FDA proposes new line of cigarette warning graphics

After being granted the power to regulate tobacco products for the first time last year, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has come up with a new anti-cigarette marketing campaign that the agency hopes will help deter people from smoking. According to a recent New York Times report, the FDA has proposed 36 graphic warning labels it hopes to plaster on cigarette cartons and advertisement billboards in the near future.

The graphics include a picture of corpse feet with the tag line, "Warning: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease". And another shows a dead body in a casket with the caption, "Warning: Smoking can kill you". On the cartons themselves, the proposed warnings are designed to take up half the box. And on billboards, the warnings will cover 20 percent of the overall advertisement.

Similar graphics already appear on cigarette cartons in Europe, where reports indicate that they have resulted in some success. And many laud the U.S. initiative as a large step towards making smoking so unattractive that increasingly fewer Americans will be willing to participate in it. By illustrating the long-term effects of smoking's consequences, regulators say that young people especially will be less prone to smoke.

According to current statistics, 1,000 new children and teenagers become regular smokers every single day, while 4,000 try it for the first time. And this occurs despite current warning labels that indicate cigarettes cause lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and pregnancy problems, leading some to question whether or not the graphics campaign will have much effect.

Even so, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius praised the proposal as an "important milestone in protecting our children and the health of the American public", and Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said it is the "most important change in cigarette health warnings in the history of the United States."

Is Mystery a failure ?

My friend just completed a workshop with Mystery, the man himself, and gave me some very interesting tidbits. Supposedly he gabbed about pickup for seven hours straight. Seven bloody hours! They didn’t do approaches in that time….no, Mystery talked. And talked, and talked.

“So…how was that for you?” I ask him.

“Awesome!” he gasps.

I’ve always been under the belief that real world experience—like throwing a baby into a pool, is the best way to rapidly learn a subject. But how many babies have drowned? Isn’t it best to lead by example?

“Did he do any demo approaches?”


“Yeah. Three.”

“Three!? In two days?”

“He got blown out twice, and the other was a makeout with a cougar.”

“Cool.”

Anyways, he did teach the same routines, the same club tactics, and did very few demos but my friend was ecstatic, completely satisfied and completely brainwashed by the man. I love it. Personally I would take his bootcamp (If I had an extra 5k). Why not? Here’s the lesson….

No one has a 100% success rate

Gurus fail! All my friends are extremely talented…and they fail–lots. Hell…I have failed so much I could kill myself. Everything is just, “what it is,” if that makes sense. To be great at seduction, you must step into the fire and get burned. It’s a crap cliché I know, but learn to embrace failure.

Once I grabbed this girl by the wrist, and she opened right up. We were chatting along well and I said, “Hey, you have really soft hands. What brand of moisturizer do you use?”

She blinks a few times, tells me the brand, and say’s goodbye. I look over to her table and she’s speaking with a six foot tall douche type. He storms over to me and say’s, “Hey moth#$fuc@er! I’m the provider! What’s this creepy shit you’re saying to my girlfriend?”

Options:

A. That troll is your girlfriend? She’s an idiot.
B. Punch douche in face
C. Oh her? Yeah, I was totally hitting on her. Good work buddy! She’s hot! (With calm assertive eye contact.)

I chose C and he deflated. Most men aren’t ready to engage in combat. There are consequences. Years of frame control practice saved my life. All the times I have failed, saved my life. Or at least saved me from a severe and pointless beating.

So this is but one reason why coaches are shying away from demo approaches. There are many. Another is because students witnessing perceived, “failure,” aren’t in-fact failures. But up they go into online reviews. They expect their coaches to be no mere mortals, but gods, floating through the club hypnotizing all beautiful women. No. It’s not like that.

Some nights feel like this, but usually it’s a lot of small talk, a few back turns, and some good luck. Even Mystery can’t make miracles happen. He can be charming, and brilliant, but can’t ensure a stupid, low value woman won’t try to start a fight for her own sick amusement?

