-
Never Having to Say You’re Sorry
November 5, 2012 | 38 comments
-
Rudy Returns
August 6, 2012 | 70 comments
-
The Politics of Tragedy
March 26, 2012 | 388 comments
-
Reflections on Amanda Knox
October 5, 2011 | 148 comments
-
Obama’s Alter Boy
September 28, 2011 | 24 comments
The Nation's Pulse
The State of the Smoker
Ghoulish government scare tactics naturally make smoking more appealing to teens.
Four major U.S. tobacco companies filed suit last week against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration over a new federal mandate scheduled to go into effect on October 22, 2012. The rule, as part of Obama’s 2009 Tobacco Control Act, will require tobacco companies to feature gruesome photographs of blackened lungs or people with respirators on every pack of cigarettes sold in the United States.
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include major North Carolina tobacco companies R.J. Reynolds (responsible for the Camel, Winston, Salem, and Pall Mall brands), Lorillard (member of the National Black Chamber of Commerce and producer of Newports), and the Liggett Group (Chesterfield, Eve, and Pyramid), as well as an R.J. Reynolds subsidiary called Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company and a Kentucky-based producer called Commonwealth Brands (Davidoff, Sonoma, USA Gold).
Along with the FDA (which, per internal policy, does not comment publicly on pending litigation), defendants include FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg and U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius — both longtime anti-tobacco crusaders.
Their latest industry-stifling regulation lacks common sense. To ninth graders, these photographs will only make cigarette packs look like punk-rock album covers. The square kids will be socially castigated for smoking anything less than a hole-in-the-throat pack.
Teenagers don’t smoke out of ignorance, but, rather, out of an admirable anti-authoritarianism. When I began smoking regularly at age fifteen, I had already been exposed to a decade of intense anti-smoking propaganda in suburban public schools and knew full well the health dangers of my new pastime. But bravely, heroically even, I scoffed in the face of those dangers and chose to partake in one of life’s great joys: the inhalation of toxic chemicals into my tender pink lungs, for no greater purpose than my own leisure and the cultivation of my self-image.
Liberal elites cannot possibly understand the satisfaction that comes from taking the first drag on a new cigarette after a hard day’s work; namely, because they have no idea what a hard day’s work feels like.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking prevalence among adults is highest in the Midwest, particularly in Kentucky and West Virginia. While only 11.1 percent of college graduates and 5.6 percent of people with a postgraduate degree smoke cigarettes, over one-third of all mere high-school graduates and over 49 percent of those with a GED diploma regularly smoke. Many of them got hooked before elitist government reforms raised the average price per pack into the $8 range. Now they have to fork over a greater share of their incomes to late-night gas-station attendants than they ever thought reasonable.
Studies have shown that the greatest drop in smoking rates occurred immediately after new taxes made smoking unaffordable. So those brave souls who continue to smoke — anxiously rebudgeting as we go along — aren’t going to hang up our BIC lighters simply because we see some rotting-teeth photographs. At this point in tobacco history, when smokers get cast outside bars and nightclubs every night like criminals, only the true diehards remain.
The injury to our wallets has already been done. These photographs, then, are just insults — sent directly from the liberal elite to everyday Americans. From the cooler-than-his-town fifteen-year-old emulating Jim Carroll in his high school parking lot to the smalltown factory worker too proud to give in to left-wing do-gooders, the message here is the same: The government knows better than you, and you’re not pursuing liberty the right way. We cannot allow these new reforms to lower nationwide smoking rates. If we do, then the FDA will see vindicated.
Death is a human inevitable. With our jobs disappearing and our hopeless public schools making us drop out before our lives even begin, the government can at least let us smoke our cigarettes in peace. And then, a few years premature, let us rest the same way.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (81) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Patrick Howley
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/08/23/the-state-of-the-smoker
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Pinkerton| 8.23.11 @ 7:51AM
1. The salami-tactics campaign against us (Though I discontinued my pipe years ago, I remain in solidarity with smokers.) are comparable to the anti-Jewish measures of the Hitler government in Germany up to the infamous Nurenberg Laws.
2. Would someone please break the linkage between smoking and cigarettes in the national psyche? I submit that cigarettes per se constitute an abuse against good tobacco. Too, they are an embodiment of the pleionexia (Overweening greed, which Aristotle thought worse than sodomy.) of tobacco companies. Yes, I speak as a former (maybe future?) pipe-smoker. When formulated by a knowledgeable tobacconist, pipe tobacco gives its satisfaction from the taste of the smoke in one's mouth; it is not necessary to inhale the smoke of good pipe tobacco, or for that matter a good cigar, as if it were cannabis.
Melivn| 8.23.11 @ 7:59AM
A reformed smoker is much like a reformed substance abuse user. They pick up their temperance Tambourine, and hound those that still smoke relentlessly and mercilessly.
The reformers cling to the backs of the smokers like a fungus to a toenail preaching the eeeevvviiiillllllssss of the demon weed.
They have forced the smokers in the last bastion of being able to smoke in peace inside their homes and the reformers are not stopping until they get total prohibition.
New age mommies, proudly display upon they're back vehicle windows, "Second Hand Smoke Kills," while having a car load of children blasting through a red light, while they're texting.
I am a former smoker, who has lived with another smoker for the last 28 years. One day I woke up and decided for myself that smoking wasn't for me anymore.
Unfortunately by better half still smokes, but that is her freedom, and even though that woman is the single most important human being in my life, it would be totally against my values of freedom, to hound and or fore her to stop smoking. Will it be the end of her? Maybe, but my mother hounded my father who smoked every day of his life, since they got married, mom passed on in her middle 60's and dad in his early 80's and he smoked right up till the end.
John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 11:26AM
Melvin,
I'm an ex-smoker as well. Actually, since I "quit" three times, I say that I've been on a twenty-year cigarette break. Like you, I abhor the reformed-smoker zealot. Maybe it's just a common trait among those who prefer liberty, in general.
I was struck by a sign at the entrance to a neighborhood. It was one of those bas-relief wood carvings where the letters were painted - all very pretty. It read..
Sandpiper
A zero-tolerance community
I knew immediately that I would not care to be a "Sandpiper".
Zero-tolerance means total intolerance. I'm just not that good.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 11:34AM
Guys, cigarette smoke has always irritated me. I never smoked. It is one of the few things I am intolerant about.
Most non-smokers I know are "tolerant" but they are also "tolerant" of noise polluters as well. You know the types who go to a quiet park where people are relaxing and put on their boom-box because they need to hear music-24x7. So now everyone in the park has to listen to their bad taste in music.
In other words, they're jerks and most people put up with them because they're not bothered to the breaking point.
