#240987 - 11/11/2004 13:05
About f****** time
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#240988 - 11/11/2004 13:36
Re: About f****** time
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 21/05/1999
Posts: 5335
Loc: Cambridge UK
|
No doubt public drinking will be next, followed by the right to go out in public (which, let's face it, is a significant cause of accidents and death). Thank god we have governments to make these decisions for us.
Rob
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240989 - 11/11/2004 13:43
Re: About f****** time
[Re: rob]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2489
|
You a smoker then, Rob? Even if you're not, I don't think anyone can deny that passive smoking from a selfish minority causes harm. Yes... thank God the government are around to make these sensible decisions.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240990 - 11/11/2004 13:44
Re: About f****** time
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 09/08/2000
Posts: 2091
Loc: Edinburgh, Scotland
|
Well, I'm pretty anti-smoking, even got my wife to give up after years of nagging (okay, I had to finally resort to getting her pregnant, but it worked  ) but I reckon this isn't going to fly for a number of reasons, and I'm glad. a) Why should the Scottish Parliament have the right to do this? Currently I can choose not to go into a smoky bar - and generally I do stick to the better ventilated ones (unless I am very drunk in which case I don't care) so a law to do this seems pointless. b) If they do want to do this, why not start easy rather than go for the kill at once (as this may well be too much) - I mean bringing in something like a requirement for a smoking licence may well persuade some bars to go non-smoking just as it's easier. c) Like I said, I hate smoking - but it is a good source of revenue. Allow it, tax it heavily, legalise cannabis and tax it too...etc all good money to go into the coffers (hopefully instead of my taxes going in there:-) - okay this one is a personal preference on the government to tax things I am not interested in 
_________________________
Rory
MkIIa, blue lit buttons, memory upgrade, 1Tb in Subaru Forester STi
MkII, 240Gb in Mark Lord dock
MkII, 80Gb SSD in dock
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240991 - 11/11/2004 13:48
Re: About f****** time
[Re: rob]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
No doubt public drinking will be next, followed by the right to go out in public (which, let's face it, is a significant cause of accidents and death). Thank god we have governments to make these decisions for us.
California, that country within a country, has been like this for years (and even with the Groper in power, no sign of repeal). They seem to be happy. Waitstaff certianly. Not sure when the rest of Blue States will be 100% converted, but it is coming, I think.
You've spent a chunk of time there. How bad was that aspect of your visit?
(Oh, and way to go, Scotland!)
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240993 - 11/11/2004 14:06
Re: About f****** time
[Re: frog51]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Well, I'm pretty anti-smoking, even got my wife to give up after years of nagging (okay, I had to finally resort to getting her pregnant, but it worked )
Awesome strategy! Great work!
Quote:
but I reckon this isn't going to fly for a number of reasons, and I'm glad.
a) Why should the Scottish Parliament have the right to do this? Currently I can choose not to go into a smoky bar - and generally I do stick to the better ventilated ones (unless I am very drunk in which case I don't care) so a law to do this seems pointless.
One big hook anti-indoor-smoking initiatives hang their hat on is that staff/employees in workplaces, restaurants, don't have that choice and that the negative effect for them is pretty much beyond dispute. You can say that they should get another job, but that isn't realistic.
Quote:
b) If they do want to do this, why not start easy rather than go for the kill at once (as this may well be too much) - I mean bringing in something like a requirement for a smoking licence may well persuade some bars to go non-smoking just as it's easier.
Not sure about why the "all-at-once", but if the science is with you I am guessing you can have more success taking a strong all-at-once stance. If the playing field is leveled, as with California's all-at-once law, then individual tavern owners find it harder to feel disadvantaged, although a recent county initiative here in WA was overturned recently because bar owners complained that all their smoking customers would flee to nearby (unregulated) Indian casinos to drink and smoke.
