Research Suggests Tobacco Companies Add Weight Loss Drugs 281
smitty777 writes "According to an article from the European Journal of Public Health, the tobacco companies have been implicated in adding a number of drugs to tobacco products (PDF) to enhance their weight-reducing properties. Discovery News explains the neurological process for appetite suppression, which involves activating pro-opiomelanocortin cells in the hypothalamus."
Take up smoking today! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Take up smoking today! (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps, but when I walk past the smoke corral at work, there are only two kinds of smokers. There are the ones who clearly have not been missing any meals, and the ones who are rail-thin but also look like 50 year old baseball gloves.
I don't think either idea appeals to prospective prom queens...
Re: (Score:2)
I have personally known many people who smoke because they *think* it helps suppress appetite. In fact they often justify the cost by claiming they save on food. I've always assumed this is one of the many reasons young females choose to smoke.
I haven't heard the part about saving money on food. That's a bit bizarre. It's not unreasonable to think that smoking helps people to lose weight though. Nicotine is a known appetite suppressant and it is also a stimulant. So eat less and burn more.
I have heard from those that tried to quit, gained weight, and used that as an excuse to resume smoking.
If it is found that that most of the weight loss is from the additives and not from the nicotine, then it might convince some of the vanity smokers to give
Re:Take up smoking today! (Score:4, Informative)
I have personally known many people who smoke because they *think* it helps suppress appetite. In fact they often justify the cost by claiming they save on food. I've always assumed this is one of the many reasons young females choose to smoke.
I haven't heard the part about saving money on food. That's a bit bizarre. It's not unreasonable to think that smoking helps people to lose weight though. Nicotine is a known appetite suppressant and it is also a stimulant. So eat less and burn more.
I have heard from those that tried to quit, gained weight, and used that as an excuse to resume smoking.
If it is found that that most of the weight loss is from the additives and not from the nicotine, then it might convince some of the vanity smokers to give it up. Why smoke if you can get same weight control effect from an over the counter pill that doesn't leave tar if your lungs?
I've just had a lecture from a relative about this same story (it was running in our national press last week). Apparently it's bullshit. I'm told that smoking reduces your ability to process food - when you smoke (tobacco). When addicted smokers stop smoking they quite ofter seek other forms of oral gratification - so not only does their usual amount of food "go further" - they eat more. And it's not just smokers - it's anyone recovering from a (reall) addiction. The key points my cousin has pointed out are "there is little evidence to support the appetite suppressing ability of substances like tartaric acid (it's common in food)", "2-acetylpyridine is naturally found in tobacco (and many other products coffee, beans etc) and it is used to help people give up cigarettes [surechem.org] " "the mice study dosed mice with levels no smoker would ever reach" "the (mice) studies were funded by a group associated with a North American tobacco company" "some (European) cigarettes in the early nineties might have had additives for the purposes of appetite suppression" "nicotine is toxic in fairly small amounts - the bodies reaction to strong toxins is to reduce appetite" "residue from kerosene is the most common post harvest additive to tobacco - it will suppress appetite too".
From the referenced pdf:- Background: Smoking is thought to produce an appetite-suppressing effect by many smokers. Thus, the fear of body weight gain often outweighs the perception of health benefits associated with smoking cessation, particularly in adolescents. We examined whether the tobacco industry played a role in appetite and body weight control related to smoking and smoking cessation. Methods: We performed a systematic search within the archives of six major US and UK tobacco companies (American Tobacco, Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, Lorillard, Brown & Williamson and British American Tobacco) that were Defendants in tobacco litigation settled in 1998. Findings are dated from 1949 to 1999. Results: The documents revealed the strategies planned and used by the industry to enhance effects of smoking on weight and appetite, mostly by chemical modifications of cigar- ettes contents. Appetite-suppressant molecules, such as tartaric acid and 2-acetylpyridine were added to some cigarettes. Conclusion: These tobacco companies played an active and not disclaimed role in the anti-appetite effects of smoking, at least in the past, by adding appetite-suppressant molecules into their cigarettes.
