Increase Smoking Bans and Regulations

[NADA]

On 7/8/2018 at 8:03 AM, Jetblack said:

I do not get why the feds in any nation try to get people to quit smoking.

 

I'm tired of the dogma that government is intrusive, self-serving, and just needs to keep out of our lives.  (Not to say they're perfect by any means).

 

Let's point out a few areas where governments have actually saved lives and served the public welfare.

 

• Ban on thalidomide in the 1960's.  In 1957 thalidomide was first released as an over the counter sleep aid in Germany.  By 1960, thalidomide was marketed in 46 countries, with sales nearly matching those of aspirin.  Around this time it began being prescribed off label as an effective treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women.  It wasn't long before hundreds of babies were being born with phocomelia (malformed limbs).  In 1962, the FDA banned thalidomide before it was ever officially approved for use in the US (although clinical trials resulted in hundreds of babies born with birth defects).  Most countries followed suit in subsequent years, but not before over 10,000 children were born with severe birth defects (half of whom died in infancy). 

  

 

• Mandatory seat belt laws.  In 1975 it became law in the US that drivers and passengers were required to wear seat belts.  The CDC has estimated that in the US alone, this regulation has saved approximately 645,000 lives since it's inception.

• Lead paint ban.  In 1978 the Consumer Product Safety Commission banned the sale of lead paint in the US.  Unfortunately, nearly all houses built prior to 1960 have lead.  There is NO safe level of lead for children.  According to a recent Lancet Public Health study, over 400,000 deaths per year are caused by past lead exposure in the US.  Without this ban, untold millions more deaths would happen over the coming decades.

So, if governments want to slap on new anti-smoking regulations, taxes, restrictions, etc. I'm all for it.  Without the public health and safety agencies protecting our food, air, drugs, and environment, I shudder to think what the unfettered corporations would be doing right now in pursuit of the almighty buck.

Edited July 12, 2018 by BKP
.

[sgt.barney]

Sarge just closes his browser window and silently wonders to himself, shaking his head : "How 'bout just a little farking personal responsibility ..."
It ain't up to your government. No matter who you are nor where you live. 

 

 

EZPZ. 

Edited July 12, 2018 by sgt.barney

[Reciprocity]

51 minutes ago, sgt.barney said:

Sarge just closes his browser window and silently wonders to himself, shaking his head : "How 'bout just a little farking personal responsibility ..."
It ain't up to your government. No matter who you are nor where you live. 

 

 

EZPZ. 

Someone needs to put forth the other side of the story to what Big Tobacco would have us believe so that people can then decide for themselves what the truth likely is and at that point, they can exercise personal responsibility.

If there's only Big Tobacco's marketing speak then how would we have ever become aware that smoking is a deadly addiction. I can remember TV commercials where they showed Droctor's smoking whatever brand of cigs.

Without actually saying it, they were insinuating smoking was safe for your health. If government hadn't have stepped in at some point, I hate to think where those commercials would have gone from there. Yes, we all have to be personally responsible but, we have to have all the information available in order to make our decisions.

Edited July 12, 2018 by reciprocity

[notsmokinjo]

37 minutes ago, sgt.barney said:

Sarge just closes his browser window and silently wonders to himself, shaking his head : "How 'bout just a little farking personal responsibility ..."
It ain't up to your government. No matter who you are nor where you live. 

 

 

EZPZ. 

 

I think government legislation is more to do with the prevention of future addicts, because lets face it the horse has already bolted for us and it is our personal responsibility to change our future. I do think a government has a moral and ethical responsibility to legislate against a product that is harmful not only to its users but also to the non-users exposed to it in their environment.

 

So lets look at it a different way, I'm going to start with the story of asbestos... we all know this is bad shiit... we know it causes lung cancers and asbestosis and mesothelioma.... not just to the miners, but also to their wives who live in the houses with them, to their kids who sit in cars with them after work, to the process workers who turn it into things, to the workers on the docks who load it onto boats to go overseas to be used, to the people who have houses, sheds, garages constructed from it, the plumbers, builders, electricians exposed to it in building materials, cables, etc... to the mechanics who have it in break pads... this stuff kills, not straight away but over time... and we have known this as fact since the ancient greeks and romans recorded the slaves who mined it dying of lung disease. When its use became prevalent post industrial revolution and it was the new wonder building material the companies using it and mining it knew it was toxic, knew it was poisonous, knew how dangerous it was. They also knew that the way they were altering it to incorporate it into new building materials and insulation made it even more toxic... first they denied it... then they played it down... and it was worth money to the government to keep it going... but they legislated against it.. they changed the laws, and the regulations, and the acceptability of it. Is it even questioned now that this was wrong? Don't we ask what took so frickin long?... so now lets change the narrative and change asbestos to tobacco and worker to smoker... now explain to me why one is ok to legislate against and one isn't?

