Smoking

[FoolKiller]

Gosh, does every decision Obama makes have to be about stomping on human rights?

If it restricts freedoms, then yes. I would stop bringing it up if he would stop doing it. I called out Bush for his rights and economic issues and I will do so with Obama. If he stops messing with things that he has no right to mess with I will stop commenting on it. Even if tobacco did require legal action, it would not be able to be done on the federal level according to the Tenth Amendment.

Yes, I don't think that it's a great day for consumer freedoms, but at the same time this law will ultimately do alot more good than harm in my
opinion.

If it is not a great day for any kind of freedom then it is doing more harm than good in my book. I would rather have the ability to openly choose my vice of choice, and have companies give me multiple choices, than have government attempt to force my hand toward what they consider to be the correct choice.

To misrepresent this as a personal issue for Obama is to misunderstand the point completely.

Then he shouldn't have quoted his personal issues as he signed the bill into law. He makes it sound as if he is using that as his own personal justification.

 

[Touring Mars]

Banning all cars would save lives too.

Except they are not banning smoking outright, only implementing laws that will ultimately benefit public health. Still, it's a fatuous comparison to make - to compare the automotive industry to the tobacco industry is misleading and ultimately beside the point. But since you raised it, since when did the automotive industry specifically and purposefully encourage young people to undertake inherently unsafe behaviour and deliberately mislead them about the risks of driving? It's not a fair comparison.

 

[Danoff]

Except they are not banning smoking outright

We're getting damned close.

But since you raised it, since when did the automotive industry specifically target young people, purposefully encourage them to undertake inherently unsafe behaviour and deliberately mislead them about the risks of driving?

Really? Seriously? When did they not?

I suppose you don't get Ford Mustang commercials so much where you are.

 

[Joey D]

The auto industry comparison is a bad example, the alcohol industry on the other hand is not. Alcohol can be viewed in the same way as tobacco, it's harms the user and creates a public health risk. It also can be just as dangerous to the employees of an establishment as smoking, whether it's a drunk individual who has no control and physically engages the employee or gets behind the wheel of a car and kills them while driving home.

Since no one answered my question before when I posed it, I'm going to ask it again. If we are banning smoking in public places then why not ban alcohol as well?

 

[FoolKiller]

Whose health are we talking about here? People who choose to smoke? People who choose to enter enclosed spaces with smokers?

I mean, we could legislate pre-marital sex and benefit public health. Or at least legislate unprotected sex. We should remove all sexual references from all media so kids don't think it is the cool and adult thing to do.

I know, let's legislate unhealthy food products, like trans-fats, so that we don't all have heart conditions...oh wait. OK, let's legislate that "public" places can only serve healthy foods low in cholesterol and fat.

How far do we take these laws that benefit public health?

 

[Touring Mars]

Really? Seriously? When did they not?

I suppose you don't get Ford Mustang commercials so much where you are.

As a point of fact, we don't - but then again, we've had tougher laws on smoking adverts for many years too. I still don't think it's a fair comparison. The tobacco industry has long been well aware that it's core product - it's very reason for existence - was fatally flawed (literally) - and tobacco companies have long been aware of the need to prevent new users from being exposed to the facts about their product i.e. that they contain a highly addictive substance, that they also contain substances that cause cancer, and that they really don't want prospective new customers - especially the young - to know about it. Alteast young drivers need to pass a test proving that they are aware of the risks/dangers of driving and have demonstrated the ability to drive safely....

The auto industry comparison is a bad example, the alcohol industry on the other hand is not. Alcohol can be viewed in the same way as tobacco, it's harms the user and creates a public health risk. It also can be just as dangerous to the employees of an establishment as smoking, whether it's a drunk individual who has no control and physically engages the employee or gets behind the wheel of a car and kills them while driving home.

Since no one answered my question before when I posed it, I'm going to ask it again. If we are banning smoking in public places then why not ban alcohol as well?

Good question...

How far do we take these laws that benefit public health?

And how far do we let the tobacco industry behave any way they choose, paying spin doctors and pseudoscientific charlatans to promote their products and deny that their products cause any harm at all? I also say 'let people choose for themselves', but let's have a fair game here and make sure that the public are properly warned about the risks, rather than letting Big Tobacco - with a proven track record of denial and deliberate obfuscation on the matter - regulate who knows what about the risks of smoking.

