Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 62

Thread: 'Congress Aims to Put Out Cigarettes'

  1. #1
    Certified SG Addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    29,515

    'Congress Aims to Put Out Cigarettes'

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3847744

    Smoking is a terrible habit, come on; if it's so awful, BAN TOBACCO. Too many groups laud these kinds of taxes, I suppose content to be deluded that the millions wasted on "education" programs telling people that it's bad to smoke is actually meant to get people to stop. If all smokers would/could quit simultaneously, Uncle Sam's sphincter would suck up like someone shot it with lemon juice.

    Subsidize it, demonize it, then penalize it. The government will always get "its" money back.

  2. #2
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    Fine by me to raise the amount on a pack of cigs. Make it nice and high.

  3. #3
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    Quote Originally Posted by John View Post
    It's dangerous because it gives the government further grip on 'taxing things that are bad for you', and where do you draw that line? Perhaps people who eat substantially more ice cream per week should pay more for each subsequent package to lower obesity rates.
    I honestly don't see the comparison. Ice Cream can't hurt me if you are eating it in the same room I am in. However if I am puffing on a cigarette in the same room you are in it absolutely can hurt you.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Ertlanta, Gargea
    Posts
    7,002
    I don't care if people are dumb enough to smoke. Just make sure they don't have the oppurtunity to do it around me.

  5. #5
    Junior Member zooner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Buffalo, NY
    Posts
    8,839
    Quote Originally Posted by Shagster View Post
    I don't care if people are dumb enough to smoke. Just make sure they don't have the oppurtunity to do it around me.
    kinda works the same way with vista.

    No big deal if someone wants to use it, but having someone run it in the same room can be painful if they know you're a geek.

    Strap It On Whenever It Seems Appropriate

    http://www.tomsclan.com

  6. #6
    Second Most EVIL YARDofSTUF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    70,014
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    I honestly don't see the comparison. Ice Cream can't hurt me if you are eating it in the same room I am in. However if I am puffing on a cigarette in the same room you are in it absolutely can hurt you.
    cigs can harm the smoker, ice cream can harm the eater if it leads to obesity(sp)

  7. #7
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    Quote Originally Posted by YARDofSTUF View Post
    cigs can harm the smoker, ice cream can harm the eater if it leads to obesity(sp)
    Cigs can harm the smoker and anyone in the same room with them. Ice cream can only harm the person eating it.

  8. #8
    Uninsured for your health
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Stockton, CA
    Posts
    10,032
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    Cigs can harm the smoker and anyone in the same room with them. Ice cream can only harm the person eating it.
    yeah, but once you see the person eating it, it makes you want some too, so then see? it's hurting you!
    Quote Originally Posted by Three Rivers Designs
    America! Love it or give it back!

  9. #9
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    Cigs can harm the smoker and anyone in the same room with them. Ice cream can only harm the person eating it.
    Maybe, but it takes an extraordinary amount of second hand smoke to cause damage to the non smoker. I am appalled by the reactions of non smokers who happen to be near a smoker. They squirm, they are uncomfortable, they shudder, and they tend to blame their feelings and attitudes on the smoker. yet if that same person by necessity was to put out a small fire on their kitchen stove, which generated 100 times the smoke as was breathed when around a smoker, that person would refrain from complaining about the smoke that was breathed and would not suffer discomfort and attitude changes.

    Factually, there is not as much evidence as we are led to believe that smoking is dangerous to the smoker and non smoker who is around second hand smoke. Some products do have dangerous chemical additives in them, such as nitrates, and these are definitely dangerous to a human body. But nicotine is really not that danferous. Chemically speaking, a daily cup of caffinated coffee is more harmful to a body than a half pack of additive free cigarettes.

    When I am around a non smoker, and they are overly dramitic about it, esp when outside, I want to blow smoke in their direction.

    Statistically, there are more damaging effects from alcohol than tobacco products. If the govt were to try and raise those taxes or do away with it completely, you would see the public scream. Politicians steer away from that subject for the obvious fear of not being re-elected.

    A bit of history:
    Up through the mid sixties, the tobacco industry was the top lobby group in DC. Big pharma launched a campaign to oust them. They succeeded. They were the ones behind attacks on the tobacco industry. They are now the top lobby group. And they profit immensely from the anti smoking campaigns.

