Defining Moment: The Nazis launch the first public anti-smoking campaign

[Anti Federalist]

Defining Moment: The Nazis launch the first public anti-smoking campaign

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/3d78d24a-c068-11df-8a81-00144feab49a.html#axzz1KHwsSMbG

Surprising and disturbing, but the first anti-smoking campaign was launched by the Nazis. It started on a small scale, with posters and warnings in health magazines. Smoking was eventually banned in Nazi party offices, public trams and bomb shelters (many of which set up separate smoking rooms).

The link between lung cancer and smoking was first proven in Germany in 1939. The term Passivrauchen (passive smoking) was coined by the German Anti-Tobacco League, and Germany led the world in researching the impact of smoking on health.

The anti-smoking movement then peaked in the early 1940s with a stringent tobacco tax and restrictions on tobacco advertising – and a military ration of just six cigarettes a day on the front line.

[JohnEngland]

Personally, I'm inclined to support banning smoking from certain places (i.e. publicly-funded places) for this reason:

Smoke travels through the air. It violates the privacy and property of people who do not wish to breathe it in or get in on their clothes. It's not like alcohol, which is confined to the user. Smoking spreads throughout the air and goes everywhere. Now, obviously the same could be said for normal, everyday breathing, but exhaling normal air doesn't kill or harm anyone - smoke does.

[DamianTV]

Personally, I'm inclined to support banning smoking from certain places (i.e. publicly-funded places) for this reason:

Smoke travels through the air. It violates the privacy and property of people who do not wish to breathe it in or get in on their clothes. It's not like alcohol, which is confined to the user. Smoking spreads throughout the air and goes everywhere. Now, obviously the same could be said for normal, everyday breathing, but exhaling normal air doesn't kill or harm anyone - smoke does.

There are too many people that will extend smoking to every other aspect of their selfish lives. If a person can find a way to claim that any activity that another person does injures them, said activity will be outlawed. Look at the war on "fatties" right now and how people are bitching that the quality of their health care goes down because they have to pay more and get less due to fat people being fat.


"Welcome to America. No smoking, no drugs, no alcohol, no women - unless you're married - no foul language, no red meat!

Snake Plissken: Land of the free..."

[JohnEngland]

There are too many people that will extend smoking to every other aspect of their selfish lives. If a person can find a way to claim that any activity that another person does injures them, said activity will be outlawed. Look at the war on "fatties" right now and how people are bitching that the quality of their health care goes down because they have to pay more and get less due to fat people being fat.

Yes, this is the risk - that banning smoking from publicly-funded places will lead to banning other things that "affect" people, such as banning fast food, alcohol etc. because these are bad for us. But smoking is different, because it is actually invasive, unlike the other things. But again, social engineers will look for any opening to shape the way we live...

[DamianTV]

It would help also if we had an Honest Medical System and not one where the doctors are taught to be financial predators and salesmen for Big Pharma. Cancer should have been (or probably has been) cured a hundred years ago, and not all cancer is caused by smoking. I cant even pronounce 90% of the crap they put in foods now...

[pcosmar]

Just how many Doctors did the US Import from Germany to protect them from prosecution.?

:(

[cindy25]

the progressives, during Wilson's time, had a campaign to promote smoking among women. saw it on Beck several months ago.

[IBleedNavyAndOrange]

The last time I was in an enclosed space with my girl where smoking wasn't banned was a learning experience for me.

I smoked about 15 a day for over 11 years. Cigarette smoke never really bothered me. My girl on the other hand....

So we're at a fish fry and we were in the place for approximately 90 minutes. There were people smoking and every now and then I'd catch a wiff of smoke and didn't think much of it. She seemed to play her little coughing game every time someone would light up and I just ignored it.

Well, 2 months later she couldn't shake the coughing that started in that restaurant. She went to the doctor and was prescribed some kind of steroid inhaler that she used for almost a month.

Cigarette smoke cannot be effectively controlled in any normal environment. My bottom line is we should have picked a different place to eat that night.

Unfortunately the control nazis will use anti smoking as another incremental step to dictate everything.

[Anti Federalist]

Personally, I'm inclined to support banning smoking from certain places (i.e. publicly-funded places) for this reason:

Smoke travels through the air. It violates the privacy and property of people who do not wish to breathe it in or get in on their clothes. It's not like alcohol, which is confined to the user. Smoking spreads throughout the air and goes everywhere. Now, obviously the same could be said for normal, everyday breathing, but exhaling normal air doesn't kill or harm anyone - smoke does.

That argument is going to be used to shut down my wood stove.

Everybody does something that affects somebody else.

It's the nature of living amongst people.

The choice is to either shine on other people's bad habits, or accept the fact that nothing is outside the realm of government control due to the fact that your behavior is affecting someone else.

[Anti Federalist]

Just how many Doctors did the US Import from Germany to protect them from prosecution.?

:(

+rep for an awesome point

[Anti Federalist]

one bump