|
There's a lot of ideas around the world on stopping or even just limiting people from smoking. I've got n-teen years of experience with smoking and I can tell most of them are wrong.
The problem is that governments (as it's usually them that make the move) approach it from the wrong side, they're banning smoking and impose limitations on smokers, which makes them feel oppressed. It doesn't stop many people from smoking anyway. Can't smoke in clubs/bars? No problem, everyone just smokes in front of them...
What should be done is limiting the tobacco companies. I know it's not going to happen because the lobby is too strong though.
The problem as is now, is that people have too much choice when it comes to smoking. It's a smart way to get more sales and attract more customers, but it's also why so many people smoke or get into smoking.
Solution: Ban tobacco companies from making non-standard cigarettes. No more lights, menthols, slims whatever. Smoking rate drops significantly.
Without all those fancy cigarette types you're left with "established smokers", most women and "casuals" simply quit. Also, the rate at which new people are introduced into the habit of smoking is significantly reduced. Most people begin their journey with some kind of light smokes as standard ones are pretty harsh for a non-smoker (and even for someone who's been smoking lights).
Unfortunately, our market driven world and all-powerful international companies won't go for that. A pity, even from the smoker's point of view.
 
|
I agree, they should do the same for every addiction I've ever acquired.
No way you can stop without someone doing it for you 'cos you are addicted right?
|
Just let the people smoke.
Let them drink....
Fuck the "health-facism" and tons of retarded rules that are taking over...
|
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
|
this would actually help for sure, but i dont think it s a "problem" which needs to be fixed, let the smokers smoke, they know what they are up for
|
Actually something IS working. The smoking curve for men has taken a pretty significant dive... The womens curve is still lacking behind but most expect it to take a dive soon as well...
|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
Right point of view. Agreed completely.
|
I do not entirely agree with the ''Let people smoke if they want to'' argument. All the diseases caused by smoking costs a lot of money for the society and we should definitely strive to reduce it as much as possible.
|
I am pro paternalism, solely on the basis that the toxins are strongly addictive. There is very little redeeming social value of tobacco products (movie actors need to look cool somehow, right?), and their addictive nature preys on the curious and self-destructive psyche -- which is everyone from time to time, but it shouldn't screw you for life.
Some people have a genetic predisposition toward alcoholism, but alcohol is far less addictive than nicotine. There are also classes of fine fermented beverages that contain safe amounts of alcohol in moderation, but exotic cigarettes are of thin variety and interest -- no one would smoke them merely for there flavor. Anyone who wants just nicotine can buy it clean.
As for danger, people who smoke to excess cannot help themselves. People who drink to dangerous excess probably have other issues going on (or nothing going on), or they're just noobie college students.
|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
You are free to smoke if you do it in areas where I don't have to smoke just by walking through the area. Which basically excludes most city centre areas.
|
You do realize that the bans smoking in bars and clubs is to protect non-smokers not to prevent smokers from smoking?
And I'm with everyone who says that it's everybody's own choice and the only limitations that should be applied are the ones to prevent 2nd hand smoke and prevent children from obtaining cigarettes.
|
On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely.
This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want.
Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else.
People like those annoy me to no end.
|
On April 19 2011 19:26 Geo.Rion wrote:
this would actually help for sure, but I don't think it s a "problem" which needs to be fixed, let the smokers smoke, they know what they are up for
See this would make sense if smoking only affected that person. Newsflash- Smoking in households with infants is proven to increase the rate of SIDS, and yet no laws prevent the smoking of cigarettes in households with children/infants or bring charges forth if said children are affected because you cannot "prove" that the syndrome is smoke related or just normal.
Having to walk to a class that I paid 2 grand for through 10 people who are puffing away infuriates me to no end, and then having to sit through said class next to someone who reeks of smoke really helps my concentration.
If you want to smoke and kill yourself be my guest, but do it where it doesn't affect anyone but yourself(putting environmental concerns aside).
