The end of smoking?

[rightwinger]

People are clearly not smart of enough to make these decisions for themselves. That is why we need the government to step in and make the decisions for us.

Umm... the point here isn't anything like that. Matter of fact when the legal system tries to legislate morality it usually backfires.

But your first sentence has a ring of truth, in that the masses are indeed gullible and easily led by manipulative advertising --- which is after all studiously designed to do exactly that. It's the only reason ridiculous concepts like taking a weed that's been sprayed with carcinogens and insecticides and wrapped in chlorine-whitened tree pulp, setting it on fire and inhaling the smoke, exists as a concept at all (along with shit like pet rocks, SUVs and chicken wings).

Mass indoctrination is a dynamic we ignore at our peril. But it's got nothing to do with the government.

The point I am making this that nanny state government is utter hogwash. I already have a mother and even she doesn't tell me what to do anymore. lol. I know if I consistently eat foods riddled with trans-fat that I going to be a cow. I don't need the government to step in make these decisions for me. The idea of banning this vice or that vice bugs me.

The nanny state made a major contribution to the decline of smoking. They made it more and more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. They made it more expensive and banned advertising.

One of the largest public health advances in our generation

 

[rightwinger]

Used to be non smokers were the outcasts

The end of smoking?

In the U.S., just 17.8 percent of the population smokes — a record low, and down from a peak of more than 50 percent in the 1950s. Punishing taxes, indoor-smoking bans, and gruesome ad campaigns have compelled smokers to quit at such a rate that Citigroup analysts predict their numbers could drop to nearly zero by 2050. This decline is largely the result of a remarkable change in public perception of smoking, which the tobacco industry had successfully portrayed as cool and rebellious — a mark of sophistication and maturity. Now smokers are largely pariahs, and smoking is widely seen as a dangerous, dirty, and disgusting habit. Fifty years ago, "everyone around me smoked," says photo developer Barry Blackwell, 60. "Everyone." Now, looking down on smokers is "one of the few socially acceptable prejudices left."

A success story this is, demonstrating that the way to effect a social change is not by passing laws to curb it, but by changing cultural values to discourage it. Cultural mores are FAR more effective than laws. That's why my focus on gun violence has always been to change the culture, rather than the laws --- because I want actual results.

It's also good to know we have an example of countering the powerful mind control effects of advertising -- which we still don't take seriously enough. Advertising (including the more insidious effects such as product placement in movies) created this monster... it's heartening to know it's not invincible.

No question our culture has turned against smoking. It used to be cool, all the movie stars smoked, all the cool kids smoked

Now they stand huddled up in the rain, trying to get that last drag

Pretty pathetic looking

Movie stars still smoke

I watch a lot of old movies from the 30s and 40s. The star would stop a scene right in the middle in order to light up a cigarette. One of the biggest product placements in history

Today, they rarely smoke during a movie

Another thing you notice in old movies ---- if somebody walks into an empty room, especially their own home, the first thing they do is saunter over to the bar and make a drink. Strange times.

I still do that

 

[mdk]

People are clearly not smart of enough to make these decisions for themselves. That is why we need the government to step in and make the decisions for us.

Umm... the point here isn't anything like that. Matter of fact when the legal system tries to legislate morality it usually backfires.

But your first sentence has a ring of truth, in that the masses are indeed gullible and easily led by manipulative advertising --- which is after all studiously designed to do exactly that. It's the only reason ridiculous concepts like taking a weed that's been sprayed with carcinogens and insecticides and wrapped in chlorine-whitened tree pulp, setting it on fire and inhaling the smoke, exists as a concept at all (along with shit like pet rocks, SUVs and chicken wings).

Mass indoctrination is a dynamic we ignore at our peril. But it's got nothing to do with the government.

The point I am making this that nanny state government is utter hogwash. I already have a mother and even she doesn't tell me what to do anymore. lol. I know if I consistently eat foods riddled with trans-fat that I going to be a cow. I don't need the government to step in make these decisions for me. The idea of banning this vice or that vice bugs me.

Fine --- but that's not the point of this thread at all.

Sorry mom. Please don't ground me, I promise to stay on point from now on. lol.

 

[Pogo]

People are clearly not smart of enough to make these decisions for themselves. That is why we need the government to step in and make the decisions for us.

