As I smoker, I’m following the European debate about the proposal of printing full-colour pictures of cancers etc. on cigarette packs (as in Canada, if I’m not wrong). The actual regulation establish 40% of the pack surface should be covered by health warning (Smoking Kills), so I don’t feel pictures could improve communication more than that. Smokers know it kills.

Furthermore, I keep receiving by email fake labels to cover the real ones on the packs (I attach the file for smokers to have a laugh and print it out on stickers – I actually sent it to my boss and my request for Friday afternoon off as been immediately approved…) :D

How’s the regulation on health warnings in your country?

I don’t feel pictures could improve communication more than that. Smokers know it kills.You're right, they do know. We all know it. I don't think those pictures will make people kick the habit. The real trick must be to persuade kids not to start smoking, and I have to tell you, my mother made quite a job in that respect. I remember it well:

She used to work in the lung ward as a nurse for many years. Well, she took me there, and soon enough I noticed a man in a wheel chair. He didn't look disabled to me... With all the directness of a five year old I asked him why he could not walk?

He looked me straight in the eye for a while. Then he told me (very, very quietly and slowly, because of the effort it took) that his lungs were in such poor shape after years of smoking, that he couldn't even muster the strength to stand up, and much less walk. He was quite frank about it, and also told me that he was 45 years old and did not expect to reach 46.

I got the idea: I will be 45 in a couple of weeks, and I never tasted tobacco in my life. Nor do I have any intention to do so.

How’s the regulation on health warnings in your country?I think it's the same or similar to what you have in Italy.

/Claes

The rules in Ontario (province within Canada) will be changing, I believe. First off, the province will become smoke-free in restaurants and workplaces in the near future. Currently, this is set up to be a municipal by-law and one that I am very thankful for. I anticipate seeing the responses and reactions to the province-wide ban.

Ontario is also looking at making the public display of cigarettes for sale illegal. In other words, hidden beneath the counter.

Unfortunately, any other comments I have on the sale of tobacco and the usage of it are in violation of the Cove's politcal discussion rule, so I'll just keep 'em to myself. *insert innocent whistling here* :D

I have never smoked. Similar to Claes, I have good reason not to. I have seen a grandmother wither away with emphazema. My father used to smoke heavily when I was a child. During that time, I averaged six colds in winter alone, which evolved to bronchitis in more than 50% of them. My asthma is now finally under control. And every morning when he would wake up, he had that "cough"...the one that makes a cat coughing up a hair sound pleasant.

I'm a three pack a day ex-smoker. I don't think I have to say anymore than that.

Me too Al - I started smoking at age 8 out behind the family barn. I haven't had a cigarette in almost 20 years.

I'm a three pack a day ex-smoker. I don't think I have to say anymore than that.No, I don't suppose you do. Three pack a day? That really is a lot. :eek: It must have been :censor: to quit... which is another reason for my never having tried it: I seriously doubt having the strength of character needed to quit if I ever got myself into the habit.

Al & Dave: Forgive my curiosity, but: What made you decide to quit? Anyone who manages to do that deserves a :applause:

/Claes

Added later: Let's see what the poll tells us....

Me too Al - I started smoking at age 8 out behind the family barn. I haven't had a cigarette in almost 20 years. I quit February 13, 1981.

Al & Dave: Forgive my curiosity, but: What made you decide to quit? Anyone who manages to do that deserves a :applause: A duodenal ulcer.

Well, RC may be politically correct, but I've NEVER been accused of that :-)

If I get shot at sunrise for this, so be it....SOMEONE has to stand up for the smokers.

I am a smoker, and have been for 30+ years. I made the choice for myself, wasn't coerced or forced into it. I am fully aware that it is hazardous to myself, and to nonsmokers who are forced to inhale my secondhand smoke.

I am in partial agreement with the legislation that bans smoking in restaurants. However, I feel that owners of private establishments should have the right to designate their facilities as NON-smokefree...in fact, make them smoking MANDATORY!

And let's not talk about the Legion. A whole generation of young men and women who were issued free cigarettes by our government while serving their country. Now they're told that, in their OWN CLUB, they're not allowed to smoke, not allowed to have a smoking area....NOTHING.

No, my 80 year old father has to go outside in the snow and sleet to have his cigarette!

Protection of teens and preteens is one thing, but this is carrying it a bit TOO far. Government has too much say in our lives, or at least we are allowing them to.

Sorry, but I'm gonna light up a couple more at the same time, and stage my own (semi)silent protest.

I've never really smoked, and definitely not cigarettes, just played some with pipes and cigars. I'll still occasionally have a cigar - with friends on Christmas & New Year's Eve, and a pipe occasionally during a historic reenactment. So I'm not entirely certain what that makes me by the above poll, though I voted tried once/twice. Tobacco use per year - probably less than once a month, and cigarettes never.

On the other hand, I firmly believe we're reacting to the harm from smoking (& second hand smoke especially) excessively. (I'm not arguing that both smoke & second hand smoke don't harm people, just that our reaction is excessive.) I view smoking at least partly as a question of personal freedom - should there be smoke-free locations - absolutely. Should there be venues where smoking is permitted, and if you want to be there you'll have to deal with the smoke - again, absolutely. The question in part is how much should we the people allow government to control our habits/vices. Tobacco's a specially vexacious question because here in the US, we support the growing of tobacco through farm subsidies, we also restrict the growing of tobacco through allotments given historically to farmers, we tax the blazes out of it at state and national levels and use the taxes for various reasons, and we also have the "tobacco settlement" with big pay-outs for lawyers and the states that was supposed to in part provide money for Stop Smoking campaigns and health support for smokers. Jeez - talk about schizoprenic behaviour!