If you want to engage in a destructive habit, enjoy, but just don't annoy those around you.
Seapuss| 8.23.11 @ 1:26PM
Polish, I hope your attitude against smoking doesn't extend to support for government bans against smoking inside private businesses, such as bars. If it does, you can hardly call yourself a conservative.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 2:15PM
I can appreciate the private property perspective, Seapuss, but even then, the problem got out of hand and here's why:
Back in the old days, before all these non-smoking laws, I would politely go to restaurants and ask politely if it was non-smoking and either got a run-around "there's a non-smoking section" (which was a joke) or even outright contempt from the waitstaff. It's hilarious what happened if I tried to call on the phone and ask. It was like I was an alien from another planet.
At that point, for me, it was a consumer labeling issue. If a restaurant wants to, say, serve dog meat, that's one thing but what if they don't tell you unless you ask? They could call a burger "mixed meat" and, hey, "conservatism" says it's YOUR fault for not asking for the details each time, right?
In other words, I think they brought this upon themselves. Rather than establish actual, "real" non-smoking sections or accepting responsibility for being a "smoking" establishment, the smokers and those who cater to smokers tried to have it both ways and finally non-smokers just got fed up.
For example,when casinos advertise their places it's understood it won't be hot models and happy people all throwing their winnings up in the air. I get that. But it's laughable that they don't show the smokers in the adverts puffing away while people are coughing next to them as part of the 'fun'. Where are the smokers in the ads? If a restaurant wants to cater to smokers, fine, but SHOW them. Don't pretend to cater to non-smokers and then treat them with contempt at the door.
Some smokers are ok just as some heroin addicts are ok but this is what ties in with a problem with drug legalization. Why not legalize heroin, crack, and cocaine? In theory, it sounds great but we worry, correctly, that young kids supposedly rebelling against authority will want to impress their friends and try it out and we'll be stuck with people who put their addictions ahead of everything else.
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 8:02AM
What complete tripe. The only thing that "got out of hand" were the demands of "clean air" scolds like yourself.
They "golden age" of smoking was in the 1940s and 1950s. Then, one could smoke anywhere, anytime. There were no such things as smoking sections. If you didn't like smoking, tough nuggets.
Beginning in the 1970s, non-smoking sections were introduced just about everywhere. In the 1980s, some places went totally smoke-free. By the 1990s, the only places left to smoke were bars and SOME restaurants. But that wasn't enough for the "clean air" scolds. They wanted it all. And to get it all, they needed the police power of the state.
Smokers and smoker-friendly venues didn't "bring it on themselves" by abusing and neglecting the concerns of non-smokers. They screwed themselves by incrementally giving into the demands of the clean air scolds.
I'm glad you acknowledge the private property interests at issue, but your authoritarian glee at the end result (government smoking bans) shows through.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 10:02AM
Logic 101: It's rather hard for you to portray the clean air scolds as fascists when you refer to the golden era of smoking as a time when people who didn't like smoking were in "tough nugget"-ville. Not just adults but also children. I hate to recommend the leftist propaganda show Madmen, but they accurately portray the time when mothers smoked while they were pregnant and puffed away while babies (literally) coughed.
Back in the old days, it was clear that anyplace not openly marked non-smoking would mean a smoker would puff away there. Not only due to freedom, but as smoking venues dried up smokers would puff away all the more in the remaining areas. In addition, smokers often don't like smoke filled rooms. They're like cell phone users: They don't want to be around other cell phone users. They want to find a quiet room to "light up" in.
Yes, that's "tough noogies" for smokers, but it's their habit that is obnoxious and pollutes the air. This ties into the primary principle of libertarianism which is that society does have a right to regulate noxious emissions. Should factories have the right to dump PCB's in groundwater or are you some "fascist" trying to tell them what to do?
Naturally, environmental laws (and that's what this really is, after all, in PUBLIC places smokers have to abide by environmental laws absolutely) and restaurants and bars are semi-public like other businesses. Businesses can't unnecessarily endanger the lives of their workers.
Naturally, it can go too far and I agree with you that smokers shouldn't be prohibited from lighting up in their own single family homes where their smoke doesn't reach others. But it hasn't gone that far. The clean air scolds are correct more or less in that smokers don't have a public right to annoy and even endanger others.
Speaking of that, many smokers often gripe that second hand smoke dangers are overrated and they may be right but, oh wait, didn't smokers downplay the dangers of smoking overall for decades and lie about it?
So your claim that smokers were just a bunch of nice people who caved in and were taken advantage of is clearly bunk. After decades of walking over everyone else, including BABIES, and lying about the dangers of smoking, non-smokers are ambivalent. It's no wonder because a smelly habit probably doesn't endear them to begin with.
I'm honest about my glee over the authoritarian nature of the laws but upon reflection, from what you just reminded me about the good ol' days of smoking, I withdraw any guilt. As I said, the restaurants and the smokers stepped on the basic consumer rights of non-smokers for decades.
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 11:19AM
Wow. I see no difference between your arguments and those of the far-left, DEMOCRAT nanny-staters who are leading the fight to impose smoking bans all over the country. Are you SURE you are Republican?
Let me walk you through the small government, libertarian argument AGAINST smoking bans. Any proposed law should pass the following two tests: (1) the law must address a real and substantial harm, not mere personal preferences; and (2) the harm must be such that the average citizen cannot avoid the harm without governmental intervention.
A law against little pink houses, for example, fails the first test. That my neighbor paints his house pink may annoy me, but I must admit that I am not objectively harmed. In turn, a law against over-eating clearly passes the first test, but fails the second test. While over-eating can certainly kill me, doing so or avoiding this risk is entirely my choice. I do not need the government to protect me from myself. Finally, a law requiring sanitary food preparation practices at a restaurant passes BOTH tests. First, food poisoning is a substantial harm. Second, the average citizen cannot inspect and police the food preparation in the kitchen of a restaurant—a government inspector is needed for that.
I submit that smoking bans fail BOTH tests. First, you admit that the dangers of secondhand smoke (SHS) may be overrated. That is true. Indeed, the primary scientific support for all smoking bans is the 1992 USEPA report on SHS, which a federal judge threw out of court in 1998 as junk science and a scientific fraud. [See, Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation v. EPA, 4 F.Supp.2d 435 (M.D.N.C. 1998).] In addition, a major study published by the World Health Organization in 1998 showed no statistical relationship between SHS and dread diseases like lung cancer. An even bigger study, based on nearly 40 years of data from the American Cancer Society, published by the British Medical Journal in 2003, showed the same thing.