 

[FoolKiller]

The tobacco industry has long been well aware that it's core product - it's very reason for existence - was fatally flawed (literally) - and tobacco companies have long been aware of the need to prevent new users from being exposed to the facts about their product i.e. that they contain a highly addictive substance, that they also contain substances that cause cancer, and that they really don't want prospective new customers - especially the young - to know about it.

This argument hasn't been valid for nearly 20 years. No current smoker or potential smoker is suddenly going to go, "OH MY GOD!!!! These things can kill you!" It is a known public fact that cannot be escaped. At least not in the US.

By the way, just how tough are your smoking adverts? I haven't seen a smoking ad outside of a gas station in years.

And how far do we let the tobacco industry behave any way they choose, paying spin doctors and pseudoscientific charlatans to promote their products and deny that their products cause any harm at all? I also say 'let people choose for themselves', but let's have a fair game here and make sure that the public are properly warned about the risks, rather than letting Big Tobacco - with a proven track record of deliberate obfuscation on the matter - regulate who knows what about the risks of smoking.

Do you actually know someone over the age of 5 that doesn't know the dangers of smoking at this point? As far as I am concerned in the US, if you show me that person I will show you an idiot.

 

[Touring Mars]

No current smoker or potential smoker is suddenly going to go, "OH MY GOD!!!! These things can kill you!"

Wrong. A very high percentage of smokers admit to either trying or wanting to quit, but find themselves unable because they are physically addicted to the nicotine.

It is a known public fact that cannot be escaped. At least not in the US.

It is a commonly known fact that cigarettes pose a health risk and are addictive, but why do you think the tobacco industry has aggressively marketed their products towards young people? Young people make decisions based on different priorities, and when the risks are intentionally downplayed, ignored, or even flat-out denied, what chance do they have of being considered over and above the so-called 'benefits' of smoking that attract them in their droves?

Addressing Joey's point too, I think alcohol should be treated much the same way - banning outright would be bad, but there should atleast be warnings about the health risks, especially for the sake of young people who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for.

By the way, just how tough are your smoking adverts? I haven't seen a smoking ad outside of a gas station in years.

Pretty tough - we haven't had cigarette ads on TV for as long as I can remember (literally), and now cigarette ads are banned from most public places, live sporting events etc. The next thing will be the removal of cigarettes from point-of-sale displays, where they currently enjoy prominent status.

 

[Danoff]

No current smoker or potential smoker is suddenly going to go, "OH MY GOD!!!! These things can kill you!"

Wrong. A very high percentage of smokers admit to either trying or wanting to quit, but find themselves unable because they are physically addicted to the nicotine.

These two statements aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[FoolKiller]

Wrong. A very high percentage of smokers admit to either trying or wanting to quit, but find themselves unable because they are physically addicted to the nicotine.

I have no clue how that is even remotely close to what I actually said. People want to quit. Cool. They got the message that has been drilled into our heads for the last 20 years. Nothing in this new law will actually make them all suddenly notice that it is bad for your health.

This

It is a commonly known fact that cigarettes pose a health risk and are addictive, but why do you think the tobacco industry has aggressively marketed their products towards young people?

Does not mesh with this, or what I said that it is responding to.

Pretty tough - we haven't had cigarette ads on TV for as long as I can remember (literally), and now cigarette ads are banned from most public places, live sporting events etc.

If we still had ads with Flintstones characters smoking I would agree, but Joe Camel has even been banned and you are talking about not seeing any cigarette ads on TV as long as you can remember. Where is the marketing to young people then? They can't use cartoon characters, they can't even advertise on TV or billboards. How are they marketing to young people now that this new law is necessary? You say they do it but then say you haven't seen ads in years. Which is it? Heck, even the tough as nails Solid Snake can't smoke without it hurting his health.

Young people make decisions based on different priorities, and when the risks are intentionally downplayed, ignored, or even flat-out denied, what chance do they have of being considered over and above the so-called 'benefits' of smoking that attract them in their droves?

As you and I have both said that we do not see any ads how is this being done? What marketing, unless parents are taking their kids into tobacco shops? I know these kids aren't watching Congressional hearings on CSpan to see the direct denials, so I am totally confused. You will have to show me.

Addressing Joey's point too, I think alcohol should be treated much the same way - banning outright would be bad, but there should atleast be warnings about the health risks, especially for the sake of young people who have no idea what they are letting themselves in for.

