Have the tobacco police gone too far? - Page 6 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-09-2011, 05:43 PM   #76
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Well, automobiles serve a practical purpose and cigarettes don't, so that might have something to do with it.
__________________

__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 05:45 PM   #77
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
Well, automobiles serve a practical purpose and cigarettes don't, so that might have something to do with it.
Did you think before posting this? You realise you're basically conceding that the anti-smoking lobby is puritanically based?
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 05:47 PM   #78
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Standing on the shore, facing east.
Posts: 18,886
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Did you think before posting this? You realise you're basically conceding that the anti-smoking lobby is puritanically based?
I'm not saying I agree with whether practicality should be part of the debate, but I am saying that's absolutely an influence on why cars aren't talked about as much as cigarettes. People can't imagine society without cars. They absolutely can imagine society without cigarettes.
__________________
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 08:45 PM   #79
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilsFan View Post
I'm not saying I agree with whether practicality should be part of the debate, but I am saying that's absolutely an influence on why cars aren't talked about as much as cigarettes. People can't imagine society without cars. They absolutely can imagine society without cigarettes.

"They absolutely can imagine society without cigarettes."

I agree.

The propaganda has been very effective.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:05 PM   #80
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,238
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
"They absolutely can imagine society without cigarettes."

I agree.

The propaganda has been very effective.
First you say that you would not advise anyone to use tobacco products, and now it's propaganda when people act on that advice?
__________________
Diemen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 11:26 AM   #81
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by financeguy View Post
Would you favour European style working directive legislation being enacted in the US and Canada, limiting the number of hours an employee can work?
I'd sign such an initiative twice if I could.

Not sure why you're banging on about it like I wouldn't. I think I've made it rather clear on several occasions that I tend to be resentful of the impact that my work hours have on my private life.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 04:07 PM   #82
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 56,443
Local Time: 02:08 AM
If this would ban smoking on open air train and subway platforms then sign me up.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 04:33 PM   #83
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I'd sign such an initiative twice if I could.

Not sure why you're banging on about it like I wouldn't. I think I've made it rather clear on several occasions that I tend to be resentful of the impact that my work hours have on my private life.

How many billable hours (approx) can you crank out in an 8-5 work day?
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 05:22 PM   #84
War Child
 
Dfit00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 893
Local Time: 03:08 AM
If you are interested in quitting I recommend this website:

WhyQuit - the Internet's leading cold turkey quit smoking resource

See Brian Curtis' story.
__________________
Dfit00 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 06:13 PM   #85
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
How many billable hours (approx) can you crank out in an 8-5 work day?
8-5 is very uncommon, the only time I'd go home at 5 would be on a Friday.

But from 8-5, on an excellent day, out of the 9 hours, maybe I can capture 7.5-8 billables. More likely average is probably about 7.
__________________
anitram is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2011, 08:45 AM   #86
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,984
Local Time: 02:08 AM
I would like to see that go away-it's disgusting. I've seen pictures of what oral cancer looks like. There are no other professional sports that I know of that allow athletes to do tobacco on the sidelines or on the field. There are baseball players who have teammates or wives who have had cancer yet they continue to do this-denial.

NBC News

Senators: Ban smokeless tobacco use in MLB

From NBC's Ken Strickland


Two Democratic senators are asking baseball commissioner Bud Selig to ban all tobacco use in the sport, specifically citing smokeless products.

Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey are suggesting that Selig push for a ban as part of the negotiations in the players' collective bargaining agreement later this year.

Major League Baseball banned tobacco use in its minor leagues in 1993, but still allows it in the big leagues. The senators say Major League Baseball "is undoubtedly complicit" in the increase its use with school-aged boys.

In a letter to Selig, Durbin and Lautenberg wrote, "We now know conclusively that smokeless tobacco endangers the health of baseball players who use it, but it also affects millions of young people who watch baseball."

"The use of smokeless tobacco by baseball players undermines the positive image of the sport and sends a dangerous message to young fans, who may be influenced by the players they look up to as role models," they wrote

The senators say they were motivated to write the letter because of an recent newspaper article written by Washington Nationals pitcher Steven Strasburg. The pitcher said his initial use chewing tobacco stemmed from a desire to emulate pro baseball players.

Referencing a National Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the senators say the use of smokeless tobacco products has increased 36% among high school boys since 2003, raising its use among all boys to 15%.

"While tobacco companies spend millions on ads tailored to attract young people to use tobacco products, MLB is undoubtedly complicit in attracting many young people to try smokeless tobacco after seeing their baseball heroes chew tobacco," they wrote.

The senators sent an identical letter to Baseball Players Association Executive Director Michael Weiner.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 07:51 PM   #87
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Tobacco Truth Gets Smoked - Reason Magazine
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 08:07 PM   #88
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 08:08 AM
Anti-smoking zealots playing loose with the facts

Quote:
A report prepared by a European group called the Smoke Free Partnership, completed in 2006, examined mortality allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in 25 nation states of the European Union. The report, titled “Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for going smokefree”, concluded that “Second-hand smoke exposure kills and harms health”, noting that “Every worker has the right to be protected from exposure to tobacco smoke”.

