Have the tobacco police gone too far?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
There's an outside smoking ban in a couple of cities near me, which frankly I think is pretty ridiculous. It means you cant even stand outside your house on the sidewalk and smoke a cigarette. I'm sure the cops have better things to do than to cite people for smoking a cigarette.. OUTSIDE. I can understand a smoking ban in small parks for kids (there are signs at all my local parks that say no smoking and that's fine with me) or heavy populated public areas, but a huge park like Central Park or say Golden Gate park in San Fran, that's a little extreme.
agreed. i could see maybe a compromise and having areas of these huge parks be smoke-free, but the whole park is silly. i may hate cigarettes and being around them but i know just continually taking away where people can smoke isn't really going to make anyone quit. half will just not give a shit and just go somewhere else where they can smoke, half will dig their heels in and continue on as normal. maybe two people will quit but it's likely they would've anyway.
 
The recent NYC ban has demonstrated that the anti-smoking groups are bent on destroying the individual rights of people who choose to use tobacco. They are not going to stop.

Their propaganda has been very effective in convincing the general public that second hand smoke will kill you.

If that is indeed true, then all the baby boomers should be dead now.They grew up constantly exposed to second hand smoke. Forty years ago smoking was allowed virtually everywhere.


Another news report:
New Statesman - Fuming mad in New York
 
The recent NYC ban has demonstrated that the anti-smoking groups are bent on destroying the individual rights of people who choose to use tobacco. They are not going to stop.

I think most of us can agree and indeed most in here have agreed that attempting to ban smoking in huge open air spaces is reaching a bit too far.

Their propaganda has been very effective in convincing the general public that second hand smoke will kill you.

If that is indeed true, then all the baby boomers should be dead now.They grew up constantly exposed to second hand smoke. Forty years ago smoking was allowed virtually everywhere.

1. That's a gross oversimplification of the issue.

2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?
 
Last edited:
"I think most of us can agree and indeed most in here have agreed that attempting to ban smoking in huge open air spaces is reaching a bit too far."

Good to know Diemen.



"2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?"


Yes.


It seems the NYC council should be more concerned about the health issues related to the thousands of cars and trucks driving the the tight quarters of the city than a few smokers.

Would the NYC council choose to sit in a closed garage with a car running for ten minutes or outside sitting next to a guy smoking a fine cigar for an hour?
 
"2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?"


Yes.


It seems the NYC council should be more concerned about the health issues related to the thousands of cars and trucks driving the the tight quarters of the city than a few smokers.

Would the NYC council choose to sit in a closed garage with a car running for ten minutes or outside sitting next to a guy smoking a fine cigar for an hour?
Holy shit. This is painfully stupid.

You just basically said, "Would you rather be exposed to carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide?" Why are they the only two choices?

Also, if you think there are no health concerns with second hand smoke, you're an idiot.
 
"2. I'm unclear what you're arguing. Are you saying that there are no serious health issues associated with secondhand smoke?"


Yes.

I'm going to assume that you agree that there are serious health issues associated with smoking cigarettes directly (if not, please say so). Going on that assumption that there are known health risks to inhaling smoke firsthand, on what evidence are you basing this assertion that secondhand smoke poses no health risks? If the smoker him/herself is at risk, how is someone inhaling that same smoke next them not? The health risks may be to a lesser extent than the smoker, but I don't see how you can logically claim that there is no risk at all.
 
I'm going to assume that you agree that there are serious health issues associated with smoking cigarettes directly (if not, please say so). Going on that assumption that there are known health risks to inhaling smoke firsthand, on what evidence are you basing this assertion that secondhand smoke poses no health risks? If the smoker him/herself is at risk, how is someone inhaling that same smoke next them not? The health risks may be to a lesser extent than the smoker, but I don't see how you can logically claim that there is no risk at all.


I guess my main drive here is that tobacco is still a legal product.

I believe the anti-tobacco groups have used a lot of junk science to scare the crap out of people.

I would not recommend anyone use tobacco.

I just think this issue has reached hyperbole to the max.

The people who choose to use tobacco should not be subject to restrictions.
I will agree that some restrictions are warranted.

One side note / the governments are raking in billions on the taxes.
They dont seem ready to make it totally against the law.


A good response on this issue:
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke (ETS) | Sex, Cigars & Booze Lifestyle Magazine
 
The people who choose to use tobacco should not be subject to restrictions.
I will agree that some restrictions are warranted.

What?

People who use tobacco are costing all the rest of us IMMENSE SUMS OF MONEY in terms of healthcare, and are directly contributing to the country's ballooning debt due to these costs. Which are tangible, measurable and inarguable (unless you're really out to pasture).
 
Oh give it a rest. Tobacco products are very heavily taxed. If anything, smokers subsidise non-smokers. Non-smokers tend to live longer and as such cost the state huge sums in elder care. It is nothing but the purest hypocrisy to keep banging on about the evil smokers whilst ignoring the twin elephants in the room of health problems caused by work stress and automobile fumes.
 
Oh give it a rest. Tobacco products are very heavily taxed. If anything, smokers subsidise non-smokers. Non-smokers tend to live longer and as such cost the state huge sums in elder care. It is nothing but the purest hypocrisy to keep banging on about the evil smokers whilst ignoring the twin elephants in the room of health problems caused by work stress and automobile fumes.

This is simply not true in all places. The tax on cigarettes in a number of US states is very low, so low in fact that they are re-sold on the Canadian black market. Our taxes are higher, though not equally as high in all provinces.

I am not sure who is ignoring the other problems - I, for one, have many times posted here about automobile emissions, gas taxes, taxes on ridiculously large vehicles (like Hummers) and so on. And frankly if anyone understands work stress, it's probably the person who just put in an 82 hour week.

Get real - people like iron horse who are against tobacco taxes are the exact same people who oppose taxes on SUVs, increased gas taxes and so on, because it's their God given right to drive a Hummer across America.
 
Oh give it a rest. Tobacco products are very heavily taxed. If anything, smokers subsidise non-smokers. Non-smokers tend to live longer and as such cost the state huge sums in elder care. It is nothing but the purest hypocrisy to keep banging on about the evil smokers whilst ignoring the twin elephants in the room of health problems caused by work stress and automobile fumes.


elevation :wave:
 
I am not sure who is ignoring the other problems - I, for one, have many times posted here about automobile emissions, gas taxes, taxes on ridiculously large vehicles (like Hummers) and so on. And frankly if anyone understands work stress, it's probably the person who just put in an 82 hour week.

Well, are you aware of the studies that have shown probable causal links between excessive working hours and increased risk of mortality? Would you favour European style working directive legislation being enacted in the US and Canada, limiting the number of hours an employee can work?

Get real - people like iron horse who are against tobacco taxes are the exact same people who oppose taxes on SUVs, increased gas taxes and so on, because it's their God given right to drive a Hummer across America.

That may or may not be so, I cannot speak for Iron horse, but you'd have to admit there is very little attention given in the media to pollution caused by automobiles as compared to the seemingly never-ending campaigns to make smokers feel guilty about their habit.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Anti-smoking zealots playing loose with the facts

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
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom