[Vision2020] Choices
Wayne Price
bear at moscow.com
Sat Jul 25 14:40:47 PDT 2009
Joe,
THE parents have a CHOICE to expose them or not. I NO LONGER have a
choice where to smoke, so where it will be legal to smoke, I will.
On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> Subjecting children to secondhand smoke! That ought to teach them!
>
> And it is hard to see how I changed the topic since the first post
> in this thread is from Gary and on abortion. But don't let the facts
> get in the way! That's what Fox is for!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:29 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>> Gary,
>>
>> THANKS for bringing this back to the original problem, the smoking
>> ban!
>> I agree 100% and think you summed up the problem of the smoking
>> topic right on the point!
>>
>> I used to be very aware of non-smokers when I lit a cigarette and
>> I would ask if it bothered them, and if it did, I would observe
>> usual social conventions and either not light up,
>> or move so that they could enjoy what ever they were doing without
>> my smoke bothering them. NOT any more after the 3rd of August !
>> Now, If I'm in an area where I can legally smoke,
>> I'm lighting up, and if the non-smokers don't like it, they can
>> head to a bar or private club where they don't have to put up with
>> second hand smoke!
>>
>> And in all seriousness, take a look at where twenty feet from the
>> door of West of Paris is, in relationship to twenty feet from the
>> door of the Garden. Puts me right in the middle of the kiddy
>> equipment,
>> Oh well, THATS what the non-smokers wanted, THATS what they get!
>>
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Jul 25, 2009, at 1:12 PM, g. crabtree wrote:
>>
>>> Surprisingly, considering your short attention span, you have
>>> brought this back around to the original topic which was the
>>> smoking ban and in that here are the similarities I see.
>>>
>>> A private citizen owns a business. It is open to all, be they
>>> patrons or employees. The only stipulation being you must be
>>> willing to put up with the bar's environment. A small group of
>>> people want to partake of the private citizens private property
>>> but they do not want to endure the rules of use so, rather than
>>> take advantage of already existing venues that already meet their
>>> criterion, or create a new venue of their own that would fulfill
>>> their needs, they use the sledgehammer of government to force the
>>> private property owner and all of his clients who are perfectly
>>> happy with the current arraignment to accede to their wishes.
>>>
>>> Now, an institution exists called marriage. It may not be a
>>> perfect institution but it has served its purpose relatively well
>>> for may years. It is open to all, the only stipulation is that its
>>> an arraignment set up solely for a man and a woman. A small group
>>> of people want to partake of this arraignment but they do not want
>>> to have to follow the rules that are set up for it. So, rather
>>> than utilizing an existing framework to obtain their goals (legal
>>> documents such as wills, living wills, medical powers of atty,
>>> etc.) or set up a new institution that will fulfill their desires
>>> (domestic partnership), they attempt to use the sledgehammer of
>>> the state to force their desires onto the majority.
>>>
>>> In the first example, you claim that government and the small,
>>> vocal group interested in changing the status quo were doing a
>>> good thing "in the name of public health," even though the only
>>> people affected were those who voluntarily entered the privately
>>> owned premises and that the hazard did not extend beyond the walls
>>> to anyone who didn't choose to be there.
>>>
>>> In the second example, you claim that a small, vocal group
>>> attempting to use the power of government to alter the status quo
>>> is a good thing because.......??
>>>
>>> g
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>> To: g. crabtree
>>> Cc: the lockshop ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
>>>
>>> You make it seem as if marriage is no big deal and not any
>>> different than any old legal contract but if that is the case it
>>> is not clear why you got married in the first place or why you
>>> would give a damn if two men married each other. Can you explain
>>> that? If there is no difference why not just let anyone marry whom
>>> ever they wish? Again, it is a strange view of freedom that
>>> desires to keep folks from doing what they want even when, if
>>> we're to believe your words below, you "don't care." Very strange
>>> indeed!
>>>
>>> Again, compare your thoughts on this matter with your views on the
>>> new anti-smoking law. Dan doesn't like smokey bars and as I noted
>>> there is lots of evidence that second hand is physically harmful
>>> but you still called Dan "selfish" (I think that was the word) for
>>> casting his vote. But somehow the fact that you don't have a
>>> fondness for other guys and have unsupported fantasies about the
>>> connection between gay marriage and "moral harms" that is a
>>> different story. Even though marriage is no big deal it is not
>>> wrong or selfish for you to do what you can to prevent gay
>>> weddings. (I'm assuming that you voted for the constitutional ban
>>> on gay marriage but if I'm wrong let me know.)
