Italy to ban plastic bags

[Fujikoma]

*long rant deleted*

I'll come back to this when I'm not so emotional.

[hooplala]

It's Hoopla, dammit!  NOT HOOPLAH!

[Fujikoma]

Right, sorry.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Smoking changes the environment of non-smokers, in a way that not-smoking does not change the environment of smokers.

I smoke occasionally... hell, I had four or five cigarettes on New Year's Eve. But that doesn't mean that I think everyone who chooses to go to a place where the public gathers socially should have my activity of choice imposed upon them. And the person who is so fortunate as to have a job there certainly shouldn't have it imposed upon them 8 hours out of the day.

[hooplala]

Yeah, true... we both agree there should be bars where it is allowed, that's as good as people can reasonably expect I suppose.

For the record, I don't smoke.  Cigarettes.

[Triple Zero]

The entire concept just surprised me I guess. I am still not sure how I feel about it. Why not styrofoam as well?

Oakland, California has banned it. Which I totally support and wish my city would as well, because they're ugly and bad for the environment. Our streets are pretty much litter free (because the city cleans all that shit up weekly), but what litter we do have tends to be styrofoam cups.

That's one thing btw, styrofoam cups are really rare over here. Most disposable cups are either cardboard/paper or non-foam polystyrene. Still people tend to throw them in waste-baskets.

If those paper cups have a layer of wax on them then they belong in the waste basket because they're not recyclable.

I don't follow, of course they belong in the waste baskets, where else would you put them? Even if they were recyclable or biodegradable doesn't mean they belong on the street, right?

Additionally, I don't think they have a layer of wax. At least, not in the sense an OJ or milk carton has. I *could* put them in my paper box instead of the trash, I suppose. Except that I prefer to put flat things in it, so it doesn't fill as quickly. They pick up boxes of paper in my street every 2-3 weeks, it's pretty cool.

We used to even have a "green" garbage container, for coffee filters, potato peelings and other compost-able stuff. But my city no longer has it since 10 years, cause they worked out that the energy/pollution/cost of having a second garbage transport line does not weigh up against pulling some industrial magic to separate it out at the garbage disposal plant thing. Which is apparently pretty good at that. Better than humans, that tend to throw the wrong things in the "green" containers, too. At least, that's what I was told.

Other cities still have a "green" garbage collection system, though.

In Germany, they even separate into "green", "packaging" and "other". Also the wax-coated milk cartons, so, apparently they are recyclable in some manner. Oh, and an additional thing for regular paper and cardboard. In fact, they even separate for public wastebaskets on the streets and near gas stations and such, seriously, it's not uncommon to see a line of four different coloured wastebaskets standing next to eachother, for different kinds of waste. I might be wrong I think even saw some for metal cans and such.

[Triple Zero]

Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.

ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.

Now I'm wondering (not disagreeing that she'd be screwed btw), just curious, how can you have "no way to carpool"? Nobody going the same way, too much effort to coordinate, or does rural America have laws against it?

[Triple Zero]

Oh and one thing about smoking bans, we got them since a few years in NL as well. I can tell a lot about my experiences, but it doesn't really matter. One thing though, I really do enjoy blowing smoke rings. It wasn't until I was happily smoking a cigarette on the couch at a friend's place that didn't mind smoking inside (big common room in student's flat) that I noticed how long I had actually been missing that ... smoking in a non-ventilated area with still air

[Juana]

Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.

ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.

Now I'm wondering (not disagreeing that she'd be screwed btw), just curious, how can you have "no way to carpool"? Nobody going the same way, too much effort to coordinate, or does rural America have laws against it?

No laws against it. It can just be very hard to find someone going in the same direction, especially if school is involved since schedules can vary significantly.

[East Coast Hustle]

What? Give people a CHOICE? Why do you hate America? Non-smokers aren't forced to go into a smoke friendly establishment. But smokers are forced to go into a non-smoker friendly establishment. If we choose to go out, which I stopped doing when the law passed here, as did many others.

Oddly, it hurt business so badly owners are fighting the law in court. But what do I know?

The two bolded parts put your statement at odds with itself. You can't be forced to choose to go out.

Hell, I still enjoy the occasional smoke, but lets not characterize the divide between smokers and non-smokers as something it's not. You CHOOSE to smoke, or to not smoke. It's not as though policies against public smoking are akin to Jim Crow laws.

Anecdotally, most of the bars I hang out in in WA have seen an increase in business since the smoking ban was implemented. YMMV.

