U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures | Hacker News Reader

U.S. Chamber of Commerce Works Globally to Fight Antismoking Measures

nytimes.com

69 pointszameerb52 comments

I wish smoking was simply non existent. People in the stories below in my building and the adjacent one smoke which means I cannot have my windows open unsupervised or overnight unless I want my place to smell terribly (not to mention the possible health issues, minor but still...). Never again will I rent above ground level.

Sorry for the not quite on topic comment but I really had to get that off my chest.

It always amazes me when smokers try to paint themselves as martyrs, because we keep trying to get them to stop exposing other people to their smoke.

I'm sure it's inconvenient that you have to go outside and away from the doors to enjoy your habit, but if that's a problem then maybe you should have picked one that doesn't pollute so much.

Apart from the initial time they chose to smoke (and bear in mind it quite possibly might of been in a time where the health risks were far more contested) it's interesting that you suggest an addiction to be a choice.

Put a gun to the persons head (or because the self preservation instinct in them might not be strong in them, a loved one), say "Don't smoke or I pull the trigger". Magically addicts regain the ability to choose.

Addiction might make it uncomfortable if you choose to stop using a substance but it doesn't use the substance for you. All action excepting reflexes are a choice.

While you're right that smoking (after addiction) isn't so much a choice, I think the gist of GP's point is that smokers should go out of their way to not inconvenience others.

> it's interesting that you suggest an addiction to be a choice.

The data[1] makes is obvious that it's a choice, but no one said it's an easy choice. The zeitgeist has been continuing its swing against smoking in the US.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/tables/trends/cig...

So aside from the part where taking up smoking is a choice, it's weird to suggest that it's a choice?

You're right, some people got addicted back when it was cool. But there aren't a lot of those people around these days. (Most of them have either died from the habit or quit it.) Of those who remain, I do feel sorry for them. But they're not generally the ones I see complaining and trying to be a martyr.

Plus if you're addicted that badly, how about using the patch as a substitute? Or smoke in private. Just because you have an addiction doesn't mean you shouldn't be responsible for satisfying it in a way that doesn't impact other people.

> there aren't a lot of those people around these days.

How incredibly naive and/or myopic.

There are PLENTY of people around who both smoke and are old enough that it was still 'cool.'

As far as I can see, the general negative health effects of smoking were well established in the 60s. Cigarettes sold in the US have had warnings about the negative health consequences since 1966. If you started before that showed up and still smoke today you'd be smoking for 50 years. I doubt there are PLENTY of people around who have been doing it that long.

It's only in the last 20 years or so that the tide has turned against smokers. I clearly remember smokers in restaurants as a teen. Sometime in the last 20 years smokers have gone from the norm to being the outliers in the US. But to think that those smokers are somehow dying out is silly. They are still around and quite bitter. Personally, I'm glad for the fresh air, but I can fully understand the sense of persecution the must feel.

> You're right, some people got addicted back when it was cool. But there aren't a lot of those people around these days.

Smoking is still considered cool among some subgroups. I've seen a lot of 14-16 year olds get addicted to cigarettes this year for that reason. Mostly a subset of the ones that tried vaping, which is being marketed very aggressively even in the US.

Sorry, that was just a shorthand for "when smoking wasn't thought to be harmful to one's health."

This thread sure is a gold mine for people jumping on every little mistaken word, huh?

You leave vaping out of this!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25739-ecig-users-are-y...

They're complaining because they see the general trend.

When it's getting to the point where you don't just have to go outside, which is reasonable, or even go outside but avoid high traffic areas, but instead to go to this one specific spot outside, and there are people advocating banning smoking outdoors altogether it starts to get ridiculous.

I find it a strange comparison to the marijuana legalization movement.

EDIT: correction: they have actually banned smoking outside in certain places. (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/23/new.york.smoking.ban/) So you can't smoke indoors. You can't smoke outdoors. But fuck 'em, they're smokers, so who cares.

Why should smokers have the right to pollute the air in public places? We all have to breathe that stuff, you know.

Also you seem to be ignoring the "certain places" part of this ban. It doesn't say you can't smoke outdoors. It says you can't smoke in public parks, public beaches, and similar places.

You can smoke outdoors on your own property. You can smoke indoors in your own property.

The general trend is simply that smokers are free to enjoy their smokes in ways that don't affect others.

"You have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (As long as your pursuit makes me happy as well)" - Too many Americans.

I can't quite tell what you're trying to say here, but I interpret this as my desire not to be exposed to secondhand smoke being somehow an infringement of other people's pursuit of happiness.

I really don't care what you do to make yourself happy as long as it doesn't harm other people. Your right to smoke stops at other people's lungs.

