Italy to ban plastic bags

[Phox]

I did pun, but I also contributed to the discussion.

To review, I said I'd be fine with smoking being forbidden in public except at official smoking locations.
I also asked what the big deal is with smoking besides being addicted to it (getting your fix). My reason for asking this is: If something has no legitimate benefits, and harms people who don't partake, why be allowed to do it in public?

Eliminate the income and jobs created by the tobacco industry and then repeat the part about legitimate benefits please.

Okay, but that's not the kind of benefits I was talking about. I meant direct benefits to the smoker. The industry can still exist with limiting the product's use.

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I will now bow out of this dance for reasons best left unstated. But I'm still not buying it. Carry on without me.

[the last yatto]

I disagree entirely.  I do NOT wish to see ANY portion of the bodies of 95% of America, and putting up with their jowled, quivering faces is bad enough.  In fact, I think they should all be fitted for colostomy bags and be forbidden from removing their clothing except to go to sleep at night, if that.

Can we force ugly people to wear burqas?

[AFK]

Nobody, and I mean, nobody has as a goal to eliminate and ban smoking.

No more than I or my colleagues have as a goal to eliminate drinking.  

We want to help those who want help.

We do want to promote healthy spaces in the public sphere.

But nobody has as part of their mission the complete banning of smoking.  Nobody.  

[hooplala]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

[Adios]

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I think that's a mis-characterization

I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking


and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.

The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.

Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.

But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.

In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH

[AFK]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

[Adios]

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I think that's a mis-characterization

I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking


and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.

The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.

Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.

But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.

In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH

Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.

[hooplala]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

[Epimetheus]

In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.

OH NO! There are incentives for ending an addiction?

[Adios]

In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.

OH NO! There are incentives for ending an addiction?

Pressure = incentive? What fucking planet are you from, exactly?

[AFK]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

If the allergy is that severe, then yeah, they probably should be hiring a consultant to inspect the house to make sure it is clean enough for their child to live their. 

[LMNO]

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I think that's a mis-characterization

I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking


and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.

The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.

Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.

But that “discrimination” isn’t likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.

In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH

Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.

Hold on a second.  Cancer is fucking expensive to treat.

If you do something that increases your risk of cancer, why the hell wouldn't an insurance company take that into consideration when planning your rates?

[the last yatto]

http://www.social-marketing.org/success/cs-floridatruth.html

[Adios]

Or just start using lead-based paint again.  You know, because FUCK THE GOVERNMENT FOR TELLING ME WHAT TO DO.

Is it really the same level of seriousness?  This is a genuine question, should it be misinterpreted as simple attitude.  Is it really on the same level?

Should parents of children with serious peanut allergies be checking how many PB&J sandwiches were consumed in a home before they buy it?

I concede the point that there are certain things that are dangerous enough to everyone that they should be banned, but what is the level before this should be instituted?

I think more studies are warranted to get a clearer picture but this study at least indicates there are more questions to be answered.  And again, it isn't about a step towards banning smoking.  Instead, the information would be best used by organizations like mine as a tool to raise awareness.  If there are potential dangers in homes, parents should at minimum be aware of those dangers so they can ask the right questions and make the right decisions for their family.  

I agree, but what about the peanut butter issue?  Apparently some children are susceptible enough that even being in the same room as peanut butter can bring on an attack.

Should parents be checking for these things as well before buying a home?

If the allergy is that severe, then yeah, they probably should be hiring a consultant to inspect the  only be buying a brand new house to make sure it is clean enough for their child to live their. 

[Adios]

You are dead wrong. The ultimate goal is to eliminate all smoking. This isn't just about the big ebil corporations. It starts with farmers. Consider blue collar workers.

I think that's a mis-characterization

I have yet to see any arguments from the "keep smoke out of public places" camp indicating that they want to eliminate all smoking


and again, the economy is secondary to the issue. One might as well argue that we should remain in Afghanistan forever because the military employs a lot of people.

The tougher new law follows another national trend: companies and governments making those puffs more expensive.

Many smokers are paying higher health insurance premiums than their nonsmoking co-workers, sparking protests of discrimination and intrusion into their private lives.

But that "discrimination" isn't likely to fade. The new health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, makes it clear that companies, effective in 2014, can charge smokers up to 50 percent higher premium rates than nonsmokers.

In short, a range of legal, financial and health incentives are pressuring smokers to quit.


Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2051134/kansas-anti-smoking-law-starting.html#ixzz1ABkmszFH

Please continue to paint me as a tin hat person.

Hold on a second.  Cancer is fucking expensive to treat.

If you do something that increases your risk of cancer, why the hell wouldn't an insurance company take that into consideration when planning your rates?

As long as families with a history of cancer, smoking or non-smoking, get to have the same fun.