Irony's where you find it.
David W. Fenton
wrote in <bidjf6$pha$1...@reader2.panix.com>:
> I had a really good time the _last_ time I was
>in Atlantic City, but this place, despite the NY Times'
>assurance that it's the new weekend getaway destination
>for affluent hipsters, is just evil on a stick (but maybe
>I just haven't mastered cause and effect yet). Misery
>and mediocrity abound, as does a militaristic control
>over just about every aspect of anything you might want
>to do. I can't blame the town/casino powers that be,
>however. The teeming masses at just about every turn,
>were a giant, swarming, aggressive id. Even at the
>concert itself, I had unprecedented experiences with
>gratuitous one-on-one aggressiveness that made me
>glad that I could always escape into a casino police
>state if I encountered more of this in the wild.
While I was touristing in San Francisco, I repeatedly ran into
amazing examples of tourists fighting with each other. This
included a wife and husband (with a couple of children in tow)
arguing about his mistress while waiting in line to buy tickets to
Alcatraz, and a family having a huge row over lord knows what at
Lombard and Hyde. I just seemed to encounter it all over the place,
and was kind of wondering why such a lovely town as San Francisco
was provoking such schreck. Maybe it's not SF, but the whole
tourist/travelling thing in general, but what I was seeing was tons
of unhappiness spilling out into their vacations, and into the
vacations of everyone around them.
Have I just missed this kind of thing in the past?
Or is it a California thing?
I definitely noticed that Californian pedestrians can be just as
nasty as New Yorkers when you drive into their crosswalk
(accidentally in each case). And I also noticed the agressiveness
of certain kinds of "lifestyle" choices. At Fenton's Creamery in
Oakland, the menu says for their supposedely famous hamburgers "We
do not serve any hamburgers RARE so DON'T ASK!!!!"
Well, fuck me.
What good is a hamburger that's overcooked?
And what's with the agressivess in the wording of the menu?
Laid back?
I don't think so.
--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc
Michael Thomas
> While I was touristing in San Francisco, I repeatedly ran into
> amazing examples of tourists fighting with each other. This
> included a wife and husband (with a couple of children in tow)
> arguing about his mistress while waiting in line to buy tickets to
> Alcatraz, and a family having a huge row over lord knows what at
> Lombard and Hyde. I just seemed to encounter it all over the place,
> and was kind of wondering why such a lovely town as San Francisco
> was provoking such schreck. Maybe it's not SF, but the whole
> tourist/travelling thing in general, but what I was seeing was tons
> of unhappiness spilling out into their vacations, and into the
> vacations of everyone around them.
When is the last time you've been to the Statue of
Liberty? About the last time I've been to Pier 39, no
doubt.
> Have I just missed this kind of thing in the past?
Yes.
> Or is it a California thing?
They're from Indiana and other drekulous places (hi Dunkin!).
> I definitely noticed that Californian pedestrians can be just as
> nasty as New Yorkers when you drive into their crosswalk
> (accidentally in each case). And I also noticed the agressiveness
> of certain kinds of "lifestyle" choices. At Fenton's Creamery in
> Oakland, the menu says for their supposedely famous hamburgers "We
> do not serve any hamburgers RARE so DON'T ASK!!!!"
This is almost certainly due to insurance liability and
CYAism for e. coli contamination. It's not hard to find
sushi or carpaccio though.
> Laid back?
>
> I don't think so.
I've never really got the "laid back" nonsense either. In
fact, I don't even exactly know what it's supposed to be
doing to achieve laid-backedness. In any case, I've always
thought of laid-back as being more of a SoCal surferesque
kind of trait. Maybe it's a euphemism for smoking lots of
Humboldt's Finest.
--
Michael Thomas (mi...@mtcc.com http://www.mtcc.com/~mike/)
It's ironic: these old people are being kept alive by the
organs of the people they run over.
*Chief Wiggums* <-- Hi Alex!
David W. Fenton
<v7vfsli...@fasolt.mtcc.com>:
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>> While I was touristing in San Francisco, I repeatedly ran into
>> amazing examples of tourists fighting with each other. This
>> included a wife and husband (with a couple of children in tow)
>> arguing about his mistress while waiting in line to buy tickets
>> to Alcatraz, and a family having a huge row over lord knows what
>> at Lombard and Hyde. I just seemed to encounter it all over the
>> place, and was kind of wondering why such a lovely town as San
>> Francisco was provoking such schreck. Maybe it's not SF, but the
>> whole tourist/travelling thing in general, but what I was seeing
>> was tons of unhappiness spilling out into their vacations, and
>> into the vacations of everyone around them.
>
> When is the last time you've been to the Statue of
> Liberty? About the last time I've been to Pier 39, no
> doubt.
>
>> Have I just missed this kind of thing in the past?
>
> Yes.
