Tobacco Legislation: Big Companies Benefit Most - Obama Promises to Sign

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/business/13tobacco.html?ref=politics

The House moved quickly Friday to pass the Senate’s tobacco bill and send it to the White House, where President Obama promised to sign it.

Mr. Obama, who himself has struggled to quit smoking, said the measure would “protect our kids and improve our public health.” Appearing in the Rose Garden just moments after the House vote, he said the tobacco legislation was “a bill that truly defines changes in Washington” and one that “changes the way Washington works and who it works for.”

The law would for the first time give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco products, which kill more than 400,000 people in this country each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
cont...

While the bill is well intentioned I think they are going to great lengths for a slim benefits and the greatest beneficiaries it would seem are going to be the major tobacco companies.

First of all it will make getting new tobacco products out an incredibly drawn out and expensive process. Smaller companies will not be able to compete with the big boys and companies like RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris will take even more of a lions share of the market. Philip Morris even supported the legislation.

Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, the legislation will ban flavoured tobaccos. Flavoured cigarettes are really the only major market for smaller tobacco companies. Kreteks (clove cigarettes) will also be banned which will completely hedge out competition from indonesian companies that make about one hundred million dollars in exports to the US. But the corporate protectionism doesn't stop there.

Menthol cigarettes, the biggest money making flavoured cigarette in the US, will be the only flavoured cigarettes exempted from the ban. This also happens to be a cigarette flavour most commonly preferred by African Americans and a big money maker for companies like Reynolds and Morris.

So the US government has passed legislation dubbing tobacco a dangerous and addictive substance requiring tight control while simultaneously setting up profit protections, and possibly market share boosts, for its biggest pushers.

 

[Phrak]

So the US government has passed legislation dubbing tobacco a dangerous and addictive substance...

It's, at least, good to know that our hard working legislators occasionally get a few facts straight.

 

[Proton Soup]

how Kool of them to keep menthol

 

[Huckleberry]

What does he mean it defines changes in Washington and who it works for? That's a vague notion. Judging by the list of banned cigarettes it seems pretty clear that Washington works for tobacco companies and big business. Does this bill mention how these new regulations will help children, or is that just the facade they put on it to promote it to the public? If that is the real reason then they should just ban cigarettes altogether. What a sham! I resent this kind of 'freedom'.

 

[Civilized]

I think that anyone who supports this kind of legislation has failed to grasp the meaning of "freedom" and "indepedence" as intended by the founding fathers. Jefferson himself owned a tobacco plantation that was built from the ground up by his father Peter.

The loss of smaller tobacco companies due to this legislation will also effect pipe smokers, people like Albert Einstein, who was a permanent member of the Montreal pipe smoking club, or Bertrand Russel, a centenarian who was rarely photographed or depicted without his smokey pipe.

It really bothers me when I see people villify smoking, and use it as a reason to judge someone or dismiss them. I have read that Hitler despised smoking, and heavily regulated it's use in the third Reich, particularly by women.

The argument that we should protect consumers from tobacco companies is applied inconsistently if it's not applied to other products. Should we ban TV for making people stupid? Should we bad fast food for making people fat?

The argument that some non-smokers are bothered by smoke is too weak to justify impinging on the rights of the smoker. The free market will do a fine job seperating smokers from non-smokers if the government would stop interferring. As for the idea that second hand smoke causes cancer and kills, what it actually does is raise the statistical risk of dying in these ways. Similar things can be found about motorcycles, knives, etc. What I am saying is that if you spend time around dangerous items, you face an increased risk of danger.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Does this bill mention how these new regulations will help children, or is that just the facade they put on it to promote it to the public?

It finally places tobacco under the regulation of the FDA(not something that specifically helps children). It requires larger more aggressive warning labels on the packaging(think England). It increases penalties against establishments found to have sold tobacco to minors. It completely cuts tobacco company endorsement of any sporting events, teams, ect. It places stronger regulation on tobacco product advertisement (specifically restricting it to black and white apparently). It bans marketing of cigarettes as "light" "mild" ect (believing this falsely makes the product seem safer). And the bit mostly directed at reducing underage smoking is the banning of flavoured cigarettes (except menthols as noted) which is believed to be a gateway for teen smoking.

There may be other things but these are the ones that I have specifically read about.

 

[Huckleberry]

Hmm, I don't buy it. The regulations they are making primarily affect people who are not underage. Most of the people who smoke flavoured tobacco do so legally. What they are doing is restricting the rights of the majority of people who abide the law to 'protect' the few who don't. It's a bad strategy. If they focused more on restricting the sale of tobacco to minors that would be more understandable. The whole 'If we can't stop the kids from smoking then nobody can smoke' is just treating adults like children. I also don't believe it.

Tobacco advertisement has already been removed from television advertisement completely. Hasn't it? The black and white advertisement, is this in magazines or something? Still, seems a silly change to make. I guess smoking is too appealing to allow a conscious decision when it's in color.

I don't know how the FDA operates, but I do believe it is a good idea to monitor and regulate the production and distribution of drugs. Depending on how they handle it I don't have any problems with that, but I'm wary of the effect it will have on smaller businesses. The regulations should be fair to business as well as consumers.

Overall I think this bill is a very bad idea.

 

[Moonbear]

It's of course political posturing. (Maybe this thread belongs in politics rather than GD?)

I agree that it's something that sounds good on the surface, because a lot of people want to see tobacco banned, so writing a bill that appears to curb it is popular. However, I think you're right that it's all smoke (no pun intended) and mirrors.

It puts tobacco use under FDA regulation so they can put bigger warning labels on tobacco products. Is there any evidence that bigger warning labels has any effect at all on curbing tobacco use? And, unless this comes with a boost in the FDA's budget to actually apply regulatory oversight, it's more likely to pull resources from other areas where FDA is also already underfunded and bogged down, such as approving new lifesaving drugs and products and protecting food safety. Unless it gives the FDA full authority to flat out ban tobacco products, or put them on a controlled substance list that requires a doctor's prescription to get (wouldn't the tobacco companies love to be able to charge prescription drug prices for cigarettes and have them reimbursed by insurance companies), it's just going to bog down FDA with inspections of facilities without doing anything to really stop the product.

I'm not so concerned of the effect it will have on smaller businesses selling tobacco products, I just wish it would have more impact on the big ones too. But, those big businesses are hard to shut down, especially when the economy is weak. The reason they have such a tight grip on Congress' short hairs is that they are huge employers and huge sources of tax revenue for both federal government and state governments. You can't ban tobacco and put all those people out of work when the economy is already in the dumps and unemployment rates are still climbing. You basically would need to align the stars right to have the right people in Congress when the economy is flourishing and new industries are starting up to decide that's a good time to shut down the tobacco industry when the workers stand a chance of finding a new job moving into another industry.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmm, I don't buy it.

I think that the major reason for appealing to the protection of children is a strategic means of making the bill difficult to vote against. The title serves those who make the claims and ads you see where politician X is accused of voting against legislation to protect children.

It's of course political posturing. (Maybe this thread belongs in politics rather than GD?)

I agree that it's something that sounds good on the surface, because a lot of people want to see tobacco banned, so writing a bill that appears to curb it is popular. However, I think you're right that it's all smoke (no pun intended) and mirrors.

It puts tobacco use under FDA regulation so they can put bigger warning labels on tobacco products. Is there any evidence that bigger warning labels has any effect at all on curbing tobacco use? And, unless this comes with a boost in the FDA's budget to actually apply regulatory oversight, it's more likely to pull resources from other areas where FDA is also already underfunded and bogged down, such as approving new lifesaving drugs and products and protecting food safety. Unless it gives the FDA full authority to flat out ban tobacco products, or put them on a controlled substance list that requires a doctor's prescription to get (wouldn't the tobacco companies love to be able to charge prescription drug prices for cigarettes and have them reimbursed by insurance companies), it's just going to bog down FDA with inspections of facilities without doing anything to really stop the product.