Overall - I guess I take a more libertarian view - people should be able to engage in potentially dangerous behaviour when they know the dangers involved (Not true, I agree in the past, but I'm 52, and find it difficult to believe that anyone my age or younger isn't well aware of the dangers of smoking tobacco.), and also when their actions have minimal affect on others. I'm also not certain if the results of government restrictions on recreational substances are't as negative as the free use of them might be/was. (NB - personally, the only 2 drugs I use on a regular reoccuring basis are caffeine and alcohol, as a glass or 2 of wine with dinner & and an occasional single malt scotch with friends.)

:cool: Let me state up front that I am a reformed smoker. My wife still smokes. She, by her own choice does not smoke in the house. I stay out of the garage (smoking room). I believe that part of the issue with smoking, here in southern California is the litter involve. There is 13 miles of beach in LA county smoke free. I do not believe it was the smell of the cigarettes as much as the butts littering the beach that made this happen. Look in the ash tray of a car that a smoker drives. Look at public ash trays and see what is on the groundl. I believe that smokers have a responsibilty to clean up after themselves. I was in the military and did my fair share of policing butts. I am now 59 years old and do not pick up cigarette butts for anyone including my wife. I realize this is a very sensitive topic and I hope I have not stepped on too many toes. If you smoke please clean up after yourself. SMOKE ON AT YOUR OWN RISK.
Thanks and have a great day.

It is not illegal.

New smoking warning

"You know what smokes do, it is your choice"

Let me tell you all, there is a more lethal choice being chosen every day.

It is not illegal..Very good point.

Over here it will be from 1 june. At least in pubs, restaurants and so on. Sweden will follow Norway and Ireland in prohbiting smoking in such places. We'll have to see how that turns out... I wonder how much resentment it will create among the smokers?

Personally I think it's great, due to the fact that I'll finally be able to go to the pub or a restaurant without getting sick (Note: no exaggeration here - I really do get sick by other peoples smoke)

So, what do you think about it?

/Claes

I voted 'No- Not anymore'. Just a couple of weeks ago, I quit smoking completely (for good..hopefully)

Truth is, it is really easy to kick the smoking habit..over the last 25 years I've done it several times ! :rolleyes:

I voted 'No- Not anymore'. Just a couple of weeks ago, I quit smoking completely (for good..hopefully)You did? Great.:agree1:

/Claes

It is not illegal.

You're right, it's not. And the reasons for that blow me out of the water. This is also why I'm seriously biting my tongue and refraining from starting a political debate or tirade. :rolleyes:

"You know what smokes do, it is your choice"

Again, you are right. It is their choice to smoke. Just as it is my choice not to. However, I would like a nice evening out every now and then...and, I'll admit, I've enjoyed it more in smoke-free environments. So have many of the smokers I've been with on those occasions. :)

In Ontario, we can choose if we want our educational tax dollars to go towards the public system or the Catholic system. Wonder if the day will come when we can chose how our health taxes are allocated? *sigh* Wishful thinking on my part, I suppose.

I smoked cigarettes for a short time when I first started midnight shifts back in college. When I found I couldn't do a lap in the school's pool, I quit, but I still take an occasional cigar. I also worked on tobacco farms while going to school (very hard manual labor).

I'm a little more sensitive to the smoke these days than I used to be, and don't particularly enjoy being in an area completely filled with it, but I still wonder if the rules are getting a little restrictive.

I agree with Kevin about the US government's behavior with respect to how tobacco is dealt with, though the government subsidies are now history, with the selling of this past year's crop (the govt price support program has been done away with). I live in the state of Kentucky, where large amounts of both burley and dark-fired tobacco are grown, and we have one of the lowest tax structures on tobacco of any of the 50 states, and also some of the lowest cigarrette prices. Our state politicians are loathe to add any new taxes to tobacco products, for fear of their constituents. My problem with that is that our state's insurance rates are through the roof, and our state population's health is not in the top bracket (lots of overweight smokers here). I don't understand, with my states Medicare/Medicaid woes, why my state isn't tagging tobacco products with a health tax to get the dollars needed for state health care for the thousands of smokers whose habit is causing health problems that are burdening our state's health care system.

Not to stray too far from the topic; but what is more harmful to society, cigarettes or alcohol? Both types of behavior are made by choice.
For those of us living in the USA,should one or both be banned by the Patriot Act?

Well, I think it’s time to explicit my position, as many members have already done here. I’m a smoker, as I wrote in my first post, I know it kills, and I also feel it’s my right, as a citizen, to smoke as long as the government is selling me cigarettes and I pay taxes on that (in Italy, by the way, the easiest solution to balance any economic incongruence seems to be raising cigarettes’ price….). Just to be fair, I should admit I only pay 60% taxes on cigarettes, and that probably doesn’t allow me to smoke anywhere, even if I could probably bring my government in front of a WTO panel for “anti-reciprocal mercantile behaviour”. :D

I like places where I can’t smoke, and therefore I can breathe freely, but there's also the other side. The Italian law will prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants, malls, any public building inside and outside (schools, etc) starting from January the 10th. Dancing will be included, as well as any restaurant/bar which isn’t able to completely separate smoking and no-smoking areas. Apparently, anyway, no regulation has been provided for private and night clubs. In my city a few places already became “private clubs”, where you can smoke as much as you want ‘cause you asked to join, so you should accept all the venue’s regulations – practically, normal bars and dancings are moving to “club” denomination, so they can now charge an annual fee to let you smoke (and they also have tax cuts...). Does this really make sense? Don’t know.