I've done the touristy vacation thing pretty recently, with my
parents last fall (DC, Philly) and don't remember running into this
kind of thing.
>> Or is it a California thing?
>
> They're from Indiana and other drekulous places (hi Dunkin!).
Yes, but why do the folks from Indiana have public fights in SF but
not in DC or Philly (or in NYC when I've been with friends/family
playing tourist)?
You're telling me I've never noticed, I guess. I wonder why I
noticed this time. Maybe it's because I was alone, but I've done
the tourist thing alone before.
Oh, well.
>> I definitely noticed that Californian pedestrians can be just as
>> nasty as New Yorkers when you drive into their crosswalk
>> (accidentally in each case). And I also noticed the
>> agressiveness of certain kinds of "lifestyle" choices. At
>> Fenton's Creamery in Oakland, the menu says for their
>> supposedely famous hamburgers "We do not serve any hamburgers
>> RARE so DON'T ASK!!!!"
>
> This is almost certainly due to insurance liability and
> CYAism for e. coli contamination. It's not hard to find
> sushi or carpaccio though.
The *wording* is certainly not due to that.
And is the liability issue a CA thing? I've never seen anything
like that on a menu anywhere else in any other place I've been.
>> Laid back?
>>
>> I don't think so.
>
> I've never really got the "laid back" nonsense either. . . .
OK, that would certainly make sense to me, as some of the native
Californians I met on this trip were as tightly wound as anybody
I've ever met East of the Mississippi.
> . . . In
> fact, I don't even exactly know what it's supposed to be
> doing to achieve laid-backedness. In any case, I've always
> thought of laid-back as being more of a SoCal surferesque
> kind of trait. Maybe it's a euphemism for smoking lots of
> Humboldt's Finest.
Perhaps it is, but Northern California is supposed to be the home
of the laidback hippies, right? Berkeley and all that. Well, there
was lots of aggressive behavior on the part of pedestrians in
Berkeley (I wasn't driving -- just the passenger), and it wasn't
really provoked in any but one case.
I noticed these things not because of expectations so much as
because they were so different from what I'm accustomed to here in
good ol' rude NYC. It all confirms my basic suspicion that people
are the same everywhere, more or less.
Ellen Evans
David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
[]
>The *wording* is certainly not due to that.
>
>And is the liability issue a CA thing? I've never seen anything
>like that on a menu anywhere else in any other place I've been.
The wording I can't speak to. I pretty sure the old Fenton's didn't have
hamburgers - they had tuna salad and a couple of other cold-type
sandwhiches. The grill is new with the new building. But California is
the site of more than one Jack in the Box toxic cases, so I don't find the
meaning of the note surprising.
[]
>I noticed these things not because of expectations so much as
>because they were so different from what I'm accustomed to here in
>good ol' rude NYC. It all confirms my basic suspicion that people
>are the same everywhere, more or less.
There's a different texture to things. I think people in New York are
much more in your face about their in your face-ness. In a way it's more
honest. On the other hand, I've actually seen people get tickets for not
stopping for pedestrians at a street crossing here.
--
Ellen Evans 17 Across: The "her" of "Leave Her to Heaven"
je...@panix.com New York Times, 7/14/96
Get your Ellenwear at http://www.cafeshops.com/ellexia
All the cool kids are doing it.
Frank McQuarry
"David W. Fenton" wrote:
> Yes, but why do the folks from Indiana have public fights in SF but
> not in DC or Philly (or in NYC when I've been with friends/family
> playing tourist)?
A correlation worthy of DAK. You might consider "coincidence" as a
factor.
I've been to SF too, and didn't run into any squabbling families.
Cornelia Wyngaarden
fmcq...@earthlink.net wrote on 8/26/03 6:13 PM:
Maybe it is a timing thing not a place thing. Families tend to squabble in
late August?
corry
Ruth Lawrence
"Cornelia Wyngaarden" <cor...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:BB716BC5.F26B%cor...@telus.net...
Is it particularly humid and/or windy at that
time? The end of the long school break?
Squabbling is more noticeable here in
Melbourne on such occasions, IMO.
r may be deluded though l
Frank McQuarry
Sounds more like Christmas to me, but you never know....
David W. Fenton
<3f4c66d9$0$6523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>:
>"Cornelia Wyngaarden" <cor...@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:BB716BC5.F26B%cor...@telus.net...
>> in article 3F4C05D1...@earthlink.net, Frank McQuarry at
>> fmcq...@earthlink.net wrote on 8/26/03 6:13 PM:
>>
>> > "David W. Fenton" wrote:
>> >> Yes, but why do the folks from Indiana have public fights in
>> >> SF but not in DC or Philly (or in NYC when I've been with
>> >> friends/family playing tourist)?
>> >
>> > A correlation worthy of DAK. You might consider "coincidence"
>> > as a factor.
>> >
>> > I've been to SF too, and didn't run into any squabbling
>> > families.
