In Defense of Smoking vs Prescription Drugs
- Thread starter quint
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
I have heard this before, as well. Not to mention the brutal withdrawal symptoms if you do them for an extended period of time.
Lol. How did this thread get so political? The purpose of posting this wasn't for me to bash all prescription drugs. Some opioids and psychiatric drugs are necessary in extreme cases such as cancer or very mentally ill patients, etc. Hell, several times when I had my large kidney stones, I took a prescription opioid derivative for a short time that was the only thing that would stop the extreme pain until the stones passed, and I was thankful to have it.
But with that said, I don't think it's coincidence that as tobacco and nicotine use has fallen, prescription psychiatric and opioid drug use has skyrocketed (along with all the negative side effects such as violence and suicide). The hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are of course overjoyed and support the current crusade against all tobacco and nicotine products because they both profit immensely from it.
But with that said, I don't think it's coincidence that as tobacco and nicotine use has fallen, prescription psychiatric and opioid drug use has skyrocketed (along with all the negative side effects such as violence and suicide). The hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are of course overjoyed and support the current crusade against all tobacco and nicotine products because they both profit immensely from it.
I fail to see how a ninety year old wiener exploding could be considered political. Tragic perhaps but, certainly not political. I do see a rather obscure religious reference. I was impressed with that though. Very impressed!
In the US insurance companies usually pay for prescribed "stop smoking" gums and drugs. Most any doctor will prescribe such, including dentists. In socialized medicine countries are not such meds covered? Also, if you use non-prescription, and such is doctor advised, it's tax deductible in the US. In this manner non-smokers are helping to cover the costs. Oh, the irony!
If government is paying for such I really doubt insurance companies profit immensely. Insurance companies do not make moneys by paying out or make much selling policies. Insurance companies profit immensely? through reinvestment of such moneys. Immensely is a subjective term and tells me nothing. A 10%, to simply pick a figure, profit may be immense to some and a "piss poor" return on risked capital to others. 2% might be considered a good return for some investments. So, define your definition ofimmense and perhaps we can agree or have reasoned discourse. Immense is usually hyperbolic. Then one has to consider that profits are taxed and the government collects it's share which it then pours much of it, plus moneys they do not have, back into buying drugs, etc for those covered under "Universal Health Care."
So rather than use "immensely" give me a percent of profit, either net or gross, and the reinvestment of such, Then we can then argue as to whether "immense" good or bad from our own personal perspective. I want to see the bottom line, not the income, when accessing whether a company is making a decent (such will be my opinion of course) or indecent (immense) profit.
Nothing, so far on this thread, sinks into the realm of politics. Economics? Sure. Personal opinion? Of course! "The costs of Universal Health Care" only sinks into politics when discussing the pros and cons of such. And, I've not taken a position, not here anyway, on the subject.
There is no arguing the fact that governments do provide health care at varying levels. Such only becomes political when discussing whether such practice is good or bad. To me, government funded/provided health care is simply a fact of life. The question is, "How do I profit from it." I have a personal opinion about such and a pragmatic position. They might differ or, they might agree. One is political I suppose. The other has to do with feeding my family and surviving. I try to never mix one with the other.
If government is paying for such I really doubt insurance companies profit immensely. Insurance companies do not make moneys by paying out or make much selling policies. Insurance companies profit immensely? through reinvestment of such moneys. Immensely is a subjective term and tells me nothing. A 10%, to simply pick a figure, profit may be immense to some and a "piss poor" return on risked capital to others. 2% might be considered a good return for some investments. So, define your definition ofimmense and perhaps we can agree or have reasoned discourse. Immense is usually hyperbolic. Then one has to consider that profits are taxed and the government collects it's share which it then pours much of it, plus moneys they do not have, back into buying drugs, etc for those covered under "Universal Health Care."
So rather than use "immensely" give me a percent of profit, either net or gross, and the reinvestment of such, Then we can then argue as to whether "immense" good or bad from our own personal perspective. I want to see the bottom line, not the income, when accessing whether a company is making a decent (such will be my opinion of course) or indecent (immense) profit.
Nothing, so far on this thread, sinks into the realm of politics. Economics? Sure. Personal opinion? Of course! "The costs of Universal Health Care" only sinks into politics when discussing the pros and cons of such. And, I've not taken a position, not here anyway, on the subject.
There is no arguing the fact that governments do provide health care at varying levels. Such only becomes political when discussing whether such practice is good or bad. To me, government funded/provided health care is simply a fact of life. The question is, "How do I profit from it." I have a personal opinion about such and a pragmatic position. They might differ or, they might agree. One is political I suppose. The other has to do with feeding my family and surviving. I try to never mix one with the other.
