Funny headline from where I live

[ChainzCooper]

Thought I would share this with you guys. If this doesn't prove that this country is circling the drain I don't know what does. The county government where I live in NC held a no smoking rally at a, get this, tobacco warehouse. No need to hit the refresh on your internet page it really happened
Jordan

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/19655871/article-New-smoking-restrictions-in-effect

[Limehouse]

It seems quite sensible to me. The rally might capture the attention of people who are smoking, but want to give up. People visitng to tobacco warehouse to buy products could hear testimonies and receive literature that could support them.

I really don't see how wanting people to be healthy is a sign that the country is going down the drain.

[Chris Scott]

It seems quite sensible to me. The rally might capture the attention of people who are smoking, but want to give up. People visitng to tobacco warehouse to buy products could hear testimonies and receive literature that could support them.

I really don't see how wanting people to be healthy is a sign that the country is going down the drain.

Wanting people to be healthy is absolutely fine and laudable but what has gone against the grain with many in the UK (and possibly in the US) is the element of compulsion and this drip drip effect - now they are talking of making smoking in cars illegal. There was even serious talk some time last year of making smoking illegal in the home if there were children present - though how the hell that would be enforced was not revealed!
What annoys me about this is that the real impulse behind this is not primarily about health but about the desire for compulsion and compliance. This was proven to me by two court decisions in the UK recently. You can now buy - in shops or or on the net - so called e-cigarettes. These are plastic replica cigarettes which take capsules of nicotine and which both deliver to the smoker a dose of nicotine and also replicate the experience of smoking but without ANY noxious emissions. The only substance output by the e-cigarette is water vapour which is used to simulate the smoke of a real cigarette. So, although the smoker is delivered a dose of nicotine, there is NO emission that could do any harm to those around him. One of the selling points of these e-cigarettes is that they are not covered by the smoking ban and so can be used legally in bars, clubs etc.
This has now been challenged by a local authority who took a man in Yorkshire to court for using an e-cigarette in a bar. No one in the premises complained and the company who owned the bar did not want to be involved in the prosecution.
However one of the bar staff complained and a prsecution was brought. The outcome was a ruling that e-cigarettes are covered by the ACT (and therefore illegal) even though they have no toxic emissions and pose no possible health hazard to anyone apart from the smoker.
The situation is complicated by the fact that another attempted prosecution was thrown out on the basis that there was no case to answer.
The underlying censorious message is - we do not like what you are doing, even though it is perfectly legal, and even though you have found a way to continue which does no harm to others we will still pursue you until you comply.
Oh, and for the record I am a non smoker.

[Limehouse]

You have raised some good points Chris, and I have no argument with them as such. Of course people should be able to use e-cigarettes in bars and pubs and other places.

Smoking around children is completely wrong but it should not take a law to make people realise that. Some poor children are strapped into cars with the windows closed and at least one adult puffing away, filling their lungs and eyes full of smoke. However, a law against this would be difficult to enforce, and what is really needed is education. People need objective information and support to quit smoking.

[Ally]

Wanting people to be healthy is absolutely fine and laudable but what has gone against the grain with many in the UK (and possibly in the US) is the element of compulsion and this drip drip effect - now they are talking of making smoking in cars illegal. There was even serious talk some time last year of making smoking illegal in the home if there were children present - though how the hell that would be enforced was not revealed!....
Oh, and for the record I am a non smoker.

I am of two minds about the smoking thing. I smoked for a year in college and very quickly developed lung problems and they wanted to diagnose me with asthma and put me on all kinds of inhalers, meds, etc. I chose to quit smoking instead and voila, no more asthma. I still would occasionally, especially if very drunk, spark up a cigarette (maybe one a year), but probably haven't smoked one in ...what? Six years? Not sure. I've found over time, my sensitivity to smoke has increased tremendously, to the point where I cough and get an instant headache in the presence of most cigarette smoke. My best friend however is a chain smoker. Smoke clings to her and I have gotten to the point where I can't stand hugging her or whatever because of the odor. I used to not be able to go to her house, but a few years ago, she independently realized her house stank and stopped smoking indoors, giving it a thorough painting and cleaning that removed the traces and it became much more tolerable.

So I guess here's the thing. If you live in an apartment with inadequate ventilation, I do believe smoking should be prohibited, even in your own home. The fact being, if you share a wall, there's the significant likelihood that your smoke will encroach on their home. We have noise pollution laws that stop you from blaring your music into the neighbor's home, at all hours.

I absolutely HATE walking out of a public building into the cloud of fumes being outgassed by the smokers huddling outside. It never fails to cling to my skin and hair and clothes and I can smell it for hours afterwards, and usually get the accompanying headache that goes with it.