Despite the tantalizing insights into the tobacco industry strategies - they fail to quote any evidence.
Disclaimer:- I have no doubt tobacco companies happily sell slow death - or that smoking would kill you without the companies adding radioactive metal refining waste to the fertilizer - it just wouldn't be death by cancer. I smoked for 30 years. I stopped last year. I deliberately didn't take up sweets, chocolate, deserts, nuts, seeds, nicotine patches etc, or extra sugar. I haven't gained any weight. (YMMV).
Re: (Score:2)
In fact they often justify the cost by claiming they save on food
That one's right up there with 'God told me to do it'.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, the wrinkles are smoothed out by lots of fat and water underneath.
Re: (Score:3)
No, girls smoke because it (subtly) signals they put out, with sufficient plausible deniability, and so the non-virgin (read: with game) guys will pursue them.
Re: (Score:3)
Just get out, have fun and make friends. That'll get you into their pants a lot more surely than trying to get in through their heads.
Re: (Score:3)
"Just get out, have fun and make friends. That'll get you into their pants a lot more surely than trying to get in through their heads."
Exactly.
And stay away from the smokers.
They stink.
Literally.
Re: (Score:2)
Implicated? Yeah, and then what. (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares what tobacco companies do?
And no, I don't mean "who cares" as in I'm some cruel bastard who could care less what tobacco companies are doing to hook their users even more to their product. I mean who out there really cares what tobacco companies do anymore? Care to tell me exactly what anyone has done to step in and stop them from doing ANYTHING with their product?
Radioactive pesticides. Hundreds of chemicals that are far from "natural". Big Tobacco has become untouchable. Doesn't matter how many evil things they do to their product, so what's the point in publicizing it until someone out there actually starts giving a shit and does something about it. Unfortunately, those who SHOULD give a shit are far too busy getting paid off by tobacco lobbyists and raking in tax dollars. They look past the fact that other than a military grade weapons manufacturer, no other corporation on the planet is legally allowed to kill thousands of people every day by doing nothing more than using their product as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, those who SHOULD give a shit are far too busy slowly killing themselves with addictive carcinogenic substances.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
... But with smoking, there is no analogue that is healthier.
I don't smoke, never have, and don't like being around smokers much. But if I was going to smoke, it'd be with organic tobacco in a pipe.
If you search for "radioactive tobacco", you can read about how the US Federal Government took away the tobacco industry's fertilizer supply in WWII, to make munitions. The tobacco industry switched to fertilizing their crops with rock phosphate. Tobacco concentrates radioactive elements in the leaves, and rock phosphate happens to have a lot of radioactive elements.
I thi
Re: (Score:3)
rock phosphate happens to have a lot of radioactive elements.
I think organic tobacco farmers fertilize using traditional methods - manure & the like.
You only think that because the USDA took over the word "organic" and made it mean fuck-all. Guess what? Rock Phosphate can be USDA certified organic. Remember, Organic tobacco DOES NOT mean safer tobacco. They tell you right on the can.
Once upon a time "organic" farming meant basically what "permacultural" means today, except a little less specific and strict. Today it means jack diddly shit, unless it's a reputable third party certification. A USDA organic seal will actually push me towards another produc
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares (Score:4, Insightful)
It's also who cares in that they aren't making exciting news anymore. It's really "They're evil, oh well. Oh look! Someone downloaded a copy of the Beatles! Arrest him!!"
Re:Implicated? Yeah, and then what. (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you suggest?
Perhaps a little background is in order. I am a Mormon. For religious reasons, my family has been telling their children (and anyone else that would listen) not to use tobacco since the mid 1800s. I personally served as a missionary in Chile where a fair portion of my time was spent trying to help people quit smoking. Sometimes I was successful, sometimes not. Apparently giving up smoking is very difficult. I never met a smoker that didn't want to quit, and yet few people actually are successful.
