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

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/01/business/international/us-chamber-works-globally-to-fight-antismoking-measures.html

by zameerb • 11 years ago

69 52 11 years ago

lcswi• 11 years ago

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.

mikeash9• 11 years ago

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.

TomGullen• 11 years ago

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.

ta929296• 11 years ago

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.

cafard• 11 years ago

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.

JoshTriplett3• 11 years ago

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.

ta929296• 11 years ago

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?

wfo• 11 years ago

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.

bmohlenhoff• 11 years ago

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."

jdminhbg• 11 years ago

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

krschultz• 11 years ago

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.

mikeash9• 11 years ago

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.

Zigurd• 11 years ago

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.

bluthru• 11 years ago

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.

jessriedel• 11 years ago

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".

vinhboy• 11 years ago

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?

anigbrowl• 11 years ago

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.

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

Related Stories