Insuring that smokers/obese people/drunks feel extremely oppressed and looked down upon by society serves us all is an effort to improve our lifestyles/environmental footprint
|
Who the hell would do that, though.
|
On April 19 2011 19:44 Bac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:26 Geo.Rion wrote:
this would actually help for sure, but i dont think it s a "problem" which needs to be fixed, let the smokers smoke, they know what they are up for See this would make sense if smoking only affected that person. Newsflash- Smoking in households with infants is proven to increase the rate of SIDS, and yet no laws prevent the smoking of cigarettes in households with children/infants or bring charges forth if said children are affected because you cannot "prove" that the syndrome is smoke related or just normal. Having to walk to a class that I paid 2 grand for through 10 people who are puffing away infuriates me to no end, and then having to sit through said class next to someone who reeks of smoke really helps my concentration. If you want to smoke and kill yourself be my guest, but do it where it doesn't affect anyone but yourself(putting environmental concerns aside).
idk, i live with 3 heavy smokers as non smoker and it does not bother me that much, but it's personal preference i guess
|
On April 19 2011 19:43 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely. This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want. Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else. People like those annoy me to no end.
He didn't say or imply that he blows smoke on babies and pregnant women. You know one can smoke without doing harm to anyone else. But no you have to dramatize it and make a personal attack on someone who does not deserve it.
People like you annoy me to no end.
Also most of the arguments used against smokers can be used against fat people as well- they don't work out, they eat unhealthy- it's bad it should be banned.
|
On April 19 2011 19:52 HeaDStrong wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:43 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely. This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want. Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else. People like those annoy me to no end. He didn't say or imply that he blows smoke on babies and pregnant women. You know one can smoke without doing harm to anyone else. But no you have to dramatize it and make a personal attack on someone who does not deserve it. People like you annoy me to no end. Also most of the arguments used against smokers can be used against fat people as well- they don't work out, they eat unhealthy- it's bad it should be banned.
You do realize that passive smoking is even worse for the people around you than it is for the smoker right? That is what I'm talking about. Did you neglect the fact that passive smoking exist?
|
Arguments like these always lead me to ask why, if you're going to ask the law to get involved with peoples' health, why not just call for bans on the production of cigarettes? Why limit the restrictions on tobacco companies' production to "just make these kinds of cigarettes." Surely just banning the production of ALL cigarettes would solve the problem more effectively?
|
On April 19 2011 19:54 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:52 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:43 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely. This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want. Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else. People like those annoy me to no end. He didn't say or imply that he blows smoke on babies and pregnant women. You know one can smoke without doing harm to anyone else. But no you have to dramatize it and make a personal attack on someone who does not deserve it. People like you annoy me to no end. Also most of the arguments used against smokers can be used against fat people as well- they don't work out, they eat unhealthy- it's bad it should be banned. You do realize that passive smoking is even worse for the people around you than it is for the smoker right? That is what I'm talking about. Did you neglect the fact that passive smoking exist?
1st no passive smoking is not as harmful as actual smoking. That is complete nonsense. And what I'm saying is that when I (and sure a lot of many other people who smoke) don't go out of our own way to find someone to blow our smoke on.
I choose to smoke and I don't expose others to my smoke leaving them to decide for themselves if they want to expose them to the awesomely delicious and good cigarettes.
|
There will never be ANY real political movement against the tobacco companies- anybody who thinks differently is way too naive to be discussing this.
The only foreseeable way imo to dramatically reduce smoking is to completely and utterly humiliate and ostracize smokers in public settings to the point that smoking will shame you and well as your family.
|
On April 19 2011 19:58 HeaDStrong wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:54 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:52 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:43 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely. This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want. Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else. People like those annoy me to no end. He didn't say or imply that he blows smoke on babies and pregnant women. You know one can smoke without doing harm to anyone else. But no you have to dramatize it and make a personal attack on someone who does not deserve it. People like you annoy me to no end. Also most of the arguments used against smokers can be used against fat people as well- they don't work out, they eat unhealthy- it's bad it should be banned. You do realize that passive smoking is even worse for the people around you than it is for the smoker right? That is what I'm talking about. Did you neglect the fact that passive smoking exist? 1st no passive smoking is not as harmful as actual smoking. That is complete nonsense. And what I'm saying is that when I (and sure a lot of many other people who smoke) don't go out of our own way to find someone to blow our smoke on.
