# War on Sugar?



## sabrinathecat (Feb 9, 2014)

San Francisco was (maybe already have) planning on adding a tax to "sugary drinks". Medical studies are claiming that too much sugar can kill. No kidding: too much of anything can kill.

This seems like some attempt to legislate morality.

Honestly, if sugar can kill, then they should hall me into a lab. Based on what I ate as a teenager and in college, I should be dead.
I find this study that is being quoted and touted as the basis for this law highly suspect. Somehow, call me suspicious, but I suspect it will be found to be on par with the poisonous immunization and EM Fields cause Cancer panics.

Sorry if this borders on political, but I am actually only interested in whether this is Science, or "Science" distorted by a corrupting agenda.
What do you all think?


----------



## Joker (Feb 9, 2014)

As far as I understand it, and I am by no means learned on the subject, too much sugar greatly increases the risk of developing some forms of diabetes and heart disease.
So unless you actually overdose on sugar it won't directly kill you but it can decrease your life expectancy greatly.

As far as taxing it concerns, I don't know.  Has taxing cigarettes stopped people from smoking?  Or smoking less.  Perhaps there have been studies showing that.

If people are to change their eating habits it's going to take a more encompassing approach that just making it a tad more expensive.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 9, 2014)

There was a documentary on TV a couple of weeks ago.  Two doctors, twins, tested out the war on sugar (common in the US) and the war on fat (common in the UK) on strictly controlled diets for one month.

I need to track that down and watch it to find out what happened!


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 9, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> This seems like some attempt to legislate morality.



Ain't this what laws are about? At least in part? Murder is immoral so we legislate, thievery is immoral so we legislate, etc.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 9, 2014)

It's simple: eating sugar leads to increased healthcare costs, some of which are invariably borne by the state. Taxes offset the costs. It's not legislating morality; people can still eat as much of it as they want, they just have to pay more.

It's a public health issue, just like smoking. Not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer; some don't even get any particular smoking-related disease. Nonetheless, the effects averaged out over millions of people are pretty substantial. Likewise, some people can eat tons of sugar are fine, but type ii diabetes is nonetheless a clear problem.

Really, this ought to be the approach to a lot of things: create an honest price that reflects not only supply and demand and production costs, but also the broader societal costs.


----------



## Janx (Feb 9, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Ain't this what laws are about? At least in part? Murder is immoral so we legislate, thievery is immoral so we legislate, etc.




I'm not sure murder and thievery are immoral so much as harmful for society.

If you steal my diamongs, I now don't have diamonds and am hurt.

If you kill me, I am now not able to mine diamonds.  Which hurts my family.

These 2 things are actual harm from one person to another.  And since the victim isn't a consenting adult, it is wrong/bad.


Legislation on other issues that aren't about a hostile force acting against an unwilling victim may very well be "morality" laws.

At least as how I sort these things


----------



## Janx (Feb 9, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> It's simple: eating sugar leads to increased healthcare costs, some of which are invariably borne by the state. Taxes offset the costs. It's not legislating morality; people can still eat as much of it as they want, they just have to pay more.
> 
> It's a public health issue, just like smoking. Not everyone that smokes gets lung cancer; some don't even get any particular smoking-related disease. Nonetheless, the effects averaged out over millions of people are pretty substantial. Likewise, some people can eat tons of sugar are fine, but type ii diabetes is nonetheless a clear problem.
> 
> Really, this ought to be the approach to a lot of things: create an honest price that reflects not only supply and demand and production costs, but also the broader societal costs.




Keep in mind, health insurance (as run by a Health Insurance Carrier) is functionally performing the same mechanism of spreading the cost of healing you to everybody else.  So it's not just taxes where the money impact hits.  (nor am I intending a political statement on healthcare, taxes, etc)

In any event.  The value to encourage the public to be more healthful might be worth the intrusion (via laws) into individual freedom.

With smoking, it really does impact other people as their smoke gets into my lungs and makes my clothes smell.  That alone makes me want to kill every smoker (not gonna happen, relax).  So I don't care about the cost to healthcare that eventually causes prices to be higher due to smokers.  I care about the immediate impact that their actions have on me, the unwilling victim.

Whereas with sugar-eaters, there's not the same directly harmful impact to me from them eating sugar now.  Nobody popping a Hershey's into their mouth in front of me is impacting me in any direct way.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 9, 2014)

Janx said:


> I'm not sure murder and thievery are immoral so much as harmful for society.