If, despite this evidence, you still think SHS poses a risk to your health (or you are just annoyed by SHS), you still have complete control over your exposure to SHS. Simply choose not to work at or patronize any business that caters to smokers. You know if you are being (or will be) exposed to SHS through your own eyes, nose, and experience. If you nonetheless open the door and walk into such an establishment, you are exposing yourself to SHS and breathing it in completely voluntarily. Those who desire the government to step in and impose a smoking ban under those circumstances are asking the government to protect them from themselves--and are asking the government to trash the business owner’s private property rights in the process.
I did not point out the 1940s and 1950s as the “golden age of smoking” as the desired state of things. Rather, I started there to show you how much things had changed since then, VOLUNTARILY and in the direction YOU WANTED. By the time governments started imposing smoking bans, smoking had been banished to a small number of smoker-friendly havens, primarily bars. Anyone could avoid SHS 100% of the time if they simply paid attention. Thus, smoking bans were a solution in search of a problem—unless the problem was an unsatisfied desire to impose your will on everyone else and have the world conform to your personal wishes all of the time and everywhere. But those are not conservative values, are they?
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 12:06PM
There's no need, under strict libertarianism, for a law requiring food preparation inspection. You can simply go up to the restaurant and ask them if they voluntarily had such a private inspection and to provide you with the certificates each time you go to any restaurant. It's a minor inconvenience. In addition, there's no actual harm from the restaurant using dogmeat in it's burgers and not telling you unless you ask in advance. You forget to ask EVERY time? Well then, be prepared to eat dog meat.
Wasn't that fun? I'll use that scenario later...
You have totally sidestepped my point that the smokers and the businesses that catered to them for years didn't engage in disclosure. At least with the new laws, the smokers know in advance they can't light up in the place.
If things had gone a little differently and businesses had engaged in full disclosure, then there would be places that would cater to smokers and they would be smoke filled and other places where non-smokers could go and everyone would get along just fine. The problem is the smokers and business owners tried to have it both ways and stepped on the consumers right to know and the mess is all their own fault.
Regarding smoking at work. This isn't too big a problem for me since even if there was no smoking ban, it wouldn't matter since (no exaggeration), 98% of the people in my workplace don't smoke. We're well paid professionals. However, there is one difference between our workplace and the lower class places such as bars and casinos where workers smoke all they like. At least with the 2% of smokers in our place, they can go outside and enjoy their habit.
With smokers, if you can't breath in THEIR workplace, then it's "tough nuggets".
The fundamental problem here is that cigarette smoking is a vile, nasty, smelly habit and even played up as a "rebel" habit to engage in. When a habit is celebrated for being obnoxious, it's only a matter of time before it's regulated to the point of prohibition. I'll explain further here:
OK, back to the golden era of smoking and your claim that businesses were, all caps, VOLUNTARILY cleaning up their act. Back to the health inspections above, that's like saying there's a "rat free" burger and then mixing it up right not to ratburgers. Those sections were a joke. And your slippery slope point is correct but not like you realize: The non-smokers grew a pair. They complained and griped and the restaurants put up "no smoking sections" which didn't do anything rather than simply either went no-smoking or full smoking. They tried to have it both ways when the nature of smoking is that you can't mingle the two together. It's like trying to open a strip club with a "children's" section.
Finally, your claim that we can avoid SHS if we "pay attention" is both false and revealing of the a-hole attitude of smoking. Even with all the smoking bans in place, I have to "pay attention" like I'm walking in Detroit at night with a sack full of money. Smokers, as I said, will smoke anywhere they can and especially in public. Oh, wait, there's a very special meaning to that word. Public...
Wasn't this all about private businesses?
How about this: Ban smoking in ALL public places. Libertarianism can't say ANYTHING about THAT! If it falls under the jurisdiction of the government, then ban it there. That means SIDEWALKS, STREETS, PARKS, ROADS, CARS (on roads (you can only emit chicken feathers, water, and exhaust from your engine), for starters.
Note, I'm not asking that. I find smokers puffing away on the street in front of me an annoyance but I deal with them and respect that they need a place for their filthy habit.
The problem is that the smokers treated non-smokers, including, again CHILDREN as second class citizens and "forced" them to breath the smoke by making it difficult to find a non-smoking environment. In addition, the smoking industry looked the other way as most of their addicted customers lit up in as children. This is the number one argument against drug legalization for heroin or marijuana (that it will be peddled to kids.)
Finally, I have said I don't want to force my will upon the smokers. If they want to smoke in their own single family homes, I see no problem with that at all. Zero. And I even said I put up with their noxious habit in the street which means I have to walk across the street to avoid them sometimes. It's not MY fault that smoking is a dirty habit. And conservatives love to regulate stuff such as strip clubs which is appropriate. So this is not out of bounds.
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 1:03PM
I have no problem with a law that requires the business owner to conspicuously post his/her smoking policy at all entrances and then enforce the posted policy inside. But I suspect that would not satisfy you.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 1:43PM
The term "satisfaction" isn't entirely accurate. As a non-smoker, I'm satisfied when I am not exposed to cigarette smoke without having to take special precautions. Smokers are also not satisfied unless they can light up almost continuously throughout their day. As I said, when two groups are at such odds with each other, true satisfaction is not possible.
In terms of satisfied as to being reasonable, you haven't gone far enough. Not just at the entrances but also in their advertising not only directed at consumers, but also want ads for employees. Telling us we have to be "aware" to avoid smokers is putting the burden on us. They're the ones emitting the noxious fumes, they should let us know without us hiring our own private detective agency. If they claim a "non-smoking" section, they should guarantee that it's smoke free otherwise advertise that it's only less smokey.
The problem, ironically Seapuss, is that the so-called free market didn't do that on their own, did they? They didn't notify consumers or even engaged in dishonest tactics such as a "non-smoking" section. People got fed up. If private businesses could regulate themselves, then government regulators would be out of business. If people were all capable of asking for a private health insurance certificate at each restaurant they visited AND checked the one each time they went in an elevator, then evil government regulation wouldn't be necessary. The problem with anarchy is that it's so chaotic. :-)
The smokers, and the businesses that catered to them, brought it upon themselves.
That said, I feel for bars because, quite frankly, I'm a professional and not a big bar goer and that's what smokers disproportionately like to do. I do enjoy an occasional drink though so I'm happy, even if I agree it's unfair, that all bars had to cut the smoking.
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 2:03PM
I would characterize your position as this:
The world should cater to my wishes--at a minimum, giving me completely accurate information, at every opportunity and in all possible media, concerning my personal preferences--otherwise, I'll get the government to step on your neck.
Wow. Not conservative.