You're been watching the TV show Bullshit, I imagine. They actually recanted everything they said in that episode, you know. Because it's been scientifically proven that passive smoking is more harmful than actual smoking.
|
On April 19 2011 20:02 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:58 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:54 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:52 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:43 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely. This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want. Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else. People like those annoy me to no end. He didn't say or imply that he blows smoke on babies and pregnant women. You know one can smoke without doing harm to anyone else. But no you have to dramatize it and make a personal attack on someone who does not deserve it. People like you annoy me to no end. Also most of the arguments used against smokers can be used against fat people as well- they don't work out, they eat unhealthy- it's bad it should be banned. You do realize that passive smoking is even worse for the people around you than it is for the smoker right? That is what I'm talking about. Did you neglect the fact that passive smoking exist? 1st no passive smoking is not as harmful as actual smoking. That is complete nonsense. And what I'm saying is that when I (and sure a lot of many other people who smoke) don't go out of our own way to find someone to blow our smoke on. You're been watching the TV show Bullshit, I imagine. They actually recanted everything they said in that episode, you know. Because it's been scientifically proven that passive smoking is more harmful than actual smoking.
Hey stop with the personal insults to compensate the lack of substance in your arguments. If you make a claim of 'scientific research' show me some evidence- a publication or at least provide an argument on the idea level that supports your claim.
And you are not even listening to what I'm trying to tell you. When I smoke I do so respecting others and not exposing anyone to the second hand smoke. The only person affected by my smoke is me or my friends who CHOOSE to be around me when I go to have a smoke.
|
Higher healthcare premiums for smokers?
|
Recently in Australia, it was passed (or proposed?) that all cigarette packets had to be completely blank (minus the gruesome smoking pictures), so no more of these fancy coloured packs to attract people - a small step towards what you're saying, I guess.
|
On April 19 2011 20:14 Suc wrote:
Recently in Australia, it was passed (or proposed?) that all cigarette packets had to be completely blank (minus the gruesome smoking pictures), so no more of these fancy coloured packs to attract people - a small step towards what you're saying, I guess.
how would you differentiate between brands? But I agree that some cigs have ridiculous stuff put on them for example Kent have nonsense like "surround taste system", or 'HD flavor'. And those things are completely retarded to anyone who is old enough to smoke, so in my opinion it's to attract minors, which is bad.
|
On April 19 2011 20:14 ShadeR wrote:
Higher healthcare premiums for smokers?
Doesn't that already exist, at least in countries with private healthcare? I could swear I remember being asked if I was a smoker when I bought health insurance.
|
On April 19 2011 19:37 Holgerius wrote:
I do not entirely agree with the ''Let people smoke if they want to'' argument. All the diseases caused by smoking costs a lot of money for the society and we should definitely strive to reduce it as much as possible.
Why do people perpetuate this myth?
Smokers die early , thus save governments money via the reduction in pension payments.
Whats 10 years of pension payments worth in your country?
|
On April 19 2011 20:14 ShadeR wrote:
Higher healthcare premiums for smokers?
Why would you do that? Think a little about it before you answer... You might end up being surprised.
Damn, beaten 
|
On April 19 2011 20:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:37 Holgerius wrote:
I do not entirely agree with the ''Let people smoke if they want to'' argument. All the diseases caused by smoking costs a lot of money for the society and we should definitely strive to reduce it as much as possible. Why do people perpetuate this myth? Smokers die early , thus save governments money via the reduction in pension payments. Whats 10 years of pension payments worth in your country?
People don't just kick the bucket and die. People with cancer can't work so the amount of sick leaves increase, you lose productivity, the health care cost a lot of money... it is not beneficial to an economy.
|
It is
"Normal" people also die due to cancer (is it allready the main cause of natural dead? It will be very Soon).
The average Smoker is cheaper to society as the average "person".
|
On April 19 2011 20:43 Holgerius wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:28 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On April 19 2011 19:37 Holgerius wrote:
I do not entirely agree with the ''Let people smoke if they want to'' argument. All the diseases caused by smoking costs a lot of money for the society and we should definitely strive to reduce it as much as possible. Why do people perpetuate this myth? Smokers die early , thus save governments money via the reduction in pension payments. Whats 10 years of pension payments worth in your country? People don't just kick the bucket and die. People with cancer can't work so the amount of sick leaves increase, you lose productivity, the health care cost a lot of money... it is not beneficial to an economy.