I'm pretty sure killing someone is harmful to that person too. 



> If you steal my diamongs, I now don't have diamonds and am hurt.
> 
> If you kill me, I am now not able to mine diamonds.  Which hurts my family.
> 
> These 2 things are actual harm from one person to another.  And since the victim isn't a consenting adult, it is wrong/bad.



Ain't wrong/bad generally synonymous with immoral? 



> Legislation on other issues that aren't about a hostile force acting against an unwilling victim may very well be "morality" laws.



Doesn't protecting against hostile force encompasse health risk and security laws? Like legislating the number of bacterias in ground beef, ban shoe sole chemicals from bread, or not letting people smoke cigarettes in restaurants to protect people from harmful second hand smoke. Legislating sugar is pretty much in that same vein.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 9, 2014)

Janx said:


> Keep in mind, health insurance (as run by a Health Insurance Carrier) is functionally performing the same mechanism of spreading the cost of healing you to everybody else.  So it's not just taxes where the money impact hits.



True, however, the reality is that taxes do contribute to the costs of other people's medical care in various ways no matter where you live.



> Whereas with sugar-eaters, there's not the same directly harmful impact to me from them eating sugar now.  Nobody popping a Hershey's into their mouth in front of me is impacting me in any direct way.



One of those people who complains about trying to fit into a plane seat next to an obese person might disagree with you. That said, you're generally right that the connection is much less direct. I suspect the amount of money being attached to sugar is also much less than on cigarettes; those things are taxed quite a bit.

However, an individual's health does have consequences for other people.


----------



## Janx (Feb 9, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> True, however, the reality is that taxes do contribute to the costs of other people's medical care in various ways no matter where you live.




as a chunk of my work is with carriers, higher taxes aren't the major place your wallet is hit on health costs.  Let's just say, I see numbers.  I am saddened by the dumber expenditures that happen.



Ahnehnois said:


> One of those people who complains about trying to fit into a plane seat next to an obese person might disagree with you. That said, you're generally right that the connection is much less direct. I suspect the amount of money being attached to sugar is also much less than on cigarettes; those things are taxed quite a bit.
> 
> However, an individual's health does have consequences for other people.




I don't disagree that fat people can have an impact on me as an individual.  But those times are less intrusive that smoking (usually).  There was the case where my neighbor's kid got his leg broke when a fat kid got shoved and he fell on him.  Thus heavy person's weight did indeed hurt somebody else.

I'd rather see efforts to educate people to use moderation etc, than laws to outlaw sugar.  The issue doesn't seem strong enough to warrant making laws for it.  I have no idea what that threshold is, but I like outlawing smoking (at least wherever I am).


----------



## trappedslider (Feb 9, 2014)

Joker said:


> As far as taxing it concerns, I don't know.  Has taxing cigarettes stopped people from smoking?  Or smoking less.  Perhaps there have been studies showing that.





Actually yes..a number of studies have shown that smoking has gone  due in part to the cost associated with it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 9, 2014)

Janx said:


> I'd rather see efforts to educate people to use moderation etc, than laws to outlaw sugar.  The issue doesn't seem strong enough to warrant making laws for it.  I have no idea what that threshold is, but I like outlawing smoking (at least wherever I am).



Frankly, I don't think those kinds of efforts are sufficient. I think attaching a real cost is a nice middle ground; it's not like they're trying to ban sugar or even limit consumption to a particular amount. I think that if you look at obesity statistics (particularly child obesity), there is ample justification.

Sugar production is in fact heavily subsidized by the federal government (in the US anyway). The food marketplace is flooded with fat, salt, and sugar not just because of consumer demand but because of subsidies. It only makes sense to me to change the underlying finances to make the stuff in the grocery store contain less of certain excesses. And you can bet that if sugar is taxed, companies that make food will start competing to create appealing options with less of it, and consumers will take notice.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 9, 2014)

What several people has touched on it the idea of using the law and taxes as social engineering tools. That's a very dangerous and slippery slope.

I figured it would be an attempt to get at obesity. As has been pointed out, Sin Taxes hand prohibition laws have totally failed to discourage the activity they are meant to be decreasing/abolishing.

I would like to see someone audit the study before laws are passed.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 9, 2014)

It's not SUGAR that's being taxed though.  It's "sugary" drinks, and generally lumped in with sports and energy drinks which are considered objectionable not because of sweeteners but caffiene.  Many soda formulas switched from real sugar to artificial sweeteners long ago for the simple expedient of _cost_.  It's "things which have too many calories" that are being taxed by these laws.  But that's really not the real motivation.  The real motivation is MONEY.

