Smoking rate for U.S. adults drops to record low...

[rightwinger]

The biggest change in smoking is that it is no longer socially accepted. Smoking used to be the "cool" thing to do. All the rock and movie stars did it. Every home had an ash tray for guests. You were free to smoke in movie theaters, restaurants, bars, stores, schools, work....anywhere you felt like
It was considered rude to ask a smoker to stop

Now, smokers are social outcasts. Relegated to outdoor patios where they huddle against the elements.They can't smoke at work, can't smoke in public areas, most can't even smoke in their own cars or homes. Many people refuse to date a smoker. You rarely see a politician smoking anymore, rarely see TV or movie actors smoking on screen. Smoking is no longer cool.....a major reason for the drop

So you finally concede it has nothing to do with government.

Nothing to do with government ?

You just admitted that smoking rates are lower because smoking is "uncool." Has nothing to do with the government.

Have you always had difficulties with reading comprehension? They have classes you can take to help you with your disability

Were you unable to understand what was in the bolded text?

Have you always had a logic disability?

Your inability to recognize what is in the bolded text as government actions that have severely impacted smoking indicates you have a severe reading comprehension problem or are just too fucking childish to admit other points of view

 

[rightwinger]

The decline in smoking has been one of the greatest health accomplishments in this country and has added to the life expectancy and quality of life for our people

Lets hear it for the Nanny State!

 

[SwimExpert]

Much of that change is related to studies of the health effects and anti smoking advertisement programs. Many of those are government programs. Do you posit those programs are not part of that reduction?

I would say that quantifying their impact is difficult and impractical in scientific terms, and that any actual impact is minimal and indirect at best. The government also has been telling us to not do drugs, yet people still do drugs. When I a kid there was a plethora of abstinence propaganda out there. Yet society's attitude toward these is more accommodating than ever.

Most of the "research" revolves around pure correlation. Correlation does not imply causation. Smoking has negative consequences. Some are severe. Most people who smoke for a long time end up regretting the fact, especially if they suffer substantial health damage. As society has evolved over the past several decades, individuals have sat by and watched loved ones get very sick and sometimes die due to their smoking. That is the kind of stuff that has really has fueled society's changing attitudes towards smoking. Meanwhile, our society has become very hypercondriac at the same time. Everyone has a gluten "sensitivity." Everyone has some kind of "condition" to explain why they are tired, why they have a bad attitude, why they don't eat red meat, why children misbehave, why they blink their eyes so frequently, etc. Somewhere around the late 80s you started seeing people who were "allergic" to smoke. It's now become a very popular psychological ailment that people frequently throw out when they are simply adverse to cigarette smoking.

Society simply has a different attitude toward smoking. Smoking bans are one of the best examples. These are things that start locally and spread to county and state levels. The city of Austin has a ban on smoking in bars, though no such ban exists at the state level. If you go to Austin and start asking people, they'll tell you that bars are far better since the smoking ban. It's what the people of Austin want. The government action is merely reflective of the people's feelings. And yes, even smokers often support smoking bans. Nowadays, many smokers actually prefer smoke-free buildings. The building is cleaner, the air is cleaner and they breath easier, there's less maintenance. There are many smokers who will not allow smoking in their cars for similar reasons.

Companies find benefits in maintaining smoke free environments in cleanliness, work efficiency, and customer satisfaction, and often implement these anyway, without any regard for government bans. Some employers, such as my own, have in recent years have adopted policies that prohibit any smoking breaks whatsoever. The benefit we've seen is that it allows us to clamp down on people who sneak in extra breaks beyond that which they're already allotted, it's a useful recruitment tool to help weed out people who may be inclined to do so (when they know from the beginning that they will have to go 8-9 hours every day without an opportunity to smoke, those who are not able to control their addiction sufficiently tend to look elsewhere for work), and has helped us to keep a focus on professional appearances at all times. There's nothing less professional looking than seeing employees out back or on the side of the building engaging in personal time.

People who choose to smoke continue to choose to smoke, regardless of government actions. After all, it's a pretty potent addiction. They'll stand outside in the freezing cold, rain and snow. They'll pay higher prices or change to lower priced brands. If they're going to smoke, they're going to smoke. I have never once seen a person who quits smoking because of the government. When people quit smoking, the vast majority of the time it is for the sake of their health. The second common reason is to avoid setting a bad example for their children.

 

[Star]

Much of that change is related to studies of the health effects and anti smoking advertisement programs. Many of those are government programs. Do you posit those programs are not part of that reduction?

I would say that quantifying their impact is difficult and impractical in scientific terms, and that any actual impact is minimal and indirect at best. The government also has been telling us to not do drugs, yet people still do drugs. When I a kid there was a plethora of abstinence propaganda out there. Yet society's attitude toward these is more accommodating than ever.

Most of the "research" revolves around pure correlation. Correlation does not imply causation. Smoking has negative consequences. Some are severe. Most people who smoke for a long time end up regretting the fact, especially if they suffer substantial health damage. As society has evolved over the past several decades, individuals have sat by and watched loved ones get very sick and sometimes die due to their smoking. That is the kind of stuff that has really has fueled society's changing attitudes towards smoking. Meanwhile, our society has become very hypercondriac at the same time. Everyone has a gluten "sensitivity." Everyone has some kind of "condition" to explain why they are tired, why they have a bad attitude, why they don't eat red meat, why children misbehave, why they blink their eyes so frequently, etc. Somewhere around the late 80s you started seeing people who were "allergic" to smoke. It's now become a very popular psychological ailment that people frequently throw out when they are simply adverse to cigarette smoking.

