Adult smoking rate rises slightly for 1st time in 15 years

[onehandle]

Source: AP

ATLANTA (AP) — Cigarette smoking rose slightly for the first time in almost 15 years, dashing health officials' hopes that the U.S. smoking rate had moved permanently below 20%.

A little under 21% of Americans were current cigarette smokers, according to a 2008 national survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's up slightly from the year before, when just 19.8% said they were smoking. It also is the first increase in adult smoking since 1994, experts noted.

The increase was so small, it could be just a blip, so health officials and experts say smoking prevalence is flat, not rising. But they are unhappy.

"Clearly, we've hit a wall in reducing adult smoking," said Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington, D.C.- based research and advocacy organization.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-12-smoking-tobacco_N.htm

---

Time to raise the tobacco taxes again.

[bluestateguy]

1. More money for SCHIP

nt

[ElboRuum]

2. Not surprising...

Smoking is quite a popular salve for the discomfiture caused by an uncertain economic future.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. Couple of things

It's said that it's harder to quit cigarettes than heroin. They're very addictive.

I've had friends return to smoking when they've been anxious. This economy gives lots of reasons to be anxious.

And I've smoked, and found it gives you something to do when you're not doing anything special.

[WriteDown]

4. And the president smokes...

There is still something rebellious about smoking.

[brendan120678]

10. OBAMA'S FAULT! (nt)

[WriteDown]

11. Nonsense...

Just shows that smoking is not the pentultimate evil that it is portrayed as.

[brendan120678]

13. I know..I was just pretending to be...

as reactionary as many people here seem to be at times.

[Demit]

25. What does pentultimate mean?

[ElboRuum]

30. Penultimate means...

Not quite, but very close to, the last or greatest/worst. Ergo, a penultimate evil is evil that is great in the extreme, but just short of the most evil possible.

[Demit]

41. LOL! Penultimate just means next to last. It has nothing to do with greatest or worst anything.

Although I like your made-up "great in the extreme, but just short of" description, especially when introduced by the "ergo". Very scholarly.

[ElboRuum]

43. I did say that's what it meant...

I said "last or greatest/worst". In the second case, it is often used when describing something that is the next to greatest or worst of something, in terms of meaning the next to last point in the continuum upon which something is judged. This is much in the same manner as ultimate means last, but is often used in the same manner of greatest or worst. Nevertheless, I'm heartened that you were entertained by my scholarly description.

[Demit]

47. When it's used to mean 'next to greatest or worst' it is being misused.

No matter how often people do it. If you want to argue the case that so many people misuse it that it has become acceptable usage, that's one thing. But it usually misused by people who think it means somehow beyond ultimate. They are intending it as a superlative.

It's pretty clear that the poster who used it in this thread was striving for that kind of emphasis. His point was that people portray smoking as the super-duper worst thing there is, not the second worst thing there is.

Haha! The 'continuum upon which something is judged'. That's great. But you're still making stuff up, in that you're back-forming a definition to defend the misuse of a word.

[ElboRuum]

50. If they are using it...

...as a superlative, then yes, they are absolutely misusing it, because the essence of meaning is "next to last", which is why the prefix is placed before "ultimate" which IS the superlative. But I don't think that's necessarily true here. Reading it as the next to worst thing also makes sense.

But I also think that you are too narrowly interpreting the definition. "Last" can have many meanings as well. Last could be positional, temporal, or simply as a direct synonym for final. To add to the breadth of that definition, it is true that both positional and temporal meanings can be related to diverse metrics as well. The metric specifically relevant to this discussion is the positional one, even more specifically the continuum to which I referred and to which you were so gracious as to quotidinously scorn. This would, indeed, make phrases such as "penultimate evil" sufficiently correct usages, even if they are creative beyond acceptable measure by your tastes.

I would be reticent to casually declare words as "misused" when it is clear by the definition itself that such versatility is possible. Even people given to high scholarship of the English language recognize its capacity for versatility and its penchant for being happily imprecise. As such, even they often cannot agree on certain issues of proper use, so I'm generally wary of stern assuredness in the precision and intent of definitions.