Quote:
c) Like I said, I hate smoking - but it is a good source of revenue. Allow it, tax it heavily, legalise cannabis and tax it too...etc all good money to go into the coffers (hopefully instead of my taxes going in there:-) - okay this one is a personal preference on the government to tax things I am not interested in
Smoking is a lousy source of revenue. I haven't looked at in a while, but it was the case that the French government did (and maybe still does) have a state monopoly on tobacco. Well, for every franc they made on tobacco, they spent *nine* francs on tobacco-releated disease care. While I would be careful about the revenue angle, I wouldn't argue against "allow it, tax in" as you suggest. Just make sure the sin taxes pay for more nurses.
While I am probably one of the most ardent anti-smoking people I know (having watched a lot of smokers die slow, nasty deaths), I actually think that some initiatives have gone too far -- like someplace (in Oregon?) that was going to ban smoking in public parks -- but not California's. I would never imagine a prohibition against tobacco, for the same reason that I think the War on Drugs (tm) is wrong-headed and counter-productive.
Edited by jimhogan (11/11/2004 14:10)
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240995 - 11/11/2004 14:44
Re: About f****** time
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
That's a good reason why I don't want a national health care plan. That way, people can have the freedom of choice to slowly kill themselves and I don't have to pay for it
I see the smiley, but I still have to chime in and say that this would be a bad argument if you *were* serious (because some people actually take this view).
The recent initiative in Texas to put all uninsured people with emphysema on a barge and then take them out into the Gulf of Mexico and drown them? Well, that didn't fly. Even in Texas.
So, all of those long-term, dying smokers, insured or uninsured? Well, you are paying for their health/death care.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240996 - 11/11/2004 15:00
Re: About f****** time
[Re: rob]
|
member
Registered: 10/09/2004
Posts: 127
Loc: Bay Area, CA/Anchorage, AK
|
Quote:
No doubt public drinking will be next, followed by the right to go out in public (which, let's face it, is a significant cause of accidents and death). Thank god we have governments to make these decisions for us.
Many countries and other government entities have achieved most of that intended effect by coming down hard on drunken driving. I forsaw that this would happen first in the countries that have national health-care---the long-term costs for the governments are simply too expensive! And yes, the same argument can be made for alcohol, but Prohibition has been tried, with conspicuous lack of success...no one is saying that you can't buy or consume them at all...merely that they can't be inflicted on others.
In the event, I was wrong, and California blazed the trail. I was in California when the ban was passed, with wild lamentations from the restaurant and bar owners about lost customers and revenue, and was keenly aware of the same repeated in New York; in both cases there was some initial falling off, with a gradual but full rebound. There is also an (perhaps) unanticipated rise in traffic from people who couldn't be around cigarette smoke; after developing allergic asthma I hadn't been in a bar or unventilated restaurant in 20 years, and still have to leave one when I encounter this out of state.
As well, it can be good for tourism; I have an Irish friend who'd been inviting me to visit for years, and each time my reply was that, as life in the Irish countryside was centered around the pubs, there wasn't any point. This summer, after learning of their ban, I was off like a shot....and heaven knows, if you can get the Irish to do anything, the rest of the world should be a piece of cake...! I've been following this recently in the Scotsman, however, and local authorities there are saying that they will refuse to enforce it, so it may be that the Scots actually are more stubborn than the Irish (my heritage includes both)...it will be interesting to watch!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240997 - 11/11/2004 15:12
Re: About f****** time
[Re: kayakjazz]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 31/05/2002
Posts: 352
Loc: santa cruz,ca
|
I'm a heavy smoker/ drinker and I live in California. Over all I like the no smoke in bars thing.
Bars no longer have that 'Bar' smell to them. Maybe it's not such a big deal to me because I don't smoke in my house, or anyone's for that matter.
I think the people that work in places like bars and restaurants probably appreciate it more than anyone.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240998 - 11/11/2004 15:29
Re: About f****** time
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
old hand
Registered: 14/04/2002
Posts: 1172
Loc: Hants, UK
|
The pro-smoking groups mention that the UK taxes on cigarettes far outweigh the costs, but they don't mention the associated losses when somebody dies of a smoking related disease. These losses are routinely quoted for road accident fatalities - for each death a figure of £700,000 is put on "grief/suffering" and approx £600,000 on "loss of output" which is presumably economic earnings and various taxes etc.
