SDianneB

For another side of the story: http://www.davehitt.com/facts/index.html There are more, but this site is fairly easy to understand, and you can actually read the documents and studies for yourself. Di

Agreed on that. That was a HUGE loophole that states just walked right through. When cigarette prices went up a few years ago on the back of some of the settlements, you could walk about a block or 2 from where I work (right in the middle of a large city) and buy a carton for $5. They came in from Mexico. If you bought a single pack this way, you'd often get them in a "real" package, as they would save them with the tax stamps. With a carton, you had to be more careful, I suppose, although there was (and still is) a thriving business. These people would like nothing better than for cigarettes and tobacco products to be banned in the U.S., because they will make their fortunes in the black market. I don't even want to know what they will do with a good bit of the money they make. Every day, I walk to lunch and around downtown a bit for the "fresh air." I sometimes almost choke from the smoke put out by the city buses, and many of the cars. I used to think when I was smoking that there weren't very many of us left, and now I seem to notice a LOT of people walking around smoking. I just want to strangle them, and tell them to STOP NOW -- LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO ME FROM THOSE THINGS!! They would probably react like I would have -- hopefully, just walking right on by and ignoring me, rather than smacking me upside the head! What I want most is for them to stop, and for them to keep their children from smoking as long as possible. What I don't want is to have the government fall heavily on their heads on my behalf in a misguided attempt to force that to happen. Di

Not a bad idea, actually. People should know -- no, they NEED to know where they might be exposed to cigarette smoke. Those fees could be paid into a fund and used to further the anti-smoking campaign, if the politicians can keep their hands out of it. But, look at who is caught in the wide net of "banning" -- I won't look one of the West Texas farmers I know in the eye and tell him it's illegal for him to drag himself into his house at midnight, have a nip and a smoke, then fall into the bathtub and hope he stays awake long enough to make it into the bed, after working 15 hours in the blowing dirt, trying to make a go of it. What is the penalty imposed on him if someone happens to see him sneak a smoke behind his own barn? These people spend their lives clawing living out of some of the most unforgiving farm land in this entire country. I wouldn't have gone into the home of my old granny when, at age 79, she still enjoyed a puff now and then, and told her she was breaking the law. It's one thing to think of this in terms of bars and restaurants in crowded cities. Quite another to think of it in terms of rural locations where lawmakers themselves seldom tread. We know what the goals are, the road getting to them is the rocky part. You make good sense, IMO. I think there are many sensible things that communities and states can do short of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Di

And I don't think we disagree. The personal choice comes in when we make our own decisions -- not fettered by federal laws. Smoking, drinking, drinking and smoking too much, using power tools with no safety equipment, -- all risky, dangerous, but all perfectly legal inside one's home. None of which affect me when it isn't in my house. I totally agree that children are at risk -- but they are also at risk from many things that exist out in the world, and making them all illegal doesn't protect them. Laws don't keep people "safe" unless every single person obeys them, and they don't. Parents can keep their children in close rein every minute until they are legal age, and then they can still choose to smoke or drink or drive like maniacs. I worry just as much what they will be doing to get their hands on cigarettes if they are made illegal, and they go underground to get their hands on them like they do now with their "designer" drugs. It doesn't mean don't have laws, but if the goals are clear, laws may not always be the best way to get to them. I'll still regret the loss of liberty, and yes I think our choices -- good ones and bad ones -- are included in those. There are already moves being made to outlaw some foods, so that looks to be next. I guess this country will have to drink itself into oblivion before someone takes on the real killer in society -- alcohol abuse -- the sacred cow. Di

