Smoking Bans

For a second I read "antichrist". Which, actually, either one is fine.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

By the way, this is the "smoking" thread so Happy 420 to everyone!!!I hope everyone enjoyed

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

The public awareness would have sufficed. There is no need for that to be a law outside of common sense. There was no "campaign" to teach the public in the US, we simply see the ads for it being a law and you'll be fined if you don't adhere.Awareness comes from driving schools, adults who tell you to put it on, and, oh yeah, common sense. We don't have government organized campaigns here in the US that teach us about using seatbelts, we have campaigns that just show us it's a law and you'll be punished for breaking it. It's all about the fear tactic. In fact the ad is "Buckle up, it's the LAW".Here's the link to California's "awareness" campaign: Buckle up it's the lawPerhaps the law reflects the governments lack of confidence in it's citizens to be taught and to learn and understand. So instead of teaching people they just make a law.If they changed the law in your country would you stop using the seatbelts and incourage your children to stop using it as well?

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Fair enough. So do we just keep the law or eventually say "hey, you folks seem to have it down already" - "Cars have airbags, seatbelts, all the necessary outer protection, I think the law can be deactivated, it served it's purpose" - which was of course to teach safety, yes?Do you think they'll get rid of it if we show we "get it"? That is my point; you know the safety of it, you understand what happens if you don't use it. You were brought up, like me, without seatbelts yet you "get it". If you would do it without it being a law then the law didn't effect you one way or the other. I would stand in the back seat and hold my parents shoulder while they drove, and smoked, and my dad would have a beer on the way to the beach. Now 2 of those are against the law and one of them may soon be also...go figure. I will agree that in the area of automotive regulations and safety, the auto manufacturers have really stepped up and taken the proper measures to insure the publics safety when driving their vehicles.Maybe it's so they won't be liable, maybe it's driven by the free market and if you want to compete it MUST include the safety features, or, perhaps it has been consumer demand for a better product, what ever it may have been, that is one area where they've done an excellent job.The seatbelt law seems like an after thought, though.But the laws forcing the auto makers to step up their safety on the vehicles is one that I can support.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Found an interesting article about Phillip Morris and it's support of a new Bill...and the real reason why they support it. Smoke Signals: Why a Tobacco Giant Is Backing a Tough New Antismoking BillA couple of quotes...

quote:

---

The U.S. Senate on Thursday struck the most devastating legislative blow in history to Big Tobacco, giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over the industry. The new bill, which passed in the House in April, includes tough new restrictions on advertising like allowing only black-and-white text ads in magazines with substantial youth readerships, mandates that manufacturers prove or stop using claims like "light" and "low tar," bans flavored cigarettes (except menthol) and makes provisions for large, graphic warning labels. So why, then, is tobacco giant Philip Morris, unlike its industry brethren, celebrating the unprecedented oversight?

​

When Senator John McCain introduced FDA regulatory legislation in 1998, the company spent a reported $100 million successfully fighting it. But since then, Philip Morris has had a crucial realization. With 50% of the U.S. tobacco market already safely in the company's pocket - and more than 50% of 18- to 25-year-old smokers loyal to its top brand, Marlboro - restrictive legislation will effectively lock in its market dominance, preventing any competitors from taking a bite out of Philip Morris' very lucrative business.

​

But there's another key reason Philip Morris lobbied hard for FDA regulation, aligning itself with strange bedfellows like the Campaign for Smoke-Free Kids, the American Lung Association and longtime antismoking crusaders Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative Henry Waxman. "Philip Morris wants the public-health community to join them in finding the holy grail: the safe cigarette," says Gregory Connolly, a tobacco expert and professor at the Harvard School of Public Health. Simply put, figuring out how to produce a less harmful tobacco product and getting an FDA seal of approval could open up a whole new, potentially huge consumer market.

---

Enjoy- Oni

---

Petition to Bailout Comedy The Laugh Factory is imploring Congress to immediately fund what owner Jamie Masada calls an "Economic Cheer-Up." If Congress fails to act quickly, the Laugh Factory comedians are planning to march to Washington and plea to President Obama.