Global Tobacco Control, Digital Surveillance
- Thread starter bent1
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Power, money, sex. That's all it all boils down to. All for/against someone else. History may not repeat...but it rhymes.
I'm afraid we are not going to be able to keep 'politics' out of this.
I'm afraid we are not going to be able to keep 'politics' out of this.
I fail to see how this has any impact on anything. How is collecting public domain info a threat from big brother? They have the right to do it and we have the right to not look at it or tell them to shove it. News flash: The anti tobacco movement started over 50 years ago...
Would you like the same regulation as recently passed in Beverly Hills, the banning of flavored tobacco? Most tobacco has some form of flavor enhancer. This group seeks to influence all localities to enact similar draconian legislation. Do they have the right? Sure do. Should pipe & cigar smokers know the source of this push & be made aware of such groups in hopes of maintaining individual liberty, possibly contacting lawmakers?
Actually, the push to demonize tobacco is at least 415 yrs old according to this article.
Actually, the push to demonize tobacco is at least 415 yrs old according to this article.
I don't think any one but a few smokers see any "draconian" legislation. Just voters doing what they do best, electing pols who see the world in narrow, single issues which insure they keep their seat ... the same as many members here. It's no fun when it's your ox being gored.
Tobacco was recognized as having a debilitating effect on the users health at about the same time it was brought to Europe. There is nothing new, excepting that period in which Hollywood and the tobacco companies had success in the mid-1900's where they made smoking "hip" and somewhat glamorous. And, the American Cancer Society organized and promptly thumped their gourd. The cigarette companies spent moneys making tobacco freely available to the military. They had their "hay day" and, seeing the writing on the wall, expanded into food and other areas with more or less guaranteed profits.
The health folks (anti-tobacco Nazis as some here with a bent for hyperbole refer to them.) can probably and safely declare the war won with only a bit of mopping up to do.
The younger members will receive the slings and arrows but, at my age ... I simply enjoy the vice. Tobacco use will probably never be erased completely but, it will go back to its roots ... a vice only the rich can afford.
Yes, it's true...the rights of the individual are of little concern in general these days. Many legal restrictions are justified in the name of the "greater good". ..especially when there is hard science backing it up.
So those of us who would argue that we should have the right to partake of a substance that is deemed to be "unhealthy" apparently only have that right if the majority agree with it (such as alcohol, unhealthy foods, etc. for the time being anyway, until those are targeted).
Given that reasoning (and resigning ourselves to that type of "system") it's interesting that we are all still allowed to exhale carbon dioxide. Enjoy it while it lasts...soon your poisonous exhalations may be restricted or prohibited...for the greater good of course.
After all, why should any particular individual have the right to spread their filthy CO2 everywhere without at least purchasing a license to do so or an expensive insurance premium. A large percentage of useless breathers could be weeded out that way.
And those of us who question the "science" behind this are just fringe cranks anyway.
So those of us who would argue that we should have the right to partake of a substance that is deemed to be "unhealthy" apparently only have that right if the majority agree with it (such as alcohol, unhealthy foods, etc. for the time being anyway, until those are targeted).
Given that reasoning (and resigning ourselves to that type of "system") it's interesting that we are all still allowed to exhale carbon dioxide. Enjoy it while it lasts...soon your poisonous exhalations may be restricted or prohibited...for the greater good of course.
After all, why should any particular individual have the right to spread their filthy CO2 everywhere without at least purchasing a license to do so or an expensive insurance premium. A large percentage of useless breathers could be weeded out that way.
And those of us who question the "science" behind this are just fringe cranks anyway.
Our "rights", to use the term as loosely as some others have done, are usually restricted with reference to how they effect the others. I'm not sure this "right" to smoke should enable us to adversely impact the quality of life of others. I'm not addressing "health" in this instance. But, no one of us has the right to inflict the stench of stale smoke into other's residences or places of business. So smoking restrictions seem to be a logical recourse for those who prefer not to be exposed.
To conflate the argument a bit, you can't shoot anyone you wish with your pistol though you have a God given (Constitutional Right) right to own it. You are not prohibited from smoking in your own home. Of course those who buy a residence in an HOA with such a restriction, knowingly agreeing to such a prohibition, have more serious problems ... reading comprehension being one.
I believe the public has moved far beyond what science says about tobacco. The public, society, simply doesn't like it and is becoming more intolerant. Further, medical science has found nothing positive with regard to incinerating tobacco and then taking the carcinogens produced into the body so as to adversely impact the blood's ability to carry oxygen. For some, a few, the jury is out with regard to any benefits regarding nicotine. No matter how one conflates that argument it still arrives at the conclusion, nicotine may be proven useful in certain medical situations but, smoking isn't indicated in any treatment involving the use of nicotine.
Tobacco use is not a God given (Constitutional Right). And, as of now, isn't prohibited either. I understand it is easier to blame "Big something" and government than your family, friends and neighbors but, those people decide the agenda by who they,we vote for. The pols just want to hang onto their perks. Can't say I blame them. Don't like them, not a one but, they know how to get elected ... get votes.
Our, US rights, are guaranteed with respect only to what was enumerated in the "Bill of Rights." The "hated" Government giveth and taketh away as the Constitution has morphed, for some, into a "living", therefore changing document. And that, should you be a one issue voter, is the only thing a voter needs to know ... how the candidate stands on the idea of a so-called "living, changing" Constitution which means there are no ground rules as the rules will now be ever changing and, possibly "the tyranny of rule by majority" (always to be abhorred, will take over our "Democratic Republic."
I suspect "the tyranny of majority rules" could lead to the total demise of tobacco use.