I work in a small business. We don't even have enough employees to be subject to most of the federal laws governing the work place. If we had a business where we allowed smoking, and we told prospective employees about that, and warned the public, then they would only be associated with us voluntarily. By choice. If people didn't want to come in, then we would probably take another look at our policy. No one has any inherent "right" to enter any and all places of business because they want to. There is no damage suffered by a person if they don't go into a particular restaurant to eat because they allow smoking, and go to another one where smoking isn't allowed. If a person decides to work in such an establishment having been informed up front that smoking is allowed, then that is their right. Respectfully, Becky, because there are existing laws that regulate private business, that doesn't at all justify to me why there should be more. OSHA exists to minimize risks, not do away with them all. Otherwise, a human would not be allowed to set foot inside an auto manufacturing plant, because it is dangerous, and very risky work. Same with the mining industry. The point is to be aware of the risks and informed about them up front so that people can take reasonable and responsible precautions. I'm no fan of smoking, but I'm a huge fan of individual liberties, and when things like this come up, I see them as just one more example of a democratic republic gone awry, whatever the issue. I can see it coming, however, and as good as it sounds to have a smoke free society, it's really quite sad to me, and makes me wonder which of our freedoms we will give away next. I know this isn't the popular or PC view of this issue, but I'm not in favor of what some call a "nanny state" where we make bad choices individually and then ask the government to come in and fix things for us when they don't turn out like we want them to. I'm one of those people, but I recognize my own culpability in the matter, and there isn't a thing the government can do for me now, nor could they have stopped me from smoking all those years had I not wanted to stop myself. Di

Hey there, Bet - glad you updated us. Sending you all good thoughts and prayers that this goes well for you, and that the icky stuff that goes along with it is minimized. Di

This was in my newsletter from the Oncology group I use, and I thought it was worth sharing: (Warning - it has the "grownup" word in it, but I'm not the author, so it shouldn't offend anyone.) Those near death know how to live -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jan 9, 2005 - Record, Northern New Jersey Author (s): Jane Glenn Haas -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life gives me little jolts - little bits of cancer, uncomfortable recovery from knee-replacement surgery, caregiving for my husband after his skull fracture. Just enough pain and suffering for me to walk in the sandals of those facing life-ending situations, but not enough to make me stumble. Others are not so fortunate. I spent Christmas with two people who are facing their own mortality. And I must tell you, it was indeed a merry Christmas, for I learned a person can face that grim future without it casting a pall over everyday life. The secret is to be secure enough to recognize what really matters in life. And what matters is not your personal pity party. What counts is family, a continuity of your values, sharing with others and maintaining the important traditions of a lifetime. My host for the day has advanced melanoma. Because of his chemotherapy, he can no longer taste food. He forces himself to eat. Yet there he was, pouring wine for others and being his usual good- host self. My hostess has metastasized kidney cancer. Her chemotherapy leaves her nauseated and fatigued. She watched her daughters-in-law set the table and her own daughter cook the Christmas dinner. "It's OK for us to sit," she said to me. "We've spent our time in the kitchen." And so I sat with her, nursing my knee, which is still sore from recent surgery. None of us is old by today's standards of long living. Each of us still works, although my friends admit to slowing down and balancing work days against chemo treatments. All of us value life. But I realize that my friends are coming to grips with the limits on their lives - a realization we never want to acknowledge. In 1969, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross gave dignity to the dying, defining the stages of the terminally ill as denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. I'm not sure where my friends are in this litany of dying. Sometimes, my hostess tells me, she breaks down and cries. My host would never admit to such frailty, but surely he has his own quiet moments of despair. What strikes me, this Christmas afternoon, is the importance of how we face our finality. In many ways, it is our last gift to our families and to ourselves. Author and poet Judith Viorst has said that only by learning to relinquish people, places, situations and emotions that concern us at every stage of life, from childhood to old age, can we develop a positive identification and self-image. Viorst is the author of "Necessary Losses: The Loves, Illusions, Dependencies, and Impossible Expectations that All of Us Have to Give Up in Order to Grow." Loss is a necessary part of life and essential to growth, she told me a couple of years ago. We were talking, actually, about another of her books, "Imperfect Control: Our Lifelong Struggles with Power and Surrender." We have a "fantasy of control," she said. "If we do everything right, if we follow the recipe correctly, we will produce a happy, healthy, creative and well-adjusted child, for example. ... And if that doesn't happen, we did something wrong." More important, says Viorst, is to control our urges to control, to seek a balance between power and surrender. Dying well, it seems to me, demands we find that balance between power and surrender. My friends are working toward that goal. Along the way, they are giving their children and grandchildren an awareness of how to find joy in everyday living. None of us can avoid the necessary losses of life. The challenge is to approach that time of loss like a grown-up. * * * Jane Glenn Haas is the author of "Time of Your Life: Why Almost Everything Gets Better After Fifty." Write to her at The Orange County Register, P.O. Box 11626, Santa Ana, Calif. 92711, or send e- mail to jghaas@aol.com, or through her Web site, womansage.com.

