4 ms·

Probably because gun violence isn't a disease, and there's already several agencies under the DoJ for that.

by Wohlf 4y ago

smt88 4y ago
The DoJ is not a research institution, and the CDC doesn't only study disease. They study all threats to public health, including smoking, heat waves, and bicycle accidents.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Honestly, this is one of the biggest issues I have with a government bureaucracy like the CDC. The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence. But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. The states signed the Master Settlement Agreement. I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The corporations were given blanket immunity in exchange for a paycheck. Any further expenditure of government on the subject is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
  - smt88 4y ago
    > But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. Addiction is considered a disease by physicians, psychiatrists, and medical researchers[1]. > I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The CDC publishes research on things like: - second-hand smoke - preventing your children from starting to smoke - the costs to society -- not just the smoker - pros/cons of taxing tobacco in different ways Because of government-funded research, smoking is banned in a lot of places that I don't have a choice of avoiding, such as airports, government offices, and grocery stores. The government's research is to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens. And that's not even getting into the cost to society of someone dying early. They leave behind medical debts that increase all of our costs, and they potentially leave behind family members who need care. 1. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-...
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      No, government research is not "to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens". This is explicitly what the Master Settlement Agreement does in 46 states. Marketing of tobacco products is nearly eliminated under the MSA. Anti smoking advocacy groups were formed. The pro-tobacco industries groups were dissolved. If the MSA is failing at that, the solution is to void the agreement and coerce the tobacco industry into another one with updated statues. Not to expand the CDC into areas like tax policy. And really - "preventing your children from starting to smoke"? There is no research that needs to be done in this area. The industry can't market to children. The industry can't sell to children. There are no shortage of smokers who shared their plight before their death (Yul Brynner comes to mind). If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society. No more money needs to be evaporated into this "research".
      - smt88 4y ago
        > If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society. That is what they're researching: how to stop people from harming themselves, others, and society by smoking. Tobacco companies can't market directly to children, but they have been working around it in many ways for decades. The latest method is vaping. Science and policy are not "one and done". We need to know if past policies were mistakes, and we need to adapt new policies to changes in tactics by bad actors.
        sidewndr46 4y ago
        If vaping is an issue, then the legislature and AG of each state should draft a letter to any companies selling vaping products telling them that they are expected to sign the MSA by a given date. If that doesn't happen, ban the companies products completely and forever. There is no need to waste money researching it. It's nicotine. It's addictive. It's a carcinogen. This has been known for much, much longer than I have been alive. Coercion is the literal function of government. The issue is, government is too spineless to ever actually do that. Governments have become dependent on the money that flows in from taxes on those products and settlements like the MSA. They can't actually make good on the threat to ban them because they depend on the money. So instead we get "research", "negotiations", and "compromise". Which are all a waste of taxpayer money. The US has some of the most brutal punishments in the world for drug trafficking and possession (I think China is actually worse, but I am unsure) for individuals. But we can't just ban the marketing of nicotine containing products and accessories? I don't buy it.
  - HWR_14 4y ago
    > The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence... But smoking? Would it help to learn that the CDC researched AIDS extensively in the very early 1980s (as well as one small study from 1978-1984)? That they tracked the spread of AIDS worldwide during that time, and were the first to identify blood-transfustions as a vector for infection. That in 1982/1983 they were issuing guidance for dealing with suspected cases - 2 years before there was a test. That the CDC hosted the first international symposium on AIDS in 1985? The solution there is not to get information from the president, but from the experts. Smoking was something they started researching after they were granted more investigative powers in 1987 and 1992 bringing their scope beyond "disease" to "health research". And messaging. AFAIK, most research they do on smoking is on smoking cessation programs and the efficacy of anti-smoking measures. Well, and thanks to vaping, a lot on the health effects of that.
colinmhayes 4y ago
sure, just saying that >virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has is not true
sitkack 4y ago
Can a mania be a disease? The CDC can't study gun violence using epidemiology and the DEA says there is no legitimate use of Cannabis. Both seem anti-science to me.
HWR_14 4y ago
The CDC isn't limited to studying disease. That was their original mission, but Congress expanded it to include a variety of health related issues, including environmental effects, dangers associated with jobsites, etc. it also is mandated to collect statistics that impact public health.

Probably because gun violence isn't a disease, and there's already several agencies under the DoJ for that.

by Wohlf 4y ago

Probably because gun violence isn't a disease, and there's already several agencies under the DoJ for that.