That's the problem. Smokers know that smoking is killing them, but they are addicted. We already have huge taxes on cigarettes. We control their sale to minors, and we control how they can be advertised. Heck, we even run advertisements extolling the many problems caused by smoking, and we force smokers to go to special designated areas to smoke. At this point about the only thing that we could do that we haven't tried is to make tobacco illegal. To be honest, I would not be surprised if that actually *increased* tobacco use. Marijuana manages to be quite popular while still being illegal.
Unfortunately, some people are just stupid. They don't see the harm in trying tobacco until it is too late and they are addicted. It is easy (and comfortable) to blame the politicians, but for the most part politicians have gone out of their way to cast a stigma on tobacco use. It is even easier to blame the tobacco industry, and just about anyone would be forced to admit that those guys are slimy. However, tobacco has a long history of use in the U.S. and I think that it would be counterproductive to try and curtail the rights of individuals in this regard. Our society has done everything it can to curtail the use of tobacco short of throwing people in prison for growing it or using it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet, the government still pays out huge amounts of tax money as tobacco subsidy to grow the stuff every year, then heavily taxes the users. The government gets much more in taxes on each cigarette sold than the tobacco company gets as earnings. They really don't want to end smoking, and lose this huge revenue stream.
Re:Implicated? Yeah, and then what. (Score:4, Informative)
My family got paid a huge amount (by the government) to sell the rights to our tobacco base. Since it's sold, no one else can lease or use the base. In case anyone isn't aware of what tobacco base is, you can only grow tobacco on a small percentage of your farmable land. If you don't wish to grow any, you can lease your base to another farmer. They grow it on their own land but pay you a percentage for allowing them the use of your base. They lease a lot of base so they can have a sizable crop.
Even we we did grow tobacco, we never got any subsidies, at least directly. It was damn profitable on its own.
Re:Implicated? Yeah, and then what. (Score:5, Funny)
My family got paid a huge amount (by the government) to sell the rights to our tobacco base... They lease a lot of base so they can have a sizable crop.
So, all your base are belong to us, now?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you, Jason. You come across with a mild sense of self rightousness, and you sound a little bit of a prick - but you're honest, and you're right. So, you're tolerable, and your opinion is appreciated.
I hate the ultra self-rightous pricks who feel it is their mission in life to save me, and other smokers, from our own stupidity. If the rest of the anti-smokers had your sense of proportion, they'd be a lot easier to live with!
Enough taxes, enough penalties, enough stigmatism attached to smoking. More
Re: (Score:2)
Re-reading my post I think that the self-righteousness is more than mild, and for that I am truly sorry. I simply think blaming the *government* for the smoking problem is ridiculous, and I was trying to show that I am not the sort of person that anyone in their right mind could consider pro-tobacco.
Like I said, I have helped more than my fair share of people quit smoking, and tried to help many others. My experience tells me that if you attempt to help people quit smoking you have a good chance of endi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the harm is clear and the tobacco companies do everything they can to make it harder to quit.
Re: (Score:2)
what would be needed is to require health insurance to cover inpatient addiction treatment like we do with other drug treatment.
I don't think anyone has ever shown (or even suggested) that in-patient addiction treatment for tobacco addiction is better than anything else. Does anyone even OFFER an in-patient program?
I used snus to stop smoking. And now I've cut my snus use down by about half, and working toward being tobacco free in a year or two. Snus isn't nearly as dangerous as cigarettes or snuff, buy
Re: (Score:2)
You say "throwing people in prison for growing or using it" like it's unthinkable.
There are a lot of people sitting in prison right now "for growing or using" another leafy plant.
How different one plant is treated just because a certain group of wealthy white men got here centuries ago and made a bundle selling it.
Re: (Score:3)
How different one plant is treated just because a certain group of wealthy white men got here centuries ago and made a bundle selling it.
Those same wealthy white men made a fortune selling hemp as well. Hemp rope was an integral part of the sea trade networks prior to the end of the sail era.
While there's some racism involved in prohibition of marijuana, it's worth noting that the US even went as far as to ban all alcoholic beverages for a period of time, which as I understand it, is one of the main drugs of choice for rich, white men and has remained so for millennia.
So maybe things happen for reasons other than wealthy, white people
Re: (Score:2)
I am not of the opinion that making marijuana illegal is good for our society. I think that people that use marijuana are making a very poor choice, but that's true for a lot of things.