>>>
>>> Putting it all together, we're supposed to believe that when the
>>> local government bans smoking in the name of public health that
>>> we're one step closer to communism BUT the state is allowed to say
>>> who you can and can't marry. Very strange view!
>>>
>>> Say what you want but you are no fan of freedom -- unless by that
>>> you mean the freedom to do what you see fit. And yes I will bring
>>> this up whenever you or your radical conservative friends wave
>>> your flags and try to pretend that you think freedom is important.
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 9:29 PM, "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you had read my post a little more carefully you might have
>>>> noted that I did not ask anyone to explain why their actions are
>>>> not harmful to society. I have to justify nothing to anyone, much
>>>> less you and neither does Moe. I have been asked for, and given
>>>> explanation for my views on this and numerous other topics on
>>>> this forum frequently over the years, that I should ask someone
>>>> else for the same is arrogance? When it comes to inconsistency
>>>> (to say nothing of belligerence) I can't hold a candle to you.
>>>>
>>>> Just for the sake of mindless repetition, I have said repeatedly
>>>> that I don't care if homosexuals run out and have some sort of a
>>>> little ceremony and call themselves whatever they like. They can
>>>> go to an attorney, in the same way that my wife and I did, and
>>>> have drawn up the same wills, durable powers of attorney, living
>>>> wills, revocable living trusts, etc. that will in effect give
>>>> them all the same rights and privileges that my wife and I enjoy
>>>> and I'm fine with it. They in effect already have everything they
>>>> claim they want. And yet it's not enough, my simple and
>>>> apparently "arrogant" question is why? I don't wish Moe and her
>>>> pal any ill or unhappiness, I just want to know why they require
>>>> me via the power of the state to play along before their lives
>>>> are complete. I don't think that this is an unreasonable question
>>>> to ask.
>>>>
>>>> g
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>>> To: the lockshop
>>>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 5:02 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Choices
>>>>
>>>> I'll have more to say about this later since I'm about to drive
>>>> home BUT can YOU explain why any of your actions are not harmful
>>>> to society? Do you think you have to justify them to me before
>>>> you're allowed to do anything? And is there something besides
>>>> your own arragance that makes you think folks owe you an
>>>> explanation?
>>>>
>>>> It seems strange to me that you could rip Dan a new one for
>>>> infringing on the "rights" for smokers, even though second hand
>>>> smoke has been proven to be harmful, yet you seem to believe that
>>>> folks may only marry if they prove to you that it is not harmful!
>>>>
>>>> There is no better argument for the claim that personal religious
>>>> beliefs have no place when it comes to matters of the law than
>>>> you have illustrated with this recent pair of inconsistent
>>>> reasonings!
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 6:26 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Since I've done that one before Mo, why not just for fun try a
>>>>> different approach. Why don't you explain to me all the myriad
>>>>> ways in which you being able to marry your partner is a benefit
>>>>> to me and/or society? Explain how it will be good for children
>>>>> (mine or yours, assuming you have any), how it will strenghten
>>>>> families, and how it won't cause large problems with regard to
>>>>> an already tottering social security system. Lay out how it
>>>>> won't set the stage for polygamous and polyandrous unions with
>>>>> all the inherent problems that will bring. Perhaps, if nothing
>>>>> else, explain to me what the major tangible benefits of it would
>>>>> even be for you and your partner.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the things that you claim you long for can be achieved by
>>>>> other legal means. It is my understanding that most states allow
>>>>> pretty much all accomadation to homosexual couples as they do
>>>>> hetro except the title, why so adamant in your insistance for a
>>>>> change to the status quo?
>>>>>
>>>>> g
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Mo Hendrickson
>>>>> To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>>>>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 1:11 PM
>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Choices
>>>>>
>>>>> One question Gary. I am hoping you can clarify this point for
>>>>> me...
>>>>>
>>>>> How would my desire to marry my partner adversely affect you?
>>>>>
>>>>> Your marriage, I am making an assumption that you are married,
>>>>> has no effect on me, so why would mine have any bearing on you?
>>>>> Why do you advocate for denying me and my partner a legally
>>>>> recognized marriage?
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that I expect an answer but I thought I would put it out
>>>>> there. I guess anybody who is opposed to same gender marriage
>>>>> could answer this question. And so we don't head down the
>>>>> ridiculous path of marrying goats, I am defining same gender
>>>>> marriage as two consenting adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Mo
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>>>>> To: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:41:22 -0700
>>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>>>> people with facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> Another inconsequential argument. No valid marriages are being
>>>>> rendered "null and void" and I'm not suggesting that any be made
>>>>> so. I think that my views are quite consistant. I'm in favor of
>>>>> choice when the choice doesn't adversely affect others who have
>>>>> no way of escaping my decision.
