Law, Crime & Justice

» curiousincanada - Faking History

I have to disagree with this article that tobacco use will soon be made a crime. Even though there are similarities to the Prohibition era, such as increased smuggling, there is world-wide agreement that smoking is a destructive habit. Instead, the anti-smoking movement is using shame and guilt to make smokers quit. Nobody wants to be called a "baby killer," which is what some of the ads try to imply.

One thing that gives me pause it is that history is already being falsified. I read recently that the cover of a Beatles re-issue has been airbrushed to remove the cigarettes, and what about Keith Richard of the Rolling Stones? Is he next? This could lead to the censorship of films like Casablanca and so many other classic films. And what about cigar-smoking Winston Churchill and smoking greats like Edward R. Murrow and Truman Capote? Thoughts, anybody?

-- posted by curiousincanada

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» aemontague - Faking History

I agree that the ad campaigns are over the top to make you feel like a "baby killer," but public condemnation has to be widespread before the diehard minority will yield. It seems that smoking "responsibly" is not an option, as it has become for drinkers.

Re: the Beatles cover. Assuming it's true, it's another sign that criminalization is on its way. There's an old saying that whoever wins a war gets to write its history. Truth and reality have little to do with it. Cynical as that may sound, its about all I can say regarding revisionism.

-- posted by aemontague

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» markbarnes19 - Smoking a crime? Ridiculous.

Art, you may be right, but if you are, it only underscores the ridiculous change in government our country is embracing. There is more political control than ever. What happened to our freedoms? If people want to risk bad health by smoking, it's up to them.

If we're concerned with cigarettes landing in the hands of minors, police it better. But stay out of my neighborhood, I say. I'm an adult.

Nice piece, by the way.

-- posted by markbarnes19

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» aemontague - Smoking a crime? Ridiculous.

Amen, Mark! I'd rather not get into the subject of our civil liberties going down the tubes or dwell on the sad fact that people often do get the government they deserve. What troubles me is the hypocrisy, especially around second hand smoke -- I cannot accept that tobacco smoke is more a danger than exhaust fumes from vehicles, yet the vehicles remain sacrosanct.

You will notice that this week I'll be moving on to talk about some of the existing criminal elements that will benefit from this potential new crime.

-- posted by aemontague

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Tom - Crime?

Interesting reading, but none of you have actually touched on the criminal aspect of smoking, at least not from the point of view I have in mind.

Scenario: A lunch counter in a small café that doesn’t have enough seats to require a non-smoking section.

A spaced out hophead trying to make sense of yet another uninvited sunrise - he’s sitting there sucking up cigarettes and sipping his coffee, contemplating on how he will manage to make a few bucks on this particular day.

In walks a fellow on his way to work, to have a bit of breakfast. Only seat available is next to the hophead. The fellow, a non smoker, sits down and glances at the hophead with a look of distain. He orders his food, and when it comes he politely asks the hophead to please refrain from continuing to blow smoke in his direction while he is trying to eat. This angers the hophead and he blows smoke in the guys face.

This has actually happened to me!

Assault with a deadly weapon?

Cigarettes can kill you, I know, they killed my wife.

Just a day or two ago the US Surgeon General came up with a report bolstering a previous report stating that passive, or second hand smoke, is a definite killer. Lots of states in the US have banned smoking in all public places, although mine hasn’t. The legislature in the state of Pennsylvania would rather make money from special interest groups than protect its citizens.

Worst part of the story is this; I smoked cigarettes and cigars for over 40 years. I quit in 2001 – cold turkey. My wife laughed at me – told me I’d never do it. Two years later when our doctor told her she had stage four terminal lung cancer, she didn’t laugh, and neither did I.

Still, I’m glad I quit; it’s one of the smartest things I’ve ever done. I’ve never felt better or been healthier. I can still get lung cancer, anyone can, whether they smoke or not. It has never really been proven that cigarette smoke actually causes cancer, but in a sense, I think we all know it does. Let’s put it this way, even if it doesn’t, the fact that your lungs are shot from smoking certainly doesn’t make the lung cancer any easier, even if it doesn’t cause it!

If you smoke, find the strength to quit. If you don’t smoke, don’t ever start!

Tom Sampson - - Human Rights




All animals are equal...except some animals are more equal than others


George Orwell...Animal Farm - 1944

-- posted by Tom

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» curiousincanada - Crime?

No, of course the fellow had no right to blow smoke in your face, not an ounce of civilized human behaviour there! Not all smokers will do that, of course, but you know that already. Very sad about your wife and yes, research tells us it was probably the second-hand smoke. As to your feeling better, not always true, but you'll likely live longer.

A dear friend just passed away from liver cancer which had started in the lung a year ago. He'd quit smoking for 15 years and didn't feel better as a non-smoker, having like yourself smoked for 40 years, but stuck with it. He did a lot over the 15 years that he'd always wanted to do but didn't make it past age 75. Hard to know if he could have reached 90 if he'd never smoked. But your advice is the best, for sure.