Gareth
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#240999 - 11/11/2004 15:45
Re: About f****** time
[Re: jimhogan]
|
addict
Registered: 25/06/2002
Posts: 456
|
Quote:
Quote:
That's a good reason why I don't want a national health care plan. That way, people can have the freedom of choice to slowly kill themselves and I don't have to pay for it
I see the smiley, but I still have to chime in and say that this would be a bad argument if you *were* serious (because some people actually take this view).
Well, it does seem that the more a government pays for your health care, the more right they have to legislate that you be healthy. Just protecting their investment, don't you know? It doesn't seem too much of a stretch that a fully nationalized system could attempt to institute all sorts of bans as well as prohibitions on certain types of behavior -- all in the name of public health and reducing costs.
Now as regards the smoking bans in particular, I was a little disappointed that they ended the tenure of those trendy martini-and-cigar bars of the mid-to-late-90's. (Those places were fun!) But I soon got over it. Now whenever I go to a state which has smoky bars or restaurants where they ask "smoking or non-smoking" I do a double-take in surprise. It's kind of like the smoking ban on airplanes. It seems weird that I can remember a time when there were smoking sections on airplanes. Nowadays that just seems so anachronistic (like smoking in the movie theaters of the 20's and 30's).
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241000 - 11/11/2004 16:02
Re: About f****** time
[Re: jimhogan]
|
old hand
Registered: 15/07/2002
Posts: 828
Loc: Texas, USA
|
Quote:
Texas to put all uninsured people with emphysema on a barge
Ok, I'll bite. Link please.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241001 - 11/11/2004 16:04
Re: About f****** time
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 06/03/2003
Posts: 269
Loc: Wellingborough, UK
|
Quote:
...make these sensible decisions.
The funny thing is, I am pretty anti-smoking but don't agree with an outright ban, for four reasons.
Firstly, justifying a ban solely on the basis of some questionable analysis and some questionable scientific evidence isn't the way to do it, in my opinion.
Secondly, I think that businesses should have the option of installing air filtration systems that have been designed and certified to guarantee a certain standard of clean, fresh air. Sure, such systems would likely be expensive, but businesses should be allowed to make the choice on business grounds (taking into consideration environmental, health, safety and insurance considerations).
Thirdly, I am concerned about the justification of benefits to the NHS. I can't help but think that a self-inflicted ill health tax (covering alcohol, cigarettes, obesity and the like) can't be too far away.
Finally, if cigarettes are so dangerous (and I think they are), surely the correct thing to do is to make them a Class C drug and allow only registered addicts to purchase them in pharmacies just like other controlled (non-prescription) medicines? Or create a new class (D) and do the same.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241002 - 11/11/2004 16:06
Re: About f****** time
[Re: Mach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Texas to put all uninsured people with emphysema on a barge
Ok, I'll bite. Link please.
Oh, that one came off the wire from the HNS (Hyperbolic News Service).
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241003 - 11/11/2004 16:09
Re: About f****** time
[Re: mdavey]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Firstly, justifying a ban solely on the basis of some questionable analysis and some questionable scientific evidence isn't the way to do it, in my opinion.
Before we go own, what experts in the field believe the body of evidence to be questionable?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241004 - 11/11/2004 16:25
Re: About f****** time
[Re: jimhogan]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4181
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
I would never imagine a prohibition against tobacco, for the same reason that I think the War on Drugs (tm) is wrong-headed and counter-productive.
I think legislating that existing smokers should stop isn't going to get anyone anywhere. But I like the idea that I read somewhere, of increasing the legal minimum age for tobacco-buying by a year every year (or a year every two years), attempting to cut off the flow of new smokers.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241005 - 11/11/2004 16:26
Re: About f****** time
[Re: jimhogan]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 06/03/2003
Posts: 269
Loc: Wellingborough, UK
|
Quote:
Before we go own, what experts in the field believe the body of evidence to be questionable?