They are implementing these taxes not because they are actually interested in lowering health care costs.  If they were then they would be applying the money coming FROM these taxes directly to health care and address two aspects of the issue at once - discourage buying unhealthy drinks and food while helping to pay for the higher health costs unhealthy food and drinks bring with them.  Individual laws MIGHT do that but I'll wager good money most of them just put money into a general fund.  The money that will ultimately be derived from these taxes will be very substantial.   Technically the money will be available still to apply to worsening health issues but it won't be - it will be used for other things and money applied to health care won't increase.

But you can't sell the idea of this kind of tax to people as easily based on "It'll be a really awesome source of new revenue."  So instead it is framed as, "We're ONLY concerned with public health and the associated costs.  The fat sums of money that we can then apply to whatever graft and waste government programs to get ourselves re-elected actually has nothing to do with it."

The twist is that the more they tax these things the more the government will come to RELY on the tax coming from these things and then if they actually DID reduce their purchase and use they will only drive the need to tax them ever more severely or stretch further to find something else to tax.


----------



## Joker (Feb 9, 2014)

trappedslider said:


> Actually yes..a number of studies have shown that smoking has gone  due in part to the cost associated with it.




Do the studies show a direct correlation between higher prices and reduced use or could it also be a number of other factors such as a ban on advertising and a strong anti-smoking campaign?


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 9, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> What several people has touched on it the idea of using the law and taxes as social engineering tools. That's a very dangerous and slippery slope.



Actually, saying it is dangerous is a slippery slope.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 9, 2014)

Joker said:


> Do the studies show a direct correlation between higher prices and reduced use or could it also be a number of other factors such as a ban on advertising and a strong anti-smoking campaign?



Here is a recent article than talks about such a study. I guess you coudl track down the study.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 9, 2014)

Yeah, anyone remember "new coke" in the 80s? A drink everyone hated, so coke cola brought back "classic coke" and later just coke? But they neglected to advertise that they weren't using sugar anymore, but corn syrup. (in fact, they kept saying it was the original formula, which was laughable, as the original formula contained opiates) Wasn't that nice? The "New Coke" was just something to distract people from the fact they were changing a principle ingredient, and keep them from noticing the taste change. (in theory)


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> The "New Coke" was just something to distract people from the fact they were changing a principle ingredient, and keep them from noticing the taste change. (in theory)




That sounds like conspiracy theory wackiness, to me.  They put up a whole new formula, paid the costs of an advertising campaign, and all, knowing and planning for it to fail (and the bad PR that goes with that failure), for a bait-and-switch?  To use a slightly cheaper sweetener?  Really?


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 9, 2014)

Umbran said:


> That sounds like conspiracy theory wackiness, to me.




Tinfoil hats are stylish.  You should get one!

"War" is a pretty strong term for this sort of thing.  Even "skirmish" goes a bit far.


----------



## Grehnhewe (Feb 9, 2014)

Forgive me as I have not read through the whole thread, but I think this is an interesting discussion.

A comparison between taxation on smoking and sugar.  Smoking is declining.  Only 10% of Americans smoke, according to an article I read this morning.  They predict this will drop down to 5% over the next 30 years.  Why is this so?  Is it the increased cost and taxation, knowledge of the effects on heLth or the general loss of favor and social stigma associated with it?

Sugar, one could argue is just as harmful as smoking.  Arguably there are no immediate effects to others such as is associated with second hand smoke.  However is not obesity described as an epidemic and on the rise?  Hasn't diabetes trumped smoking related diseases as a drain on the health system.  Which has the most negative social connotation?  They fat guy standing on the corner eating candy and pizza or the slim guy smoking a cigarette?  I don't think it is taxation that has led to the drop in smoking.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 9, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> What several people has touched on it the idea of using the law and taxes as social engineering tools. That's a very dangerous and slippery slope.




It is, however, also a time-honored tradition, in practice for about as long as humans have had laws or taxes.  I suppose sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't.

Humans are not terribly good at long-term risk assessment.  We tend to go for short-term pleasures or gains over long-term well-being.  Is something that helps support making good long-term choices, but doesn't actually prohibit the short term pleasure much, if we want it, really such a bad idea?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 10, 2014)

Grehnhewe said:


> Sugar, one could argue is just as harmful as smoking.