I still think I should maintain my right to smoke and drink as long as my freedom doesn’t bother other people. But if you charge 60% taxes on my vices, there should be a place where I can fully enjoying it. If not, I see some lack of coherence.

For what concerns governments’ contradictions on “tobacco growing” and “cigarettes taxes” Vs “consumers’ health care” I don’t wanna be too political, so I’ll better be silent. :mad:

I guess I agree with Kevin H. I am a cigarette smoker, but when attending re-enactments we all switch to cigars. The members of our unit are doctors (2), lawyers, machinists, etc. The doctors are the first to break out the cigars around the campfire. I only have a couple glasses of wine a year, usually at Christmas and New Years. I also think booze is much more lethal than smoking.

I have never even tried smoking. My dad smoked, and the second-hand smoke gagged me! I thought the smell was repulsive (still do-- no offense). Smoking, like drinking, or going swimming in Michigan this time of year might not always make sense, but it legal, and a choice. I might do more damage to my body by consuming vast quantities of Pepsi (you can substitute coffee).

However, if we made everything that was dangerous, or stupid illegal, then nothing would be legal! "You can have my Pepsi, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!"...or something like that. ;)

There must be a lot of smokers that come here. I *thought* that about 25% of the world-wide population smoke.

Anyone have any links to stats?

I'm a three pack a day ex-smoker. I don't think I have to say anymore than that.I do about 2. I guess I can't say much more. I don't have any kids in the house but years ago when I did, I smoked and the 'ex' did as well, but the kid very rarely was sick with anything.

I'm not pro-smoking, but if you want the 'demon', it's alcohol. I believe it's destruction is 10 times worse, but in other ways such as family breakups and such. I do drink, so this is not from a 'prohibitionist'. But I like to put some things in perspective.

I find this thread very interesting and thank you all for your contributions.

My husband and I do not smoke. His parents both smoke cigarettes. Our children are now 4 and 2 and are starting to ask questions about the cigarettes. So far, I've been at a loss as to how to explain it to them. I've told them that smoking is bad for you and "that's why Daddy and I don't smoke" but I have no idea how to handle "then why do Poppa and Grandma smoke?" - I told them that I don't know and that they'd have to ask Poppa and Grandma.

My Father-In-Law told me once in no uncertain terms that he enjoys smoking and has no desire to quit. This was when I was pregnant and refused to go to their house since the smoke smell made me quite ill during that time.

So what to tell the children? I'd be interested in any ideas since I've avoided the topic as much as possible so far.

You tell them what you're saying here and you cite the facts. The fact is smoking is expensive and will kill you early.

The problem is, in the long run children will do what they will - They're humans. Remember when you were a child? You have to hope that their decisions will be 'good' decisions.

I have watched the data from a lot of programs such as abstinance from 'intimate relations' to abstinance from marijuana (and other drugs) to abstinance from alcohol. None of the programs are effective *long term*. In the US we've had a program called DARE which is an anti-drug program. One cannot 'condemn' the program because the intentions are good. But, long term data shows it has little to no long term effects - Which some would call a waste of money funding the program since no effect can be statistically demonstrated.

I wish you the best of 'luck'. As I said, all I can recommend is that you give them the facts. "You can lead a horse to water, but..."

BTW - My mother smoked, my father didn't.

You tell them what you're saying here and you cite the facts...
Exactly.

When I am a smoker (as Atul says, quiting is easy - I do it all the time) I keep it away from my kids - I don't mean hide it, I mean I don't smoke around them. When they ask me each time why I started again, I tell them the truth - I just don't know! I tell them that I started smoking when I was young and stupid enough to think I was COOL :rolleyes: , by the time I was old enough to realize how stupid it is, I was addicted. I try to explain to them that I do not hide my addiction from them as a means of trying to keep them from doing it; I want them to see me struggle with quiting over and over again; I want them to see my dumb *** outside on the porch freezing for the sake of a few puffs.

Does anyone else immediately light up when one of those "quit smoking" commercials comes on? I do - same as when you see a character in a movie with a smoke, it makes me want one.

I do about 2. I guess I can't say much more. I don't have any kids in the house but years ago when I did, I smoked and the 'ex' did as well, but the kid very rarely was sick with anything.

I'm not pro-smoking, but if you want the 'demon', it's alcohol. I believe it's destruction is 10 times worse, but in other ways such as family breakups and such. I do drink, so this is not from a 'prohibitionist'. But I like to put some things in perspective.

Probably because alcohol has both acute AND chronic effects (bad), where tobacco is about the chronic effect on health. Other than not liking the smell and smoke, tobacco does not come with the acute effects. Nor does tobacco come with the social effects (other than pissing people off with the smoke :D ) that alcohol does.

