It won approval because as much power as it gives the Food and Drug Administration, it specifically forbids the agency from actually banning tobacco products or regulating tobacco farmers. And that's about the best the tobacco industry could hope for. President Obama is expected to sign it this afternoon, despite, or maybe because of his own struggle with smoking. I'm not an anti-smoking Nazi. I quit seven or eight years ago, but generally believe people should be permitted to make their own mistakes. The law should allow restaurants to provide smoking sections. If diners don't like it, they'll eat elsewhere. And I do wonder if fatty foods will be next.
There are 15-billion cigarettes smoked every day around the globe. The U.S. provides the second highest number of smokers (after China), but there are still plenty of other smokers to keep the industry going. And worldwide, there are more smokers every year and those smokers are smoking more each year. A real growth industry, except for the fact that the product eventually kills its users. Both of Alabama's U.S. Senators voted for the bill.
You say, "If diners don't like (a restaurant that allows smoking), they'll eat elsewhere."
ReplyDeleteThere is only one Indian restaurant in Montgomery; also only one in Birmingham. If they allowed smoking, there would be no alternate non-smoking Indian restaurant.
People who want to smoke can step outside the restaurant.
But Jay...I'm just proposing that the law ALLOW establishments to have a smoking and non-smoking section of they want. And if that's offensive to a customer, then they can go elsewhere. Most anti-smoking laws don't even allow that. Sorry I wasn't clear!
ReplyDeleteLike many other youth, I played around with cigarettes, and then as a young man smoked an aromatic pipe for a while, and on rare occasion now enjoy a fine cigar. My preference is for the maduro or oscuro wrapper, and I particularly enjoy Jamaican cigars.
ReplyDeleteI would not call myself a smoker, since it is not habitual and infrequent.
Having disclosed that, I do not particularly enjoy being around cigarette smoke. Frankly, it stinks.
However, on a philosophical level, I disagree with heavy taxes on any item, with the surreptitious design or purpose of eliminating the product or service.
Many stores have independent HVAC systems for various areas of the building, and it's not uncommon for restaurants to be so equipped.
I agree with Tim that a separate, walled area with a separate HVAC system, off to the side or rear, should be a viable option for those whom desire to enjoy smoking tobacco during their dining experience.
If the smoking area is truly walled off and has a separate HVAC system THAT DOES WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO, then I wouldn't have an objection. But few restaurants are really set up that way.
ReplyDeleteAnd to reach the rest rooms, often one has to walk through a smoking area, particularly a bar area.
I've lived in other states until moving to Alabama in 1996. Many restaurants supposedly have smoking/no smoking areas, but often the stench permeates the building.
Can someone explain how the FDA is to regulate a product that is inherently unsafe and ineffective?
ReplyDeleteI see the new authority as spelling the death knell to smoking in the United States. Bit by bit, the feds will regulate cigarettes out of existence. They cannot do otherwise.
Coupled with local restrictions on where smokers can indulge themselves, the feds will ensure the end of legal smoking within 10 years. The practice will then go underground, much like consumption of alcohol did during the Prohibition era.
Interesting times are ahead. If anyone is looking for a good investment, put some money into inexpensive cigarette-making machines for personal use. Once the government cracks down, die-hard smokers will look for a good "roll-your-own" alternative to FDA pseudo-cigs.
williakz
"...product that is inherently unsafe and ineffective."
ReplyDelete"Unsafe and ineffective" against or for what? It's been effective for the farmers who grow it, the warehouses that house it, the brokers and auctioneers that sell it, the companies that buy it, the folks that work there, those whom enjoy it and governments that tax it.
Talk about an income stream!!
And "unsafe"? Define "safe". Life has risks, habitual tobacco use increases risks. Freedom has risks.
Safety v Freedom
Remember the quote attributed to B. Franklin about the two.
I don't know how tobacco, with its illustrious history in these United States, and its significant history of providing a SIGNIFICANT source of income, employment and taxation revenue (do smokers have MORE rights than non-smokers, since they pay MORE taxes?) can be so evil or demonized.