I'm not so concerned of the effect it will have on smaller businesses selling tobacco products, I just wish it would have more impact on the big ones too. But, those big businesses are hard to shut down, especially when the economy is weak. The reason they have such a tight grip on Congress' short hairs is that they are huge employers and huge sources of tax revenue for both federal government and state governments. You can't ban tobacco and put all those people out of work when the economy is already in the dumps and unemployment rates are still climbing. You basically would need to align the stars right to have the right people in Congress when the economy is flourishing and new industries are starting up to decide that's a good time to shut down the tobacco industry when the workers stand a chance of finding a new job moving into another industry.

I was thinking of posting it in P&WA. Originally I was going to ***** and moan about my brand of cigarettes being banned so I put it here instead but obviously my post went a rather different direction.
I am unsure how many tobacco growing states we have or how much clout they would have in trying to prevent an outright ban on tobacco products but I would imagine that is at least part of why such a strong measure has little chance of surviving congress. The not so subtle protectionism of this bill along with endorsement from Philip Morris and possible increase in business for US tobacco producers probably make it hard for tobacco states to turn down. Their politicians get to look good supposedly protecting families and superficially looking self sacrificing.

Edit: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/ehs-dcw013107.php
On the effectiveness of tobacco warning labels.

 

[Evo]

The argument that some non-smokers are bothered by smoke is too weak to justify impinging on the rights of the smoker.

Smokers do not have the right to inflict pain and discomfort on others in a public place, to think so is ridiculous. People that choose to light up a cigarette around other people should be punished, by fines and/or being physically removed from the building, except inside their own home. Nothing is worse than someone blowing smoke in my face. It hurts. I have bad allergies and was asthmatic until my early 20's. It's not just the foul smell from the smoke, which is reason enough that anyone with a functioning brain would understand is beyond rude to do around non-smokers. Second hand smoke causes me physical pain. I, for one, am really glad that laws are being passed to stop smokers from violating the rights of other people. Too bad that common sense wasn't enough.

I agree that this new tobacco bill is a farce.

 

[Civilized]

Nothing is worse than someone blowing smoke in my face.

Obviously this statement is hyperbole, an example of one of the reasons why democracy is such a poor form of government (i.e. the masses of people are convinced more so by passionate rhetoric than by logic).

What would Thomas Jefferson, or Einstein, or Bertrand Russel have said if you spoke to them the line above? They would probably assure you that while no decent person should be blowing smoke at you intentionally (breathing on strangers is rude in general), that if you however are so sensitive to smoke then that is your problem, and it's up to you to avoid smoke. I've seen green-types get flipped out over mainstream scented detergents (e.g. tide), deoderants, bath soaps, claiming that the chemical smell burns their nose and whatnot. Personally, I don't dispute that these people are sensitive and bothered, but again, that is their problem. A basic principle of a free society is that you must take control over your own situation to get what you want, not to micromanage which habits other people are allowed to have. The fact is that, aside from the remote risk of fire, tobacco never causes an imminent risk of danger. If you are concerned about long-term health effects of smoking, or if you are bothered by smoke, then you have the choice to avoid it. If and only if you did not have the choice then it would be right for the government to pass legislation to give you back the choice.

Also, physical pain is not some kind of trump card that makes it valid to restrict another persons rights, especially where you are in an acutely sensitive minority. Alcoholics and autistics can feel much pain and anguish when exposed to bright lights / fluorescents, should these be banned? Some people are hyper sensitive to sounds that they perceive as loud, these sounds cause them pain, should all speaker systems be restricted ? The answer is no, these people need to admit that their hyper sensitivity is their own problem and deal with it by making personal choices, not by telling others what to do.

 

[wildman]

Obviously this statement is hyperbole, an example of one of the reasons why democracy is such a poor form of government (i.e. the masses of people are convinced more so by passionate rhetoric than by logic).

...

Also, physical pain is not some kind of trump card that makes it valid to restrict another persons rights, especially where you are in an acutely sensitive minority. Alcoholics and autistics can feel much pain and anguish when exposed to bright lights / fluorescents, should these be banned? Some people are hyper sensitive to sounds that they perceive as loud, these sounds cause them pain, should all speaker systems be restricted ? The answer is no, these people need to admit that their hyper sensitivity is their own problem and deal with it by making personal choices, not by telling others what to do.