Well, to be fair, sugar is a basic nutrient that all of us need a substantial amount of. It's only a problem when it's eaten in the absence of other nutrients, and to excess. Which, unfortunately, is happening quite a bit these days.

It's also not as addictive as smoking (though sugar is addictive).

Trying to figure out this challenge of getting people to be healthier without _forcing_ them to is really one of the themes of first world life in the twentieth century.


----------



## Grehnhewe (Feb 10, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, to be fair, sugar is a basic nutrient that all of us need a substantial amount of. It's only a problem when it's eaten in the absence of other nutrients, and to excess. Which, unfortunately, is happening quite a bit these days.
> 
> It's also not as addictive as smoking (though sugar is addictive).
> 
> Trying to figure out this challenge of getting people to be healthier without _forcing_ them to is really one of the themes of first world life in the twentieth century.



You bring up a good point.  Sugar is a basic nutrient, similar to fat.  Both of which have good and bad forms.  Trans-fats I would say have been successfully vilified.  There are certainly different forms of sugar.  This certainly makes smoking different as it does not have a healthful form.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 10, 2014)

Grehnhewe said:


> This certainly makes smoking different as it does not have a healthful form.



It doesn't have a _nutritional_ form. Nicotine can be a performance-enhancer. Not worth it, though.


----------



## Nellisir (Feb 10, 2014)

Morrus said:


> There was a documentary on TV a couple of weeks ago.  Two doctors, twins, tested out the war on sugar (common in the US) and the war on fat (common in the UK) on strictly controlled diets for one month.




I just read an article about that.  I totally forget which lost more weight, but they both felt lethargic, mentally fatigued, and generally horrible.  I think neither one thought the extreme diets were worth the side effects.  Moderation in all things.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Feb 10, 2014)

The way people were talking, it sounded like a crusade was being made. The PR face person for the scientists and the politicians in SF were acting like they were climbing onto stallions to charge at some sinister phantasm and save people from themselves. Really. Not kidding. The way they phrased what they were doing and villifying sugar is part of what got my back up and has me questioning the validity of the study.

Pre "new coke" had sugar. "coke classic" had corn syrup.  Was it a deliberate bait and switch? I can't prove it. I suspect it. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't have a 30 yo can of coke to try a taste test with, nor do I have access to the minds of the executives and businessmen, nor the machinations they engaged in. Would it surprise me? No.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Feb 10, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Humans are not terribly good at long-term risk assessment.  We tend to go for short-term pleasures or gains over long-term well-being.  Is something that helps support making good long-term choices, but doesn't actually prohibit the short term pleasure much, if we want it, really such a bad idea?



Actually, yes.  When you let government run your life for you - right down to the food they let you eat - you put government in a position of perpetrating unthinkable abuses.  At _some _point people must be left free to live their lives as THEY choose, not as the governement chooses, and to be accountable for their own decisions.  Myself, I think that includes the government "allowing" people to suffer poor health due to obesity resulting from bad diet choices.  People ultiamately cannot be protected from every bad idea (such as the government declares it to be) without doing some very destructive things to society.  Protecting others from the results of MY bad decisions doesn't extend to governement starting to dictate _everyone else's_ diet.  The government is not there to be our nanny as Margaret Thatcher once said.  Or as Ronald Reagan said, "_Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves._"

No politics! Absolutely not. Thanks. - Lwaxy


----------



## Joker (Feb 10, 2014)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Actually, yes.  When you let government run your life for you - right down to the food they let you eat - you put government in a position of perpetrating unthinkable abuses.  At _some _point people must be left free to live their lives as THEY choose, not as the governement chooses, and to be accountable for their own decisions.  Myself, I think that includes the government "allowing" people to suffer poor health due to obesity resulting from bad diet choices.  People ultiamately cannot be protected from every bad idea (such as the government declares it to be) without doing some very destructive things to society.  Protecting others from the results of MY bad decisions doesn't extend to governement starting to dictate _everyone else's_ diet.  The government is not there to be our nanny as Margaret Thatcher once said.  Or as Ronald Reagan said, "_Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves._"




The problem is that they strain public resources because of increased health problems.

Also, if someone is suffering from alcohol and drug addiction, you step in to help them.  The same with abuse of some foods.


----------



## delericho (Feb 10, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Sugar production is in fact heavily subsidized by the federal government (in the US anyway)...
> 
> And you can bet that if sugar is taxed, companies that make food will start competing to create appealing options with less of it, and consumers will take notice.