All men are mere mortals

The lesson you can take from this post? All men are merely mortal and the worst is yet to come. Every time you cold approach is a new, unpredictable adventure into the lives of strangers. Some of them are friendly and some are brutally unstable. You can do your best to be calm, assertive and fun—but you never know if you will land a make-out, or a knock out. That’s why you should do it anyway. Who wants to live forever?

Costs Of Smoking: Years-Of-Healthy-Life Lost To Smoking

Understanding the burden of disease attributable to smoking over time and at the national and state levels is of utmost importance with regard to specifying quantifiable targets and examining the impact of interventions designed to promote smoking cessation.

The overall health burden of smoking in the U.S. was examined by calculating smoking-related quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)-which account for both morbidity and mortality- lost from 1993 to 2008 for the entire nation and for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, this study also examined the impact of the state excise tax on the state smoking-related QALYs lost.

Progress has been made with regard to smoking cessation but the smoking prevalence for the U.S. remains above the Healthy People 2010 target. Although the percent of smoking was lower for women and the percentage of smoking prevalence decrease was higher among women, the smoking-related QALYs lost increased for women compared to men. Smoking-related QALYs lost increased for the general US population and for nearly three-fourths of the states while the disparities in state prevalence and state smoking-related QALYs lost widened. States with a higher excise tax had a greater percentage decline as well as fewer smoking-related QALYs lost.

Says Dr. Jia: "These results might assist public health practitioners and policymakers in setting smoking-related targets for the nation and tracking changes in the burden of disease attributable to smoking in a timely manner. The method also can delineate priorities for prevention in a given population at the national, state, and local levels as well as according to sociodemographic subgroup."

The burden of disease attributed to smoking will be discussed in Value in Health, the official journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research. Value in Health publishes papers, concepts, and ideas that advance the field of pharmacoeconomics and outcomes research and help health care leaders to make decisions that are solidly evidence-based. The journal is published bi-monthly and has a regular readership of over 5,000 clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers worldwide.

Electronic Cigarettes A Safer Substitute

Can it really be true? A cigarette that is actually safer, that is actually healthier? This must be foolishness and craziness all mixed into one ball of nonsense, right? No, you\'re wrong, and you need to learn about electronic cigarette so that you can start using them to your benefit!

Basically, an electronic cigarette is a device that simulates a real cigarette experience, with one small exception, it helps you. But how can a cigarette help you? I mean that doesn\'t even make sense, does it? Well, sure it does, you just have to look beyond the surface. You have to see exactly what it is that the e-cigarette is trying to accomplish, and what purpose it serves in the lives of smokers.

You\'ve heard of the old \"fight fire with fire\" saying, right? It\'s the same concept here; we\'re using a cigarette, to fight off a bad smoking habit. This usually scrambles everyone\'s eggs when I talk about this, because cigarettes just have such a horrible reputation, and for good reason too, they are life snatchers. But at the end of the day, we can use them to our benefits.
It\'s a cigarette that looks like a real one, smells like a real one, and even tastes like a real one, but with one small exception (well, two), it is healthier, and perfectly legal.

When I say perfectly legal, I mean you could light one of these bad boys up in a shoe store, in a classroom, on a train, in the rain, over in Spain, wherever you have to get your nicotine fill. How is this even remotely possible? It\'s like this: when you breath in an electronic cigarette, you\'re getting the full drag of a real cigarette (but without all the garbage), and when you exhale it, the water vapor that creates the smoke sensation evaporates instantly. This means that it won\'t bother your neighbors. There is also no tobacco ingredient in them, so there isn\'t any legal thing that can really get involved with it.

For a person who is struggling with bad health and messed up lungs, and they are wanting to quit, but just can\'t let go of their addiction, this could be a lifesaver. So if you are a smoker, then try one of these electronic cigarettes. If you are not a smoker, then the least you could do would be to pass this information around to other smokers.

Why we should bar smokers from taxpayer-funded health care coverage

Is it time to ban cigarettes yet? In this essay, I'm going to give you three different perspectives on the issue. From one perspective, the public health view that says cigarettes are a deadly product that causes untold pain, suffering and death in the American population. From another view, I'll talk about the libertarian argument and the value of allowing people to have the choice to take care of their own health outcome, even if it's negative. And thirdly, I'll present an alternative solution that avoids the pitfalls of both views and yet brings in the benefits of free choice and personal responsibility.

