Britton and I are leaving for our Phoenix trip tomorrow afternoon for a conference for my work. It’s the National Conference on Tobacco or Health. I like how it is Tobacco OR Health. The weather has been cooler than usual which should be a relief from the usual 105-110 degree weather there. Working for non-profits you don’t usually get the best of everything. The last conference like this was in Minnesota in late October (brrr). We wish it were held in Hawaii or Puerto Rico…but oh, well a free trip and a mini-vacation for Britton to sit around the pool. Plus it’s a really interesting conference. The last one I went to we saw an incognito tobacco exec (slime ball).
I love this ad. It’s so true! Is there any other product like tobacco that can continue to kill people? Why don’t we hold the industry accountable for what they are selling?
“Is there any other product like tobacco that can continue to kill people?”
Yes, alcohol.
There is no safe level of tobacco use. It is the only legal product that WHEN USED AS INTENDED can and often will kill or harm the user. Alcohol kills when not used in moderation or as intended by the manufacturer. So do guns (suicide, homicide). So do spray paints, nail guns, knives, plastic bags and any other number of things.
The difference is that the tobacco industry knows that there is no safe way to use it and continues to make it and actually makes it worse not better (by adding things like fiber glass, ammonia and preservatives that make it into the body/brain more quickly and make it much more addictive).
I do think that the alcohol industry needs to be held more accountable for some of their tactics (like luring young people, promoting binge drinking and in general making alcohol the drug of choice in our culture with so many advertisements). However, as far as the product itself, some studies actually suggest moderate drinking (mainly wine) is good for people.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21478144/
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9626.php
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/features/wine-how-much-is-good-for-you
http://www.drgourmet.com/health/alcohol.shtml
This last one is interesting:
“Clearly, we know that drinking in excess can be bad for you, but in the last few decades there has been mounting evidence that drinking in moderation is pretty good for you.
The original research was done in the early 1980s by Dr. Arthur Klatsky. As a cardiologist in California, Dr. Klatsky noticed that more of his patients with heart disease were people who didn’t drink.”
TNK beat me to the punch on this one. I am not a tee-totaler, but I have been on this planet long enough to see alcohol abuse kill… families, relationships, other people and the abuser him/herself. The smoker can protect people they love (by smoking outdoors, not in their presence, etc.) No matter what the alcohol abuser does, he cannot protect his loved ones. There is no doubt both types of abuse can lead to the death of the consumer. Alcohol is one of society’s elephants in the living room. Let’s pretend it’s not an issue. After all people are so darn funny when they’re drunk. Fran
Fran,
I think you’re absolutely right. Very few want to address alcohol in any sort of meaningful way. Alcohol can be an addictive drug as well (while not nearly as addictive as tobacco). And like tobacco, it often affects people in low socio-economic status (the poor and disadvantaged) -they are usually not the ones drinking wine, either.
In some ways we take alcohol more seriously than tobacco though even though tobacco kills about 1,200 people EVERY DAY and alcohol kills about 300 people a day -and many of those deaths are alcohol-related deaths (drinking and driving, etc) rather than liver cancer or alcohol poisoning -these are much rarer.
For instance, we’ve made big inroads against drinking and driving. Where it was once the norm to have one “for the road” that is not acceptable at all. It is not acceptable to drink during work hours. It is not acceptable to even hang out with a bottle of liquor in the park (public intoxication). However, all of these things are still happening with tobacco because we don’t seem to view it as “so bad”.
There are a lot of people and families affected by both tobacco and alcohol. Considering only about 20% of adult Americans smoke, but about 60% drink, tobacco still kills 4x as many people as alcohol-related deaths. About 20% of drinkers have a serious problem drinking and do not drink “as intended” or “in moderation”. Whereas, EVERY smoker by definition has a problem since it cannot be used in moderation or as intended.
And to talk about co-morbidity, about 70% of these alcoholics are also smokers and usually die from the consequences of smoking rather than drinking. A lot of research in substance abuse has shown that if an alcoholic -or drug abuser- only tries to stop drinking or using drugs but does not address the tobacco, he or she is much less likely to be successful in recovery from the first drug. However, very few addiction specialists include tobacco in the treatment.
So, much more is needed for both. The point of the video, however, is that the tobacco industry has free reign over a product that has absolutely NO upside. In Colorado for example, to sell alcohol you have to have a liquor license, but there is no license requirement to sell shards-o-glass, I mean, tobacco.
I know I opened a can of worms with this topic, but it’s what I do every day at work. If you asked Britton the benefits of Unix versus DOS he would be just as knowledgeable (but the conversation wouldn’t probably be as interesting!) 🙂
For the record: I abuse Unix every day. I occasionally use DOS.