You have the right to pollute yourself, but you don't have the right to pollute others. I know the thing about not smoking in your home if you have children seems horrible, but I also worked with children and it would drive me crazy when I'd lean down to talk to an 8 year old and be knocked back by the smell of cigarette smoke coming from them, because their parents were such chain smokers that it infiltrated their house, their clothes and their hair. How much damage is that doing to the inside of that 8 year old, if I can smell it on them hours after the fact?

The e-cigarette thing I'll agree is just idiotic. But as for the rest, your right to pollute yourself ends where my right to not be polluted begins. I really don't care what you do, but in my mind, cigarettes are in some ways worse than heroin because there's contamination to others in the process (I realize that's a hyperbolic statement but you know what I mean). Smoke drifts. You can't control where it goes. We control the off-gassing of all other harmful airborn pollutants with regulations and checks and controls, what makes cigarettes different?

[martin wilson]

No arguments about smoking,it is a disgusting habit, and I am a smoker.
I think it may be part of a wider argument about freedom, and trust in our lords and masters,which ranges from cynicsm to utter paranoia.
It is always the case that freedoms are curtailed for what appear to be undeniably good reasons, and the mandate then insidiously gets appropiated by others creating the fear of a 'Big Brother' society, witness the row that kicked off about the police being able to read confidential emails.
We have had arrests and convictions for racist remarks on social websites, for some a good thing, for others, whilst in no way endorsing the remarks,it does seem part of mission creep to restrict freedom of speech.
There are ludicrous examples,like the chap being prosecuted for threatening to blow up an airport, clearly not serious, but he was prosecuted anyway.
At other times it appears human rights are breached at the whim of the state,like so called 'anarchist' groups being raided by the police prior to the wedding of Prince William and Katherine, on what evidence? none as far as I could tell.
Or recently, residents at a block of flats being told they will be having a missile station placed on their roof.No argument.
It is the idea of the thin end of the wedge that concerns some people, and the evolving forward of these restrictions.
If ever you want to see the hackles rise on the British bulldog,threaten his freedoms!
All the best.

[louisa]

If ever you want to see the hackles rise on the British bulldog,threaten his freedoms!

Unfortunately those days have gone.

The British will now put up with anything. (I'm a Londoner by the way, born and bred)

[ChainzCooper]

It seems quite sensible to me. The rally might capture the attention of people who are smoking, but want to give up. People visitng to tobacco warehouse to buy products could hear testimonies and receive literature that could support them.

I really don't see how wanting people to be healthy is a sign that the country is going down the drain.

It is a renovated tobacco warehouse (Durham has many and this town came into existence solely because of tobacco production) so they don't produce cigarettes there any more. There is a large water tower there that has the Lucky Strike logo on it which seems ironic considering you can't smoke there. Government telling people whats good and bad for them and passing laws in accordance with this philosophy is a sure fire sign for disaster. There are WAY to many laws in this country and the Government stepping in to hold peoples hands every step of their lives and the attacks on industries (by Obama and Government) that employ thousands of people and builds towns (Like this one!) is what is disturbing. This cradle to the grave entitlement that has existed has grow exponentially under Obama and the US will go into bankruptcy if this wasteful mentality continues. More people are on welfare than ANY time in the nations history. Only 80,000 jobs were added last quarter compared to the almost 600,000 people who went on disability. The economy is only predicted to grow by 1 percent next year which is a disaster. During the depression the economy grew at 3 percent so we are circling the drain if something doesn't change in our thinking. Stop degrading a product and industry its a negative mentality to have
Jordan

[Limehouse]

Well Jordan, I can see your concerns, but I have to disagree with you about whether the government should tell people what is or is not good for them.

Ordinary people, as a rule, do not have the facilities to carry out their own scientific research on products that they consume. If a government is passed information about the harmfulness of a certain product, they have a moral obligation to pass on that information to its citizens. Job losses are of concern, yes, but to carry on manufacturing a product like tobacco and to encourage its consumption, just to save jobs, is poor economics because the health implications will lead to more people being on wlefare because the of harmfulness of that consumption.

If you don't want more people of welfare and disability, they have to quit unhealthy life styles such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, unhealthy eating and so on. The government has to provide advice and support that informs people about healthy lifestyles and encourages healthy lifestyles.

Instead of employing people in tobacco production, employment creation in building healthy, happy communities would be more beneficial and help the economy grow more effectively.