Because only people who smoke get cancer?
By that logic the govt should ban all fast food restaurants.
|
According to the Swedish National Institute of Public Health smokers do cost more than non-smokers over the course of their life-time.
|
I am not a smoker, but I am anti-anti-smoking. If the price of me not telling a fellow conscientious adult where they're allowed to enjoy a cigarette is getting lung cancer via second-hand smoke, then sign me up for lung cancer.
I think Velr's term "health-fascism" is a pretty good one, and evaluating people in terms of how much they "cost society" is reductionist and anti-human. Call me crazy, but I think concepts like freedom and self-determination ought to rank a little higher in our political triage than cost efficiency.
|
I hate the kind of people who doesnt have the courage to ask a smoker to move away while smoking or to even put it out, if it bothers you. You would probably find that we're not unreasonable when dealing with a reasonable request. It's all about the attitude.
How to stop people from smoking? You can't really. We'll just have to try and live side by side.
|
I am not suggesting a total ban on cigarettes, but I definitely do think that society should make a strenuous effort to have as few smokers as possible, by various means.
|
Holgerius is the reason why it is an oxymoron to be a socialist and be for personal liberty, which is why I chuckle at the bi-polar personalities who want socialist healthcare, and personal liberty, then in the same breath want to restrict personal liberties.
|
On April 19 2011 21:16 Finskie wrote:
I hate the kind of people who doesnt have the courage to ask a smoker to move away while smoking or to even put it out, if it bothers you. You would probably find that we're not unreasonable when dealing with a reasonable request. It's all about the attitude.
How to stop people from smoking? You can't really. We'll just have to try and live side by side.
In my own experiences most smokers are the complete opposite of this. I don't mind smokers personally but I've seen other people ask smokers to move away from them and the usual response is something along the line of 'you move away, I don't care' or they get offended and agressive and say something like 'fuck off'. Might've been bad luck though, I guess.
|
On April 19 2011 21:21 Bergys wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 19 2011 21:16 Finskie wrote:
I hate the kind of people who doesnt have the courage to ask a smoker to move away while smoking or to even put it out, if it bothers you. You would probably find that we're not unreasonable when dealing with a reasonable request. It's all about the attitude.
How to stop people from smoking? You can't really. We'll just have to try and live side by side. In my own experiences most smokers are the complete opposite of this. I don't mind smokers personally but I've seen other people ask smokers to move away from them and the usual response is something along the line of 'you move away, I don't care' or they get offended and agressive and say something like 'fuck off'. Might've been bad luck though, I guess.
Well you know, there are always idiots out there and i imagine people can ask quite rudely aswell. I've had people saying close to "get the fuck away" or similarities when they just could have asked friendly and i'd not bitch about it.
|
I think that attitude came up since nowadays it's not allowed in a ton of places to not smoke. So when your actually at a place where it's allowed and someone still wants to send you away (after around 10 fake coughs with an evil stare) you don't really feel obligated to be "nice".
Btw: I don't remember EVER being asked nicely to put out a cigarette. But fake coughs seem to be THE THING to do, i wonder if that ever has worked on anyone ever.
|
I don't mind if people smoke, just kinda confusing to me as I don't do it. only thing thats gets me is if the smoke is getting in my face, can be really annoying when your not used to it. Other than that I don't think there's any point in banning them, I'm not losing anything from other people doing it. To each his own and all that jazz.
|
On April 19 2011 21:33 Velr wrote:
I think that attitude came up since nowadays it's not allowed in a ton of places to not smoke. So when your actually at a place where it's allowed and someone still wants to send you away (after around 10 fake coughs with an evil stare) you don't really feel obligated to be "nice".
Btw: I don't remember EVER being asked nicely to put out a cigarette. But fake coughs seem to be THE THING to do, i wonder if that ever has worked on anyone ever.
