OTL 3/27: Smokeless Tobacco Ban (effect on Boston?)

rymflaherty

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2010
3,420
Norfolk
I apologize if this story has been brought up before, but watching Outside the Lines this morning this is the first I've heard of it...

Apparently Boston is one of 5 MLB cities where use of smokeless tobacco is now banned in the ballpark.
Due to this, some Red Sox play a prominent role in the discussion/feature. Ortiz: Who says he has successfully quit following Gwynn's death. And Buchholz, who is notable since he is used as an example of a player who is not thrilled with the prospects of having to play baseball without the use of tobacco.

I'm not sure how much of a story this really is, but as someone who dipped for more than a decade before quitting (successfully) cold turkey, I can say the physical, and more-so, mental battles are very real. Specifically, It almost felt like I had to relearn any everyday task where the use of tobacco was now associated with it. For ex. Driving became difficult, because 90% of the time for a decade when I drove I would dip.

While a ban certainly is great from a player health perspective, this story did seem worth noting because if we're just looking at performance, it seems notable that there could be a quarter or so of the roster playing baseball without the aid of tobacco for the first time in their adult life.

It should be noted, much of the discussion also revolved around how they will/can actually enforce this. They mentioned fines, but they also insinuated MLB would look to do more than that. It also is interesting since (at the moment) it's not a ban across all MLB.

As I said, not sure how news-worthy this is, but figured I;d throw up a post in case any one wanted to find the episode, or if there was possible ramifications worth discussing.
 

Monbonthbump

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2005
222
Lincoln,NE
This should have happened long ago. One of the first texts I ever sent Curt Schilling in 2006 when he was gracious enough to give me some words of encouragement when I was undergoing treatment for throat cancer asked him and Tito to please quit chewing. I just hope Tito kicked the habit and am glad Curt made a full recovery as did I.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Nobody should use tobacco products. But, what is the externality being solved by the nanny state here? If a fully informed adult wants to use smokeless tobacco, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Seems like all the same arguments against prohibition apply here, and there's not even any second hand smoke or DUI concerns.

Josh Hamilton blames giving up chew for his swoon in late 2013. This could absolutely affect the Red Sox season negatively. I guess if it saves one life, right?
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,657
Maui
It will soon be a generation thing for ballplayers. The young guys who have come up through the minors have played in pro ball long enough where it has been against "the rules". Sorry, I have no sympathy for these guys who are whining about it. It is what it is. It's a gross dangerous habit. If they need to feed their addiction that bad they will find a way between innings to get their fix. Hit the runway between the clubhouse and dugout most likely.
 

mauidano

Mai Tais for everyone!
SoSH Member
Aug 21, 2006
35,657
Maui
Nobody should use tobacco products. But, what is the externality being solved by the nanny state here? If a fully informed adult wants to use smokeless tobacco, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Seems like all the same arguments against prohibition apply here, and there's not even any second hand smoke or DUI concerns.

Josh Hamilton blames giving up chew for his swoon in late 2013. This could absolutely affect the Red Sox season negatively. I guess if it saves one life, right?
This guy has a whole boatload of other issues in his life.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,884
Nobody should use tobacco products. But, what is the externality being solved by the nanny state here? If a fully informed adult wants to use smokeless tobacco, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Seems like all the same arguments against prohibition apply here, and there's not even any second hand smoke or DUI concerns.

Josh Hamilton blames giving up chew for his swoon in late 2013. This could absolutely affect the Red Sox season negatively. I guess if it saves one life, right?
The nanny state? Of a private employer?
 

foulkehampshire

hillbilly suburbanite
SoSH Member
Feb 25, 2007
5,099
Wesport, MA
Nobody should use tobacco products. But, what is the externality being solved by the nanny state here? If a fully informed adult wants to use smokeless tobacco, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Seems like all the same arguments against prohibition apply here, and there's not even any second hand smoke or DUI concerns.
Are you allowed to smoke or dip at your job? Most employers ban it in the workplace. Ball[layers can do whatever they want outside of the ballpark. I don't see the Nanny State angle at all here.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
Nobody should use tobacco products. But, what is the externality being solved by the nanny state here? If a fully informed adult wants to use smokeless tobacco, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Seems like all the same arguments against prohibition apply here, and there's not even any second hand smoke or DUI concerns.
The "externality" being solved for is probably in part the future liability of the private employers for allowing their employees to give themselves cancer while on the job, and also the impact that multi-million dollar hero athletes' behaviors have on 10-year old kids. So, I mean, yeah -- probably all feel-good morality b.s. kind of stuff, but the private enterprise that is the Boston Red Sox have the right to do whatever they damn well please because this is America after all.

