Posting in Food
It's rare that I face people puffing away madly and blowing the smoke in everyone's face. But they still smoke.
Would that it were. (Picture from the Food and Drug Administration.)
We know cigarettes are addictive. We know they kill. We have known this for decades. It's what makes watching "Mad Men" so delicious -- everyone seems to be smoking as people did then.
In the years since those portrayed in AMC's TV show (they're smoking clove cigarettes, they hasten to note repeatedly) the smoking rate has been cut in half -- from 42% to roughly 20%.
But each day 4,000 new smokers are lighting up, 1,000 still getting addicted, they're all still taking steps that lead to premature death at a frightening cost.
They want smoking banned in all workplaces, in cars with kids and casinos. They want smokers charged double for their health insurance. And they want smoking in the home considered as part of any child custody dispute -- if they're smoking take their kids away.
People who follow the industry aren't worried. They see a 3% annual decline in annual sales continuing, not accelerating, and the profitability is amazing. Lorillard has the highest return on equity in the whole stock market. As the recession has taken hold the number of smokers quitting has actually dropped.
The snark is also getting as thick as cigarette smoke.
That's the key to the whole thing, I believe. Since the 1998 Master Tobacco Settlement smokers' attitudes have changed. I saw it on my morning walk, at the MARTA station near my home.
The bus driver was smoking all right, but she left her bus to do it. She even (technically) left the station, standing on some steps by a sidewalk, facing away from all of us toward the street.
It's rare that I face people, even on our bus platform, puffing away madly and blowing the smoke in everyone's face. Even the local drug dealers step into the roadway. And this is outdoors.
If one in five American adults are still lighting up, it's ridiculous to even propose a ban on tobacco.
So what would you do?
Nov 11, 2010
Quickly this site will indisputably be famous among all blogging people, because of its fastidious articles or reviews.
Smoking tobacco is a very pleasurable thing to do for the smoker. It's a shame that tobacco is so destructive to the body, because it is a very pleasant addiction for those who love it. Too bad there isn't a "safe" tobacco to smoke. in the orther hand the benefit of electronic cigarette smoking is that you can smoke it anytime you want. You won?t get into any fights because of the fumes. Anther thing is that you can afford to be less mindful of the people that?s around you. It can definitely improve your social life. http://ecig.pk
Smoking tobacco is a very pleasurable thing to do for the smoker. It's a shame that tobacco is so destructive to the body, because it is a very pleasant addiction for those who love it. Too bad there isn't a "safe" tobacco to smoke. in the orther hand the benefit of electronic cigarette smoking is that you can smoke it anytime you want. You won?t get into any fights because of the fumes. Anther thing is that you can afford to be less mindful of the people that?s around you. It can definitely improve your social life. http:ecig.pk
SDM1711 hit the nail on the head in post 11. Try to outlaw it completely and you will have a backlash to rival the prohibition debacle. Continue to discourage it, tax it, etc. and the number of smokers will continue to decrease. When it reaches a small enough number, the second hand smoke issue will go away altogether because whether you are a smoker or a bystander, the effects are cumulative. If there aren't many smokers, the chances of cumulative second hand smoke are small. Having said that, no government should have the right to ban something in a private building that is allowed in another private building. If the law says a person can smoke in their home, then it should not be able to say that person cannot have smoking in the business that they own. Ban smoking in public owned buildings - government buildings, schools, etc. Do not tell the owner of bar that he cannot have smoking. Despite the public being allowed in, it is not a public establishment, but his private business. Disclosure: My dad smoked 3 packs a day till he died - of diabetes, not smoking. I have only smoked two or three times in my life and I was thoroughly drunk on every occasion, putting my liver in much more danger than my lungs. And no, I do not drink often, getting drunk on about 8 light beers less than once a month, I have no fear for my liver.