On the other hand, we have historical precedents for what happens when drugs like cocaine (or worse heroine) are legalized. That was not a good idea. Marijuana, on the other hand, probably belongs in the same group as alcohol and tobacco. We'd probably be better off simply trying to control it, and not ban it outright.
Re:Implicated? Yeah, and then what. (Score:4, Informative)
I would argue that drugs can be used to good effect or bad effect. The same drug. It often depends on dose.
Take an aspirin for a headache? Sure. Take a dozen? Not so much, as it were.
Just how harmful a drug tends to be is still relevant:
drug danger [wikimedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Nice graph. Thanks.
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, we have historical precedents for what happens when drugs like cocaine (or worse heroine) are legalized. That was not a good idea.
It may not be a good idea but is it a worse idea than:
a) Spending billions on enforcement which only stops 1% of the drugs reaching the streets.
b) Watching billions of dollars go overseas to be stacked in huge mansions in Columbia.
c) Making mafia bosses very rich/powerful.
d) Funding gang warfare.
e) Funding all the police/medical care which goes hand in hand with (d)
f) Having to build mega prisons because you're locking up so many people for victimless crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
At this point about the only thing that we could do that we haven't tried is to make tobacco illegal.
Take this as anecdotal, but quite a while ago here in Massachusetts they set a aside a portion of the state cigarette tax to fund a series of anti-smoking PSAs.
If I recall, some were pretty graphic; i.e., pictures of smoke damaged lungs. Some were interviews with survivors of lung cancer and various cigarette related disorders. All were uniformly depressing.
I heard they had a significant negative impact on
Re: (Score:3)
It was my understanding that those PSA's (which were in many states) were funded out of the original big tobacco lawsuit settlement the states reached with the companies a decade or so ago. Eventually the settlement money ran out. I'm not sure that in most states the PSA's were ever funded with the taxes (though yours might have been)...
More info on it Here [wikipedia.org]... Check out the Public Education Fund which apparently only lasted 3 years (2000-2003).
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, some people are just stupid. They don't see the harm in trying tobacco until it is too late and they are addicted.
Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Stupid was the wrong thing to say, and I am sorry for that. People make poor choices all of the time. The difference is that with smoking once you are addicted it becomes very difficult to stop. My sincere apologies.
By the way, congratulations on your success giving up cigarettes. That's a big deal, and I have seen enough people try and fail to have a fair appreciation as to how difficult it is to quit.
Re: (Score:3)
Get real. Everyone I know who smokes (including me) started when they were 14, 15, or 16 years old. At that age it's not about being stupid, it's about doing what your friends are doing because you don't want to look like a pussy or a killjoy or a doofus. Damn you, the first time I took a drag off a cigarette I knew it was stupid and I didn't want to be doing it at all, but the fear of being laughed at or pushed around outweighed the logic. I was not stupid, and I did know about the dangers
Agreed - except for the knowing the dangers - I didn't know it was addictive or deadly (40 years ago). And I was stupid. It made me sick - yet, like every other (juvenile) smoker I persevered due to peer group pressure. When had my first cigarettes I was in primary school - the only teacher who did not smoke was the drama teacher. Every single role model I had - smoked. Good children played sport - sponsored by tobacco. Rebellious children admired movie and rock stars - who all smoked. The local shops sold
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, there are health risks, and it's my right to decide if I chose to accept those risks or not, not yours.
And it's our right to call you out on being stupid, and to ask you to get those reeking sticks away from us. (It's unbelievable how much nicer it is going out to bars now that smoking in them has been banned in my state.)
Also, good for you for rationalizing how "fun" smoking is; the joke is on you though, because once you've built up tolerance to nicotine, smoking just brings you back to the baseline "stimulated" level that the rest of us enjoy without it. I also really enjoy the "experience" of a fountai
Re: (Score:3)
Bars, restaurants, everywhere is much nicer to visit now that smoking is banned in those places. I remember the bad old days when there was a smoking and non-smoking section. With very few exceptions where the non-smoking section was airtight-sealed, it was still pretty bad even in the non-smoking section. Now if they could just do something about the entrances to buildings. Make all the smokers go 20 meters off to the side or something so we don't have to pass through a cloud of disgusting cloying smoke.