>>
>> Maybe it is a timing thing not a place thing. Families tend to
>> squabble
>in
>> late August?
>
>Is it particularly humid and/or windy at that
>time? . . .
The weather in SF while I was there was uniformly glorious.
> . . . The end of the long school break?
>
>Squabbling is more noticeable here in
>Melbourne on such occasions, IMO.
It really struck me. If it had occurred only once, I wouldn't have
thought anything about it. But I can clearly recall 3 distinct
incidents, and vaguely remember a couple of others, too.
It just struck me as extremely odd.
David W. Fenton
>MA menus have a disclaimer (from a random take-out menu: "Reminder
>- Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish
>or eggs may increase risk of foodborne illness"). But speaking of
>CA liability issues, what's up with these?
>
><http://www.panix.com/~gtc/gtc_photos/random/danger.jpg>
If I were the manager, I'd be pretty annoyed at a sign like that.
I was expecting it to end "Should you have any questions, go fuck
yourself" or some such.
Ellen Evans
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>
>>>MA menus have a disclaimer (from a random take-out menu: "Reminder
>>>- Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish
>>>or eggs may increase risk of foodborne illness"). But speaking of
>>>CA liability issues, what's up with these?
>
>>><http://www.panix.com/~gtc/gtc_photos/random/danger.jpg>
>
>>If I were the manager, I'd be pretty annoyed at a sign like that.
>
It's a state law.
Michael Thomas
> In article <biighc$coq$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Diva <g...@panix.com> wrote:
> >dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
> >>g...@panix.com (Diva) wrote in <bii20r$90q$1...@reader2.panix.com>:
> >
> >>>MA menus have a disclaimer (from a random take-out menu: "Reminder
> >>>- Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish
> >>>or eggs may increase risk of foodborne illness"). But speaking of
> >>>CA liability issues, what's up with these?
> >
> >>><http://www.panix.com/~gtc/gtc_photos/random/danger.jpg>
> >
> >>If I were the manager, I'd be pretty annoyed at a sign like that.
> >
> >They were everywhere. Kind of creepy.
>
> It's a state law.
Wasn't it one of our direct democracy in action kinds 'o
thangs?
DRS
3f4c66d9$0$6523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
[...]
>> Maybe it is a timing thing not a place thing. Families tend to
>> squabble in late August?
>
> Is it particularly humid and/or windy at that
> time? The end of the long school break?
>
> Squabbling is more noticeable here in
> Melbourne on such occasions, IMO.
It is? I live in St Kilda, you'd think I'd know. But then again I avoid
Fitroy Street like the plague.
--
"I am gentle and wise, even inside my scrotum."
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030705.rvmaga/BNStory/Entertainment/
Steve Carter
> > >dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
> > >>g...@panix.com (Diva) wrote in <bii20r$90q$1...@reader2.panix.com>:
>
> > >>>MA menus have a disclaimer (from a random take-out menu: "Reminder
> > >>>- Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish
> > >>>or eggs may increase risk of foodborne illness"). But speaking of
> > >>>CA liability issues, what's up with these?
>
> > >>><http://www.panix.com/~gtc/gtc_photos/random/danger.jpg>
>
> > >>If I were the manager, I'd be pretty annoyed at a sign like that.
> > >
> > >They were everywhere. Kind of creepy.
Yes...everywhere. Makes them kind of pointless. They were all over
the last hotel I stayed at in San Diego. (One of the few times
recently I've even noticed them.)
[ellen]
> > It's a state law.
[michael thomas]
> Wasn't it one of our direct democracy in action kinds 'o
> thangs?
Yep. Prop 65. Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.
http://www.oehha.org/prop65/background/p65plain.html
In the last couple of years, I have changed my personal policy re:
propositions/petitions etc.
Petitions I never sign. Period.
For Propositions, my default position is to vote no. If I feel
overwhelmingly about a proposition, and it is a straight-forward,
single issue item, then I'll vote yes. If I'm on the fence at all,
it's no.
The whole Proposition thing has gotten out of hand. Even the good
ones are usually poorly written from a legal standpoint and end up
being revised or tossed out later.
Steve
Michael Sarris
>>>In article <biighc$coq$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Diva <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>g...@panix.com (Diva) wrote in <bii20r$90q$1...@reader2.panix.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>MA menus have a disclaimer (from a random take-out menu: "Reminder
>>>>>>- Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish
>>>>>>or eggs may increase risk of foodborne illness"). But speaking of
>>>>>>CA liability issues, what's up with these?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>><http://www.panix.com/~gtc/gtc_photos/random/danger.jpg>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>If I were the manager, I'd be pretty annoyed at a sign like that.
>>>>
>>>>They were everywhere. Kind of creepy.
>
>
> Yes...everywhere. Makes them kind of pointless. They were all over
> the last hotel I stayed at in San Diego. (One of the few times
> recently I've even noticed them.)
