h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Their caps-lock is also a hole-punch?

So when was the last time you had an asthma attack brought on by someone blowing beer fumes in your face?

Oh, and hey, why do you think the Surgeon General, the British Chief Medical Officer, and ther equivalents in Australia, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Norway, Sweden, etc. etc., all suddenly took up being anti-smoking advocates? Coincidental perversity? Perhaps not.

And another thing: I have said more than once that I don't give a toss if you choose to smoke. Just as long as you don't inflict it on those who choose not to. Which, at present, includes over 50% of the adult population and, of course, most children. So I for one welcome the fact that there are now restaurants where the presumption is non-smoking. Odd idea, pandering to the majority, but hopefully it will catch on

No but there are parallels with 'A large campaign for smoke-free public places'.

;^)#

Because there were votes in banning the advertising to appease the anti-smoking zealots, whilst existing smokers would be apathetic as it is an issue that wouldn't directly affect them.

If you believe that the fact that a number of governments reaching the same conclusion at about the same time makes them infallible then you must be an ardent supporter for all the proposals of the EU & their imposition on the UK - as many of the goverments on your list have agreed this is the right thing to do - despite widespread opposition in the UK - oops sorry district of England, European nation.

Oh, & most of the governments in your list thought, at one (& the same) time, that slavery was a Good Thing - did this make it correct & do you support them in this?


;^)#
longing for an infallible government

How bout an athsma attack brought on by the stress of their obnoxious behaviour?

That being beside the point... The reason those governments all came to the same agreement (as someone already pointed out) is due to the control of special interest groups -- another of my pet peeves.

If over 50% of the population doesn't smoke, why are the non-smoking sections empty?

Oh.. And just to save you the trouble of trying to impress me with more statistics, lemme clue you in on something I learned a loooooooong time ago... "Figures [statistics] don't lie, but liars [statisticians] sure can figure!"

Wrong. Have you ever had an asthma attack brought on by breathing air breathed out by a non-smoker? Have you ever heard of a public building being burned down with mass fatalities because of a carelessly-discarded chewing-gum wrapper? Does clean air spoil your enjoyment of a meal?

Public buildings should be fit for everyone. That means me, as well as you. It means fitting ramps for the disabled, and it means keeping the air clean for the majority of the population who don't smoke. Since your smoke renders the building uninhabitable for me, you should refrain from smoking in public areas. Nobody's stopping you having a smoking ghetto (several firms do), or smoking in your own home or your car or in the middle of a field, but in an enclosed space you have no right to inflict smoke on people, causing immediate or longer-term health dangers. And yes I genuinely *am* allergic to cigarette smoke. Many asthmatics are sensitive to it.

So, a public outcry over the death of a teenager taking drugs is obviously misguided whilst the public outcry over the death of a nightclub performer is obviously well informed (because you agree with it ).

And yes I have had an asthma attack due to tobacco smoke & I have watched my mother die from chronic asthma. And I have not said anywhere that I am a smoker. Nor have I said that you dont have a right to clean air. Please do not make assumptions (verging on accusations) about people who do not agree with all your views.

What I have said is, that a product that is legal to sell & consume should be allowed to be advertised & that to differentiate on the issue between products such as alcohol, firearms, motor vehicles and smoking based on your own personal preferences/health requirements is inlogical & invalid. And I have attempted to point that some of your sweeping generalisations and widely cast emotive 'justifications' have some flaws in them.

You want to convert me to your cause - build a better argument than its bad for you & me coz that's just life.


;^)#

The non-smoking sections certainly aren't empty around here. In my local Pizza Express the non-smoking section is bigger and fills up sooner.

And don't you think that pleading about "special interest groups" sits rather badly with the behaviour of Big Tobacco in the states, who have been undermining public health work for decades? Including swearing in court that tobacco smoking is not addictive, while admitting in private that it is?

In the UK there is a special interest group called FOREST - the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco. There is no such organisation as FORENCA (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Non-Carcinogenic Air).

Or maybe you are right - maybe there is a global conspiracy involving doctors (the BMA, AMA and WHO all agree smoking is dangerous and a public-health issue), politicians (most governments control the advertising and distribution of tobacco), statisticians (who all appear to agree that smoking kills) and the general public, lined up against the lonely but righteous forces of the tobacco industry with nothing at their disposal except an advertising spend which dwarfs the public health budgets of every major market and a pressing need to persuade more people to smoke before their existing customers die of emphysema, heart disease and lung cancer.

You decide. I'm just going to take my Arcturan megadonkey for a walk.

You read back what you just said. It boils down to, existing smokers don't care if there are adverts, and non-smokers don't want to be bombarded with adverts for a product which, in very large numbers, they find offensive. So *what's wrong with that?* Everybody gets to live their lives in peace. The only losers are the tobacco firms, and I for one don't give a flying f**k on a rolling doughnut about those bastards

Re slavery, at one point it was believed that asbestos was harmless. Then we found out it wasn't. Civilisation is, in the main, a process of movement towards enlightenment. This is called "progress" and people who oppose it are called "Luddites"

I don't think rampant apathy in the face of zealots pursuing their goals necessarily makes the zealots right.
I really dont care what is advertised, I will always do my best to avoid it - but its the principle & the precedent that's important. Otherwise, what else might governments decide is so bad for you that they should restrict/control its exposure in the media.