Umm... the point here isn't anything like that. Matter of fact when the legal system tries to legislate morality it usually backfires.

But your first sentence has a ring of truth, in that the masses are indeed gullible and easily led by manipulative advertising --- which is after all studiously designed to do exactly that. It's the only reason ridiculous concepts like taking a weed that's been sprayed with carcinogens and insecticides and wrapped in chlorine-whitened tree pulp, setting it on fire and inhaling the smoke, exists as a concept at all (along with shit like pet rocks, SUVs and chicken wings).

Mass indoctrination is a dynamic we ignore at our peril. But it's got nothing to do with the government.

The point I am making this that nanny state government is utter hogwash. I already have a mother and even she doesn't tell me what to do anymore. lol. I know if I consistently eat foods riddled with trans-fat that I going to be a cow. I don't need the government to step in make these decisions for me. The idea of banning this vice or that vice bugs me.

The nanny state made a major contribution to the decline of smoking. They made it more and more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. They made it more expensive and banned advertising.

One of the largest public health advances in our generation

Meh -- I don't think regulators had that much of an effect. I do remember that the tobacco companies agreed to do away with TV advertising as a plea bargain to prevent PSAs that graphically showed the effects of smoking. One thing that Corporatia understands is what kind of public propaganda works to sell poisons -- and what kind destroys that ability. They agreed to dispense with the former so they wouldn't be devastated by the latter.

 

[rightwinger]

People are clearly not smart of enough to make these decisions for themselves. That is why we need the government to step in and make the decisions for us.

Umm... the point here isn't anything like that. Matter of fact when the legal system tries to legislate morality it usually backfires.

But your first sentence has a ring of truth, in that the masses are indeed gullible and easily led by manipulative advertising --- which is after all studiously designed to do exactly that. It's the only reason ridiculous concepts like taking a weed that's been sprayed with carcinogens and insecticides and wrapped in chlorine-whitened tree pulp, setting it on fire and inhaling the smoke, exists as a concept at all (along with shit like pet rocks, SUVs and chicken wings).

Mass indoctrination is a dynamic we ignore at our peril. But it's got nothing to do with the government.

The point I am making this that nanny state government is utter hogwash. I already have a mother and even she doesn't tell me what to do anymore. lol. I know if I consistently eat foods riddled with trans-fat that I going to be a cow. I don't need the government to step in make these decisions for me. The idea of banning this vice or that vice bugs me.

The nanny state made a major contribution to the decline of smoking. They made it more and more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. They made it more expensive and banned advertising.

One of the largest public health advances in our generation

Meh -- I don't think regulators had that much of an effect. I do remember that the tobacco companies agreed to do away with TV advertising as a plea bargain to prevent PSAs that graphically showed the effects of smoking. One thing that Corporatia understands is what kind of public propaganda works to sell poisons -- and what kind destroys that ability. They agreed to dispense with the former so they wouldn't be devastated by the latter.

I think it was HUGE

When I started working in the 70s, I sat next to a guy who chain smoked. Easy four packs a day nonstop from when he came in in the morning till he left at the end of the day. You can't do that today
You can't smoke on a plane or public transportation. You can't smoke in a bar or restaurant.

Hard to find a four pack a day smoker anymore. They just don't have the opportunity. That is the government

 

[Pogo]

People are clearly not smart of enough to make these decisions for themselves. That is why we need the government to step in and make the decisions for us.

Umm... the point here isn't anything like that. Matter of fact when the legal system tries to legislate morality it usually backfires.

But your first sentence has a ring of truth, in that the masses are indeed gullible and easily led by manipulative advertising --- which is after all studiously designed to do exactly that. It's the only reason ridiculous concepts like taking a weed that's been sprayed with carcinogens and insecticides and wrapped in chlorine-whitened tree pulp, setting it on fire and inhaling the smoke, exists as a concept at all (along with shit like pet rocks, SUVs and chicken wings).

Mass indoctrination is a dynamic we ignore at our peril. But it's got nothing to do with the government.

The point I am making this that nanny state government is utter hogwash. I already have a mother and even she doesn't tell me what to do anymore. lol. I know if I consistently eat foods riddled with trans-fat that I going to be a cow. I don't need the government to step in make these decisions for me. The idea of banning this vice or that vice bugs me.