    Tobacco use, IN MODERATION, is NOT dangerous to anyone. This is documented scientific fact. By moderation is meant a couple to a few cigarattes/day, or less, additive free of course. Excessive use of ANY drug or any food or any supplement is dangerous, period.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  10. #10
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    Quote Originally Posted by CiscoKid View Post
    yeah, but once you see the person eating it, it makes you want some too, so then see? it's hurting you!
    lol

  11. #11
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    Maybe, but it takes an extraordinary amount of second hand smoke to cause damage to the non smoker. I am appalled by the reactions of non smokers who happen to be near a smoker. They squirm, they are uncomfortable, they shudder, and they tend to blame their feelings and attitudes on the smoker. yet if that same person by necessity was to put out a small fire on their kitchen stove, which generated 100 times the smoke as was breathed when around a smoker, that person would refrain from complaining about the smoke that was breathed and would not suffer discomfort and attitude changes.

    Factually, there is not as much evidence as we are led to believe that smoking is dangerous to the smoker and non smoker who is around second hand smoke. Some products do have dangerous chemical additives in them, such as nitrates, and these are definitely dangerous to a human body. But nicotine is really not that danferous. Chemically speaking, a daily cup of caffinated coffee is more harmful to a body than a half pack of additive free cigarettes.

    When I am around a non smoker, and they are overly dramitic about it, esp when outside, I want to blow smoke in their direction.

    Statistically, there are more damaging effects from alcohol than tobacco products. If the govt were to try and raise those taxes or do away with it completely, you would see the public scream. Politicians steer away from that subject for the obvious fear of not being re-elected.

    A bit of history:
    Up through the mid sixties, the tobacco industry was the top lobby group in DC. Big pharma launched a campaign to oust them. They succeeded. They were the ones behind attacks on the tobacco industry. They are now the top lobby group. And they profit immensely from the anti smoking campaigns.

    Tobacco use, IN MODERATION, is NOT dangerous to anyone. This is documented scientific fact. By moderation is meant a couple to a few cigarattes/day, or less, additive free of course. Excessive use of ANY drug or any food or any supplement is dangerous, period.
    Agree to disagree. There is HUGE amounts of evidence that second hand smoke is extremely dangerous. As for the dangers of coffee I don't disagree with that, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that second hand smoke IS dangerous.

  12. #12
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    Agree to disagree. There is HUGE amounts of evidence that second hand smoke is extremely dangerous. As for the dangers of coffee I don't disagree with that, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that second hand smoke IS dangerous.
    A 40-year study of Californians, the largest study on secondhand smoke to date, has reached the conclusion that anti-tobacco extremists have been dreading: their claims about the health risks from secondhand smoke are bogus. The study was published in the May 17 issue of the highly respected British Medical Journal. American medical rags didn't dare publish anything that doesn't support their all-out assault on smokers and the tobacco industry.
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  13. #13
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    A 40-year study of Californians, the largest study on secondhand smoke to date, has reached the conclusion that anti-tobacco extremists have been dreading: their claims about the health risks from secondhand smoke are bogus. The study was published in the May 17 issue of the highly respected British Medical Journal. American medical rags didn't dare publish anything that doesn't support their all-out assault on smokers and the tobacco industry.
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
    Shoot man I could dispel that with enough information to overwhelm this thread. As I said agree to disagree. I take it though you are a smoker currently because the denials tend to only come from them.

    Below is just 1 of tons of examples disputing that claim above. Never mind the obvious effects that I have seen with my own 2 eyes. Of course even they recognize there is a link and even use the word "maybe" in their dispute. Even further down in your link they agree with multiple sources that there is a tie-in with second hand smoke and health issues. They debate it being a consistent cause of death, but do not deny it has a tie in with health issues.

    June 28, 2006 — Breathing any amount of someone else's tobacco smoke harms nonsmokers, the surgeon general declared Tuesday — a strong condemnation of secondhand smoke that is sure to fuel nationwide efforts to ban smoking in public.

    "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard," said U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

    More than 126 million nonsmoking Americans are regularly exposed to smokers' fumes — what Carmona termed "involuntary smoking" — and tens of thousands die each year as a result, concludes the 670-page study. It cites "overwhelming scientific evidence" that secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer and a list of other illnesses.

    The report calls for completely smoke-free buildings and public places, saying that separate smoking sections and ventilation systems don't fully protect nonsmokers. Seventeen states and more than 400 towns, cities and counties have passed strong no-smoking laws.