>
> [ellen]
>
>>>It's a state law.
>
>
> [michael thomas]
>
>> Wasn't it one of our direct democracy in action kinds 'o
>> thangs?
>
>
> Yep. Prop 65. Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986.
> http://www.oehha.org/prop65/background/p65plain.html
The law itself isn't a bad idea -- it was the idea of
enforcement through the private sector that led to abuse
and excess signage. Anyone can sue a business for not
disclosing a toxic substance.
There are a few lawyers who have used this as a way of
minting money for themselves, suing businesses left
and right for failing to disclose something on the list.
The intent of the suits is to get the businesses to
settle and cough up some cash.
This article (originally from the L.A. Times) documents one of them.
http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/topic/13432-1.html
Michael, surely someone needs to put a disclosure on *him*
--
Michael Sarris -- mund...@hotmail.com
"Another doctor's bill, another lawyer's bill,
another cute cheap thrill"
-- Jewel, "Who Will Save Your Soul"
Ruth Lawrence
"DRS" <d...@removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in message
news:bij3ag$o3$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> Ruth Lawrence <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> 3f4c66d9$0$6523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
> > "Cornelia Wyngaarden" <cor...@telus.net> wrote in message
> > news:BB716BC5.F26B%cor...@telus.net...
>
> [...]
>
> >> Maybe it is a timing thing not a place thing. Families tend to
> >> squabble in late August?
> >
> > Is it particularly humid and/or windy at that
> > time? The end of the long school break?
> >
> > Squabbling is more noticeable here in
> > Melbourne on such occasions, IMO.
>
> It is? I live in St Kilda, you'd think I'd know.
I've usually lived near the sea, but a lot
further south.
The wind/humidity factor is teaching lore,
FWIW.
> But then again I avoid
> Fitroy Street like the plague.
It takes me *hours* to get there.
rl
DRS
[...]
> I've usually lived near the sea, but a lot
> further south.
To which are you cryptically referring, Mornington Peninsula or the Apple
Isle?
> The wind/humidity factor is teaching lore,
> FWIW.
>
>> But then again I avoid
>> Fitroy Street like the plague.
>
> It takes me *hours* to get there.
Why would you bother?
Ruth Lawrence
> Ruth Lawrence <curly...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> 3f4db091$0$6523$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au
>
> [...]
>
> > I've usually lived near the sea, but a lot
> > further south.
>
> To which are you cryptically referring, Mornington Peninsula or the Apple
> Isle?
The peninsula, this past, um, seventeen years.
Not all in the one town, mind you.
Previously, Aspendale, on the Wrong Side of theTracks.
> > The wind/humidity factor is teaching lore,
> > FWIW.
> >
> >> But then again I avoid
> >> Fitroy Street like the plague.
> >
> > It takes me *hours* to get there.
>
> Why would you bother?
I've been know to travel fairly large distances to meet hot queers.
r accomodating l
Alex Elliott
>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>
>>If I were the manager, I'd be pretty annoyed at a sign like that.
>
You should see what they do to cigarette packs in Canada. They have to
have a warning with a full-color photo covering at least half the pack.
Here's one of the more gruesome ones:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/story.cigarettes.jpg
Alex.
DRS
biob99$8e4$1...@panix3.panix.com
[...]
> You should see what they do to cigarette packs in Canada. They have
> to have a warning with a full-color photo covering at least half the
> pack. Here's one of the more gruesome ones:
>
>
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/story.cigarettes.jpg
Wow! They're even more full on than ours.
Brian Vogel
>>>In article <biighc$coq$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Diva <g...@panix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>dXXXf...@bway.net (David W. Fenton) writes:
>>>>
>>>>>g...@panix.com (Diva) wrote in <bii20r$90q$1...@reader2.panix.com>:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>MA menus have a disclaimer (from a random take-out menu: "Reminder
>>>>>>- Consuming raw or undercooked meats, poultry, seafood, shellfish
>>>>>>or eggs may increase risk of foodborne illness"). But speaking of
>>>>>>CA liability issues, what's up with these?
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>><http://www.panix.com/~gtc/gtc_photos/random/danger.jpg>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>If I were the manager, I'd be pretty annoyed at a sign like that.
>>>>
>>>>They were everywhere. Kind of creepy.
>
>
> Yes...everywhere. Makes them kind of pointless.
Not to mention that what they tell you is kind of
a, "Duh, isn't this possible everywhere?!," type of thing.
I was complaining about the same sort of thing with
the current trend of putting the label on virtually any
conceivable packaged food, "May contain nuts or nut traces."
If those with nut allergies were to believe the labels they'd
eat almost nothing that's a prepared food. If they follow
common sense and a bit of their own research (which my
acquaintances with nut allergies do) then they laugh at
the inanity of it all.