Both alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs in this country, and it is very difficult to legislate stupidity. Americans can and will do just about anything that can kill them. My main point is that the tobacco abuser (user) can limit the harm done to others. However, the alcohol abuser cannot. Everyone is subjected to potential harm from the alcohol abuser, since the perpetrator is not as easily identifiable as the puffer. I have seen cases of deaths and family destruction due to alcohol abuse (including wine…), all in middle to upper socio-economic classes. In my admittedly limited anecdotal observances, I have seen more such damage from alcohol than from tobacco. I do not disagree with your statements about the degree of addictiveness of tobacco, or it’s uselessness. I’ve read it’s worse than heroin. It’s just that in my old age, uh, I mean maturity, I get quite annoyed at the humorous portrayal of drunkenness, and the concept that, “here, have a drink, you’ll feel better about (insert any complaint here)”. At the very least, warnings about drinking (e.g., in movies) should equal warnings about smoking. The concept of humorous drinking is way out of control in Hollywood (which we all know is the standard followed by so many young people). I admire your resolve in going after big tobacco, but with recent tendencies to pursue the legalization of certain other drugs, big tobacco won’t go down easy. I believe that any and all manufacturers of alcohol need to be held to the same standards. But we don’t live a perfect world. Once again, I am not a prude, I believe moderation is key. Anyway, enjoy your trip, and Phoenix! Fran
Fran, can you clarify something for me? You mentioned:
“My main point is that the tobacco abuser (user) can limit the harm done to others. However, the alcohol abuser cannot.”
I dont quite understand that comment. Why can’t an alcohol abuser limit the harm done to others?
Sure. That was in the context of a smoker being able to smoke away from others. Unless a problem drinker lives a cloistered life, he/she is out there wreaking damage upon others. They are under the influence 24/7, even if it has been hours/days since their last drink. Everyone around them suffers, at least emotionally/psychologically, if not physically, and it is beyond their addicted control. The psychological damage done to all family members lasts a lifetime for them.
Sorry I’m so hard on them (problem drinkers), but I do speak from experience. As you know, alcoholism is an illness, as is any addiction. There are those who simply are not able to drink socially, or for the health benefits. Problem is, many alcoholics would never classify themselves as such, and thus do not seek treatment, especially since society is quite accepting of social drinking — unlike the social anathema that is smoking, where smokers have by now become quite aware that most people find their habit UNsociable. Fran
I grew up across the street from a kid that was huffing gas when he was in 6th grade. He turned into what I would call a hardcore alcoholic and I definitely see your point. He is in prison and has a kid he will hardly see. He has caused a lot of problems with the people in his life. I am sure his heath isn’t great because of it. He definitely wasn’t ever moderate…by any stretch of the imagination.
There are laws to protect others from him though. DUI, domestic violence, disturbing the peace, etc. We just recently got laws to protect others from smokers and of course the problems it creates are very different.
I quit drinking for 6 months. I noticed the social norms that exist in our society as a result. When someone see’s you drinking water at a social event; they avoid you. Its really odd. I assume its the same look that non-smokers give to smokers but reversed. I was doing the healthy thing and people avoided me. lol.
We have come a long way to changing norms; but we do have a long way to go. When I was in high school drinking was totally a normal thing to do. In fact it was beyond normal, it was cool!
Good discussion.
“However, all of these things are still happening with tobacco because we don’t seem to view it as “so bad”.”
Many people find it socially acceptable to drink, to excess. Its “funny” to be drunk, people film it and laugh at it. People still drive drunk. Party.. Where is the booze? Sporting event… Where is the booze?
As far as harming other people? How about this for the rest of your life because of a dope driving drunk:
http://www.sixwise.com/images/articles/2008/05/07/drunkdriving-lg.jpg
Or worse you could end up dead, from yours or someone else actions. Smoking doesn’t present such an immediate risk to someone else driving down the road, or walking across the street.
As far as alcohol being “healthy”………
“You cannot isolate red wine as the magic bullet for disease prevention says Alice Lichtenstein, DrS, Gershoff Professor at Tufts University.”
“There is a misperception that red wine is abundant in antioxidants. “It does contain some, but they are not always well absorbed. If you want antioxidants, you are better off eating a spinach salad with vegetables than drinking a glass of red wine,” Rimm tells WebMD.”
“It is well known that alcohol can lead to numerous health problems for many individuals, such as pregnant women and women at high risk for breast cancer (alcohol raises the risk of breast cancer). Individuals with family histories of alcohol abuse should also not drink, says Lichtenstein.”
Further studies are now showing that women drinking more than 3 glasses of red wine per week are actually at a higher risk of developing breast cancer than women who don’t drink red wine at all.
