Posted on 08/29/2005 2:28:16 PM PDT by TKDietz
BEIJING, China (AP) -- China, home to more than 300 million smokers, has ratified an international treaty prohibiting tobacco advertising and will ban tobacco vending machines, the government said Monday.
The World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control was ratified Sunday by the National People's Congress, the official Xinhua News Agency said.
Parliament leaders "supported the treaty by announcing that China will ban tobacco vending machines of any kind" in mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau, Xinhua said.
The treaty requires China to ban tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship on radio, television, print media and the Internet within five years, according to Xinhua.
It also prohibits tobacco company sponsorship of international events and activities.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
"300 million smokers" is a LOT of people to tick off.
Boxer Rebellion 2?
How the hell do you smoke a curb!?. here in the states they are mostly made of concrete - last I checked I couldn't light one...
I wouldn't image it tastes very good either..
But they are nice to hold on to on the way home from the bar..
I gave up smoking years ago, because I chose to. If I still smoked I would be unhappy with someone else telling me I could not smoke, especially someone that had no compunction about killing be in other ways, like execution!
LOL... good point.
Fight Globalism. Start Smoking.
"to quit but, I'm..."
Should say:
"to quit, but I'm..."
Puff
Though even with this, it's still sad that China when it comes to tobacco is still more freer than many places in the United States
Et tu, Mao? The new and improved democracy (ha hah ha) in action.
FMCDH(BITS)
What a sad, but true, commentary on what the nannyist control freaks have done to us.
You would be shocked at just how many are clamorring for us to sign onto this.
Tubby Tommy Thompson tried signing us on to this BS when he was the HHS secretary
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/914280/posts
He claimed he had the support of the Bush administration, but I never heard a word from Bush and this treaty went nowhere and thankfully Tubby Tommy isn't in the HHS secretary anymore.
EXACTLY why I said people would be shocked about who is clamorring for us to do it.
Smoker or not - these are the kind of things that must be watched. The problem is that there are so many fanatics, on a host of different issues, that see nothing wrong with something like this --- until it hits their pet project.
Tell me about it. I've been involved in a bruhaha on another thread, concerning gasoline prices. Check out some of the "'ho-hum, I've got mine, too bad you don't have yours' comments by the "conservatives" here, who just think there should be absolutely nothing done about it, even though it's going to destroy the economy if left unchecked-and-the republican majority along with it.
Again, this is not about smoking-but-a lot of FReepers certainly have their heads up their a$$ on a LOT of subjects-you may want to check it out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1472543/posts
I understand EXACTLY what you are saying and where you are coming from. It upsets me to no end.
Please read my lengthy post on that thread (I've had many there). Believe it was #124. Pretty much says it all.
Will do.
The only craziness is lighting a weed and sticking it in your face to do your best imitation of a chimney. Why not organize an anti-Sin D rally instead of whining about nothing? The last surgeon general, a Republican, wanted to ban tobacco, period. Oh the injustice of it all!
I have two brain cells (give you 10 to 1 odds on a Stanford-Binet runoff any day of the week) and you gotta be crazy to keep smoking.
And I don't give a flying fig what Red China gives up!
I have two brain cells (give you 10 to 1 odds on a Stanford-Binet runoff any day of the week) and you gotta be crazy to keep smoking.
And I don't give a flying fig what Red China gives up!
You gotta be crazy...one has to be crazy
Well I followed your argument until your final paragraph insult. I still don't understand why you would think anything Red China would do would affect our treaties or world agreements. Of course we should not abandon our sovereignity to economic treaties that don't allow us to change our laws as needed, but NAFTA and other agreements are the example of that, not Red China's deals.
And supporting a complete smoking tobacco ban doesn't make me any more liberal than the republican surgeon general who proposed it. In a smoked form, it is a powerful poison, and governement has both a right and duty to protect us against poison.
On the other hand, inhalant snuff seems to be relatively safe, according to Dr. Dean Edell, so the government would be hard-pressed to make a case against banning it.
Despite popular folklore, that's what the native Indians did with the tobacco they raised--they snorted it. Snuff has a long history, hundreds of years of use, whereas cigs (coffin nails) are a more recent "innovation."