As I've shown above, over the past 10 years, just in England, Big Pharma sold over £500 million of worthless nicotine patches, gums and dangerous quit smoking drugs such as Zyban. In my book that's an immense bill for taxpayers, because that number should've been 0(nil). Multiply that for the entire world, and you can realize what financial bonanza the antismoking scam is for those involved.
The biggest percentage of smokers who quit smoking did so without any medical 'help', in an era (up to early 90s) when there was little to no stigmatization of smokers (advertising was still allowed, no medical porn on packs, one could still smoke at work, in pubs and restaurants). That exposes the 'nicotine addiction' BS the health authorities use to justify their money grab.
The biggest percentage of smokers who quit smoking did so without any medical 'help', in an era (up to early 90s) when there was little to no stigmatization of smokers (advertising was still allowed, no medical porn on packs, one could still smoke at work, in pubs and restaurants). That exposes the 'nicotine addiction' BS the health authorities use to justify their money grab.
Without getting into the "big what evers" isn't that what voters have elected parliament to do?
Politics aside, profits aside, epithets aside, personal perspectives aside, the electorate has spoken. Now, get out there and get your share(s)! Figure out how to profit from the circumstances you find yourself in. Buy some stock and invest in the future because, today is what the future looks like, only smaller scale, for a least a few generations.
If "big pharma" was as profitable as people think, I'd have every disposable dime/pence? invested in them. I'd insist my retirement plan do the same. I'd want them taking advantage of people/governments ignorant enough to buy those "worthless" patches and gum. Although I know more than a few people who have availed themselves of such. They now have a larger disposable income after successfully ridding themselves of tobacco.
You've apparently found the "golden goose", take advantage of it! Buy pharmaceutical stocks. All you can get your hands on. But, shy away from the ones which do research and development. Take those moneys and invest in the attorneys who'll sue them when they develop the next thalidomide. Or only invest in the ones which will develop a cancer curing drug instead.
Politics aside, profits aside, epithets aside, personal perspectives aside, the electorate has spoken. Now, get out there and get your share(s)! Figure out how to profit from the circumstances you find yourself in. Buy some stock and invest in the future because, today is what the future looks like, only smaller scale, for a least a few generations.
If "big pharma" was as profitable as people think, I'd have every disposable dime/pence? invested in them. I'd insist my retirement plan do the same. I'd want them taking advantage of people/governments ignorant enough to buy those "worthless" patches and gum. Although I know more than a few people who have availed themselves of such. They now have a larger disposable income after successfully ridding themselves of tobacco.
You've apparently found the "golden goose", take advantage of it! Buy pharmaceutical stocks. All you can get your hands on. But, shy away from the ones which do research and development. Take those moneys and invest in the attorneys who'll sue them when they develop the next thalidomide. Or only invest in the ones which will develop a cancer curing drug instead.
Pipeman84, I totally agree. And regardless of what others may say, it's only common sense that as opioid, psychiatric, and other prescription drug use has increased greatly in recent years, so have pharmaceutical company profits regarding those same drugs.
And I try to ignore certain individuals here who always play Devil's Advocate because they love to argue. It's a waste of time and I have better things to do.
Common sense may indeed provide you with simple and acceptable observations and answers to questions/situations which inquiring minds would research. Not good enough for investment purposes. I want to see the numbers and understand the numbers.
What is the cost of developing a new drug and possibly useful drug. Let's discount those of the population who will abuse what ever they can abuse. Lawyers, scientists, test after test, government approval procedures, insurance, wages, buildings, equipment, etc. Taking a drug from the germ of an idea to retail is a multi-million dollar undertaking filled with nothing but risk. Promising projects suddenly run into an insurmountable snag or proves not feasible and millions of dollars must be written off, some to be recovered through laws. Or, if the idea comes to fruition the product is only protected for a relatively short period of time before other companies can begin to produce clones without having the expense of all the research and such.
And, as I am writing mostly for people who have their biases set in stone, I am indeed wasting my time and you, your time reading. If I can reach one person and cause them to research, digest, learn, perhaps even enriching themselves both mentally and fiscally... well, my work here is done.
I am doggedly persistent on certain subjects. I detest a "closed mind." People with a closed mind sadden me only because of the possibilities lost.
What is the cost of developing a new drug and possibly useful drug. Let's discount those of the population who will abuse what ever they can abuse. Lawyers, scientists, test after test, government approval procedures, insurance, wages, buildings, equipment, etc. Taking a drug from the germ of an idea to retail is a multi-million dollar undertaking filled with nothing but risk. Promising projects suddenly run into an insurmountable snag or proves not feasible and millions of dollars must be written off, some to be recovered through laws. Or, if the idea comes to fruition the product is only protected for a relatively short period of time before other companies can begin to produce clones without having the expense of all the research and such.