[Demit]

59. Coupla points, Mr "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean":

If you're going to bring up the concept of metrics—metrics, after all, being systems for measuring things quantifiably—be aware that you are actually making my point. Because it is impossible to locate the exact position of 'not quite but very close to' or 'just short of most'—your definitions for penultimate. Metrics are relevant here exactly because the meaning of penultimate is specific—because it refers to a specific location of an object in a defined list of things. It is an objectively pinpointable thing, not subjective judgment: the way, for example, you would say someone is second in line, not 'very nearly almost just about at the head' of the line.

In terms of creativity, it might've made more sense for you to argue that the original poster was coining a new word with 'pentultimate'—that he wished to convey that, apparently, smoking is five times as bad as (whatever is) the ultimate evil. That would've been amusing, and I would've enjoyed the creativity of it.

But I don't share your approval of taking words that have specific meanings and making them 'happily imprecise.' If your purpose is art, we can appreciate your creativity (so long as we can still understand the point you're making). If your purpose is communication, however, the effect is not so benign. Imprecision causes confusion, misunderstanding, and worse. Then you're really through the Looking Glass.

By the way, this will be not my penultimate but my ultimate reply to you. Fun chatting and all.

[ElboRuum]

60. Well sorry to once again disagree.

You will say the meaning is specific. I say it is not. And so on it goes. The rest of your argument follows from this disagreement from which neither you or I will yield our respective viewpoints. So it is right this conversation should end. Be well.

[marshall]

58. Obama has certainly brought the mystique back to smoking

He makes it look elegant and relaxing. And he doesn't overdo it.

[wuushew]

22. President Obama describes himself as a former smoker

At his press conference this afternoon, President Obama, who calls himself a "former smoker," acknowledged that he still occasionally falls "off the wagon."

The president said that he does not smoke in front of his kids or the rest of his family, and compared his situation to that of a recovering alcoholic.

"I've said before that as a former smoker I constantly struggle with it," the president said. "Have I fallen off the wagon sometimes? Yes. Am I a daily smoker, a constant smoker? No."


http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/23/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5106579.shtml



Sounds like something he is not proud of. I support his continued effort to beat his addiction.

[bjb]

29. Sort of like

President Bartlett on West Wing perhaps?

[ElboRuum]

5. True, true, and true. n/t

[Wizard777]

7. With all the prohibitive measure being taken on the state level. An increase should be expected.

At least that is the effect every other prohibition enacted has had. We Americans are some of the most contrary people to ever exist. The best way to get us to do something is make it illegal for us to do that. That goes all the way back to King George telling us not use his new colony to start a new country. Guess what we did? LMAO Smokers are probably just trying to increase their numbers to get their political power and bars back.

[LanternWaste]

26. Don't worry about it... simply have a cool, refreshing smoke.

Don't worry about it... simply have a cool, refreshing smoke.

Nine out of ten doctors recommend a satisfying King George cigarette when melodramatic statements get you down. Mildness, better taste, and a cool smoke will help your stress levels, make the women crazy about you, and satisfy that little itch complaining can never seem to scratch.

[Submariner]

38. Reagan would agree with you

[Tabasco_Dave]

40. Let Go...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5bVXTGAkV0 :hide:

[totodeinhere]

63. That's no excuse for killing yourself.

It's illogical that if you are having economic problems you would then create one more problem by starting smoking. And that is not to mention the high cost of cigarettes. In bad economic times, having to spend money on cigarettes is the last thing that anyone needs.

[comtec]

6. I'm one...

sad really, first time smoker at 34.
im so stressed, i just don't know what to do about it any more.
1/3-1/2 a cigar-ette (none of this marlboro shit) a day. at night. after work.
it's... relaxing.

I know, I know.

But tell me another way to deal with a stressful job, 3 hours of down time before bed, a pending divorce, TWO siblings with cancer (ok one is just my best friend since the 3rd grade) the death of my grandmother recently, and TOTAL uncertainty about life, the universe, and everything, I WILL try it!

Till then, as long as it's legal, and on my property, i'm gonna try it.
I'm also happy certain other things are legal to smoke here as well, then I smoke even LESS! =]

[sinkingfeeling]

8. Stress will do that.

[Speck Tater]

9. 255 smoke-free days for me. :) nt

[Abacus]

14. Same here! :)

Since March 1st +/-

Been missing it lately, though. When I first quit, I had smoking dreams and felt guilty; then, I had smoking dreams and felt relieved.