 

 My opinion... anyone under 45 began smoking with full knowledge they were flooding their bodies with poison and what they were risking... but prior to that as Reci said the only real narrative was a few anti smoking 'crack pots' and Big Tobacco... who basically had free reign to say or imply what they wanted. Legislation changed that. I never worked in an office where the person sitting next to me could smoke if they wanted to. My kid is never going to go out to a pub or club and come home reeking of smoke even if she doesn't smoke herself... she isn't even going to know that that happened. Why should bar staff have to accept that to work they have to expose themselves to poison?

 

 

 

 

[Cbdave]

Gday

Read all the comments with interest. It's not just a concept. It's very real and it's the world I live in. And I might add I like it.

Ive once lived in a world full of smokers and cig butts and ashtrays and advertising and rooms full of smoke. Gone ...all gone.

Smoking isn't excepted anymore. 

Smokers exsist still , about 12 per cent they say. They say they are a dying breed. Less and less kids are swayed to smoke. The numbers spiral down.

This is what this forum is all about in the end. No more smokers. Making itself redundant.

C

 

[Sslip]

7 hours ago, Christian99 said:

By the way, the very best book I've read on the subject and the one that has most influenced my thinking on the issue is Robert Proctor's Golden Holocaust:  Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition (U of CA P, 2010).  I wouldn't call it a beach read (I'd characterize the genre as academic cultural history), but it's definitely worth one's time and attention.  

 

C99

 

The reason I was looking at the contrast between the stance on cigarettes and alcohol is that the official statistics for alcohol in the UK (just because they are easier for me to access and I know which sources are trustworthy) are fairly mindblowing.

 

People categorized as dependent drinkers       600,000

Hospital admissions                                             >1,000,000 in a year

Violent crime                                                           700,000 where alcohol was a contributing factor

Financial cost                                                         > £20 billion

Deaths                                                                     tens of thousands a year

 

Now personally, this doesn't trigger me to want to ban it, but I wondered where the line is drawn.

 

Bringing it back to the smoking cessation, I am genuinely interested in the best approaches and though the next bit may be a controversial it isn't intended. Let's call smoking out for what it is and that is self harm. Now regardless whether it is tobacco or another substance or another act, you are not going stop that. It could be argued over the short term at least that smoking could be one form of self harm that people could recover from relatively well if the right education and support structures are available. In the meantime I have to admit I am uneasy with the role anti tobacco measures play in further impoverishing those affected.

 

Each of us in our own way is recognising the need to eliminate the demand. If you don't manage to do that and have no legal supply then that void will be filled by organized crime. Any and all profits there is a threat to society and the ties between organized crime and terrorism is certainly documented by European Law Enforcement.

 

In terms of the suggestion of a license to purchase tobacco sitting alongside regular education on the subject, my vision would be to have the likes of the late, great Terrie Hall really hammering home the gamble being taken. I'm not sure anyone could have left one of her talks with anything other than a real wakeup call. You get people making their own minds up that they want nothing to do with tobacco rather than force them into it. Thanks for the recommendation, I will check out the book.

Edited July 12, 2018 by Sslip

[Wayne045]

On 7/12/2018 at 3:45 PM, notsmokinjo said:

so now lets change the narrative and change asbestos to tobacco and worker to smoker... now explain to me why one is ok to legislate against and one isn't?

 

Because asbestos in most uses was not a choice made by the individual.   Companies used it in factories, exposing unknowing workers to it, and sold products containing asbestos as a fire proofing material.   It should be and is regulated now.

 

Anyone born after 1964 (the surgeon generals report) knows that smoking is bad for your health, it is not forced on anybody.  If you want to talk about advertising and such or how tobacco companies market it, well that's a different argument.

 

[notsmokinjo]

2 minutes ago, Wayne045 said:

 

Because asbestos in most uses was not a choice made by the individual.   Companies used it in factories, exposing unknowing workers to it, and sold products containing asbestos as a fire proofing material.   It should be and is regulated now. 

 

Anyone born after 1964 (the surgeon generals report) knows that smoking is bad for your health, it is not forced on anybody.  If you want to talk about advertising and such or how tobacco companies market it, well that's a different argument.

 

 

My point was more along the line that Asbestos should be and is regulated now but tobacco products which are just as harmful are not as regulated and I tend to think they should be.

 

That said, anyone born after 1964 knows smoking is bad and they are making the conscious choice to do so and as such I tend to think if your stupid enough to make the decision to smoke then that's on you... not arguing that point... my point is why are we still being given that choice to make?

[Doreensfree]

2 hours ago, Wayne045 said:

 

Because asbestos in most uses was not a choice made by the individual.   Companies used it in factories, exposing unknowing workers to it, and sold products containing asbestos as a fire proofing material.   It should be and is regulated now.

