Cigarette Police


Smoking Ban Is About Government Control; Believe it or not, the state really doesn’t care about your health

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2198397.ece

‘Cigarette police’ deployed in France to enforce smoking ban
By John Lichfield in Paris
Published: 30 January 2007

From this week, a legion of 175,000 “cigarette police” will patrol and sniff schools, factories, offices and other “public spaces” across France to enforce a tough, new law against smoking. At least this is the theory. After years of lax enforcement of existing laws, it remains to be seen how strictly the new rules are imposed.

Restaurants and bars, in which smoking has theoretically been banned since 1991, have been given a further 11 months’ grace until January next year. Smoking in almost all other enclosed spaces open to the public will be banned from Thursday. Offenders face a fine of ?68 (?48). Similar restrictions have already been imposed in Ireland, Spain and Sweden and will take effect in England in June.

There are some doubts about the legal basis of the French law, imposed by government decree and ministerial circular rather than by act of parliament. The government could not trust its parliamentary supporters to anger smoking voters by passing tough restrictions in an election year. All the same, the law represents an important stage in the conversion of France to an officially anti-smoking country. Until two decades ago, the French state, which held the monopoly for producing and importing tobacco, took a relatively relaxed view of smoking.

In recent years, tobacco taxes have been pushed up by 40 per cent, bringing a packet of 20 to around ?4, one of the highest prices on the continent. The number of smokers fell at first but is now rising again, especially among teenagers. About one in three French people over 12 smokes regularly.

The French Health Minister, Xavier Bertrand, has bowed to pressure from health professionals and the threat of law suits from passive smokers. Smoking is held responsible for 66,000 deaths a year in France, including 6,000 people who had never smoked.

“From 1 February, no one should have to put up with smoke puffed out by others,” M. Simon said. “This is the end of the enforced co-habitation between smokers and non-smokers.”

In theory smoking in all French bars and restaurants has been banned since 1991, except for small, designated “smoking” areas. In practice, the law has been turned upside down with almost entire premises marked as " smoking areas". This has not been challenged by the government, but from next January all this will change.

The power to enforce the law has been given to the police and gendarmerie but also to the transport police and an army of inspectors. They will have the power to issue “contravention” documents, like parking tickets, to offenders. The government hopes that the law will, in fact, mostly be enforced by the moral pressure of non-smokers. The detail of where smoking is banned is not in the decree but in a ministerial circular. Lawyers have warned that this is legally dubious and open to challenge.

Today the European Commission will call on all 27 EU countries to follow suit by barring smoking from public places. Markos Kyprianou, European commissioner for health, will launch a discussion paper which will raise the possibility of pan-European legislation - though member states will decide whether to outlaw smoking or take milder measures to discourage it.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Smoking is held responsible for 66,000 deaths a year in France, including 6,000 people who had never smoked.[/quote]

How does that work? How do you determine that a non-smoker died from second hand smoke? Did he inhale enough second hand smoke to have tar buildup in the lungs?

Or is it just some kind of bullshit number someone pulls out of their asses to bolster their agenda?

[quote]pookie wrote:
Or is it just some kind of bullshit number someone pulls out of their asses to bolster their agenda?
[/quote]

Bingo.

[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
Smoking Ban Is About Government Control; Believe it or not, the state really doesn’t care about your health

[/quote]

Amen…This shit pisses me off so bad, it makes me want to restart. It’s about

[quote]pookie wrote:
Or is it just some kind of bullshit number someone pulls out of their asses to bolster their agenda?
[/quote]

Ding, Ding! We have a winner. There is no way to prove second-hand smoke is anything but anoying. There is no way to study the effects. I’d love to find a double blind study on this, cause there ain’t one, right now.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
pookie wrote:
Or is it just some kind of bullshit number someone pulls out of their asses to bolster their agenda?

Bingo.[/quote]

It’s funny up in Maine the cops can pull you over if you are driving and smoking with kids in your car. I don’t smoke I feel it’s a filthy habit but if someone wants to do it have at it we don’t need the police involved I thought this was the USA, and before anyone blames Bush and the Republicans it was the Dems in Maine who passed the bill idiocy knows no political bounds

[quote]pat36 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Or is it just some kind of bullshit number someone pulls out of their asses to bolster their agenda?

