Is the anti-smoking campaign simply political in nature?

2015-10-16T23:33:35-04:00

Of course it's bad for your health to smoke but ever wonder what motivates the 'truth.com' commercials? I wonder if these same people behind truth.com support legalized pot? Even though the American lung association says smoking pot is just like smoking cigarettes. Is this a liberal push to defund conservative contributions from big tobacco?

Response by SrA Art Siatkowsky made Oct 16 at 2015 11:35 PM

2015-10-16T23:35:43-04:00

http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smoking-facts/marijuana-and-lung-health.html

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 17 at 2015 3:28 AM

2015-10-17T03:28:05-04:00

You mean to say that setting the foliage on fire and breathing in the smoke is bad for you?
Who'd have ever guessed?
The shocker for me was that it took 25 years to stop doing it.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 17 at 2015 5:15 AM

2015-10-17T05:15:50-04:00

Yes, and no.

Simple question for a complex subject.

People make money off these campaigns. Anywhere there is money, there is politics.

That doesn't mean it isn't based off basic health concerns. It is. But it also doesn't mean the people involved in the promotion aren't driven by other goals.

Simply put, the people who START a campaign have one motive (health). The people who RUN a campaign have a different goal (money). The people who PARTICIPATE in a campaign can have a third goal (politics).

Response by Sgt Tom Cunnally made Oct 17 at 2015 5:55 AM

2015-10-17T05:55:37-04:00

No it started in 1963 by the Surgeon General and the Doctors were on my case about smoking since I was in grade school...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2015 1:10 PM

2015-10-17T13:10:57-04:00

Ironically up here in Minnesota the Tobacco Settlement funds were used to launch an anti-smoking campaign of ads. The result of this and a more recent campaign to ban smoking in resturaunts, bars, and public parks in the name of health has indeed resulted in a decline in smoking, starving some sacred cows of their revenue stream from taxes on cigarettes.
In theory, this should be a net win, as people are healthier and have less smoking induced health consequences. In practice, since certain programs are solely funded through certain funding streams, the very bureaucracy built to fight smoking is finding itself working itself out of business. Anathema! Now in order to justify it's continued existence, e-cigarettes are in the crosshairs. Must... make... evil... legal... products...pay...

Response by COL Ted Mc made Oct 17 at 2015 2:25 PM

2015-10-17T14:25:01-04:00

SrA Art Siatkowsky - Airman; Without having a full scientific study to back me up, I'd probably agree that smoking pot is as dangerous as smoking cigarettes.

On the other hand, if you smoke two packs of weed per day, you aren't going to be doing much else.

IOW, the argument is like saying that having two glasses of wine with dinner is as harmful as going to the bar and drinking two dozen beers.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-10-17T16:30:29-04:00

Is the anti-drug campaign political in nature? Is the anti-pre-teen pregnancy campaign political in nature? Is the Mother's Against Drunk Driving (MADD) political in nature? They all have in common one simple thing. The answer to your question is no.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 19 at 2015 7:45 AM

2015-10-19T07:45:45-04:00

Oh... it is political. and they are mirroring it to use against guns. :)

While many tired of politic ... but politic is life ... so ignoring politic just mean ignoring your life. :) I learn this lesson hard from my ancestors at my x-home country.