We know that, in large part, children start smoking because their parents do.
Interestingly, recent research has indicated that smokers use far fewer health care resources than non-smokers do. One hypothesis why, is that they die sooner.
However, they pay exceedingly more taxes than non-smokers.
Make no mistake, children should NOT smoke, however, they will find ways to get their hands on smokes, one way or another.
And finally, I saved this quote from some time ago, and thought it wholeheartedly germane to the discussion. I fully expect Loretta to weigh in on the issue.
"It's the world upside down. In other countries, they look for the marijuana in the cigarette. Here they look for the cigarette in the marijuana."
- Jason den Entin -
coffee shop manager in the Netherlands, which is about to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, a ban that covers tobacco but not marijuana, which is sold in coffee shops
As usual, Kevin puts in some overtime in order to miss the point.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a freedom issue, Kevin. That boat sailed a long, long time ago. This is about how the world of 1984 is upon us. Everything black is white, up is down, lies are truth, etc., etc.
The FDA, whose mission it is to ensure that the drugs it regulates are "safe and effective", is now given the task of ensuring the safety and efficacy of the single most deadly carcinogen in our society. If they do so, they violate their mission. If they fulfill their mission, they violate the public trust.
Think of the irony, Kevin. We, the government, will ensure your safety as long as you place your trust in us to deliver poison to you in a safe, effective manner. Once you believe this, then we can go about the business of "decontenting" tobacco of all that makes it satisfying (and deadly) to its users. When we have made it as innocuous as baby powder, we may consider releasing "NEWbacco" from regulation altogether.
williakz
The National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health has recently released their 11th Report on Carcinogens.
ReplyDeleteIt's available online as a PDF file or in HTML format at - http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objectid=32BA9724-F1F6-975E-7FCE50709CB4C932 .
As well, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) hosts a list of carcinogens at - http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/cancer/npotocca.html .
Among them are Coal Tar, a common ingredient found in dermatological shampoos and other formulations.
Asphalt fumes, (down with "blacktop" roads!)
Alcoholic Beverage Consumption (Free the Hops?, down with Cardonnay, Montepulciano! Ban tequila and Jack Daniel's Whiskey!)
chlorine (used to sanitize water - Muddy Waters, anyone?),
formaldehyde (used in the manufacture of innumerable products, from upholstery to household cleaning products, and found in the combustion of natural gas, and permanent-press clothing, adhesives, particleboard and industrial coatings),
sun exposure (malanoma, etc., who wants to stay inside all the time? Besides... sunlight ACTIVATES Vitamin D!),
Steriodal Estrogens (if mama ain't happy, ain't NOBODY happy! Can you say "menopause"?)
Neutrons (oh no! Jimmy!)
Nickel compounds (wanna' give up that Jefferson coin?)
Cyclosporin A ("...used extensively in the prevention and treatment of graft-versus-host reactions in bone marrow transplantation and for the prevention of rejection of kidney, heart, and liver transplants. It also has been tested for the therapy of a large variety of other diseases in which immunological factors may have a pathogenetic role, including Graves’ disease, uveitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, chronic
active hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, diabetes mellitus, myasthenia gravis, sarcoidosis, dermatomyositis, systemic lupus erythematosus, psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and certain nephropathies." Do you REALLY want to give up medical advances?)
X-Radiation (no more dental x-rays or other x-rays?)
On a bit more serious note - perhaps if it weren't for smokers, we might not have some true breakthroughs on medications, because inhalation therapies for a broad range of medications are now being researched!
There is a ring of validity to the assertion that tobacco industrialists - particularly and especially Philip Morris, which cooperated with the government - want to cooperate with the government and other anti-smoking organizations because ironically, the "safe cigarette" (WITH the FDA "seal of approval") could mean TRILLIONS of dollars of revenue for them and others.
Sure, it's smart!
And ask any smoker, non-smoker or former smoker... if you could smoke without adverse health benefits, would you?
I'd imagine there'd be very few that would say, 'no.'