Ding, Ding! We have a winner. There is no way to prove second-hand smoke is anything but anoying. There is no way to study the effects. I’d love to find a double blind study on this, cause there ain’t one, right now.
[/quote]

The problem with the reported numbers is that I’m sure variance of the estimation is huge. However it is possible to study second hand smoking for example by comparing health of couples smoker&non-smoker vs non-smoker&smoker. Or comparing health of children with smoking vs non-smoking parents.

This can give us a certain estimator of how many people die due to SHS.

[quote]skor wrote:
pat36 wrote:
pookie wrote:
Or is it just some kind of bullshit number someone pulls out of their asses to bolster their agenda?

Ding, Ding! We have a winner. There is no way to prove second-hand smoke is anything but anoying. There is no way to study the effects. I’d love to find a double blind study on this, cause there ain’t one, right now.

The problem with the reported numbers is that I’m sure variance of the estimation is huge. However it is possible to study second hand smoking for example by comparing health of couples smoker&non-smoker vs non-smoker&smoker. Or comparing health of children with smoking vs non-smoking parents.

This can give us a certain estimator of how many people die due to SHS.[/quote]

I don’t contend that second hand smoke is good for you, but I think it’s dangers have been greatly exagerated in to be used as a political tool. It is a control thing.

Power hungry assholes are using it as a way to control behavior and this is a bad thing because it opens the door for further control of behavior under the gise of protecting health. Ultimately leads to government depedence as everything we do has to be “approved” if controls goes on unchecked.

The science behind second hand smoke is junk science. There are no controls and know statistically signifigant differences between exposed and non-exposed people.

If somebody lived in a house full of smokers and worked in a coal mine and died of lung cancer, they would say that the lung cancer came from the secondhand smoke.

Smoking is bad for you, drugs are bad for you, eating doughnuts is bad for you, huffing gas is bad for you, drinking is bad for you, etc. Lot’s of shit is bad for you, ban all of it, or none of it, I say.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Smoking is bad for you, drugs are bad for you, eating doughnuts is bad for you, huffing gas is bad for you, drinking is bad for you, etc. Lot’s of shit is bad for you, ban all of it, or none of it, I say.[/quote]

When someone is eating doughnuts, I’m not forced to eat with him.

However, when someone smokes near me, I’m forced to inhale smoke. It’s filthy, smelly and poisonous. Why should I move away? Why not the imbecile who decided to kill himself slowly? Why do I have to suffer the consequences of his stupid decision?

If I extend the “smoker’s rationalization” further, I could spit and urinate on people in public places.

[quote]loppar wrote:
pat36 wrote:
However, when someone smokes near me, I’m forced to inhale smoke. It’s filthy, smelly and poisonous. Why should I move away? Why not the imbecile who decided to kill himself slowly? Why do I have to suffer the consequences of his stupid decision?

If I extend the “smoker’s rationalization” further, I could spit and urinate on people in public places. [/quote]

What do you do when you follow a car with poor emissions or around somebody who wears way to much perfume? Actually, I am allergic to perfumes, they give me sneezing fits and headaches almost instantly. Not all but a lot of them do, yet I am forced to endure them at times.

I understand what your saying, I think it’s just a matter of courtesy, not legislation. If your trapped in a room or space with somebody who is a smoker, he should be polite and not smoke. If it’s public domain, though shit I say.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
loppar wrote:
pat36 wrote:
However, when someone smokes near me, I’m forced to inhale smoke. It’s filthy, smelly and poisonous. Why should I move away? Why not the imbecile who decided to kill himself slowly? Why do I have to suffer the consequences of his stupid decision?

If I extend the “smoker’s rationalization” further, I could spit and urinate on people in public places.

What do you do when you follow a car with poor emissions or around somebody who wears way to much perfume? Actually, I am allergic to perfumes, they give me sneezing fits and headaches almost instantly. Not all but a lot of them do, yet I am forced to endure them at times.

I understand what your saying, I think it’s just a matter of courtesy, not legislation. If your trapped in a room or space with somebody who is a smoker, he should be polite and not smoke. If it’s public domain, though shit I say.[/quote]

My gym has banned perfumes for this reason.

I think public smoking bans are fine. Public urination is illegal because it is filthy and hazardous and I view public smoking in the same light.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

My gym has banned perfumes for this reason.

I think public smoking bans are fine. Public urination is illegal because it is filthy and hazardous and I view public smoking in the same light.