[laughingliberal]

16. Good for you! :)

I have too many failed attempts to quit to even count any more. My hat's off to anyone who can make it.

[Speck Tater]

37. I had 40+ years of failed attempts. Then my best friend got lung cancer.

That was enough to convince me to stop pretending to quit and actually quit.

[Luciferous]

62. Good for you

I've been smoke-free for almost 3 years. It was hard, but worth it!

[Auggie]

12. 7+ years smoke free... and I could start up again this minute so easy

I won't of course. But I'll admit I'm still addicted.

[laughingliberal]

17. You have my deep admiration

Have smoked for 42 years (since I was 12) and have failed repeatedly at trying to quit. And I'm not a lightweight at kicking addictions. Have been recovering from heroin addiction since I was 17 and alcoholism since I was 22. Any one who can make it 7 years off cigarettes deserves my admiration in spades.

[Auggie]

18. A million thanks

:hi:

[Le Taz Hot]

46. My B.F.F.

just quit after smoking for 49 years. I quit after smoking for 35 years. The motivation in both our cases was health. Mine was the fact that I'm a chronic asthmatic (how's THAT for ultimate stupid -- a smoking asthmatic). My friend's motivation turned out to be her blood pressure. She kept complaining that every time she went to the doctor, they'd take her BP and it was always high. I reminded her that she would smoke a cigarette right before going into his office. I suggested that she take her BP first thing in the morning before coffee & cigs, then take it again after coffee & cigs. She did and the difference in BP was astounding. (Before coffee/cigs, 120/90. After coffee/cigs, 170/120.) That was enough to motivate her to quit. We both used the patch along with some other techniques to get that ciggie "high" and we figured out other techniques to keep the hands occupied. People don't realize that there's more to quitting smoking than just dealing with the nicotine withdrawals.

[Taverner]

15. It's all the laid off people

I'd be back to smoking too!

[David Zephyr]

39. You might be on to something.

Makes sense.

[MilitarismFTL]

19. Seems like tobacco taxes go to ads...

that are ineffective (shown by the "flat" trend of smoking adults, ha), and tend to make smokers want to smoke more because they're seeing cigarettes everywhere. I'm an on again/off again smoker, and it is most definitely the most difficult thing to quit that I've ever dealt with. I find that the less money I have the more I want to smoke. Considering I live waaaay below the poverty line in NYC, and I know many people in similar situations, smoking becomes more of a tax on the poor. Now it's just a choice between a few cigarettes or a meal.

[d_r]

20. times is hard

[Mari333]

21. I quit because I didnt want to pay taxes for SCHIP

when the feds are spending 180 million a day on WAR. I find it offensive they hit up the poor instead/

I dont, otherwise, give a shit about my health, I am too old to give a shit.

[svpadgham]

23. Don't Forget

Anti-smoking commercials are really annoying. I've been smoke-free for only 7 months and the worst moments for me come when I watch a truth-in commercial. I've sat in smoke filled bars, hung around smokers at the bus station or airport while waiting, and I'm good, but as soon as one of those commercials come on I find an urge to light-up. Fortunately, I don't.

[jfkraus]

24. Tobacco is a weapon of mass destruction.

Approximately 435,0001 people die each year from tobacco. Why are these tobacco industry people not in prison? Timothy McVeigh killed only 168 people.

[ElboRuum]

31. I'm going to assume the number is 435,000...

because 435,0001 only bears a passing resemblance to a real number. Real as in the sense of actual, not as in the form of not imaginary... of course, it's also real in that sense, too... OK, none of this is very important to the topic, so I'll move on.

Anyhoo. To answer your question. It's legal, and no one is forcing anyone to purchase the product. Quite simple really.

[jfkraus]

33. I understand it's legality

Why is it legal? It's deadly. And hurts more than just the smoker. There is precedence. Why do I have to wear a seatbelt for instance? I'm the only one at risk.