Given the first sentence I've quoted, then surely before taxing sugar the first step should be to end (or sharply reduce) the subsidies for sugar production?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 10, 2014)

delericho said:


> Given the first sentence I've quoted, then surely before taxing sugar the first step should be to end (or sharply reduce) the subsidies for sugar production?



Well yes, but getting into the mechanics of that is almost certainly going to take us over the line from science into politics.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 10, 2014)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> Actually, yes.  When you let government run your life for you....




Sorry, my bad!  I left a leading question that was too close to the line.

I'll leave it off with saying that I agree that governments should not run the lives of citizens - I just don't think raising the price of highly sugared drinks a bit counts as "running your life".  Opinions on that will vary, of course.


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 10, 2014)

I think the focus that gov'ts are putting on junk food and soda is missing the point. I think they are targets because of the stereotype of the fat teenager who lives on nothing but MacDonalds. But most of us who struggle with our weight know enough not to be dining on happy meals all the time (or ever). We all eat different things, and different things seem to affect different people in different ways (famously, in the documentary Super Size Me, a man is interviewed who lives on nothing but Big Macs and is skinny as a rail). 

I think the real problem is that so much of our lives are sedentary now. We sit in an office all day only to come home and sit in front of our computers. Whereas exercise was once an integral part of our lives, now its something we have to intentionally work in. I suspect this is why obesity is an epidemic.

Of course, science is all over the map on this as with everything else. So who knows!


----------



## Dungeoneer (Feb 10, 2014)

Highly apropos - just read an excellent New York Times article about why no one seems to be able to say anything for sure about nutrition. Here are a few choice morsels:



> Because the nutrition research community has failed to establish reliable, unambiguous knowledge about the environmental triggers of obesity and diabetes, it has opened the door to a diversity of opinions on the subject, of hypotheses about cause, cure and prevention, many of which cannot be refuted by the existing evidence. Everyone has a theory. The evidence doesn’t exist to say unequivocally who’s wrong.






> Nutritionists have adjusted to this reality by accepting a lower standard of evidence on what they’ll believe to be true. They do experiments with laboratory animals, for instance, following them for the better part of the animal’s lifetime — a year or two in rodents, say — and assume or at least hope that the results apply to humans. And maybe they do, but we can’t know for sure without doing the human experiments.
> 
> They do experiments on humans — the species of interest — for days or weeks or even a year or two and then assume that the results apply to decades. And maybe they do, but we can’t know for sure. That’s a hypothesis, and it must be tested.
> 
> ...




Read the whole thing here.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 10, 2014)

Dungeoneer said:


> no one seems to be able to say anything for sure about nutrition.



True. Research is hard, both because of funding limitations and bureaucracy but also because getting data that answers the tough questions poses serious practical and ethical challenges.

However, public policy does not require the level of knowledge you seem to be implying. Many laws are enacted without that kind of evidence supporting them. If we waited for absolute truth in order to do something, we'd be waiting forever.

A lot of times, the way these things work is that a small jurisdiction (like, say, San Fransisco) tries something out first, something that may be fairly experimental or of uncertain merit, and then if it seems to do well, other, larger bodies will pick up on it.



> I think the real problem is that so much of our lives are sedentary now.



Also true, but very difficult to legislate. A lot of times, law is about picking low-hanging fruit. Changing the activity level of a significant number of people is an extraordinary difficult proposition.


----------



## billd91 (Feb 10, 2014)

delericho said:


> Given the first sentence I've quoted, then surely before taxing sugar the first step should be to end (or sharply reduce) the subsidies for sugar production?




You'd think so, wouldn't you? But the fact is, it's easier to get a series of taxes passed in smaller, like-minded municipalities and regions than it is to stop large economic sector subsidies in Washington where there are constituencies (and their politicians) who prefer those subsidies because they bring jobs to their districts (and political contributions and votes to the politicians who support them).


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 10, 2014)

Joker said:


> As far as taxing it concerns, I don't know.  Has taxing cigarettes stopped people from smoking?  Or smoking less.  Perhaps there have been studies showing that.



Yes, increased taxes and costs of smoking can drastically reduce the incidence of smoking (and thus longterm smoking-related health problems).  Whatever you may think of Bloomberg's "nanny state", his war on nicotine in New York City has drastically reduced smoking.


