And whether or not you like hearing about this new term,….I pray to God that one day there will be a nationwide ban on cigarette smoking, or smoking of any kind. The reality of this happening,…perhaps slim…but you never know…..

While I can understand to a degree,..a small degree,…that smokers are addicted….smoke to relieve stress…..blah blah blah……I don’t understand, nor have any compassion for those “Stressed out,” who smoke and have no consideration for those that don’t smoke. BABIES, PETS, CHILDREN, THE ELDERLY, AND NON-SMOKERS IN GENERAL.

A few months ago I actually saw a mother driving with a baby in the back baby carseat…..SMOKING WITH NO WINDOWS OPEN. This is the kind of person that only thinks of herself. I couldn’t help but to wonder,.. “why did you even bother having a baby….??? if you can’t even think of the welfare of your newborn? The same goes for those who want to have a dog,..or some other type of pet. WHY do you want them for a companion when you are only going to send them to their grave early?

Do smokers realize that when they talk…walk past by you….leave an elevator after taking a 10-15 minute break at work……that they give off either….breath that reaks of cigarette smoke?….or just the nasty odor off from their clothes and hair…..i suppose it is hard to know this especially when smokers aren’t thinking straight…or not at all.

And for those who think that non-smokers are “whiners” as one person in a previous post put it,…chemical gases are a health hazard…..whether you can see your chemical fumes or not….and those chemicals you guys exhale out….they are very much real….if a fire was to burn a house,…do ashes not fly into the atmosphere?….well hello mcfly!….what do you think becomes of your once, whole cigarette?….yeah…some of it remains in your lungs…..and the rest…exhaled out into the atmosphere….and unfortunately to others who don’t care for your germs.

And on behalf of all non-smokers, especially those babies, childrens, and pets who have parents and/or owners that smoke…..take into consideration of those who don’t have a voice in saying…”QUIT BEING SELFISH!”

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/14/suppl_2/ii3

“As part of its mission statement, the
FDA takes responsibility for, ‘‘…helping the public get the
accurate, science-based information they need to use
medicines and foods to improve their health’’.19 FTC’s general
rules against deception in advertising, as summarised by
commissioner Varney, clarify how consumer rights to
information include quality standards, specifically that
businesses ‘‘must tell the truth and not mislead consumers…
you can deceive a consumer by what you don’t say as well
as what you do say. If you omit information… that is
material… then it is deceptive’’.20 (Note that the tobacco
industry in the USA remains exempted from FDA regulation.)
The US government is now required by law to ensure
that information disseminated by its agencies meets standards
that maximise the quality of information, including
objectivity, utility, and integrity.21 22
Much of the health communication we discuss employs
the internet, and ethical guidelines have been established
specifically for the internet (as is discussed in the US Healthy
People guidelines in health communication and health
literacy).2 These guidelines are unambiguous on honesty:
‘‘Be truthful and not deceptive.’’ They emphasise the
importance of providing accurate and well supported
information. There is no allowance for the use of deception
in web based health communications. These standards reflect
the rights of internet users, specifically, and individuals more
generally, to expect to find quality information. Because the
supply of internet information is essentially unregulated and
potentially boundless, science based ‘‘data quality’’ is
necessary to protect the credibility of legitimate channels of
information. Deceptive messages will be contradicted in the
multiply sourced ‘‘free press’’ internet leaving the credibility
of all sources in question. In other words, even well intended
deceptive messages present serious risks to the public health
community.”

“”Not safe” is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product
L T Kozlowski, B Q Edwards

Department of Biobehavioral Health, The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA

Correspondence to:
Professor Lynn T Kozlowski
Department of Biobehavioral Health, Penn State, 315 East Health and Human Development, University Park, PA 16802, USA; ltk1@psu.edu

The right to health relevant information derives from the principles of autonomy and self direction and has been recognised in international declarations. Providing accurate health information is part of the basis for obtaining “informed consent” and is a recognised component of business ethics, safety communications, and case and product liability law. Remarkably, anti-tobacco and pro-tobacco sources alike have come to emphasise the message that there is “no safe cigarette” or “no safe tobacco product”. We propose that the “no safe” message is so limited in its value that it represents a violation of the right to health relevant information. There is a need to go beyond saying, “there is no safe tobacco product” to indicate information on degree of risks. The “no safe tobacco” message does not contradict, for example, the mistaken belief that so called light or low tar cigarettes are safer choices than higher tar cigarettes. We encourage a kind of “rule utilitarian” ethical position in which the principle of truth telling is observed while trying to produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Although harm reduction approaches to easing the burden of tobacco related diseases are founded on science based comparative risk information, the right to health information is independently related to the need to promote health literacy. This right should be respected whether or not harm reduction policies are judged advisable.”

“Methods: This paper identifies a diversity of generally undocumented yet pervasive markers of the “spoiled identity” of smoking, smokers and the tobacco industry, illustrated with examples from Australia, a nation with advanced tobacco control.

Results: We caution about some important negative consequences arising from the stigmatisation of smokers.”

“Denormalize. For those who don’t know what is meant by “denormalize,” it is exactly what fat people are experiencing in increasing intensity, as well as all those with physical characteristics, cultural differences or chronic diseases (actually primarily due to aging and genes) that can be condemned for not following some certain diet and lifestyle behavior. Denormalizing is a process of “stigmatizing people in everyday discourse and media representations, in a variety of overwhelmingly negative ways” to make them outcasts and create cultural change as a means for a nation to control behavior.

This technique of denormalizing was described in detail by Simon Chapman, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of Sydney, in the January 2008 issue of Tobacco Control, published by the British Medical Journal Publishing Group. The full paper is recommended reading because even if you don’t smoke, you’ll be next should you be overweight, growing older, experiencing health problems, or not eating and exercising in a government-approved fashion. Professor Chapman’s paper identifies the undocumented, yet pervasive, tactics “recommended for comprehensive national tobacco control.”

Stigmatization, he explained, is a way to taint a person from being a whole person to one viewed as having blemished, “spoiled” character; associate them with disease; and condemn them as being: “malodorous; as litterers, wasteful and socially irresponsible; as selfish and thoughtless; as unattractive and undesirable partners; as undereducated and a social underclass; as addicts; as excessive users of public health services; and as employer liabilities.” Incredibly, his paper is a veritable blueprint for each tactic, noting that traditional methods have focused on restrictions of smoking and the industry, but a “far wider range of markers of denormalization exist, which are seldom captured.” He urges national control efforts to complement their efforts with these techniques, concluding: “For governments, this negativity foments a public climate that is highly receptive to tobacco control legislation, polices and programs.””

“It turned out that this poll was no different. What consumers didn’t hear from reporters, was that it was conducted by the National Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control, a special interest group working to legislate bans on tobacco (not surprisingly, heavily backed by the world’s largest pharmaceutical company of smoking cessation products). Support for its polls is largely provided by the American Academy of Pediatrics Julius B. Richmond Center of Excellence. The AAP Tobacco Consortium, which sets the group’s agenda, is chaired by Dr. Winickoff of Harvard and the lead author of this paper. The only other medical doctor among the authors of this paper was Susanne E. Tanski, M.D., also with the AAP Tobacco Consortium, as was sociology professor, Robert McMillen, Ph.D.

In the 2000 executive report from the National Social Climate Survey of Tobacco Control group, professor McMillen and co-authors said that they designed these surveys to measure and ultimately monitor tobacco control in society, explaining: “The ultimate goals of these strategies are to denormalize tobacco use and to improve the social climate of tobacco control through social and political changes.””