It also has ties to smoking…
” Drinking seems to encourage smoking even among people who are light smokers, according to a new study. Medical News Today reported April 15 that the study by researchers at the University of Chicago and the Center for Nicotine and Smoking Cessation Research at Duke University Medical Center found that the more test subjects drank, the more they craved cigarettes.”
We are also making great inroads for people who are smoking as well, look at your program, truth, laws passed in nearly every state and city not allowing smoking in public places, etc. But just because there is progress being made doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t happen anymore.
Furthermore, just because one problem is “larger” in size and number doesn’t mean the other problem is less.
It is still “cool” to get drunk. Its not so “cool” to smoke anymore.
More than 18% of Americans experience alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence at some time in their lives.
More than 100,000 U.S. deaths are caused by excessive alcohol consumption each year. Direct and indirect causes of death include drunk driving, cirrhosis of the liver, falls, cancer, and stroke.
A study of fifth and sixth-grade students found that those who demonstrated an awareness of beer ads also held more favorable beliefs about drinking and intended to drink more frequently when they grew up.
An estimated 6.6 million children under 18 live in households with at least one alcoholic parent.
In the United States, roughly 50,000 cases of alcohol poisoning are reported each year, and approximately once every week, someone dies from this preventable condition.
Classical alcoholism takes about 15 years to develop, but it can happen much quicker in adolescents and young adults.
In 2002, U.S. alcoholism statistics reported that 2.6 million binge drinkers were between the ages of 12 and 17.
Alcoholism and alcohol abuse are the third leading cause of the preventable deaths in the United States.
According to U.S. drunk driving statistics and statistics on alcohol abuse, in 2001, more than half a million people were injured in crashes where police reported that alcohol was present. This is an average of one individual injured roughly every two minutes.
Approximately 14 million people in the United States are addicted to alcohol or abuse alcohol
The cost of untreated drug and alcohol abuse in the U.S. in a year is estimated at $276 Billion in lost productivity, law enforcement costs, health care and welfare programs.
Drunk drivers are responsible for 50% of highway fatalities.
95% of alcoholics die from their disease and die approximately 26 years earlier than their normal life expectancy.
Up to 40% of industrial fatalities and 47% of injuries in the workplace are linked to alcohol consumption and alcoholism.
Underage drinking costs Americans nearly $53 billion annually. If this cost were shared equally by each congressional district, the amount would total more than $120 million per district.
Low to moderate doses of alcohol can increase the incidence of a variety of aggressive acts, including domestic violence and child abuse.
According to statistics on alcohol abuse and alcoholism statistics and facts, about 43% of U.S. adults, namely, 76 million individuals, have been exposed to alcoholism in the family. That is, these people grew up with or married an alcoholic or a problem drinker or had a blood relative who was an alcoholic or problem drinker.
Alcohol costs us a lot, in money spent and lives lost. Those alcohol company execs are looking to make a buck and KNOW that their product is addictive and needlessly kills people every year.
Do our laws really protect us from harm caused by an alcoholic? There are more drunk drivers out there who don’t get caught until a tragedy happens. Same can be said for victims of domestic abuse at the hands of an alcoholic. A “functioning” alcoholic can even pass as a social drinker, but still pose the same threats to innocents. The pyschological damage done to an alcoholic’s family cannot be totally quantified; if it could be, I think the numbers would be staggering, and there might be more efforts to disencourage drinking instead of celebrating it.
Drinking is STILL considered cool in high school, while smoking not so much. Along with warnings about the dangers tobacco and condemnation of its traffickers, I’d like to see similar efforts against alcohol.
I do realize that for many people, it is just not possible to remain a social drinker, and I feel a little guilty that I can partake. But, I do not stand in judgment of those who cannot.
Laws can only help to a degree. Education can at least help us make informed decisions. It is ultimately up to each of us individually to decide whether to drink; up to us to attempt to help those who need help, and up to us to decide to get out of their way for our own good. Fran
All good points.
The problem with a free society (if we want to call it that) is that we are left up to make these decisions ourselves and our laws are only reactionary. A lot of people can’t do it responsibly so we get more laws.
It is ultimately up to each of us and we should be left to succeed or fail based on those decisons. For some reason though given 2 choices we humans almost always take the path of least resistance and its almost always the wrong path. So we get more restricted and more laws.
It is just as dangerous to drive a car while on the phone as it is to drive intoxicated. But Colorado hasn’t taken that step to ban cell phone driving yet. Its coming in the next year or so and is reactionary to people making bad decisions.
Less regulation works really well as we’ve all seen. Its kind of sad.
More rambling thoughts…
Did you know that the biggest cause of accidents was rubbernecking (thats the slowing down and looking at other accidents)? More people actually get in accidents from adjusting their radios than get into accidents from cell phone usage, yet we just had a law passed in Colorado that outlaws texting while driving and imposes a requirement of using a hands free headset for those under 18. Where is the law that requires all automakers to have radio controls on the steering wheel at the very least, or better yet having voice activated systems? The next leading cause was fatigue. Followed by drunk driving.