Ci
Sorry (Score:2)
You are absolutely right. Saying that smoking stemmed from stupidity was the wrong thing to say. Like I said, I have mostly been acquainted with smokers that were trying to quit. They had gotten entangled with an addictive substance, and they felt trapped. That doesn't make them stupid. It simply means that they made a choice that they later regretted. In your case you apparently don't even regret th
Re: (Score:2)
"Care to tell me exactly what anyone has done to step in and stop them from doing ANYTHING with their product?"
Really? Would you like to step back from the hysterics or are you planning on going full retard?
Don't get the impression that I care, I just need to know whether I should go get some popcorn or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can quit smoking cigarettes. Blaming a company or industry for making an addictive product is a cop out. Being unhealthy isn't enough reason to outlaw it (that goes
Governments that tax it are complicit (Score:2)
I too do not care what these companies do, they only can do so because our governments permit it. Not only do they permit it they profit off of it, if not in more than one way. First by taxes, embedded so that they actually are charging those who use the product twice - first with direct taxes then the embedded taxes from penalties and such assessed by courts.
All our governments are quite happy with the situation, that is what is really wrong here. An addicted person is a customer of the government, a sick
I care (Score:3)
Smokers actions don't take place in a vacuum.
Scary. That could... (Score:5, Funny)
Better summary (Score:5, Informative)
More accurately, research finds that Nicotine is an appetite suppressant. And that tobacco companies have looked at adding other appetite suppressors in the past.
Simpler explanation (Score:2)
As someone who has needed to shed a few kilos every now and then I know that if I am busy I tend not to snack. In fact sometimes if I am really engrossed in something midnight and bed time rolls around and I haven't eaten any dinner. I also know what when I feel crappy it is easy to comfort eat.
Cigarettes help with both these things. Instead of eating you smoke, so they do encourage weight loss for some people. Personally I have never smoked and try to substitute liquid and high-protean cereals (protean mak
Re: (Score:3)
protean makes you feel full
So what great variety of things makes you feel full? <grin>
Re:Simpler explanation (Score:4, Funny)
Holy crap, cereal full of shape-shifters? Kellogg's doesn't make that, do they? And you EAT that?
I don't understand why tobacco companies... (Score:2)
Re:I don't understand why tobacco companies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's cheaper anyways...
Re: (Score:3)
Believe it or not, I was a chain smoker from the age of 16 until I was 28. At one point I was smoking about 2 to 2.5 packs a day (no joke). I was always prone to bronchitis and asthma and after a really bad bout of bronchial infection I finally figured "I'll bounce back from this one, but in twenty or thirty years, I'll stop bouncing back and I'll have emphysema or worse." I quit cold turkey.
Re: (Score:2)
cocaine [...] physiological withdrawal symptoms
Cocaine doesn't cause physiological dependence and nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
Re: (Score:2)
Cocaine doesn't cause physiological dependence
so all the research to the contrary is just a big conspiracy then?
and nicotine is more addictive than heroin
Lock a heroin addict in a padded cell and a heavy smoker in a padded cell, deny them their drug of choice, and see which one asks you to kill them first. I think you'd be a little surprised if you think nicotine is more addictive than heroin.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you need some big citation on a claim like that you pile of shit
http://www.springerlink.com/content/70u88404420n2444/ [springerlink.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, now. (Score:2)
Don't get worked up over this. You know they only have their customers' best interests in mind.
Remember low-carb beer ads? (Score:2)
They tried to market them as a health drink! Only makes sense. I hear chemo is good for weight loss, too.
forget the tobacco, just sell us the drugs! (Score:2)
Pissing in an ocean of piss. (Score:2)
1. Cigareets and whiskey. [youtube.com]
2. The ocean. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the Youtube Muppets link. That made me smile.
Their business model kills a lot of people (Score:2)
And doing it in a very, very unpleasant way. Recently lost a neighbor to lung cancer at 52. The only sane thing would be to shut them down and and put them all in jail for life.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunate to hear about your neighbor, but there are a lot of substances available to people that can do harm in quantity. Can we jail food producers? Alcohol producers? Can't we hurt or kill ourselves with almost anything, given enough of it?