    But public smoking bans don't reach inside private homes, where just over one in five children breathes their parents' smoke — and youngsters' still developing bodies are especially vulnerable. Secondhand smoke puts children at risk of sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, as well as bronchitis, pneumonia, worsening asthma attacks, poor lung growth and ear infections, the report found.

    Carmona implored parents who can't kick the habit to smoke outdoors, never in a house or car with a child. Opening a window to let the smoke out won't protect them.

    "Stay away from smokers," he urged everyone else.

    Even a few minutes around drifting smoke is enough to spark an asthma attack, make blood more prone to clot, damage heart arteries and begin the kind of cell damage that over time can lead to cancer, he said.

    Repeatedly questioned about how the Bush administration would implement his findings, Carmona would only pledge to publicize the report in hopes of encouraging anti-smoking advocacy. Passing anti-smoking laws is up to Congress and state and local governments, he said.

    "My job is to make sure we keep a light on this thing," he said.

    Still, public health advocates said the report should accelerate an already growing movement toward more smoke-free workplaces.

    "This could be the most influential surgeon general's report in 15 years," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "The message to governments is: The only way to protect your citizens is comprehensive smoke-free laws."

    The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke done since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer that kills 3,000 nonsmokers a year.

    Since then, scientists have proved that even more illnesses are triggered or worsened by secondhand smoke. Topping that list: More than 35,000 nonsmokers a year die from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke.

    Regular exposure to someone else's smoke increases the risk of a nonsmoker getting heart disease or lung cancer by up to 30 percent, Carmona found.

    Some tobacco companies acknowledge the risks. But R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which has fought some of the smoking bans, challenges the new report's call for complete smoke-free zones and insists the danger is overblown.

    "Bottom line, we believe adults should be able to patronize establishments that permit smoking if they choose to do so," said RJR spokesman David Howard.

    And a key argument of some business owners' legal challenges to smoking bans is that smoking customers will go elsewhere, cutting their profits.

    But the surgeon general's report concludes that's not true. It cites a list of studies that found no negative economic impact from city and state smoking bans — including evidence that New York City restaurants and bars increased business by almost 9 percent after going smoke-free.

    To help make the point, Carmona's office videotaped mayors of smoke-free cities and executives of smoke-free companies, including the founder of the Applebee's restaurant chain, saying business got better when the haze cleared.

    In addition to the scientific report, Carmona issued advice for consumers and employers Tuesday:

    *Choose smoke-free restaurants and other businesses, and thank them for going smoke-free.

    *Don't let anyone smoke near your child. Don't take your child to restaurants or other indoor places that allow smoking.

    *Smokers should never smoke around a sick relative.

    *Employers should make all indoor workspace smoke-free and not allow smoking near entrances, to protect the health of both customers and workers, and offer programs to help employees kick the habit.

  14. #14
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,800
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyT View Post
    A 40-year study of Californians, the largest study on secondhand smoke to date, has reached the conclusion that anti-tobacco extremists have been dreading: their claims about the health risks from secondhand smoke are bogus. The study was published in the May 17 issue of the highly respected British Medical Journal. American medical rags didn't dare publish anything that doesn't support their all-out assault on smokers and the tobacco industry.
    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
    I guess you can always find something to refute anything, but imho, it can't be good for anyone to breath in any smoke...regardless of the source.

    That said...a person eating ice cream isn't got to trigger an allergy to someone sitting next to them. Smoking will...

    Someone eating ice cream won't bring on an asthma attack to someone sitting next to them. Smoking will.

    Finally, more smokers will be affected in later life with things like...oh...say...cancer and emphysema than ever will eating ice cream. No matter WHEN they quit. That's a supported fact.

  15. #15
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    Quote Originally Posted by downhill View Post
    I guess you can always find something to refute anything, but imho, it can't be good for anyone to breath in any smoke...regardless of the source.
    His source doesn't dispute the claims I made. All it does is say they have doubts that it causes death, but even they say their evidence doesn't dispute the EPA or the Surgeon General. Honestly, I'm not sure why the link was given as by and large it only supports the claims made by me that it does cause harmful effects to non-smokers in the vicinity of smokers.

    Someone eating ice cream won't bring on an asthma attack to someone sitting next to them. Smoking will.
    That is an absolute fact. Well said DH.

  16. #16
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,800
    I know the thread is a bit off topic but I just can't resist. lol

    Here's a good example of what happens when your exposed to first and second hand cig smoke.

    What the hell happened to her voice?

  17. #17
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    His source doesn't dispute the claims I made. All it does is say they have doubts that it causes death, but even they say their evidence doesn't dispute the EPA or the Surgeon General. Honestly, I'm not sure why the link was given as by and large it only supports the claims made by me that it does cause harmful effects to non-smokers in the vicinity of smokers..
    Simply to point out that what I said earlier stands up. There are legit studies by the hundreds. There are skewed studies by the thousands done by vested interest groups. All studies though point to similar results, smoking in excess is dangerous, smoking in moderation is not dangerous, second hand smoke in excess is dangerous, second hand smoke in moderation is not dangerous. One can easily remove most toxins in a body using simple detox methods. Other complex chemicals such as mercury and mercury compounds cannot easily be removed from a body. My point is that it is possible to use any tobacco or food in moderation w/out any harmful side effects.

    As for allergies, yes, some allergies are caused by direct contact with a chemical compound or toxin present in the environment. Many allergies have no known physical cause, however what is known is that certain elements can affect the observable reactions of the affected persons.

    But, the non-smoker who is dramaticly protesting the smoker, the non smoker who gags at the very thought of being around a smoker has other issues that precede his ability to face his environment. Some medico labels his non-confront an allergy and so he avoids smoke. But is is not an allergy, it is a mental thing. It IS possible to be around a smoker w/out having adverse reactions IF the person chooses to face rather than avoid.

    Instead of creating laws to "protect the allergic minority" (extremists), it is better to generate in the smoker a concern and respect of the allergics' desires. For example, I never ever smoke around someone who is eating, I will leave the vicinity of someone who reacts to my smoking or I won't smoke at all. I don't have to smoke, geez. And smoking in general, or being around a smoker or non smoker, does not stop my efforts to accomplish what I am trying to get accomplished at the time, be it work, dinner, socializing, etc.

    I tend to be observant of others' attitudes and respect them, however irrational thay may be, such as the irrational non smoker who cannot tolerate the mere thought of smoke; the mere thought seems to present an image in his mind of death or something, and he is not in control of hos own mental images, those are the irrational persons that are difficult to tolerate by me, but I do tolerate them.

    As an aside:
    I tend to trust independant studies more so than studies funded and made by specialized groups such as the AMA, Surgeon General reports, American FooBarOsis Society, NIH, EPA etc. It is well known that I have a distrust of current medical theories.
    Last edited by TonyT; 11-11-07 at 08:51 AM.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

  18. #18
    Moderator Roody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    30,762
    No offense Tony, but you couldn't be any more wrong. Second hand smoke DOES cause health problems for non-smokers and it's not just allergies. Agree to disagree I suppose. Not sure how though. It's been proven over and over the dangers of second hand smoke and even your link doesn't dispute that.

  19. #19
    ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ ♫♪ downhill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    My Own Private Idaho
    Posts
    34,800
    Oh for gawds sakes Tony. There IS no excuse or a RIGHT for a smoker to blow smoke in anyone's face.

    Your flat out grasping at straws here.

  20. #20
    Elite Member TonyT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,344
    Quote Originally Posted by Roody View Post
    No offense Tony, but you couldn't be any more wrong. Second hand smoke DOES cause health problems for non-smokers and it's not just allergies. Agree to disagree I suppose. Not sure how though. It's been proven over and over the dangers of second hand smoke and even your link doesn't dispute that.
    You missed my point. HOW MUCH smoke is dangerous? Once a year. Once a week? One breath/day? My point is this: breathing some breaths of second hand smoke won't cause any problem healthwise that did not previously exist in the breather. Breathing second hand smoke ever other second of every day is unhealthy, agreed.
    No one has any right to force data on you
    and command you to believe it or else.
    If it is not true for you, it isn't true.

    LRH

Similar Threads

  1. Mr. Bush - Meet the Constitution
    By Jamie_R in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-04-07, 12:12 PM
  2. 'Oregon aims to put Real ID on fast-track'
    By Brk in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-27-07, 12:02 PM
  3. 'Congress preparing to criminalize critics?'
    By Brk in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-17-07, 10:00 PM
  4. How do I put Prefered DNS to my LinkSys Router
    By arnelmv007 in forum Wireless Networks & Routers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-12-06, 04:39 AM
  5. Bill aims to bar women from direct ground combat
    By Roody in forum General Discussion Board
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 05-19-05, 01:40 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •