July 16, 2004

• Apparently this isn't just about the US, though. This was part of a bill that was supposed to help out trade conflicts with the EU and the USA. I looked for some links, but then I realized I have to go get ready for work. So... more in a bit!
• It would make more sense to put a hefty tax on tobacco products to help pay for this. Maybe US smokes will have labels similar to Canada's.
• I always thought that tobbacco should have the same restrictions as alcohol. However, I must say that at least if I hang out with a bunch of drunks all night, at least when I go home my clothes don't stink of alcohol so bad that I have to put them in a garbage bag untill I wash them.
• The problem with a tax on tobacco products is that it also harms the pipe and cigar smokers. And while I'm not really for bread-and-circuses democracy, I'm also tired of having my pipe tobacco choices severely limited because cigarette smoking is bad for you. It's like saying that there should be a heavy tax on tires for bicycles because cars get into so many accidents. In case your curious, no, pipe smoking in and of itself is not terribly bad for you. Cigarette smokers who switch to pipes often have health problems, since they have a tendency to inhale, but if you don't inhale, there are very few health complications from pipe smoking.
• This is the final step in the government's campaign of extortion against the tobacco industry, just like something you'd see Tony Soprano do. First, demonize it, so the neighboring industries won't squawk; then extort huge volumes of money out of it under the guise of a promise to protect, and then when the victim doesn't come through with the protection money? Take over the shop and bust 'em out. A shameful display of bullying, extortion and now, outright pillage. I won't even go into the lying, deceit and outright fraud the states openly committed with the extortion money, promising to use it for medical support and tobacco education, then dumping billions into their general budget funds and spending wantonly. And THEN, when the inevitable revenue downturn came, having the timerity to cut school and social service budgets.
• Sandspider: Second hand smoke is a proven health risk. If you only smoke your pipe outdoors, I'll agree that it's relatively harmless. If not, then you or others are inhaling the smoke with every breath.
• i agree with rocket. the last time I bought a pack of Player's Navy Cut the package sweetly proclaimed "SMOKING CAN KILL YOU" in english and french. None of that Surgeon General's Warning mess.
• Bad thing: taxpayer's money is going to fund all this. From the article: "The $12 billion farmer buyout approved by the Senate would be paid for by an assessment on the companies."
• Also from the article: Those companies have supported the House buyout approach, which isn't linked to FDA regulation and would pay farmers $9.6 billion over five years with taxpayer money.
• Also, tobacco farmers in my state have been waiting on this buyout for years, and the issue has been a pivotal one in the current Senate race. on preview: well, let's hope they go with the Senate plan, then.
• Thanks for that article, JoeChip. I'll admit that when I posted the article, that's just about all I knew about the whole topic. After reading yours, though, I understand better where this is coming from.
• Yeah, rocket88, that's what they tell me. On the other hand, I'm having difficulty finding peer-reviewed, scientific evidence of the sort that hasn't been thrown out. See, some people in France got together and put together this meta-study of tobacco and its effects on health. Oh, it covered decades of scientific study. They gave it to the EPA, the EPA loved it. Then, one day, it was discovered that the methodology used was, well, some would say shifty, some would say completely incorrect, and some would say done with a mind to lie for political purposes. You see, this meta-study didn't take into account *all* of the scientific data of the period of time. It took into account the scientific data that agreed with their conclusions. There were other flaws with the study as well, but I don't really want to take up the entire thread with this. Whenever anyone's told me about the dangers of Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), I ask them to find me some studies that weren't the one that the EPA is no longer legally allowed to refer to, on account of it's inaccurate nature. The problem is that the study lives on in the internet, and nobody knows about the extra context. If you're interested in the whole story, a copy is located on the Pipes.org website. Let's put it this way: everything is harmful in some manner or another. If you drink too much water, you'll get sick because of the lack of electrolytes. Does that mean that water should be banned, or that people should be forbidden from living in Florida, just because of all the humidity? ETS is not a Group A carcinogen. Yes, people with allergies may have a problem with it, but they have problems with pollen and cats, too. People with Asthma may have problems with that, but should we make it illegal to wear too much cologne or perfume? Okay, so without trying to derail this too much, I'm tired of jumping through hoops just because the cigarette companies lied to people and put harmful additives in their tobacco.
• I don't really care if tobacco smoke is harmfull or not. It smells like ass. As I alluded to in my earlier post, Whenever I go to a bar I have to put my clothes in a trashbag untill I can wash them because they stink so bad. I rarely go to bars anymore because the smoke is so shitty. When it comes to studies about second hand smoke, I worked in a casino that was very smoke filled. One time it was slow and I got out the cleaning supplies (I worked in the cashier cage) the cleaning cloth turned yellow from all the smoking residue. I spent 45+ hours a week in that environment. Luckilly I only worked there a year and a half. I can't imagine what the lungs of the people who work there for longer than that must look like.
• jccalhoun, are you in the US? If so, you'd be happy to hear that quite a few states are taking up the no-smoking indoors thing. If yours (if you live in the US, that is) isn't pushing for that, though, and you're bored with where you live, consider coming to California. Then you can come to the West Cost Monkey Meet!
• Will all those irate smokers here on this thread please raise your nicotine-stained fingers? pipe smoking in and of itself is not terribly bad for you Maybe not, but the after-stench is enough to make you puke! *actually, I must confess that the smell of the neighbor's pipe drifting on the breeze in the evening is rather pleasant. But his house smells like a dump.