Paul Milenkovic| 8.24.11 @ 2:31PM
Every political party has a party line, and the party line on smoking from the Conservative Movement has long been smoking is OK and a matter of personal expression and that anyone who doesn't like it is a left-liberal-commie-fascist-enviromentalist.
Thank you for expressing a defense of non-smokers who don't wish to breath in other people's smoke. Please don't get discouraged and please don't let anyone drive you out of the conservative party for not keeping to the party line.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 3:12PM
Seapuss, I could characterize your position as this:
I'm a rebellious, cool smoker who can do whatever he likes and don't care what anyone else thinks. Don't like it? Talk to the hand! You can just move somewhere else! I need to smoke and your stupid "personal" needs can go shove it! Why don't you care about MY rights?!?! You are so inconsiderate!
I'm reminded of The Big Lebowski where the working class slackers gripe about all the Eichman's around.
My position is being misrepresented. I merely said that I should be notified in the same media that the private company uses to advertise. If they're a smoking establishment, why shouldn't they be proud of the fact? Of course, as you clearly realize, if they admitted that their non-smoking sections were lame falsehoods and that they were a smokey place and not the clean family atmosphere they portray on TV, then they'd soon have to go non-smoking for real.
Again, popular media. I'm reminded of Moe Szislak on The Simpsons deciding that the 5 regulars he had in the bar wasn't good for business and he tried to go family friendly. It was hilarious.
Paul, I think it's rather funny that many on the left like smoking too. Hollywood leftists light up all the time. Perhaps the love affair the right has with cigs is because so many working class southern whites smoke. Plus, they got a lot of money from big tobacco.
Bottom line: This is an environmental issue. Whether it's blasting a boom box or putting out noxious fumes, we don't need to prove we're being killed in order to justify either prohibiting such activity or at least being notified when it's in use in private.
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 3:30PM
Bottom line: This is a private property issue.
On one side are conservatives, who respect private property rights, even when the property owner does something they don't like. (For example, I would support the right of any business owner to voluntarily go "smoke-free", even though I don't personally like that decision.)
On the other side are folks with an over-developed sense of entitlement, who run to the government to force others to do what they want. Some call this latter group liberals.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 3:50PM
Seapuss, this issue is demonstrating some of the bad reputations of conservatives, well earned, in allowing businesses to engage in shady practices.
I said I would be "satisfied" with full disclosure and defined it appropriately and then you attempted to misrepresent what I said because it would obviously kill business as free market forces would actually function instead of being used as a way to handwave away complaints.
In the meantime, conservatives have a rep of trying to force their morality down people's throats such as continued war on drugs, prostitution laws, anti-pornography, etc.
I chuckle at your support for businesses going smoke free. Indeed, nearly all businesses out there that did so voluntarily notified ALL customers as they entered that they were a smoke free business. If only smoking establishments had been so honest ALL of this probably wouldn't have happened!
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 3:23PM
From Monty Python's All the Words...
Milton: We use choicest juicy chunks of fresh Cornish ram's bladder, emptied, steamed, flavoured with sesame seeds, whipped into a fondue and garnished with lark's vomit.
Inspector Praline: Larks vomit?
Milton: Correct.
Inspector Praline: Well it don't say nothing about that here.
Milton: Oh yes it does, on the bottom of the box, after monosodium glutamate.
Inspector Praline (looking): Well, I hardly think this is good enough. I think it's be more appropriate if the box bore a great red label warning lark's vomit.
Milton: Our sales would plummet!
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 3:43PM
Your sob stories about being "tricked" into thinking different venues were smoke-free are absurd and strain credulity. You sound like Captain Renault in Casablanca -- "I'm shocked, shocked to find that [smoking] is going on in here!" LOL
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 5:12PM
Funny, that "shady practice" of allowing smoking inside private business establishments, without specifically seeking out and warning all of the hypochondriacs and prudes who might stumble into those establishments and object, existed for 400 years on this continent.
I'm so glad we have totalitarians around nowadays to correct our devious ways.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 5:33PM
Actually, Seapuss, I just went out to an outside cafe and a guy was smoking a pipe. And you'll be amazed to hear this: I actually enjoyed being around him.
Cigarettes are different. They not only burn in a way that generates more ozones and carbon monoxide from inadequate burn, but also extra additives that make them chemically similar to meth (that's why those nicotine patches don't work so well.)
FYI, Coca Cola got it's name because there was actual Cocaine in it. Heroin was in common use up until the late 19th century. Times change.
And I never said seek me out. Just put it in the ads. You clearly know that if there was full disclosure, the "hypochondriacs and prudes" who don't want themselves, or their kids, exposed to the smoke would boycott the places and exercise their free market rights. If a smoker wants to take their family including low birthweight babies into a smokey establishment after seeing it advertised on TV, more power to 'em.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 5:40PM
I'm curious, Seapuss. If you go to a park and sit down with your family and someone sits close to you and sets up a boombox and blasts misogynstic rap music at full blast and is having a good time, would you be ok with that or would you be a "prude" and ask them to turn it down?
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 8:48PM
Your hypothetical with the boombox in the park has nothing to do with what we are discussing. We are talking about what happens on private property and whether the property owner, or the next prude who walks in the door, gets to set policy.
Put the boombox and its objectionable music in a bar--then we have a comparable situation. In fact, just that situation happens every day in numerous bars and dance clubs all over the country. All kinds of loud, misogynstic music spews forth in those venues, and I would not care to be present to hear it. But I wouldn't run to the government to force the property owner to shut off that kind of music in any bar or dance club. You, apparently, would.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 5:26PM
Actually, your response helps demonstrate precisely why the backlash happened. Now you're teasing me that I was stupid or dishonest to believe that the non-smoking section was smoke free. Just before, you were claiming that the smokers and restaurants were being reasonable by creating such sections to begin with. Indeed, if these sections were effective this conversation wouldn't be occurring, eh?
You also belittled me for daring to want to know fully, in advance, whether a restaurant was smoke free or not.
So for me, I don't feel I had a free market choice before now except to not go out to restaurants altogether.
And you have the nerve to accuse me of trying to force my will upon others when smokers are the ones engaging in a habit that they celebrate for it's offensiveness in making non-smokers uncomfortable and even sick. I honestly don't want smokers to not be happy, I just don't want to smell their exhaust.
Josh Marihugh | 8.25.11 @ 8:15PM
Waitasec, I'm confused....so wanting to breathe air instead of nasty cigarette smoke makes me a liberal?
I applaud states such as Oklahoma that have enacted "Breathe Easy" laws. It's always a bit of a shock to me when I go out-of-state, enter a restaurant, and suddenly get assaulted by smoke.
As another poster pointed out, without separate ventilation, non-smoking sections are a joke. There were several restaurants in my town that had good food, but I wouldn't go there, because the smoke was intolerable.