-- posted by curiousincanada

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» aemontague - Back to Crime

Hi, I’m sorry about the delay in getting my fork into the crime/smoking buffet of opinion but I’ve been out of town researching a new book. That said ….

Everyone knows someone near and dear who has died of cancer. Sometimes the cancer is attributed to smoking, sometimes to pervasive second-hand smoke, often in the workplace.

Discussions about smoking, however, often blur morality and criminality (in its legal sense), yet, as with most law, morality and criminality are rarely related. This 101 section reflects and discusses crime, not morality, although speculation is welcome.

Let’s take blowing smoke in someone’s face. If we are to legislate against deliberately blowing smoke in someone’s face, I think we should be obliged to roll in public transit which permits their buses to spew diesel fumes on passersby. In my view, both are immoral, yet neither is criminal. Partly this is due to the fact that “intent to harm”-- key to much of our criminal code violations -- is difficult, if not impossible, to prove. We can see the slippery slope to absurdity here, or, at least, I can.

In my view, this approach is simply “blowing smoke,” relative to the 101 Crime section. More appropriately, the approach to this topic should come under the purview of human rights, but mindful of two things: the right to not breath toxic fumes extends far beyond just cigarette smoke and, second, a human right is only as valid as the individual's power to exercise it.

As to the latter, in Canada and the United States we do it by utilizing special interest groups to lobby legislators -- the more vocal or financially powerful the lobby, the more likely legislation will be favorable to its interests.

Take, for example, our criminal code around theft and larceny -— this was initially promulgated in Britain because Italian traders had been robbed dockside in London and threatened to boycott trade with Britain if the perps weren’t brought to justice.

OK, this smoking thing in my column was speculative and probably had I thought about it in more depth, I’d have realized personal experiences of yeah/nayers would colour the dialogue of the discussions, and that tells me I didn’t properly describe the point I was trying to make, which is that the nayers are winning the battle (though they’ll lose the war on other fronts). So, for now, I suggest we back off.

But before doing that, I want to share a thought that perhaps anti-smoking advocacy should be criminalized. Their persistent lobby for high taxation on tobacco products has created a hundred million dollars a year smuggling and black market industry which, in turn, has led to increased trafficking in narcotics, arms, alcohol, and illegal immigrants, just to name a few that law enforcement agencies have documented.

Sure, smoking is personal. So is a random drive-by shooting. Both can leave us questioning, angry, and prone to proselytizing. Chastened, I shall return the 101 Crime section back to crime, with subjects like drive-by shootings with weapons obtained from smugglers who got into the arms business as a spin off from cigarette smuggling -- smuggling made successful by the government’s high tax policy, which at bottom was driven by the anti-smoking lobby.

A final note, we can’t always choose the way we die, but the one thing we know for sure in our hearts is that we’re going to die. Has anyone recently checked out the fact the TB is resurging in the western world and our antibiotics can’t check it? Definitely it’s not yet as much a motherhood issue as smoking and certainly can’t command the big research bucks that the cancer industry has garnered. TB, however, is contagious. Something to think about. I too can moralize. Let’s get back to down and dirty crime!

-- posted by aemontague

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» poohbear2700 - Criminalizing smoking & smokers

In response to Back to Crime posted by aemontague:

I know i'm coming in way late on this, but I just have to put in my 2 cents on this. I think the article made so many relevant points - and everyone's input in the discussisons were equally valid. It does not seem unreasonable at all to draw a parallel to Prohibition times - and, forgive me for not remembering who said this, but I agree that there is a serious imbalance between the "drink responsibly" campaign and the attitude placed toward smokers. Very good point about INTENT - re: second hand smoke and bus fumes - if we're splitting moral hairs, let's bring it back around to the legal aspect for sure. Skipping around here alot, but it seems almost offensive to represent all smokers anecdotally as people who would be as rude and crass as to blow smoke in someone's face. That is not the norm, just as most people don't respond in other inappropriate ways. I find the erosion of the ozone layer and the consequential effects on the environment and my health just as offensive, especially when the existence of these problems is being denied by the leaders of major governments. Now THAT should be criminalized - sacrificing the good of all for the deep pockets of big business. When I smoke alone in my own car, it's my lungs. When more money is spent trying to keep the air filled with pollution than on alternative energy sources and those who know about it and can do something sit back and breathe their canned air...(probably smoking cigars)...it's the whole world, forever.
Sorry about the rant...got a little carried away, I know, but sometimes it seems like while we're divided against each other over who's smoking and who's not (or who's drinking and who's not, who's communist and who's not, etc) we lose sight of all the bigger issues that we have in COMMON.

-- posted by poohbear2700

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds