Bit of an opinion piece here that is relevant

Media distortion damages both science and journalism

Well, JC, if you feel that strongly about it, why hold back.... just jump out there and say what you really think!

I don't think anybody has posted anything here suggesting government cannot or should not protect non-smokers from smokers or that smoking does not cause death, or even that second hand smoke is not also dangerous. Nobody, and certainly not me, has asserted the principle that smokers have a "right" to smoke anywhere they choose.

As I have previously posted.... banning smoking everywhere all the time simply because the majority think it is obnoxious is perfectly fine with me. Just don't be surprised when that govt behavior comes back to bite one of your own individual freedoms in the name of protecting you from yourself (as opposed to protecting you from somebody else).

People who enjoy jumping out of perfectly good airplanes probably need a little supervision.:) But, as far as I am concerned, govt should not be passing laws to restrict your right to do so. Safety guidelines are fine. Regulating business entities that offer sky diving to the public is fine. Making an individual behavior that affects nobody else a "criminal act" is a very different thing.

You took the response out of context.

When used as directed, smoking is deadly, and that makes it different from all other legal behaviors. Twisting the argument into a smokers rights issue is supporting the principle that smokers have a right to smoke anywhere they choose. It is also disingenuous. When a smoker smokes, they harm everyone — no matter where they do it — because some of the health costs will inevitably be borne by the taxpayer. When they do it around others, they increase those costs.

ALL risky behavior meets the requirements you outlined. We should enact laws that criminalize all risky behavior because if the individual is injured the "health costs will inevitably be borne by the taxpayer."

Is that your argument? Do you not see the potential for that argument infringing on personal freedom? (Forget tobacco, that discussion is going nowhere.)

Neither skydiving nor driving is a behavior that affects nobody else.

None do. Other risky behaviors only affect the person doing them. Whenever they don't, we restrict those behaviors. You can't fire your gun within city limits, drive drunk, etc. Smoking should be no different: because it almost always negatively affects every taxpayer as well as put innocent lives at risk, it should be severely restricted.

@J Christopher
Gentlemen, may I most humbly suggest we are near impasse. In a sense, everything everybody does has the potential for impacting others in a negative way... from using an electric can opener or turning down the thermostat too far, to the more risky behaviors some engage in. I can see the linkage, of course, but I do not want government intervening to stop my behaviors unless it results in harm, or reasonable risk of harm, to another. Control is an insidious disease that spreads and infests everything it touches.

Perhaps my sensitivity to these issues is a result of having lived on military bases as a child and a couple times as an adult. That's an environment where the rules are arbitrary and fully enforceable.... from a dress code while shopping, to lawn inspections, to fixing your thermostat at a particular "economical" range. You really, really do not want to allow infringements on personal freedoms to reach the point that anybody can regulate your daily activities. Been there, done that, it sucks.

Then, again, maybe I'm just not liberal enough.

This is that insidious tactic again, stretching the bounds of reason to justify the unjustifiable. It does not matter that everything can have a negative impact. What matters is that smoking NEVER has a positive impact and ALWAYS has a negative one.

Methinks we're going in circles. You win. I give up.

Not circles! Just never past the starting point. Smokers win as long as they can define the argument to be about proving that a certain level of smoke is harmful, but that's a flawed argument. Smoke has been proven deadly. If you're going to claim that a certain amount is not harmful, then it's up to you to prove that claim. You can't ask the rest of the world to prove that it's false.

A humble law proposal...
 

.
I’m afraid that I have not been following this thread, although I now see that it has overheated. Apologies!

A small point if I may: I have heard it said that studies show that clean tobacco (i.e. with none or fewer chemical additives), such as that used by many pipe smokers, is not nearly as damaging to one’s health as Malrboros etc. My grandfather was a pipe smoker -- but it’s been years since I saw someone lighting up.

In other words, a frightening number of the additives are, in fact, either carcinogenic or have extremely detrimental health effects.

First a digression: A few years after we emigrated to California, my father was diagnosed with MS. He was a heavy smoker. True to his Norwegian habits he rolled his own, buying tobacco from specialty shops. So it often became my task to purchase cigarette paper for him. It was only later that I realized that the odd looks at me as a 13–14 year old, and reputation had a simple cause: Californians by and large do not purchase cigarette paper to light up legitimate herbs!

Law proposal
If it was up to me, I would draft a law that compelled the listing of all additives, just as with foods. After all, the substances are even more surely being absorbed by the bodies of smokers than if the tobacco was passing through the person’s digestive tract.

But those ingredients are trade secrets. Tough!!
That long list of additives won’t fit on the cigarette pack. That’s the producer’s problem!

I suspect far fewer people would die.

-- ArcticStones


PS. What do you think, NovaScotian?

