tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post323507804121908099..comments2023-11-30T10:43:33.130-06:00Comments on Reading Freely: Last CallStephenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15097908023032528200noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-20498887471875434372015-07-02T15:25:13.661-05:002015-07-02T15:25:13.661-05:00Purely? No. Mostly? Probably. They certainly campa...Purely? No. Mostly? Probably. They certainly campaigned long and hard (and taxed) against it. OK, after a while they were probably pushing at an open door but I think they opened the door, or at the very least left it unlocked or handed over the key. How smoking changed from being cool to being vilified is a very interesting example of cultural change. Probably on a par with same-sex marriage, unwed mothers or similar things. There's probably a PhD in there somewhere.... [grin] CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-50910579168849122762015-07-02T12:46:39.636-05:002015-07-02T12:46:39.636-05:00Purely government action? A campaign against toba...Purely government action? A campaign against tobacco would be aided -- enabled, even -- by the fact that tobacco smoke is directly noxious, both its smell and in the effect it can have on the surrounding area, in staining wallpaper, lingering on clothes, that sort of thing. Campaigns against smoking would have popular support, not just government will. Compare that to marijuana use, which is heavily propagandized against but to little avail. Fighting the piracy of media also seems to be an uphill battle. <br /><br />Your comparison is appropriate, though, considering I drew that quote from an episode of All in the family Called "No Smoking". Archie was made to feel rude for lighting up in an elevator.Stephenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15097908023032528200noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-980951139270141970.post-24096783160888959952015-07-01T15:18:38.918-05:002015-07-01T15:18:38.918-05:00Oh, I think that the government can have a positiv...Oh, I think that the government can have a positive effect on peoples attitudes/lives/health if handled properly. Take smoking here....<br /><br />Everywhere you went you had people smoking. I mean everywhere. Then some years ago (I forget how long) they banned smoking in cinemas. After that they banned it on public transport - buses first and then trains. After years of successively high taxation on cigarettes themselves and some high profile cases of people dying from 'second-hand' smoke they banned smoking in all public places (in doors that is). At first there was a minor outcry from the smoking lobby but they got very little support from everyone else. Now it's considered rude to light up in a public place even if you didn't know the rules. In fact in many ways smokers are an oppressed and looked down up minority. <br /><br />There's now talk of charging them for their health care even if they use the 'free' NHS and some cities have floated the idea of having a complete ban inside the city limits no matter where you are. In the last few years there have been attempts to ban people smoking in their own cars (so far this has failed to gain support). <br /><br />So, over the last 30-40 years the attitude to smoking here has completely changed - from a widely practiced hardly thought about activity to one which is looked upon as dangerous, stupid and rude. Mostly this has been because of successive government action. CyberKittenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06394155516712665665noreply@blogger.com