How To Beat A Dead Dog: Anti-Smoking Activism in Modern America

[admin]

Some of you may remember the NY Times article about hospitals now refusing to hire, or to fire people just because they are smokers?
I am really getting sick and tired of what is going on with the never-ending snowballing of the anti-tobacco movement, and so is Carter, the author of How To Beat A Dead Dog: Anti-Smoking Activism in Modern America

 

[admin]

Please, once again copy your comments from here onto the article too. It is important for non-forum readers of the site to see your comments on the articles.
Thanks!

 

[kcvet67]

Unfortunately, the melange of distortion, half-truths, mis-truths and outright distortions is extremely hard to fight. If you successfully refute the first set of "facts" they simply make up a new set. We've seen allegations about the effects of third-hand smoke, I'm sure someone is already inventing a set of horribly debilitating symptoms for fourth-hand and even fifth-hand smoke.

 

[wolfscout]

replied.

 

[krgulick]

Replied as well.

 

[bubbadreier]

My comment on the article and facebook post...
Crazy world we are living in.... Denied a job for doing something 100% legal.

"Hold Up, you said here you enjoy driving with the top down in your convertible? I am sorry we don't hire people like you here, don't you know that could kill you!"

 

[yoru]

(copied from my response to the article)
"the current taxation on cigarettes has outshone any other taxable product since the Intolerable Acts of colonial times."
In numbers this is more true than you seem to realize, or at least imply. In outrage, unfortunately the hypocrisy of it all is that it isn't.
Just one example of those taxes, that on tea, in modern money it is estimated that the actual value of that tax was was per crate of tea than the current tobacco tax is per pound. In fact the pipe tobacco tax at roughly 1/10th the tax of cigarette tobacco is closer to those taxes, close enough there is some doubt considering the considerations of mis-judgement of the actual value of the dollar at that point in history it isn't certain which would be higher in today's money.
That's just it, taxation that helped lead America to revolution 200 years ago was in the ballpark of 10% of the "sin tax" we have today, and the people are rallying for an increase.
My school (University of North Texas in Denton, Tx) is preparing to increase tuition by 6-9% either next semester or next year. According to the bill in Texas that added a flat 1 USD tax on top of existing taxes to a pack of cigarettes (and roughly 5 USD by the pound) was intended, in part, to fund higher education. So why is it tuition has increased almost every year since that tax hike passed?
Now I have no idea how much they promised to give to education in numbers. . .but it obviously wasn't even a pitiful fraction considering schools are not just having increases in costs of operation, but repeated cuts in funding. UNT is a respected university, there's not the possibility it failed to earn its cut either, so that only leaves that one of the two parties is lying.
Several years ago it was found less than 1% of lottery profits went to public schools as promised in one state, and our government (even the Old Guard Constitutionalists in Texas) has a bad track record of misappropriated funds. . . my money is on the government blowing it. Kinda like that 1 USD fee on everyone's cellphone bill to fund 911 centers that in not one single state did the money get put to that. In fact the least irresponsible thing done with that money was putting it in the bank to raise profits in interest which would become mis-appropriated funds in their own right.
You want to talk about a dead dog. . . I agree with it in all points except this, I think the bigger issue are the horses rotting in the field, poisoning the groundwater.

 

[strongirish]

Great article! I fought in my countries service and put my life on the line in order that the citizens of my country have the same freedoms as we have always had. Now I am told that my freedom to smoke, get a job and decide for myself as an adult, is being taken away! This goes against what this country was founded on and I am mad. I tend to vote against and campaine hard against those that make me mad and tread upon my freedoms. See you in 2012 antis!
Copied!

 

[collin]

You will NOT be hired on any Fire Department if you smoke. Period.

Take it to court if you like, you will loose. It's an insurance coverage thing.
We smoke pipes, pipe smoking is one thing,.....but cigarette smoking is something completely different.
No offense guys,...I'm old and I grew up in a time when EVERYONE smoked cigarettes, and with the exception of ONE,..they're all dead, and they died early, from not being able to breathe correctly. That's a fact.
However, I do find one thing interesting,....me, my sister, classmates and all my friends are in our 50's and 60's,...we grew up in homes and rode in cars our entire lives that were filled with the cigarette smoke of our parents. None of us have any effects what-so-ever of the alleged "second-hand-smoke". And I'd be willing to bet neither do any of the liars that make the false claims about it.