Brian
DRS
> ell...@panix.com (Alex Elliott) writes:
>> In article <biighc$coq$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Diva <g...@panix.com>
>> wrote:
[...]
>> You should see what they do to cigarette packs in Canada. They have
>> to have a warning with a full-color photo covering at least half the
>> pack. Here's one of the more gruesome ones:
>
>>
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/story.cigarettes.jpg
>
> Yeah, that's just *wrong*.
Apparently we'll be doing that here as of next year.
Chris Ambidge
[alex]
>>You should see what they do to cigarette packs in Canada. They have to
>>have a warning with a full-color photo covering at least half the pack.
>>Here's one of the more gruesome ones:
>
>>http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/story.cigarettes.jpg
[diva]
>Yeah, that's just *wrong*.
I think it's just *right*, and if it cuts down on cancer and
smoking, and ill health/death due to lung cancer, then I'm
all for it.
but then I'm one of those socialist gummint interfering types.
others are free to disagree of course.
ailuropoda melanoleuca torontonensis
Alex Elliott
Chris Ambidge <amb...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/story.cigarettes.jpg
>
> [diva]
>>Yeah, that's just *wrong*.
>
> I think it's just *right*, and if it cuts down on cancer and
> smoking, and ill health/death due to lung cancer, then I'm
> all for it.
And it's even stimulated the economy! I know a couple of smokers who have
bought cigarette cases - once an antiquated affectation, but now the only
way of ensuring that you won't have to look at a full-color photo of a
cancerous lymph node every time you want a nicotine buzz.
Alex.
David W. Fenton
<HKLvs...@ecf.utoronto.ca>:
> [alex]
>>>You should see what they do to cigarette packs in Canada. They
>>>have to have a warning with a full-color photo covering at least
>>>half the pack. Here's one of the more gruesome ones:
>>
>>>http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/story.ci
>>>garettes.jpg
>
> [diva]
>>Yeah, that's just *wrong*.
>
> I think it's just *right*, and if it cuts down on cancer and
> smoking, and ill health/death due to lung cancer, then I'm
> all for it.
Please explain to me the logic of exactly how labels on cigarette
packs, which are only seen by people who are already smokers, will
do any of those things.
> but then I'm one of those socialist gummint interfering
> types.
I'm one of those types, too. My feeling is that in the case of
smoking, you either outlaw it entirely, or leave it alone. Since
we're not willing to do the former, then we should do the latter.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> Please explain to me the logic of exactly how labels on cigarette
> packs, which are only seen by people who are already smokers, will
> do any of those things.
I find "ugly" far more threatening than "unhealthy."
David W. Fenton
<3F5634E3...@cornell.edu>:
I don't know what that means.
Mike McKinley
You too?
--
¿...qué podemos saber las mujeres sino las filosofías de cocina? Bien dijo Lupercio Leonardo, que bien se puede filosofar y aderezar la cena. Y yo suelo decir viendo estas cosillas: Si Aristóteles hubiera guisado, mucho más hubiera escrito."
("...what can we women know, save philosophies of the kitchen? It was well put by Lupercio Leonardo that one can philosophize quite well while preparing supper. I often say, when I make these little observations, "Had Aristotle cooked, he would have written a great deal more.")
Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz, La Respuesta
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
Mike McKinley wrote:
> Gwendolyn Alden Dean wrote:
> >"David W. Fenton" wrote:
> >Please explain to me the logic of exactly how labels on cigarette
> >packs, which are only seen by people who are already smokers, will
> >do any of those things.
> >I find "ugly" far more threatening than "unhealthy."
> You too?
You're surprised?
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> gd...@cornell.edu (Gwendolyn Alden Dean) wrote:
> >"David W. Fenton" wrote:
> >> Please explain to me the logic of exactly how labels on
> >> cigarette packs, which are only seen by people who are already
> >> smokers, will do any of those things.
> >I find "ugly" far more threatening than "unhealthy."
> I don't know what that means.
It means that I think that the Canadian labels are smart -- I'm almost
impervious to US labels that tell me the cancer sticks are bad for my
health. I think that having a photo that says "They're going to make
you lokk like *this*!" is far mor elikley to actually change my
behavior.
After all, the last time I quit smoking it was all about worrying that
it was making me less pretty than i would be otherwise.
Mike McKinley
Not at all, darling. Ever have we been sisters beheath the skin.
Alex Elliott
David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote in
><HKLvs...@ecf.utoronto.ca>:
>
>> smoking, and ill health/death due to lung cancer, then I'm
>> all for it.
>
>Please explain to me the logic of exactly how labels on cigarette
>packs, which are only seen by people who are already smokers, will
>do any of those things.
According to the article this photo was attached to, people who are
already smokers have cited these photos as helping them to quit:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/
Also, they're not seen only by smokers. I can see a whole wall of them
every time I go to my local grocery store. The warning photos are clearly
visible from the checkout counter.