 

Anyone born after 1964 (the surgeon generals report) knows that smoking is bad for your health, it is not forced on anybody.  If you want to talk about advertising and such or how tobacco companies market it, well that's a different argument.

 

My hubs has pleural plaqes...and Emphysema.....

Back in his days as a Lagger...working with Asbestos...and Smoking...were both not considered dangerous..until it was prooved...

By the time they banned Asbestos ,the damage was already there...

He chose to carry on smoking ,even after all the dangers were prooved...smoking was bad for you...

He carried on until he physically couldn't take another puff...

The outcome 16 hrs a day on oxygen...

The government here ...stopped all claims for pleural plaqe...there were too many...it has to be cancer related now...

I still feel educated the young in schools ..at a early age...they still teach cooking...why not  addiction ..and the damage it can cause...

 

[Reciprocity]

1 hour ago, Doreensfree said:

My hubs has pleural plaqes...and Emphysema.....

Back in his days as a Lagger...working with Asbestos...and Smoking...were both not considered dangerous..until it was prooved...

By the time they banned Asbestos ,the damage was already there...

He chose to carry on smoking ,even after all the dangers were prooved...smoking was bad for you...

He carried on until he physically couldn't take another puff...

The outcome 16 hrs a day on oxygen...

The government here ...stopped all claims for pleural plaqe...there were too many...it has to be cancer related now...

I still feel educated the young in schools ..at a early age...they still teach cooking...why not  addiction ..and the damage it can cause...

 

Yes, too many really basic and practical life skills are not taught in school. Substance abuse and addiction is a good one. Oh, here's another .... money management?

[Cbdave]

G'day

its not education it's denial of smoking even exists.

50 per cent of people smoked when I got addicted. Excepted advertised, get another hooked and you had a 50 year customer... good on ya big tobacco. Stop it at the trial stage and you'll stop the 50 year addict.

Stop it here

 

[Jenny]

We just passed a law in my state moving the legal age to purchase cigarettes, including electronic, to 21.  The kicker?!  The legal age to smoke is still 18.   So you can smoke 'em but not buy 'em.   I'm disgusted with whomever wrote the bill. A fine example of what's wrong in the world.  History tells us that when something is banned...it does not stop people from accessing it.  It will just go under the radar and turn into a money maker for those who traffic illegally.  As much as I hate smoking....and I do.....I cannot get behind laws where the Government is deciding what I can and cannot do as an adult especially when the plan is just stupid. 

 

Big Tobacco still wins with this plan.  

 

 

 

.  

[Cbdave]

G'day

How about this one

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-24/tasmanias-health-minister-says-proposed-smoking-bill-wont-work/6344602

at least it's being discussed..... if you agree or don't, it really doesn't matter. 

It's been said. Out aloud. 

Cant un say it!

C

 

 

 

 

[JB 883]

On 7/23/2018 at 4:15 PM, Jenny said:

We just passed a law in my state moving the legal age to purchase cigarettes, including electronic, to 21.  The kicker?!  The legal age to smoke is still 18.   So you can smoke 'em but not buy 'em.   I'm disgusted with whomever wrote the bill. A fine example of what's wrong in the world.  History tells us that when something is banned...it does not stop people from accessing it.  It will just go under the radar and turn into a money maker for those who traffic illegally.  As much as I hate smoking....and I do.....I cannot get behind laws where the Government is deciding what I can and cannot do as an adult especially when the plan is just stupid. 

 

Big Tobacco still wins with this plan.  .  

 

Often though with smoking laws, they are trying to bust clerks or stores that do not check ID's when selling smokes.

I doubt the cops are going to be out trying to bust kids over smoking. They ain't got time for that.

Raising smoking age from 18 to 21 is just a token effort to pretend they give a damn. Honestly it is like they are mocking the problem, especially since it is still legal to smoke at 18. Why not raise purchase age to 40? THAT would really be good for a laugh.

Most nicotine users started before 18 anyways, I am guessing 13 to 15 is the most common age range. There ARE very rare instances of late starters like me when i was 27 but ain't no one going to say, "I want to start smoking/vaping but i am not old enough yet."

 

Tobacco/nicotine laws are a big joke. Aside stopping stores from selling, they really cannot do much to stop anyone.

[Reciprocity]

Outlawing it is without question a waste of time and in fact glorifies it to a degree. Look at prohibition in the 1920's. That was a boon to organized crime and didn't stop people from drinking when they really wanted to. I still say education about smoking and how it really is a powerful life long addiction is the best way to reduce numbers of kids starting. I know I learned a lot of things I really didn't know when I arrived at sites like this and other quit smoking boards. Mind you, I was a very willing student by that time.

 

I also think cost is a big motivator. If these things cost kids a fortune, they either have to get them from the black market or go without. That's where I think Australia is way ahead of the rest of us. They are banging the cost up unabashedly!