First, the public health argument: it's a fairly simple argument, and one we've heard for quite some time. It says that cigarettes are a deadly product. Even when used as directed, they kill their customers -- not overnight, of course, but over the long term. Cigarettes are also highly addictive, so once a person begins smoking, it's very difficult for them to ever quit, further worsening the negative health outcome.

All of this is quite true. Cigarettes are indeed cancer sticks. Inhaling cigarette smoke is the closest thing to suicide other than jumping off the Golden Gate bridge or leaping from a tall bank building in downtown Manhattan. From a logical, reasonable, public health point of view, cigarettes should definitely be outlawed. They have no place whatsoever in a civilized society, and in fact, they are impairing the growth of society by reducing the longevity of our adult population and adding significantly to our overall health care costs.

But then we have the libertarian argument which says that people should have the free choice to do whatever they want, even if it harms their own body. We let people engage in dangerous sports, for example -- dirt biking, mountain biking, and snowboarding -- and they're responsible for their own health outcomes in those endeavors, aren't they? Well, not exactly. When people get injured in sports, their injuries are often covered by insurance, and insurance costs are shared by the population at large. So there is a hole in the argument that people only really impact themselves when they engage in dangerous activities. Because when they get hurt, it's everybody else who financially subsidizes their health care costs.

But there is a valid point in the libertarian argument: we are supposed to be living in a free society, and in a free society, shouldn't people be trusted to make their own decisions? It's not right, the argument goes, for the government to act like the parents of individuals and force people to avoid certain products or ingest other products according to whatever health standards the government has set up. And certainly few who know anything about health would trust the health judgment of the government where health policies are driven by the financial interests of Big Pharma and big business rather than legitimate public health concerns.

The libertarian argument has yet another important point to consider, and that is the effectiveness of government regulation on the sale of nicotine products. Suppose the government banned nicotine -- would that mean that nicotine products would vanish over night, and no one would have access to them? Of course not! All it would mean is that a huge black market of cigarettes would develop, and we would further enrich the drug dealers who are now peddling crack cocaine, marijuana, and other controlled substances by handing over a huge, multi-billion dollar industry in the sales of tobacco products.

This tactic would have a tremendous cost on society. Would we then declare war on tobacco the same way we've declared war on drugs today? Because the war on drugs has been a huge waste of taxpayer dollars, and has not been very effective at actually eliminating illegal drug use, drug trafficking, drug addiction, and so on. The reality of the economics here means that even if we ban nicotine products, there would certainly be a black market for them, and we might, in fact, be much better off keeping them legal where they can be regulated and taxed. So that's the libertarian argument in a nutshell, and I don't claim to speak for the libertarians on this one -- this is just an overview of the more common viewpoints on the subject.

I have an alternative solution to all of this, one that keeps the free choice in the hands of the users, and yet reduces the financial impact on the public at large. And this stems from the question: why should society have to pay for the health care costs of people who choose to commit slow suicide by consuming tobacco products? If a person is going to give themselves cancer, and if they're going to do so deliberately, day after day, year after year, is that a cost that should really be borne by their neighbors and fellow citizens? It doesn't seem fair. When there are some people taking care of their health and avoiding smoking, why should those who smoke demand that everybody else pay for their health care costs?

My suggestion is that we keep cigarettes legal, but we create a new policy that says those who engage in cigarette smoking are no longer covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or private health insurance. I know, it's pretty radical, and it will never, of course, become law, because it sounds too harsh. But let me explore a couple of interesting points on this so you can get a feel for why this is at least worth discussing.

If these smokers are going to destroy their health, they should really be outside the system of public payment for their health treatment. If they choose to take a road of slow suicide, and they're going to destroy their health and create outlandish healthcare costs, then they should be warned up front that they're going to be responsible for their own health care costs. Because right now, smokers are essentially saying to society: "You should pay my health care costs. Even though I'm going to sit around and smoke cigarettes and destroy my health, you should pay for me."