 

[cornguy]

Like Kevin, I'm getting sick of tired of the anti-smoking crusade and the ever-increasing restrictions on smoking.

And I also agree with Tommy.

Yet, I keep hoping the anti-tobacco movement will run out of steam after public smoking is all but eradicated. Out of sight, out of mind. But I'm not so sure.

There seems to be nothing to indicate that the current worldwide momentum of anti-tobacco measures will fade away.

Heck, I just want to be able to buy my baccy and smoke my pipe in peace, like my grandpa did.

However, when it comes to the article itself I am not at all impressed.

What's really new here?

Nothing.

It's a rant. It doesn't enlighten, inform or even entertain.

The author demonstrates a lack of legal knowledge and hisorical and social context.

And how can you compare a smoker to a member of specific race?

That verges on the absurd.

Here's the passage in question:

"In the case of the hospital bans against smokers, think about what would happen if just one hospital or medical business turned away an African-American.
Short answer, the NAACP would rally so quickly against that hospital and would slap a lawsuit against them so fast that by the end of the work day THAT DAY the subject who had been discriminated against would effectively own the business he was denied employment at."

What's his point?

Surely he's not suggesting that discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or age is any way the equivalent of a company acting within its legal rights by hiring only non-smokers.

This ill-advised comparison might be interpreted by some as borderline ignorant or gratuitous.

Yes, I'm tired of all the anti-smoking noise.

But self-indulgent, uninformed whining isn't a particularly effective response.

 

[jjtroutbum]

Yep what the corn fella said is about what I thought. The author made way to much about things he knows nothing about. (legal things)
As to the subject of the article.
Workers rights. Complete bull. Don't like the way your job is. Quit, GTFO, STFU and go. There is someone else that wants and needs a job and will not whine that its a lil bit smokey, underpaid, lacks benefits, or eight weeks of vacation.
If you could do it better. Then do it yourself create a product or service that's in demand, work hard, and turn a profit. Need help? Hire yourself some whinny lil cus that tells you how to run what you have built. Then tell em for yourself to GTFO.

 

[admin]

@cornguy & jjtroutbum
The tone & style of the article was my decision.
Carter said he could either write it as a rant of sorts, or state facts and figures, more calm and toned down.
We both felt that at this point in time to try one of the anti's own approaches. They have several techniques, like lying, and using fake "facts", which we are not doing. However, one of their other approaches is to scream at the top of their lungs (no pun intended) about the evil injustices being done to non-smokers just by the existence of smokers on the planet. They have turned smokers into a evil waste of space to be judged and looked down upon.
We decided it was time to scream at the top of our lungs too.
I directed the tone & style of the article, and Carter executed his marching orders perfectly.
If you do not like the article, then I am the one to blame. Carter is extremely professional and schooled in journalism and psychology, which is why I hired him.

 

[cornguy]

Hey, I am not "blaming" anyone.

But compared to many other articles I've read here, this one comes up short on a number of levels.

In contrast, I praised the recent article about how tobacco feeds the soul.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a proper rant, or blowing off some steam.

If that was the intent of the piece then it accomplished its objective, but it did so without imparting any particular insight. And, really, equating the hiring of non-smokers to racial discrimination? That's not only inaccurate it's excessive and insensitive.

Sure, we're all tired of the unrelenting waterfall of anti-tobacco regulations. Yes, some of the science surrounding second-hand is suspect. And, the anti-smoking zeal of some of the self-appointed righteous public health guardians is offensive and frustrating.

Nanny needs to take a chill pill and keep her hands off my tobacco pouch.

So I can understand the need to vent and I don't blame anyone who wants to open the window and shout "enough already!"

In the end, we agree in tone, but not in execution.

I spent more than 30 years editing and rewriting professional journalists which means I'm a tougher critic than most readers. I'm afraid I can't help that.

Old habits die hard.

 

[admin]

I don't know if all you guys click the subscribe box to be notified of new comments on articles, so just to let you know, the author responded:
How To Beat A Dead Dog: Anti-Smoking Activism in Modern America