We could drag drugs (from marijuana on up) into this as well, I guess, but I digress.

I do think that both tobacco and alcohol ought to be taxed, with resulting funds to go for both health and social costs from their use/abuse. Voluntary use of both, overall, put a pretty big drag on the health care system.

I do think that both tobacco and alcohol ought to be taxed, with resulting funds to go for both health and social costs from their use/abuse. Voluntary use of both, overall, put a pretty big drag on the health care system.


But Joe, do you REALLY think that is what would happen and is happening? The money from the big states' lawsuit against tobacco appears to me to be used for everything but covering the health care costs, and forget about prevention programs, for the most part. It appears that the money has been treated as any other general revenue.

One of the problems with demonizing alcohol is that there is a growing body of evidence that moderate drinking can be beneficial for people with a family history of heart problems. I haven't run across anything similar for cigarettes/tobacco, though there may be some relaxation benefits.

I've heard claims for medical benefits of marijuana, but haven't seen any good statistical studies of the same. Opiates definitely have a place in pain relief both historically and at the present, though abuse has been a problem for a long time and addiction is apparently a constant fight especially for someone with chronic pain.

For a lot of substances, it's not the moderate use of them that has such a negative affect on one's health, one's family, or one's relationships. Rather it is the overuse/addiction to them that causes the negative affects.

Craig,

I totally agree. I was speaking with the "in a perfect world..." sense ;) . For sure, the tobacco lawsuit payouts have been mispent in KY. Our state govt holds it close and uses it to suit them. Our news editorials slam them for not using it correctly, then turn around and point out OTHER great uses for it, none of which are close to what the settlement was about.

Kevin, I agree that it is abuse of the substances that is at issue. Nearly anything can be overindulged in and abused (even, gulp, chocolate :D ). We can only speak to taxation for medical treatment by govt for over-the-counter stuff like tobacco and alcohol, as controlled substances like opiates and marijuana are just that, contolled, and are not INTENDED for normal, public use and purchasing is not through normal channels.

Sure, it's ben shown that moderate alcohol intake (red wine or beer) can be beneficial for certain conditions, but it's also been shown to be possibly deleterious.

What I'm saying is that these substances that have shown such large medical/social ramifications might ought to carry some in-bound cost to the user to offset the deleterious effects off their use, with their associated costs to society at large. If I don't smoke, why should my tax dollar be used to cover health costs of the person who smoked for years and got emphysema? Sounds harsh, but I'd rather have my tax dollar go to something else medically related.

The main difference that stands out in my mind between alcohol and cigarette smoking is simple: I can sit beside you in my home while you drink alcohol and I have no ill effects whatsoever. If I sit beside you in my home while you smoke a cigarette I am absorbing second-hand smoke, my furniture/curtains/carpet/etc begins to smell like smoke, my clothes smell like smoke, and all sorts of allergies get worse just from the cigarette smoke.

Anyone ever check into a hotel room that was "non-smoking" and then try to get rid of or ignore that stale smoke smell??? Yuck.

Dear All:

I quit October 31, 1984, after being a one pack a day and sometimes a two pack day smoker. It can be done. I quit cold turkey and actually stopped smoking at home much before the quit date.

Charmed

Dear All:

I quit October 31, 1984, after being a one pack a day and sometimes a two pack day smoker. It can be done. I quit cold turkey and actually stopped smoking at home much before the quit date.

Charmed



Is that when you 'replaced' cigarettes with your coffee addiction? :)

I'm currently at less than a pack a day. Smoked 2 1/2 + years ago when I was a full-time bartender. January 1, 2005 is my LAST day of smoking!!! Already have the 10 year old boy (among some others) as my "support group".

I'm currently at less than a pack a day. Smoked 2 1/2 + years ago when I was a full-time bartender. January 1, 2005 is my LAST day of smoking!!! Already have the 10 year old boy (among some others) as my "support group".

Dear Bill:

Jan 1, 2005 say you? That's two more days than need. Make it Dec 30, 2004. The cigarette you smoke today should be the last one. Rooting for you.

Charmed

Is that when you 'replaced' cigarettes with your coffee addiction? :)

Dear little_cee:

The coffee addiction - if you want to call it that - actually came much much later. I did not replace cigarettes with coffee. However, I know I gained weight after I quit.

Now, I am down to my lowest weight in more than 15 years (161 pounds and holding, was at 155 pounds and even 153 pounds briefly) and have even quit the Cappuccino thing!

I do know someone who quit cigarettes and took up chewing tobacco instead. Both are equally bad for the person with the addiction. The only difference is the lack of second hand smoke when you chew tobacco.

A very dear friend of mine, a year younger than me, died two years ago this week because of throat cancer. So, Bill Ryan, do not replace your cigarettes with any of the above - coffee or chewing tobacco.

Best wishes for the new year. Have a blast!

Anyone else going to try quitting for the New Year? I've done it a few times with assistance (the patch, then Zyban) and neither time worked as soon as I went off the help, so this time I'm going cold turkey.

Got it all planned out, got my motivation planned, and hopefully this time I'll make it.

I'll tell you what worked for my father - an x-ray of his lungs. The doctor showed him "this is picture of a healthy male's lungs" and then the "these are your lungs"

And this was WAY before those frying pan anti-drug commercials.

