Talks on Capitol Hill to Regulate Tobacco Industry Break Down

Smoke Club Newsletter ^ | 10-2-03 | By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos.

[Gabz]

Count me in!!!!!!!!!!

[TKDietz]

"Public places are those paid for by the public, ie. courthouses, state buildings, municipal buildings, etc."

That is not the accepted definition of "public places." Just for giggles I did a quick computer search for definitions for "public place" in my state's code books and found the following two definitions for "public place":

"'Public place' means a publicly or privately owned place to which the public or substantial numbers of people have access;"

"'Public place' means any area that is used or held out for use by the public whether owned or operated by public or private interests."

I suspect that these are similar to definitions used in other localities.

[Gabz]

These are public places where the whole community is "invited" to come.

No they are not. They are private places where SOME members of the community are "invited" to enter. "proper attire required" "no shoes, no shirt, no service" "no one under 21 permitted" are all very common signs on PRIVATE businesses that do restrict what members of the community are "invited."

Another popular sign is "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone."

[TKDietz]

We could play this game all day but I for one have more important things to do. A public place is basically one that is held out to be open to the public. Even one that requires shirts and shoes is open to the shirt and shoe wearing public. It's a public place. Let's don't waste a bunch of time fighting over semantics.

[TKDietz]

We could play this game all day but I for one have more important things to do. A public place is basically one that is held out to be open to the public. Even one that requires shirts and shoes is open to the shirt and shoe wearing public. It's a public place. Let's don't waste a bunch of time fighting over semantics.

[Gabz]

(sorry, I accidently hit post before finishing)

I think your remedy if you live in a community that passes such a law is to move to a community where they don't over-regulate. Pretty soon local authorities will feel it in the pocket book and get the message that perhaps regulating peolpe to death isn't a good idea.

We moved from Delaware because of such things. Not because of the state wide smoking ban (although that did add to the list of reasons) but just the continual encroachement on personal liberties and the continual maternalistic/paternalistic attitude of government entities that they know better ..........

Bleck - I'm an adult, I have parents, I don't need the government to be my mommy and hold my hand.

[TKDietz]

Don't get me wrong. I'm not exactly a champion for anti-smoking legislation. I just don't think it's such a bad thing. In most instances, I am anti regulation. I'm a capitalist through and through. I also believe we have way too many nanny laws for a free country. In fact, we aren't really a free country anymore. If we were such a free country, we wouldn't have 2.1 million people in prison. We wouldn't have the highest incarceration rate of any other western nation. We wouldn't lock more people up than the do in either Russia or China. We wouldn't be the country that warehouses more than 25% of the world's prisoners even though we make up less than 5% of the world's population.

If it were up to me, we'd be a much more free society. We'd have far fewer laws. But, local communities would still have the right to pass local ordinances that reflect the values of local citizens. That way, there would be a place for everyone in America that suits the tastes, lifestyles and moral codes of the wide variety of individuals who make up this country.

[Gabz]

1999 was years after the US surgeon general changed the definition of addiction.

And anyway - addiction is different than dependence which is different again from habituation.


I'm not going to argue the semantics of it, it's a waste of time.

What are the percentages of fatal auto crashes due to the use of those 5 substances?

What are the percentages of domestic violence reports due to the use of those 5 substances?

I would venture a guess that tobacco use wouldn't even make the list.

And to quell the onslaught (not from you MrLeRoy) of antis screaming about injurious and/or fatal house fires caused by careless smoking, the vast majority are caused by the primary factor of some type of substance intoxication.

[MrLeRoy]

addiction is different than dependence which is different again from habituation.

True---but IMO dependence is what most people have in mind when they talk about "addiction," so "cigarettes are more addictive than cocaine or heroin" is not misleading to the general public.

What are the percentages of fatal auto crashes due to the use of those 5 substances?

What are the percentages of domestic violence reports due to the use of those 5 substances?

Alcohol is undoubtedly far and away #1 in both categories, with tobacco, as you say, a distant fifth. But that's a whole 'nother discussion---and I'm not at all sure why someone who recognizes the similarity between the War On Tobacco and the War On Drugs is bringing it up.

[TKDietz]

"1999 was years after the US surgeon general changed the definition of addiction.

And anyway - addiction is different than dependence which is different again from habituation."

You aren't suggesting that cigarettes aren't physically addictive are you? If they are only "habituating" then how do you explain the strong physical withdrawal symptoms I have personally experienced?

No offense, but I just don't get your strong defense of that nasty death causing habit. Do you work in or somehow profit from the tobacco industry or are you just trying to justify your own bad habit? I mean, you argue that the 450,000 number our government gives us as being the number of folks killed each year is exaggerated. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they exaggerated it, but how many hundred thousand does it have to kill a year before it's a bad thing?

Geez, it rots your teeth and gums out, causes cancer and major cardiovascular problems. It ruins your stamina, smells bad, costs too much, hurts your sex life, and on and on and on. It's just a rotten awful indefensible habit. If you want to smoke, go ahead and smoke. If you want to fight against anti-smoking legislation, more power to you. But trying to convince the non-smokers out there that smoking isn't such a bad thing isn't going to win you any points. It will only backfire and lessen the effectiveness of your arguments.