[Cristóbal]

7 hours ago, reciprocity said:

Outlawing it is without question a waste of time and in fact glorifies it to a degree. Look at prohibition in the 1920's. That was a boon to organized crime and didn't stop people from drinking when they really wanted to. I still say education about smoking and how it really is a powerful life long addiction is the best way to reduce numbers of kids starting. I know I learned a lot of things I really didn't know when I arrived at sites like this and other quit smoking boards. Mind you, I was a very willing student by that time.

 

I also think cost is a big motivator. If these things cost kids a fortune, they either have to get them from the black market or go without. That's where I think Australia is way ahead of the rest of us. They are banging the cost up unabashedly!

 

At this point in time, the laws need to be issued to handle not only cigarettes and other forms of smoking tobacco, but also electronic cigarettes (especially products like JUUL).

 

We need to seriously look ahead to the future.

 

In the future, because of advances of technologies, you will see more growth of the electronic cigarettes industry and similar products than regular tobacco.

 

The future of companies profiting from nicotine addiction is not that of regular tobacco, but that of these electronic cigarette devices. The corporate goal, of course, is always to convert the consumer in a nicotine addict. This is the same goal that the cigarette companies had 50 years ago. This is not changed, in spite of advances and changes of technologies.

 

This future is complicated because those who support electronic cigarettes say they are less dangerous. The problem with the general public accepting this thought, is that nicotine is nicotine is nicotine.....it does not matter what the delivery method is. If a teen ager starts to smoke electronic cigarettes instead of regular tobacco, most parents and officials in the schools think this is a good thing because it is supposed that they are "safer".

 

The problem, is that nicotine addiction is still established at a early age (such as with myself, I started to smoke when I was 12 years old), and then becomes a problem for life. Later in life, this teen age nicotine addict will not care if the nicotine comes from electronic cigarettes, or from regular tobacco.  The crave is the same. Both products, need to be treated the same by the laws, as nicotine delivery devices that are equally capable to establish permanent nicotine addiction in the consumer.

 

 

Cristóbal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Cristóbal

[Doreensfree]

I'm with education too...

Before I took my first puff at 11 years old....if someone had visited my school.,with a hole in the neck..or attached to a portable oxygen tank...to give us a chat about the dangers of smoking..would it have made me think twice....we will never know....

But it would be worth giving it a try for the kids today....I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there ,who would give thier time...given the chance...

[notsmokinjo]

This is Healthy Harold the Life Education Giraffe.... in his dark van with his helper he teaches Aussie kids about drugs, including smoking...

 

 

So in Australia (and I think also NZ) we have the Life Education Trailers that come and park at your school for a week or two... then all the kids from grade 2 (7/8 yo) to grade 6 (11/12 yo) go into the van class by class to learn about the important thinks in Life... Harold covers everything from eating healthy, washing your hands, covering your face when you sneeze/cough (little ones) to drugs, alcohol, smoking... then puberty and sexuality... This program is nation wide, it is partially private funded and partially funded by the government... last year in the 2017 budget the government cut all funding to this program that is nearly 30 years old..... social media went berserk .... within a week the government had not only returned the funding but increased it.

Edited July 25, 2018 by notsmokinjo

[Reciprocity]

This is why I say Australia is ahead of the curve on this kind of good stuff! At least somebody is getting it right.

                                                                       

Hey; it might not be the complete solution but it certainly can't hurt and will likely make some stop and think at least. Kids will learn about or be exposed to all this stuff on the street at some point so why not get to them first and give them some factual information that is age appropriate and understandable to their age group.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by reciprocity

[Doreensfree]

This is exactly what I've been saying...well done Australia.....leading the way !!!

[Giveintowin]

I would like to add that if people had to go and register with their doctor as an addict to be able to get cigarettes, it would take the illusions away that smoking is normal, maybe even sociable or even attractive etc. When you smoked in public you would be saying to you the world that I’m an addict and my doc wrote me a note so I can keep breathing in this harmful thing and I haven’t found a way yet to stop doing it. 

[Reciprocity]

That's an interesting idea

As a smoker, I'm not sure I ever identified as "an addict"? Addicts were those down & out people who hid in the shadows putting all sorts of horrible stuff into their veins using a needle. I'm not sure I even was aware that smoking was an addiction before I quit and started educating myself about smoking. It was just a bad habit, right? I often notice that sort of terminology being used here when someone new arrives and posts about quitting. I was the same in the beginning too. Education about this addiction is a key to quitting and staying quit!

[Doreensfree]

I was just a lady ..who happened to like a cigarette...a addict...noooo.....until...I got educated...errr excuse me...I was a addict for 52 years..lol...

But do agree ...it's something to consider...maybe some heads wern,t as buried as mine...