[/quote]

Hazardous? It’s definately gross.
My contention is this, bans on what you don’t like are fine. But do not ban what you do like; correct?
You can’t have it both ways, otherwise they’d crown you king.

Nobody has a right to perfect air. I live in Georgia, spring time here is the worst air quality in the world with the extreme pollen we get here. You’d be better off in a smoked filled room, believe me. Hell look at L.A., they built a city in a valley, no wonder that air is nasty.
I have to put up with the smelly indian bitch who sits next to me, that air is definately not good for you; but I cannot do a damn thing about it.

In other words, we all have to put up with things we do not like sometimes.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
I don’t contend that second hand smoke is good for you, but I think it’s dangers have been greatly exagerated in to be used as a political tool. It is a control thing.

Power hungry assholes are using it as a way to control behavior and this is a bad thing because it opens the door for further control of behavior under the gise of protecting health. Ultimately leads to government depedence as everything we do has to be “approved” if controls goes on unchecked.

The science behind second hand smoke is junk science. There are no controls and know statistically signifigant differences between exposed and non-exposed people.

If somebody lived in a house full of smokers and worked in a coal mine and died of lung cancer, they would say that the lung cancer came from the secondhand smoke.

Smoking is bad for you, drugs are bad for you, eating doughnuts is bad for you, huffing gas is bad for you, drinking is bad for you, etc. Lot’s of shit is bad for you, ban all of it, or none of it, I say.[/quote]

Pat,
I don’t know exact statistical techniques used to analyze second hand smoke, but I don’t think they are very different from other accepted techniques. Your claim that the science behind it is junk needs some support.

If SHS in fact was harmful, would you support ban of it?

[quote]skor wrote:
Pat,
I don’t know exact statistical techniques used to analyze second hand smoke, but I don’t think they are very different from other accepted techniques. Your claim that the science behind it is junk needs some support.

If SHS in fact was harmful, would you support ban of it?[/quote]

Here some shit to back up my assertions:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html

Now you could also find another half dozen links that say otherwise. But the fact that there is no pure scietific study conducted with a control group is just pure fact. I looked I couldn’t find one.
The truth of the matter is that the issue is so politicized now, that we may never hear the actual, real truth because everybody has an agenda.

To answer your question, no I would not support a ban on cigarettes unless you ban other polutants as well. All or none. I don’t concider the health issue, I consider the freedom from government interference in our lives issue.

If someone is allowed to blow smoke in my face, I should be allowed to spit in theirs. It’s not like spit is harmful, is it? And it is my god given right to spit some of that skol residue, correct?

I’m in no way in favor of restricting smoking in private, but when a person is in a confined public space with others, it’s an imposition on others.

[quote]etaco wrote:
If someone is allowed to blow smoke in my face, I should be allowed to spit in theirs. It’s not like spit is harmful, is it? And it is my god given right to spit some of that skol residue, correct?

I’m in no way in favor of restricting smoking in private, but when a person is in a confined public space with others, it’s an imposition on others.[/quote]

Not only that but there are those of us who happen to have brething problems thanks to smoking and other airborne chemicals.

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Lot’s of shit is bad for you, ban all of it, or none of it, I say.[/quote]

So, your cool with asbestos right? Nothing wrong with building using it? After all, it only causes cancer, nothing too serious.

[quote]burntfrenchfry wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Lot’s of shit is bad for you, ban all of it, or none of it, I say.

So, your cool with asbestos right? Nothing wrong with building using it? After all, it only causes cancer, nothing too serious.[/quote]

I don’t know, asbestos is pretty useful. Tobacco, not so much.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
pookie wrote:
Or is it just some kind of bullshit number someone pulls out of their asses to bolster their agenda?
Bingo.[/quote]

In New Hampshire there is not yet a statewide smoking ban in public places. This seems to be working out beautifully. We live in the biggest city in the state, and about two blocks from here are roughly 28 bars. Some allow smoking, some don’t. I quit smoking 5 years ago, so usually frequent the non smoking ones.

Often, though, there is a good band or cheap beer at a smoking bar. I will go, no problem. The next morning I wake up coughing up crap, and I have to leave my clothes out on the deck. I can live with that. having free choice, whether to have clean air, or to smoke, is the key.

As far as kids in cars, I think the selfish parents should re evaluate their priorities. Nothing bothers me more than leaning over one of my 6 year old students and getting a huge whiff of stale cigarettes. Yuck.