----------



## WayneLigon (Feb 10, 2014)

Joker said:


> As far as taxing it concerns, I don't know.  Has taxing cigarettes stopped people from smoking?  Or smoking less.  Perhaps there have been studies showing that.




It'll be interesting to see what might happen in wake of CVS deciding not to carry tobacco products at all, any more.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> It doesn't have a _nutritional_ form. Nicotine can be a performance-enhancer. Not worth it, though.




Yes, a reduced chance of Alzheimer's is certainly a laughable bonus.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Yes, a reduced chance of Alzheimer's is certainly a laughable bonus.



Is that bonus worth it with the risk of cardio-vascular disease, cancer and reduced quality of life (short breath, impotence)?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Is that bonus worth it with the risk of cardio-vascular disease, cancer and reduced quality of life (short breath, impotence)?




Yes, to some.  Would you rather your body fail or your mind?  I've seen what Alzheimer's does and, uhh, no thanks.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Yes, to some.  Would you rather your body fail or your mind?  I've seen what Alzheimer's does and, uhh, no thanks.



I saw it to. Ugly business. But I was also a smoker. That  was horrible on my body. I'd rather take my nicotine free chances.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I saw it to. Ugly business. But I was also a smoker. That  was horrible on my body. I'd rather take my nicotine free chances.




Honestly?  Me too.  I pretty much quit but sometimes I can't resist when someone offers me one when I'm out drinkin'.  I have an ecig and that helps but, well, it's just not the same (and I have a good one).  Plus spring or summer weather, a good cognac or scotch and, well, I'm pretty sure you're legally bound to smoke a cigar or else face the death penalty.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Honestly?  Me too.  I pretty much quit but sometimes I can't resist when someone offers me one when I'm out drinkin'.  I have an ecig and that helps but, well, it's just not the same (and I have a good one).  Plus spring or summer weather, a good cognac or scotch and, well, I'm pretty sure you're legally bound to smoke a cigar or else face the death penalty.



Oh yeah, after eating and when drinking are the times I crave a smoke. When I indulge I just get dizzy and nauseous, so I do not do that anymore.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 10, 2014)

I've seen both dementia and cancer in my family, and I don't want either.

Unless/until nicotine can be delivered in a way that is both beneficial and absent its host of known side effects, though, I'll give it a miss, thanks.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 10, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Oh yeah, after eating and when drinking are the times I crave a smoke. When I indulge I just get dizzy and nauseous, so I do not do that anymore.




I get a li'l lightheaded but not nauseous.  What I can't take anymore is the smell on my hands that lasts like 3 days even if you only smoke one.  It's gross.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 10, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I get a li'l lightheaded but not nauseous.  What I can't take anymore is the smell on my hands that lasts like 3 days even if you only smoke one.  It's gross.



Or kissing a smoker. I can't believe I frenched those or that anyone frenched me.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Or kissing a smoker. I can't believe I frenched those or that anyone frenched me.




Yeah, I know.  It's amazing how offensive the smell and taste are and how hard it is to get rid of.

Smoking is awesome - don't get me wrong - but there are some really nasty negatives that are really hard to get past once you quit for a while.  That's probably a good thing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Heroine has none of these nasty taste and smell issues.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

That's true.  Some of its root forms also have excellent medicinal qualities.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Is that bonus worth it with the risk of cardio-vascular disease, cancer and reduced quality of life (short breath, impotence)?




Especially when the reduced risk of Alzheimer's seems to be questionable - reviews have found that if you set aside studies funded by the tobacco industry,  nicotine seems to increase risk, rather than reduce it.  This isn't proof, but it suggests that the jury's still out on the matter.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 11, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Heroine has none of these nasty taste and smell issues.



Yes, no one's cleaner and more pleasant than a heroin addict.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Yes, no one's cleaner and more pleasant than a heroin addict.



Philip Seymor Hoffman looked clean and rather nice. One of the fattest heroin users I saw too!

On that note, Rob Ford is one of the fattest crack user I ever saw.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> That's true.  Some of its root forms also have excellent medicinal qualities.



And the seeds are great on bagles.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Yes, no one's cleaner and more pleasant than a heroin addict.




How many do you know?



goldomark said:


> And the seeds are great on bagles.




Quite.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> How many do you know?