Are you married?  

I will concede the point, good sir.

[Adios]

Smoking changes the environment of non-smokers, in a way that not-smoking does not change the environment of smokers.

I smoke occasionally... hell, I had four or five cigarettes on New Year's Eve. But that doesn't mean that I think everyone who chooses to go to a place where the public gathers socially should have my activity of choice imposed upon them. And the person who is so fortunate as to have a job there certainly shouldn't have it imposed upon them 8 hours out of the day.

They can hold their fucking breath until I am through.

[Bruno]

I've started contributing more greenhouse gasses in public to make up for it.


Poo gasses, that is.

[Phox]

Yeah, I'd be pretty screwed. I'm a good 25 miles from where I work/go to school, with no public transportation and no way to carpool. And there are shit ton of people like that here. Drawback of living in rural Middle America.

ITT, Phox inadvertently explains why all other environmentally-minded trends and causes in America are doomed.

Now I'm wondering (not disagreeing that she'd be screwed btw), just curious, how can you have "no way to carpool"? Nobody going the same way, too much effort to coordinate, or does rural America have laws against it?

No laws against it. It can just be very hard to find someone going in the same direction, especially if school is involved since schedules can vary significantly.

Yeah, this. Since I have to be there varying amounts of time based on the day of the week, and I don't always have a concrete leaving time,  it's almost impossible to coordinate a ride ahead of time.

[Epimetheus]

I've started contributing more greenhouse gasses in public to make up for it.


Poo gasses, that is.

[Fujikoma]

I apologize, RWHN, for the way I worded some of my replies, and my lack of explanation. I can't expect my perspective to be taken seriously without having solid proof, or at least, a historical record pointing to the possibility and pattern of abuse of the concept of public health. While there are many good things to be said of concern for the public health, there are also nasty closet monsters hiding in there, and it is for this reason that I am highly skeptical of anything advocated by anyone claiming to support "public health". Thankfully, there exists a good deal of evidence which should serve to at least partially prove my point.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Smoking

Religious leaders have often been prominent among those who considered smoking immoral or outright blasphemous. In 1634 the Patriarch of Moscow forbade the sale of tobacco and sentenced men and women who flouted the ban to have their nostrils slit and their backs whipped until skin came off their backs. The Western church leader Urban VII likewise condemned smoking in a papal bull of 1590. Despite many concerted efforts, restrictions and bans were almost universally ignored. When James I of England, a staunch anti-smoker and the author of a A Counterblaste to Tobacco, tried to curb the new trend by enforcing a whopping 4000% tax increase on tobacco in 1604, it proved a failure, as London had some 7,000 tobacco sellers by the early 17th century. Later, scrupulous rulers would realise the futility of smoking bans and instead turned tobacco trade and cultivation into lucrative government monopolies.

With the modernization of cigarette production compounded with the increased life expectancies during the 1920s, adverse health effects began to become more prevalent. In Germany, anti-smoking groups, often associated with anti-liquor groups, first published advocacy against the consumption of tobacco in the journal Der Tabakgegner (The Tobacco Opponent) in 1912 and 1932. In 1929, Fritz Lickint of Dresden, Germany, published a paper containing formal statistical evidence of a lung cancer–tobacco link. During the Great depression Adolf Hitler condemned his earlier smoking habit as a waste of money, and later with stronger assertions. This movement was further strengthened with Nazi reproductive policy as women who smoked were viewed as unsuitable to be wives and mothers in a German family.

(sorry, not trying to compare non-smokers to Nazis, just pointing out historical abuses and the precedent being set)

Richard Doll in 1950 published research in the British Medical Journal showing a close link between smoking and lung cancer. Four years later, in 1954 the British Doctors Study, a study of some 40 thousand doctors over 20 years, confirmed the suggestion, based on which the government issued advice that smoking and lung cancer rates were related. In 1964 the United States Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and Health likewise began suggesting the relationship between smoking and cancer, which confirmed its suggestions 20 years later in the 1980s.

Old news is OLD. They TRIED educating the public, the people who don't want to stop, or feel that they cannot stop, will not stop.