The nanny state made a major contribution to the decline of smoking. They made it more and more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. They made it more expensive and banned advertising.

One of the largest public health advances in our generation

Meh -- I don't think regulators had that much of an effect. I do remember that the tobacco companies agreed to do away with TV advertising as a plea bargain to prevent PSAs that graphically showed the effects of smoking. One thing that Corporatia understands is what kind of public propaganda works to sell poisons -- and what kind destroys that ability. They agreed to dispense with the former so they wouldn't be devastated by the latter.

I think it was HUGE

When I started working in the 70s, I sat next to a guy who chain smoked. Easy four packs a day nonstop from when he came in in the morning till he left at the end of the day. You can't do that today
You can't smoke on a plane or public transportation. You can't smoke in a bar or restaurant.

Hard to find a four pack a day smoker anymore. They just don't have the opportunity. That is the government

I'm actually old enough to remember when people could smoke on planes -- it seems unthinkable now. Sure, a ban like that could nudge the social values in that direction, but it's like pushing a barge to get it to go over "that way" with a tree branch.

There's no power like social mores. I think by far the biggest reason so many gave up smoking, or more recently never got into it, is that it's no longer 'cool'. The same reason, in the opposite, that so many in the old daze took it up in the first place. And the second biggest reason would be the health histories. What the government does is far behind in terms of influence.

IMHO.

 

[guno]

Smokers by state

Think People Around Your State Smoke A Lot? See How Your State Compares

 

[guno]

I remember when you could smoke in a doctors waiting room, in hospitals and I remember in the early 50's doctors making house calls and then sitting in the kitchen with my parents having a cup of coffee and smoking. When I went into the service in 68 they used to give us cigs for a good drill, we used to go to the ships store for gigs 18 cents a pack. Now in NYC 15 dollars a pack

 

[rightwinger]

Umm... the point here isn't anything like that. Matter of fact when the legal system tries to legislate morality it usually backfires.

But your first sentence has a ring of truth, in that the masses are indeed gullible and easily led by manipulative advertising --- which is after all studiously designed to do exactly that. It's the only reason ridiculous concepts like taking a weed that's been sprayed with carcinogens and insecticides and wrapped in chlorine-whitened tree pulp, setting it on fire and inhaling the smoke, exists as a concept at all (along with shit like pet rocks, SUVs and chicken wings).

Mass indoctrination is a dynamic we ignore at our peril. But it's got nothing to do with the government.

The point I am making this that nanny state government is utter hogwash. I already have a mother and even she doesn't tell me what to do anymore. lol. I know if I consistently eat foods riddled with trans-fat that I going to be a cow. I don't need the government to step in make these decisions for me. The idea of banning this vice or that vice bugs me.

The nanny state made a major contribution to the decline of smoking. They made it more and more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. They made it more expensive and banned advertising.

One of the largest public health advances in our generation

Meh -- I don't think regulators had that much of an effect. I do remember that the tobacco companies agreed to do away with TV advertising as a plea bargain to prevent PSAs that graphically showed the effects of smoking. One thing that Corporatia understands is what kind of public propaganda works to sell poisons -- and what kind destroys that ability. They agreed to dispense with the former so they wouldn't be devastated by the latter.

I think it was HUGE

When I started working in the 70s, I sat next to a guy who chain smoked. Easy four packs a day nonstop from when he came in in the morning till he left at the end of the day. You can't do that today
You can't smoke on a plane or public transportation. You can't smoke in a bar or restaurant.

Hard to find a four pack a day smoker anymore. They just don't have the opportunity. That is the government

I'm actually old enough to remember when people could smoke on planes -- it seems unthinkable now. Sure, a ban like that could nudge the social values in that direction, but it's like pushing a barge to get it to go over "that way" with a tree branch.

There's no power like social mores. I think by far the biggest reason so many gave up smoking, or more recently never got into it, is that it's no longer 'cool'. The same reason, in the opposite, that so many in the old daze took it up in the first place. And the second biggest reason would be the health histories. What the government does is far behind in terms of influence.

IMHO.