The conclusions, of course, were not unexpected. The report was intended to convince politicians and policymakers in individual states in the European Union to commit to comprehensive smoking bans and other smoke free policies. And, the EU report was indeed used to justify the smoking bans recently imposed throughout Europe, including the ban implemented in France.

For years, anti-smoker zealots have used the “threat” of secondhand smoke to support the need for smoking bans in the workplace, including restaurants and bars.

Mortality statistics, deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke, are frequently quoted in anti-smoker propaganda released through the main stream media. As often as not, the news stories appear to be written directly from the press releases issuing forth from the fanatics in the anti-smoker movement. The extravagant, often outrageous, claims made by the zealots are seldom challenged by the media.

Robert Molimard is professor emeritus of physiology and coordinator of the DIU of Tabacologie to the Faculty of Medicine Paris-South in France. A renowned tobacco researcher (tabacologist), Molimard took note of some discrepancies in the report which highlighted the number of deaths in France attributed to passive smoking.

Of particular concern to Professor Molimard were two tables presented in “Lifting the smokescreen”. The first asserted that there was a total of exactly 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in France in 2002. (identified as Table 6 in the report)

That's the figure most often used by anti-smoker zealots and their allies in the media, often rounded off to 5,000 or 6,000 passive smoking deaths. And, the inference is that these passive smoking deaths are among those who have never smoked.

However, Professor Molimard was quick to see the subterfuge; that the majority of those deaths occurred among smokers. “But what do we see when we revisit this study? We see that these 5,863 deaths include a majority of smokers!” he maintained in one interview. Uh-huh. Smokers are killing themselves with their own secondhand smoke, apparently after first having killed themselves by smoking. Or, perhaps they were killed by smoking after having already being killed by secondhand smoke.

At any rate, it's this frightening distortion of reality which clearly demonstrates the extent of the deceit perpetrated by the extremists.

This grossly inflated statistic points out another deception of the zealots. Looking at the chart we can see that, of those 5,863 deaths, it's apparent that only 314 of the alleged deaths occurred in the workplace, and only 25 in the hospitality sector.

But, there's more to the deception. Table 7 in the report estimates that deaths attributable to passive smoking among non-smokers is only 1,114, of which only 113 are allegedly due to passive smoking in the workplace. And, only six of those are ascribed to the hospitality sector.

But, the deception doesn't stop there. As noted by Professor Molimard: “And since ex-smokers represent approximately 40% of people who don’t smoke -- 48% and 52% [of non-smokers] are never smokers -- we then realize that the number of true non-smokers, who have never smoked, who will have a risk because of passive smoking in bars, hotels, restaurants, discotheques, these places where it is absolutely imperative to stop smoking because of the risks to the staff -- estimated using a scoop as a measuring tool -- is 2. ” Uh-huh.

So, the passive smoking deaths, as estimated in the EU report, included both smokers and former smokers. In addition, the vast majority, 5,574 of the 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke in the workplace, occurred not in the workplace, but from exposure in the home environment. Incredibly, only six were attributed in the hospitality sector. And, rough calculations by Professor Molimard suggest that fewer than half of those were never smokers.

France is a country of roughly 62 million people, with a smoking prevalence rate of between 21% to 27%, depending on who's quoting the figures. Yet, the anti-smoker zealots managed to convince their politicians that extremely restrictive anti-smoker legislation, which focused primarily on bars and restaurants, was needed to protect workers in the hospitality industry from secondhand smoke.

It's difficult to determine who is most at fault, the anti-smoker zealots who manufacture these fraudulent statistics to support their utopian goal of a smoker free society, or the brain dead politicians who blindly accept them without question.
Stand FAST
__________________
financeguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 08:18 PM   #89
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 01:08 AM
Again, if people want to smoke, that's their choice, and the only place I truly have control over such things would be my home. If I'm in a public place or someone else's house/car/whatever, this is the risk I run. I get that, I'm fine with that, all that sort of thing.

But I really find it funny that smokers get so bent out of shape over this stuff. Even if there isn't a direct link between secondhand smoke and illnesses (though I'd find that a wee bit hard to believe, 'cause that stuff's going to be unhealthy no matter where it's floating, I'd think), so what? It's still an unhealthy habit regardless that you don't need to be partaking in. Truly, in every way imaginable, it will not kill you if you can't smoke somewhere.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 08:41 PM   #90
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Bono's shades's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 5,038
Local Time: 02:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel View Post
But I really find it funny that smokers get so bent out of shape over this stuff. Even if there isn't a direct link between secondhand smoke and illnesses (though I'd find that a wee bit hard to believe, 'cause that stuff's going to be unhealthy no matter where it's floating, I'd think), so what? It's still an unhealthy habit regardless that you don't need to be partaking in. Truly, in every way imaginable, it will not kill you if you can't smoke somewhere.

Angela
There's a saying that goes "your rights end where my nose begins" that I think is very fitting here.

Even if the claim that secondhand smoke danger is exagerrated is true, many people are extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke. I can't imagine it would be good for someone with asthma to be in a smoke-filled bar or restaurant.
__________________

__________________
Bono's shades is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com