I'm just sick of people using this website to make a civil rights issue out of sensible smoking policies happening everywhere. There are pressing threats to this republic, such as traitors who are openly and deliberately attempting to demoralize our troops, harrassing funerals and hospitals in order to try and provoke a reaction. They need to be countered in the strongest terms (see my statement).
Exactly my thought. Why should the international "community" care whether Chinese in China smoke? Why should China go along with it? Two possibilities: (1) Some trade agreement has been tied to it. (2) China was embarrassed to learn that there was an avenue of governmental tyranny they'd overlooked.
Only if the "poison" is being forced upon us against our will be an entity more powerful than ourselves. For example, if second hand smoke were a real hazard, it would make sense for the government to ban smoking in government buildings and places people might be legally required to visit. Homes and private businesses are different, as the person isn't required to go there if they aren't willing to assume the risk. Presumably cigarettes are no more dangerous than people are being told they are. If people are dumb enough to do something they've learned is bad for them, why is that any of the government's business? Do people have a right to ingest rat poison if they want to? Should the government have the power to ban rat poison?
If you read the rat poison box, it will clearly state that ingestion can be fatal. If you use the cig product as intended, it will take an average of 8-10 years off your life, hence it is a poison, however slow-acting, and the very least government should do is place the international poison sign--skull and crossbones on the label, but that is a contradiction in logic-- if the product is indeed poisonous when used as intended, why is it not banned?
It's similar to motorcycle helmet laws, IMHO. Lots of people want to take their chances and ride with a naked head, but then we all wind up paying the enormous cost of head trauma injuries from the typically non-insured biker.
Recently I persuaded a friend to try Europen snuff as an alternative to cigs. I had to laugh when she asked where the ingredient label was, then read aloud "Not a safe alternative to smoking." That concerned her because it was on the label, where the weak US warnings (Smoking may cause low fetal birth weight --fine I'm not pregnant etc) have no effect on her.
So how 'bout at least an ingredient label on smokes? Maybe the sight off "arsenic, carbon monoxide, ammonia etc." would dissuade some smokers.
Like the head trauma from non-helmeted bikers, we all pay for the sick and dying smokers.
As to second hand smoke, in my town, and almost every major city, you can't even produce a NOISE that registers above 40 decibels in my house coming from your house. Why? Because it's necessarily unhealthy? No! It's annoying. The threshhold to allow government to act and act reasonably is a lot lower than having to prove that second hand smoke kills you. Get over it.
That doesn't prove helmet laws are good, it proves government meddling in healh care funding is bad.
So how 'bout at least an ingredient label on smokes? Maybe the sight off "arsenic, carbon monoxide, ammonia etc." would dissuade some smokers.
OK. Truth in advertising and labeling are legitimate government missions.
Like the head trauma from non-helmeted bikers, we all pay for the sick and dying smokers.
Stop doing that.
The threshhold to allow government to act and act reasonably is a lot lower than having to prove that second hand smoke kills you. Get over it.
That's their threshold. I was talking about the real one.
Posted by Still Thinking to at bay
On News/Activism 09/08/2005 1:42:31 PM PDT · 32 of 32
It's similar to motorcycle helmet laws, IMHO. Lots of people want to take their chances and ride with a naked head, but then we all wind up paying the enormous cost of head trauma injuries from the typically non-insured biker.
That doesn't prove helmet laws are good, it proves government meddling in healh care funding is bad.
You assume it's government that picks up the tab. When we scrape non-helmeted biker Joe off the payment and rush him to ICU, when he balks at the bill, the hospital eats the cost, then we all pay.
So how 'bout at least an ingredient label on smokes? Maybe the sight off "arsenic, carbon monoxide, ammonia etc." would dissuade some smokers.
OK. Truth in advertising and labeling are legitimate government missions.
Like the head trauma from non-helmeted bikers, we all pay for the sick and dying smokers.
Stop doing that.
Stop paying for them? Leave them at the hospital doors if they have no coverage?
The threshhold to allow government to act and act reasonably is a lot lower than having to prove that second hand smoke kills you. Get over it.
That's their threshold. I was talking about the real one.
By real one, I guess you mean the legitmate one. I am grateful for the noise threshholds that allow me to live in peace. I am also grateful for the public accomodations laws that allow a person of any race or creed to dine next to me as long as he or she doesn't have a stinky weed burning at the end of their mouth, blowing noxious smoke at me ruining my dining experience.
