Adults Smoking at Scout Events

[NJCubScouter]

GeBlack, your satire about cars is very amusing. It might be relevant, if I could drive to work or to a camping trip in a cigarette. In other words, there is a risk-reward analysis at work here, or if you want to be even "colder" about it, a cost-benefit analysis. Such analysis is involved in everything we do, even though we don't think about it 99 percent of the time. There is danger in everything we do, including waking up in the morning, but we do it because of what the alternative would be. For one mundane example, I take a shower every day, even though in the back of my mind I know that people have slipped in the shower and died or become permanently injured, because the consequences of not showering outweigh the relatively minute possibility of death or incapacitation. For a somewhat more relevant example, I know people who take medication for very real and severe pain from one condition or another, even though they know they could become addicted to it. This is a tougher call and a personal decision, but the reward (no pain) is plain to see and every person has to weigh the risk against it for themselves.

 

But when I look at smoking tobacco, what's the reward? The only "benefits" anyone has ever been able to tell me about ("it calms me down") sound to me like symptoms of the person's addiction to tobacco, so to me they don't really count. The reasons people have given me for why they started ("it was cool" "everybody else was doing it" "I didn't know the risks" "I heard it would help me lose weight") don't withstand much scrutiny. The "risks" are obvious. I put risks in quotes because it is more like a certainty that eventually there will be some health effects from smoking, and a very high likelihood that these effects will be very serious or fatal.

 

So how can anyone even think that this is something to do in front of children? I don't just mean at Scouting events, I mean any children, including your own. Again, no offense to anyone, and Dsteele, there is nothing in your statements that would offend me. Even if I thought you were "attacking" my point of view, that is what this board is all about. My only problem would be with someone who attacked me as opposed to my "point of view," and you have never even come close to that line. I admire you as well, despite our disagreement on a host of subjects.

 

And for that reason, I do wish you would stop smoking.

[mk9750]

I see four issues in the original post:

 

1) "May not allow..." Ninety - five percent of me understands this to mean very specifically that smoking in front of Scouts is prohibited. Five percent allows for the possiblity that it could mean "are permitted to prohibit it". Given the preceeding text in the Guide, and what I think is everyone's understanding of the intent of the BSA, I think the wording is fine the way it is, but there would be no harm in changing it to "prohibit"

 

2) The literature request to refrain from smoking for the duration of the event. Given the prohibition on smoking in front of Scouts, I think it is obvious to anyone who knows of the prohibition that this is a request to go the additional mile and not smoke at all. I view this as a request, not a demand. A good idea, perhaps, but only a suggestion.

 

3) How you were treated at the event station. The approach you describe in my mind is nothing short of deplorable. There may be some factors that mitigate it a small amount. As other point out, the guy was a volunteer. But no one should be treated like you were. I think you are owed an apology.

 

4) Your oppurtunity to know and understand the rule. I agree with some of the other posters here. The responsiblity to assure all who were kind enought to take time to attend with their kids was the unit person responsible for organizing the event. If I were responsilbe for arranging an outing like you describe, that was to include unregistered people who are likely NOT to know all of the rules, I would feel it is my duty to make sure every knows what is expected of them. Of course, I'd strongly recomend that you register and attend training. That would eliminate the middle man. But you weren't registered then. You should have been told the expctations.

 

I am an ex-smoker. My dad also died (18 months ago) from his second bout with lung cancer. I abhor smoking. But, and this may come as a shock, I am not in favor of outlawing smoking. I do believe that smokers have the responsiblity to avoid subjecting anyone else to smoke. I believe this is the smoker's responsiblity to avoid non smokers, not the other way around. And I will not waver in that. But I believe we as a country have been far too willing to accept reductions in our personal freedoms to appease the majority. I believe you have a right to partake in something, even if it is going to kill you. You'll never have the right to subject me to it, but I will defend your right to do it.

 

Some might argue that even a polite smoker affects us all with higher health care rates, etc. And I do agree that is true. But I think this should be dealt with using the free enterprise system: If your habit costs more money, you should pay for it in the form of higher insurance rates, medical costs, etc. Not as punishment, but just as a reflection of where the costs are incurred.

 

Just my two cents (OK, may eight cents!).

 

Mark

[dsteele]

Back in the day, when I was a Senior District Executive, we had district day camps.

 

People tended to sign their kids up as individuals rather than packs, and we would put the kids into groups of 8-12 and they were reqquired to have two adults each day to walk them from station to station. If only one adult showed up, we were okay because the groups were always within eyesight from every station (which had at least two adults) by every staff member. It was a big field.

 

One day, only one parent showed up with her group. The second adult simply didn't show up. The Camp Director decided to let this lady lead her son's group around for the day.

 

The lady was a smoker and within the first hour we saw her smoking and walking along with her den.