What about all the money the government spends on tobacco subsidies? http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=00000&progcode=tobacco
Smokers have, as it has been pointed out, been unfairly stigmatized, segregated and taxed for their life choices for years in America. I know, I was one of them until earlier this year. It seems like it's more important to point the finger at smokers and tell us how bad, unhealthy, stinky, and generally offensive we are to those that do not smoke then to work toward a common goal of making tobacco consumption cleaner (we can do it with a car) healthier, or at the very least a personal choice made that does not interfere with another person?s freedoms. Being an ex-smoker I can certainly agree that the lingering smoke on a person is absolutely not a wonderful smell but then again neither are outhouses, Honey Buckets, bus/ car exhaust, perspiration, or any plethora of smells that we consider offensive. I have no right to step up to an overweight person and describe just how foul I think their perspiration smells to me, but non smokers do this very thing to smokers almost every day. If the constant cat calls are not enough, non smokers complain that the smokers are taking away their freedoms to clean air they hop into their vintage 1990 something car that only passed emissions tests on waivers; Hmm, now if that isn?t the pot calling the kettle black? I also agree that cigarette smoking is unhealthy, thus my own personal choice to quit. However, eating Twinkies, Bon-Bons or any other highly processed sugary food can be just as bad and every bit as dangerous, anyone heard of diabetes? I don?t hear any regulations or taxes proposed for Twinkies or other processed foods. The difference there is that a person?s choice to eat junk food and other than the malodorous air the person may generate, the choice only affects the individual making the choice. It was mentioned earlier about e-cigs, wouldn?t that move the smokers choice into the same realm as junk food? The difference being, of course, respiratory and circulatory health issues as opposed to dietary and circulatory issues. But at least the choice would be the individuals, not the imposition on another?s freedoms. The last point I think is that smokers are driven away from structures and out into the elements. When you are addicted your addicted and 50? out in the elements in a small price to pay at that moment in time. The craving satisfied, the smoker returns to the shelter with the increased risk of bringing a few freeloaders with them. I?m talking about flu and colds. More productivity is lost every year due to flu and colds than to any other source. So it makes sense to force a portion of the working population into a situation that will ultimately ensure the continuation of the cold and flu season for the whole office. Why would a business ever want their staff to be happy, healthy and productive? Naturally I?m being totally sarcastic, but why aren?t special ?smoking rooms? reinstated. Outside you have no control of where the smoke goes, if the smoker is in a room designed to handle smoke the non smokers will have 2 advantages. The first advantage is the smokers are in an area away from casual contact. The second is that the smokers are also indoors where the elements are not, reducing their risk of exposure to flu and cold viruses to that of the other worker in the facility. These are just a couple of ideas of working together toward a common goal rather than one group point the finger at another group saying this is all your fault. And the beauty of working together is that if the number of smokers continues to decline so will the revenue generated by them. Eventually it will reach a point where the government will start searching for the next group of people to stigmatize, segregate and unfairly tax. Better stock up on those Twinkies, they do have a half-life?
Canada already had farily low and declining smoking rates when ugly, large, gross pictures and warnings were mandated to be on the front and backs of the cigarette packages. Studies showed they helped lower the rate a little more. Studies also showed that remaining smokers admitted being bothered by them and it increased their desire to quit.
I think what's clear from this thread is that smokers feel stigmatized. At least American smokers do. They resent those who have brought them this stigma, and many feel helpless to do anything about it, except (like Rodo1) to lash out. This kind of denial and anger are part of a grieving process, and I think people have to go through the whole process before they take effective action. Tell y'all how my dad quit. He'd been smoking over 40 years. He bought a carton of smokes and went to a cabin in the woods. He started smoking. Smoked and smoked and smoked until he made himself sick, then smoked one more. Came down off the mountain and never smoked again, because he had that memory to fall back upon. Your mileage will vary. But it does bring up a point critics have brought up here many times, which is personal responsibility. We usually see this as a negative -- you have to take personal responsibility. But it can also be a positive -- I am going to take personal responsibility. And when it comes to smoking (as with obesity) I beats you.
