U.S. Wants Tobacco Firms To Admit Smoking Dangers

[rumborak]

I think what he's saying is the person who owns the building should be able to make the decision, which I can understand.  If you own the building maybe not letting people smoke is the right choice (especially in, say, elevators), but should it be the government's choice?

I think there is a crossover point, over a certain size, where it's no longer that clear-cut. Bottom line is, people won't abstain from coming to a show just because it is a smoking show. But that's not because they don't mind being inundated with smoking, it's because there are no alternatives, other than not seeing the artist at all. If there was a fluid market, i.e. consumers could just choose an equally satisfying non-smoking show of the same artist, this would be all fine. But, that's not the way it works, and consumers are kinda held hostage to the whims of the organizer as to whether their health will be compromised.
The problem lies in relying on the principles of a fluid market when the market actually isn't fluid.

rumborak

[PlaysLikeMyung]

I think what he's saying is the person who owns the building should be able to make the decision, which I can understand.  If you own the building maybe not letting people smoke is the right choice (especially in, say, elevators), but should it be the government's choice?

I think there is a crossover point, over a certain size, where it's no longer that clear-cut. Bottom line is, people won't abstain from coming to a show just because it is a smoking show. But that's not because they don't mind being inundated with smoking, it's because there are no alternatives, other than not seeing the artist at all. If there was a fluid market, i.e. consumers could just choose an equally satisfying non-smoking show of the same artist, this would be all fine. But, that's not the way it works, and consumers are kinda held hostage to the whims of the organizer as to whether their health will be compromised.
The problem lies in relying on the principles of a fluid market when the market actually isn't fluid.

rumborak

Yep. And I was going to point out to WW, as rumby did, that even though smokers have the freedom to smoke, I don't necessarily have the freedom to AVOID it.

Regarding concerts, because I think this is turning out to be a great example: Even at outdoor amphitheaters, if I'm not on the lawn, I may be subjected to people around me who smoke. Unlike the lawn, I do NOT have the choice to find another seat away from to them because I'm bound to the seat I purchased.

[William Wallace]

WW, sometimes I don't understand you. I mean, your philosophy is the maximization of personal liberty. But, isn't it obvious that in many cases one's exercise of a liberty entails the curtailing of other people's liberty?
One guy is exercising his liberty to smoke, but 10 guys around, because they can't move in the confined area, have their liberty of clear air curtailed.
I mean, you have to look at the *sum* of the liberties.

I have no problems with smoking in open areas. people can just step to the side and that's it. That's not possible in confined spaces.

rumborak

I think what he's saying is the person who owns the building should be able to make the decision, which I can understand.  If you own the building maybe not letting people smoke is the right choice (especially in, say, elevators), but should it be the government's choice?

Yeah.

Over here it is already illegal to smoke inside public buildings, restaurants and bars. I like it, I never come back from a concert smelling of smoke and with a sore throat anymore.

I like this. I hate being surrounded by smokers, especially when I'm not really given a choice to avoid it (concerts, primarily).

And, I know what you're thinking: you could just not GO to the concert. Well, I'm going. And I shouldn't have to be surrounded by acrid smoke. Damn libertarians

Well, then suck it up. If the venue doesn't feel it's necessary to restrict smoking at the show, why should anybody have to cater to you? Besides, it's not hard to avoid smoke at concerts, especially if they're outside, like Ozzfest.

The problem is that smoking is unhealthy for the people around you. I couldn't care less if they decided to use heroin at concerts, just don't bother me with it. Why should I miss out on a fun event just because some bastards think it's fine to pollute the air with their lung-cancer inducing addiction? I think they should be the ones that should take the effort to step outside to smoke.

If I take stink bombs with me to each venue, should the rest of the people be fine with that? They can stop going if they don't like it.

There's no way you're going to be exposed to enough smoke to cause yourself any serious harm; Smoke is stinky and you don't like the smell. That's all it is. And why all the hyperbolic language? "Bastards...pollute the air with their lung-cancer inducing addiction?" Seriously, you sound ridiculous.

If venue owners decided to allow people to set off stink bombs during concerts, I'd have no problem with it. Of course that's not happening, and I hope you see why that's a silly comparison. Smoking is still fairly common among musicians and music fans. That means a lot of the people who buy tickets, t-shirts and alcohol at concerts probably smoke too. So it's a wise decision to allow people who are going to spend money to enjoy themselves. Setting off a stink bomb is guaranteed to piss everybody off.

[TheVoxyn]

Over here it is already illegal to smoke inside public buildings, restaurants and bars. I like it, I never come back from a concert smelling of smoke and with a sore throat anymore.

I like this. I hate being surrounded by smokers, especially when I'm not really given a choice to avoid it (concerts, primarily).

And, I know what you're thinking: you could just not GO to the concert. Well, I'm going. And I shouldn't have to be surrounded by acrid smoke. Damn libertarians

Well, then suck it up. If the venue doesn't feel it's necessary to restrict smoking at the show, why should anybody have to cater to you? Besides, it's not hard to avoid smoke at concerts, especially if they're outside, like Ozzfest.

The problem is that smoking is unhealthy for the people around you. I couldn't care less if they decided to use heroin at concerts, just don't bother me with it. Why should I miss out on a fun event just because some bastards think it's fine to pollute the air with their lung-cancer inducing addiction? I think they should be the ones that should take the effort to step outside to smoke.

If I take stink bombs with me to each venue, should the rest of the people be fine with that? They can stop going if they don't like it.