And, those informed adults can use smokeless tobacco. . . . . on their own time. . . . . whenever they want to. Just not at work, like most of America.
 

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
And, those informed adults can use smokeless tobacco. . . . . on their own time. . . . . whenever they want to. Just not at work, like most of America.
Actually they can't, because this isn't something being laid down by MLB. It's by the city. So, this bans it from fans using it as well...on their own time...if they want to use it while watching the game. To the point they are posting hotline numbers so you can call and report if the guy sitting next to you is having a dip during the game. So yes, I agree with P91 that this is a "nanny state" issue.

As to the players and worrying about their performance, they can buy snus and no one will ever know (as many do at work), because they won't have to spit and the large bulge won't be as apparent. It'll be an adjustment, but I don't think this is costing the Sox game sin the standings.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
Actually they can't, because this isn't something being laid down by MLB. It's by the city. So, this bans it from fans using it as well...on their own time...if they want to use it while watching the game. To the point they are posting hotline numbers so you can call and report if the guy sitting next to you is having a dip during the game. So yes, I agree with P91 that this is a "nanny state" issue.

As to the players and worrying about their performance, they can buy snus and no one will ever know (as many do at work), because they won't have to spit and the large bulge won't be as apparent. It'll be an adjustment, but I don't think this is costing the Sox game sin the standings.
My apologies, I thought it was the Red Sox.

Although, I still don't have a problem with it because it is a disgusting habit that I don't want to be unduly exposed to at a Red Sox game and think it will be a good thing to get it out of baseball for the impact it has on kids coming up the ranks. I can see the "nanny state" argument though.
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,622
As long as they stop serving nachos, ice cream, beer and hot dogs, I don't see a problem. What's more likely, kids getting type 2 diabetes from shitty food or getting throat cancer from chewin?
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
My apologies, I thought it was the Red Sox.

Although, I still don't have a problem with it because it is a disgusting habit that I don't want to be unduly exposed to at a Red Sox game and think it will be a good thing to get it out of baseball for the impact it has on kids coming up the ranks. I can see the "nanny state" argument though.
Drunk Yankee fans have been a much bigger problem for me in Fenway than somebody chewing tobacco. And then they leave in a car taking a chance with people's lives. So, I guess we should ban alcohol at games and give people a breathalyzer on the way in. Do it for the children.
 

rajendra82

elimination day disfunction
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
4,932
Atlanta, GA
Nobody should use tobacco products. But, what is the externality being solved by the nanny state here? If a fully informed adult wants to use smokeless tobacco, why shouldn't they be able to do so? Seems like all the same arguments against prohibition apply here, and there's not even any second hand smoke or DUI concerns.

Josh Hamilton blames giving up chew for his swoon in late 2013. This could absolutely affect the Red Sox season negatively. I guess if it saves one life, right?
Looks like he picked the wrong week to quit chewing tobacco, and stop doing other things.
 
Last edited:

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
My apologies, I thought it was the Red Sox.

Although, I still don't have a problem with it because it is a disgusting habit that I don't want to be unduly exposed to at a Red Sox game and think it will be a good thing to get it out of baseball for the impact it has on kids coming up the ranks. I can see the "nanny state" argument though.
While I can see the confusion with the wording, it was literally in the second sentence of the OP. "5 MLB *cities*".