I think, if it's a public building -- meaning paid for or controlled by public/taxpayer funds -- then if that's what the people of the state want, that's how it should be. If it's a privately owned business, however, I believe it should be up to the owner, with the proviso that prospective employees be warned and informed, and that warning notices are posted so that people know before going in that smoking is or isn't allowed. The marketplace will decide ultimately. Di

Well, that's a kick in the pants! How wonderful! She not only beats the prognosis, but beats them all at putting to boot! These kinds of stories remind me of that line from The Godfather -- "Just when I get out, they pulllllll me back in." (Or something like that!) Best of wishes to your mom. Sounds like she's one tough lady, and has lots going for her. Thanks for sharing this great story too! Di

Mouse -- (I love that nickname! There is an old, old children's story called "Bad Mousie." I used to have the sweetest little kitty, Baby Kitty, and he would get into such trouble, but had the sweetest face, so we could never be mad at him! We called him "Bad Mousie" all the time because of that story!) Glad you're having good luck with treatment, and tolerating it well. I am thankful on a daily basis that I had so few side effects from the chemo, radiation, etc., and love hearing it when others do well. You're just digging in there and DOING this, huh! Di

Well, radiation oncologists aren't always so forthcoming about such things. They like to think that chemo causes all the problems rather than radiation. As if. Maybe you should see your PCP or oncologist about that - someone who will at least try to figure it out rather than just put you off. The one good thing about having so danged many docs sometimes is having more than one to call when something like this happens! Let us know what happens, ok? Di

Well, maybe not "gone wrong," but when you're sending radiation into the brain, there have to be side effects, no? You had more than I did too - I only had 12 treatments. About the time the side effects were beginning, they stopped, so I had time to regroup before experiencing anything drastic. Whatever it is, I hope they get on top of it soon. Di

I have mild nausea now and then, and didn't take the steroids at all. Go figure. It isn't really "nausea" though -- more like mild indigestion now and then. And not at all like when I had the esophagitis from chest radiation. I read a post by Don & Lucie once where he suggested eating small meals several times a day rather than 3 a day, and I've tried that -- it helps. I think you probably want to press your docs into looking at this closely though, as I have NOT been as sick as you through this. All I've needed about twice so far is a little Mylanta, and I eat raw baby carrots like they were candy, and that helps. Of course, popsicles are always at the ready! The Radiation Oncologist tried to tell me the PCI didn't cause this, but I've since found that brain swelling causes nausea, and since PCI causes some brain swelling, it makes sense that PCI is at least a contributing factor, if not the cause. I really hope you get this nipped in the bud, and fast. I'm sure you are way tired of feeling so bad. Di

This is a good thing. I prefer going TO Manhattan, but you go for the other one -- stable is something to celebrate for sure! Di

Remember when you were a kid and your dad would send you in to the store to buy cigarettes? Ack! My dad didn't do that to me, but my brother did - plenty of times!! Gosh no. I didn't take your post like that -- not at all! But, it's only a "debate" if more than one point of view is welcomed. A "discussion" can be limited to one point of view, and it sounds like many in this forum prefer that, so that no one's feathers are ruffled. I can understand and respect that. Like I said before, I share the goal, I just don't agree with how we get there! So, I guess we can get the fork for this one -- it appears to be done! Di