Entire ad campaigns for some products are dedicated to safe drinking. Some brands willingly place a warning on their labels. Who doesn't know that drunk driving is bad at this point? What purpose does it serve to legislate further to promote common knowledge?

It's as effective as legislating an advertising campaign to say grass is green or the sky is blue. Everyone knows. We all get it. Idiots just don't care.


Add into all this that the various non-profit groups are being handed money from tobacco companies, by law, to create anti-smoking ads and groups like MADD create PSAs about drunk driving and no legislation is necessary, unless of course you want to "punish" companies and consumers through taxes.

 

[Joey D]

Entire ad campaigns for some products are dedicated to safe drinking. Some brands willingly place a warning on their labels. Who doesn't know that drunk driving is bad at this point? What purpose does it serve to legislate further to promote common knowledge?

The same goes for smoking as well, the Truth ads that were out a couple years back did the same thing. Really if the government is banning smoking in public places then they should ban drinking on the same grounds.

 

[Danoff]

Really if the government is banning smoking in public places then they should ban drinking on the same grounds.

Two wrongs make a left?

 

[Joey D]

Two wrongs make a left?

If they are making one thing wrong and not the other that doesn't make sense and that is giving exceptions to the law. Really if the government bans smoking in public places they should on the same token ban drinking.

You missed my point on the whole subject earlier though, I don't think you should ban drinking in public any more than you should ban smoking. But if someone supports the banning of smoking then they should also support the banning of drinking for the same reasons.

 

[Danoff]

You missed my point on the whole subject earlier though,

Pretty sure I got it.

But if someone supports the banning of smoking then they should also support the banning of drinking for the same reasons.

In otherwords, they should be consistently wrong.

I'm still wondering what the basis is for this kind of government regulation. Why does the government, or in some cases, why do "the people" have the right to do this? What is the rational justification for this type of force?

 

[Joey D]

Pretty sure I got it.

I'm pretty sure you missed it, either that or you just enjoy arguing because essentially we are agreeing to the same thing.

My point is why is it that someone would support a ban on smoking because it's a danger to public health, but not the ban of drinking? I'm attempting to point out the absurdity of it.

 

[Danoff]

I'm pretty sure you missed it, ...we are agreeing to the same thing.

In principle we're saying the same thing. I just didn't quite like the way you presented it. Call it picky, but after years of discussions in this forum, I've learned to be very careful about the way things get presented.

 

[Keef]

Gosh, does every decision Obama makes have to be about stomping on human rights? Big Tobacco has had this coming from the day they decided that targeting the young was a good idea, to the day they decided to ignore/cover-up their own evidence that smoking tobacco causes cancer. Tough titty to them is all I can say. Yes, I don't think that it's a great day for consumer freedoms, but at the same time this law will ultimately do alot more good than harm in my opinion. To misrepresent this as a personal issue for Obama is to misunderstand the point completely.

"Champagne companies have had this coming since the day they decided that targeting the wealthy was a good idea." (alcohol is bad for your health)

"McDonald's has had this coming since the day they decided that targeting people on-the-move was a good idea." (fast food is typically unhealthy)

"Ferrari has had this coming since the day they decided that targeting flamboyant drivers was a good idea." (bursting into flames is bad for your health)

Or, alternatively...

"Private business has had this coming since the day they decided that making money was a good idea."


See what I did there Joey, I made the auto industry analogy work.

EDIT: I just remembered that you, Touring Mars, and many others enjoy a good drink at a pub. I'm sure many of those places serve food also. This is a problem for me.

It's a problem because I don't like eating around drinking, or possibly already drunk people, just as much as I don't like eating around smokers. You drinkers can get pretty loud and obnoxious, your breath stinks, sometimes people spill stuff, sometimes I go in the restroom and there is vomit all over the toilet seat. One time I got caught in a bar brawl and went home with a mighty bruise and my dad, not even involved, nearly in handcuffs. It can get quite unpleasant.

I propose our federal government (I know you're across the sea, but I'll use the US as an example) move to restrict ads for alcohol, put large warnings on cans and bottles that will interfere with brand recognition, some of which you might think is timeless, and to make it equal to smoking laws I propose that States do what they have done with smoking: Make it illegal in enclosed public spaces.