>>>>>
>>>>> What strikes me as strange is your notion that your personally
>>>>> concocted idea of freedoms should be celebrated and allowed to
>>>>> impact any and everyone with no regard for adverse impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> g
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>>>> To: the lockshop
>>>>> Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:43 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>>>> people with facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> So you think that the state should not be forced to recognize
>>>>> marriage? If they were to say that conservatives with
>>>>> inconsistent views were not allowed to marry, and thus your
>>>>> marriage was null and void, that would be fine with you? Yipes!
>>>>> As I said, this is a strange kind of freedom!
>>>>>
>>>>> And I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm just pointing out
>>>>> the implications of your own words.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 1:55 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Is mis-stating my position really the only way you can think of
>>>>> to try and make a valid point?
>>>>>
>>>>> As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if homosexuals can
>>>>> find someone who is willing to pronounce them man and man, wife
>>>>> and wife, or man, wife, wife, or any permutation thereof then
>>>>> swell, I wish them the best. What I am not in favor of is in my
>>>>> or the state being forced to recognize it.
>>>>>
>>>>> With regard to the abortion issue though I've really got to
>>>>> admit that you've got me caught on the horns of a delimma. How
>>>>> could I not see the similarity between making a choice that has
>>>>> a 1 in 15 chance of potentially damaging the health of the
>>>>> person doing the choosing and making a decision that has a 100%
>>>>> chance of killing an innocent party?
>>>>>
>>>>> In both of your examples the decision extends to others who will
>>>>> not be given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and employess
>>>>> do get to make an informed choice and as a result your comments
>>>>> seem a trifle lame.
>>>>>
>>>>> g
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Joe Campbell
>>>>> To: the lockshop
>>>>> Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>>>> people with facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions
>>>>> about whom to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop
>>>>> pretending to respect a person's right to make decisions for him
>>>>> or herself!
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city council have a
>>>>> mighty low opinion of the intelligence of the patrons and
>>>>> employees of bars and taverns. I can't speak for your students
>>>>> but, I find it very difficult to believe that by the time a
>>>>> citizen reaches the age of 21 in the United States he hasn't
>>>>> heard the anti-smoking mantra to the point of nausea.
>>>>>
>>>>> How lucky we are that there are people out there who will take
>>>>> it upon themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from making
>>>>> their own decisions with regard to the risks they take in life.
>>>>>
>>>>> g
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: TIM RIGSBY
>>>>> To: starbliss at gmail.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse
>>>>> people with facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> I would like to add the idea of this saying,
>>>>>
>>>>> "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
>>>>>
>>>>> Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points that tend
>>>>> to be forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking regulation
>>>>> and legislation. What scares me as a Health Teacher is when I
>>>>> hear my junior high and high school aged students talking about
>>>>> how safe, they think anyway, Hookah bars are. When asked if
>>>>> they would ever smoke cigarettes, they claim that they won't.
>>>>> Yet what these students don't realize is that they are actually
>>>>> smoking tobacco at the high school hookah parties. What is even
>>>>> scarier is a lot of the parents think that hookah is a safe
>>>>> alternative as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The hookah bar closest to my house in Boise is constantly packed
>>>>> with young people all of the time. Often times, other
>>>>> substances are being laced into the tobacco as well and these
>>>>> young people are unknowingly smoking illegal drugs along with
>>>>> their fruit and tobacco mixture.
>>>>>
>>>>> I predict in the not so distant future, Boise and possibly the
>>>>> State Legislature will enact legislation to regulate/control
>>>>> these hookah establishments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a question to ponder. By definition based on Idaho
>>>>> Code, what is a hookah bar categorized as? A restaurant, a bar,
>>>>> a private club? If it falls under the bar definition, then
>>>>> people under 21 should not be allowed in. It seems as though
>>>>> hookah bars would fall into an undefined gray area of the Idaho
>>>>> Clean Indoor Air Act. However, Moscow seems to have covered
>>>>> hookah bars in their recent ban of smoking, I could be wrong
>>>>> though.