My father was so scared he came home, threw out all the cigarettes (including the ones he had hidden) and that was it - never smoked again. Started drinking lots of decaf coffee, though, every time he felt like having a cigarette he reached for another cup of coffee.

Not sure if a doctor will just x-ray your lungs for the heck of it but its a powerful image for motivation.

Good luck, and good luck to you all for a Happy New Year. :cool:

I started smoking when I was 12. I can still remember the brand of my first cigerette; Viceroy. At one point, when I was in the Corps, I was up to 3 packs a day; Pall Mall. I was impressed with the slogan on the pack "In hoc Signo Vinces".
I watched my Dad suffer for six months with Cancer. He was taken to the emergency room because he couldn't breathe, his lungs were full of smoke. They cleaned him out and found a spot on his lung. He left the hospital that night and wasn't seen for a year. At the time he weighed 150 pounds, when he returned he was all bloated and weighed 220 pounds. The Cancer had taken its toll, it had spread to all of his organs. He was in severe pain for six months, first at home then the last two weeks in the hospital. He went from 220 pounds to 50 pounds. On his last day his heart finally gave out and he died. That was in 1975 and he was 55 years old.
AND I CONTINUED TO SMOKE; for the next 18 years. Although I tried to quit several times.
I was finally able to quit, for good, in 1993.

In a few days (January the 10th) also Italy will ban smoke in public venues as restaurants, bars, dancings and so on. Actually public society is not really divided on the matter, as - apparently - 75% of the population support this measure.

What is interesting is the different position that owners of the venues and the Ministry are obviously substaining: the Minister says there will be no financial consequences, as many no-smokers which weren't able to have a night out because of smoke-filled bars/restaurants will replace that minimum percentage of addicted smokers which will stop going into no-smoking venues.

On the other side, and that's economically interesting, some owners claim that a no-smoker is spending, on average, much less of a smoker during a night out. This view seems to underscore a certain correlation between smoking and "other vices" (as excessive drinking, to quote the most expensive..).

Has anyone ever seen figures or statistics on that? Do you feel such a correlation exists? Are smokers spending more than no-smokers in enetertainment, drinking, gambling and so on?

On the other side, and that's economically interesting, some owners claim that a no-smoker is spending, on average, much less of a smoker during a night out. This view seems to underscore a certain correlation between smoking and "other vices" (as excessive drinking, to quote the most expensive..).I suppose we will have to wait and see. There may also be an induced correllation: Some non smokers (like myself) generally cannot stand that infernal smoke long enough to be able to spend as much as the smokers.
We get out long before that...:yuk:

/Claes

I'll tell you what worked for my father - an x-ray of his lungs. The doctor showed him "this is picture of a healthy male's lungs" and then the "these are your lungs"

And this was WAY before those frying pan anti-drug commercials.

My father was so scared he came home, threw out all the cigarettes (including the ones he had hidden) and that was it - never smoked again. Started drinking lots of decaf coffee, though, every time he felt like having a cigarette he reached for another cup of coffee.

Not sure if a doctor will just x-ray your lungs for the heck of it but its a powerful image for motivation.

Good luck, and good luck to you all for a Happy New Year. :cool:

Dear All:

Here's another motivation for quitting smoking - especially if you are a parent. A new study has found strong link between exposure to second hand smoke and children's grades (performance in various tests).

http://articles.health.msn.com/id/100099767/?GT1=5943

Any takers on this one? May be it was a good thing I quit when my kids were still very young. (The results do speak! ;) )

Charmed

I will have to agree with Ron!
I have always said , if I am driving down the road in my car and smoke a cigarette ( ziggy ) I have a slight chance of killing someone ( unless I drop the ziggy and go looking for it while I am driving. However if I drink, or am under the influence of drugs the chances are very likely I will kill someone.
If you take a room full of people that smoke - a person will not die ( maybe years later depending how long they are in the room ) however put a car in the room running and you have just murdered everyone in the room.
silly but true!
now why is the government spending such time , effort and money on the non smoking laws, yet we have so much crime and especially drugs on our streets, schools, work places?? I don't understand - what is wrong with a ziggy compared to crime, alcohol or drugs?

just my opinion - I respect non smokers for never starting - but what is a non smokers bad habit - we all have one, mine is smoking

I will have to agree with Ron!
I have always said , if I am driving down the road in my car and smoke a cigarette ( ziggy ) I have a slight chance of killing someone ( unless I drop the ziggy and go looking for it while I am driving. However if I drink, or am under the influence of drugs the chances are very likely I will kill someone.
Yes, but it is also illegal.

If you take a room full of people that smoke - a person will not die ( maybe years later depending how long they are in the room ) however put a car in the room running and you have just murdered everyone in the room. silly but true!
Not a common occurrence, but illegal.

now why is the government spending such time , effort and money on the non smoking laws, yet we have so much crime and especially drugs on our streets, schools, work places??
It's low hanging fruit and they can make money from taxes. Personally, I believe that tobacco should be outlawed.

I don't understand - what is wrong with a ziggy compared to crime, alcohol or drugs?
Unlike alcohol, that only some people have a problem with, tobacco is addictive for all. Alcohol has been shown to be beneficial when used in moderation. The same cannot be said for tobacco.

Yes, but it is also illegal.


Not a common occurrence, but illegal.


It's low hanging fruit and they can make money from taxes. Personally, I believe that tobacco should be outlawed.