From 1965 to 2006, rates of smoking in the United States have declined from 42% to 20.8%. A significant majority of those who quit were professional, affluent men. Despite this decrease in the prevalence of consumption, the average number of cigarettes consumed per person per day increased from 22 in 1954 to 30 in 1978. This paradoxical event suggests that those who quit smoked less, while those who continued to smoke moved to smoke more light cigarettes. This trend has been paralleled by many industrialized nations as rates have either leveled-off or declined. In the developing world, however, tobacco consumption continues to rise at 3.4% in 2002. In Africa, smoking is in most areas considered to be modern, and many of the strong adverse opinions that prevail in the West receive much less attention. Today Russia leads as the top consumer of tobacco followed by Indonesia, Laos, Ukraine, Belarus, Greece, Jordan, and China. The World Health Organization has begun a program known as the Tobacco Free Initiative (TFI) in order to reduce rates of consumption in the developing world.

Yes, world health, at who's (pun not intended) expense, really? The majority of people who quit from 1965 to 2006 were wealthy, affluent men, or so the article leads me to believe. It's hard for me to see that and not wonder if it's a global initiative to further divide the rich and the poor, because obviously, the poor aren't quitting. There comes a time to back off, this is usually when there is a tactic that does not work. Only a fool or a madman keeps doing the same thing while expecting a different result, I should know, I do that myself sometimes.

And, on to another article.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Schizophrenia_and_smoking

Besides biological effects, smoking has a profound social impact on schizophrenics. One major impact is financial, as schizophrenics have been found to spend a disproportionate amount of their income on cigarettes. A study of schizophrenics on public assistance found that schizophrenics spent a median amount of $142 per month on cigarettes out of a median monthly public assistance income of $596, or about 27.36%. Some argue that this results in further social impacts as schizophrenics are then unable to spend money on entertainment and social events that would promote well-being, or may even be unable to afford housing or nutrition.

Yes, who, indeed, is being targeted? Perhaps I'm paranoid, but it seems to me that raising the price of cigarettes on a proportion of the population which will not likely stop and already experiences financial troubles is kind of fucked up. Having been diagnosed bipolar myself, and experiencing auditory and visual hallucinations, even when I've quit smoking for 6 months, I can understand treating one's symptoms with nicotine. I do this, and I've been off meds for 6 years now. I'd hate to think of how bad a shape I'd be in without my smokes.

Besides smoking cessation, the prevalence of smoking among schizophrenics also calls for additional measures in evaluation by mental health providers. Researchers argue that providers should incorporate tobacco use assessment into everyday clinical practice, as well as continuing assessments of cardiovascular health through measures such as blood pressure and diagnostics such as electrocardiography. Additionally there are ethical and practical concerns if healthcare facilities prohibit smoking without providing alternatives, particularly since withdrawal can alter the presentation of symptoms and response to treatment and may confuse or even exacerbate symptoms. Clinicians should also be aware of the consequences that can result from a lack of cigarettes, such as aggression, prostitution, trafficking, and general disruption. These consequences indicate that providers may need to help patients obtain cigarettes and/or monitor usage, although this may result in ethical concerns as well.

'Nuff said.

And, as if you didn't already have enough to read:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1690861/why_nicotine_calms_the_brain_in_schizophrenia.html?cat=70
http://www.enotalone.com/article/3110.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Nicotine+may+benefit+some+with+mental+illnesses.%28Brief+article%29-a0145473400
http://www.gpdsc.com/omha-article-nicotine.htm (dirty drug? Are there really any clean drugs?)
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/26516.php

It doesn't prove my point, but it's something to be considered.

And, perhaps one of the nastiest things concern for the public health has given us, the specter of which remains today, and is likely more widespread than anyone would like to admit:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States

You can expand to eugenics in the rest of the world, if you want to... But it's even nastier.

I'm focusing on the united states here, just so we all recognize that this sort of thing is right in our own backyard... But it's also everywhere else, so...

And here's another public health concern:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Water_fluoridation_conspiracy_theory#Conspiracy_theories
(Seriously, how many more times do we need to enact sweeping legislation which encroaches on liberty, which later turns out to be wrong, before we come to understand that it should be tested long term on a smaller scale? Make sure there's water in the pool before you dive in.)

And finally, the reason I neither fully believe nor disbelieve hardly anything I read:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Funding_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Media_bias
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Confirmation_bias

And, that's all I'll say on the matter. Sorry for the huge, spammy post. I would have tried to cut it down, but considering what I say seems to be difficult to understand (my fault, really, I always have trouble explaining myself), I thought I'd use the words of others, and spell it out, neglecting fewer details, so you can see where I'm coming from. Regardless, it can all be dismissed as crazy talk, so, refute what you feel the need to, I'll speak of it no more.