I think that we as non-smokers in society should stand up and say we are no longer willing to subsidize the slow suicide habits of people who choose to smoke. Why should we fund their healthcare costs... which is essentially a way of subsidizing their tobacco habit? It's almost as if we are rewarding them for being smokers, even while they are draining economic productivity out of society.

This approach would keep smoking legal, would allow people to exercise free will, but at the same time would make them responsible for their health choices. And of course, someone who smokes could stop smoking, and within say, one or two years could once again be covered by health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid. That's a decision they could make to get back into the system, if they wish, but if they wait until they are diagnosed with lung canceror heart disease while they're still smoking, it's too late.

You see, this puts the decision back in their hands without requiring the government to act likeBig Brother. The arguments against this system will of course start with the most obvious, which is that this is cruel to those people who are smokers. It's cruel not to cover their health care costs -- what are you going to do, kick them out of the hospitals? My answer to that is that these people are being cruel to themselves in the first place. They are committing suicide -- they're doing it knowingly, willingly, consciously, day after day. If you're smoking, you have no regard for your own health, why should society have any more regard for your health than you do?

And actually, it's worse than that: smokers are killing those around them through the destructive effects of secondhand smoke. Not only are smokers destroying their own health and demanding that you pay for it, they're also poisoning the air we all breathe. They are indirectly compromising the health of you and your family as they sit outside buildings and erect a smoke barrier through which you have to pass just to go through the front door. So now you have increased health care costs due to the destructive habits of smokers who seem to want to light up everywhere: parks, beaches, sidewalks... you name it. Why are we subsidizing that kind of activity? Why is smoking in public places still legal at all?

Other people might say that, Mike, you're suggesting this because you've never actually lost anybody to lung cancer, you're not close enough to this issue to understand the impact of it. That's not true either -- I've lost two close family members to lung cancer. I know what it's like to be around smokers and to lose loved ones to nicotine, and it's not that I would have wanted to punish those family members by denying them healthcare, it's that I would have wanted to talk to them 40 years ago, before they ever started smoking and said, hey, you have a choice. If you want to use this product, you can, but there will be a price to pay, and the price will be long-term cancer, a lot of pain and suffering, an early death, and you will no longer be covered by health insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. You won't be paid to be a smoker. On the other hand, if you choose to avoid smoking, you can be covered by health insurance, you can live a longer, healthier, happier life, without these negative consequences. The choice is yours to make.

Free choice. It's a tricky thing, you see. Almost everybody says they want it, but nobody wants to be responsible for the consequences of it. When people exercise free choice by smoking cigarettes, they still want somebody else to pay for their cancer or heart disease. To me, that's not free choice: that's acting as a parasite on society. That's nothing more than shifting responsibility to someone else when your own free choice turns out to be the wrong choice. Some people even think health care is a "right." As in, "I have the right to use illegal drugs, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, get obese, avoid exercise, eat junk foods... and then to demand that you pay for my health care costs." Seriously. Some people actually believe that.

Without question, this debate about smoking will continue to rage in our society. There will be those who say we should outlaw nicotine and tobacco now. Others will say we should allow consumers to have free choice, and there will be a few who might come up with creative suggestions like the one I've offered here. But the fact remains that as long as people continue to smoke in our society, there will be a tremendous cost not to just individuals, but society as a whole.

One argument in favor of supporting a national ban on smoking is that if people can't act like adults, then maybe a government body needs to jump in and help people make some healthier decisions. If we are supposed to be trusting people to make good decisions about their health and avoid cigarettes, then why aren't they doing so? Why are there still so many people smoking? The answer is because a lot of people in this country really have the minds of children. They can't make good decisions, so it's rather ridiculous, I think, to pursue the libertarian argument and say that these people should be allowed to make decisions on their own when it comes to tobacco use. The people obviously can't handle that decision.

On the other hand, the freedom-loving individual in me says, I sure wouldn't want the government making decisions for me, because I'm fully aware of the consequences of my actions, and thus a blanket policy from the government would be unfair, if not outright Orwellian. These are some of the issues that are worth considering.