Unlike alcohol, that only some people have a problem with, tobacco is addictive for all. Alcohol has been shown to be beneficial when used in moderation. The same cannot be said for tobacco.

illegal yes! Now would you agree with legalizing marijuana? I personally hate drugs! Drugs are away of really screwing up your brain , health and all the people around you who care! Alcohol beneficial? My father died at 43 because of liver cancer. Me yes I am addicted to my cigarettes. My arguement still is and always will be why pick on the smokers when drugs and alcohol should get the attention of being more danger in society than cigarettes.
just my opinion

illegal yes! Now would you agree with legalizing marijuana? I personally hate drugs! Drugs are away of really screwing up your brain , health and all the people around you who care! Alcohol beneficial? My father died at 43 because of liver cancer. Me yes I am addicted to my cigarettes. My arguement still is and always will be why pick on the smokers when drugs and alcohol should get the attention of being more danger in society than cigarettes.
just my opinion

I'm sorry your father passed away at such a young age. I'm speculating that he wasn't a moderate drinker. I had a friend who died of throat cancer at 35. Some people are genetically predisposed to addiction. Abuse of any substance can be a problem. There are many drugs that are legal, but are controlled because overuse would be dangerous. It is based on the risk weighed against benefits. I believe that marijuana may be useful in some cases such as for Cancer and Glaucoma. What benefit can be derived from tobacco that would outweigh the risk?

I used to smoke a lot - 3 to 4 packs a day, 100 cigars a month, 2 - 3 pounds of pipe tobacco a year, plus 6 to 10 tins of "smokeless tobacco" a year (for when I was in fire hazard areas.)

I quit cold turkey on June 23, 1980, and haven't touched tobacco in any form since. It was NOT easy! To this day, when I see an old Humphrey Bogart or John Wayne movie, I still instinctively reach for my cigarettes when they light up. Thankfully, the pocket is empty.

I have a whole series of speeches I give on dealing with vices and addictions. Anyone who says or thinks addicted or habitual users are weak or stupid should indulge in a little more research.

I do know that each addict or user reaches his own personal "bottom" or crisis before he has a hope of kicking the beast.

I believe it important not to be judgmental of the user or the addict. That would be like being judgmental of a cancer victim who never indulged in any vices like smoking, drinking, or other chemical abuse as if it were somehow the victim's fault. It is just as important to be supportive of anyone trying various methods to quit.

I believe it important not to be judgmental of the user or the addict. That would be like being judgmental of a cancer victim who never indulged in any vices like smoking, drinking, or other chemical abuse as if it were somehow the victim's fault. It is just as important to be supportive of anyone trying various methods to quit.

I highly appologies, I get very frustrated when someone attacks smokers, when there are so many addictions out there that seem worse. Yes my father died young, but he drank to hide from problems. Don't get me wrong the man was amazingly intellegent, owned and ran a very successful manufacturing company, as I understand the pressure got to him. I would of love the chance to sit down with him now and discuss and debate with him about processes and all those exciting subject..since I am in the same field now.
On another note I would like to say I am a responsible smoker in the sense that if i am around non smokers i do not smoke , i repect their views. My dad smoked and my mom smokes. mom had 4 kids 2 smoke 2 don't. My sister as an example hates smoke. when i visit her , i don't smoke, when she visits me i clean the house before she comes, air the house out and i do not smoke while she is here. However i must admit the first thing i do when she is gone i have a cigarette. I am not ready or willing to quiet. guess i don't have the will power yet.that is not to say i will someday, i just have to be willing to.

"I believe it important not to be judgmental of the user or the addict"
It is just as important to be supportive of anyone trying various methods to quit.
we all need to remember that!

Higgson,

I just heard that Italys new smoking law is now in effect. Can you tell us about peoples reactions?

/Claes

Well, apparently 99,9% of the people just accepted the new way and stopped smoking where is not allowed anymore. I think it's definitely early to say if this is going to last in the next months - or years - or if it's just a consequence of smokers' decision to keep a low profile until the public debate focus on some other matters.

Some smokers associations are appealing to tribunals because of some specific provisions, while some others are asking for a referendum (which I feel, anyway, would be 80% against smoke, so of no use for smokers).

I thik the law is working, following the figure released today from the Italian Monopoly (the State Agency selling cigarettes), which states a -5% in tobacco sales. On the other way there's a +10% in cigarettes' surrogates sales (nicorettes, band-aid and so on), which could be a sign that many people are trying to take the new law as an occasion to quit for good. But it's to early also for evaluating if it's a short- or long-period tendence. What worries me is a +10% in sales of anti-depressants :truce: , but the figures I read weren't so clear so I'll wait to get more documentation before commenting on that issue.

There are two measures which are still heavily discussed:

- no possibility to keep smoking in private clubs (that means that a Cigar Club should create a smoking-area not occupying more than 49% of the internal space and strictly complying with the law, or be 100% no-smoking).

- interpretation (just a minority, but quite worrying) saying tha also private houses should be complying with this law (so technically 100% no-smoking) if a housekeeper or private cook is working there. That would touch people in their own places, and I think it would be the end of this law. :bonk:

Apparently it's working, anyway I couldn't guess if for fear of controls/fines or for real committment. As for me, well, keep smoking in my house, 5 cigarettes a day less while working (work at the 6th floor, a long way dows to smoke a cigarette and too much time consumed), and - for the moment - dind't have the occasion to spend a night out and see how it goes in dancings and night-clubs. I'll report after the weekend.