>I'm one of those types, too. My feeling is that in the case of
>smoking, you either outlaw it entirely, or leave it alone. Since
>we're not willing to do the former, then we should do the latter.
Only if you believe that legislation is the only valid tool of
government. I've already said in other threads that I personally
believe that education is also a valid tool of government.
Alex.
Kevin Michael Vail
Yup, if cigarettes just made you fat there'd be very little market for
them. Instead they just kill you.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | Dogbert: That's circular reasoning.
ke...@vaildc.net | Dilbert: I prefer to think of it as no loose ends.
http://www.vaildc.net/kevin/
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> Gwendolyn Alden Dean wrote:
> >Mike McKinley wrote:
> >Gwendolyn Alden Dean wrote:
> >>>I find "ugly" far more threatening than "unhealthy."
> >> You too?
> >You're surprised?
> Not at all, darling. Ever have we been sisters beheath the skin.
That's what I thought.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> Yup, if cigarettes just made you fat there'd be very little market for
> them. Instead they just kill you.
Die young, stay pretty and all that.
Nick Fitch
ke...@vaildc.net says...
> Yup, if cigarettes just made you fat there'd be very little market for
> them.
Doesn't seem to have been a problem for the hamburger industry.
> Instead they just kill you.
See above.
--
(nickDOTfitchATbtopenworldDOTcom)
David W. Fenton
<3F5649C4...@cornell.edu>:
And you don't think that you'd end up being impervious to the
Canadian-style labels, too?
David W. Fenton
<bj5k7c$f6d$1...@panix1.panix.com>:
>In article <93EB8CBCFdf...@24.168.128.86>,
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>>amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote in
>><HKLvs...@ecf.utoronto.ca>:
>>
>>> I think it's just *right*, and if it cuts down on cancer
>>> and smoking, and ill health/death due to lung cancer, then
>>> I'm all for it.
>>
>>Please explain to me the logic of exactly how labels on cigarette
>>packs, which are only seen by people who are already smokers,
>>will do any of those things.
>
>According to the article this photo was attached to, people who
>are already smokers have cited these photos as helping them to
>quit: http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/
>
>Also, they're not seen only by smokers. I can see a whole wall of
>them every time I go to my local grocery store. The warning
>photos are clearly visible from the checkout counter.
What about my right to not see offensive images? And WHAT ABOUT THE
CHILDREN!???!?!?
>>I'm one of those types, too. My feeling is that in the case of
>>smoking, you either outlaw it entirely, or leave it alone. Since
>>we're not willing to do the former, then we should do the latter.
>
>Only if you believe that legislation is the only valid tool of
>government. I've already said in other threads that I personally
>believe that education is also a valid tool of government.
You think smokers don't already know that smoking turns their teeth
yellow and causes gum problems?
This is all a case of double standards. People don't like smoking
so they think it's just fine and dandy to punish the smokers and
make them pariahs, instead of actually standing up for something
that would have a real effect (other than making the finger
pointers feel good), such as outlawing cigarette smoking entirely.
This is all about making smokers feel bad and socially shunned (and
making the non-smokers fell smugly superior), and really doesn't
have a damned thing to do with public health.
Chris Ambidge
[alex]
>>According to the article this photo was attached to, people who
>>are already smokers have cited these photos as helping them to
>>quit: http://www.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/01/09/canadian.cigarettes/
>>
>>Also, they're not seen only by smokers. I can see a whole wall of
>>them every time I go to my local grocery store. The warning
>>photos are clearly visible from the checkout counter.
[david]
>What about my right to not see offensive images? And WHAT ABOUT THE
>CHILDREN!???!?!?
precisely, what about the children. one of the significant
tasks for the government is to stop young people from getting
started. So making cigarettes seem un-glamorous, un-him,
revolting and disgusting is one of the ways that this
educational task can be tackled.
young people tend to think of themselves as invulnerable
and immortal (and infertile, but that's a different question).
These photos (one picture == 1000 words) get the point across
that lasting damage, and disgusting effects, do follow smoking.
>You think smokers don't already know that smoking turns their teeth
>yellow and causes gum problems?
Denial is not just a river in Egypt. And young people don't
always know this sort of thing.
>This is all a case of double standards. People don't like smoking
>so they think it's just fine and dandy to punish the smokers and
>make them pariahs, instead of actually standing up for something
>that would have a real effect (other than making the finger
>pointers feel good), such as outlawing cigarette smoking entirely.