Tobacco is a known carcinogen. Are you saying that I should have the right to spread other carcinogens willy-nilly around in populated areas? So should I have the right to spray you with benzine if I would find that fun? How about the government's ban on setting off dirty bombs in populated areas? Are you saying I should I have the right to set one off? If not, why should you have the right to blow a carcinogen in another person's face? The main harm in setting off of dirty (radioactive) bomb is that it will spread carcinogens around in the environment. What is the difference?

 

[humanino]

Thomas Jefferson, or Einstein, or Bertrand Russel

Please stop using people names for your own arguments. You did not even know them.

Should we ban TV for making people stupid? Should we bad fast food for making people fat?

I for one would be pretty happy if someone was working seriously on those issues as well.

 

[humanino]

What is the difference?

The difference is in the efficiency in causing cancer. Every single substance is toxic provided it is concentrated enough. Even water or oxygen can kill you if you are being injected too much. Therefore, I do not think you comparison is fair.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Smokers do not have the right to inflict pain and discomfort on others in a public place, to think so is ridiculous. People that choose to light up a cigarette around other people should be punished, by fines and/or being physically removed from the building, except inside their own home. Nothing is worse than someone blowing smoke in my face. It hurts. I have bad allergies and was asthmatic until my early 20's. It's not just the foul smell from the smoke, which is reason enough that anyone with a functioning brain would understand is beyond rude to do around non-smokers. Second hand smoke causes me physical pain. I, for one, am really glad that laws are being passed to stop smokers from violating the rights of other people. Too bad that common sense wasn't enough.

I agree that this new tobacco bill is a farce.

If not, why should you have the right to blow a carcinogen in another person's face?

Probably about 99% (or more) of the time I spend smoking in public places I am no where near anyone who may have an issue with it. The other one percent (or less) of the time I spend moving away from people who may have an issue with it. And as a smoker I do not appreciate being characterized as an ***hole who blows smoke in peoples faces. Nor do I appreaciate the idea that I should have to shut myself in somewhere by myself like I'm some sort of diseased freak if I want to have a cigarette.

 

[Civilized]

Tobacco is a known carcinogen. Are you saying that I should have the right to spread other carcinogens willy-nilly around in populated areas? So should I have the right to spray you with benzine if I would find that fun? How about the government's ban on setting off dirty bombs in populated areas? Are you saying I should I have the right to set one off? If not, why should you have the right to blow a carcinogen in another person's face? The main harm in setting off of dirty (radioactive) bomb is that it will spread carcinogens around in the environment. What is the difference?

Besides what Humanino has already explained, the difference is that some people choose smoking as a hobby, and have done so for hundreds of years, but no one chooses to activate benzine sprays or dirty bombs as a hobby. Hopefully you understand that Tobacco has positive qualities that many people enjoy in addition to being a carcinogen, more analogous to red meat than to dirty bombs.

Please stop using people names for your own arguments. You did not even know them.

The fact that I didn't know them is irrelevant. Their positions on Tobacco are well documented in the historical records, and they are generally recognized as great people, thereore it is relevant to mention them. When we are talking about passing American laws against a several century old common habit, then at the very least it is relevant to ask ourselves whether the men who wrote the constitution intended for the US to get so involved with micromanaging people freedoms. The answer is that they absolutely never intended the government to dictate what people could and could not do on such a detailed level.

 

[Pupil]

Besides what Humanino has already explained, the difference is that some people choose smoking as a hobby, and have done so for hundreds of years, but no one chooses to activate benzine sprays or dirty bombs as a hobby. Hopefully you understand that Tobacco has positive qualities that many people enjoy in addition to being a carcinogen, more analogous to red meat than to dirty bombs.

Regardless, that does not give you or anyone else the right to hurt another person's health without their permission. What a person does in his or her own home is perfectly fine, but what he or she does publicly concerns everyone. I don't have the right to get a squirt gun and spray carcinogens on people even if it has the positive quality of making my trigger finger stronger.

The fact that I didn't know them is irrelevant. Their positions on Tobacco are well documented in the historical records, and they are generally recognized as great people, thereore it is relevant to mention them.

How is it relevant to mention people like Bertrand Russell or Albert Einstein? Either your argument is sound and valid or it is not, regardless of what person X believes.