I think a bigger impact of government is they gave nonsmokers a chance to stand up for themselves. They removed smoking from most public situations....once they did that, it began to apply to private situations

Many smokers can't even smoke in their own home. Almost nobody will go into someone else's home or car and light up

 

[Pogo]

Smokers by state

Think People Around Your State Smoke A Lot? See How Your State Compares

Nowhere does the social shift show more than the "tobacco states" (where I live). Thirty years ago when I used to visit North Carolina, Tennessee or (southern) Virginia it seemed like smoking was mandatory. It was visibly pervasive, everywhere. It's nothing like that now. Nowhere near.

But that map -- wow, wassup with Utah?

​

First glance empirical observation: it looks like the darker areas tend to correspond to greater rates of poverty. Comments?

 

[Pogo]

The point I am making this that nanny state government is utter hogwash. I already have a mother and even she doesn't tell me what to do anymore. lol. I know if I consistently eat foods riddled with trans-fat that I going to be a cow. I don't need the government to step in make these decisions for me. The idea of banning this vice or that vice bugs me.

The nanny state made a major contribution to the decline of smoking. They made it more and more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. They made it more expensive and banned advertising.

One of the largest public health advances in our generation

Meh -- I don't think regulators had that much of an effect. I do remember that the tobacco companies agreed to do away with TV advertising as a plea bargain to prevent PSAs that graphically showed the effects of smoking. One thing that Corporatia understands is what kind of public propaganda works to sell poisons -- and what kind destroys that ability. They agreed to dispense with the former so they wouldn't be devastated by the latter.

I think it was HUGE

When I started working in the 70s, I sat next to a guy who chain smoked. Easy four packs a day nonstop from when he came in in the morning till he left at the end of the day. You can't do that today
You can't smoke on a plane or public transportation. You can't smoke in a bar or restaurant.

Hard to find a four pack a day smoker anymore. They just don't have the opportunity. That is the government

I'm actually old enough to remember when people could smoke on planes -- it seems unthinkable now. Sure, a ban like that could nudge the social values in that direction, but it's like pushing a barge to get it to go over "that way" with a tree branch.

There's no power like social mores. I think by far the biggest reason so many gave up smoking, or more recently never got into it, is that it's no longer 'cool'. The same reason, in the opposite, that so many in the old daze took it up in the first place. And the second biggest reason would be the health histories. What the government does is far behind in terms of influence.

IMHO.

I think a bigger impact of government is they gave nonsmokers a chance to stand up for themselves. They removed smoking from most public situations....once they did that, it began to apply to private situations

Many smokers can't even smoke in their own home. Almost nobody will go into someone else's home or car and light up

Yeah the first point is well taken. The second is I believe the result of social mores. The question "do you mind if I smoke?" in the past would have sounded bizarre -- now it's socially required.

 

[guno]

Smokers by state

Think People Around Your State Smoke A Lot? See How Your State Compares

Nowhere does the social shift show more than the "tobacco states" (where I live). Thirty years ago when I used to visit North Carolina, Tennessee or (southern) Virginia it seemed like smoking was mandatory. It was visibly pervasive, everywhere. It's nothing like that now. Nowhere near.

But that map -- wow, wassup with Utah?

​

First glance empirical observation: it looks like the darker areas tend to correspond to greater rates of poverty. Comments?

We still don't have a tax stamp on gigs here in NC and you can get a carton for 32 dollars and off brand are less then 3 dollars a pack. Up on I-95 the tobacco warehouse outlet has a limit of 100 cartons per person , place is packed with NY cars

 

[rightwinger]

The nanny state made a major contribution to the decline of smoking. They made it more and more difficult for smokers to find a place to light up. They made it more expensive and banned advertising.

One of the largest public health advances in our generation

Meh -- I don't think regulators had that much of an effect. I do remember that the tobacco companies agreed to do away with TV advertising as a plea bargain to prevent PSAs that graphically showed the effects of smoking. One thing that Corporatia understands is what kind of public propaganda works to sell poisons -- and what kind destroys that ability. They agreed to dispense with the former so they wouldn't be devastated by the latter.

I think it was HUGE

When I started working in the 70s, I sat next to a guy who chain smoked. Easy four packs a day nonstop from when he came in in the morning till he left at the end of the day. You can't do that today
You can't smoke on a plane or public transportation. You can't smoke in a bar or restaurant.

Hard to find a four pack a day smoker anymore. They just don't have the opportunity. That is the government

I'm actually old enough to remember when people could smoke on planes -- it seems unthinkable now. Sure, a ban like that could nudge the social values in that direction, but it's like pushing a barge to get it to go over "that way" with a tree branch.

