Italy to ban plastic bags

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.

Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue. 

Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health.   

[AFK]

Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.

Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue. 

Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health.   

No, but the employees might be. 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.

Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue. 

Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health.   

No, but the employees might be. 

*shrug*

I work around welding fumes all day.  Life's tough, wear a filter mask.

[Adios]

Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.

Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue. 

Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health.   

No, but the employees might be. 

*shrug*

I work around welding fumes all day.  Life's tough, wear a filter mask.

No, you're doing it wrong. Send the social outcast smokers outside to smoke in the winter. This way they can all spread the flu instead. See? We win either way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Just a retarded "green" fad, like banning smoking in bars, ffs.

Uh, no, banning smoking isn't about being green it is about addressing a public health issue. 

Because people who drink in bars are seriously concerned about their health.   

No, but the employees might be. 

*shrug*

I work around welding fumes all day.  Life's tough, wear a filter mask.

No, you're doing it wrong. Send the social outcast smokers outside to smoke in the winter. This way they can all spread the flu instead. See? We win either way.

That's how it works at the house. 

[AFK]

I'd rather not expose an unwilling person to second hand smoke, honestly... And as far as public health is concerned, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Prüss-Üstün hoped the findings would serve as a catalyst for countries to enforce the WHO's Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, a global initiative aimed at reducing the burden of tobacco-related disease by increasing taxes on tobacco products, banning tobacco advertising, eliminating smoking in public places, and making packs less commercially attractive.

"Policy-makers should bear in mind that enforcing complete smoke-free laws will probably substantially reduce the number of deaths attributable to exposure to second-hand smoke within the first year of its implementation, with accompanying reduction in costs of illness in social and health systems," she said.

From:
http://www.jointogether.org/news/research/summaries/2002/researchers-secondhand-smoke.html

How is this not sticking it to smokers? And what does the part in bold mean? I'm probably reading too much into this, but can you see my cause for concern here?

First, just so you know, you linked to the wrong article.  But anyway, I can't tell you exactly what that means from the perspective of the person who said it as the article doesn't make it particularly clear.  I would wager it is in reference to having smoke-free policies in public areas.  It is impossible to have an outright ban on smoking in private homes.  You couldn't enforce it for starters.  Secondly, again, from my perspective this is about public health.

EDIT: Concern for public health brought us such monstrosities as prohibition and the war on drugs.

EDIT EDIT: Charley beat me to it...

Oh boy, this is where the thread spirals out of control.  Except I have a meeting I need to go to soon so perhaps not.  I shall pass on that can of worms for now.  

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I would wager it is in reference to having smoke-free policies in public areas.

Even outdoors?

Okay.  In that case, I want a driving-while-stupid ban.  I also want a ban on letting stupid people talk to me about their religion in public.  It's bad for my mental health, and bad for them in general.

[hooplala]

If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.

They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers.  Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.

[Adios]

If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.

They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers.  Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.

It's about self-righteous people trying to force their values on others. SSDD

[AFK]

I would wager it is in reference to having smoke-free policies in public areas.

Even outdoors?

Okay.  In that case, I want a driving-while-stupid ban.  I also want a ban on letting stupid people talk to me about their religion in public.  It's bad for my mental health, and bad for them in general.

Personally, for outdoors, I don't think it is necessary to ban smoking outright.  There are these two amusement parks we go to in New Hampshire every year.  Both have designated spots for smoking and I think that works pretty well.  They are usually gazebos or have pretty good tree shade so they aren't getting stuck somewhere they are going to get rained on or scorched.  Indoors is different because the air circulates everywhere and the only way a non-smoker can completely escape exposure is to leave the facility. 

[AFK]

If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.

They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers.  Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.

It's about self-righteous people trying to force their values on others. SSDD

Eh, while I won't say there aren't those types out there, I can also say that there are plenty who are honestly doing the work in the overall interest of public health.  I don't do any thing in the realm of tobacco prevention but I have 3 co-workers who do and trust me, they are very far from the self-righteous type. 

[Adios]

If it were really about health, they would ban cigarettes outright.

They would rather make it as difficult as they can for smokers to smoke while still allowing it to be technically legal to do so, while at the same time providing subsidies to tobacco farmers.  Makes perfect sense if its actually all about money.

It's about self-righteous people trying to force their values on others. SSDD

Eh, while I won't say there aren't those types out there, I can also say that there are plenty who are honestly doing the work in the overall interest of public health.  I don't do any thing in the realm of tobacco prevention but I have 3 co-workers who do and trust me, they are very far from the self-righteous type. 

May 31, 2010

World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he's convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

Translated by Iro Cyr from the French original interview found HERE.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more  pessimistic ... compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don't base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224

[Fujikoma]

Doh! I did link to the wrong article.

All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese, booze, anything you enjoy in life that's not exactly good for you, they've set the precedent, they've drilled it into the public's skull, they do it once, they can do it again. Where does it stop?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Doh! I did link to the wrong article.

All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese, booze, anything you enjoy in life that's not exactly good for you, they've set the precedent, they've drilled it into the public's skull, they do it once, they can do it again. Where does it stop?

Fuck where it STOPS.  Kill it where it STARTS.

If you do that, then the slippery slope never becomes an issue.

[Adios]

Doh! I did link to the wrong article.

All I'm trying to say is that it's a scary road. First it's something like tobacco, then, red meat, chocolate, sugar, cheese, booze, anything you enjoy in life that's not exactly good for you, they've set the precedent, they've drilled it into the public's skull, they do it once, they can do it again. Where does it stop?

Fuck where it STOPS.  Kill it where it STARTS.

If you do that, then the slippery slope never becomes an issue.

Take California, please.
AB 97 bans the use of trans-fats in food facilities.