 

As a smoker myself, I was asked to be the one to tell her she couldn't do that. I did it as politely as possible and, although she first reacted by threatening to leave, I told her that I also smoke and would lead her to the designated area. We had a designated area behind the one building on the property and Cub Scouts were not allowed anywhere near the back of the building. I asked her to contact me through a staff member's radio any time she needed a cigarette and I would come cover her den for her while she went to the smoking area.

 

It was, in my mind, a successful compromise.

 

Keep smoking away from the boys. I have no problem with that. But I think there should be designated, out of sight areas, for the nasty habit. I am a smoker, but I am not a criminal.

 

DS

[GeBlack]

NJCubScouter

 

Your risk analysis scenario while enlightening on a personal level does not fully explain the situation it only rationalizes the reasons for not banning auto usage. You completely avoid any less extreme attempts to lessen fatalities even though there are many ways in which it could be done.

 

I provided you with hard facts showing the danger of automobile usage especially to young adults. Can you show me hard facts showing the danger of exposing children to adults smoking cigarettes, or even scientific studies showing definitive ill effects of second hand smoke?

 

It would seem that with all of the campaigning done to eliminate smoking that there would be some shred of scientific evidence to back up all of the well intentioned masses who claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, and that second hand smoke is as dangerous to others as it is to the smoker.

 

Concerning the issue of smoking and disease, numerous studies have been made and not one has been able to establish a causal relationship between smoking and any disease although many have tried. What does exist is the general belief that this is so which has been fostered by a massive disinformation campaign funded by the federal government and private organizations.

 

The propaganda reached it's zenith during the multi-state lawsuit brought against the tobacco companies. You remember the lawsuit where a group of lawyers made hundreds of millions of dollars and the states got some of it? Never before in US history have legislators (who have had the power to regulate tobacco use) been able to shift blame to a corporate sector, made money from it, and still did nothing about it. A shrewd bit of non-representative taxation since I'm now paying for that state revenue by paying more for tobacco. Not to mention the other nanny taxes which have accompanied this self-righteous movement.

 

In fact, there have been studies which show that smoking could actually prevent some types of cancer, but these have been discounted as unreliable because they did not further the cause.

 

Regarding the accepted belief that second hand smoke is toxic to everyone who is exposed. (which is the founding rally point for anti-smokers since you are free to do as you choose until it affects others) there have been no direct studies showing any ill effects from second hand smoke.

 

The most famous report from the EPA purported to show the ill effects of second hand smoke. The EPA report was compiled from 30 other reports (called a meta-analysis) the results were released before the analysis was finished, and then when they did finish they increased their margin of error so that they could match the figures which they had previously reported. Even given all of that they claimed that 3,000 people a year died from second-hand smoke. Much less than the over 40,000 that die in motor vehicles each year.

 

It is important that if you are going to take a hard stand on an issue that you do the research and find out what the issue is about. Don't just sit in your easy chair and watch the evening news, they only tell you the news you want to hear, how else can they maintain their ratings? Otherwise you can easily become a tool for those who will feed you convenient easily believable information. (See WMD) Check it out for yourself if you don't believe me. See what some leading scientists feel about the EPA report. As statistical research goes it is considered smoke and mirrors if not an outright lie. Research the many experiments done to try to link smoking to disease, see what you find.

 

Until then my cold hard facts on motor vehicle fatalities overshadow any imagined dangers of smoking, why aren't we at least attempting to lower these deaths?

 

In the best of my knowledge, none of the information contained above is concocted, embellished or otherwise untruthful. I myself had always believed the prevailing sentiment until recently when I've been under attack constantly from the numerous people who feel they have the right to dictate to me how I should live and raise my family. I then decided to see how many others were out there who felt the same way as I. I have gathered the information from a variety of sources and do realize that some of it may be biased, but considering the number and reliability of the sources I feel that the facts are represented truthfully.

 

If the measure of whether we should eliminate risky behaviors based on the metric of whether they are necessary then there are a lot of activities which people enjoy which should be eliminated due to the risks that they introduce.

 

Parachuting,

Bungee Jumping

NFL Football,

Motorcycles... the list is endless

 

Couldn't we get rid of all of these and just tell people to get their enjoyment somewhere else. It would be easy to do especially for those who have never enjoyed any of these activities. There are no practical benefits to any of these activities which could not be supplanted by less risky more socially acceptable activities.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Parachuting,

Bungee Jumping

NFL Football,

Motorcycles...

 

GE, it may or may not surprise you to know all those activties are not allowed on a Boy Scout outing either.(well football, scratch the NFL) I know you are upset at the way the BSA policy was communicated, and you don't agree with it, but I dont see it changing any time soon.

 

With your passion and intelligience, I think you would make a great adult scouter. I am sure your son's unit could use you.

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[packsaddle]

Fat Old Guy, Thanks for the info on field stripping. Odd practice, wouldn't it be simpler just to extinguish the cigarette and then put the whole thing in one's pocket?

 

NJ, you silly guy, and you thought he was using satire?