There. Now drinking and smoking, which are equally bad for one's own and surrounding people's health, are equally regulated. So make it a double, neat.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm still wondering what the basis is for this kind of government regulation. Why does the government, or in some cases, why do "the people" have the right to do this? What is the rational justification for this type of force?

I actually saw a question today asking if you don't have the right to take something away from someone (and possibly give it to someone else) then how do you feel you have the right to vote for the government to have the right to take something away from someone (and possibly give it to someone else).

In this case, no one would agree that they can walk into a place of business that still allows smoking and walk around putting out everyone's cigarettes, and taking X amount of dollars from the register for each person, growing exponentially by the number, and eventually tearing up their business license, so why why do people feel they have the right to tell governments that represent them to do it?

If you don't think you have the right to do something yourself perhaps there is a reason?

 

[TrievelA7X]

He won't admit that a fair wage for $1/hr of work is $1/hr. I very much doubt he'll accept that forcing a person to have sex under any circumstance is rape.

when did I say "1$ an hour of work is 1% an hr"? Please quote me.

I saw a new "truth" commercial. Nothing technically false, just misleading, again.
In this commercial they say smoking could potentially kill 1 billion people in the next 100 years. They then say that's 17% of the world's population.
Well, yes, it is 17% of the planet's current population. But I'd bet that the calculation (of 1 billion tobacco deaths) is including estimated population increase. In other words, for it to kill 1 billion people, the planet's population must grow to estimate (perhaps 6.5-7 billion), and this estimate should also count how many lives will be lived in 100 years. So if the average life expectancy is 65 years worldwide, and the population grows to 7 billion, and nobody quits smoking, and the expected rate of kids pick up the habit, 1 billion out of about 11 billion people could die of "tobacco related illness"
Am I getting this right? It sounds to me like they tried to make it sound like 17% of the world dies from smoking, but in reality, less than 10% do, no?

 

[Famine]

You didn't. That's the point.

You said $1/hr isn't "a fair wage". I asked, a couple of times, why it can't be a fair wage if you do $1/hr of work. You refuse to acknowledge the possibility.

 

[Touring Mars]

For me, there are parallels but also big differences between smoking and drinking in bars/restaurants. For one, there are already strict controls over the sale of alcohol in bars - age limits, time limits, the right of staff to deny service, consumers may not drink their own alcohol on licensed premises etc. etc. I fully support measures designed to make retailers more responsible too - like the abolition of happy hours, harsher penalties for shops and bars who supply alcohol to underage people, far more warnings about the health risks of alcohol etc.

But there is a big difference between smoking and drinking in the simplest regard that smoking forces those around the smoker to partake too. Drinking fundamentally doesn't. I agree that the behaviour of people who drink can ruin a night out for those who chose not to, but once again, there are laws against abusive or violent behaviour. But alcohol consumption itself only physically harms the drinker, and not the staff or the guy sitting at the next table. This is an important distinction.

 

[Keef]

So important I tried to avoid mentioning it, lol.

I'd like to comment on some of your ideas about alcohol regulation, which I assume are popular over there. Happy Hours were designed by business owners to be at the time of day when the place is dead. They give cheap drinks to entice people into the bar or wherever when they otherwise wouldn't be there. Of course sometimes the dumb ones give deals at rush hour, which is a pain for me because all the seats are taken.

I actually don't know what sort of penalties places get for selling to minors. I personally know of it happening, with friend hookups and whatnot, but I don't know who gets in trouble and how much. Anyone know those rules?

And like smoking has already proven, harsher warnings won't accomplish anything for public safety, and will only harm a business's bottom line. The ill effects are already widespread knowledge, and widely ignored.

I'm not sure I'm in the camp of reducing our drinking age over here, however. The age is 18 in England and Australia, and I must admit, it seems many British and Australian GTP members of that age group seem to love getting sick-drunk playing games that they're bound to forget the next morning. I actually don't have any friends that think that is a good idea at all. At least not the sick-drunk part. Now that I've actually been that age, I think that the 18 year old mentality, whether they've experienced it before or not, still thinks that getting hammered is awesome, dude.

 

[FoolKiller]

But there is a big difference between smoking and drinking in the simplest regard that smoking forces those around the smoker to partake too.

I wasn't aware that non-smokers were forced to sit in a room with a smoker. I have yet to run across these businesses that require people to be their customers and come inside the building with all these death-dealing smokers.