 

[Proton Soup]

Obviously this statement is hyperbole, an example of one of the reasons why democracy is such a poor form of government (i.e. the masses of people are convinced more so by passionate rhetoric than by logic).

What would Thomas Jefferson, or Einstein, or Bertrand Russel have said if you spoke to them the line above? They would probably assure you that while no decent person should be blowing smoke at you intentionally (breathing on strangers is rude in general), that if you however are so sensitive to smoke then that is your problem, and it's up to you to avoid smoke. I've seen green-types get flipped out over mainstream scented detergents (e.g. tide), deoderants, bath soaps, claiming that the chemical smell burns their nose and whatnot. Personally, I don't dispute that these people are sensitive and bothered, but again, that is their problem. A basic principle of a free society is that you must take control over your own situation to get what you want, not to micromanage which habits other people are allowed to have. The fact is that, aside from the remote risk of fire, tobacco never causes an imminent risk of danger. If you are concerned about long-term health effects of smoking, or if you are bothered by smoke, then you have the choice to avoid it. If and only if you did not have the choice then it would be right for the government to pass legislation to give you back the choice.

actually, i have the right to clean air and a jacket that isn't soiled by your habit. sure, you have a right to your dirty little habits, i have no problem with that. you just have no right to impose it on anyone else.

Also, physical pain is not some kind of trump card that makes it valid to restrict another persons rights, especially where you are in an acutely sensitive minority. Alcoholics and autistics can feel much pain and anguish when exposed to bright lights / fluorescents, should these be banned? Some people are hyper sensitive to sounds that they perceive as loud, these sounds cause them pain, should all speaker systems be restricted ? The answer is no, these people need to admit that their hyper sensitivity is their own problem and deal with it by making personal choices, not by telling others what to do.

see that's the thing, your nicotine addiction causes you to come up with irrational arguments to support your position. i am not responsible for the alcoholic's addiction and pain, nor the congenital defects of others. it's not my fault that they cannot function the same in society as normal people. nor do normal people have an obligation to accommodate them by dimming the lights. that would be an unreasonable accommodation. what is reasonable is that they wear shades. likewise, you could walk around in a smoke-filled bubble that traps your noxious smoke away from innocent normal people.

in any case, your addiction is not our problem.

 

[Pengwuino]

The fact that I didn't know them is irrelevant. Their positions on Tobacco are well documented in the historical records, and they are generally recognized as great people, thereore it is relevant to mention them. When we are talking about passing American laws against a several century old common habit, then at the very least it is relevant to ask ourselves whether the men who wrote the constitution intended for the US to get so involved with micromanaging people freedoms. The answer is that they absolutely never intended the government to dictate what people could and could not do on such a detailed level.

The problem is these people didn't live in an era where the dangers of smoking were firmly established. You can't extrapolate what you assume they would say to the present era.

I also agree with SA about the demonizing of smokers. EVERY person I know, and I mean every single person I know who smokes does so to reduce stress and is fully aware that it's very rude to smoke near people. None of them smoke so they can reduce the life expectancy of people around them. Hell, what about drinking? We know the health costs for that and although there's no such thing as second-hand intoxication, the social costs and derived costs (drunk driving, crime) from drinking is considerable. I'm personally way more fearful of getting hit by a drunk driver or receiving bodily injury or property damage from some drunk then I am of getting cancer from smokers. If people want to ban smoking, fine, just don't dehumanize people.

 

[Pupil]

I also agree with SA about the demonizing of smokers. EVERY person I know, and I mean every single person I know who smokes does so to reduce stress and is fully aware that it's very rude to smoke near people. None of them smoke so they can reduce the life expectancy of people around them. Hell, what about drinking? We know the health costs for that and although there's no such thing as second-hand intoxication, the social costs and derived costs (drunk driving, crime) from drinking is considerable. I'm personally way more fearful of getting hit by a drunk driver or receiving bodily injury or property damage from some drunk then I am of getting cancer from smokers. If people want to ban smoking, fine, just don't dehumanize people.