I don't know, but someone from the pro-smoking campaign was on the telly last night arguing that the evidence about risks of passive smoking (ETS) to the average pub-goer is flimsy. The health minister replied by saying that the risks to performers (trumpet players and the like) are very high and the risks to staff are high and that most scientists accept this as a fact. The campaigner reiterated that research into risks to customers is inconclusive at best (all from what I can recall). I doubt there are many that would dispute the dangers of tobacco to smokers themselves.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241007 - 11/11/2004 17:48
Re: About f****** time
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 19/01/2002
Posts: 3584
Loc: Columbus, OH
|
Quote:
But I like the idea that I read somewhere, of increasing the legal minimum age for tobacco-buying by a year every year (or a year every two years)
Doubt it would work here. Most people that smoke do so long before they reach the legal age anyway (at least here in the South).
_________________________
~ John
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241008 - 11/11/2004 19:33
Re: About f****** time
[Re: jimhogan]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 13/09/1999
Posts: 2401
Loc: Croatia
|
Aaaah, so I should enjoy while I can! I am temporarily in France where there are often not even non-smoking sections of bars, even restaurants. A coffee is not coffee without a small cigar. Despite smoking being alowed, I ask my neighbors for permission (often drawing strange looks) - I mean, smoking under the nose of someone who finds the smoke disgusting is like f arting. But I still have difficulties making myself drop ash to the floor, as is here generally done in brasseries and bistros ...  Quote:
One big hook anti-indoor-smoking initiatives hang their hat on is that staff/employees in workplaces, restaurants, don't have that choice and that the negative effect for them is pretty much beyond dispute. You can say that they should get another job, but that isn't realistic.
As somebody said here, evidence of dangers of second-hand smoking is not that firm, but it still makes sense to err on the side of caution. However, as Michael said, why not regulate minimal air quality? Smoking ban is the cheapest way to achieve this, good ventilation the most expensive - competition would create choice.
Quote:
Smoking is a lousy source of revenue. I haven't looked at in a while, but it was the case that the French government did (and maybe still does) have a state monopoly on tobacco. Well, for every franc they made on tobacco, they spent *nine* francs on tobacco-releated disease care.
Yes, but how much do they save on pensions? 
_________________________
Dragi "Bonzi" Raos
Q#5196
MkII #080000376, 18GB green
MkIIa #040103247, 60GB blue
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241009 - 11/11/2004 20:17
Re: About f****** time
[Re: JBjorgen]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 14/07/2002
Posts: 344
Loc: South Carolina
|
Quote:
Quote:
But I like the idea that I read somewhere, of increasing the legal minimum age for tobacco-buying by a year every year (or a year every two years)
Doubt it would work here. Most people that smoke do so long before they reach the legal age anyway (at least here in the South).
If you increase the age every 2 years or so you would eventually weed (no pun intended) out those who don't have someone of age to purchase tobacco for them, therefore slowly decreasing the number of users.
It might not be the best solution but it would, IMO, work wonders for the long-term.
_________________________
Russ
---------------------------------------------------------
"The difference between a successful person and others is not a lack of strength, not a lack of knowledge, but rather a lack of will." Vince Lombardi
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241010 - 11/11/2004 20:46
Re: About f****** time
[Re: mdavey]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
I don't know, but someone from the pro-smoking campaign was on the telly last night arguing that the evidence about risks of passive smoking (ETS) to the average pub-goer is flimsy.
Well, that was kind of my point in asking. Seems like you can always find someone from a campaign (these used to be funded by tobacco companies over here until some multi-state settlements) to argue flimsiness, but can you find peer-reviewed researchers not funded by Phillip Morris (Altria!) or BAT who can argue same? As, I suspect is the case with global warming and and creationism, the "flimsy" argument usually manages to get somewhat equal time in the interest of "fairness" ...and to make the news segment more stimulating.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241011 - 11/11/2004 21:08
Re: About f****** time
[Re: bonzi]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Aaaah, so I should enjoy while I can! I am temporarily in France where there are often not even non-smoking sections of bars, even restaurants.
I *really* like to travel there (oh, for the food and other things) but this is why it has to be in fairly warm weather -- when the patio is set up or the windows are open. I suspect France may be the one of the last tobacco havens in Europe to crumble. A certain obstinacy?
