1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by Undertoad

We can't ban general aviation without appearing to be too draconian. But we can force pilots to carry with them images of crash scenes. It's just common and fiscal sense to deter these people from making a choice that's inappropriate for society.

We may not be able to force these pilots not to fly, but if we just make them THINK about not flying, I'd consider such a program a success.

That sort of thing should be more a part of aviation training. I do recall a particularly gruesome film of a hand-prop starting job that went badly awry that was shown quite often back when more pilots actually *knew* how to hand-prop their aircraft. Of course the message ther wasn't "don't fly" but "don't do this hazardous thing the wrong way". I'm sure a lot of folks took home the message that "handpropping is *so* dangerous I don't ever want to try it".

Of course, general aviation has much more positive value for society than nicotine addiction does. The benefits of general aviation operations include aerial advertising, aerial surveying and map making, environmental surveys, agricultural application; business and personal transportation, emergency evacuations and rescue, fire spotting and fighting, law enforcement, medical transportation or emergency flights; news reporting, photography and video, traffic monitoring, on-demand air taxi, package delivery; personal transportation; pipeline and power line patrol. (And we certainly don't hear pilots wringing their hands in public about how difficult their plight is needing to give up flying but being unable to.)

Further: in 2000, NTSB reported 341 accidents that involved fatalities, for a total of 591 deaths, in thirty *million* hours of aircraft operation conducted by something like half a million non-airline pilots. . (For comparison, in 1999 NHTSA reported 37,140 fatal highway crashes, with a total of 41,717 deaths, with some 187,000,000 licenced drivers.) CDC says there are 47,000,000 adult smokers in the US, with 430,000 deaths a year attributable to smoking...one death in five.

And there you have it - you're less likely to die in a plane than a car.

I wonder what the figure comes out to when the airline flights are calculated in? Much better, I assume. I'd be curious to see the statistics though.

[Undertoad]

You win this round.

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I'd be curious to see the statistics though.

http:// www.ntsb.gov has piles of numbers, including Part 135 and Part 121 operations.

http://www.aopa.org is the general aviation group.

hehe. I can just imagine Tony riding off, battered, screaming

"You win this round! But I'll be back, god damn you! I'LL BEEEEEE BAAAACKKKKKKK!"

[tw]

Originally posted by sycamore
I have no problem not smoking at a restaurant. I can go an hour or so without smoking a cigarette...I'm not THAT addicted. I agree on the bar thing though...I wonder how much of a hit bars in California are taking b/c of the law out there.

Once smoking was banned from bars and restaurants, then business in both increased, on average, about 10%.

I am forced out of many PA restaurants and almost every PA bar because of drug addiction encouraged in those venues. It makes me physically ill - especially a headache that aspirin cannot stop.

Public smoking is essential to the addiction industry. Would you place a bottle of gin under the nose of a recovering alcoholic? Of course not. Then why would you do same to a recovering cigarette addict? The cigarette addiction industry has long since understood this. They estimate a recovering cigarette addict will 'fall off the wagon' in about seven years. It is very important to have recovering cigarette addicts smell the outgassing of other addicts in doorways, in bars and restaurants, and anywhere else possible. Drug addicts can be encouraged to restart their addiction if constantly exposed to the drug. Not every addict. But then getting many addicts to restart their addiction after an average of seven years means more customers.

The industry was successful in addicting 14 year olds. If you can expose 7 years olds to nicotene, then they too will more likely become permanently addicted customers. Their own research demonstrated the eariler an addict is addicted before age 21, then the more permanent he will be a customer.

The state of MN discovered a program to market nicotene laced candy. Get that nicotene into the body at an eariler age to make him a more likely customer. Put drugs under the nose of an alcoholic, crack addict, or cigarette addict enough times, and he too will start using again. Therefore public drug useage, especially in bars, is important to the cigarette addiction industry.

[jaguar]

VIctoria (my state) recently passed laws banning smokingin all resteraunts, and it is soon ot be expanded to bars, far as i'm concerned, its all good.

[jaguar]

i think this is *the* only thread that has stayed ontopic for 5 pages!
cept for that 14page entertainment one, but thats not so much a discussion.

Jag -

are you a smoker or non-smoker? Just curious. I don't mind if it's banned in bars or restaurants either, but I'm a non-smoker.

[Nic Name]

The Canadian government is in court now, with big tobacco, over the graphic warnings pictured in this thread.

Internal cigarette-firm documents prove marketing to 15-19 age group, court told.

A 1997-98 Rothmans Benson & Hedges marketing strategic plan stating that "the key 15-19 age group is a must for RBH."

As they say, "hook 'em while they're young."

I don't remember where I read it, but there was a study about smoking habits and whatnot. Basically, it concluded that if you're not smoking by the time you're 18, you probably won't. I think this is mostly true, though college and whatnot can definitely have an effect. I personally would expand it to say "if you're not smoking by 21, you almost definitely won't start", but then again, that's not based on a study, but just on my observations of the behaviors of those surrounding me. But they cited pretty good evidence to back up their statements. Definitely interesting - the cigarette companies know this, and they're marketing at younger folks, even though they say they're not. There's something out there that's getting kids to smoke... we just gotta find out what it is and eliminate it.

[kaleidoscopic ziggurat]

oh i guess i should mention that its terrible i can't enjoy myself when i'm out at a bar because of SMOKERS!

and god don't even let me start about the raves... why must kids smoke! why!!! why when it is 30 billion degrees inside a venue and sweat is collecting on the ceiling and raining on people - why must people add billowing clouds of cigarette smoke to the toxic mixture? as i left that whole scene i had to ask whether it was me getting old or just pissed off with smokers and it'd have to be the latter with a bit of sensible fuckoffery to the idiots that create those terrible conditions in the first place [bad venues!] rant. blah blah! cha cha cha. eat a canteloupe, stick a fork in your ear!

cigarettes - now with 10% more death

just being senseless

Do you like drugs?

[modernhamlet]

I'd like to ask whether or not people think that there should be public places that smokers can go and smoke without either breaking the law or standing outside (that's illegal in CA now too, isn't it?)?

As a follow up, those who said "no" to the above questions: Should people be allowed to smoke at all? (In their own homes...) Obviously if the majority (non-smokers) completely had their way, smoking would be illegal. But should it?

peace,

mh

I think that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't affect others.

If you want to smoke, that's fine. If we're at my house, please go outside (and that's the rule my dad would enforce, and since he pays the mortgage...). If we're in my car, please wait until we get there <b>or</b> I'll pull over and you can smoke outside (I really don't want cigarette smell in my car at all). If you're in your house, fine. If I'm in your car and you smoke, fine - it's my choice to be there, so if you want to smoke, I'll put up with it. People should be allowed to smoke outside, whereever they are - it's up to individual businesses to make rules like "not within 50 yards of entrances" or whatever. I think that telling people what they can and cannot do it silly. I'm a non smoker, and I wish you didn't smoke too (save yourself some money and smell better while you're at it!), but if you do, <b>that's your choice and no one should be able to take it away from you</b>. If you're not hurting anyone else, go for it.

I think that should answer your questions.