[Gabz]

I am terribly sorry to hear of the ill health of your family members and will include them in my prayers.

I am not trying to belittle in anyway the ill health of your family members, but recent studies have shown that nearly everyone is practically born with a type of emphysema (I will look for the link to that information) and it is also a genetic condition. In some cases smoking is going to exaccerbate it, in others it won't. My dad was diagnosed with it some 30 years ago, but it has never made any difference in his life and even back then the doctor told him that while his smoking didn't help and he should quit, it wasn't the cause and probably didn't make any difference.

I can tell you from personal experience that nicotine is way more addictive than caffiene, alcohol, or chocolate.

And I can tell you from personal experience that caffeine is way more addictive than nicotine, alcohol or chocolate (the addictive nature of which is caffeine). My personal anecdotal experiences are just as valid as yours.

When Pepsi came out with it's caffeine-free SLICE back in the mid 1980's I worked at a radio station that got a big ad campaign from the local bottler. We were giving away cases of the stuff every 15 minutes for weeks. The Pepsi truck showed up every Monday morning and delivered I don't know how many cases and of course there was much left for the staff. Broadcasting is a coffee drinking profession, but within about a week nearly all of the daytime staff (on and off air staff) were suffering from near migraine proportion headaches by mid-afternoon every day.

We were suffering from caffeine withdrawl. I have never gone back to the level of caffeine I consumed back then because of it.

I have had no similar problem with nicotine. I would venture to say most people probably think I'm smoking like a fiend because I am agitated and talking about smoking - it's actually the total opposite. My husband and I use 4 ashtrays in the house, one on each of our desks and one next to each of our chairs in the family room. They get emptied into the "burn barrel" outside everynight. There are 2 butts in the tray next to my chair and one in the tray on my desk, and I have been up since before 6 this morning.

Your observation about exaggeration is quite correct, but dont forget those wonderful NGO's such as Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which have a financial stake in all of this nonsense.

[cinFLA]

From my experience, mr. cinnie has the total opposite position of MrLeRoy,

Unlike MrLeroy, I oppose the legalization of crack, cocaine, heroin and other hard drugs.

[cinFLA]

Socialist, like you, support the legalization of hard drugs.

[Gabz]

I thought socialists weren't allowed on FR.

Don't I wish.

[cinFLA]

I've got no problem with this......

Then you have no problem restricting smoking on public roads and sidewalks?

[MrLeRoy]

Socialist, like you, support the legalization of hard drugs.

Wrong---Cuba, China, and Sweden are harshly anti-drug, as was the Soviet Union.

Has your position on smoking and property rights been correctly reported here?

[MrLeRoy]

"'Public place' means a publicly or privately owned place to which the public or substantial numbers of people have access;"

Whether smoking is allowed in a privately owned place is none of the majority's business, but only the owner's---that's what private property is all about.

[Judith Anne]

Funny, lots of people, me included, like the smell of cigarette smoke. Not everyone considers it a nasty awful habit at all. I'm not convinced by the research that says it causes cancer. After all, dogs fed enough saccharine get cancer. I don't think most people get sick from smoking without having a predisposition to that particular illness, heart disease or cancer or COPD (the most commonly linked to smoking). I think a lot of environmental factors that are INESCAPABLE and overlooked are much more responsible for most of the illnesses. One that is totally neglected is the presence of processed rubber in the air--it's everywhere. Has anyone done any studies about the impact on the lungs of breathing in microscopic particles of rubber all day every day? I'd like to see such a study--I'm allergic to latex.

I don't agree that it is addicting, either. I can take cigarettes or leave them. I usually smoke a pack in five or six days, some days I don't smoke at all. Six years ago, I smoked a pack and a half a day, I cut down when it became inconvenient. I still like smoking. I don't plan to quit. And I think you lose a lot of credibility when you get all emotional.

The entire country, in my opinion, has fallen for the biggest lie of all: that tobacco has anything to do with the death rate in this country. There are some families that get cancer at the drop of a hat--my own particular family, from my grandparents to the infants--have never had cancer, with the exception of my mother, who got an extremely rare form of cancer (Krukenberg tumor) and died from it thirty years ago. I have over 20 biological aunts and uncles none of whom have had cancer. None. None of my over 50 first cousins has had cancer.

Over 50 percent of us smoke, at least occasionally.

If your post was correct, every smoker everywhere would be sick from something to do with smoking. Since you aren't saying anything quite as foolish as that, I can only imagine that you are arguing from emotion, not facts. You don't like it, ergo, it's bad.

Well, I have news for you: You're wrong.

[cinFLA]

The New Statesman, which is more typically shrouded in the soft socialist values of George Bernard Shaw or Beatrice Webb than Mill, argued that prohibitionists had not met that burden.

[Gabz]

You're not telling me anything I didn't already know.

However, I still disagree that a private business open to some members of the public should be considered a public place when it comes to things that are visible to the general public, such as the permissibility of smoking cigarettes.

I totally understand public health laws regulating temperatures and cleanliness issues in the kitchen, the invited public is unable to see those things.