>>>>>
>>>>> " 'Politics is the art of controlling your environment.' That is
>>>>> one of the key things I learned in these years, and I learned it
>>>>> the hard way. Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's
>>>>> President' has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die
>>>>> in a vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World -- or
>>>>> been beaten and gassed by Police for trespassing on public
>>>>> property -- or been hounded by the IRS for purely political
>>>>> reasons -- or locked up in the Cook County Jail with a broken
>>>>> nose and no phone access and twelve perverts wanting to stomp
>>>>> your ass in the shower. That is when it matters who is President
>>>>> or Governor or Police Chief. That is when you will wish you had
>>>>> voted." - Hunter S. Thompson
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
>>>>> From: starbliss at gmail.com
>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people
>>>>> with facts."
>>>>>
>>>>> The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as one
>>>>> of the most educated and honest Vision2020 participants, that I
>>>>> received to my post below on tobacco regulation, is in total
>>>>> what is stated in the subject heading of this post. Wise words,
>>>>> no doubt, that I ignore at my own risk...
>>>>>
>>>>> Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the critical
>>>>> facts my post presented: that tobacco (nicotine) is a physically
>>>>> addictive drug, with underage tobacco addiction common, raising
>>>>> questions if whether adult "choice" is in effect regarding
>>>>> employees or consumers in tobacco related decisions; that
>>>>> tobacco is the leading cause of premature death (nuclear waste
>>>>> or energy or even nuclear weapons production is not even close
>>>>> as a cause of premature death); that other drugs doing less harm
>>>>> to society than tobacco are criminalized and prosecuted
>>>>> aggressively, involving civil and human rights violations, yet
>>>>> who among those opposing regulation of tobacco, will as
>>>>> aggressively advocate for these drugs to be managed by free
>>>>> choice and the marketplace, rather than a government "Big
>>>>> Brother?" Some, perhaps... While there are others who should
>>>>> know better playing some on this list as fools, for the sake of
>>>>> debate, or political advantage, or popular image or whatever...
>>>>> Or they are as deluded as those they are debating with...
>>>>>
>>>>> My response to the "Off List" comment discussed here:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief that
>>>>> expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that
>>>>> dangerous idea? I''ll end up in serious trouble! Oh, I forgot,
>>>>> I already am...), I may not comply. I recently read a variation
>>>>> of this same expression in James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia:"
>>>>> "Don't confuse me with the facts, my minds made up." Lovelock
>>>>> was referring to this mentality regarding the rejection of
>>>>> nuclear power by many in the environmental movement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ted
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please do not continue to confuse people with facts.
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: Ted Moffett
>>>>> To: Moscow Vision 2020
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 AM
>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Tobacco: Targeting the Nation’s Leading
>>>>> Killer: Centers for Disease Control
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug. Once
>>>>> addicted, "choice" becomes a problematic concept. And many
>>>>> people become addicted while underage, encouraged to continue
>>>>> their addiction in bars, where cigarettes are often shared
>>>>> between customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the
>>>>> comments of many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are the
>>>>> facts regarding the magnitude of the damage. Comparisons to
>>>>> other harmful behaviors are drawn (fatty food, etc.), suggesting
>>>>> that a slippery slope of regulation will lead to government
>>>>> control over too many aspects of life, but many of these
>>>>> behaviors do not involve a drug addiction. Of course alcohol
>>>>> has dramatic negative impacts. But workers in bars are not
>>>>> forced to drink the drinks the customers order, as they breathe
>>>>> the smoke of the customers.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to an
>>>>> addictive drug when they breathe in the workplace is approached
>>>>> so callously. They can work elsewhere, it's announced with smug
>>>>> authority, as if in this economy workers have the luxury of
>>>>> choosing whatever job suits their fancy, rather than an urgency
>>>>> to take whatever work they can find. If it was cocaine or
>>>>> heroin or methamphetamine that workers were exposed to, the
>>>>> attitude might be different.
>>>>>
>>>>> Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the
>>>>> workplace should be protected based on free market, free choice,
>>>>> adult responsibility? If this is the logic, where are the
>>>>> protests against laws imposed on those selling cocaine, heroin
>>>>> or methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting adults, which can
>>>>> result in long prison sentences? Let the free market decide!
>>>>> Why stand in the way of profits and the free choice of adults?
>>>>>
>>>>> If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in their
>>>>> outrage against limits on the free market, their ideology might
>>>>> have more intellectual credibility. Instead, the libertarianism
>>>>> proposed is inconsistent and conformist. Or perhaps those
>>>>> opposed to the smoking ordinance will now protest that bars do
>>>>> not allow legal cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine use? Think
>>>>> of the profits to be made! And remember, tobacco prematurely
>>>>> kills more people than those three drugs combined...
>>>>>
>>>>> If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis is,
>>>>> resulting in prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or use,
>>>>> I would oppose this vehemently. But an ordinance regulating
>>>>> smoking in bars does not stop any adult from legally using
>>>>> tobacco products in settings where they do not expose workers.
>>>>>
>>>>> If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify the
>>>>> exposure of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA could be
>>>>> mostly eliminated. After all, if workers exposed to hazards
>>>>> monitored or banned by OSHA don't want to work with those risks,
>>>>> they can work elsewhere, as long as signs posted in the
>>>>> workplace inform them of the risks. A "Big Brother" government
>>>>> bureaucracy gone.
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
>>>>> The Burden of Tobacco Use
>>>>>
>>>>> Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease,
>>>>> disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an
>>>>> estimated 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or
>>>>> exposure to secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a
>>>>> serious illness caused by smoking. For every person who dies
>>>>> from smoking, 20 more people suffer from at least one serious
>>>>> tobacco-related illness. Despite these risks, approximately 43.4
>>>>> million U.S. adults smoke cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars,
>>>>> and pipes also have deadly consequences, including lung, larynx,
>>>>> esophageal, and oral cancers.
>>>>> The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. More
>>>>> than 126 million nonsmoking Americans, including children and
>>>>> adults, are regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief
>>>>> exposure can be dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the
>>>>> same carcinogens and toxins in cigarette smoke as smokers.
>>>>> Secondhand smoke exposure causes serious disease and death,
>>>>> including heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults and
>>>>> sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear
>>>>> problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in
>>>>> children. Each year, primarily because of exposure to secondhand
>>>>> smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of lung
>>>>> cancer, more than 46,000 (range: 22,700–69,600) die of heart
>>>>> disease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18
>>>>> months have lower respiratory tract infections.
>>>>> Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant
>>>>> economic burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion per year in
>>>>> medical expenditures and another $97 billion per year resulting
>>>>> from lost productivity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [A text description of this graph is also available.]
>>>>>
>>>>> The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be Stopped
>>>>>
>>>>> A 2007 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint
>>>>> for action to “reduce smoking so substantially that it is no
>>>>> longer a public health problem for our nation.” The two-pronged
>>>>> strategy for achieving this goal includes not only strengthening
>>>>> and fully implementing currently proven tobacco control
>>>>> measures, but also changing the regulatory landscape to permit
>>>>> policy innovations. Foremost among the IOM recommendations is
>>>>> that each state should fund a comprehensive tobacco control
>>>>> program at the level recommended by CDC in Best Practices for
>>>>> Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs–2007.
>>>>> Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are
>>>>> comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to
>>>>> reduce smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and diseases
>>>>> caused by smoking. A comprehensive program is a coordinated
>>>>> effort to establish smoke-free policies and social norms, to
>>>>> promote and assist tobacco users to quit, and to prevent
>>>>> initiation of tobacco use. This approach combines educational,
>>>>> clinical, regulatory, economic, and social strategies.
>>>>> Research has documented the effectiveness of laws and policies
>>>>> to protect the public from secondhand smoke exposure, promote
>>>>> cessation, and prevent initiation when they are applied in a
>>>>> comprehensive way. For example, states can increase the unit
>>>>> price of tobacco products; implement smoking bans through
>>>>> policies, regulations, and laws; provide insurance coverage of
>>>>> tobacco use treatment; and limit minors’ access to tobacco
>>>>> products.
>>>>> If the nation is to achieve the objectives outlined in Healthy
>>>>> People 2010, comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for
>>>>> preventing smoking initiation and increasing cessation need to
>>>>> be fully implemented.
>>>>> CDC's Response
>>>>>
>>>>> CDC is the lead federal agency for tobacco control. CDC’s Office
>>>>> on Smoking and Health (OSH) provides national leadership for a
>>>>> comprehensive, broad-based approach to reducing tobacco use. A
>>>>> variety of government agencies, professional and voluntary
>>>>> organizations, and academic institutions have joined together to
>>>>> advance this approach, which involves the following activities:
>>>>> Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
>>>>>
>>>>> Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health disparities.
>>>>> Essential elements of this approach include state-based,
>>>>> community-based, and health system-based interventions;
>>>>> cessation services; counter marketing; policy development and
>>>>> implementation; surveillance; and evaluation. These activities
>>>>> target groups who are at highest risk for tobacco-related health
>>>>> problems.
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite
>>>>> sports pics. Check it out.
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.26/2257 - Release
>>>>> Date: 07/23/09 18:00:00
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release
>>>>> Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release
>>>>> Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release
>>>>> Date: 07/24/09 05:58:00
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090725/8ca79cb9/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list