I'm glad that you agree that just because a bunch of governments agree that something like slavery (or perhaps banning certain types of advertising) is OK at one point it doesnt make them right & that at some point in the future it can be shown that they were indeed very wrong.


;^)#
roll on progress & the enlightenment that it brings

Doctors - ohh yes they're the ones who pooh-poohed a British surgeon named Sir Joseph Lister, who in the 1860's, pioneered sanitary operating room procedures. In many hospitals, the post-operative mortality rate was in excess of 90%. I think it's clear to us today that his ideas were well needed.
Why, you may ask?
It seems that the doctors operated with their bare hands in street clothes. Spectators were allowed to observe the operations first hand. For surgical dressings, they used pressed sawdust which was lifted off the floors of the saw mills. Instruments were not sterilized - only washed with soap and water.
Lister gave a speech in Philadelphia in 1876, expressing his views on germs. No one was interested.

The always infallible Doctors

Q: Whats the difference between a doctor & God?
A: God doesn't think he's a doctor.

;^)#
PS not actually suggesting that smoking is anything but bad for you here, just unable to resist taking a potshot.
Leech anyone?

I work for a surgical equipment company. One of my favourite cartoons shows a group of men holding saws and the like standing by a bloke on a board, alongside which is a large barrel (apparently of ether).

The caption goes "We're the London Consort of Surgeons, and we perform authentic operations using original instruments"

And especially when most of the zealots are doctors who are sick of spending time doing heart bypass operations on people who carry on smoking, so undo whatever good the operation may have done them

And yes Governments can be wrong. At one point, for example, they chose to allow advertising of tobacco

Congratulations on inverting the sense of my words

What I *said* was that the death of the teenager was due to use of an illegal drug, and any outcry should be focused on the way in which these drugs are distributed. There are plenty of laws which prvent people from being exposed to drugs without their consent - one of which is the law compelling employers to provide a smoke-free atmosphere for their employees

I have no desire to convert you to any cause - it seems in fact to be the reverse, since the issue was started by someone wishing to persuade us that the ban oin tobacco advertising is wrong. I have no need to convert anyone: in the UK the battle is won and tobacco advertising is illegal.

The reason that tobacco advertising has been banned is very simple, very clear, and very right: advertisements which promote the single biggest cause of premature death, are against the public interest.

A modern Lister:

Professor Bill Heald at Basingstoke has noted the high instance of port-site metastasis in cancer surgery. He believes this is due to the deposit of cancer seed cells during removal of instruments and diseased tissue. His revolutionary proposal is to flush the area copiously with dilute antiseptic. His 5-year recurrence rate for low-grade tumours is 0% - other places get as high as 90%+ 5-year recurrence.

He is regarded with suspicion by many in the surgical world, mainly because he is - er - firm on the matter of whether centres with very high recurrence rates should be continuing to perform surgery at all.

Note for trivia buffs: his daughter is engaged to Tim Henman.

The point I was making was that the 'public outcry' you used in support of your argument -
"He was a lifelong non-smoker who worked extensively in very smoky working men's clubs, and it was stated publicly that this was the direct cause of his cancer. A large campaign for smoke-free public places resulted. No other credible cause was put forward."

could easily be as valid as the 'public outcry' here to ban rave parties - ie very misguided.

So what's the next biggest killer that should have its advertising banned as being 'against the public interest'? I wonder how long it will take then to get down the list to things like snow-skiing...

;^)#

Congratulations on inverting the sense of my words

What I *said* was that the death of the teenager was due to use of an illegal drug, and any outcry should be focused on the way in which these drugs are distributed. There are plenty of laws which prvent people from being exposed to drugs without their consent - one of which is the law compelling employers to provide a smoke-free atmosphere for their employees

I have no desire to convert you to any cause - it seems in fact to be the reverse, since the issue was started by someone wishing to persuade us that the ban oin tobacco advertising is wrong. I have no need to convert anyone: in the UK the battle is won and tobacco advertising is illegal.

The reason that tobacco advertising has been banned is very simple, very clear, and very right: advertisements which promote the single biggest cause of premature death, are against the public interest.

If you reeeeeely think about it I expect you can tell the difference between dying as the result of ingesting a Class A controlled substance, and dying as a result of working in an atmosphere laden with other people's tobacco smoke

Next biggest killer? Is probably bowel cancer. Nobody advertises bowel cancer, that I know of. But hey, maybe they do and I just didn't notice through the haze of tobacco smoke

Especially when those zealots are doctors

Yes, governments can get it wrong. Remember the days when they used to allow cigarette advertising? Shocking!