Italy to ban plastic bags

[LMNO]

Well, it certainly sounds like someone is incredibly sensitive about their crippling addiction...

[Phox]

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.

vb m b bnjh

[Cain]

Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar.  Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).

[AFK]

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.

See, right here your argument goes off the rails.  If the slow march of public health was as insidious as you believe, don't you think we'd have the anti-smoking gestapo marching the streets by now?  This shit that started back in the 1600s went nowhere.  People are still smoking.  It has been glamorized at the holy altars of Hollywood and in the bibles of soccer Moms everywhere (aka magazines).  

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.

UNNNGGGG!  Yeah, obviously.  The point isn't to get EVERYONE to stop smoking.  It isn't about stamping out cigarettes forever.  It's about helping those who are willing to quit and improve their health which contributes to overall public health.  Trust me, we don't have the funds necessary to stamp out tobacco, alcohol, and drugs even if we wanted to.  Our work is all about dealing with the margins.  It's about maybe seeing the numbers tick down one or two percentage points.  

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.

Well of course affluent men are more successful.  Affluent tend to be more successful at a lot of things compared to the poor.  But, put your paranoia away, this isn't about those of us in public health trying to keep the poor man down.  It's about Mazlow.  Someone who has the basics well taken care of, and then some, are in a better position to contemplate and attempt improving themselves by quitting vices like smoking.  A poor person has a hard time even contemplating it when the rest of his life is shit.  

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.

And my new boss did some great work at his old place on helping those with mental health issues quit smoking.  There's all kinds of new programs and studies out there right now specifically looking at the population of people with mental illness and tobacco.  So yes, they are being targeted....to get help.  

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.[/quote]

And the point is?  

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...

Eugenics?  Seriously?  You really think telling someone they can't smoke in a bar is the slippery slope to eugenics?  I dunno man, you really lost me here.  

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.)

Yeah, you have to prove that adding fluoride to public water supplies was "wrong".  I've not heard of people dying in the streets, or dying or getting ill in any considerable number, because of adding fluoride.  

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.

I'm all for healthy skepticism, I just don't think this is that.  Perhaps if you could hang around my office for a day or a week, see how we operate, what we do, what we talk about, you'd get it.  We aren't sitting around plotting how to stick it to smokers.  We aren't sitting around plotting how to genetically scrub unhealthy people from the population.  It's simply about helping people and helping those people who want help.  And the policies that ban smoking in buildings are simply about making sure that people who don't smoke are allowed to have smoke-free environments in the public sphere.  It isn't about making smokers "second class citizens"  You have a right to smoke and to enjoy your smokes, but non-smokers have the right to not be negatively impacted, in public, by your chosen behavior.  That's what those policies are all about.  

[Fujikoma]

Thanks for your explanation, RWHN. It's a little reassuring, to me, anyway. Like I said, I'm dropping it here, sorry for dragging it out so long. I'll think what I think, and you'll think what you think.

It was never my intent to imply that you or your coworkers are eugenicists... If I somehow did that, I'm sorry.

[AFK]

Well, I didn't think you actually thought we were eugenicists.  My point is that I think it is very far-fetched, and honestly irrational, to suppose that any efforts to reduce tobacco use and efforts to reduce exposure to second hand smoke somehow could be a first domino towards eugenics.  I mean, there just isn't any rational evidence to make that leap.  

[LMNO]

If anything, stem cells and genetic therapy would be a much more convenient starting point for that sort of paranoia.

[Adios]

All pigs are created equal, just non-smoking pigs are more equal. When smokers drink, they smoke more. This is why the law hurt the bars around here and why the bars are against it. Like was mentioned earlier, if an owner doesn't want smoke in their place make it no smoking. Is that too easy?

[LMNO]

Next you're gonna tell me that the free market behaves rationally.

[Adios]

Next you're gonna tell me that the free market behaves rationally.

When the rapture happens only the gays will be saved. Convert now.

[Phox]

Next you're gonna tell me that the free market behaves rationally.

When the rapture happens only the gays will be saved. Convert now.

Phox wins. 

[Fujikoma]

If anything, stem cells and genetic therapy would be a much more convenient starting point for that sort of paranoia.

You know, I laughed, but I'm not going to explain why, lest I get dragged back into ranting.

[Cain]

You know, hours of fun can be had by replacing the word "smoke" with the word "piss" in these arguments.

[Adios]

Piss is only good with tequila.

[Cain]

Without some kind of smoking ban, it would be highly unlikely I would ever be in a bar.  Along with every other asthmatic who has severe allergic reactions to cigarette smoke (breathing becoming difficult, wheezing etc).

I also note no-one is touching this with a barge pole.