So, recently I've been writing about the "pot clubs", but now let's turn our attention to cigarettes for a moment (no, not the "funny" kind, just the ordinary ones like Marlboros and such).....

How do you feel about those? ("politically speaking")?

Should nicotine be outlawed?

'Cause that's what's happening, in some places. I mean, it's really bad in parts of Europe (france and England both, I think, recently did passed some remarkable laws, about public places) - but here in California, there's a little town just outside the San Fernando Valley, called "Calabassas", and that town has banned smoking "entirely" - like, you can't even walk down the street with a lit cigarette - you can't even smoke one in your own car, while you're driving on city streets - you can smoke 'em "in your house", but NOWHERE on public property.

Hmm..... so, I'm kinda trying to "philosophically" put this issue in its proper place, politically, relative to the pot thing.

There's kinda "different questions" that enter into the picture -

FOr instance, do you believe that cigarettes are a "public health crisis"?

'Cause that's what "TruthOut" and people like that are saying, in their public servicea ads.

Or, are you of the opinion that the government should stay the heck out of the regulation of tobacco products?

I'll tell you one of the things I'm thinking about, just as a f'r-instance, to show you how my mind works on these things -

What about the "other" stuff, that "isn't" nicotine, that's in cigarettes?

I mean, think about that, relative to the question of the "dispensation laws" and the relationship(s) between the feds and the States in that regard.

The "other" stuff in cigarettes, like the dynamite they put in Marlboros (no foolin' there's actually DYNAMITE in there ) - that stuff, falls into the category of what they call "binder" in the pharmaceutical world -

It's not the medication itself, but it's the chalky base (usually) in which they put the medicine, to make sure people can actually swallow it - you know, like, they put the little plastic coating over it, then they stamp it with the name, all that stuff - but the "binder" is the stuff on the inside - and from the FDA's standpoint, it's basically "anything that's in there that isn't medicine".

Well, it turns out, that this is one of the things that the FDA is interested in, but as usual, it's one of those cases where the feds write a lot of guidelines but then make it the States' responsibility to enforce them -

So in practice, when you get out into the field, you find that some states work well with the feds (eg they complement each other in their efforts and there's a good division of duties and they don't overlap "much" or fight over turf "much") -

And then there are states in which the federal relationship is absolutely horrible - they're always fighting each other, they can never decide who has jruisdiction in any particular case -

And, it also turns out, that the division along those lines is almost always political - you know, like the states with the same party administration as the feds, tend to work well in any given two or four-year period, and not so well in the next, depending on who gets elected....

So, these kinds of observations, kinda cast a different light on the question of "should the feds get involved", because the issues of "uniformity" and the equal application of the law and so on, are somewhat more "interesting" in relation to what's happening with cigarettes these days, than what's happening with pot.

Know what I'm sayin'?

What do you think?

Cigarettes shouldn't be illegal.

How else would I get my entertainment, mocking all the cretins in their little "goldfish bowl" at the airport?

"Everyone point, and laugh at the addicts, kids!" as we walk by.

Cigarettes are horrible. They kill. I have a close friend now suffering from lung cancer. AND he quit 15 years ago!! That's how much damage they do.

Fortunately, I don't know anybody who still smokes. It's kinda yesterday's nasty habit for the most part. It's so great to NOT see it in restaurants, most bars, and most other public places.

__________________
"This is a time for a national imperative not to fail in Iraq." Condoleeza Rice, January 11, 2007

Horrible? Says who? You? Oh well then we know that's a load of bull. To millions of Americans out there, smoking is highly entertaining. I don't give a rat's arse what cigarettes did to your "poor" friend. Don't victimize him. It was his choice. Next thing you'd want to say that we should feel sorry for all the lard arses out there that stupidly made Burger King a cornerstone of their diet and are now facing heart attack in the eyes? I have no sympathy for your friend. He made his decisions knowing full well what could happen. If he wants to stop, good for him. There are many people who (health risks be (*)(*)(*)(*)ed) are going to smoke because they like it. I think it's bull$#it what the government has done to tobacco companies. It's bull$#it how all these groups want to limit my freedoms because they feel they know how to run my life. They Don't. They have no clue what are in my best interests. Who in God's green f***ing Earth said that longevity is a goal for everyone!? No One!

You want to talk about infringment of one's rights. A barman can't authorize smoking on his own property because of the whiny liberals that want everyone to conform to their lifestyle. That's wrong no matter how you spin it.

Well, "whiny liberals" aside, I think your take kinda misses a big part of the picture. Keep in mind, that the tobacco companies have been fined MASSIVE amounts of money for deceptive advertising, and that goes back as recently as 1991. It's kinda the "inverse problem" as pot - 'cause in this case BT has been telling us that cigs are "safe".

So yeah - if you're a whiny liberal and you were listening to all those whiny liberal scientists forty years ago when they were telling us that "smoking causes lung cancer" even while all those lyin' tobacco companies were saying "nonsense" (reminds you of global warming, or ???) -

See what I'm sayin'? Maybe JP's friend was one of those die-hard conservatives who didn't believe a word those whiny liberals were saying, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Anyway, I'm just teasin'.... (sorry, sometimes I just can't helps myself ) So, seriously -

So by extension then, based on your statement, am I to assume that you also favor the legalization of pot? And that government should stay the heck out of dispensation in general?