And, as I am writing mostly for people who have their biases set in stone, I am indeed wasting my time and you, your time reading. If I can reach one person and cause them to research, digest, learn, perhaps even enriching themselves both mentally and fiscally... well, my work here is done.
I am doggedly persistent on certain subjects. I detest a "closed mind." People with a closed mind sadden me only because of the possibilities lost.
Read the link (quint's post, bottom). Interesting. I also read the judge's findings, Lorillard v. USFDA. It was a conflict of interest suit which addressed actions by the USFDA regarding menthol in cigarettes and a report to be issued by the USFDA. The judge ordered the report not to be published until the board which wrote the report was reconstituted and the issue revisited. The findings by the judge are interesting. Best I can determine the USFDA did revisit the issue and now all flavored tobaccos appear to be the target and are on the block. So, in reality, nothing came of suit except more stringent regulations.
The editorial or on-line posting (the link above) is interesting, full of objective information as to how the world really works. There was also some insight into the personalities involved, three in particular. But, I found nothing to support any conspiracy theory with regard to "Big Pharma." No government is going to undertake research, discussion and a report unless the desired results are forthcoming. So, they would logically employ persons who will arrive at the wanted conclusion. The FDA simply sought out and engaged people who would support the conclusion(s) they wanted and were caught and their peepee well spanked.
Lorillard did well. The USFDA not so well.
My question is: "What changed." No one cares about the judge's findings. When I say no-one, I mean the press. There was no out cry from the public, the anti-smoking crowd or, most importantly the smoking members of the public.
Quint: You did well and I appreciate your effort. But, we are still left with publicly owned companies doing their best for the shareholders. Which they are required to do by law. We are also left with politicians and the entrenched (not concerned with elections and who's "in-charge") government employees doing what they perceive to be necessary despite what the public and other elected officials may desire to further their agenda.
So, tobacco use is, in reality, out of the hands of the voters and the politicians. It's in the hands of the masses and the masses want tobacco gone. Not regulated, gone. Smokers look for easy ways to quit. The economy responds with gums and patches or other drugs. Very few are interested in debate. The antis have the upper hand today and, in my opinion, for the foreseeable future. Science doesn't have a chance, isn't even needed at this stage of the game by the anti-smoking crowd. It's an emotional issue now. Very much like climate change.
Until one side or the other loses interest the war against tobacco will continue but, baring some unexpected science finding which proves tobacco use is healthy and not debilitating (If that happens it'll be big pharma we will likely have to thank.), the debate is over for most, the steamroller is simply gaining speed.
The editorial or on-line posting (the link above) is interesting, full of objective information as to how the world really works. There was also some insight into the personalities involved, three in particular. But, I found nothing to support any conspiracy theory with regard to "Big Pharma." No government is going to undertake research, discussion and a report unless the desired results are forthcoming. So, they would logically employ persons who will arrive at the wanted conclusion. The FDA simply sought out and engaged people who would support the conclusion(s) they wanted and were caught and their peepee well spanked.
Lorillard did well. The USFDA not so well.
My question is: "What changed." No one cares about the judge's findings. When I say no-one, I mean the press. There was no out cry from the public, the anti-smoking crowd or, most importantly the smoking members of the public.
Quint: You did well and I appreciate your effort. But, we are still left with publicly owned companies doing their best for the shareholders. Which they are required to do by law. We are also left with politicians and the entrenched (not concerned with elections and who's "in-charge") government employees doing what they perceive to be necessary despite what the public and other elected officials may desire to further their agenda.
So, tobacco use is, in reality, out of the hands of the voters and the politicians. It's in the hands of the masses and the masses want tobacco gone. Not regulated, gone. Smokers look for easy ways to quit. The economy responds with gums and patches or other drugs. Very few are interested in debate. The antis have the upper hand today and, in my opinion, for the foreseeable future. Science doesn't have a chance, isn't even needed at this stage of the game by the anti-smoking crowd. It's an emotional issue now. Very much like climate change.
Until one side or the other loses interest the war against tobacco will continue but, baring some unexpected science finding which proves tobacco use is healthy and not debilitating (If that happens it'll be big pharma we will likely have to thank.), the debate is over for most, the steamroller is simply gaining speed.
A 0430 addendum: I wrote the above a bit late in the evening. Quint's link is to a very interesting article. The suit and the author of the column shed a harsh and well deserved light on how rules and regulations are made. I did not give credit where credit was certainly deserved to the author who flipped that light on and then adroitly focused it.