As to the offense you take to it, I'll agree that if you are sitting next to someone jawing on a huge plug or having a big lipper in and spitting on the ground or two feet in front of them, yes it's disgusting. I'll also place a large wager that the times you've had that happen sitting at a sox game (or really anywhere in life, especially your office) are few and far between. The truth is you've probably been "unduly exposed" to it, in far more places than you could imagine (your office, a bar, the movie theater, public transportation, the golf course, etc) and never even noticed. Because they usually have a plastic cup with a napkin in it or an empty water bottle to spit into. I'd wager these people are far more common than you think. Inconsiderate smokeless tobacco users are no different than any other kind of inconsiderate person.

Now, it obviously seems like I'm just defending myself and I kind of am, but not really. I used to dip, but I gave it up long ago. I still smoke and I need to quit, but that's beside the point. Dip was way more addictive for me and it's way more of a commitment. I wish I never started either, but a decent dip you need a good half hour, a spitter and a solid rinser to do anything else. (I did at least. Many dippers can swallow, drink a beer, even eat, etc without taking it out, I just never could). Now if I rip a butt it's five minutes, but yes, I smell like smoke and offend others at times. And I struggle with it, but that's a tangent.

Anyway, that sidebar brings me to the children argument and while I understand it, all I will say is that I had my first dip in about seventh grade, dipped all through high school and college, dipped while I played high school baseball and legion ball (where it's obviously not allowed) and only twice got caught, once by an ump in legion and once in the back of the bus to a game by my soccer coach. I can tell you that never once did I put a dip in because I was trying to emulate a Major League Baseball player. It was always because I was trying to emulate my older brother, who gave me my first dip and made me puke when I was 13. Who started doing it from similar influences. I'm not going to say there's nothing there, but 1) I'm not nearly as unique as you think and 2) it's not like smoking where it's so obviously to a kid. Unless someone tells them, most have no idea why Papi has a big lip or Tito has a big cheek. They think it's gum. (Does Big League Chew still exist??)

I'm not saying that aspect shouldn't be weighed, I just thinks there's a small level of Maude Flanders "won't someone think of the children???" It should be factored in but it's not exactly every kid in the 90s wearing a wristband on his forearm like MJ, for a lot of reasons.

TLDNR: you exposed to smokeless tobacco users far, far more than you realize and you have no clue about it.
 

RG33

Certain Class of Poster
SoSH Member
Nov 28, 2005
7,199
CA
While I can see the confusion with the wording, it was literally in the second sentence of the OP. "5 MLB *cities*".

As to the offense you take to it, I'll agree that if you are sitting next to someone jawing on a huge plug or having a big lipper in and spitting on the ground or two feet in front of them, yes it's disgusting. I'll also place a large wager that the times you've had that happen sitting at a sox game (or really anywhere in life, especially your office) are few and far between. The truth is you've probably been "unduly exposed" to it, in far more places than you could imagine (your office, a bar, the movie theater, public transportation, the golf course, etc) and never even noticed. Because they usually have a plastic cup with a napkin in it or an empty water bottle to spit into. I'd wager these people are far more common than you think. Inconsiderate smokeless tobacco users are no different than any other kind of inconsiderate person.

Now, it obviously seems like I'm just defending myself and I kind of am, but not really. I used to dip, but I gave it up long ago. I still smoke and I need to quit, but that's beside the point. Dip was way more addictive for me and it's way more of a commitment. I wish I never started either, but a decent dip you need a good half hour, a spitter and a solid rinser to do anything else. (I did at least. Many dippers can swallow, drink a beer, even eat, etc without taking it out, I just never could). Now if I rip a butt it's five minutes, but yes, I smell like smoke and offend others at times. And I struggle with it, but that's a tangent.

Anyway, that sidebar brings me to the children argument and while I understand it, all I will say is that I had my first dip in about seventh grade, dipped all through high school and college, dipped while I played high school baseball and legion ball (where it's obviously not allowed) and only twice got caught, once by an ump in legion and once in the back of the bus to a game by my soccer coach. I can tell you that never once did I put a dip in because I was trying to emulate a Major League Baseball player. It was always because I was trying to emulate my older brother, who gave me my first dip and made me puke when I was 13. Who started doing it from similar influences. I'm not going to say there's nothing there, but 1) I'm not nearly as unique as you think and 2) it's not like smoking where it's so obviously to a kid. Unless someone tells them, most have no idea why Papi has a big lip or Tito has a big cheek. They think it's gum. (Does Big League Chew still exist??)