PolishKnight| 8.25.11 @ 9:38PM
Hello Josh. I hate the term "assaulted by smoke" because it lends credence to their claims that non-smokers are reacting hysterically or irrationally. It's more accurate to say that you're surprised by the offensive smoke.
The key claim that they make is that it's buyer-beware and you should just deal with it but if they don't provide notification, then that invalidates that claim.
While the claims of second hand smoke deaths may be exaggerated, they are nonetheless real and there are certainly people who have died from it because of other conditions such as asthma or some other non-serious condition that is aggregated by the smoke. In any case, it certainly does make many people at least mildly sick therefore it is a hazard that should be disclosed.
But they know doing so would basically make the "free market" work against them so they are against it. Hence, the regulatory agencies had to step in.
Same thing happened with coal mines that dumped toxins in the water (in Northeast PA, the rivers run with acid to this day thanks to the "free market.")
Go ahead, fight for the right for businesses to act badly right up to they get shot in the basement like the Romanvs assuming the Democrats don't win by sheer demographic forces by default.
Seapuss| 8.29.11 @ 1:03PM
Josh, wanting to breathe smoke-free air doesn't make you a liberal. Getting the government to trash other people's private property rights so that you get what you want does make you a liberal.
John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 1:42PM
PolishKnight,
I happen to agree with you on the noise issue, but if you cannot be in public without being annoyed, perhaps the public is not for you. It isn't for me.
Someone smoking on a park bench doesn't bother me at all. I don't have to sit next to them and I can't hear it. Someone pulling next to me with their rap music blasting from their kicker box makes me wish there was a hunting season for that particular species.
Perhaps if people spent a bit more time trying not to annoy their neighbors, our collective nerves would be a little less frayed and we could tolerate the friction of life a bit better. I'm afraid, however, that we are now a nation of thin-skinned loud-mouths.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 2:23PM
"perhaps the public is not for you"
When I went to Europe, a friend pointed out I was a loud talker and I thought about it and he was right. I adjusted my volume based upon what people could actually hear and it helped with the overall noise background. European cafes were more civilized than in the states (now often more smokey, but in terms of noise, a lot better.)
A civilized society requires people to be thoughtful and our frontier spirit often undermined that sentiment. Even so, there are places less civilized than here. Neighbors recently moved into our condo and were talking on the balcony and my wife thought they were having a catfight. I said no, that's just how they talk. Didja ever see that SNL parody "The Loud Family?" There really are people and cultures like that. (I notice they toned it down. Some other neighbor complained. God bless 'em.)
In a civilized culture, you try to minimize your personal footprint. You don't need to dress expensively, but it should be tasteful. You try to keep the volume down. You respect people's physical space. etc.
When that breaks down, that's when you get fights breaking out and thin-skinned loud mouths.
John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 2:52PM
PolishKnight,
The London "tube" rider was always thought to be aloof to the point of rudeness. It wasn't the case, but rather the realization that keeping to oneself was the necessary decorum in a crowded space.
As for "The Louds" - that's my sister-in-law's family. I know them well.
the permanent newbie | 8.23.11 @ 2:21PM
And that's why they invented the Walkman, now superseded by the MP3 player...
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 2:27PM
I like to tease kids with that who think they've somehow discovered texting, mp3 players, and mobile phones. I tell them we called it morse code, walkmans, and CB's. :-)
One more observation: If the purpose of smoking was to be a "bad boy" and "bad girl" rebel and don't care what society thinks, why all the whining about society ejecting them outside? If their goal was to offend people and prove they don't care what people think, well,
message received!
The guys sneaking their smokes outside of office buildings in the rain or huffing away in the back of restaurants reminds me of the days in high school when they were acting in pretty much the same way avoiding being seen by the principle. If they enjoyed it then, they may be enjoying it now. And good for them. That works for me too.
Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:56PM
Don't smoke where I'm trying to eat, or I will unleash Clint's even stupider brother on you. What you do in Cigar bars ins one thing. But I had to eat in Kentucky where some places did NOT have seperate places, and I would like to soak many a smoker's head in shit for that.
It's not a Conservative/Liberal issue. It's a poorly brought up inconsiderate asshole versus decent human issue. Smoke in your houses and cars, I don't care. But I'm entitled to eat in peace away from malodorous assholes or Paulbots.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 4:08PM
OT, wow! You really do feel strongly on this issue!
Kentucky. I wasn't aware that they even had restaurants with separate non-smoking sections. :-) Indeed, probably most of the smokers in the country are located in that region.
20 years ago back when most places were smoking where I lived, I simply chose to not go out to expensive restaurants. Later in life, I realized that probably was a good decision overall.
Steak house? Try buying some nice marble steaks at Costco and grill them at home with a nice baked potato.
Seafood? Again, Costco has the best crab legs.
We rarely go out to restaurants much less expensive restaurants. The last time I went was to Ruth's Chris last year to celebrate with my wife for a wedding anniversary. Other than that, we never go to them.
John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 5:02PM
My Dear Occam's Tool,
Is there no room for the proprietor to market his restaurant as he chooses? Were you compelled to dine with smokers, I would leap to your defence. You most certainly should point out to the proprietor why you choose not to patronize his establishment but, as sympathetic as I may be to your sensitivities, I have not found a right to be provided with restaurants catering to our desires.
I'm with PolishKnight... A good bottle of wine and a grilled Prime Strip or Rib Eye enjoyed with friends is a better deal anyway. Especially if you don't like the restaurant.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 6:27PM
Largely agreed except with one caveat: The restaurant owner doesn't "market" his business as a smoking establishment which is what I think created the backlash. Dollars to doughnuts, even in Kentucky, they probably do not post signs stating that their restaurants have smoking and for non-smokers to reconsider going to their establishment and I think I know why: If they did, they would lose a lot of non-smoking customers. They count on only a few non-smokers walking out and the rest just suffering in silence.
There's a neat example of a similar problem recently: airlines introduced a whole new set of fees. Free checked bags? Well, maybe. Maybe not. You buy your ticket online and then if you didn't go to a website first to compare airlines, you're out of luck if you thought that cheaper fare was a deal. Buyer beware!
Consumers were outraged. It's a neat topic for AmSpec. Should airlines be required to disclose fees upfront, or just tell passengers to deal with it?
John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 8:11PM
PolishKnight,
Disclosure, of course! It makes the caveat much easier for the emptor. And you know if smoking is allowed in a restaurant long before the bill arrives although I admit one did have the expense of driving there.