Smokers have a much higher rate of various illnesses and the medical costs are higher. I think it's right that medical insurance should be higher, the same as for people who undertake risky sports. (In countries with socialised medicine, the main justification for taxing the hell out of tobacco is to pay medical costs associated with treating smokers) As for "not within 50 feet of a building" - I have a restaurant next door and smokers congregate outside. Most nights this means having to close windows to keep things from wafting in. I'm allergic, so this is much more than just an unpleasant smell. Frankly I'm glad about the bans on smoking indoors in Europe. I hated coming home from a night out with clothes and hair reeking of smoke, plus feeling shitty from having to use an asthma inhaler half the evening. Your smoke - my problem. I like to drink beer and the byproduct of that process is urine. I'm sure the average smoker would object if I sprayed it all over them, but most still seem happy to blow their byproducts all over the rest of us.
Smoking tobacco is a very pleasurable thing to do for the smoker. It's a shame that tobacco is so destructive to the body, because it is a very pleasant addiction for those who love it. Too bad there isn't a "safe" tobacco to smoke.
Seems that everyone wants to get into everyone Else's business. So why don't they outlaw fat people? They cost more in medical cost than smokers, aren't as productive, etc etc etc. I don't like being exposed to cigarette smoke either, but not to the point of telling people they can't smoke in their homes, private vehicles, etc. Whether you like it or not, smokers have rights too, just like everyone else, they're not second class citizens. If your outside and someone's smoke is blowing towards you, just move up-wind, that's what I do. Smokers have been victimized by our tax system for years now. Every time the gov't needs extra money, first thing they do is add another tax onto tobacco, which is really unconstitutional by the U.S. tax code. Your not supposed to single out businesses/people for taxes, which we have done over and over again. Smokers have overpaid WAY MORE than their fair share, so think about that the next time you want to take away more of their freedoms.... If tobacco gets illegalized, that opens the doors wide open for other things, like alcohol, certain foods, etc. The list goes on and on, and I personally don't want to live in a socialist society where big brother dictates everything in your life. Kind of like what's happening now, eh nannies? [Non_smoker]
"Even the local drug dealers step into the roadway. And this is outdoors.' AMAZINGLY THIS IS TRUE AND BELIEVE THIS I KNOW MANY AREAS THAT CONSIDER THE RECENT LIE THAT CIGARRETTES AND ALCHOHOL ARE DEADLIER THAN DRUGS!!!!! i WOULD TAKE 1 OUNCE OF EITHER TOBACCO OR ALCHOHOL AND DARE THEM TO CONPARE IT TO 1 GRAM OF HEROIN, OR COCAINE.
There is a clear end to tobacco smoking, it is called death. Same for your car emissions, and all the other carbon release you make each day. The actual issue here is about money-- like everything else-- and the myth that smokers cost more than non-smokers in health care dollars. If you did your homework occasionally you would find a number of very thorough studies that fine that being healthy and living a long life ends up costing a good deal more in total health care dollars that smoking people do. The cost of long term care for dementia and other diseases of old age are extremely costly, lung cancer is a pretty cheap thing to deal with, there is little effective treatment and you die. The people being the perpetuation are of course the insurance companies. They don't like smokers because they die on the insurance companies buck. What the companies want is for you to live long enough to die on the taxpayers buck-- medicare-- so they get to keep all that money you have paid to them and they carry almost none of the cost of your years of sucking dry the tax payers money. In reality smokers overall save the system money-- but the people behind the BS of the cost of smoking simply ignore the actual facts of who really eats up the health bucks in the long run. It is the insurance companies that are piling up bucks in their basements with the push to stop smokers. Smoking is an obnoxious habit, but so is misleading people, and telling only half truths. I challenge you to research the studies done on the lifetime health care costs for everyone, then perhaps you will find that smokers are actually doing the taxpayers of America a favor when they light up. And I also have never heard of anyone going out smoking a pack of cigs and coming home and wiping out their families. Happens almost daily when people put away a 6 pack. A few years ago someone in my neighborhood got drunk, buried 5 kittens in the ground up to their necks and ran them over with the lawn mower. Never hear of that happening after someone lit up a butt. Dana either get it right, or leave it alone. You always seemed to be so naive about the grand scope of things.