I'm not saying that aspect shouldn't be weighed, I just thinks there's a small level of Maude Flanders "won't someone think of the children???" It should be factored in but it's not exactly every kid in the 90s wearing a wristband on his forearm like MJ, for a lot of reasons.

TLDNR: you exposed to smokeless tobacco users far, far more than you realize and you have no clue about it.
Well, 3 other posters were confused as well.

I sat next to a guy for 2 years who dipped in the office. Spit into his Poland Spring water bottle. I don't really care either way, I was being facetious with the "unduly exposed", but it is a pretty nasty habit that clearly causes a lot of problems for people. And I played baseball up through Legion ball, and saw many guys doing it -- and if their big brothers started them or not, somewhere along the line it was MLB players and the culture of baseball that got them doing it in most cases I would imagine.

Again, I do see the "nanny state" argument, but I am fine with it.
 

Spelunker

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
11,884
I was among the confused, although to be fair MLB wants to ban it and would if it wasn't a union issue. I assume they were somewhat complicit in this. It's been banned in the minors for what, 20 years now?
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
First let me say that I think that "chew" is a disgusting habit. I applaud the spirit of this law, but I question the validity of it. In pubic parks or stadiums, sure. In stadiums that have been publicly funded, perhaps. In a private venue like Fenway park, I'm a bit mixed. In relation to the players, IMO it should be an employer/employee issue, but I'm guessing that would have to be bargained with the next contract. I'm wondering if the clubs have encouraged these laws as a way to circumvent the need to bargain it and if will we see this spread to other MLB cities.
 

Lose Remerswaal

Experiencing Furry Panic
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I think it was in one of the last year's of the old Boston Garden (but could have been early year of the FleetCenter) where either the mayor's office or Boston Police Department said they were not going to tolerate any fighting, anywhere, and that would extend to oncourt action. I was at a C's game against the Pacers and a fight broke out under the basket, near where I was sitting. I asked the cop standing a few feet to my left if he was going to arrest those men, he just laughed.

I'd be shocked if there is any better enforcement of this law than that law.
 

rymflaherty

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 27, 2010
3,420
Norfolk
Sorry if that was confusing in any way. I had posted what I recalled from the telecast and what I had thought was relevant to a conversation. I wasn't attempting to create a political discussion or a debate on personal freedoms (others did, which is fine, but it seems that's where the disconnect was) my interest was how it could effect the Red Sox to have this law that doesn't adhere to the majority of MLB teams.


Worth noting: They made note of Herbal Snuff's, specifically Smokey Mountain, and how that was in accordance with the Law in Los Angeles. They had a Dodger player speaking about how he uses that now.
If herbal snuff is legal, that could be what players manipulate to continue using actual smokeless tobacco. They could just throw actual snuff in a tin of Smokey Mountain, or mix it together.
I was actually surprised when they said the herbal snuff was fine, since arguments against smokeless tobacco often include it being unsanitary and that it influences children, and allowing the use of the herbal snuff doesn't solve those issues.
That can be a positive for the players though. As someone that used to be heavily addicted, I do still use some of the tobacco-free products and it has helped. The way I've seen it is that I was able to stop the unhealthy addiction, but I still have the gross habit. I'm going to have to confirm if those products are allowed in Boston, since I'm headed there in a couple weeks.
 

ajml

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
441
Assuming the Red Sox players are forced to adjust couldn't this actually be an advantage since visiting players will be impacted?
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
Assuming the Red Sox players are forced to adjust couldn't this actually be an advantage since visiting players will be impacted?
I bet it would be somewhere below the advantages held by Tampa and Atlanta by being in two of the top strip joint cities in the country. And considerably below the Colorado high altitude advantage. Maybe around the Arizona golfing advantage. (Hey, don't you think every guy brings his clubs on a trip to Arizona? Must be hard to play a night game after 18 holes, eh?)

I think you could find a dubious and evidence free "advantage" for every city in the majors.
 

soxfan121

JAG
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
23,043
Show of hands - how many of you thought Yaz was cool when he'd go one step into the tunnel and fire up a Marlboro Red?