 

[Joey D]

I still fail to see the differences between drinking and smoking at a restaurant. If you are out to ban one on the grounds of public safety then you should also be out to ban the other. The both have a huge risk attached to them for both the person using the product as well as the people surrounded by it. So someone drinking a beer next to me isn't going to give me respiratory problems, but they very well might sexually harass someone I'm with, get violent, vomit, or get behind the wheel and kill me on the way home. Yes they are a different set of risks, but risks never the less. I'm still not able to comprehend the justification of banning one and not the other, unless of course it's because the person arguing the point drinks but does not smoke.

We also have age limits on purchasing tobacco, controlling of sales, and in many places a time limit (you can't smoke until after 9pm).

 

[Touring Mars]

I still fail to see the differences between drinking and smoking at a restaurant. If you are out to ban one on the grounds of public safety then you should also be out to ban the other. The both have a huge risk attached to them for both the person using the product as well as the people surrounded by it. So someone drinking a beer next to me isn't going to give me respiratory problems, but they very well might sexually harass someone I'm with, get violent, vomit, or get behind the wheel and kill me on the way home. Yes they are a different set of risks, but risks never the less. I'm still not able to comprehend the justification of banning one and not the other, unless of course it's because the person arguing the point drinks but does not smoke.

People might also do all of these things without alcohol too. In any case, most of these things you mention would be considered illegal anyway, regardless of the involvement of alcohol, let alone who supplied the alcohol. You are implying that by selling alcohol, restaurant owners increase the risk of these things happening to their other customers, but this simply isn't supported by any evidence. If you can find a single piece of evidence that shows specifically that dry restaurants pose less of a health risk to their customers than licensed ones, or that they are more successful businesses than those that permit licensed alcohol use, I'd like to see it. In any case, what you are talking about are by-products of alcohol use that can be largely mitigated by a well-trained staff and are arguably rare exceptions to an otherwise general rule, that licensed restaurants are no more of a risk to your health than dry ones.

Passive smoking can directly adversely affect the health of anybody exposed to it, independently of their behaviour or that of the smoker. A recent report in the journal Clinical Medicine showed that passive smoking accounted for over 12000 otherwise preventable deaths per annum in the UK alone (before the smoking ban), hence why passive smoking itself is considered a risk to public health, as opposed to "health risks" as a potential consequence of someone else's alcohol intoxication.

 

[Mark T]

The difference in my opinion is that alcohol requires abuse to affect other people. There may be a very small minority who become aggressive after drinking, but then most bars have security staff to protect the customers. Smoking requires no abuse and can affect pretty much everyone especially those who work within the business.

 

[FoolKiller]

Passive smoking can directly adversely affect the health of anybody exposed to it, independently of their behaviour or that of the smoker. A recent report in the journal Clinical Medicine showed that passive smoking accounted for over 12000 otherwise preventable deaths per annum in the UK alone (before the smoking ban), hence why passive smoking itself is considered a risk to public health, as opposed to "health risks" as a potential consequence of someone else's alcohol intoxication.

Wait they found a definitive way to prove that over 12000 people blatantly died from second-hand smoke, that otherwise would have lived?

Unless these are 12000 people that walked into a place with smoking and died from asthmatic attacks on the spot I call BS. Too many variables are involved to determine this without a huge leap of logic.

 

[Touring Mars]

I call BS.

I'm sorry, FK, but I'll take the word of the British Medical Journal (where the original study was published) over yours anyday... Note that this figure also includes a substantial proportion of people who have likely died from exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke at home. Granted, the figures are much lower for the workplace, but still the study shows that passive smoking poses a real, direct health risk to people in the workplace, which can and does cause serious illness and death.

Even using the lowest statistically defensible estimates of the risks associated with passive smoking, the numbers of attributable deaths remain sizeable: 204 across the whole workforce (per annum)

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm sorry, FK, but I'll take the word of the British Medical Journal (where the original study was published) over yours anyday...

So, explain to me how they came to this conclusion. Please, educate me.

I can only assume that, like the various studies in the US, it is all based on pure temporal coincidences and fails to take into account the lifestyles of those who died or what other environmental factors may have also changed, as governments do not stop at just regulating one activity, far from it.

 

[Touring Mars]

So, any and all deaths attributable to passive smoking are "pure coincidences"? I can see I am wasting my time here.