Quote:
A coffee is not coffee without a small cigar.
Oh, yes it is! I only wish I didn't kill half my taste buds in the 14 years I smoked!
Quote:
As somebody said here, evidence of dangers of second-hand smoking is not that firm, but it still makes sense to err on the side of caution.
Allow me to link this NIH page before the Bush administration has it taken down in the interests of national security. I don't think it is that the evidence is weak so much as the strenth of associations and the degree of risk is sometimes not compelling to everybody. As a restaurant patron, my concerns are less, but as a restaurant employee, my concern would be (or should be!) much higher.
Quote:
However, as Michael said, why not regulate minimal air quality? Smoking ban is the cheapest way to achieve this, good ventilation the most expensive - competition would create choice.
I am not certain, but I think that there have been some studies saying that this is not terribly effective (unless you want your resturant to sound like a machine room!).
Quote:
Yes, but how much do they save on pensions?
I think this has been studied also. Yes, more YPLL (years of preventable life lost) means less pension funding needed. Problem with tobacco is that people with COPD and other tobacco-related illness can take a *bitchin'* long time to die and they are very expensive to care for, so your retirement funds are lost and then some. We had a guy in Boston in the mid 80s who have over 350 hospital admissions in something like a 5-6-year period. Anybody want to add up what the ambulance bill was?
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241012 - 11/11/2004 21:10
Re: About f****** time
[Re: Mach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Oh, that the one with news anchor, Emmanuelle Gaume? Very relaxing delivery....
Omigog, Emmanuelle has moved to HNS?
/jim furiously clicking his remote....
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241013 - 11/11/2004 21:19
Re: About f****** time
[Re: mdavey]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
Finally, if cigarettes are so dangerous (and I think they are), surely the correct thing to do is to make them a Class C drug and allow only registered addicts to purchase them in pharmacies just like other controlled (non-prescription) medicines? Or create a new class (D) and do the same.
It seems like this is a strategy that has been pursued with some success in the case of other hard-core addictions (and which I more or less support), but I would hesitate to add more addiction bureaucracy for a problem where there are other avenues. I mean, as addictive as tobacco is, I haven't heard that it has caused smokers to commit burglaries or mug passers-by.
I think the key is young people. While I disdain the futile War on Drugs, I have no problem with criminal penalties for people who provide to minors. There are a lot of laws targeted at shops that sell cigarettes. I'd probably work on those more. Oh, and the fact that cigs are taxed more highly and have become much more expensive in some places, doesn't seem like a bad thing with respect to 13 year-olds.
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241014 - 11/11/2004 22:01
Re: About f****** time
[Re: CrackersMcCheese]
|
pooh-bah
Registered: 16/06/2000
Posts: 1682
Loc: Greenhills, Ohio
|
Quote:
I don't think anyone can deny that passive smoking from a selfish minority causes harm
And you don't think you are being a bit selfish yourself for not wanting smokers allowed in public places?
_________________________
Laura
MKI #017/90
whatever
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241015 - 11/11/2004 22:22
Re: About f****** time
[Re: Laura]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 06/10/1999
Posts: 2591
Loc: Seattle, WA, U.S.A.
|
Quote:
And you don't think you are being a bit selfish yourself for not wanting smokers allowed in public places?
Now, Laura, you have to know that smokers are completely welcome in *all* public places.
umm...just as long as they don't.......ummm.....
_________________________
Jim
'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#241016 - 11/11/2004 22:29
Re: About f****** time
[Re: jimhogan]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 06/03/2003
Posts: 269
Loc: Wellingborough, UK
|
Quote:
...as addictive as tobacco is, I haven't heard that it has caused smokers to commit burglaries or mug passers-by.
I think your local police would disagree. People tend to commit those crimes for money. In the UK, a packet of cigarettes costs around £5 so even on 20 a day, that is £150 per month - equivalent to 1/2 the monthly rent on a basic flat/apartment or twice the jobseekers allowance for the same period. Being on the poverty line with a tobacco habit is arguably more costly to the individual than with a similarly acute pure cannabis habit and possibly than with a similarly acute alcohol habit.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index