U.S. Seeks to Alter Anti-Tabacco Treaty

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Oerdin


If you folks got suckered into socialized health care then you signed on the bottom line and are on the hook to pay his bills. The choice now is between honoring that commitment or surpressing the people's freedom of choice.

There is a third option.

Under socialized medicine, don't provide treatment to smokers for smoke-related disease - make them pay their own.

If people exercise their freedom of choice, shouldn't they pay for the consequences? Smoking, is after all, a voluntarily assumed risk.

[yavoon]

yah templar but thats not socialist. u let that thinking get out and pretty soon ur making ppl suffer the consequences of all their choices.

and socialism can't have that.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola


Not that much, many of the restrictions NEGOTIATED to settle a lawsuit with other sources of liability could not be constituionally imposed by statute.

We have a large amount of LEGISLATED restrictions that have not been found to be unconstitutional. I don't yet see the problem with constitutionality, its just us allowing things overseas that we wouldn't allow among our own citizens for the benefit of tobacco profit margins.

Many countries do prohibit underage smoking but very few ever enforce it. http://nosmoking.ws/news/newstobaccomarketskids0801.htm

A new study of schoolchildren 13 to 15 in 68 countries, conducted by the W.H.O. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that about 11 percent of the children in Latin America and the Caribbean were offered free cigarettes by a
tobacco company representative in 1999 and 2000. In Russia, nearly 17 percent said they had been given free cigarettes. In
Jordan, it was 25 percent.

"Can you imagine if that happened here?" asked Armando Peruga, tobacco coordinator for the Pan American Health Organization, the Washington-based office of the W.H.O. "There would be a big uproar."

Others say this is part of an overall strategy on the part of the tobacco companies, one that is likely to become even more commonplace.

"This is the right time for the tobacco industry to seduce children overseas," said Vera da Costa e Silva, director of the World Health Organization's tobacco program, which has begun documenting the distribution of cigarettes to smokers under 18 by Philip Morris and its European competitors. "They are looking to increase the number of smokers in developing countries and elsewhere abroad because in the United States they are losing their market."

Sugar and honey can be found in some of the cigarettes that British American Tobacco sells in the South Pacific, for instance. Health officials contend that the ingredients are added to lure children who might otherwise shy away from the acrid taste of cigarettes. The company denies the accusation, saying that there is not enough of the additives to mollify the harshness of smoking. But internal documents from as long ago as the 1970's from its American subsidiary, Brown & Williamson, point out that "it is a well-known fact that teenagers like sweet products.

And check out these ads, http://www.motherjones.com/sideshow/smoke.html

[St Leo]

The government should get out of the business of being safty Nazis. People should be warned that certain actions might cause them future health problems but if the idiot still decides to smoke or drive without his seatbelt on or what ever then he should be allowed to do so. Just make sure the idiot pays he's own health care bills.

Uh, have you ever heard of Second Hand Smoke? My Canada does not include smokers.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Proteus: International Politics is not a democracy. The United States of America is a soverign nation and has the right to sign or not sign any treaty that it wants. Right now we find the treaty unacceptable, you can negotiate with us or not include us in the treaty.

Of course, that was what I wanted to say:

I would prefer to see the USA not signing the treaty,
rather than negotiating a foul compromise which waters down the whole treaty, just to persuade the USA to sign it.


As I already mentioned in my last Posting:
Giving the USA the privilege to choose which Articles it obeys and which not, just to get them to sign the treaty, would undermine the whole thing.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by St Leo
Uh, have you ever heard of Second Hand Smoke? My Canada does not include smokers.

Let restaurant goers choose between establishments which allow smoking or disallow smoking or even have seporate sections for smokers & nonsmokers. If the public proceives smokers to be a big inconvience to them then the market will punish those establishments which allow smoking. Or are you afraid the public won't choose the choice you want them to?

[gsmoove23]

Or, vote in legislation restricting smoking in restaurants and bars unless the owner is ready to pay extra for a license. If the legislation sticks . I've got no problem with that and its one of the only things I would thank Bloomberg for as mayor of NYC.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Many countries do prohibit underage smoking but very few ever enforce it. http://nosmoking.ws/news/newstobaccomarketskids0801.htm

I hate to say it but if the lazy slugs passed a law and then won't even bother to enforce they're own law what makes you think passing a second law will make them enforce either law better?

[yavoon]

I'm not a very big fan of gov't coercion. if something is wrong then ban it or make real regulations about it. but this kinda sneaky approach to try and influence moralities on society doesn't sit well w/ me.

that includes the 898038498 tax benefits/writeoffs. the gov't should butt the god damn hell out of how I spend money.

[gsmoove23]

I don't see the distinction between banning and more subtle influencing. Both involve the government butting in, while banning gives the government the right investigate individuals, place wiretaps and so forth, plus it never works. Subtle influence is the way to go , plus its not too subtle since any person with half a brain can see it coming a mile away.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Oerdin

Let restaurant goers choose between establishments which allow smoking or disallow smoking or even have seporate sections for smokers & nonsmokers. If the public proceives smokers to be a big inconvience to them then the market will punish those establishments which allow smoking. Or are you afraid the public won't choose the choice you want them to?

Here in New York, the ban was created in part to protect the workers at smoking establishments from smoke. And don't say they can choose to get another job. Even if the economy were good and jobs were available, its a basic principle that people are entitled to a safe workplace. You can't run a toxic chemical plant, fail to provide safety measures, and then say the workers could always get another job. New York now merely recognizes that a smokey workplace is a risk.

Oh, and just to let you in on a dirty little secret, the total ban was pushed by the restaurant owners themselves. The don't want to be on the hook if waitrons later get cancer and sue due to toxic workplace environment. But the owners wanted to make sure a ban affected everyone so that no one could allow smoking. A hold-out could take the risk of future lawsuits and attempt to lure the smoking crowd to their establishment and thereby cut profits in other establishments.

So you see, nobody except smokers oppose the ban.

[Dinner]

I'm not a smoker and I oppose the ban.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I'm not a smoker and I oppose the ban.

Let me rephrase - no one but smokers and Oerdin.

I'm kidding. A libertarian would argue that the restaurant owners are trying to unfairly limit competition. But I think that protecting restaurant workers from second-hand smoke is more important than allowing the market to decide.

[GePap]

Well then, lest just add Tobacco products to the list of illicit drugs, and thus advertisement for them would be illegal as well: so much for the First ammendment...

Hmmmm.. why does the US just simply stay out of the treaty instead of trying to water it down? After all, outside of the US Tobacco companies have no more 1st rigths protection than anyone else... guess that would make too much sense and cut down on profits. silly me, what was I thinking?