I have a long list of restaurants which I will not frequent for a variety of reasons. In Houston which outlawed smoking in restaurants - safety of the staff, you see - this is not one of them.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 10:16AM
I could almost hear guffaws from seapuss when I described my experiences trying to establish in advance whether a restaurant was non-smoking or not. I won't say they were engaged in a coverup, but I get the impression they didn't want to discuss the issue. They banked on trying to please everyone (or at least get their money) by playing a kind of bait and switch: By the time a customer gets into a restaurant (about 20 minutes or so) and finishes parking, getting their party ready, etc. and the non-smoker is inside and smells smoke, the non-smoker is made to look like a jerk if he walks out (and I actually experienced that kind of social ostracism.) So when I hear smokers whine about having to go outside to smoke, I sympathize because I dealt with a similar situation for years.
Forget warning labels on packs of cigarettes (although that's a whole other issue. Consider that tobacco companies grew to love them because they used them to defend themselves against accidental death lawsuits), put a big warning label not just on the restaurant doors, but also casinos AND on their advertising. "Charlestown racing and slots! Where the action is smelly and smokey!"
Oh, wait, they don't want to do that on their own. So in in a way, the clean air fascists are a kind of market force. They couldn't clean up their act on their own, and then there's a bit of an over backlash. I don't agree with it going too far, but something had to happen!
When I feel guilt about the smokers being pushed outside of ALL restaurants, I remind myself of the time when I was being shoved around by smoker bullies and greedy and unethical restauranteers who looked the other way. They had their decades of "fun", now it's our turn.
In conclusion, keep in mind that smoking is now statistically a "low class" habit as the author points out of people who are not really rebels but rather uneducated, ignorant, and foolish. That's the worst "warning label" to put on a pack of cigs.
Seapuss| 8.24.11 @ 11:59AM
Polish, sounds like you have a problem with free enterprise. You didn't like the result the market was foisting upon you. Your solution is good old-fashioned government regulation. Shame on you.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 12:16PM
Seapuss, you're oversimplifying my position. I could just as easily say you're an anarchist. You rationalized mandatory public restaurant inspections above and then tried to switch gears and say that it should be different for smoking where the consumer should bear the burden to verify if a noxious substance (cigarette smoke) is present in a workplace or restaurant.
There's nothing 'wrong' technically with dog and horse meat, well sanitized rat meat, etc. and other practices that are prohibited under "health" codes. In addition, these health codes could be voluntary under your own libertarian code you cited above.
The problem is simple: Smoking is a nasty habit that makes a majority of people uncomfortable and even mildly ill. If you engage in a habit that celebrates being obnoxious, literally, then it's rather hard to find people happy to put up with it.
crookedwren| 8.23.11 @ 8:42AM
You'd THINK, with ObamaCare obviously pitched to help save Social Security (by adding death panels to limit the aging process of the Boomers), they'd be lightening up on that anti-cigarette thing.
I don't mind campaigns to educate one on the dangers of tobacco, but they've done enough. Now -- believe it or not, liberals -- it really is up to -- yes, I'm going to proclaim it (little ones, cover your ears!) -- the INDIVIDUAL!
There. I've said it.
Claypoole| 8.23.11 @ 8:47AM
How admirable that Kathleen Sebelius cares so much for the lives of smokers. Unfortunately, she never met an abortion, partial-birth or otherwise, that she didn't love. Now, if only the unborn were smokers.........
Mike Hawk| 8.23.11 @ 8:58AM
Maybe Kathleen Sillyius should get Obama to quit first beore she starts nannying the populace.
Claypoole| 8.23.11 @ 9:58AM
But, Mike, Obama quit smoking months ago! We know that because he told us so. We do know that, don't we?
Bill| 8.23.11 @ 9:10AM
I suppose there's not a hope in Hell that the U.S. Department of Justice will receive marching orders to refrain from defending this suit.
Hillel| 8.23.11 @ 9:16AM
Having seen people smoke through their traech,I envy their committment. I see them as tax heros.
"This is your brain on drugs"
cuban pete| 8.23.11 @ 9:16AM
When you are fifteen you are immortal. Other people die but you won't. That's why the warnings of great harm and early death don't resonate with young people.
Thank goodness there is a cigar store near my home where I can enjoy an Arturo Fuente indoors.
C. S. P. Schofield| 8.23.11 @ 9:22AM
The anti-smoking Crusaders resemble the Anti-Saloon League more with every passing year. Just about all that is needed to complete the parallel is for some high-ranking anti to get involved in a stock manipulation scandal and then have an affaire with his secretary.
Claypoole| 8.23.11 @ 10:05AM
I just finished "Last Call," Daniel Okrent's history of Prohibition. A good and valuable book, and what struck me most was that the people who brought us the 18th amendment are exactly the same types--Progressives--who today are meddling in our private lives. We will do what they tell us to do--because, of course, they are so superior--or they will make laws forcing us to do as they say.
Interesting that they were Progressives in the 20's, then became liberals, and are now Progressives again, liberalism having been so thoroughly discredited.
Tiddly| 8.23.11 @ 1:54PM
They were also women, newly empowered with the vote. And women have been voting for mistakes, such as Obama, ever since.
Petronius| 8.23.11 @ 9:23AM
Things like tobacco use and DWI crusades, sobriety check points, and all the non profit organizations that support prohibition are vehicles for a much more sinister objective. Smokey bars are social venues where those sans post graduate degrees gather with same to pursue what little pleasure they can afford. They talk about things that snooty interventionist utopian Liberals don't want anyone to say or hear. After sports and entertainment and sometimes before, the talk drifts to interference of social engineering by public officials and school administrators in their lives. Above all they complain about the cost which means a lot less good living for them. And come midnight, the cops are like flies just out of sight waiting for the first guy they can pinch posting an alcohol level of .09. But they don't lurk near gay bars, country clubs, or any place frequented by Democrat politicians. What's going on here is a loosely coordinated campaign of subjugation through deprivation. The message being sent is that Joe Sixpack has no rights. He is supposed to shut up, stay home, and die. The cultural bigots are the absolute worst.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 11:29AM
Keep in mind that the draconian DUI laws were put in place by an appeal-to-chivalry group "Mothers Against Drunk Driving". It was about protecting the innocent women and children.
Petronius| 8.23.11 @ 12:17PM
And the founders of MADD were then run out by the tort lawyers. Then the legal limit was reduced from .1 to .08 because the legal establishment wasn't making enough money to suit themselves. Social crusades are shakedowns.
conservative Bob| 8.23.11 @ 8:16PM
I have a serious problem with drunk drivers and hope that those that drive drunk are caught, prosecuted and incarcerated. I have lost people close to me at the hands of senseless drunks.
