The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke

[Peikko 1,575]

I don't make hotdogs like that

[GaryC 7]

How do you suggest one gets rid of something that is available worldwide? Education on its ill effects is the best way forward.

We do it with a lot of things. Some drugs are available in a lot of places but they are illegal here. If we outlaw the sale of cigarettes that would drive the remaining smokers underground. I wouldn't go around breaking down doors looking for someone with a pack but I would just outlaw the sale. In a generation the problem would be over.

If it's that bad then outlaw it. If it isn't leave it alone. Just be honest about it.

We don't ban everything that's bad for us to do to ourselves, but we do restrict people's freedoms when they are doing something bad to others.

In other words, everyone has a perfect right to jump off a cliff as long as they don't drag anyone with them.

I don't like the hypocrisy of it all. On one hand the government says that smoking is bad and is banning it in most places but on the other hand they find it to be a cash cow and lets it keep going.

[Peikko 1,575]

Government = hypocracy. You're not going to change that just because you don't like it.

[GaryC 7]

Government = hypocracy. You're not going to change that just because you don't like it.

Thats true.

[garya505 2]

How do you suggest one gets rid of something that is available worldwide? Education on its ill effects is the best way forward.

We do it with a lot of things. Some drugs are available in a lot of places but they are illegal here. If we outlaw the sale of cigarettes that would drive the remaining smokers underground. I wouldn't go around breaking down doors looking for someone with a pack but I would just outlaw the sale. In a generation the problem would be over.

If it's that bad then outlaw it. If it isn't leave it alone. Just be honest about it.

We don't ban everything that's bad for us to do to ourselves, but we do restrict people's freedoms when they are doing something bad to others.

In other words, everyone has a perfect right to jump off a cliff as long as they don't drag anyone with them.

I don't like the hypocrisy of it all. On one hand the government says that smoking is bad and is banning it in most places but on the other hand they find it to be a cash cow and lets it keep going.

The justification for smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from being forced to breath it, not because its bad for the smoker. Whether the govt lets it keep going just because it's a cash cow is a good question, but generally we don't ban things only because it's bad for you to do yourself. I guess the general American principle applies - you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone while you are doing it. Of course I'm sure there are people in govt and elsewhere that want to ban it altogether, but I think they are the exception.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well, if we can't say conclusively that secondhand smoke makes people sick, what makes it any different than, say, strong perfume, or BO for that matter?

Because the chemicals in that smoke are 100% toxic - whether or not it impacts your health is obviously going to depend on the length and time of exposure.

[Robor007 0]

I don't like the hypocrisy of it all. On one hand the government says that smoking is bad and is banning it in most places but on the other hand they find it to be a cash cow and lets it keep going.

There's no hypocrisy. It's nothing more than a 'sin tax', same as there is on alcohol. It's totally optional. One chooses to pay this tax when they smoke and/or drink.

[GaryC 7]

The justification for smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from being forced to breath it, not because its bad for the smoker. Whether the govt lets it keep going just because it's a cash cow is a good question, but generally we don't ban things only because it's bad for you to do yourself. I guess the general American principle applies - you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone while you are doing it. Of course I'm sure there are people in govt and elsewhere that want to ban it altogether, but I think they are the exception.

Wait a minute. Didn't the government sue big tobacco to recoup the cost of treating smokers? It sounds like the government thinks it's hurting society. I ask again. If its that bad and requires a multi billion dollar judgment and a 900% tax to pay for the damage to society then why not get rid of it?

Edited February 1, 2007 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Robor007 0]

Wait a minute. Didn't the government sue big tobacco to recoup the cost of treating smokers? It sounds like the government thinks it's hurting society. I ask again. If its that bad and require a multi billion dollar judgment and a 900% tax to pay for the damage to society then why not get rid of it?

Because it would cause absolute chaos.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The $200bn civil settlement was the result of those companies suppressing scientific research (that they commissioned) that showed that smoking (first hand) was harmful.

[GaryC 7]

Wait a minute. Didn't the government sue big tobacco to recoup the cost of treating smokers? It sounds like the government thinks it's hurting society. I ask again. If its that bad and require a multi billion dollar judgment and a 900% tax to pay for the damage to society then why not get rid of it?

Because it would cause absolute chaos.

Why? If the government is that concerned for our health and the cost to society then it would be a simple thing to do. Give everyone 1 year. Let the government implement free stop smoking help. It would be a good test to see if the government is capable of running a national health insurance program. If they can't do that then why would anyone think the government can take care of all our health care?