Hopefully, I've worded this carefully enough to avoid a "train wreck." I suspect not. So, apologies to all.
To conflate the argument a bit, you can't shoot anyone you wish with your pistol though you have a God given (Constitutional Right) right to own it. You are not prohibited from smoking in your own home. Of course those who buy a residence in an HOA with such a restriction, knowingly agreeing to such a prohibition, have more serious problems ... reading comprehension being one.
I believe the public has moved far beyond what science says about tobacco. The public, society, simply doesn't like it and is becoming more intolerant. Further, medical science has found nothing positive with regard to incinerating tobacco and then taking the carcinogens produced into the body so as to adversely impact the blood's ability to carry oxygen. For some, a few, the jury is out with regard to any benefits regarding nicotine. No matter how one conflates that argument it still arrives at the conclusion, nicotine may be proven useful in certain medical situations but, smoking isn't indicated in any treatment involving the use of nicotine.
Tobacco use is not a God given (Constitutional Right). And, as of now, isn't prohibited either. I understand it is easier to blame "Big something" and government than your family, friends and neighbors but, those people decide the agenda by who they,we vote for. The pols just want to hang onto their perks. Can't say I blame them. Don't like them, not a one but, they know how to get elected ... get votes.
Our, US rights, are guaranteed with respect only to what was enumerated in the "Bill of Rights." The "hated" Government giveth and taketh away as the Constitution has morphed, for some, into a "living", therefore changing document. And that, should you be a one issue voter, is the only thing a voter needs to know ... how the candidate stands on the idea of a so-called "living, changing" Constitution which means there are no ground rules as the rules will now be ever changing and, possibly "the tyranny of rule by majority" (always to be abhorred, will take over our "Democratic Republic."
I suspect "the tyranny of majority rules" could lead to the total demise of tobacco use.
Hopefully, I've worded this carefully enough to avoid a "train wreck." I suspect not. So, apologies to all.
Michael Fucking Bloomberg---and every other human like him on Planet Earth---can kiss my sweet candy striped ass.
Ooops! Did saying that get me on a list?
If so, GOOD. I'm too old and seen too much shit to give a damn.
Come at me bro. You want it? You've got it. Right here. And be sure to send your best because you're going to need it. :evil:
Ooops! Did saying that get me on a list?
If so, GOOD. I'm too old and seen too much shit to give a damn.
Come at me bro. You want it? You've got it. Right here. And be sure to send your best because you're going to need it. :evil:
Sorry, but that's simply not true. Don't blame you, though, because whatever POSITIVE findings are, well, found, are basically NEVER reported.
We know about the findings about cigar and pipe smokers living longer on average than non-smokers, and many dismiss it as an oddity. However, a certain medical study, conducted with the aim as to be the Final Conclusion on the evils of 'second-hand' smoke, not only found little to no risk to exposure to it, but actually found that children growing up in smoking homes were actually 22% LESS LIKELY to develop lung cancer. Did we ever see this on the mainstream news? I bet you a tin of Exoterica versus a pouch of Captain Black that we didn't.
From the horse's own mouth: "We found no increased risk for childhood exposure, a result consistent with most of the available data."
(Emphasis mine. Source: Paolo Boffetta et al., "Multicenter Case–Control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe," JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute 90, Issue 19, 7 October 1998, 1440–1450, https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/90.19.1440)
If they are never reported, how would anyone know about them, much less cite them? I'd like to see a citation that supports the idea that taking carcinogens into one's body is a good idea or, even a "so-so" activity or, in any way efficacious. This is true whether the carcinogens are from a tire fire, camp fire, smoker/grill, or pipe/cigar/cigarette. Now, chewing tobacco doesn't involve incineration and so, might be less of a health problem. Oral surgeons and research find other problems though, which correlate to chewing. It's an area I'm relatively unfamiliar with even though I chew now and then.
I rarely ever address second hand smoke because I've not seen a study reporting such which is substantially supported by science. One that can stand close scrutiny. There are simply too many variables in a child's life to support such a finding in any definitive way. Correlations can be made but, I've never seen research in which a certain conclusion could be made. Most conclusions supporting the dangers of secondhand smoke are based on extensive studies of primarily anecdotal information studies, numbers exposed v. numbers suffering effects. Well, and the poor, old, lab rat. It may be out there but, I've not read it nor even seen it.
Fried foods should be banned...and did you know that over a million people drown every year? What to do? It's for the children I speak. Pot is good. Vote for ME!
The children are just little CO2 generators...soon to grown into big CO2 generators.
Al Gore, CNN and The High Priests In White Lab Coats Who Shall Not Be Questioned And Who Shall Be Given Dump Trucks Of Grant Money all told us that was bad...so it must be true.
Trees are bad too because they like CO2.
I need some nicotine now.
Meanwhile, on the slippery slope... Liberal lawmakers feel kids should vote, but...
The tobacco 21 bill (HB 345) covers both tobacco and vaping products, including cigarettes, chewing tobacco, e-cigarettes and vapes. After four years of legislative effort and a veto by Gov. Rauner, lawmakers swiftly passed the Tobacco 21 bill mere weeks ago. The bill takes effect July 1, when Illinois and Virginia will become the eighth and ninth states to implement the legislation.
The tobacco 21 bill (HB 345) covers both tobacco and vaping products, including cigarettes, chewing tobacco, e-cigarettes and vapes. After four years of legislative effort and a veto by Gov. Rauner, lawmakers swiftly passed the Tobacco 21 bill mere weeks ago. The bill takes effect July 1, when Illinois and Virginia will become the eighth and ninth states to implement the legislation.
- Status