I did. I started smoking for other reasons and I don't "blame" Yaz ... but you're goddamned right I thought smoking was cool because Yaz smoked in the dugout.

In TOTALLY related news, I had a stroke that was directly related to more than 25 years of cigarette smoking. I'm a bigger burden on the healthcare expenses of the Commonwealth than a man my age should be - because I chose to smoke. And I pay the price for it, every day, in increased healthcare costs, and in time, and in so many, many ways that aren't applicable to this post.

Again, that's not Yaz's fault. It is my fault. I chose to smoke But there was definitely a "hey, Yaz smoked/smokes" factor in play. He was my favorite player. And since he smoked and my grandfather (since passed, cancer) and other people I thought were cool smoked... there was something OK about smoking.

To all of you who grew up seeing Yaz smoke in the dugout and didn't pick up the (horrible) habit, congrats. You are (yet again) a better person than I am.

So, when someone asks why it might be important that David Ortiz not "dip" or use tobacco in the dugout or on the Fenway field... well, I think about Yaz smoking and what an effect it had on me when I was 6-9 years old.

It is pretty easy to blame the "Nanny State" and decry the loss of personal freedom. I am sure people will figure out how to dip in the privacy of their own homes, while watching on NESN. You people are missing the point.

Good for David Ortiz, quitting and staying quit. Best of luck to Clay Buchholz and others who will be forced to quit. And if it results in ONE kid not thinking that using smokeless tobacco is "cool" - then it will have been worth it. It'll have even been worth the handwringing from the anti-Nanny State people.

Yaz was not cool for smoking. In the dugout or anywhere. He was dumb. And if he's still smoking, he's a complete asshole who will have deprived his family of his presence (before too long). Smoking is bad for you. Please quit before it is too late.
 

shaggydog2000

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2007
11,483
Show of hands - how many of you thought Yaz was cool when he'd go one step into the tunnel and fire up a Marlboro Red?

I did. I started smoking for other reasons and I don't "blame" Yaz ... but you're goddamned right I thought smoking was cool because Yaz smoked in the dugout.

In TOTALLY related news, I had a stroke that was directly related to more than 25 years of cigarette smoking. I'm a bigger burden on the healthcare expenses of the Commonwealth than a man my age should be - because I chose to smoke. And I pay the price for it, every day, in increased healthcare costs, and in time, and in so many, many ways that aren't applicable to this post.

Again, that's not Yaz's fault. It is my fault. I chose to smoke But there was definitely a "hey, Yaz smoked/smokes" factor in play. He was my favorite player. And since he smoked and my grandfather (since passed, cancer) and other people I thought were cool smoked... there was something OK about smoking.

To all of you who grew up seeing Yaz smoke in the dugout and didn't pick up the (horrible) habit, congrats. You are (yet again) a better person than I am.

So, when someone asks why it might be important that David Ortiz not "dip" or use tobacco in the dugout or on the Fenway field... well, I think about Yaz smoking and what an effect it had on me when I was 6-9 years old.

It is pretty easy to blame the "Nanny State" and decry the loss of personal freedom. I am sure people will figure out how to dip in the privacy of their own homes, while watching on NESN. You people are missing the point.

Good for David Ortiz, quitting and staying quit. Best of luck to Clay Buchholz and others who will be forced to quit. And if it results in ONE kid not thinking that using smokeless tobacco is "cool" - then it will have been worth it. It'll have even been worth the handwringing from the anti-Nanny State people.

Yaz was not cool for smoking. In the dugout or anywhere. He was dumb. And if he's still smoking, he's a complete asshole who will have deprived his family of his presence (before too long). Smoking is bad for you. Please quit before it is too late.
Well Yaz wasn't the only cool person smoking like a chimney back then, and you may be of the right age where the Flintstones were smoking in ads on TV when you were a kid. Every car race was sponsored by cigarettes, cool people in every movie smoked, every rock star was smoking, every adult you thought was cool, every cool kid in school. The saturation was there. Maybe just the right athlete tipped you over, but maybe if it wasn't him it would have been Steve McQueen. Who was pretty awesome. Today the saturation isn't there, especially for chewing tobacco instead of smoking, and there is enough sentiment against it that the chance of someone patterning a behavior they probably don't even know is going on (they're not going to show a player putting in a dip on camera these days, and they would be in the dugout out of sight of most people doing it) is pretty slim. I don't even know what players dip, and I'm an adult who knows how the process works.

