cancer-causing tobacco products and onto a healthy lifestyle.
That is why creating economic policies that support the transition away from cigarettes is the best way to accomplish the goals of getting individuals to give up smoking.
The easiest way to do this, of course, is to enhance the tax on cigarettes. Go crazy with it: Make it charge $10 a pack, and then use that money to pay for the public knowledge advertisements that tell people to avoid smoking.
Denying medical care providers to smokers is still another method to develop a financial penalty for smoking. But my suggestion with this is mainly satirical, since such a plan would be considered inappropriate and would never become law. (I maintain, however, that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to fund the care services of smokers. They should be financially responsible to pay for their own cancer treatments, heart procedures, etc.)
The U.S. In line with the CDC, tobacco kills 438,000 people annually in america alone (1). Now, due to the U.S. Congress, the FDA might soon function as government office responsible for letting these 438,000 deaths each year!
Think about it: Right now, FDA-approved drugs destroy around 100,000 Americans a year, and that's if you believe the figures in the American Medical Association (the real numbers have reached least double that). (538,000 deaths annually due to FDA-approved drugs, using government statistics.)
That is a level of fatalities that terrorists haven't even come near to approaching.
Why the FDA does not need to regulate tobacco
Obviously, the FDA does not need to find itself in this place, because if regulatory authority over tobacco is jammed onto the FDA, it would be required to state tobacco an unapproved, hazardous drug and prohibit its sale.
Why? And if it is considered a drug, then a FDA must use the same principles to tobacco that it pertains to other substances. And there is simply no way a series of clinical trials could show tobacco to become safe or capable of treating illness. (Unless, of course, Big Tobacco funds the studies, in which case cigarette smoke may be made to seem like it CURES cancer, as a result of damaged researchers.) and deceptive technology
Ergo, when the FDA were to follow its principles, it would need to prohibit tobacco outright, considering it an 'unapproved drug' and raid most of the tobacco companies, confiscating their supply and dragging them in to court just like the FDA does with weight loss supplements companies or cherry growers.
Naturally, the FDA could choose to uniquely MAYBE not impose its own rules against tobacco organizations, but that puts the company within an even worse position of creating an exception on its drug enforcement coverage, singling out probably the most dangerous 'drug' ever created together that suspiciously escapes regulatory action. That could make the FDA seem like a lot more of a regulatory failure than it can already, calling into question if the FDA simply bases its regulatory decisions about the size and influence of the organization affected rather than true public safety.
Because, let us face it: Cigarettes can kill you. There's no argument anymore. Even the medical practioners -- who are the slowest people in the world to accept new some ideas -- are up to speed with this one. Sure, it took them a few years to stop running Big Tobacco ads in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and health practitioners used to take money from the tobacco companies to state cigarettes are 'Recommended by doctors,' but those times are long-gone. Today, nearly every one agrees smoking cigarettes is one of the most dangerous activities a customer could engage in when it comes to health.
If it enforces its own principles, it'd just have to ban cigarettes entirely.
And I say excluding cigarettes completely is a huge mistake. Here's why:
Now, I'm the first to say that it'd be good if everybody in the united states stopped smoking. I've seen numerous members of the family die from cancers that were no doubt brought on by cigarette-smoke, so I've every reason to guide any reasonable attempt to outlaw them.
Except I do not believe government should be available of telling consumers what they can and can't smoke. Go right ahead, if someone really wants to light and kill themselves within their own living room! I just don't think the rest of the taxpayers should have to fund their medical care!
In the end, if they want to commit suicide with cigarette, why should the citizens purchase hospital stays, their cancer remedies and artificial lungs?
Non-smokers are subsidizing the catastrophic health care expenses of smokers, and I think it's time we stopped. All things considered, if people want to destroy themselves with cigarettes, why must we interfere with health care services that attempt to save yourself their lives? Should not we just give them the freedom to die the direction they have chosen by smoking cigarettes in the first place? If that is the direction they want to live and die, that is their choice!)
Use economic incentives to help people quit smoking
I think we must also offer health care company incentives to help people quit smoking, while I recommend we end providing taxpayer-funded health care services for people who smoke. For case, hypnosis programs, stop-smoking seminars, and other educational efforts should be offered for free (paid for with taxpayer dollars), and anyone who quits smoking should be openly approved back onto government-funded health care programs. (There are blood tests that can easily detect nicotine and other smoke chemicals in the blood.)
We should provide economic incentives for people to give up smoking while putting in place severe economic penalties for those who continue to smoke. That is the smarter way to keep specific liberty unchanged while encouraging consumers to take responsibility for their own behaviors.
The other option: double the prison citizenry and Turn smokers in to thieves.
Today's War on Drugs is a huge total disaster.
You see, many people misunderstand the correct part of government in a free of charge society. You cannot have 'freedom' if you've the government running around criminalizing everything it generally does not want customers to engage in. (In Singapore, they've barred bubble gum!) As an alternative, you have to use government to create financial incentives and penalties that permit free-market choice to drive customers away from those things that are poor for them and towards those things that are good for them.
Corn subsidies make high-fructose corn syrup artificially cheap, also, which explains why you will find that obesity-promiting ingredient in a lot of foods and drinks.
Excluding cigarettes will not work: Addicts will find approaches to smoke a little leaf, whatever the law. And turning them into thieves doesn't solve the problem. As an alternative, you should provide services, training and service that onto a wholesome life style and helps consumers get off cigarettes.
Many people who smoke, after all, would like to quit! Consumers are already trending in the proper way on this issue, and with a little help, we're able to get tens of millions of Americans off these cancer-causing tobacco products and onto a healthy lifestyle.
That is why creating economic policies that support the transition away from cigarettes is the best way to accomplish the goals of getting individuals to give up smoking.
The easiest way to do this, of course, is to enhance the tax on cigarettes. Go crazy with it: Make it charge $10 a pack, and then use that money to pay for the public knowledge advertisements that tell people to avoid smoking.
Denying medical care providers to smokers is still another method to develop a financial penalty for smoking. But my suggestion with this is mainly satirical, since such a plan would be considered inappropriate and would never become law. (I maintain, however, that taxpayer dollars shouldn't be used to fund the care services of smokers. They should be financially responsible to pay for their own cancer treatments, heart procedures, etc.)