At some point, don't we have to take responsibility for what we choose to consume? It's not like a lot of these products don't come covered in warnings anymore.
Re:Their business model kills a lot of people (Score:4, Insightful)
Except most things have some kind of benefit. Even alcohol has health benefits in certain quantities. You can also enjoy alcohol responsibly. There is no responsible way to enjoy cigarettes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's been so successful on the war on drugs it's sure to work! It's not like it would increase consumption and incarcerate several million people for doing nothing more than harming themselves.
Making a product illegal does two things. It makes the product sexy and desirable for those wishing to rebel and it increases the incarceration rate, and the US already has the highest. You don't solve medical problems by putting people in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it does a third thing as well: if it's illegal, the government can't tax it.
Why do ingredients not have to be labeled? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you don't eat cigarettes?
Re: (Score:2)
You do consume cigarettes, they enter your body, much of it stays. This is one of the reasons I get my snus from Sweden, where it is considered a "food" product and they have to use only food grade ingredients, and list them. They don't in the US, so I don't buy here. Oh, and the fact that American snus tastes like ass crack sprinkled with sugar.
They list the ingredients on sunblock (finally) and the FDA (finally) now regulates what goes in them. Since your skin absorbs the ingredients and is your large
Why not just ban all additives? (Score:2)
Oh yea I forgot its not really about getting people to quit smoking (negligible sales drops = success) its more about tax revenue...cant really be serious about getting people to quit.
Re: (Score:3)
This is pretty much the core of the issue. The governments in question don't want to cut into their own tax base by banning tobacco, or effectively convincing people not to use the product.
And the tobacco lawsuits weren't about stopping those evil tobacco companies either. They were about extorting billions more in revenues
wrong kind of cigarettes (Score:2)
Perhaps they could add these weight loss drugs to cannabis cigarettes, as a counter-agent to the THC side effects rather than as a co-agent to nicotine's.
How about Australia ;-) (Score:2)
They are coming all over the world to fight it but it is looking good to go through, and this revelation should take some steam out of their lobby.
Re: (Score:2)
But with the added weight of the tumors, do you actually get a net loss of weight?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I know you're just joking, but here's a reply. On the short term, cancer adds to your body weight. But if you survive long enough, you'll lose weight. The reason is that cancer tends to soak up all the body's resources, starving your muscles and internal organs, causing the whole machine to work less efficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
Full disclosure: Ex-smoker, two years this month.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only do I get to lose that extra weight I gained, but, as an added bonus .... lung cancer!
Actually since it takes a few decades to improve your cancer odds you can at least be safely thin in old age. Just wait you're 70 or so to start smoking. I guess the trick is to make your heart last til then if you're already significantly overweight.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Ehhhh - smoke or not, someday, your kinfolk will walk into your home, and start divvying up your possessions. Sometime within ten days of your burial, before or after, it hardly matters. Eat, drink, smoke and be merry, for tomorrow you die. No point in worrying about those carcinogens.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe cancer treatments also help with weight loss. Win win.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose you consider the yellow teeth, loss of skin tone, complaints from non-smokers around you to also be net benefits?
Personally I try to practice habits that don't make me look stupid and that I can stop doing whenever I feel like it without getting jitters.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So it makes you thin (Score:5, Insightful)
as well as being the safest addictive substance known to man.
Caffeine. And take your sock puppet with you on the way out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks but I pay a increased premium on top of the additional taxes, now what?
As far as I am concerned both the state and the federal govt are now directly responsible for any health related issues due to my smoking. Every tax hike on cigarettes and tobacco related products in the last few years have been labeled with "helps pay the additional health care costs". As far as I am concerned that means they are now directly responsible to bear my personal costs.