Posted on 11/28/2006 12:37:28 PM PST by 300magnum
Here is the link. Cannot post from the source. http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061128/1a_bottomstrip28.art.htm
Only when one focuses, clear-eyed and in literal detail, on the centrality and depth of the behavioral changes necessary to improve health does the immensity of the task become apparent. We are not talking about peripheral or infrequent aspects of human behavior but about some the most basic and often experienced aspects of life: what one eats, how often and how much; how long, how regular, and how peacefully one sleeps, whether one smokes or drinks and how much; even the whole question of personality. Health, then... is a product of innumerable decisions made every day by millions of people. To over see these decisions would call for a larger bureaucracy than anyone has yet conceived and methods of surveillance bigger than big brother. The seat-belt buzzer that screeches at us if we do not modify one small bit of behavior would be but mild harbinger of the restraints necessary to change bad health habits.
They outsourced the paper mill to China, remember? /s
Look what Ohio is asking citizens to do: http://www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/50F0940288AA4C57A44965B6543027FC/NoSmokingColor.pdf
I do understand what you mean, metmom. I have the same problem with cats. Few seem to understand that it isn't "just in my head" -- or that just tossing "Muffy" & "Fluffy" outside when I visit isn't enough.
Even friends of mine didn't get it until they had to take me to the emergency room after they got a cat (who hid the whole time I was there) and didn't mention it. The invisible cat hair on the sofa was enough to trigger both crazed itching and a severe asthma attack.
Now, when husband I are asked to dinner at their home by new acquaintances, I am embarassed because I have to say, "Pardon me, do you have a cat?", before I can answer whether or not we can come!
Yes. But how do we explain Gov George Pataki, (R) signing the bill that bans smoking in the state of New York? It's really not all Dems that are doing this. We have quite a few RINO'S sticking it to the private business owners and smokers as well. Sad to say.....
"CAN'T ANYONE SEE THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SMOKING, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH "POWER AND CONTROL???"
Go ahead and laugh. Today its prohibiting a person from smoking in their home; tomorrow it will be someone arrested for providing one of their children with a Big Mac, Large Fries and Super Size Coke or anything which has Trans Fatty Acids." FReeper - Traditional Vet
Oh, well said! Very, very, very well said!
I'd be in an agitated and depressed condition about this kind of thing but I comfort myself with the thought that the Southwest corner of the country, where I live, will be part of Greater Mexico within a hundred years. Mexico (and Mexicans) care not for Gringo laws and aren't long on Nanny State regulations. Viva Aztlan!
Count the number of Freepers who think this is good because they personally hate smoking.
Welcome to Free (as long as you don't smoke or drink or whatever my personal pet peeve is) Republic.
Yep, same in Ohio and Indiana where the "conservative" governors are all for total bans. Does there even exist a politcian of either party that believes in freedom?
Amazing. It's literally the Nazi-party "turn in your parents" thing.
Taft was definitely not a "conservative."
Yes you are right about the Rinos. A friend of mine spent $80,000.00 to comply with Nassau County, New York's smoking regulations (separating his diner into smoking and non-smoking areas, with completely segregated ventilation systems) just two years before Petaki signed legislation banning smoking entirely thus making his investment a total loss.
The politicians don't give a s__t how many obstacles they put in the way of someone trying to earn a living and provide employment for others. Their half-assed schemes are always feel-good bulls__t with no regard for their impact on anyone else.
The non-smoking Nazi's pitched a ton of crap about how much business would increase since non-smokers would come in a patronize places that they avoided in the past. That was pure crap. Business fell off from 10-20% when the ban went into effect.
The biggest opponents of the ban were coalitions of retaurant and bar owners, but of course the politicians knew the impact on those businesses better than the "unannointed" who only toiled in the industry for decades.
My friends in the food services industry (waiters, bartenders etc.) will tell you that smokers were their better customers. They spent more, busted balls less and tipped better than the non-smokers.
Yea, I know I am gambling since I am waging they will go for the alcohol before the fat in the big mac. That's because I remain confident they want a replay on alcohol prohibition.
I couldn't have said it better! I believe that things are so out of control..that smokers are an easy target. It makes people think that things are getting done. Things are in control, don't worry. No problem. Is smoking healthy..of course not. But neither is over eating, not exercising,over spending, not paying attention to your kids and a lot of other things.
Legislation cannot create common sense.
We're in the same situation with cats. Even if the cat has been gone for some months, we have problems. My son is so allergic to animals that he got hives one time from a relatives dog who had jumped in his lap. The hives were on his legs and back, not only where the dog made contact but where he sat on the furniture the dog liked to use.
I'd love to have those who are so skeptical tell me how you can react to something you don't even know exists where you are, like you did at your friends.
1. Make smoking illegal.
2. Send the anti-tobacco zealots monthly bills to make up for the tax revenue.
____________________________________________________________
That's the best idea I've heard in years. Just imagine these professional Fascists who live off the MSA payments and the government tit, having to go out and get real jobs in the real world like everybody else.
In case you missed this on another thread, this was tried in North Dakota by a Republican state legislator names Mike Grosz. Who showed up to speak against the tobacco ban?
Philip Morris?? No.
RJR?? No.
Lorillard?? No.
SheLion?? No.
THE AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION, NORTH DAKOTA PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION.
With apologies to those who already saw this, it bears repeating. This says it all...
here's the AP story:
http://www.data-yard.net/10y/nd-ban.htm
From Reason:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/100657.html
News from our group:
http://www.forces.org/fparch/011703.htm
an editorial:
The interesting thing are the circumstances of the bill's failure:
[Rep. Wes] Belter [R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee] told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.
What?! That's like the WCTU endorsing Johnnie Walker. These groups are always in favor of raising taxes on tobacco and of banning smoking in public places. But here we have the American Lung Association lobbying against a bill to ban the use of tobacco? Why?
There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued.
Ahhhh. Now we see. These groups are skeptical that banning tobacco would reduce its use. Some of these same groups are vocally opposed to lifting the ban on things like marijuana, on the basis that such action would increase use of those drugs. Apparently there's no reason to believe that the same thing would work in reverse, though, and nobody, especially anti-tobacco groups, would want the government to take action based on incomplete or faulty information. But there's more:
The ban also could take away certain funding for these groups for tobacco control programs.
Ah. Well. So the position of the American Lung Association et al. is roughly this: we should not ban tobacco because that would reduce funding for tobacco control programs. It seems to me, though, that banning the sale and use of tobacco is a tobacco-control program. It's just not a tobacco-control program that involves various public health groups receiving funding from the government.
It would be worth remembering this the next time you see any of these groups arguing for higher taxes on tobacco in order to discourage tobacco use and produce positive health results.
Eric, what the hell are you talking about? I am a widow who lives in northern MAINE! How the hell did you expect ME to make it to NORTH DAKOTA! GEEEZ!
The burden of consideration should be on the parents. They should not take their children where there are smokers.
This level of fear could just as easily be written about the harm of sunlight. But honestly, why are cigarettes still legal if they are so dangerous? Why don't the anti-smoking nazis push to ban tobacco all together? It's simple. First, they are not near as dangerous as other activities such as driving/riding in a car. That is something that can kill you instantly. Second, the nazis are more than happy to let smokers pay certain taxes so they don't have to. Finally, keeping cigarettes legal gives nannies and snobs someone they can look down on blame for all of their children’s ills.
I guess it all goes back to parents who think the whole world is their personal free daycare center.
No one would expect you to be there, but who would expect the anti-smoker groups to be the opposition to such a proposal? Other than us of course, as we know they are only interested in money and if there were to be a ban on tobacco they would all be out of money.
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.