There's no way you're going to be exposed to enough smoke to cause yourself any serious harm; Smoke is stinky and you don't like the smell. That's all it is. And why all the hyperbolic language? "Bastards...pollute the air with their lung-cancer inducing addiction?" Seriously, you sound ridiculous.

It's because I absolutely hate people smoking around me. I've had concerts where afterwards my lungs hurt because of all the smoke. It's not really fun to have to choose between that or missing one of your favourite activities just because there is a group of people (who are a real minority usually) who don't seem to care if they bother the majority of the people.

It's no reason for venues to ban it, because people will come either way. But I don't think there would be a huge decline in attendance if they did - especially not if it's nation wide.

[rumborak]

The question is whether it is fine with a minority holding the majority hostage because the organizer sees no difference in revenue either way.

I think at this point it is rather obvious that revenue is a rather poor motivator for proper behavior.

rumborak

[William Wallace]

The question is whether it is fine with a minority holding the majority hostage because the organizer sees no difference in revenue either way.

I think at this point it is rather obvious that revenue is a rather poor motivator for proper behavior.

rumborak

Who is being held hostage? How is your experience made so miserable by somebody smoking that a law must be enacted?

[rumborak]

In confined spaces? Yes. Outside? No.

rumborak

[Dublagent66]

Hmmm, should Pizza Hut be required to admit the dangers of cholesterol?
Should Budweiser be required to admit the dangers of alcohol?

I could go on foreva baby...danger is everywhere.


Yeah, smoking on airplanes has been banned for quite some time, but what about farts?  No one wants to be exposed to someone's cigarette smoke but the smell of the inside of their ass is ok?

Come on people, I'd much rather smell cigarette smoke.  Ban farts instead.

Oh yeah, and they should ban smoking in public restrooms also.  The smell of smoke and shit is beyond disgusting.   

[orcus116]

Ban shitting.

[William Wallace]

Ban shitting.

In confined spaces? Yes. Outside? No.

rumborak

[Fuzzboy]

Ban confined spaces

[Ravenheart]

Why should I miss out on a fun event just because some bastards think it's fine to pollute the air with their lung-cancer inducing addiction? I think they should be the ones that should take the effort to step outside to smoke.

I have nothing of actual substance to add to this discussion, but I just have to respond to this. I think a big problem in this country is this obsession with targeting smokers as these awful people who who need to be isolated from the rest of society to serve some greater good. It's really disgusting--far more disgusting than cigarettes. I am of the bizarre and scary opinion that smokers are people, too. We don't need to force them to smoke exclusively in their basements and spray a fire extinguisher after each puff.

My best friend smokes. I wish she would stop, and she wishes she could, but it helps her deal with the stresses in her life at the moment, and I accept it. I don't appreciate it when people's superiority complexes take them over and cause them to believe they're on a more elevated status of morality than her simply because they don't smoke the dreaded sin sticks. I'd much rather hang out with a smoker than some smug, arrogant asshole who has a shit fit every time someone lights a cig. People like that seriously need to get over themselves. It's stupid, unnecessary, and annoying.

I'm not playing the "poor smokers they're so oppressed" card. It'd be nice if tobacco was banished from the world, but this tirade against smokers is getting old and moronic.

[YtseJam]

WARNING! Beer will give you a beer belly and make you drunk if you drink it.

WARNING! McDoanlds will make you a lard ass if you eat it.

I agree smoking is bad but if you don't know it you're a tardlik

[pogoowner]

This thread reminds me of the Seinfeld episode in which Kramer sues the Tobacco company for ruining his appearance, since that wasn't mentioned on the package.

[William Wallace]

Found some updates. Judging by their arguments, I'm willing to bet the tobacco industry will destroy the FTC in court.

...the tobacco companies have submitted a challenge to these proposed statements, arguing that they violate the D.C. appellate court's requirement that the corrective statements be restricted to factual and uncontroversial information, that they violate the First Amendment by requiring the tobacco companies to declare wrongdoing that they do not admit they conducted, and that they violate due process by compelling the companies, under threat of contempt, to admit wrongdoing in statements that could then be used by plaintiffs in other courts as evidence of alleged wrongdoing. In adherence to the DOJ's style of including such prefatory statements in their proposed corrective statements, I include such prefatory clauses here.

The link above also has a list of "corrective statements" that the federal government should have to publish, which show how they misled the public about the dangers of smoking. My favorite:

Corrective Statement for Deception Regarding Flavored Cigarettes Being a Gateway to Addiction Among Youth

We told you that flavored cigarettes are a gateway to life-long addiction among youth. We implied that if flavored cigarettes were taken off the market, the problem of cigarette smoking among youth would be greatly reduced. Here's the truth:
At the time we made the statement, flavored cigarettes made up less than 0.1% of the youth market.
Taking the few remaining flavored cigarette brands off the market will have no appreciable effect on youth smoking.
It is the non-flavored brands - the Marlboros, Camels, and Newports - which are responsible for almost all youth addiction to cigarettes.
The only flavoring that is significantly contributing to youth addiction - menthol - is the one flavoring which has been exempted from the FDA's ban on flavored cigarettes.

[orcus116]

Semi related but if tobacco companies are being forced to admit the dangers of smoking on their products can we please have fast food companies start showing commercials featuring the food they actually serve? Surely it would make the product way more unappealing.

[rumborak]

That would actually be pretty gross.

Regarding the tobacco thing, I'd much rather see insurances tailoring their fees aggressively according to the person's lifestyle. So, smoker? Add X dollars. Lifestyle-obese? Add Y dollars.
If I could walk with a slip  from my doc that says I don't smoke and exercise regularly and that would lower my monthly payment, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

rumborak