[ElboRuum]

35. Lots of things in our society which we can do...

...pose potential harm to ourselves and others, and yet we still are legally permitted to do them. Those things are often regulated. This principle of regulation is fundamental to balancing freedom of individual choice with the wants or needs of a society. It represents a middle ground where personal liberties can be protected against encroachment by societal interests by making certain kinds of expressions of those liberties carry consequence.

[Unvanguard]

57. There are cost reasons for the seatbelt thing.

By not wearing a seatbelt, you increase your risk of injury, and thus of additional medical costs resulting from an accident. This raises insurance costs for everyone.

Then again, smoking probably raises health care costs for everyone, too. It's just that past instances of drug bans haven't ended very well; cigarette smoking is addictive enough that you'd have a flourishing black market, which would increase crime and probably make smoking even more dangerous.

[Alcibiades]

27. They should try snuff instead

I made the switch, and you can, too! Nasal snuff is just as addictive, but without the side effects of inhaling smoke in your lungs. Sure, your snot turns brown, but it only costs about three dollars a month.

[Zorra]

28. Study Says State Film Subsidies Underwrite Tobacco-Friendly Movies

November 11, 2009, 9:53 am

A new report takes aim at state movie production subsidies for supporting films that depict smoking. Health researchers at the University of California, San Francisco, estimate that 60 percent of the $1.4 billion that states offered in 2008 to attract Hollywood filming went to movies with tobacco imagery.

The researchers tabulated that states gave about $500 million to “youth-rated” movies (PG and PG-13) and about $330 million R-rated movies. Combined, that is more than the 41 states that offer subsidies spend on antitobacco health programs, according to Stanton Glantz, an author of the report and a U.C.S.F. professor of medicine.

“These film subsidies undermine their own antitobacco programs,” Mr. Glantz said. The full report, released Tuesday and funded by the American Legacy Foundation, is available here.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/11/study-says-state-film-subsidies-underwrite-tobacco-friendly-movies/

Tobacco companies use films to promote smoking. They specifically target young people in order to encourage them to smoke so they can get them addicted to tobacco.

They also target ex-smokers, hoping to prey on their latent tobacco addiction in order to get them to start smoking again.

IMO, all films should be tobacco free by law. The film medium is very powerful. The murdererous sociopaths that own, run, and market the tobacco industry should not be able to stalk and capture their victims through tobacco use in films.

[ElboRuum]

34. Did you actually read the report?

Now, granted, I skimmed it, but I saw nothing in it to indicate what you're stating in your thesis, "Tobacco companies use films to promote smoking." Now, if you have read it fully and can point out where tobacco companies are being specifically implicated, I'd appreciate it. It's quite likely I've missed it.

What I took the report to read is that there is a proposal for a change in policy by state movie production agencies for stricter standards as to which films would qualify for such subsidies, primarily greater stringency of standards for movies depicting smoking where the rating allows people under 17 to view it. Now, I did read the part of the policy proposal which would require a signatory statement for movies that do have depictions of smoking, where the producers of the film testify that the presence of depiction of smoking was not influenced externally, essentially verifying that it was an artistic decision.

Now, while that statement could be construed as suspect, the report didn't supply any evidence to suggest that this was the motivating factor, at least not from what I saw. This is a good indicator that there wasn't any, or what little there was could not be proven sufficiently without opening up a legal can of worms, or that it was outside of the scope of the report. My guess is that such a loophole would be obvious should there actually be such happenings, and this is simply closing it up before it becomes an issue.

To say that all films should be tobacco free by law is unreasonable. Art very often reflects life, and that's a part of it. You can understand the slippery slope that would represent, because then any gritty "real-life" situations where people aren't behaving as avatars of clean and healthy living could also become fodder for the axe.

[StrongSilentFont]

51. Tobacco companies and film deals

The documented evidence in once-secret tobacco industry files, discovered during lawsuits, shows that the tobacco industry has collaborated commercially with the US film industry in at least six of the past eight decades.