Society simply has a different attitude toward smoking. Smoking bans are one of the best examples. These are things that start locally and spread to county and state levels. The city of Austin has a ban on smoking in bars, though no such ban exists at the state level. If you go to Austin and start asking people, they'll tell you that bars are far better since the smoking ban. It's what the people of Austin want. The government action is merely reflective of the people's feelings. And yes, even smokers often support smoking bans. Nowadays, many smokers actually prefer smoke-free buildings. The building is cleaner, the air is cleaner and they breath easier, there's less maintenance. There are many smokers who will not allow smoking in their cars for similar reasons.

Companies find benefits in maintaining smoke free environments in cleanliness, work efficiency, and customer satisfaction, and often implement these anyway, without any regard for government bans. Some employers, such as my own, have in recent years have adopted policies that prohibit any smoking breaks whatsoever. The benefit we've seen is that it allows us to clamp down on people who sneak in extra breaks beyond that which they're already allotted, it's a useful recruitment tool to help weed out people who may be inclined to do so (when they know from the beginning that they will have to go 8-9 hours every day without an opportunity to smoke, those who are not able to control their addiction sufficiently tend to look elsewhere for work), and has helped us to keep a focus on professional appearances at all times. There's nothing less professional looking than seeing employees out back or on the side of the building engaging in personal time.

People who choose to smoke continue to choose to smoke, regardless of government actions. After all, it's a pretty potent addiction. They'll stand outside in the freezing cold, rain and snow. They'll pay higher prices or change to lower priced brands. If they're going to smoke, they're going to smoke. I have never once seen a person who quits smoking because of the government. When people quit smoking, the vast majority of the time it is for the sake of their health. The second common reason is to avoid setting a bad example for their children.

Are you claiming the Austin city government's ban on smoking in bars has no effect on the amount of smoking in Austin or-----or are claiming Austin city government is not government or-----or are you claiming that the government's constitution is wrong to open with the words "We the People"?
.

 

[SwimExpert]

Much of that change is related to studies of the health effects and anti smoking advertisement programs. Many of those are government programs. Do you posit those programs are not part of that reduction?

I would say that quantifying their impact is difficult and impractical in scientific terms, and that any actual impact is minimal and indirect at best. The government also has been telling us to not do drugs, yet people still do drugs. When I a kid there was a plethora of abstinence propaganda out there. Yet society's attitude toward these is more accommodating than ever.

Most of the "research" revolves around pure correlation. Correlation does not imply causation. Smoking has negative consequences. Some are severe. Most people who smoke for a long time end up regretting the fact, especially if they suffer substantial health damage. As society has evolved over the past several decades, individuals have sat by and watched loved ones get very sick and sometimes die due to their smoking. That is the kind of stuff that has really has fueled society's changing attitudes towards smoking. Meanwhile, our society has become very hypercondriac at the same time. Everyone has a gluten "sensitivity." Everyone has some kind of "condition" to explain why they are tired, why they have a bad attitude, why they don't eat red meat, why children misbehave, why they blink their eyes so frequently, etc. Somewhere around the late 80s you started seeing people who were "allergic" to smoke. It's now become a very popular psychological ailment that people frequently throw out when they are simply adverse to cigarette smoking.

Society simply has a different attitude toward smoking. Smoking bans are one of the best examples. These are things that start locally and spread to county and state levels. The city of Austin has a ban on smoking in bars, though no such ban exists at the state level. If you go to Austin and start asking people, they'll tell you that bars are far better since the smoking ban. It's what the people of Austin want. The government action is merely reflective of the people's feelings. And yes, even smokers often support smoking bans. Nowadays, many smokers actually prefer smoke-free buildings. The building is cleaner, the air is cleaner and they breath easier, there's less maintenance. There are many smokers who will not allow smoking in their cars for similar reasons.

Companies find benefits in maintaining smoke free environments in cleanliness, work efficiency, and customer satisfaction, and often implement these anyway, without any regard for government bans. Some employers, such as my own, have in recent years have adopted policies that prohibit any smoking breaks whatsoever. The benefit we've seen is that it allows us to clamp down on people who sneak in extra breaks beyond that which they're already allotted, it's a useful recruitment tool to help weed out people who may be inclined to do so (when they know from the beginning that they will have to go 8-9 hours every day without an opportunity to smoke, those who are not able to control their addiction sufficiently tend to look elsewhere for work), and has helped us to keep a focus on professional appearances at all times. There's nothing less professional looking than seeing employees out back or on the side of the building engaging in personal time.

People who choose to smoke continue to choose to smoke, regardless of government actions. After all, it's a pretty potent addiction. They'll stand outside in the freezing cold, rain and snow. They'll pay higher prices or change to lower priced brands. If they're going to smoke, they're going to smoke. I have never once seen a person who quits smoking because of the government. When people quit smoking, the vast majority of the time it is for the sake of their health. The second common reason is to avoid setting a bad example for their children.

Are you claiming the Austin city government's ban on smoking in bars has no effect on the amount of smoking in Austin

Yes. People continue to smoke as much as they wish. They just don't do it inside the bar. They go outside.

or are claiming Austin city government is not government

No. You'd have to be smoking something to get that out of anything I've said.

or are you claiming that the government's constitution is wrong to open with the words "We the People"?

You're definitely smoking something. My position is very simple: The actions of government are not reducing smoking nor affecting the public's attitude toward smoking. The inverse is what is actually happening; smoking bans are the consequence of society's attitudes towards smoking.