I think drinking is a really good analogous example, here. Just because people want the freedom to drink doesn't give them the right to put people in danger in public (hence the ban on drunk driving). It isn't the non-drinker's job to avoid the drunk drivers in public.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think drinking is a really good analogous example, here. Just because people want the freedom to drink doesn't give them the right to put people in danger in public (hence the ban on drunk driving). It isn't the non-drinker's job to avoid the drunk drivers in public.

Actually the point I was getting across was how ridiculous the notion would be to apply this same logic to alcohol. Would we tell every alcoholic that no matter how much you drink, you must go hide yourself away from the public until you're no longer impaired? All bars would be gone, clubs, any social functions where people drink together. The banning of drinking and driving is just banning the extreme consequence of drinking.

 

[Pupil]

Actually the point I was getting across was how ridiculous the notion would be to apply this same logic to alcohol. Would we tell every alcoholic that no matter how much you drink, you must go hide yourself away from the public until you're no longer impaired? All bars would be gone, clubs, any social functions where people drink together. The banning of drinking and driving is just banning the extreme consequence of drinking.

I understand -- I was branching off in my own point on the subject.

 

[junglebeast]

Would we tell every alcoholic that no matter how much you drink, you must go hide yourself away from the public until you're no longer impaired?

Well, that is already a law in several countries and states of the USA...such as Australia, Canada, England, California...etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_intoxication

All bars would be gone, clubs, any social functions where people drink together. The banning of drinking and driving is just banning the extreme consequence of drinking.

A bar is not considered a public place for this law. But actually its more strict on drinking, because you can't just drink out in public on the street, but you can smoke on the street.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, that is already a law in several countries and states of the USA...such as Australia, Canada, England, California...etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_intoxication

No, that is intoxication. I'm saying drinking period, which is what the equivalent bans on tobacco try to do.

A bar is not considered a public place for this law. But actually its more strict on drinking, because you can't just drink out in public on the street, but you can smoke on the street.

I'm not talking about specific laws really, I'm talking about this silly idea of banning this and that or making it so that people have to hide in their homes to do certain things that have consequences beyond themselves without realizing where the logic could wind up that you're arguing with.

 

[junglebeast]

I'm not talking about specific laws really, I'm talking about this silly idea of banning this and that or making it so that people have to hide in their homes to do certain things that have consequences beyond themselves without realizing where the logic could wind up that you're arguing with.

Fundamentally I hate the idea of the government being able to tell me I'm not allowed to do something to myself that is personal and harms no-one else. If I want to drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, or take tylenol, or smoke weed...that should be my choice.

At the same time, it seems that a good percentage (or perhaps majority) are not actually rational thinkers, and they do not take their own health seriously. By allowing them to let themselves become addicted to this drug, we waste valuable medical resources taking care of their resulting health conditions. Moreover, many impressionable youths make the mistake of becoming addicted, which can cause many innocent people to have adverse health effects or death..and waste their money.

Sometimes people don't know what's best for them. People always THINK they know what's best for themselves. A 16 year old kid may think it's best for him to get hooked on heroine, but if you care about that kid, you will disallow him that freedom...because addictive drugs are different. They take away that person's ability to make choices in the future.

Sadly, we cannot expect this level of care from all parents...so I do think that all addictive substances should be made illegal. This includes cigarettes, but not marijuana, which is not addictive.

 

[Evo]

What would Thomas Jefferson, or Einstein, or Bertrand Russel have said if you spoke to them the line above?

Are you serious? They lived during a time when smoking was not only acceptable, it was endosred. Are you a troll? Your posts are nonsense. I suggest you take some time to learn about the subject before you post again.

Misinformation and stupid remarks aren't allowed here. BTW, you've been warned, and long overdue, another nonsense post will be your last.

 

[Huckleberry]

I understand and agree with smoking bans in public buildings. I would also agree that it would be rude to light up outdoors in certain circumstances, like while waiting in line or right in front of a doorway to a business. I also think its rude when smokers just throw butts all over the place. I hate that.

On the other hand, I don't like being bothered about it if I'm minding my own business outdoors in public. I don't light up where people are standing, but if someone decides they want to stand where I'm smoking then.. heck, I'd probably just move a few yards if they ask politely. Usually people are polite, but sometimes they can be very aggressive. If someone has an unusual sensitivity that is unfortunate, but if there is no real danger to their health then there isn't any ground to deny others their right to be stupid. I'm not convinced walking past a person smoking is any more dangerous than breathing the air anywhere else in a city.

