quote:

Originally posted by Streakfury Well I cant say I'm particularly well-informed about all this, but it sounds like a good idea to me. I would love to go to a club or a bar and breathe clean air. And it would also create a big incentive for people to stop smoking, if they knew that they couldn't smoke for hours if they want to go out one night.

The government shouldn't be in the business of forcing people to stop smoking by making private organizations change their practices. Unless the government wants to make smoking illegal, they should not be telling private individuals what can and can't be done on their property. If you want to visit a club or bar that does not have air heavy with smoke, find a non-smoking establishment. If none exists, find other means to create one, such as boycotts or the like. Allow the consumer to speak, and if the consumer wants to smoke, and the business owner wants to allow it, that consumer and owner should also have their voice heard.

After all, if the government really wanted to improve people's health, they would ban alcohol and saturated fats in food products. Alcoholism and obesity/heart disease lead to far more health care dollars spent then second hand smoke. The majority of people that work in smoky environments are smokers, and the insignificant amount of second-hand smoke that a patron would inhale during a "night out on the town," is well documented. The only people that have been found to have even an association with increased disease in relation to second-hand smoke are those who live with smokers or those who have worked an entire career in a smoking environment. I urge you to show me a scientific report with a meaningful population size that shows outlawing smoking in private businesses does anything for the long term health of a population.

The government can tell establishments to ban smoking in their main business areas, which causes them to send customers to a separate area. If they shift business to this separate area where the true revenue is coming in and scale back the nonsmoking venue, then they get caught in a Catch-22. The non-smokers are relegated outdoors and the smokers are once again indoors. Governmets need to worry about bigger things.

Just FYI for everyone here, the City Council here in Columbus passed the smoking ban with only one dissenter stating the opinion that was mostly used here: That the government should not be regulating what owners can/can not do on their own private property. It will be interesting to see if this is overturned, or if perhaps smokers will unite to see that this issue gets on the ballot to allow for a truly democratic representation of how Columbus thinks

Whaddaya think of this?

Australian Government Approach

quote:

Australia Cigarette Packs to Show Graphic Photos Fri Jun 25, 7:55 AM ET Add Oddly Enough - Reuters to My Yahoo! SYDNEY (Reuters) - Australian smokers will soon have to look at the picture of a cancer-ridden lung or a gangrenous foot missing toes each time they light up. Following a trend pioneered by Canada, the government said it wants cigarette companies to put graphic pictures and warnings on 30 percent of the front of each pack and 90 percent of the back. One gruesome photo shows a color cross-section of a diseased lung. Another shows a blackened foot missing a toe and the rest twisted. "Smoking causes peripheral vascular disease," it reads. A third shows a dissected, bloodied brain with the caption, "Smoking doubles your risk of stroke." "The experience in Canada showed there was a three percent drop in smoking," Trish Worth, parliamentary secretary for health, told reporters. Canada introduced the warnings and pictures of diseased organs in late 2000. But Australian cigarette makers say the move will not alter smoking patterns, and one called it a desperate tactic. Health Minister Tony Abbott said cigarette companies would have 18 months to make the changes once the government announces them officially. Anti-smoking groups denounced the government for "caving in" to the tobacco lobby and mandating only 30 percent of the packet's fronts for photos, instead of 50 percent as in Canada. "Concessions to the tobacco industry of smaller warnings on the front of cigarette packs and delaying their introduction is a bad decision," said Alan Coates, chief executive of the Cancer Council Australia. The government first set a date of June 2005 for the changes but cigarette makers said they needed longer. Manufacturers said the move was detrimental. "The use of medically pornographic images," had little impact on Canadian smoking levels, said Peter Richards, managing director of Imperial Tobacco Australia Ltd. "This proposal is simply a desperate tactic designed to placate anti-smoking zealots as opposed to sensibly addressing the communication of the health risks associated with smoking," Richards said in a statement.

EU has that already, for quite a long time actually i think

i think it's funny esp in the stores =) good tooo