home :: Agriculture :: cigsAndCows.writeback

Mon, 29 May 2006

Cigs and Cows

A fine essay on why we North Americans go mad banning cigarettes as a precaution, yet continue to ignore (and evade) many more sensible precautionary steps we could take on the food chain or in the environment. And why Europe seems to take the exact opposite tack.

When we North Americans find out that smoking is bad for us, our inner Puritans rise to the challenge with a self-righteousness and commitment that we would never apply to heavy metals in the environment.

(link) [Toranto Star]

via MyAppleMenu:Reader

/Agriculture | 3 writebacks | permanent link

writebacks...

On 5/30/2006 06:56:38
Arwin wrote

Mind if I f@rt revisited

By the way: Ireland has banned smoking in their pubs. Europe is following North America on this one. What this whole argument comes down to is either smokers are inconvenienced because they can no longer light up where ever they please or non-smokers are inconsiderately exposed to smoke they would rather avoid. I'm all for public smoking bans because I won't be annoyed at a minimum, or exposed to stuff that could negatively affect my health at a maximum if public smoking is banned. I know the argument: there are many things I'm exposed to that will negatively affect my health, some self administered, and some more dangerous than smoking. For the self administered stuff that's my choice. Just like smoking is a smokers choice. Smoking crosses a line when the smoker insists on subjecting others to what many consider objectionable for many rational reasons. It is fine with me if smokers want to take the health risks, just like skiers, mountain climbers, sky divers, and others who pursue dangerous pastimes. The difference is when I'm setting in a restaurant in Indianapolis it is unlikely a skier will crash through a wall and injure me or disrupt my meal. There is the argument that smokers take a dip in the government treasury to pay for medical bills and therefore smoking should be completely outlawed. I agree with posts Dave has made elsewhere in this blog. That goes too far. If smoking is outlawed will skiing and other risky activities follow? Now another nod to Dave. It sounds to me like the Ontario legislation goes too far. I can tolerate dining outside when a smoker is nearby. More so if I'm setting upwind. :-) I guess the nicotine addition is particularly powerful after a meal. Too bad, not my problem. Just as considerate parents usher crying tots or misbehaving youngsters out of a restaurant, a considerate smoker would take a little stroll after his/her restaurant meal in deference to his/her fellow diners. Unfortunately on both counts many people aren't that considerate to their fellow diners. To make an even playing field, any smoking ban should allow for establishments to be either no-smoking or must smoke. In the latter if you don't light up you are ejected. You hear business owners whine about the business they would lose if a smoking ban is imposed. If smoking bans allowed for must smoke establishments the owners could make a choice. Then the market could decide. You do know this last paragraph is tough in cheek.

On 5/30/2006 06:59:56
Arwin wrote

Correction

That's tongue in cheek. I hate it when I goof up like that :-)

On 5/30/2006 07:08:56
Dave H wrote

Tough in Cheek?

There for a minute I'd thought you'd taken up dippin' snuff! ;>) For a somewhat humorous perspective on all this madness, have you seen Woody Allen's movie 'Sleeper'? If it shows up on the late show and you've got insomnia you oughta check it out... Thank for the comment (or should I say additional post? - I had one paragraph, you took eight!!!) and, Be well, Dave H.

comment...