 

[Chi Meson]

...some people choose smoking as a hobby, and have done so for hundreds of years...

That argument always makes me giggle. You have to go through some heavy mental acrobatics to reach the logical conclusion that smoking is actually a "hobby." My grandfather smoked cigarettes until emphysema kicked in at age 50. He switched to pipes, and by the time I knew him (in his 60s) he had a excellent pipe collection. Collecting pipes is a hobby, but when he smoked, it was just smoking.

My mother smoked, and my brother smoked (until his death of cancer at age 24; no not directly related to the smoking, but I'm sure it didn't help either). Whenever someone lighted up, I would count the seconds between the first inhale, and the moment my bronchules closed up (didn't know at the time this is what was happening, all I knew is that it got harder to breathe).

I grew up when it was still normal to enter just about any establishment to find a haze of tobacco smoke either surrounding the entrance or permeating the entire building. That meant I grew up with breathing difficulties and headaches. I spent hours at our local library during the summers because it was one of the few public places that a kid could go to that was air conditioned, and did not allow smoking at all. On the upside, I immediately took to hiking and the outdoors in general because "the air felt so good." (Quote from me at the age of eight.)

I remember going on a church-sponsored beach trip, at the age of 10 (1975). One of the teen-age chaperons was a smoker. It was a three-hour trip and it was 95 degrees outside. The guy had to smoke, and the air-conditioning had to stay on. The jerk actually told me that since he was sitting in front, he was in control. He told me not to worry, that the air-conditioner "filters the smoke and spreads it around so it won't be so bad." I arrived at the beach with a fierce headache and sick to my stomach. The jerk told me I had motion sickness.

That's just a couple of dozens of memories of growing up in the age where non-smokers were "treated as second-class citizens" (to use the terminology of today's waning smoking defenders). Second hand smoke may or may not be a carcinogen, but it is a direct assault on my senses. You do not have to sit anywhere nearby to "blow smoke in my face." It doesn't even need to be in an enclosed place.

The people who need to smoke in restaurants, shopping areas, parks, are not pursuing a hobby, they are feeding their addiction. Most remaining smokers at least own up to this fact. There are those who make the effort not to bother others while they smoke, and I respect and tolerate the effort (I respect Huckleberry's post right up to the "I'm not convinced.." line; walking past a smoker, in the open air is like being punched in the lungs. I doubt my health is affected, but if I slapped that smoker on the face, I could get arrested for assault, while the smoker gets to walk on, and also gets to toss his butt in the gutter/grass/stream/road/wherever-he-feels-like-tossing-it).

There are still a few out there who make the "social smoker," and "hobby" argument, and I suppose that a small percentage of them might not be lying to themselves.

If this legislation inches, however slowly, toward the reduction of the availability of tobacco, and the reduction of tobacco use, then I am for it.

 

[Huckleberry]

It is definitely an addiction, and a nasty one at that. Smoking is worse than being ignorant because smoker's know the health risks and continue to do it. It's just plain stupid.

But talk of slapping people and being punched is perhaps too much. I can imagine it's unpleasant for some, but I'm sure being punched is quite an exaggeration, just as smoking as a hobby is. This is part of the reason I'm not convinced. I am sorry about that guy on your trip though. That's inconsiderate to the point of cruelty.

For the most part smoker's come up with excuses for their habit so they don't have to face the conclusions I listed in the first paragraph. Then dealing with people's prejudice on top of that makes it so much worse. I fully understand people who don't approve of smoking, but please be careful. Don't kick an addict while he's down. If you do, then make sure you got a good reason for it.

And just on general principle I think it's wrong to approve legislation that is based on false pretenses. It encourages politicians to lie to the public. I also think it is wrong to force people to behave in a certain manner that one thinks is proper, regardless of how harmful their behaviour is to themselves. I'd rather smoke myself into oblivion than live in a country with that kind of heavy-handed kindness. It'll backfire anyway, because governments that lie and a public that doesn't think freedom is about choice is just buttering the slide.