There's no power like social mores. I think by far the biggest reason so many gave up smoking, or more recently never got into it, is that it's no longer 'cool'. The same reason, in the opposite, that so many in the old daze took it up in the first place. And the second biggest reason would be the health histories. What the government does is far behind in terms of influence.

IMHO.

I think a bigger impact of government is they gave nonsmokers a chance to stand up for themselves. They removed smoking from most public situations....once they did that, it began to apply to private situations

Many smokers can't even smoke in their own home. Almost nobody will go into someone else's home or car and light up

Yeah the first point is well taken. The second is I believe the result of social mores. The question "do you mind if I smoke?" in the past would have sounded bizarre -- now it's socially required.

Even back then. A non smoker was considered to be rude to decline a smoker from lighting up unless they had a specific medical reason

 

[Pogo]

Smokers by state

Think People Around Your State Smoke A Lot? See How Your State Compares

Nowhere does the social shift show more than the "tobacco states" (where I live). Thirty years ago when I used to visit North Carolina, Tennessee or (southern) Virginia it seemed like smoking was mandatory. It was visibly pervasive, everywhere. It's nothing like that now. Nowhere near.

But that map -- wow, wassup with Utah?

​

First glance empirical observation: it looks like the darker areas tend to correspond to greater rates of poverty. Comments?

We still don't have a tax stamp on gigs here in NC and you can get a carton for 32 dollars and off brand are less then 3 dollars a pack. Up on I-95 the tobacco warehouse outlet has a limit of 100 cartons per person , place is packed with NY cars

That still goes on? I can remember decades ago people telling me, "you're driving through North Carolina? Pick me up 5 number of cartons of (brand)". Sad.

In the long run though that's just thrifty shopping -- I don't think anybody quits smoking or declines to start on account of what it costs. The entire practice is completely illogical anyway, so it couldn't follow that it would be OK if it costs X but not OK if it costs 2X.

 

[guno]

Smokers by state

Think People Around Your State Smoke A Lot? See How Your State Compares

Nowhere does the social shift show more than the "tobacco states" (where I live). Thirty years ago when I used to visit North Carolina, Tennessee or (southern) Virginia it seemed like smoking was mandatory. It was visibly pervasive, everywhere. It's nothing like that now. Nowhere near.

But that map -- wow, wassup with Utah?

​

First glance empirical observation: it looks like the darker areas tend to correspond to greater rates of poverty. Comments?

We still don't have a tax stamp on gigs here in NC and you can get a carton for 32 dollars and off brand are less then 3 dollars a pack. Up on I-95 the tobacco warehouse outlet has a limit of 100 cartons per person , place is packed with NY cars

That still goes on? I can remember decades ago people telling me, "you're driving through North Carolina? Pick me up 5 number of cartons of (brand)". Sad.

In the long run though that's just thrifty shopping -- I don't think anybody quits smoking or declines to start on account of what it costs. The entire practice is completely illogical anyway, so it couldn't follow that it would be OK if it costs X but not OK if it coses 2X.

Oh yea it still goes on, JR's has outlet stores on the major highways in NC Located on the North south rout (NY to Florida and the east west rout from the midwest to the south)

 

[rightwinger]

I remember in High School we had an outdoor smoking lounge for students. The teachers lounge was full of smoke

In college, we were allowed to smoke in class

 

[rightwinger]

Smokers by state

Think People Around Your State Smoke A Lot? See How Your State Compares

Nowhere does the social shift show more than the "tobacco states" (where I live). Thirty years ago when I used to visit North Carolina, Tennessee or (southern) Virginia it seemed like smoking was mandatory. It was visibly pervasive, everywhere. It's nothing like that now. Nowhere near.

But that map -- wow, wassup with Utah?

​

First glance empirical observation: it looks like the darker areas tend to correspond to greater rates of poverty. Comments?

Surprised Texas is as low as it is

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Used to be non smokers were the outcasts

The end of smoking?