I don't like being in a smoky room, and I wouldn't allow smoking in my workplace- even before it was a law. But this crap about 'your freedom to smoke ends at my nose' is BS. Turning people out into the street to smoke is one thing, but 50 feet from the nearest door? Smokers can't even build a smoking shelter because that puts them back 'indoors'. Maybe it would be easier for everybody if we were allowed to just kill them outright... Besides, as long as you are driving a car (which you probably are), heating/cooling a house (which you probably are), using electricity (which you definitly are, that's how you can read this), or eating food and wearing clothes you are causing pollution. So, treat smokers like human beings. Maybe if you stop contributing to their stress they won't need to smoke so much.
Most smokers started at a young age; peer pressure is generally quoted as the reason some start. It seems that those who hold off on starting to smoke until after high school tend to hold out for the rest of their lives and not smoke. My sister smokes and her children used to nag her to quit but now her son smokes. The kids had the right message for their age but the message changes as they become teenagers. I would aim the anti smoking programs at the children before they try tobacco with emphasis on showing how hard it is to kick this particular addiction.
I've never asked to smoke anywhere someone might be offended. Likewise I rarely go places I can't smoke. It's great, with all the money saved I've never eaten better quality food now that I'm not eating out anymore, meanwhile I'm actually saving money. Meanwhile I never need to worry about offending anyone else. Meanwhile would people please notice that booze kills more people each year than my cigarette does. Sorry but over 50% of all car accidents have liquor involved yet we dare not touch that holy grail. This need to make everyone stop smoking is still the first step to prejudice. Anyone see what that got everyone in WWII? Meanwhile thank smokers instead of beating them all the time. With our nations economy, they need all the smokers they can find so they don't have to worry about paying social security out. See smoking still can be good for our nation, if you're just willing to look past the long nose that's stuck in my business that I'm doing in my home, car and property.
I am of the opinion that the goal is what is wrong. we should simply continue to strive to reduce smoking in society. the goal of eliminating smoking is not a managable goal. In the end we will end up with 5 or 10% of adults smoking. they will pay alot and be virtual outcasts. I know the second hand smoke issue is out there, but seriously, the vast majority of smokers are smoking outdoors and trying not to smoke in others faces. I struggle with the idea that an occansional accidental cloud of cigarette smoke, while annoying, is any worse than standing on a corner when a truck or bus unloads that black stuff all over you. We need to stop whining and judging each other by standards few could can measure up to.
Remove addictive ingredients from cigarettes. As long as cigarettes' ingredients are secret and as long as companies are free to manipulate ingredients to increase addictive qualities, anit-smoking compaigns are swimming upstream. I know many smokers who struggle with quitting; most of whom don't want to continue smokings. But, as Mark Twain wrote: ?It's easy to quit smoking. I've done it hundreds of times.?
Brazil saw a large decrease in the smoking rate when this was done. Canada, not so much. But policy makers feel anything is better than nothing.
Your problem, as always, is you are not taking responsibility for the smoke getting into my lungs. Your freedom stops at my nose. Always has. You attack my life with your smoke and it's assault. A good law against smoking indoors is always better than a fistfight between friends, don't you think?
I still think we should have the choice to smoke or not. I'm sorry, but the nanny-state BS needs to stop. It's called personal responsibility. To pass laws mandating that a place become non-smoking is ridiculous. Coercion is never a good thing.
Tobacco cigarettes are killers. E-cigarettes are an alternative for people to make a life saving decision. E-cigarettes contain no tar, carbon monoxide, arsenic, butane, acetone, methanol, etc. There's no second-hand smoke or smell of smoke. I smoked two packs of tobacco cigarettes a day for 18 years. I purchased my first electric cigarette in March 2010 and haven't smoked tobacco since then. My wife has cut back, but still smokes tobacco. She does have an e-cig for when we go out. I love not smelling like smoke any longer. Get more information at: www.eCigChoices.com
Have any studies been done on the effectiveness of this graphic imaging/messaging in other countries? I have seen this type of packaging in places that seem to have much higher smoking rates than the US - but perhaps before the graphic campaigns rates were much much higher? (I don't actually believe that.) I don't know what the answer is. I will say that I am always amazed when I see young, educated smokers. My generation has grown up knowing the dangers of tobacco, but some still make the decision to smoke. Why? It's true that we have generally stigmatized smoking, but for teens, maybe it's still "cool."