The DoJ is not a research institution, and the CDC doesn't only study disease. They study all threats to public health, including smoking, heat waves, and bicycle accidents.

sidewndr46 4y ago
Honestly, this is one of the biggest issues I have with a government bureaucracy like the CDC. The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence. But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. The states signed the Master Settlement Agreement. I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The corporations were given blanket immunity in exchange for a paycheck. Any further expenditure of government on the subject is a waste of taxpayer dollars.
- smt88 4y ago
  > But smoking? Do we really need to study it? It isn't even a disease. Addiction is considered a disease by physicians, psychiatrists, and medical researchers[1]. > I feel like that should be the last time the government ever brings it up or spends another dollar worrying about it. The CDC publishes research on things like: - second-hand smoke - preventing your children from starting to smoke - the costs to society -- not just the smoker - pros/cons of taxing tobacco in different ways Because of government-funded research, smoking is banned in a lot of places that I don't have a choice of avoiding, such as airports, government offices, and grocery stores. The government's research is to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens. And that's not even getting into the cost to society of someone dying early. They leave behind medical debts that increase all of our costs, and they potentially leave behind family members who need care. 1. https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-addiction-a-chronic-disease-not-a-moral-failing https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/brain-health/science-says-...
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    No, government research is not "to protect non-smokers from corporations that are trying to trick them into an addiction and also from smokers who fill shared air with carcinogens". This is explicitly what the Master Settlement Agreement does in 46 states. Marketing of tobacco products is nearly eliminated under the MSA. Anti smoking advocacy groups were formed. The pro-tobacco industries groups were dissolved. If the MSA is failing at that, the solution is to void the agreement and coerce the tobacco industry into another one with updated statues. Not to expand the CDC into areas like tax policy. And really - "preventing your children from starting to smoke"? There is no research that needs to be done in this area. The industry can't market to children. The industry can't sell to children. There are no shortage of smokers who shared their plight before their death (Yul Brynner comes to mind). If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society. No more money needs to be evaporated into this "research".
    - smt88 4y ago
      > If all that isn't enough to stop the problem, then the problem lies elsewhere in society. That is what they're researching: how to stop people from harming themselves, others, and society by smoking. Tobacco companies can't market directly to children, but they have been working around it in many ways for decades. The latest method is vaping. Science and policy are not "one and done". We need to know if past policies were mistakes, and we need to adapt new policies to changes in tactics by bad actors.
      - sidewndr46 4y ago
        If vaping is an issue, then the legislature and AG of each state should draft a letter to any companies selling vaping products telling them that they are expected to sign the MSA by a given date. If that doesn't happen, ban the companies products completely and forever. There is no need to waste money researching it. It's nicotine. It's addictive. It's a carcinogen. This has been known for much, much longer than I have been alive. Coercion is the literal function of government. The issue is, government is too spineless to ever actually do that. Governments have become dependent on the money that flows in from taxes on those products and settlements like the MSA. They can't actually make good on the threat to ban them because they depend on the money. So instead we get "research", "negotiations", and "compromise". Which are all a waste of taxpayer money. The US has some of the most brutal punishments in the world for drug trafficking and possession (I think China is actually worse, but I am unsure) for individuals. But we can't just ban the marketing of nicotine containing products and accessories? I don't buy it.
- HWR_14 4y ago
  > The government couldn't be bothered to study AIDS when it emerged in the US and actively denied its existence... But smoking? Would it help to learn that the CDC researched AIDS extensively in the very early 1980s (as well as one small study from 1978-1984)? That they tracked the spread of AIDS worldwide during that time, and were the first to identify blood-transfustions as a vector for infection. That in 1982/1983 they were issuing guidance for dealing with suspected cases - 2 years before there was a test. That the CDC hosted the first international symposium on AIDS in 1985? The solution there is not to get information from the president, but from the experts. Smoking was something they started researching after they were granted more investigative powers in 1987 and 1992 bringing their scope beyond "disease" to "health research". And messaging. AFAIK, most research they do on smoking is on smoking cessation programs and the efficacy of anti-smoking measures. Well, and thanks to vaping, a lot on the health effects of that.

colinmhayes 4y ago

sure, just saying that >virtually unlimited executive powers the CDC believes it has is not true

sitkack 4y ago

Can a mania be a disease? The CDC can't study gun violence using epidemiology and the DEA says there is no legitimate use of Cannabis. Both seem anti-science to me.

HWR_14 4y ago

The CDC isn't limited to studying disease. That was their original mission, but Congress expanded it to include a variety of health related issues, including environmental effects, dangers associated with jobsites, etc. it also is mandated to collect statistics that impact public health.