[garya505 2]

The justification for smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from being forced to breath it, not because its bad for the smoker. Whether the govt lets it keep going just because it's a cash cow is a good question, but generally we don't ban things only because it's bad for you to do yourself. I guess the general American principle applies - you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone while you are doing it. Of course I'm sure there are people in govt and elsewhere that want to ban it altogether, but I think they are the exception.

Wait a minute. Didn't the government sue big tobacco to recoup the cost of treating smokers? It sounds like the government thinks it's hurting society. I ask again. If its that bad and requires a multi billion dollar judgment and a 900% tax to pay for the damage to society then why not get rid of it?

Yes the govt thinks its hurting the smokers. It would be nice if the lawsuit money actually went to treating the smokers.

Better yet, put the tax money from each smoker into their own account for treating their smoking-related ilnesses. Now THAT would make sense.

I guess in a (relatively) free society we would rather allow people to do harm to themselves (they have that right), then figure out the costs for allowing that to happen. Aren't we always considering the value of our freedoms vs the cost of those freedoms to society?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it's that bad then outlaw it. If it isn't leave it alone. Just be honest about it.

It has to do with individual liberty vs. the welfare of the public. There are plenty of things that we do that are harmful to us - it's not being dishonest not to outlaw all danger from our lives. It's when you're endangering other's lives and doing so without their consent that becomes an issue of whose rights take precedent.

[GaryC 7]

The justification for smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from being forced to breath it, not because its bad for the smoker. Whether the govt lets it keep going just because it's a cash cow is a good question, but generally we don't ban things only because it's bad for you to do yourself. I guess the general American principle applies - you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone while you are doing it. Of course I'm sure there are people in govt and elsewhere that want to ban it altogether, but I think they are the exception.

Wait a minute. Didn't the government sue big tobacco to recoup the cost of treating smokers? It sounds like the government thinks it's hurting society. I ask again. If its that bad and requires a multi billion dollar judgment and a 900% tax to pay for the damage to society then why not get rid of it?

Yes the govt thinks its hurting the smokers. It would be nice if the lawsuit money actually went to treating the smokers.

Better yet, put the tax money from each smoker into their own account for treating their smoking-related ilnesses. Now THAT would make sense.

I guess in a (relatively) free society we would rather allow people to do harm to themselves (they have that right), then figure out the costs for allowing that to happen. Aren't we always considering the value of our freedoms vs the cost of those freedoms to society?

Sounds pretty odd to me. Something is so bad that it costs hundreds of billions in damage to our country (the tobacco settlement), needs to be taxed to the point of out of a $4 pack of smokes $3.50 is tax, it must be banned from all public places to keep others from harm and can't even be advertised but it can remain legal because of our personal freedoms?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Either its a dangerous substance and should be banned like DDT or it should just be left alone. Anything else is just a government cash grab at our expense. It makes me feel like I am some sort of a macabre puppet doing a dance for a government that is only thinking of itself.

[garya505 2]

The justification for smoking bans is to protect non-smokers from being forced to breath it, not because its bad for the smoker. Whether the govt lets it keep going just because it's a cash cow is a good question, but generally we don't ban things only because it's bad for you to do yourself. I guess the general American principle applies - you can do whatever you want as long as you don't hurt anyone while you are doing it. Of course I'm sure there are people in govt and elsewhere that want to ban it altogether, but I think they are the exception.

Wait a minute. Didn't the government sue big tobacco to recoup the cost of treating smokers? It sounds like the government thinks it's hurting society. I ask again. If its that bad and requires a multi billion dollar judgment and a 900% tax to pay for the damage to society then why not get rid of it?

Yes the govt thinks its hurting the smokers. It would be nice if the lawsuit money actually went to treating the smokers.

Better yet, put the tax money from each smoker into their own account for treating their smoking-related ilnesses. Now THAT would make sense.

I guess in a (relatively) free society we would rather allow people to do harm to themselves (they have that right), then figure out the costs for allowing that to happen. Aren't we always considering the value of our freedoms vs the cost of those freedoms to society?

Sounds pretty odd to me. Something is so bad that it costs hundreds of billions in damage to our country (the tobacco settlement), needs to be taxed to the point of out of a $4 pack of smokes $3.50 is tax, it must be banned from all public places to keep others from harm and can't even be advertised but it can remain legal because of our personal freedoms?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Either its a dangerous substance and should be banned like DDT or it should just be left alone. Anything else is just a government cash grab at our expense. It makes me feel like I am some sort of a macabre puppet doing a dance for a government that is only thinking of itself.

Yes, the strange politics of tobacco.