 

GeBlack, I read the Lauren Colby chapters. That he compared his arguments to those of South African President Thabo Mbeki (who maintains that HIV does not cause AIDS) was particularly illuminating. But then the comparison was accurate. For example, Colby's opinion that nicotine is not addictive is based on some anecdotes (so he says, there are no citations) and no experimental evidence. Here's a pseudo-experiment. Stop smoking. If you are able to quit forever without further urge to continue, it will be further anecdotal support for Colby (plus you might live longer to pursue your quest to ban autos). But such pseudoscience is irrelevant. BSA has a policy on tobacco. BSA also has a policy on transportation. If any policy isn't clear then it should be clarified. But where I might disagree personally with some policies, I choose to follow them anyway because I value the overall program. I believe this choice is available to anyone attending a scouting event. You are free to make your decision as well.

 

Edited part: OGE, I must have been writing at the same time, good points.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Bob White]

Who do you suppose has the right information?

 

GeBlack says;

"Concerning the issue of smoking and disease, numerous studies have been made and not one has been able to establish a causal relationship between smoking and any disease although many have tried. What does exist is the general belief that this is so which has been fostered by a massive disinformation campaign funded by the federal government and private organizations."

and

" In fact, there have been studies which show that smoking could actually prevent some types of cancer,"

 

 

Now compare those statements with these:

" We agree with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no "safe" cigarette."

and

"Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects of secondhand smoke in deciding whether to be in places where secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where children are concerned, and adults should avoid smoking around them."

 

These last two statements are from Phillip morris USA's website. They are the opinion of the company that makes more ciggarettes thanm anyone else in the world.http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/health_issues/default.asp

 

So, who are you going to believe?

 

Bob White

[Fat Old Guy]

"Odd practice, wouldn't it be simpler just to extinguish the cigarette and then put the whole thing in one's pocket?"

 

You'd then wind up with bits of burnt and unburnt tobacco in your pockets. That wouldn't make the laundry people happy.

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

They were lying back in the 50's and 60's, why should we believe them now?

[packsaddle]

Fat Old Guy, All that stuff wouldn't be too different from what I have in my pockets normally. And I do the laundry. (I KNOW what happens to a plastic worm in a dryer)

BTW, we should believe PM now because they have been forced to admit they were lying then. And because we already knew these things, they now admit we are (were) correct.

[Fat Old Guy]

"we should believe PM now because they have been forced to admit they were lying then."

 

Forced to admit they were lying? That sounds like coerced confession which gives the proceedings all the ear marks of a kangaroo court.

 

 

[GeBlack]

One last statement. Phillip Morris, in accordance with the out of court settlement was forced, along with the monetary amount, to perform certain community service acts including funding anti-smoking commercials, training, and publicly announcing the delitorious affects of smoking using wording which was provided to them.

 

I know the lack of any direct studies showing a causal relationship between smoking and disease is mostly due to the amount of time that such a study would have to monitor individuals and the lack of true scientific control of other possible disease causing factors which those individuals might encounter during that time. But it does bother me that it is represented as incontrovertible fact. A little like eggs and butter were completely unhealthy for you a few years back, now they are OK. So much for incontrovertible facts.

 

Regardless the disinformation is there. Does the end justify the means? Do scare tactics using false studies put the anti-smoking crowd on the high ground?

----------------------------------------------------------------

 

Finally, I regret to say that this will be my last post. Please do not reply to me personally in this group as I will not be tracking further messages.

 

I apologize to all for using this group to attain my own personal catharsis, but I do thank those who have kept the coversation going. This was, for me, more an exorcism of pent up anger than anything else.

 

Please remember that smoker's are human and may not be aware of your organizational rules. When approached, tact will go along way in gaining their confidence. They are already being put in a corner by public policy through no fault of their own.

 

EOT

 

 

[evmori]

"These last two statements are from Phillip morris USA's website. They are the opinion of the company that makes more ciggarettes thanm anyone else in the world.

 

So, who are you going to believe?"

 

And Bill Clinton never had relations with that Lewinski women, either!

 

Ed Mori

[Hunt]

You'd have to be living in a fantasy world to believe that smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. See http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_14.htm, and follow the link to CDC for more. I guess you can choose to believe that it's all a big conspiracy. There is a mountain of scientific evidence of the harmful effects of smoking--indeed, the effects are worse than most people realize (for example, most people think your risk of lung cancer goes back to normal if you quit smoking--it doesn't--it just doesn't continue to increase). I know the person who was claiming the links are unproven has announced that he won't be reading this any more, but I just can't stand to see that kind of misinformation left hanging out there.

[Fat Old Guy]

If smoking caused lung cancer then my grandfather would have died of lung cancer instead of passing in his sleep in his 80s. If smoking caused lung cancer then every smoker would have lung cancer.

 

Saying that smoking causes lung cancer is as scientifically inaccurate as saying that you can sail off the edge of the earth if you get out of sight of land.

 

Smoking is a factor in lung cancer. Smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer. Smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.