A vivid report on the cross-promotion deals surrounding the smoking in Golden Age Hollywood can be found at www.smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/pdf/SignedSealed.pdf. In the 1950s and 1960s, the tobacco industry was a leading TV show-owner and sponsor, bypassing the studios. After TV ads were banned, the tobacco industry's paid product placement in feature films accelerated, influencing hundreds of films in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

The 1998 Master Settlement Agreement between state Attorneys General and the domestic tobacco companies barred paid placement and brand display in entertainment seen by young people. The incidence of smoking actually increased in US films after this agreement. One hypothesis is that the tobacco giants' overseas siblings and their agents continued to contract with producers: film is a multinational business. The proposal that any film with smoking seeking public subsidy file a legally-binding statement that nobody connected to the production has entered into any tobacco-related agreement is prudent, given the long history, and much like the conflict-of-interest stipulations of many other public sector agreements.

However smoking gets into kid-rated films, there's no sense in taxpayers subsidizing it. Tobacco already costs the country some $196 billion in health costs. States are raiding their tobacco settlements, cutting back anti-tobacco efforts, and devoting even more money to subsidizing movies that account for more than a million current smokers ages 12-17. 400,000 of them will ultimately die from tobacco diseases. What's wrong with this picture?

UCSF has estimated that smoking on screen is worth $4 billion (npv) annually to the tobacco industry, because of the young people it recruits. Anyone on this site should know whom the tobacco industry funds with its political dollars.

The UCSF report on $1.4 billion in state film subsidies and the link to youth smoking is at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8nc8422j.

(Pardon the long post, but details matter.)

[StrongSilentFont]

52. Filmmakers won't be censored

A clarification:

The UCSF report says kid-rated movies with smoking should be ineligible for taxpayer subsidies. It does not propose a "ban" on tobacco imagery.

This is congruent with policy proposals endorsed by leading health groups, the LA County Department of Health, and the New York State Department of Health that future films with smoking be rated "R" — with exceptions for unambiguous depictions of the health consequences or smoking by real historical figures (such as Churchill).

When smoking is a factor in MPAA ratings and public subsidies, producers would make a decision about what smoking on screen is worth, just as they routinely calculate other content now.

Nothing would prohibit smoking in any film. Along with 60%+ of PG-13 films, about 80% of R-rated films already feature smoking; the latter would be unaffected by either the rating or subsidy policy.

[graywarrior]

32. I'm staying the fuck out of this one.

[DebbieCDC]

36. Not surprising -- people are under extreme stress these days

If you are a smoker, when stressed you smoke more.

If you are a reformed smoker, stress may send you back to the pack.

(Speaking as a member of the 11 years without a cig club, I know the effects financial/marital/work stress can have on smoking habits)

[Toots]

42. Pretty much underlines the fact that America as a whole is getting dumber.

Why would anyone in this day and age with all that we know about tobacco start smoking? :crazy:

[ElboRuum]

44. FACT: Smart people can do stupid things.

Intelligence and common sense fail everyone.

[Lagomorph]

53. Plenty of them drink, same deal.

[BennyD]

45. Stress is a major factor. There will always be people who smoke, they enjoy it. (n/t)

[truthisfreedom]

48. Lost job=too much free time at home=smoking

[sofa king]

49. Yep. Poverty and vice go hand in hand like Goebbels and Rove.

[totodeinhere]

64. Lost job also = less money to by cigarettes doesn't it? n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

54. I know mine has. Went from 4 cigs a day to half a pack.

Glad to be supporting SCHIP and my state's early childhood programs. :)

[rayofreason]

55. Do you smoke after sex?

I've never looked.

Jokes aside, no one can claim that there is misinformation about smoking. Everyone knows that smoking is bad for your health. I don't smoke, but I won't demonize those who do. Make your own choice and live (or die) with it.

[Unvanguard]

56. Well, that's bad news for health care cost containment--not to mention life expectancy. n/t

[cigsandcoffee]

61. 40 yrs after putting a man on the moon, they still can't make a cigarette that's good for you.

Ridiculous.

As for raising taxes on them, lets go ahead and don't. It's mostly a tax on the poor.

[Codeine]

66. It's a tax on the dumb.

Nobody forces people to smoke.

[joshcryer]

68. It's called an electronic cigarette, and certain to be banned or highly regulated soon enough.

:hi:

[Vidar]

65. Stress will do that.

[krabigirl]

67. Makes sense, when you basically ban something, it becomes attractive again.

Especially when people are under stress and not sure what tomorrow will bring.