Have close personal relationships with, or see on the streets? It's a pretty debilitating addiction; I don't think that's terribly controversial. As with all addictions, there are some high-functioning people (and many people who can use without becoming addicted), but this is some nasty stuff.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Have close personal relationships with, or see on the streets? It's a pretty debilitating addiction; I don't think that's terribly controversial. As with all addictions, there are some high-functioning people (and many people who can use without becoming addicted), but this is some nasty stuff.




I was just curious as to how you came to your beliefs is all.  'Hearsay' is a reason, I suppose.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> I was just curious as to how you came to your beliefs is all.



Working at a lab studying addiction. And through my education. Since you asked.
I do tend to post in these health-related threads because it is what I know.

I'm not sure what your angle is on this; I'm not trying to say anything other than that this particular drug tends to cause really debilitating and widespread effects in many people and is not a joke.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Working at a lab studying addiction. And through my education. Since you asked.
> I do tend to post in these health-related threads because it is what I know.
> 
> I'm not sure what your angle is on this; I'm not trying to say anything other than that this particular drug tends to cause really debilitating and widespread effects in many people and is not a joke.




You took a shot at folks suffering from heroin addiction and made a pretty nasty blanket statement in the process.  If all you wanted to say was that heroin is a really bad drug, that's probably what you should have said.  Considering you're telling me that this is something you've been educated about, well, I would assume that's something you should have known.

The best way to communicate that something is 'no joke' is to not make jokes about it.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> You took a shot at folks suffering from heroin addiction and made a pretty nasty blanket statement in the process.



Not what I intended. I don't equate describing personal neglect to those things. I guess if you want to infer that from a two-line message board post, you can. To be fair, maybe I wasn't clear.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not what I intended. I don't equate describing personal neglect to those things. I guess if you want to infer that from a two-line message board post, you can. To be fair, maybe I wasn't clear.




You went a little beyond personal neglect ('more pleasant').  Sarcasm tends to be, well, mean.  It adds a tone that maybe you didn't intend.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> You went a little beyond personal neglect ('more pleasant').  Sarcasm tends to be, well, mean.  It adds a tone that maybe you didn't intend.



Frankly, there's probably a disconnect in tone between people in the business and laypeople (which I'm assuming you are). The kind of tone that these kinds of things get discussed in behind the scenes by doctors and researchers often carries a pretty hefty dose of black humor. People get desensitized to these things after listening to it for a while. If you're suggesting that I shouldn't make the same comment to someone who's actually using, you're right.

In context, the intent was to convey that just because a particular substance doesn't leave a distinctive smell on one's breath doesn't mean that it can't cause significant and readily apparent harm.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 11, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Frankly, there's probably a disconnect in tone between people in the business and laypeople (which I'm assuming you are). The kind of tone that these kinds of things get discussed in behind the scenes by doctors and researchers often carries a pretty hefty dose of black humor. People get desensitized to these things after listening to it for a while. If you're suggesting that I shouldn't make the same comment to someone who's actually using, you're right.
> 
> In context, the intent was to convey that just because a particular substance doesn't leave a distinctive smell on one's breath doesn't mean that it can't cause significant and readily apparent harm.




Fair enough.  I would, however, suggest amending 'If you're suggesting that I shouldn't make the same comment to someone who's actually using, you're right' to 'If you're suggesting that I shouldn't make the same comment to someone _not in the business_, you're right'.  If there's a different approach to conversationally addressing these things that amounts to jargon, it's probably a good idea to confine discussions of that type to those 'in the know'.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 11, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Fair enough.  I would, however, suggest amending 'If you're suggesting that I shouldn't make the same comment to someone who's actually using, you're right' to 'If you're suggesting that I shouldn't make the same comment to someone _not in the business_, you're right'.  If there's a different approach to conversationally addressing these things that amounts to jargon, it's probably a good idea to confine discussions of that type to those 'in the know'.



You're probably right; it's just one quick comment that I made without thinking a whole lot about it.


----------



## jasper (Feb 11, 2014)

sabrinathecat said:


> Yeah, anyone remember "new coke" in the 80s? A drink everyone hated, so coke cola brought back "classic coke" and later just coke? But they neglected to advertise that they weren't using sugar anymore, but corn syrup. (in fact, they kept saying it was the original formula, which was laughable, as the original formula contained opiates) Wasn't that nice? The "New Coke" was just something to distract people from the fact they were changing a principle ingredient, and keep them from noticing the taste change. (in theory)




And the company decrease the carbonation.  But while new coke was failing I could get a case of coke for under 2.50. Made buying coke 4 rum and coke cheap.


----------