But I'm also fine with the ban. It's completely reasonable for a public place. And athletes in all sorts of sports have to get used to the concept that their workplace should be like every other workplace. Except with more group showering. That means not harassing or assaulting people in locker rooms or during practices (I'm looking at you Dolphins linemen), and following normal work practices. Like not having a kid there 24/7, or spitting tobacco juice everywhere.
 

Fred not Lynn

Dick Button Jr.
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
5,253
Alberta
If you want to stop young ball players from dipping, it starts with those they are directly influenced by - the guys out there coaching them once they hit 13-16 years old - and with a general cultural shift in the game. At that youth level, it's a sort of "hey, I am a ball player, and I dip, because that's what ball players do" thing.

And yes, moving the practice of the field, and off the cameras at every level, including MLB will help, but there's a lot more to it than that.
 

Toe Nash

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2005
5,600
02130
I'd be fine with this if it were an MLB rule, but I don't really get how you'd enforce this. If an opposing player (or a Sox) is chewing in the dugout, what exactly are they going to do? Write him a fine which will cost him like .001% of one paycheck? Arrest him during the game? Ask him nicely to stop?

Fans are a whole other can of worms, but it's noteworthy that the City Council passed an ordinance banning cigarette (or marijuana) smoking in public parks, and it's basically been ignored and not enforced.

But it's always good to have more reasons for the police to harass people should they chose to!
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
I'd be fine with this if it were an MLB rule, but I don't really get how you'd enforce this. If an opposing player (or a Sox) is chewing in the dugout, what exactly are they going to do? Write him a fine which will cost him like .001% of one paycheck? Arrest him during the game? Ask him nicely to stop?

Fans are a whole other can of worms, but it's noteworthy that the City Council passed an ordinance banning cigarette (or marijuana) smoking in public parks, and it's basically been ignored and not enforced.

But it's always good to have more reasons for the police to harass people should they chose to!
That last point is a fantastic one.
 

Monbonthbump

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2005
222
Lincoln,NE
I get the whole point about the questionable moral right of a society to prevent individuals from harming themselves. The same point can be made regarding automobile seat belts, motorcycle helmets, and jaywalking. Some of these laws are enforceable, and some are not and are thus ignored (see driving and phone use, and prohibition). Most of these "personal choice" laws are not enforced, but successful if the behavior affects only a few individuals and is basically disgusting such as chewin' and spittin'. However, the premise for arguing that the chewer knows what he is doing and only harms himself is simply false if one considers the family of those involved and the effort and resources which the caregivers expend.
 

Plympton91

bubble burster
SoSH Member
Oct 19, 2008
12,408
Have you ever had an alcoholic in your family? No one is banning alcohol sales at the ballpark. Ever had a pothead living with you? We are moving in the opposite direction with marijuana as we are with tobacco products.

If you extend the rationale for public health interventions to "the family members of the responsible adult are injured" then we need to pass a law allowing involuntary commitment to nutrition and exercise centers for people with high body fat. I mean, if a parent dies of a heart attack because they had too many Big Macs the children are heavily impacted. Let's ban Fenway Franks, they're bad for your health.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,429
The difference, of course, is that while a big Mac is horrible for you, it can also provide sustanance. Chew, alcohol and weed are purely recreational.
 

Pablito

New Member
Mar 31, 2016
5
I apologize if this story has been brought up before, but watching Outside the Lines this morning this is the first I've heard of it...

Apparently Boston is one of 5 MLB cities where use of smokeless tobacco is now banned in the ballpark.
Due to this, some Red Sox play a prominent role in the discussion/feature. Ortiz: Who says he has successfully quit following Gwynn's death. And Buchholz, who is notable since he is used as an example of a player who is not thrilled with the prospects of having to play baseball without the use of tobacco.

