Cancer warning with your morning coffee

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an RV or an interest in RVing!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
It's not just the warning labels, as your graph shows they were merely the initial step in a full court press against smoking by the government, society and media.

I'm surprised smoking hasn't disappeared entirely given that onslaught - testament to the power of nicotine addiction.

Now studies are starting to find long term inhalation of marijuana smoke causes the same kind of lung problems as long term inhalation of tobacco smoke.  I wonder if in another 60 years we'll have a similar full court press against pot?

On the other hand, the CA cancer warning signs are so ubiquitous that they've disappeared into the noise.  And since many if not all of the products have positive benefits, there has been little or no corresponding media or societial pressure to remove them from the marketplace.
 
I found more info on this elsewhere.. One of the chemicals used in roasting coffee and several other products.. I forget the name, that's what is causing the warning

And it is indeed known to cause.  At least in the lab.

And Charbucks OVER ROASTS the coffee so the odds are you get MORE of that chemical at a Charbucks than elsewhere. but McDonalds, and Dunkin Donuts and likely the ma and paw diner are all going to have to post the warning under CA law.
 
SeilerBird said:
It doesn't matter if price had anything to do with it. This chart clearly shows a massive increase in smoking from 1900 until the 60s when it started dropping. Warning labels were one of the reasons why smokers quit. There is no way to say for sure exactly what was the cause of the downturn but the smoking gun is the massive turnaround right when the labels began appearing.
Click to expand...

Then your assertion, "So obviously the intelligent people are paying attention to warning labels." does not stand up to the facts. According to your chart, smoking didn't begin a sustained decline until almost a decade after the warning labels appeared, and shortly after the broadcast ad ban went into effect. That's also about the same time the price per pack began increasing each year as state and federal tobacco taxes were raised.

From financial news and opinion publisher 24/7 Wall St:

"Following the Surgeon General?s landmark 1964 report on smoking and health, governments employed many strategies to reduce the smoking rate. While warning labels on packaging, anti-smoking media campaigns, and health education in schools play an important role in promoting a smoke-free lifestyle, the most effective method to reducing cigarette consumption has been increasing the retail price of a pack of cigarettes by raising taxes." (emphasis added)
 
SeilerBird said:
OK I give up, you win. Smoking went down because of cost.
Click to expand...

I'n not looking to win anything, Tom, just attempting to be factual. There's a very long list of every day products that are required to carry California's Prop 65 warning labels, and it's reaching the point of being nonsense. There is no requirement for the most part that the labels tell us what the carcinogen is, what amounts the product has of it, or how to minimize exposure to it. Did you know that most extension cords are required to carry the CA label because there's a small amount of lead used in manufacturing the insulation? Or that aspirin is on the list?
 
I have a theory about cancer. Not a scientific theory just a WAG (wild ass guess). My theory is some people are born with dormant cancer cells. Others are not. If you are not born with the dormant CA cells you will not get cancer. If you are born with the cells you might get cancer. My theory is based on the fact that some folks can smoke all their life and not get get lung cancer (do not have the cancer cells). Others might not ever smoke and get lung cancer (born with dormant cells that were magically awakened). That is just one example. There are many more.
 
Interestingly, the UK had very high taxes on tobacco products for many years, and it increased every year. When I made trips to California in the 70's (while still smoking), cigarettes here seemed "cheap", as did gasoline. Every year, the Chancellor of The Exchequer would publish a budget for the next financial year.

We knew that 3 products would always get hit with higher taxes - tobacco, gasoline (aka petrol), and  liquor. It was never "if", but always "how much", and Brits would be glued to the radio or TV when the budget was announced. Every year, some folks quit smoking as a result of the (higher) taxes, but not at the rate you might expect.

The current tax on cigarettes in the UK is 16.5% of retail price plus $6/pack of 20.

When my Dad first heard that I smoked, he said "as long as you smoke, you won't have money in your pocket". He was right, but we always found a way to pay for the cigarettes.

Remember the tobacco execs who stood on the Hill and swore that nicotine is not addictive? They lied.

IMHO a significant factor in lower numbers of smokers in California are the laws banning where/when folks can/cannot smoke. But I have no data to support this, just observation.
 
Carrots.  We need a warning on carrots. Every person who has eaten a carrot has died or is going to die.  :)
 
Nah, carrots improve eyesight. Have you seen a blind rabbit?
 
johnaye said:
Carrots.  We need a warning on carrots.
Click to expand...

Or (and I'm just thinking out loud here) we could raise the price of carrots to $50/lb  ;)
 
Oldgator73 said:
Not before I buy enough for my hyper sexual experiment.
Click to expand...

If this improves your wife's eyesight as Tom suggests it will, how's that going to work for you?  ;) ;D ;D
 
Sun2Retire said:
If this improves your wife's eyesight as Tom suggests it will, how's that going to work for you?  ;) ;D ;D
Click to expand...

Good point. I have perfected my George Clooney impersonation so the carrots would most definitely blow the lid on that fantasy. I'll have to conduct some extensive research to find a food that will negate the carrots eyesight benefit while not harming the hyper sexual activity benefit.
 
I think we have a case of severe thread drift here....  ;)
 
To continue the drift... it is a known fact that every person who drank water in 1850 is dead today. Coincidence, I think not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 889 (members: 7, guests: 882)

Forum statistics

Threads
131,990
Posts
1,388,716
Members
137,736
Latest member
Savysoaker
Back
Top Bottom