>
>This is all about making smokers feel bad and socially shunned (and
>making the non-smokers fell smugly superior), and really doesn't
>have a damned thing to do with public health.
that is not the case. It has everything to do with public health.
the canadian packaging is working, in that it is diminishing the number
of people smoking (and, more importantly, diminishing the
number of people who *start* smoking).
it may lose efficacy later on, and other strategies will
need to be devised. but for now it's working, and diminishing
the number of people smoking, and getting sick.
the health of the general populace is definitely the government's
business (in Canada, I won't speak for your country, but it
is here). And since we all pay, through our taxes, for the
health care system, then diminishing the number of people
needing the services of the health care system is in everyone's
fiscal interests too. Note that these are two different aims:
the general moral responsibility to promote good health, and
the fiscal responsibility are not identical.
These campaigns were brought about while considering the best way
to have a dis-persuasive effect on as many people as possible, and
especially on young people. There are TV and print ads that
I've seen that were actually designed by late teenage people.
I disagree that this campaign is just to make non-smokers feel
superior and smug while isolating smoker-pariahs. It is having
a real effect now.
Out and out prohibition doesn't work, as the period between the
18th and 21st amendments to the US constitution should make clear.
I personally think that tobacco should be brought under tighter
governmental control - in a manner akin to pharmaceuticals, nicotine
is a drug, after all - and in that way made more difficult to get.
There are historical reasons (not to say very monied interests of
the tobacco industry) working against that kind of legislation.
However, huge amounts of the budgets of the ministries of health
across the country are spent mopping up after this, and it is
in the public interest to diminsh the amount of consumption of
tobacco.
Chris
--
if the planets are misaligned, I may have been logged in under an assumed name.
no matter WHAT/WHO the headers of this post claim , I am
Chris Ambidge =|= amb...@ecf.utoronto.ca =|= chris....@utoronto.ca
chemist by day=|=panda by night=|=www.chem-eng.utoronto.ca/~ambidge/panda.jpg
David W. Fenton
> the canadian packaging is working, in that it is diminishing
> the number of people smoking
Maybe it's not a one-to-one correspondence between the reduction in
smoking and the introduction of the ghastly labels. Benito Giuliani
claimed that he was responsible for the drop in crime in NYC, even
though crime rates nationwide also dropped during his
administration.
Maybe the social attitudes that lead to the passage of laws
requiring scary pictures on cigarette packs are the reason why
people are feeling pressure to stop smoking. In that regard, the
labels would be a result of the change in social attitudes, a
reflection of them, and not a cause of the change in the behavior
of smokers.
John Whiteside
<amb...@ecf.toronto.edu> wrote:
> >What about my right to not see offensive images? And WHAT ABOUT THE
> >CHILDREN!???!?!?
>
> precisely, what about the children. one of the significant
> tasks for the government is to stop young people from getting
> started. So making cigarettes seem un-glamorous, un-him,
> revolting and disgusting is one of the ways that this
> educational task can be tackled.
You really have to separate out current smokers and potential smokers
here. For example: when prices of cigarettes go up, younger people
change their smoking behavior much more than older smokers do. It's
easier to justify paying more when you're hooked.
It seems to me that the logical approach is to discourage people from
starting. I question whether cigarette labels are as effective as, say,
the general social opprobrium, or the growing numbers of places where
one can't smoke, though.
Chris Ambidge
>> the canadian packaging is working, in that it is diminishing
>> the number of people smoking
[david]
>Maybe it's not a one-to-one correspondence between the reduction in
>smoking and the introduction of the ghastly labels.
maybe it isn't. a social behaviour as complex as
social smoking is bound to have multiple influences.
correlation is not causation. but as alex reported,
people who actually smoke report that the pictures help
them want to quit. I'd take their word for it, since
they're fairly closely involved in their smoking behaviours,
as opposed to those who hypothesise from a distance. The
campaign by Canada Health and many others to diminish smoking
behaviours is, and has to be, multi pronged. One can't
tease one aspect out of it and say that the single aspect
has a been a deciding factor. But I'm sure it all helps.
Chris Ambidge
>>It means that I think that the Canadian labels are smart -- I'm
>>almost impervious to US labels that tell me the cancer sticks are
>>bad for my health. I think that having a photo that says "They're
>>going to make you lokk like *this*!" is far mor elikley to
>>actually change my behavior.
[david]
>And you don't think that you'd end up being impervious to the
>Canadian-style labels, too?
some might well, in time, react less and less to the labels.
but others will be repulsed, and quit, and that's worth it.
the labels have more impact than the text warnings, for the
simple reason that 1 picture == 1000 words. It's certainly not
a perfect system -- the cigarettes are still selling. but the
pix are helping.
there's also quite a strong campaign to prohibit selling
tobacco products to under-19s. Serious fines, and loss of
licence-to-sell for the retailers.
David W. Fenton
>One can't
> tease one aspect out of it and say that the single aspect
> has a been a deciding factor. But I'm sure it all helps.
How in the world can you be *sure*?
That's my only question here. I don't doubt that some people are
negatively affected by it, but I can't see anyone but casual
smokers being moved to quit by it.