You're trying to draw a line to two completely different topics. Different in that the general view is that tobacco is ok; pot is not. If you're going to allow a product to be legal, you shouldn't do everything in your power to discourage it. It's hypocrictical. To say that cigarettes are legal and then tax the $h!t out of them is wrong. I don't think smoking (or drinking for that matter) should be illegalized. Punishment for abuse should be stricter. People can use drugs responsibly and have a blast; they could also abuse them and winde up doing something stupid. It's just like nearly every other product out there. Regulation is the key. As for marijuana... I can't state an opinion because I know I'll flip at some point. But that's not the issue; so don't go there.

Cigarettes are harmful enough to nonsmokers to warrant banning them in bars and restaurants. Banning them in parks and on sidewalks is ridiculous except in crowded areas where children can be burned by people waving their cigarettes all over the place.

I don't understand this logic. Why shouldn't the government be allowed to put high taxes on products that are known to cause serious health problems?

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

In My state (Tennessee) They recently passed passed a law banning smoking in all buildings except for bars. EVEN AT WAFFLE HOUSE!!! This is trampling over the rights of all the business owners. I don't smoke (cigs) but It is completely up to the individual. If the restaurant allows smoking you don't have to eat there, simple as that. If the restaurant wants a classy feel then they might not have a smoking section, but for say Waffle House, as long as they have some kind of fan or air circulating thing, and really not even that, (I just think it would be smart on the business owners side to do it), There shouldn't even be a question. We have the information, and the knowledge is out there, it is on every pack of cigs you buy. If you still choose to smoke'um then thats up to you. I think sane-one said it, maybe some people don't want to live as long as others, or maybe they just like it. We know it's addictive, and we know it's bad for us, know it is up to us to make OUR decision. One thought I had, I wish that smokers would put their butts out completely and put them in the trash instead of in the grass or on the street. As for the ridiculous taxes the government puts on cigs (recently upped $0.62 in TN) need to be repealed. The money is supposedly going towards education, so what are we saying here, smoke for the future of your child? The other argument is it's going to pay for the health care of the smokers when they have cancer and are in the hospital. Well if health care was completely privatized like it should be then that wouldn't be an issue. But thats a nother issue entirely.

__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V

Before the bans, it was virtually impossible to find a place to eat that didn't allow smoking. By your logic (if you don't like it, don't eat there), nonsmokers simply wouldn't be able to eat out.

I'll bet most restaurant owners just don't even care, anyway. It's not like business is suffering. No one is protesting the ban by boycotting restaurants.

Why can't smokers be expected to exercise a little self-control in places open to the public? You can't wait an hour or two at a restaurant without lighting up? Has their addiction pushed them down to the level of wild animals unable to control their urges? Give me a break. If you really feel an overwhelming need to smoke with your dinner, you can stay home and do it.

The really funny thing about this argument is that nearly everyone who makes it puts in the disclaimer that "I'm not a smoker, but..." All those I know who actually do smoke are perfectly comfortable with the bans.

And my views completely coincide with my views on marijuana. I support legally marijuana, but I would support a ban on its use in public areas, and I would also support a heavy tax on it.

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

Yep. I think that's me too.

Consider - nicotine and marijuana. In both cases, we have a psychoactive drug with health risks. In both cases, there is a potential for "consequences to society" if the behavior is allowed to occur freely out in public. In both cases, it is true that "most" people will probably not abuse the drug, although there "is" some potential for abuse....

Really, if you take away the issue of "is it legal or not", tobacco and pot are more or less "exactly identical" - they both relax you "a little" (maybe a little "less" than a glass of wine), and in both cases you really have to be a super-freak to get to the point where you're actually a danger to yourself or others. (I mean, specifically, that in most cases you can easily become a nuisance, like when you're blowing cigarette smoke into someone's face, but it would be very difficult to argue that a puff of tobacco is "dangerous" relative to smog and aerosols and microwaves and all the other crap we're exposed to constantly).

So, really, in my eyes, that is the only difference, namely that for historical reasons, one is legal and the government derives revenue from it, and the other is illegal and the government loses money on it.

We could probably argue separately about the "tax" issue, 'cause that's probably a whole separate thing, I mean, that applies to all forms of interstate commerce, 'cause the gov taxes gasoline too, and lots of other things, and the wisdom of that could certainly be debated, but that's kinda a "different" debate.

Here, in the space of cigarettes, what I see is a "gradual push" towards cleaner air (and whatever health benefits derive), and you can see that in the emissions standards, and you can see that in the smoking laws. The difference is, that the standards are federal, while most of the smoking laws are local. "Some" (a few) have risen up to the state level, but most are still at the community level.

So, even though from the dispensation standpoint I'd want the gov to stay out of the tobacco issue, from the standpoint of public health and safety it's kind of a different question. Certainly we know by now that individuals are affected by cigarette smoke, and maybe by second-hand smoke (I'm still very dubious about those second-hand smoke studies, most of 'em used completely ridiculous research methodologies, and actually what I'd like to see is a "collective" index of the total damage done by cigarette smoke relative to, let's say, smog, or asbestos, that kind of thing).

I agree though, there is certainly the issue of being polite about your smoking, not tossing your butts on the sidewalk or out the car window, not smoking around babies, that kind of thing.... That's just basic common courtesy, right? Seems we should all have the right to expect that from each other - I mean, it's a shame if that had to be "institutionalized into law"....