That said the check points are an absolute abrogation of the 4th amendment. I think in large part they are a projection of power so that everyone gets to know firsthand the power of the state to stop you and check your papers, to reach out and touch you.
I have a problem with driving impaired; I am not convinced that the .08 standard is more revenue enhancement than public safety driven.
As to smoking I quit several years ago. While I was lying on the table after emergency surgery, the Dr came in to check on me. Having just placed a couple of stints in my heart, he asked if I smoked. I replied not any more. Still, I think the smoking Nazi are much more interested in controlling others than they are concerned about the welfare of smokers. I have little time or patience with do-gooders who feel a need to control my life at the point of a gun under penalty of fine or incarceration.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 10:45AM
Conservative Bob, these aren't drunk drivers but often defined as such by an ever lowering blood percentage. MAD suggested 0% limits on teen drivers which shows their hand in that they are effectively enforcing prohibition.
Consider ad campaigns such as "buzzed driving is drunk driving". A buzzed driver, someone with a "high" or feeling good after a drink with friends and driving home, is similar to someone who just got promoted at work and turns on their favorite song on the radio and sings along. Granted, that's introducing danger. A driver should pay full attention to the road ahead of him and other cars and hazards. If you're happy about the promotion and want to listen to music, wait until you get home.
So why not yank out all the car radios? Well, car radios may actually make cars safer in certain situations. Night driving for example where a driver might get bored and unattentive. Turning the radio up in that case HELPS alertness.
Sometimes the safety police go too far but that's the problem we face. We all agree government is necessary and the devil is in the details.
Marc| 8.23.11 @ 10:04AM
Great satire! Imagine if people actually thought like this?!?
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 11:06AM
"Teenagers don't smoke out of ignorance, but, rather, out of an admirable anti-authoritarianism."
Nonsense. All the people I know who smoked did so because they wanted to fit in with the "cool crowd" at school and even sometimes because they wanted to emulate some Hollywood actor or actress they found alluring.
The best thing to put on a pack of cigarettes would be an endorsement from Jerry Springer, or a local trailer park, or a message that women who smoke get to marry men who earn 1/2 the national average.
I work in professional places and nearly everyone doesn't smoke.
C. S. P. Schofield| 8.23.11 @ 2:15PM
Are you sure? Being a smoker has serious social consequences in certain circles, and if you live in one of them the chances are that several smokers are lying to you.
When tobacco first crossed the Atlantic, the Ottoman Turks passed a smoking ban so harsh that they CUT THE LIPS off of people who they caught smoking.
It failed.
The anti-smokers think they are winning. So did the drys, circa 1919.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 2:37PM
Interesting analogy. I have friends who have spent time in Muslim countries and the prohibitions against alcohol are quite effective. Westerners sometimes brew their own wine and beer in their homes but other than that, these cultures are pretty dry.
I chucked when you claimed that smokers might be "lying" to me. It's one thing for someone with a closet alcohol or heroin addiction to sneak something in the bathroom but a smoker? Most can't sneak a puff indoors and most can't hold in their addiction until they get home so they have to do it outside of the office building where everyone can see.
A relative of mine tried to smoke on a plane by covering up the airplane bathroom's smoke detector and puffing away. The stewardess smelled it and reported her and she was arrested at the gate.
Back to the Turks: I've gone to kabob places where they have "hookah"s and in the non-smoking section, it was acceptable for me to eat (and I'm pretty intolerant of cigarette smoke.) The cigarettes today are chemically engineered to be similar to meth and smell obnoxious. Tobacco isn't the main problem. The cigarette companies are making crack.
John Navratil| 8.23.11 @ 2:46PM
PolishKnight,
I lived in Saudi Arabia in '79 and '80. There was no place wetter. Siddiki (aka. "sid") was 190 proof. I wasn't so expensive that we didn't always have it around. You didn't want to get caught with it (immediate deportation) but hard to find, it wasn't.
PolishKnight| 8.23.11 @ 2:51PM
Interesting. Thanks for the perspective.
Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 3:58PM
I don't care if I'm winning or losing. Keep your tobacco away from my hamburgers.
scotchieguy| 8.24.11 @ 3:58AM
Smokers smoke for one reason--it is cool. It is macho, too. Just watch who smokes. I smoked for years, and recently quit. I don't miss it a bit, but am more perceptive to who smokes--mostly blue collar, construction worker-types. They have literally bought into the tough-guy, Marlboro-man stereotype. Talk about successful marketing. I researched cigarette ads for a college course years ago. They took seasoned pilots, and used them for their Marlboro-man ads--seasoned, tough, cool dudes smoking their Marlboros while jumping on their horse. That is the exact persona of a bricklayer, or carpenter, or road construction dude. Next time you go by a construction site, watch. It is fascinating. They think it is tough to smoke while they work, tough to hack away while they keep working. They don't give a damn about their health. The sad part about qutting smoking is watching these no longer tough guys, hopelessly addicted, still, at age 70. There has never been a more pathetic site than that hacking addict, just reaching for death.
AhiaGuy| 8.23.11 @ 11:18AM
As soon as I heard the news about those nasty photos, I figured (having been a teenager myself once) that rather than deter, they will become collectibles. The joy of the gross out, being a juvenile hallmark, coupled with the fascination of forbidden fruit will make them an immediate hit with the underage crowd. The law of unintended consequences is almost a given for ideas out of DC these days.
play nice| 8.23.11 @ 1:12PM
When I was a teen cigarettes were known as "coffin nails". So Hell yes I started smoking. Quit at 21 because they began to taste like soap. Lucky me.
C. S. P. Schofield| 8.23.11 @ 2:11PM
Hell, they were called "coffin nails" as far back as the late 19th century.
shermbodius rides again!| 8.23.11 @ 1:25PM
I quit smoking with my wife a month ago and I will not be going back. Was it for my health? No, $9 a pack up here in WA so I can't afford it. Do I know it is bad? Yes, and if it was $2 a pack I would have one now.
voted against carter| 8.23.11 @ 5:23PM
LOL!! I smoked for 28 years.
It has been 12 years since I have smoked a cigarette.
ZYBAN. Otherwise I would still be smoking.
When I started they were 40 cent from a cigarette machine.
Just found out a pack is $9.00!!??!!?!?
So ONLY the wealthy can afford it now??
What's up with that??
wolflen| 8.23.11 @ 1:39PM
kill the cigarette before it kills you...lets look at santa monica ca for example...liberal to the max...
at first you could only smoke in seperate sections of a resturant...now you cant smoke within 25ft of the resturant..you cant smoke in a public park or the beach...or even on a sidewalk within 25ft of any window or door...now of course you cant smoke in an apartment/condo building..soon residential homes...and dont worry about smoking in your car...santa monica is taking the nasty polluting anti-green machines away from you too...