[ChainzCooper]

Good debate going Limehouse but I disagree. This country was founded on individualism and personal freedom not shared responsibilities (as Obama called it) and Government infringements. You're responsible to become knowledgeable on things its not the Government's job to educate people in any way. I mean why stop with tobacco? The same campus where they have exclaimed about banning tobacco use contains many bars and restaurants with fatty foods, whiskey, and beer. Those products consumed copiously are also bad for you. Down the road with this mentality will we begin banning them next? I think that is the unfortunate trail we are heading towards if this thinking continues
Jordan

[Cogidubnus]

I hear what you say Julie, but don't agree that Government should necessarily be so prescriptive as to legislate in such matters. Much depends on how you see the nature of Government itself...either (to go to extremes) as a dictatorship or as a genuine facilitator or servant of the people...

Unfortunately, because of the relatively tame nature of the party political system, and the backslapping old chums act, what we actually get in the UK tends to be more in the nature of a self-perpetuating oligarchy...regardless of whichever party gets in...and lately that seems to imply the "Nanny state" (because banning things for other people is always a cheap and effective source of sound-bytes).

We are long overdue another 1945 shake-up...though who will accomplish it I really don't know...I suspect, sadly, it won't be in my lifetime anyway!

All the best

Dave

[ChainzCooper]

Wanting people to be healthy is absolutely fine and laudable but what has gone against the grain with many in the UK (and possibly in the US) is the element of compulsion and this drip drip effect - now they are talking of making smoking in cars illegal. There was even serious talk some time last year of making smoking illegal in the home if there were children present - though how the hell that would be enforced was not revealed!
What annoys me about this is that the real impulse behind this is not primarily about health but about the desire for compulsion and compliance. This was proven to me by two court decisions in the UK recently. You can now buy - in shops or or on the net - so called e-cigarettes. These are plastic replica cigarettes which take capsules of nicotine and which both deliver to the smoker a dose of nicotine and also replicate the experience of smoking but without ANY noxious emissions. The only substance output by the e-cigarette is water vapour which is used to simulate the smoke of a real cigarette. So, although the smoker is delivered a dose of nicotine, there is NO emission that could do any harm to those around him. One of the selling points of these e-cigarettes is that they are not covered by the smoking ban and so can be used legally in bars, clubs etc.
This has now been challenged by a local authority who took a man in Yorkshire to court for using an e-cigarette in a bar. No one in the premises complained and the company who owned the bar did not want to be involved in the prosecution.
However one of the bar staff complained and a prsecution was brought. The outcome was a ruling that e-cigarettes are covered by the ACT (and therefore illegal) even though they have no toxic emissions and pose no possible health hazard to anyone apart from the smoker.
The situation is complicated by the fact that another attempted prosecution was thrown out on the basis that there was no case to answer.
The underlying censorious message is - we do not like what you are doing, even though it is perfectly legal, and even though you have found a way to continue which does no harm to others we will still pursue you until you comply.
Oh, and for the record I am a non smoker.

Man, prosecuted for smoking a cigarette. Is there any way I can contribute to his defense fund?
Jordan

[Cogidubnus]

Man, prosecuted for smoking a cigarette. Is there any way I can contribute to his defense fund?
Jordan

No Jordan, prosecuted for sticking an artificial cigarette in his mouth...one that does not light and merely provides a dose of nicotine when sucked...unbelievable...

Dave

[Robert]

It might conceivably be the Government's resonsibility to tell us when things are bad for us. It's not the Government's responsibility to keep on telling us. It's like a man who runs along beside you in the street saying, "I don't think you heard me." Yes, I heard you. Now shut up.

As for fatty foods, don't worry, we'll soon be seeing a "fat tax" over here - purely for our own good, of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/oct/04/uk-obesity-tax-david-cameron

As for the strain on the NHS, I wonder what the NHS would do without all the money raised from duties on cigarettes and alcohol.

And as for the doctors who are always trying to tell me what I should and should not be allowed to do : I would willingly give up smoking if they, the doctors, would consent to being tested for drugs and alcohol every day before they start work.

Oh, and it might get the NHS's costs down if the doctors could refrain from being negligent. I think their negligence is supposed to be costing the NHs at least a billion pounds a year.

[Cogidubnus]

And as for the doctors who are always trying to tell me what I should and should not be allowed to do : I would willingly give up smoking if they, the doctors, would consent to being tested for drugs and alcohol every day before they start work.

That Robert, would be fair enough...I work for a large bus company, and because our drivers get randomly checked for these, so do the office staff...and quite right too...so why shouldn't doctors...

But more to the point I think politicians should too...how dare they attempt to legislate whilst potentially under the influence? It's irresponsible. I think the subsidised bars ought to be shut down too...It's bad enough we're employing a bunch of piss-heads without paying for their vices too...

Dave