Wow. Just what we hoped for! This is great news!!! Ya dun good!!! Di

IMO, this is a good debate. And an important one. There were people before us and those who will come after us who demand that we continue to debate such things that are important to our lives, IMO. I think that, as usual, we have vastly different takes on the same issues, but we all share the same goals. No need to blow a gasket over it, it's just us being humans. Di

Ry, my best friend in high school was a preacher's kid too! She had the reddest hair you could imagine, wore LOTS of makeup, had big, well, you know whats, and the boys loved her. I got into trouble with her a few times, but only by association. I wasn't allowed the freedom she was -- had to be home earlier, had the mileage checked on the car, etc. (that worked well until I learned how to unhook the speedometer cable so the miles wouldn't register, then hook it up again just before going home!) When I was older and the 60s and late 70s came along, they started smoking funny stuff that just put me to sleep, so I stuck with the cigarettes. I made it all through that time without being ever hooked on any drugs. I probably smoked 10 years before I ever inhaled one. When people come here and ask why some have cancer and still smoke, boy do I understand that. I made a different choice, but I can sure see how that crutch would be REALLY difficult to discard, especially in such a stressful time. It's the irony of it -- the smoking caused the problem, is still a problem, but also helps the person cope. Go figure. Di

So, all those stories about the preacher's kid were right! Wow! Di

My, how we change over time! Let me just say that in such a spirited debate, I see more and more of you fabulous people come out, and it makes me appreciate you all even more. We are a wonderfully diverse group of people in a wonderfully diverse country. May we forever have the chance to debate such things. We may disagree on the premise, but not in the outcomes we all want to see. There is NO doubt about that. Di

Elaine, you are one formidable debatress. Of course, you're one amazing woman, so why not? There are lots of things that can be harmful -- as in potentially. Take the number of smokers in comparison to the number of total adults in the U.S. -- miniscule numbers. Same with drinkers. Did you know that each year, alcohol affects amost 4 times as many lives as smoking? As in from liver disease, death related to alcohol abuse, drunk driving, etc. I don't think there is a reported case of someone smoking 10 cigarettes, then getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone because of the cigarattes. But, I do get the point about smoking -- I do NOT condone it, and don't think anyone should smoke. Period. I just draw the line -- and a big thick line -- between personal behavior and responsibility and what the government should be doing in our lives. Yes, there probably should be someone trying to do something about harmful things, but I don't believe that's the federal government when it involves our privacy and personal freedoms. Trying to keep us "safe" is futile. We just won't ever be safe. The world is a dangerous place. We will all die from something. It's inevitable. If nothing else, look at the "War on Drugs." They've been illegal for years now, and we've spent tons and tons of money to try and prevent the spread and use of illegal drugs to no avail. They are more prevalent today, cheaper, and more common in all walks of life than ever before. If that's how the government tries to keep us from harm, if nothing else, the sheer ineptitude of their efforts would lead me to believe they aren't the right place to look for help. I'd like everything to be "safe." But it isn't going to be. And the federal government is the last place I'd look to help, given their track record. Who was it -- Ben Franklin, I think, who said something like this: "He who would give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security." IMO, if "we the people" decided that harmful tobacco products should be outlawed, then it should happen through legislation as that is the branch of government responsible for making law. Not the judiciary. Beating up the tobacco companies with lawsuits and monetary fines isn't doing very much, except spurring them to sell more to make up their losses. If it were made illegal tomorrow, I could walk 2 blocks in either direction from where I work and buy cigarettes by the carton, and probably get them for half the price they are selling for over the counter. A whole new underground will open up, just for cigarettes. Your neighbors will become common criminals when they are caught sneaking a smoke that they just bought from their new dealer, the son of your boss. When people figure out there are folks in your neighborhood getting cigarettes, they'll be breaking in your houses to steal them. All the things that go on now with illegal drugs will continue and even worsen with a ban on tobacco products. IMO, we can do what we can do and no more. We can warn, admonish, keep our children from smoking, do whatever we can to influence people to stay away from cigarettes. People will do what people will do though, and that's the price we pay to live in a country where we have individual liberties, IMO. (Sorry I wasn't clear on the reproduction thing -- I meant it in terms of things that are known to be harmful to children, such as passing on genetic defects, AIDS/HIV, crack addiction, etc. That happens as the result of people exercising their "rights" to reproduce at will. The results are devastating.) Di