Bill| 8.23.11 @ 3:38PM
Considering that there's credible empirical evidence that second-hand smoke does no harm whatsoever to anybody, don't you find government's regulation interesting?
What's next? Government regulation of global warming? Oh yeah, that IS it.
PolishKnight| 8.24.11 @ 1:01PM
Bill, that kind of broad generalization is easily disproven.
For starters, does "no harm whatsoever to anybody." I had a girlfriend who was so allergic to cigarette smoke that she had to go to the hospital for treatment to get her throat scraped after exposure. Plenty of people are allergic to various things with peanuts being a recent example. (I know I just opened up a pandoras box by mentioning THAT!)
Next, let's examine the phrase "no harm whatsoever". If someone goes up to your table at a restaurant and farts in your face, is that a harm? If someone spills their drink on your clothes and you have to pay to have it dry cleaned, is that a harm? The problem with the smoking rights defenders is that smoking has been celebrated as a rebellious habit because it's obnoxious. Even where the harm isn't serious, it makes most, repeat most, people uncomfortable and many mildly ill.
And yes, there are cases of people dying from second hand smoke. It's rare, but it does happen.
http://tinyurl.com/m2t4hd
Health Effects: Children
In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:3
Ear infections
More frequent and severe asthma attacks
Respiratory symptoms (e.g., coughing, sneezing, shortness of breath)
Respiratory infections (i.e., bronchitis, pneumonia)
A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)
In children aged 18 months or younger, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for—
an estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually, and
approximately 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States.4
Of course, the tobacco lobbyists will argue that their scientists have debunked such statistics. After all, they are the most honest industry out there. (sarcasm.)
In any case, it's not up to the public as consumers to prove that second hand smoke is a serious fatal health risk. If something is obnoxious then it's up to the person acting obnoxiously to prove THEY aren't harmful. If I blast a boombox next to you, I can't demand you prove that I'm not killing you before turning it down.
Bud the Plumber| 8.23.11 @ 2:46PM
I never have to worry about smokes. Got a whole 5 acres of whacky tobacky in the back 40.
Occam's Tool| 8.23.11 @ 4:00PM
Bud, do what you want on your own. Don't smoke in a restaurant where I'm trying to enjoy my expensive meal. That's all.
Blake R.L. Coryn| 8.23.11 @ 4:30PM
The site "TV Tropes" has a whole page dedicated to what happens when you order tobacco companies to testify against themselves. As pointed out there, it really is difficult not to admire the sheer twisted genius of some of their supposed attacks on themselves.
Who Knows?| 8.23.11 @ 6:22PM
"Stupid is as stupid does"---if the writer's statistics are as he says about the direct correlation between education and smoking, it looks like Forrest Gump was spot on about tobacco!
In around 1959, when I was a senior in high school, we all had to take a course in health. Believe it or not, in those old days we even got to see color movies, sometimes.
So, the highlight of this course was the showing of an operation on a dead smoker. You didn't have to watch it, if you felt too "sensitive".
Having weed fiends for parents---any one hate it like I did, on a Sunday drive in the winter, with the windows down, as mom and dad puffed away, filling the car with vomit-inducing cigarette smoke?---I chose to watch with relish.
We saw a surgeon cut open the chest, then insert some contraption that separated two ribs, exposing the literally BLACK LUNG, for all to see.
Pretty glamorous, no?
Not too many years later, I got to witness an uncle suffer his last days with emphysema, 24/7 unable to get enough oxygen.
And, dear old dad, the knife removed his cancerous voice box, leaving a hole in the throat, and requiring him to learn to "speak" with big trouble, until at the end a large golf ball tumor on his neck did him in.
Ah, but of course, he was always a "cool" dude!
Did I mention he had an 8th grade education, and I have a masters in mathematics?
Warning---smoking is hazardous to your health!
Just you wait, too, if you live long enough---
the growing furor about rotten "foods" eaten by too many people, these days filled with obese "pigs", who are truly TOO STUPID to stop gaining weight, has only begun.
Fast food and high fructose corn syrup will eventually be the cigarettes of the future, when enough dumb fools kill themselves by eating an ugly diet, and more educated people survive.
All those ads about how cool smoking is, from way back when my parents were young, are just like the current fast food ads these days!
The factory farm cattle get led to market, and the "factory farm", aka public-schooled, humans LIKEWISE are led to market.
Advertising WORKS, dummy!
My advise---eschew watching ads, undereat super foods, and eliminate as much processed foods as possible.
And, oh yes, educate yourself as time flows by in the art of cooking and/or preparing simple life giving meals.
Want a job? Learn to COOK with bulk foods, and eliminate most of the middle men! That hamburger helper you pay for, when you add up the raw foods, costs pennies on the dollar---when you buy Kellogg's corn flakes, say, the CORN is the leas tof the cost!
Amazing, no---you suffer through the ADS and you PAY for them, and end up eating CRAP!
DUMB DUMB DUMB.
Craig Goodrich | 8.23.11 @ 7:10PM
The free market, and the ingenuity of the ordinary citizen in pursuing his habits, will always outsmart the bureaucratic mind; google Top-o-Matic for a good time -- having smoked for more than half a century, I'm now making my own cigs for around a buck a pack (still three times what I paid when I started).
It is yet another confirmation of Twain's dictum that Original Sin is the only Christian doctrine that has ample and irrefutable objective evidence confirming it. Us humans are always willing to make much greater sacrifices for the sake of our vices than we ever would for our virtues...
POST America| 8.23.11 @ 11:31PM
-------------------BOTTOM LINE-----------------------
Important to keep before our minds the FACT
that the 'smoking craze' among women was
entirely engineered, back in the 1920's,
by the ever sinister Edward Bernays of the
still 'on the go' Tavistock Institute.
In short, the same crowd, working for the
same bunch, that's today engineering your own
consent to the Globalism and EUGENICS
agenda.
------------"Everything old and new again---"
Fly| 8.24.11 @ 2:44PM
Bill, that kind of broad generalization is easily disproven.
http://www.wholesalesunglassesbrands.com
Tou| 8.25.11 @ 4:44PM
Okay, so if lighting up is every conservative rebel's duty, then taking heroin and smoking crack must be like honor duty or something?
Talk about government regulation, at least you can smoke in your own home! You can't smoke crack or shoot up, ANYWHERE IN AMERICA. And...get this..the government also gets other countries to BAN drugs too!
Over regulation right guys?
Ozzy| 8.25.11 @ 7:37PM
It must be tedious whenever anyone reminds you that we are the government.