In Japan, it's actually illegal to smoke and walk around in public. You have to stay in a designated smoking space.

Many restaurants actually have a separate, glass-enclosed section for smokers so they don't bother non-smokers.

By certain places I meant New York City.

Do a lot of people in NYC have "outdoors" on their own property? I suspect not. Do a lot of people in NYC even own their own homes? Because most rentals disallow smoking. So in order to smoke, you have to outright buy a house or condo. Yeah, that's a reasonable compromise.

What about the sidewalk?

In any case, there are a lot of activities that are impractical in a large city. Try finding a place where you can have a bonfire in NYC, for example. Yet nobody is up in arms about that.

Do you know why most rentals disallow smoking? Because smoking ruins properties. It's not some vendetta against smokers, it's a pure financial consideration. It's the same reason they don't want you taking a sledgehammer to the walls, or putting sandpaper on the soles of your shoes.

Given that, why should anyone let you destroy their stuff in this way?

You have to go to the curb to smoke in some cities now (I've seen it in the Bay, don't know the specifics).

While I don't disagree re: property destruction, they'll make you pay for any damage anyway, so it would probably make more sense as a choice. "$2000 carpet replacement + cleaning + re-painting fee for smoking in this apartment" would surely dissuade some, but if it was the actual cost of labor + materials to restore the apartment to pre-smoking conditions (including smell), I think that's reasonable. Having pets, they sure do make you pay for any bit of messed up carpet, so as long as it's not leaking through the floors / into the hallways / billowing out the windows, why not give people the choice to pay for what they're messing up instead of outright banning it?

Actually aside from minor memory problems after long term exposure (years) all reports suggest pure marijuana is very healthy, so no, no comparison with it.

If I started burning lithium batteries probably people will complain even if I do it outside or if I put it in my lungs, why should nicotine be any different?

I've long since considered getting stink spray, basically the concentrated aerosol version of what is in a stink bomb, and spraying it in any smoking areas. If you can pollute the air with second hand smoke, I can pollute the air with stink. For added effect, I would want the container to look like a cigarette.

By your own logic, you would be guilty of polluting the air.

Yes, and once it is made a crime, I would stop.

If i was king of the world, i would probably indeed be okay with banning smoking inside of public buildings (including bars, whatever), but i think it's really rather silly to ban smoking in open-air areas, like the pavement in front of a bar. I mean, who is complaining about the cars driving past, which in my personal and very humble opinion are much more bothersome than cigarette smoke.

There is an argument to be made that if and only if we ban cars in inner cities (which would be wonderful -- they're smelly, very dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists alike, and detrimental to the environment to boot), then i would be okay with also banning smoking outside. If you think it stinks, stand elsewhere, and i don't have data on this, but i imagine that the influence of cigarette smoke on climate change is vanishingly small compared to the thousands of kilograms of CO2 put out by cars on a continual basis.

But yeah, i happen to find drivers a lot more offensive than smokers.

I don't like the habit. However, I do not hassle smokers for the simple reason that it is not useful to do so. Smokers who want to quit, will quit when they manage to. Nagging makes them defensive. It may make the nagger feel better, but it doesn't that I've ever seen make the smoker readier to quit.

I am grateful and amazed that smoking is so much less popular now. Back in the early 1980s a friend remarked that he liked runners parties: two hours after they started you could still see across the room. I hadn't thought it about, but he was correct that in most other circles there was still a lot of smoking.

I don't go out of my way to hassle smokers. But I do enjoy and approve of the fact that they are generally not allowed to smoke near places I want to be. Nothing to do with wanting them to quit (although that would certainly be a good thing!) and everything to do with my own selfish desire for cleaner air.

There are apartment buildings that ban smoking throughout the building. It's unfortunate that there are those that don't.

I work in an office complex that prohibits smoking throughout all buildings and nearby, but provides a "smoking area" outside; unfortunately that area is right next to the path between my building and the next, so the smoke and smell inundates the path. I have to wonder how much they'd lose by simply banning it anywhere on the grounds. It's not like smokers are a protected class, or that there are any requirements to provide for them.

They are not a protected class, but that doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to screw them over. In your example, they could just move the smoking area, couldn't they?

> They are not a protected class, but that doesn't mean you have to go out of your way to screw them over.

They've gone out of their way to screw themselves over; I see no particular reason to accommodate them. (Obvious exception for people who really do pre-date the widespread knowledge that cigarettes are both addictive and harmful, but that's a decreasing subset of smokers.)

> In your example, they could just move the smoking area, couldn't they?

Off campus, preferably. If you can't go eight hours without your drug of choice (especially one that harms the people around you when you use it), perhaps you have a bigger problem than an intentional lack of accommodations at your workplace.

  I see no particular reason to accommodate them.