I keep hearing about increasing insurance costs, but I never see any breakdown of costs. Surely smoking is not the sole reason healthcare costs are rising.

What I would also like to know is for companies who go so far as to require 'random' urine tests for nicotine, how much does their insurance drop?

From The Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=605738) US firms' war on workers: where there's smoking, they're fired
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington

29 January 2005

It is often said there is no smoke without fire, but for workers in the US it is increasingly a case of "any smoke and you will be fired".

Four employees at a healthcare company based in Michigan were fired this week after they refused the firm's ultimatum to quit smoking. If the company, Weyco, survives any legal challenges, it will encourage a growing trend.

Across the US, companies are doing everything they can to encourage their staff to stop smoking. This limits the amount the companies have to spend on healthcare insurance.

Some firms are even refusing to hire applicants who admit they smoke. "Employers are realising the majority of health costs are spent on a small minority of workers," Bill Whitmer, chief executive of the Health Enhancement Research Organisation, an employer and healthcare coalition in Birmingham, Alabama, told the Los Angeles Times.

But critics say smokers are being unfairly discriminated against. They say that while federal and state laws prohibit companies turning down applicants because of race, religion or gender, those fired because they like to light up have few legal remedies.

At the moment it seems that the companies are winning the debate. Last month, a study by the Society for Human Resource Management found that nearly a third of US employers had introduced programmes to encourage their staff to stop smoking, that 5 per cent preferred not to hire smokers and 1 per cent flatly refused to take on applicants who admitted their habit.

Many companies require workers to take breathalyser tests that detect traces of carbon monoxide in the lungs or else submit to urine tests to detect nicotine.

Last autumn the Union Pacific Corp, a transportation company based in Nebraska, stopped hiring smokers in seven states. The company said it had been forced to make the move because of rising healthcare costs.

The bill had increased by 10 per cent for each of the past three years, it said.

Weyco began random drug tests for nicotine at the beginning of this year and said it would fire workers who failed the test or refused to quit smoking.

In Florida, meanwhile, a sheriff's office is demanding that all job applicants who have a recent history of smoking pass a polygraph test proving they no longer smoke outside work.

Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, told The Independent: "This is crazy and what is crazy is the idea that an employer has the right to dictate to a worker what he or she does in their own home.

"It's none of your boss's business what you do in your own home - or at least it should not be. You can drive a motorcycle, you can read Playboy, you can do what you want as long as it does not affect your job performance. If it affects your job performance, then fine, fire them for their poor job performance, but don't fire them for smoking."

Critics of Weyco and other companies seeking to restrict their employees' right to smoke say it is unclear whether smokers cost their employers more in heathcare payments. While some studies have shown smokers have higher absentee and lower productivity rates than non-smokers, research is limited.

Others say it is likely that smokers' healthcare costs do not increase dramatically until they are older and develop conditions such as emphysema, heart disease and cancer. By this time many have retired.

Mr Maltby said in principle there would be nothing wrong with smokers contributing a little more to their healthcare payments. But he said such a system would have to be fair for all and that workers who drove motorcycles "or who go skydiving" should also be made to made additional contributions.

Smoking rates in the US have continued to fall in recent years. An estimated 23 per cent of adults now smoke, compared to 37 per cent in 1970.

Regardless, employers say that in the absence of a national health system, they need to find new ways to control the amount they spend on healthcare for their staff. According to one report, healthcare premiums rose by more than 11 per cent last year, the fourth consecutive year to see a double-digit increase.

Interesting post, Marc. There was a company profiled on one of the news shows last week that has a policy against employees smoking...period. Whether at home or at work, no smoking. It is in one of the states that does not have laws protecting a smokers right to light up, so this guy is trying to enforce his policy at work. I think it was an insurance or a medical claims office, but can't remember. I believe he might be instituting urine testing on his employees. He had some who quit him when he announced the policy. He gave a one year notice before implementing and enforcing it, and some took advantage to get themselves off the habit.

I can't say I agree with this. Since the activity is still legal in the US, and tobacco is not a controlled substance, I think it is too close to Big Brother territory. If you want to do something as an employer, hit the employee with higher co-pay of insurance premiums or something. But to deny employment??? Will he do it for alcohol? What about someone who is heavy into skydiving or another risky (but legal) extracurricular activity that could have health consequences?

On a similar note, there are a LOT of cities in my state (KY-home of lots of tobacco farmers and users) that are looking at bans on smoking in public places. Lexington just passed such a ban, and the ban has already been challenged. My town, Paducah, will be looking at it very soon, as a friend of mine who is an ENT doc is going to bring up a ban in restaurants for the town before the city council very soon. I'd still like to see designated smoking areas, with better environmental controls so that there actually IS a difference between smoking and non-smoking sections. What sucks about the way these bans are instituted is that city councils are implementing them, and the general public that is affected does not get a lot of say or vote on it.

It just seems like we're doing it all wrong. If it really is that much of a public menace (tobacco use), shouldn't it be a controlled substance? If it shouldn't be controlled, why should we allow bans in public places and why should employers be allowed to discriminate against users?