 

[Chi Meson]

I appreciate the decency of Huckleberry's last post, and I have reduced my own pulse rate since my last post. I have one issue in that it is NOT an exaggeration to say that it feels like a "punch in the lungs" when that first waft of smoke is inhaled. It is exactly as the same feeling as getting the "wind knock out of me." Yes, I am more sensitive than some, but not more than most. For every ONE who has actually said something about how annoying your smoke is, there are more who have decided to be silent and endure it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

And just on general principle I think it's wrong to approve legislation that is based on false pretenses. It encourages politicians to lie to the public. I also think it is wrong to force people to behave in a certain manner that one thinks is proper, regardless of how harmful their behaviour is to themselves. I'd rather smoke myself into oblivion than live in a country with that kind of heavy-handed kindness. It'll backfire anyway, because governments that lie and a public that doesn't think freedom is about choice is just buttering the slide.

I do not believe that the legislation is based on false pretenses. Yes they seem to be using the teen smoking issue to press it and make it unpopular to vote against. They have also made concessions to ease its passing. I do think though that the over all intent of the bill is to limit and eventually phase out tobacco sales and use. Congress, and apparently the president, seem to have decided that the unsavoury aspects of the bill are outweighed by the big step toward their eventual goal.

 

[Tibarn]

What would Thomas Jefferson, or Einstein, or Bertrand Russel have said if you spoke to them the line above?

Since we're appealing to authority, let's get a king's word on the subject: "A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose, harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke of the pit that is bottomelesse."
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/poltheory/james/blaste/index.html"

Back on topic, smoking is already going into decline. The potential dangers of smoking are widely known and hammered into children's heads over a full decade before they're legally able to buy a pack of cigarettes. In some places a pack of cigarettes costs as much as three gallons of gasoline, making smoking quite the expensive habit. If actual number of smokers hasn't changed much, they form a smaller segment of the population, and nonsmokers are getting more assertive. Never mind the myriad of laws passed in the last few years banning smoking in various places open to the public.

That said, smokers have their rights and the odds of getting cancer from occasionally coming across a smoker in the street are practically nil. I agree with the original poster that this new legislation smacks of favoritism to the big tobacco companies. Good old crony capitalism in the guise of saving the children.

 

[Huckleberry]

I do not believe that the legislation is based on false pretenses. Yes they seem to be using the teen smoking issue to press it and make it unpopular to vote against. They have also made concessions to ease its passing. I do think though that the over all intent of the bill is to limit and eventually phase out tobacco sales and use. Congress, and apparently the president, seem to have decided that the unsavoury aspects of the bill are outweighed by the big step toward their eventual goal.

I think they are false pretenses because they do not clearly state that objective, and the given reasons are intended to manipulate the public to accept the bill. They can put all the facts they want after a misleading premise and it is still a deception. If it wasn't for this I would have much less problem with the bill, though I don't think I will ever appreciate being treated like a child even if I deserve it. They are expecting people to react on their prejudice rather than on their reason. It rubs me the wrong way.

I do like democracy. I think it's the best form of government man has managed to come up with so far. I probably just have more desire for individual freedom than most. I'd rather deal with individuals doing things that are unpleasant to me personally than I would to have society curb individual behaviour that isn't outright criminal. I enjoy a wide range of acceptable behaviour for people to express themselves even if those boundaries overlap just a little. (imo) Intervention of government on individual affairs should only be when necessary, and it seems to me that lawmakers make new laws just to keep themselves in a job. People will always have to deal with each other on an individual level.

I'd also like to apologize to Chi Meson. If I caused you any anxiety it wasn't my intent. For much the same reason on my views on democracy I prefer people to be blatantly honest with their thoughts, even if they are unpopular or foolish (not that yours are either). For people who don't know me well it can appear a little brusque and tactless and overzealous. Eh, I'm workin' on it... slowly, just or the sake of successful communication. I do respect you even though I'm not wild about some of your opinions. You're a good guy, and I always appreciate when people are passionate about their beliefs.

 

[Kurdt]

It requires larger more aggressive warning labels on the packaging(think England).

You missed our snazzy http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0bSX7cb9Xreh1/610x.jpg" .