What the article does very well, is articulate what "Big Tobacco", "Big Pharma" and all the other "Bigs" are up against when when trying to turn a profit for the shareholders. "Big Government", and I'm referring to the entrenched bureaucrats who are mostly immune to any change in leadership at the upper level, is usually not as inept as the USFDA was in the above mentioned case. That time they were surprised, I think, at the scrutiny, their attorney(s) were caught unprepared, Lorillard caught a sympathetic/open minded/all business (select the correct word based on your personal perspective), judge.
The USFDA responded by taking another route. We'll see how "Big Tobacco" responds to the latest regulations which deal with "flavored" tobaccos. Will Lorillard or some other enterprise respond with a suit? Did the USFDA act in such a manner as to again incur the wrath of a Federal Judge? Will the USFDA shop for a sympathetic judge? The major concern I have is, very few people have any interest in the fight. Only the well organized and funded "anti-tobacco", we smokers (disorganized and no funding) are concerned. The "Big Tobacco" companies have a dog in the fight only as it impacts shareholders *the bottom line".
"Big Tobacco" has largely been folded into conglomorates. These companies saw, years ago, the need to protect shareholder investment, ergo sales of tobacco products have lost importance as they lost value. A couple of conglomerates are left that have substantial tobacco product holdings. I suspect they understand they are extremely vulnerable, as even the third world is starting to demonize tobacco, and so will take profits as long as possible. There are only a couple of such entities, as I understand, and I bet they see the writing on the wall, brands they own are disappearing, prices increasing at their level even as they fight to hold back local tax increases.
Now, I still hold to the thought that tobacco will not totally disappear, at least not while there is profit to be wrung from such. Boutique blenders will survive, a few may thrive as the competition shrinks. Some tobacco growers will persist and profit from a severely restricted market. And, we pipe smokers will continue to complain about the lack of availability of certain blends, greedy hoarders, Peterson's quality control problems, all the "Bigs", etc.
If and until society finds another social behavior to change, nothing will change with respect to tobacco products. A couple generations down the road smokers may indeed find acceptance. Of course pigs will be flying also. And, those taking up smoking today? They'll have the same complaints and most likely some new ones. Stranger things have happened. Over a couple of centuries smoking went from a private, almost hidden and socially unacceptable action to a multi-billion dollar enterprise and back to a socially unacceptable behavior. Will it rise again? I doubt any current members of this site will ever know. Until then we will continue to suffer injustice from the hands of the majority.
What the article does very well, is articulate what "Big Tobacco", "Big Pharma" and all the other "Bigs" are up against when when trying to turn a profit for the shareholders. "Big Government", and I'm referring to the entrenched bureaucrats who are mostly immune to any change in leadership at the upper level, is usually not as inept as the USFDA was in the above mentioned case. That time they were surprised, I think, at the scrutiny, their attorney(s) were caught unprepared, Lorillard caught a sympathetic/open minded/all business (select the correct word based on your personal perspective), judge.
The USFDA responded by taking another route. We'll see how "Big Tobacco" responds to the latest regulations which deal with "flavored" tobaccos. Will Lorillard or some other enterprise respond with a suit? Did the USFDA act in such a manner as to again incur the wrath of a Federal Judge? Will the USFDA shop for a sympathetic judge? The major concern I have is, very few people have any interest in the fight. Only the well organized and funded "anti-tobacco", we smokers (disorganized and no funding) are concerned. The "Big Tobacco" companies have a dog in the fight only as it impacts shareholders *the bottom line".
"Big Tobacco" has largely been folded into conglomorates. These companies saw, years ago, the need to protect shareholder investment, ergo sales of tobacco products have lost importance as they lost value. A couple of conglomerates are left that have substantial tobacco product holdings. I suspect they understand they are extremely vulnerable, as even the third world is starting to demonize tobacco, and so will take profits as long as possible. There are only a couple of such entities, as I understand, and I bet they see the writing on the wall, brands they own are disappearing, prices increasing at their level even as they fight to hold back local tax increases.
Now, I still hold to the thought that tobacco will not totally disappear, at least not while there is profit to be wrung from such. Boutique blenders will survive, a few may thrive as the competition shrinks. Some tobacco growers will persist and profit from a severely restricted market. And, we pipe smokers will continue to complain about the lack of availability of certain blends, greedy hoarders, Peterson's quality control problems, all the "Bigs", etc.
If and until society finds another social behavior to change, nothing will change with respect to tobacco products. A couple generations down the road smokers may indeed find acceptance. Of course pigs will be flying also. And, those taking up smoking today? They'll have the same complaints and most likely some new ones. Stranger things have happened. Over a couple of centuries smoking went from a private, almost hidden and socially unacceptable action to a multi-billion dollar enterprise and back to a socially unacceptable behavior. Will it rise again? I doubt any current members of this site will ever know. Until then we will continue to suffer injustice from the hands of the majority.
- Status