That pretty well sums up my feelings about it.
:topic: I'm originally from KY. In fact, I have to drive down to Midway (just west of Lexington) to see my dentist this wednesday. Same guy for over 30 years now. I keep asking him what I'm gonna do when he retires (he's been threatening to for the last 5 years...

I didn't know Lexington enacted a smoking ban. I know there's one heck of a lot of activity with respect to zoning to keep the horse farms from being 'eaten up' but subdivisions...

When you pick up the package and read in detail where it states this product is harmful to your health and studies have proven it and you still put them in your mouth, suck them, put the deadly smoke in your lungs, you get what you deserve.

Be responsible for your actions.

Plain and simpe it is a drug. It is an additive drug. No different than cocaine, heroin and the major drug of choice caffeine.

Watching people stand in the rain just to have a smoke is no different (I feel) than a crack head or junkie standing in the rain doing drugs.

Watching people stand in the rain just to have a smoke is no different (I feel) than a crack head or junkie standing in the rain doing drugs.

It always reminds me of people standing 20 deep in line for coffee. Or doughnuts. Or McDonalds.

I can't say I agree with this. Since the activity is still legal in the US, and tobacco is not a controlled substance, I think it is too close to Big Brother territory. If you want to do something as an employer, hit the employee with higher co-pay of insurance premiums or something. But to deny employment??? Will he do it for alcohol? What about someone who is heavy into skydiving or another risky (but legal) extracurricular activity that could have health consequences?
[/QUOTE]
Yes I agree with this. Why pick on the smokers? Here in Canada we have no smoking in restaurants and there are very few hotels that will still allow you to book a smoking room vs non smoking. Smoking at work NO - we have designated area's out side to smoke. They are now talking about banning smoking in your own home. I am sorry that is going a step to far. I agree with the restaurants, maybe the work place, however if I choose to smoke why should that effect my job? urine testing? ya that is for DRUG USERS, I am sorry phil saying a smoker is like a herorin or coke addict - too heavy there phil ! Why don't people concentrade in a work place one who doesn't work, who steals, who breaks the company policies! who is racist. You can ban smoking from the work place but can you ban coffee? There are far worse things in life than cigaretts!
:mad:

No different than cocaine, heroin and the major drug of choice caffeine.

Reminds me of something I heard on the radio this weekend whilst unpacking boxes, rearranging living room furniture and figuring out which bedsheets to hang up until my blinds arrive....

Just 100 years ago, in 1905, heroine was legal. In fact, pharmacists and doctors often issued it to patients citing it cleared the complexion, reduced anxiety and assisted in stomach and intestinal ailments.

*sigh* It took just one person who had to go and mis-use it to ruin it for the rest of us...kidding! :D

:topic: Please compare definitions of
heroin
and
heroine
they are definitely different!

I can't say I agree with this. Since the activity is still legal in the US, and tobacco is not a controlled substance, I think it is too close to Big Brother territory. If you want to do something as an employer, hit the employee with higher co-pay of insurance premiums or something. But to deny employment??? Will he do it for alcohol? What about someone who is heavy into skydiving or another risky (but legal) extracurricular activity that could have health consequences?

Yes I agree with this. Why pick on the smokers? Here in Canada we have no smoking in restaurants and there are very few hotels that will still allow you to book a smoking room vs non smoking. Smoking at work NO - we have designated area's out side to smoke. They are now talking about banning smoking in your own home. I am sorry that is going a step to far. I agree with the restaurants, maybe the work place, however if I choose to smoke why should that effect my job? urine testing? ya that is for DRUG USERS, I am sorry phil saying a smoker is like a herorin or coke addict - too heavy there phil ! Why don't people concentrade in a work place one who doesn't work, who steals, who breaks the company policies! who is racist. You can ban smoking from the work place but can you ban coffee? There are far worse things in life than cigaretts!
:mad:[/QUOTE]

Great respone :applause:

Looks like the company that banned it's employees from smoking, can because there isn't a law that says they can't. It's in this story: Employer on Good Footing with Smoking Ban, Experts Say (http://hr.blr.com/Article.cfm/Nav/5.0.0.0.32065)

Yes, that's the one the news program profiled. They showed a map of the US with the states that had legal protection against this. I wonder if this particular state will be seeing any legislation on this soon?

I still go back and forth on the banning of public smoking, though I still favor the rights of the smoker.

We ban driving while under the influence of alcohol and also public intoxication (in many cities anyway). Drunk driving is seen as a clear danger to the public well being and that the impaired driver's rights are NOT being taken away, because the impaired driver has chosen to get drunk and put themselves behin the wheel of a vehicle, which then could likely infringe on the rights of fellow citizens to the Life part of Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness.

Now, if it's shown that smoking infringes on the rights of the non-smoking citizenry to the degree that drunk driving does, then lawmakers have little choice BUT to ban public smoking, I would think. I would favor that legislation, just as I do legislation against drunk driving. What do you folks think?

Oh, and as for the news story, I'm very surprised the Michigan ACLU didn't have anything better to say about this. I could see where they wouldn't kick up a fuss over public smoking bans, but I was shocked at how tepid their response was over private smoking. The company pres said he pursued this out of concern over worker health and rising insurance premiums. He also said he would not pursue alcohol drinkers or promiscuous employees. Why not? Both behaviors can affect health also.

Some interesting news about smoking bans and policies around the world

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/workplace/html/smokefreenews.html