I just can't value the ethics or the intentions or morals of other people and what they do in the privacy of their own homes. Neither can the government, IMO, because we are all different. It just isn't possible to regulate everything and keep people "safe." Ain't gonna happen. We do the best we can. I don't know if someone builds a bomb in their garage if they are going to blow something up with it, or just see if they can. If they blow up my house with it, then I expect an investigation and an arrest, because that's illegal. If someone breaks a law, I expect the same. I don't expect to have the government step into my home based on what "might" happen. There's a distinction here that I may not be communicating adequately -- federal government vs. states. We aren't a democracy -- we are a republic with elements of democracy in our government. People do harmful things to children way too often. There are many laws on the books against it, yet it happens over and over. There is no way that any government will ever stop that, short of taking control of all children at birth, locking them up in a secured facility, and raising them. Still, there will be those among us who will figure out ways around that. People who carry genes that cause fatal diseases reproduce. People addicted to drugs reproduce. People with HIV/AIDS reproduce. To keep children "safe," would require that all that stop too, and those people be sterilized so that they can't harm children. Are we ready for that? I don't think I am. Di

Government has a clearly defined role in our Constitution. It provides for, among other things, individual liberties and rights, and an unequivocal protection of rights of each state in the union. Long ago, the federal government started crossing those lines, and I doubt it will stop any time soon. It is necessary to have rules that we can all agree on when driving on public roads, going into public buildings, etc. But when things are in private hands, and the highways clearly aren't private, I believe those things are left to us as free people to decide. We the people set the rules and laws we live under in each state. For the same reasons I don't believe the government should come into my house and tell me who I can/can't love or marry, I don't believe they get to come into my house and say I can/can't smoke. Di

I have no problem banning nicotene or harmful chemicals. Tobacco isn't one of them. Tobacco is rather a nothing until additves are put with it. And there's a difference between a tobacco farmer and a tobacco company too -- a big one. Vioxx was something prescribed to people -- they were told to take Vioxx by health care professionals who went from the best information they had at the time. They don't usually prescribe or direct people to smoke or drink or to inhale glue fumes or whatever. We know as a 16 year old what is good/bad if we've been raised that way. We get some independence, and we start making choices. Sometimes they are bad ones. But when we're 16, we're still not adults, and have parents or guardians who are supposed to watch over us. Lacking that, then there are laws and regulations about harmful influences on minors already. I'm not at all arguing that smoking isn't an awful, dangerous, and deadly habit. I just don't believe that it's up to the government to try and make sure we don't make poor choices. Di

Joanie, I don't disagree with how bad smoking is -- not at all. But, the fact is that tobacco, in and of itself, isn't the enemy -- it's the additives they put with it to make cigarettes, chewing tobacco, etc., that are addictive and harmful. And we, as adults, know that. We, as adults, make our choices. Try as we might, I just don't believe we can save everyone from him/herself. And I don't believe that's up to the government. One drink can kill you too -- if someone else drinks it, can't handle it, then smashes into you on the freeway. IMO, if someone opens a bar/restaurant, they should be able to decide if they allow smoking or not inside their own business. If they do, they should be required to place warnings around the establishment, and provide warnings to employees, and then carry out their business as they see fit. It's then our choice if we go there or not, and the marketplace will either support the place or it won't last long. I can't agree with any kind of ban by the government on such things, because in this country, we are supposed to be protected from that kind of thing -- not have it imposed on us by our own government. I'll not stop warning people -- especially young people -- about the perils of smoking. Never. But I will never start looking to the government to solve the problems created by our own choices in life. Di