One of my best friends quit smoking when Mayor Bloomberg's smoking
ban went into effect, though he still smokes those horrendous
nicotine-free Qwest cigarettes when he's drinking (which make no
sense to me -- discard the not-so-dangerous chemical and keep all
the really dangerous stuff!). Another of my best friends smokes
just as much as ever and simply hates the mayor.
Behavior has changed, but I'm not sure anybody's health has been
improved.
I just can't see the nasty pictures having anything more than a
minor effect on people.
David W. Fenton
>1 picture == 1000 words. . . .
So, you're saying that a picture is 20X as effective as a 50-word
warning? Any proof of that?
> . . . It's certainly not
> a perfect system -- the cigarettes are still selling. but
> the pix are helping.
So you say. But I don't see that you've offered up any actual proof
of that, other than anecdotal reports from a few individuals who
are grossed out by it.
> there's also quite a strong campaign to prohibit selling
> tobacco products to under-19s. Serious fines, and loss of
> licence-to-sell for the retailers.
I'm all for that.
But it's an entirely different issue.
Alex Elliott
>> a perfect system -- the cigarettes are still selling. but
>> the pix are helping.
>
>So you say. But I don't see that you've offered up any actual proof
>of that, other than anecdotal reports from a few individuals who
>are grossed out by it.
If you're going to reject the surveys reported in the CNN article as
"anecdotal", then what evidence *would* you accept? It's silly for any of
us to argue with you if there's no proof that could convince you.
Meanwhile, do you have any "proof" (remember, anecdotal reports don't
count) that these pictures make "smokers feel bad and socially shunned"?
Alex.
Gwendolyn Alden Dean
> And you don't think that you'd end up being impervious to the
> Canadian-style labels, too?
Photos are upsetting. I will say, tho', that I'm already sure I want to
quit again, so it's hard to say. But ugly is powerful.
Cornelia Wyngaarden
gd...@cornell.edu wrote on 9/5/03 11:39 AM:
Do it now.
corry
David W. Fenton
>In article <93ED75AF6df...@24.168.128.74>,
>David W. Fenton <dXXXf...@bway.net> wrote:
>>amb...@ecf.toronto.edu (Chris Ambidge) wrote in
>><HKpu6...@ecf.utoronto.ca>:
>>
>>> . . . It's certainly not
>>> a perfect system -- the cigarettes are still selling. but
>>> the pix are helping.
>>
>>So you say. But I don't see that you've offered up any actual
>>proof of that, other than anecdotal reports from a few
>>individuals who are grossed out by it.
>
>If you're going to reject the surveys reported in the CNN article
>as "anecdotal", then what evidence *would* you accept? It's silly
>for any of us to argue with you if there's no proof that could
>convince you.
First off, the original post was a graphic from the story, not the
story. I didn't read the story, so I was not aware that Chris was
citing studies mentioned in the article. Maybe I should have
understood that from context, but I didn't.
>Meanwhile, do you have any "proof" (remember, anecdotal reports
>don't count) that these pictures make "smokers feel bad and
>socially shunned"?
I wasn't making any claims about causality. I was just suggesting
that other factors might just as well explain the results as the
one put forth by Chris.
And I'm not justifying public policy with my claims, either.
In any event, the remarks in the CNN article about the study don't
justify Chris's assertion (so far as I understood it) that the
labels decreased smoking:
Fifty-eight percent of smokers interviewed in the study said
full-color pictures of how cancer affects the mouth, lungs,
heart and brain had made them think more about the health
effects of smoking.
The warnings were so effective that 44 percent of the smokers
polled said the new warnings increased their motivation to quit
smoking. And 38 percent of smokers who attempted to quit in
2001 said the new warnings were a factor in motivating them to
try to quit.
"Made them think about health effects" does not translate into
"caused them to stop smoking." "Increased their motivation to quit
smoking" does not mean "caused them to stop smoking." "A factor in
motivating them to try to quit" does not mean "caused them to stop
smoking."
Indeed, these remarks in the article tend, it seems to me, to
support *my* conclusion, that it's all about society expressing
disapproval of smoking and making smokers feel bad about
themselves.
While I think it's great that people stop smoking and every little
bit helps in motivating people, I just don't think these nasty
little labels are nearly as effective at helping motivate people to
quit as they are at making the rest of us feel self-satisfied about
doing something to discourage smoking.
Printing the labels is really *easy*. Quitting smoking is *really
hard*.
If you really want to do something about smoking, help one of your
friends quit, not by needling them to stop, but by helping them
make the lifestyle change. I've done it, and it's hard, because it
requires changing your *own* behaviors (even when you don't smoke).
As to the other conclusions, the one that I think is most telling
is this one:
--18 percent of smokers said they have on at least one occasion
asked for a different package of cigarettes when purchasing
them because they did not like the warning on the package first
offered.
People want to smoke, and they'll do it in a way that least offends
their sensibilities.