Where do you draw the line between letting people have their freedom to choose their own path vs. choosing a path that harms other people? I could care less if some idiot drinks and drives and ends up in a ditch or killing themself, but what I have a problem with is when that same idiot hits another family and hurts/kills someone that did NOT make the choice to drink and drive. Further I have a problem with my taxes going up to pay for the rescue team that has to come pull this dope out, or fix the damage to the road, or my insurance rates going up, etc.
Should there be laws at all? Are laws really there to protect people FROM something, or give them rights and legal protection AFTER someone pulls a “I’m an Idiot” moment? Or both? Unless laws are enforced they are worthless and noneffective from protecting anyone. On the other hand do laws and the threat of fines, jail, etc. keep some people from pulling stupid moments?
The non-smoking movement has taken steps to make it harder for people to smoke by passing laws. Has it worked? They also take an approach to educate people. Has it worked? In addition the price of smoking has increased (taxes, overall cost, etc.) making it more financially restrictive or prohibiting. Has it worked?
How is this freedom of choice? If someone wants to smoke shouldn’t they be able to make that choice? BUT.. should they be able to impose their choices on someone else (second hand smoke)? Hence the need for a law. We are a country based on laws.
The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights give us more freedoms and rights than any other country. There are idiots who take those freedoms to levels never imagined by our founding fathers. It always seems to be a push/pull. Your rights versus my rights. (Think of the Tylenol Killer each time you slice your fingers trying to get packaging off stuff.) Of course we need laws, but without consistent enforcement, the best they can do is to deter a portion of those idiots. Our population has reached levels that make it impossible to enforce laws. Don’t get me started on cell phones. Oh wait, too late.
In California it’s against the law to use a cell phone (unless hands-free) or text (believe it or not, a new law had to be created for that one) while driving. What a joke. I have not noticed any difference in the number of phoners or texters. My philosophy is the same here as with smoking or drinking. It’s basically up to each one of us to decide whether to do it, advise others (to a point), and get out of the way when it’s dangerous for us. You can usually spot them by their driving patterns. Weaving, slowing, then speeding up, or looking down a lot (texting). Once I spot them, I get out of their way, but not before blasting my horn at them. That’s the Puerto Rican in me. And it is not against the law to use your horn in an effort to prevent an accident.
TNK, where did you get your (June 9) alcohol stats from? I definitely believe them, and would like to use them, but I want to be able to cite my references. Thanks. Fran
Good points by all.
The conversation has veered all over, but it’s a good discussion and I think we all want the same thing: a happy, healthy and wise society.
Alcohol can and does have devastating effects for some people. Alcohol can also be used in moderation by some. Fran, I like and agree with your point about being able to drink moderately but not judging others who can’t.
Some people cannot eat food in moderation either. I could spew lots of statistics about our obesity epidemic also. In fact, it’s surpassing alcohol in the top three leading public health issues (preventable causes of death) in America (tobacco use and secondhand smoke are on the top of the list). However, food, like alcohol, in moderation, can be good for you (in the case of food -not alcohol- you need it to live, but you don’t need candy, soda, cheeseburgers etc -these can be bad for you).
Food (especially sweets) is also used as a reward and to designate a good time much like alcohol. Many schools are developing policies whereby food is not the central focus of a celebration -think Halloween or birthday party- because that creates the wrong view of food. Do we eat to live, or live to eat?- as the saying goes.
Tobacco, unlike food and alcohol, cannot be used in moderation and is never good for someone.
This is not meant to undermine the efforts of these campaigns in addressing these problems only to point out the comparisons -both similarities and differences.
The main issue though is using laws -that work- to make a change. As I also said in my first comment on this, so far, no one has been willing to address the alcohol industry’s tactics (or the food industry’s for that matter), and that, I believe, will make the biggest impact on future generations. Tobacco control’s efforts didn’t go very far in the beginning when it was just telling people about the cancer-causing effects, we had to do something (and still have lots of work to do) about the creators of a product that they knew was addictive and deadly and change the norms around the product (make it less glamourous like the school food policies I mentioned).
In the case of Smokefree laws, as only one example, it does both. It made it less socially acceptable to smoke around others. It makes it so that non-smoking people are not subject to the harmful secondhand smoke, it encourages people to quit -usually there is a dramatic rise in quit attempts after law passes- and it hurts the tobacco industry because their product is suddenly not as easy to sell and promote. It has changed the norms through policy. I sure liked the smokefree air on the airplane today, but it wasn’t always like that and it took a smart policy to change it.
Watch this… This is the one that made me stop smoking
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfAxUpeVhCg&feature=player_embedded
Jill xx