I'm not sure how much of a story this really is, but as someone who dipped for more than a decade before quitting (successfully) cold turkey, I can say the physical, and more-so, mental battles are very real. Specifically, It almost felt like I had to relearn any everyday task where the use of tobacco was now associated with it. For ex. Driving became difficult, because 90% of the time for a decade when I drove I would dip.

While a ban certainly is great from a player health perspective, this story did seem worth noting because if we're just looking at performance, it seems notable that there could be a quarter or so of the roster playing baseball without the aid of tobacco for the first time in their adult life.

It should be noted, much of the discussion also revolved around how they will/can actually enforce this. They mentioned fines, but they also insinuated MLB would look to do more than that. It also is interesting since (at the moment) it's not a ban across all MLB.

As I said, not sure how news-worthy this is, but figured I;d throw up a post in case any one wanted to find the episode, or if there was possible ramifications worth discussing.
A disguisting habit no doubt, but does it need to be legislated out of the Ballpark by the government? I think adults should be free to make their own decisions. If someone knows the risks and still chooses to dip, then they should have that right. I'm just sayin'
 

Pablito

New Member
Mar 31, 2016
5
The difference, of course, is that while a big Mac is horrible for you, it can also provide sustanance. Chew, alcohol and weed are purely recreational.
Hey Kenny. Weed has medicinal properties too. It is much less harmful than alcohol. In moderation of course.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
13,487
Santa Monica, CA
The difference, of course, is that while a big Mac is horrible for you, it can also provide sustanance. Chew, alcohol and weed are purely recreational.
That's probably not a sustainable distinction once we start going down this slope as a society.

Really, eating a Big Mac instead of a piece of grilled chicken, or a protein pill, or soylent green, or whatever, is just as much a purely recreational choice as having a beer or a chew.
 

Kenny F'ing Powers

posts way less than 18% useful shit
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2010
14,429
That's probably not a sustainable distinction once we start going down this slope as a society.

Really, eating a Big Mac instead of a piece of grilled chicken, or a protein pill, or soylent green, or whatever, is just as much a purely recreational choice as having a beer or a chew.
No it isnt.
 

whatittakes

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 11, 2016
215
Hey Kenny. Weed has medicinal properties too. It is much less harmful than alcohol. In moderation of course.
Tobacco has some medical uses as well, it was used in herbal medicine by the natives, (who also did smoke it for enjoyment)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/

It was perhaps in 1500 that the notion of tobacco as a panacea became prevalent. In that year, a Portuguese explorer, Pedro Alvarez Cabral, in Brazil, reported the use of the herb betum for treating ulcerated abscesses, fistulas, sores, inveterate polyps and many other ailments, and said it was called the holy herb because of its powerful virtue in desperate cases.6 Also, reports on medicinal use of tobacco by Native American populations continued to emerge in quantity. For example, in 1529, a Spanish missionary priest, Bernadino de Sahagun, collected information from four Mexican physicians about use of tobacco for medicinal purposes. He recorded that breathing the odour of fresh green leaves of the plant relieved persistent headaches. For colds and catarrh, green or powdered leaves should be rubbed around inside the mouth. Diseases of glands in the neck could be cured by cutting out the root of the lesion and placing on it crushed tobacco plant hot and mixed with salt, on the same spot.9

Later reports of tobacco use by the Native Americans might be less reliable than those from contemporary sources, but in 1934 Fernando Ocaranza summed up the medicinal uses of tobacco in Mexico before 1519 as antidiarrhoeal, narcotic and emollient; he said that tobacco leaves were applied for the relief of pain, used in powdered form for the relief of catarrh and applied locally to heal wounds and burns.6 There are many other reports of medicinal uses of tobacco by precolumbian Native Americans, but the foregoing list is sufficient to indicate the wide usage6,9,13 and to explain why travellers wished to take the plants and seeds back to Europe.
That said, just like most use of weed, most use of tobacco has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with medicine, and everyone is fully aware of this.
 

OfTheCarmen

Cow Humper
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2007
5,208
From my viewing perspective it seems like this isn't being all the at strongly enforced.