In the U.S., just 17.8 percent of the population smokes — a record low, and down from a peak of more than 50 percent in the 1950s. Punishing taxes, indoor-smoking bans, and gruesome ad campaigns have compelled smokers to quit at such a rate that Citigroup analysts predict their numbers could drop to nearly zero by 2050. This decline is largely the result of a remarkable change in public perception of smoking, which the tobacco industry had successfully portrayed as cool and rebellious — a mark of sophistication and maturity. Now smokers are largely pariahs, and smoking is widely seen as a dangerous, dirty, and disgusting habit. Fifty years ago, "everyone around me smoked," says photo developer Barry Blackwell, 60. "Everyone." Now, looking down on smokers is "one of the few socially acceptable prejudices left."

Lie and you can convince people of just about anything. Much of the lower smoking rates are due to control of depictions of smoking. If everyone hwo smoked, still could on tv, it'd be a very different reality. But if you forbid it, and put out the impression the stars of the "Twilight" movies say both smoke, politicians don't (the orange skinned Republican isn'r orange because of tanning so much as the 5 packs a day he smokes,) and you paint the picture no one you wanna imitate smokes when in fact everyone pretty much still does. You just don't see it any more.

 

[rightwinger]

Used to be non smokers were the outcasts

The end of smoking?

In the U.S., just 17.8 percent of the population smokes — a record low, and down from a peak of more than 50 percent in the 1950s. Punishing taxes, indoor-smoking bans, and gruesome ad campaigns have compelled smokers to quit at such a rate that Citigroup analysts predict their numbers could drop to nearly zero by 2050. This decline is largely the result of a remarkable change in public perception of smoking, which the tobacco industry had successfully portrayed as cool and rebellious — a mark of sophistication and maturity. Now smokers are largely pariahs, and smoking is widely seen as a dangerous, dirty, and disgusting habit. Fifty years ago, "everyone around me smoked," says photo developer Barry Blackwell, 60. "Everyone." Now, looking down on smokers is "one of the few socially acceptable prejudices left."

Lie and you can convince people of just about anything. Much of the lower smoking rates are due to control of depictions of smoking. If everyone hwo smoked, still could on tv, it'd be a very different reality. But if you forbid it, and put out the impression the stars of the "Twilight" movies say both smoke, politicians don't (the orange skinned Republican isn'r orange because of tanning so much as the 5 packs a day he smokes,) and you paint the picture no one you wanna imitate smokes when in fact everyone pretty much still does. You just don't see it any more.

The percentage of smokers has dropped from 50% down to 19%

Not only that, but those who smoke, smoke fewer packs

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Used to be non smokers were the outcasts

The end of smoking?

In the U.S., just 17.8 percent of the population smokes — a record low, and down from a peak of more than 50 percent in the 1950s. Punishing taxes, indoor-smoking bans, and gruesome ad campaigns have compelled smokers to quit at such a rate that Citigroup analysts predict their numbers could drop to nearly zero by 2050. This decline is largely the result of a remarkable change in public perception of smoking, which the tobacco industry had successfully portrayed as cool and rebellious — a mark of sophistication and maturity. Now smokers are largely pariahs, and smoking is widely seen as a dangerous, dirty, and disgusting habit. Fifty years ago, "everyone around me smoked," says photo developer Barry Blackwell, 60. "Everyone." Now, looking down on smokers is "one of the few socially acceptable prejudices left."

Lie and you can convince people of just about anything. Much of the lower smoking rates are due to control of depictions of smoking. If everyone hwo smoked, still could on tv, it'd be a very different reality. But if you forbid it, and put out the impression the stars of the "Twilight" movies say both smoke, politicians don't (the orange skinned Republican isn'r orange because of tanning so much as the 5 packs a day he smokes,) and you paint the picture no one you wanna imitate smokes when in fact everyone pretty much still does. You just don't see it any more.

The percentage of smokers has dropped from 50% down to 19%

Not only that, but those who smoke, smoke fewer packs

True, but it's due to a false narrative. If everyone who smokes, could, the numbers would be very different. The public impression is no one does, so fewer not in the public eye take it up. Most who start smoking start because of people they know do. I started because both my parents did and a girlfriend got me into it with her.

As an aside, would agree second hand smoke is a major contributor to starting smoking since you're getting some nicotine exposure which eventually results in needing more from a more direct source as with actually smoking. Good reason then for limiting where people can smoke and pressuring parents not to in the home with children. Don't expect the latter to ever happen, but it's sound in theory.