I have stayed away from this thread, because as has been mentioned previously it cannot end well. With that said, as Arctic Stones mentioned, the additives in commercial smokes are worse than the tobacco itself. I personally smoke a pipe, as well as hand rolled (well, with a machine, tubes and filters) cigarettes. In the several years since I switched, I have gotten rid of all the nasty additives in store bought smokes. No, it is still not healthy, per se, but it does minimize the risk somewhat. A few months back, I bummed a store bought from my brother in law and to be quite honest, I had to put the thing out after two or three puffs. The taste of chemicals was overpowering.

As I said in # 22, my lungs can tell the difference between second-hand smoke from hand-rolled and packet. Not that I've ever done a blind test, or wanted to, but I think I would pass. Prince seems to be the worst. I was informed that it was the perfumes, but if Stones and you say it's additives in the tobacco, I am happy to believe you.

The chemicals may make commercial cigarettes worse, but that doesn't mean that any other cigarette is safe, and that's what needs to be proved in order to justify continuing to allow their use.

Poison is in the dose. Here, I would say it is up to you to prove what level is poisonous. People die of water poisoning, but people drink lesser amounts every day with never any proven health issues. Some even drink the legendary 8 glasses a day, which is nonsense.

There is even vitamin poisoning from taking too many vitamins. It is not up to individuals to 'prove' that small levels of vitamins are useful or not poisonous. It is up to medical experts to define ranges within which certain expectations may be met. Then you choose your path. Some will only take 'organic' or 'natural' vitamins, assured they know more than scientists do about chemistry. Some consciously overdose their favorite vitamins.

Even there, science disagrees, Linus Pauling was a Nobel Prize winner and believed, spent his money, time, and reputation trying to prove, that overdosing on vitamin C was good for you. Before you put him down, we need people like him who challenge the common wisdom. A great man, he never tried to institute dictatorial laws to force others to be his pawns.

Wonderfully egregious strawman. Fraud? What fraud? You mean Madoff? One man, an obvious con man at that. I feel sorry for the people who believed in him. They where willing suckers who believed that only they knew an irrational truth while millions of experienced people denied it. There is no fraud in food. Fat content is on the label. Low fat usually means high sodium or high sugar. Read the label, take your pick. Don't eat what you don't like. We eat too much for natural reasons too complicated to easily modify.

The Illuminati don't exist. But one of my students had an interesting variation on that. It was modeled on the Sith. I thought it very creative. There were three old men who ruled the world, each with one, and only one apprentice. He could never explain to me how the old guys could be sure the apprentice didn't just bump them off at the first opportune moment.

NovaScotian, I have to agree with you about how the anti-smoking campaign has grown into a monster.

I personally hate smoking. My parents smoked like everyone of their generation. It stank. Smoking stinks. I really hate cigarette butts in beach sand.

But I don't hate my parents. I don't hate smokers, although I don't have any friends who smoke, which is my choice. I avoided restaurants where smokers where, but went into smoke-filled bars when it suited me. I almost hate smokers who throw butts in the sand or inflammable grasses.

Unfortunately, second-hand smoke has become some kind of irrational fear. It is distasteful, but I don't believe it is deadly in any normal circumstance. So many people believe that Evil Is At Hand and are always ready to believe the most irrational things. Things that can't pass any rational examination. One of my students came into class once and told me that 10% of our community goes hungry. Where are they I asked her? She was bewildered. The poor in our community have color TVs, cars, cell phones, and their children are overweight. If they ever go hungry it is so they can save up to buy a newer iPod and they just don't gain weight for a month. But she gave them her money anyway. There really are people starving in this world, but they are not overweight.

We need some regualtions as it is so crowded these days. Regulations should be tempered with a good dose of skepticism, though.

.
Good points in your first post, Eliwyn.
May I however point out one hilarious fact: Only in the USA can I purchase bottled drinking water labelled “Contains 0 % fat”. :rolleyes:

Thanks.

That's true. We here are all extraordinary people. :D

That's ridiculous. The people making the claim are responsible for proving it. In offering cigarettes for sale, there is an implicit claim that they are not harmful to the user and others. It is the epitome of junk science to ask the rest of society to prove your claim is false.
LOL! Eaten any Chinese milk products lately? There's extensive fraud in food, and it runs through every part of that industry. Everything from deceptive labeling and advertising through outright criminal acts like poisoning milk. Open your eyes.

I made a claim? Not sure what you mean there. I never said they were safe. It is obvious that your claim that cigarettes are proven to kill you is not true. Far too many smokers die of other causes, including old age, for there to be a one to one correlation. While not healthy, can you prove they are more dangerous than so many other things that are allowed? Murdercycles are pretty dangerous, seems deaths are not uncommon among the riders around here.

There is no fraud in the American food system, that's just hokum. Now, it is true, all Chinese food or manufactured products should be banned, but just try to get that done. Only raw materials that are to be processed, such as ore or timber, should be allowed in from China. No tobacco products either. :D