Because they're people? And they're accommodating you by smoking only where it's allowed? So maybe out of the kindness of your heart you could leave them a place to smoke?

  Off campus, preferably.  If you can't go eight hours 
  without your drug of choice (especially one that harms 
  the people around you when you use it), perhaps you have 
  a bigger problem than an intentional lack of 
  accommodations at your workplace.

See above.

>Because they're people? And they're accommodating you by smoking only where it's allowed? So maybe out of the kindness of your heart you could leave them a place to smoke?

Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking.

> Because banning all areas to smoke it a kinder attitude as it eliminates any appearance of acceptance of smoking.

Exactly. The more places it becomes socially unacceptable, the better.

How did Metallica put it?

  Love is control
  I'll die if I let go

> Because they're people? And they're accommodating you by smoking only where it's allowed? So maybe out of the kindness of your heart you could leave them a place to smoke?

Their habit harms the health of everyone around them. Your comments make it seem like you don't understand that fact. Being mean or nice has nothing to do with any of it, it's about not inflicting harm on people that choose not to smoke.

Did you even read the thread?

"Accommodating them" referred to moving the designated smoking area so that the other poster's path wasn't near it. So "accommodating them" means making a small effort so both smokers and non smokers can get what they want. It does not mean forcing non smokers to breathe smoke.

Perhaps we should flog smokers like ISIS does. Maybe that would satisfy you and your fellow finger waggers.

Flog? Since when do we flog anyone? But classifying exposing children to second hand smoke as child abuse... I could get behind a measure like that.

Many non-western countries have very, very different attitudes about smoking (India, Ukraine, Russia, etc), and we get a lot of H1-B's from those countries.

A terrifying article about how corporate profit motive is exerting its power to destroy national sovereignty and public health concerns across the globe; what would ten years ago have sounded like the ramblings of a homeless liberal conspiracy theorist on the street reported as plain fact, and the top voted comment is "eww smoking is gross".

Even considering enshrining this as standard operating procedure (i.e. TPP) would be so disgusting as to be unthinkable if it weren't currently happening and championed even by the "liberal" wing of the US political body; people should be able to decide the rules in their own country, not corporate lawyers overseas interested in maximizing how much profit they can milk from a foreign population against their will. The previous thought is so obviously morally correct and self-evident it should not need to be said and yet it does need to be said, which is horrifying.

Is there a way we can get Google to leave this organization? It seems that Apple was able to do it without consequence, what's stopping Google?

Get together with some other people and some shares in Google; file for a stockholder's motion at the company's annual general meeting (you just missed the 2015 one unfortunately), which will probably be recommended against by the board; hire a PR person and target the business press with a clear explanation of why you're doing it and what you hope to achieve; lose the vote but repeat for several years in a row.

This is a slow and cumbersome procedure with a low-ish chance of success, but it does have the merit that the senior management of the firm will become aware of your issue, and if you can make a good case that CoC membership is at odds with stockholders' long-term interests then their fiduciary duties will require them to consider the issue seriously.

It strikes me as both grammatically confusing and arrogant to refer to this organization as "the US Chamber of Commerce" when it isn't affiliated with the US government at all. It's a lobbying organization.

It's analogous to calling something "the Google" or "the Microsoft."

It's analogous to calling something "the NY Times Company."

Exactly. They have done a great job with branding to make almost everyone think they are an official part of the government. The Chamber of Commerce represents generally support incumbent business interests.

See the Better Business Bureau for another example of this.

However, I don't think it's the fault of "the." Nobody thinks The New York Times or The Washington Post are government entities, for example.

There are multiple chambers of commerce [centralpachamber.com, njchamber.com] so perhaps the intent is to differentiate them?

It seems like the "of" does it more than anything. It parallels organizations like "Department of Defense" and "Federal Bureau of Investigation": some generic noun to represent that it's an organization of people, "of," and then an abstract noun that gives the organization a purview that's universal or total in scope. Most organizations that have the audacity to do this have a monopoly on the use of force behind them.

The CoC, of course, is itself in the business of government: trade its governmental access and leverage to businesses in exchange for large cash grants.

It's even better than blurring the perception between private and official bodies. They now run an "accreditation" program for local chambers of commerce, some of which have membership that would hold divergent views. This national organization is a lobby for big business and has little regard for small town business owners.

No private entity should be allowed to put "United States" in their title because of this exact confusion. This issue has been brought up in municipalities and the businesses were forced to remove the name of the city.

I don't think you have a good grammatical argument. There are uncountable organizations known as The American Association for XYZ or similar. The confusion really comes because "American" is less often associated with official government organizations than "US". That's not really a grammatical issue, and certainly is not arising from the use of the article "the".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com