Smoking in France a thing of the past?

[3894]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I don't think when warning labels went on cigarettes and domestic flights were made non smoking that anyone was imagining banning smoking in bars.

I was! And in restaurants, lobbies of buildings, public bathrooms ...

Cigarette smoke is a migraine trigger for me. I walk through or by cigarette smoke and I need an Imitrex stat! My health insurer picks up the $20 per tab. Pre-Imitrex, I suffered and lost productive time. And all for someone else's freedom to fire up a cigarette.

I hate cigarettes. Ban 'em to the ends of the galaxy!

As for cigarettes somehow being central to French culture, it is to laugh.

[scaeagles]

Just read a study about traffic delays caused by people using cell phones while they drive. I think studies have also shown that cell phones increase the risk of brain tumors. It is also rude when people carry on loud conversations on them in public.

Not rhetorical, I'm wondering....the world got by fine pre cell phone. They are a convenience. So should we ban them in cars and public places? Not only are they an annoyance, and have adverse effects on others (traffic, noise, etc), but there are health risks apparently involved. Is this not the same as the smoking debate?

I can honestly see the same thing happening to cell phones that has happened to cigarettes. There will be health warning labels regarding increased tumor risk. Then they will be banned in cars. Then in public places. I don't see that as a stretch.

Many people don't care when something they hate and is an annoyance to them is restricted by the government in ways they think are fine. Then the government applies the same logic to something the person in question uses and that same individual is outraged.

[innerSpaceman]

You don't see that as a stretch, huh?


Um, wow.



But any way you cut it .... cell phones, if a health risk, are one to the person who chooses to use them. Frankly, seat belts and helmets are dangerous in the same individual choice way.


Cigarettes are not.


The analogy that a McDonalds diet poses a health risk to others because of, what?, public health care funds taken from a cancer patient to pay for a triple bypass? Um, that's even more of a stretch than the cell phone ban.


Nope, of all the personal vices and habits ... I think smoking is unique in the way it excretes its chemical danger into the atmosphere surrounding the choice-making user.

Hmmm, perhaps driving itself comes under this category, too. Maybe a ban on driving in public places is in store for us all.

[Alex]

The studies have no shown an increased risk of brain tumors with cell phone use. In fact it is pretty much the opposite. Of course, the significant health risks of second hand smoke aren't really established either.

[scaeagles]

Older study, but there have certainly been linkages made between cell phone usage and brain cancer.

Perhaps more studies will show that people in the immediate vacinity of those using cell phones are at risk as well. And there are issues with bee colonies and cell phones, which could lead to world wide crop problems.

I don't see my paranoia at government intrusion into my life and the lives of everyone as anything of a stretch. It's what government does. If we have universal health care imposed upon us, I would bet heavily that fatty and sugary foods will be taxed virtually out of existance and you will pay less for services if you prove you have a 5 day/week exercise regimin.

I find it difficult to believe that those who think the government wants to listen to their everyday conversations (rather than software combing for certain key words and phrases) and find that to be an intrusive thing aren't worried about more and more intrusion into their daily lives.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

The analogy that a McDonalds diet poses a health risk to others because of, what?, public health care funds taken from a cancer patient to pay for a triple bypass? Um, that's even more of a stretch than the cell phone ban.

That's pretty much the rational that was used to pass the helmet and seat belt laws we already have in place across this country. So why would you see that as a stretch?

[Scrooge McSam]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If we have universal health care imposed upon us, I would bet heavily that fatty and sugary foods will be taxed virtually out of existance and you will pay less for services if you prove you have a 5 day/week exercise regimin.

Fearmongering

With so many of our industrialized nations offering universal health care, the world should be rife with examples you could cite.

Please do.

[Kevy Baby]

Anything to reduce the surplus population is good.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Older study, but there have certainly been linkages made between cell phone usage and brain cancer.

Perhaps more studies will show that people in the immediate vacinity of those using cell phones are at risk as well. And there are issues with bee colonies and cell phones, which could lead to world wide crop problems.

Look into it and you'll find that pretty much all large studies find zero correlation between brain tumors and cell phones though small and generally poorly designed studies occasionally pop up. But yes, it could still bear out.

The bees and cell phone stories was a press misunderstanding of a small unrelated study that somehow quickly became internet gospel (how shocking for science reporting). It was quickly debunked with the authors of the study themselves going to great lengths try and repair the misconception.

[NirvanaMan]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

What you say makes sense, and like I said, i realize I'm on the losing side of this argument. But this last line scares me.

I concur. While I completely agree with CP's statement, I hardly find it governments responsibility to protect the stupid by penalizing personal choice. People are stupid, let them choose their own demise. I know a lot of bikers that prefer to ride without a helmet. I think they are idiots, but shouldn't it be their choice (so long as our dollars are not paying for their healthcare).

Now, this clearly crosses into a gray area when your personal choice impacts the health and comfort of others. That is where I begin to have a moral dilemma. Government = bad. However, I do enjoy the benefits of coming home from a bar smoke free. It is odd now to go back to places where they do not have these laws. However, in principal I am still opposed. It is simply because I enjoy the side benefit that I do not complain too much about the government imposition in our lives.

I suppose the argument could be made regarding the choice of venue. Whereas an airplane or restaurant is something that people should be free to use and enjoy without putting their health at risk, isn't a bar a place of vice anyway? People are hardly going their out of need, hunger or to live a more healthy lifestyle.