If you don't believe the government has the right to regulate smoking in a privaet establishment without absolute, irefutable evidence of death by second hand smoke, then you can cling to any study or evidence indicating ambiguity in clinical studies.
For me, if it makes me gag, which it does, it's enough to invoke regulation. You can't refuse service to anyone, if race, creed color or religion are involved, and to this governments, all over, are adding, and you MUST refuse service to the likes of She Lion, Average Joe and any other chimney people who refuse to leave the fire at the door. Big deal....but it is a big deal if you're addicted.
This convention was signed by the US in the early 90's, right before the ostracisation of smokers began under Carol Ann Browner's EPA! Data used were studies where rats were given the equivalent of 200 cigs in SHS per day!
You're right, I was thinking in terms of government payer situations. But government meddling in the health care business has distorted all sorts of incentives and ballooned costs for care, regardless of who's paying for a given case. So it's still true to an extent.
Stop paying for them? Leave them at the hospital doors if they have no coverage?
Not quite. Admit them but don't give them anything but palliative care if the case is due to extreme conduct unless he can pay. There could be a public referendum on what we want to consider extreme. In a sense, that's what's being done by the government at this point, except for two things: They're drawing the line, rather than we, and they've criminalized occupying the wrong side of the line, instead of just saying "we won't pay".
For me, if it makes me gag, which it does, it's enough to invoke regulation. You can't refuse service to anyone, if race, creed color or religion are involved, and to this governments, all over, are adding, and you MUST refuse service to the likes of She Lion, Average Joe and any other chimney people who refuse to leave the fire at the door. Big deal....but it is a big deal if you're addicted.
So don't friggin go there! In a time when the majority of people don't smoke, and many of those find second hand smoke objectionable, the market would make sure they have a place to eat (and the smokers would be taken care of as well). I assure you, the restaurant business is not going to kiss off 70% of their potential customers to solely serve the other 30%. The psychological costs of a nanny state are just not justified for an attempt to solve a problem that isn't there.
There is hardly any problem government intervention won't (1) fail to solve (2) often make worse (3) cause unintended consequences that are worse than the original problem, and (4) get themselves intwined in areas of our lives where they never were before, giving themselves "justificaiton" for more rules, regs, and taxes.
Oh, and just for the record, I don't believe in those public accomodation laws either.
I overlooked the fact that you were specifically addressing private establishments. I don't believe the government has the power to regulate smoking in a private establishment if there WERE absolute irrefutable evidence of death by second hand smoke. In my original post, I said it would be legitimate for them to do so in buildings where people would be legally required to visit. You can't very well say "You must visit the DMV to get a driver's license" then permit the presence of lethal hazards over which those subject to the law have no control.
I don't think we signed off on this treaty, yet. Here is a previous thread about it: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/914280/posts
I didn't think you probably did, but can you not imagine what a giant step backwards it would be for private estsblishments to have two entrances, "Colored" and "Whites Only" or "No coloreds allowed"?
You're advocating that right when you say you don't support public accomodations laws. Boy would we be the laughingstock of the world if we threw them laws out.
Guess I was wrong but I certainly remember Browner touting the danger and that remedies and preventive measures had to be applied.
If not the letter, then at least the spirit was adhered to, and the path to what's happening today was paved.
You're advocating that right when you say you don't support public accomodations laws.
Yes, I am advocating that as a LEGAL right. I don't think it's moral or "right" and I wouldn't do it myself, but I don't think it is within the jurisdiction of the government to get involved. Do you object to scholarships for which only black kids are eligible? I don't. I figure the money belongs to those who are donating it and if they specifically want to advance the interests of black high school seniors, that's their privelige. If you don't object to black only scholarships, would you object to white only ones? If so, why? Are you racist?
Boy would we be the laughingstock of the world if we threw them laws out.
With the world in the condition it is these days, the time to worry is when you're NOT a laughingstock.
Why would someone want to smoke curbs?
They have very poor quality tobacco over there.
We already likely have - thus the fervor with which dims went after the tobacco companies over the past decade. Read the trade treaties. You'd be surprised what is being done under the guise of "representation".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.