This is the case with me. I won't walk away for those little passive aggressive pricks that sit there glaring and coughing. I already walked outside whatever establishment, 10-15 feet from the door, and got out of the walkway, as a combination of common courtesy elements.
If, at this point, someone still has a valid reason to ask me to move, I will. But odds are, I'm already in the most reasonable spot possible without crossing a major road on foot. Anyone asking me to move is actually just a prick at this point unless they work at the establishment I'm at and are asking me to go to a designated area (at which point I will.)
Mind you, all those steps are pure courtesy, unrelated to my cigarette. I go outside because of indoor smoking bans, get away from the doorway to not block traffic in/out, and move off the walkway and away from other people to be fully out of the way. I've already gone the extra mile. Odds are, I even stood downwind of people, because it IS my cigarette, and my lungs.
On the rare occasions I've heard "Excuse me sir, the smoking area is over there.", or something similar, I've moved. I've NEVER had someone just standing/sitting nearby JUST ask me to move. They say something rude, they cough and glare, or they get snarky. If they can't have a tenth the courtesy I've already showed through my positioning of myself, of course they get a rude answer, usually accompanied by an extra long drag, a glare, and a large cloud of smoke headed their direction.
|
On April 19 2011 21:33 Velr wrote:
I think that attitude came up since nowadays it's not allowed in a ton of places to not smoke. So when your actually at a place where it's allowed and someone still wants to send you away (after around 10 fake coughs with an evil stare) you don't really feel obligated to be "nice".
Btw: I don't remember EVER being asked nicely to put out a cigarette. But fake coughs seem to be THE THING to do, i wonder if that ever has worked on anyone ever.
As a heavy ex-smoker (1 year quit FTW!) I still hate people who give fake coughs when someone is smoking on the street or in other places where smoking is allowed. When they told me to stop, I told them I was allowed to and if they continued harassing me I usually told them to go fuck themselves.
Smoking is very bad for your health and I think people do understand this but it does have to remain a choice. The state is responsible for informing the people and not restricting their liberties even if it is for their own good.
To all of those who argue that smokers cost more than the average person, then please ban everyone who does a hazardous sport (diving, skiing, skateboarding etc) since their higher accident rate also makes them "more expensive" for the state. This argument is ludicrous.
|
I personally don't care about the health effects of smoking. It doesn't bother me. What does really make me hate smokers is the smell. I hate it when a colleague gets back from the smoke break and reeks of burned tobacco. I hate it when i walk somewhere and someone in front of me smokes and i have to stop breathing to avoid that horrible odor.
I do like the smell of pipes (meaning the "grandfathery" ones) though. Usually they smell far better than their paper counterparts and are far less annoying.
|
OP what you describe in your post is never going to happen. There is simply too much money to be made and the companies that make cigarettes will never give up on it.
Quitting smoking is very hard if you are surrounded by people who smoke regularly. It is even harder when you live in a country such as mine where 99% of the bars/pubs/clubs allow smoking.
It comes down to every individual's willpower to do it. I tried quitting 5-6 times in 4 years and I couldn't do it.
|
We are all going to die anyway, even people who never smoked a ciggarette are dying to cancer. It is probably caused by passive smoking (yeah right). I say enjoy your cigarette if you want - it is your choice. Avoid to blow smoke to someone's face as it is annoying as hell.
I might need to remind you to realize what do you eat everyday and do some research. 80% of food is unhealthy just like cigarettes and much more stuff.
As much as you want, you won't be able to dodge all the bullets and cigs are just one of them.
|
On April 19 2011 20:13 HeaDStrong wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:02 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:58 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:54 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:52 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:43 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely. This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want. Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else. People like those annoy me to no end. He didn't say or imply that he blows smoke on babies and pregnant women. You know one can smoke without doing harm to anyone else. But no you have to dramatize it and make a personal attack on someone who does not deserve it. People like you annoy me to no end. Also most of the arguments used against smokers can be used against fat people as well- they don't work out, they eat unhealthy- it's bad it should be banned. You do realize that passive smoking is even worse for the people around you than it is for the smoker right? That is what I'm talking about. Did you neglect the fact that passive smoking exist? 1st no passive smoking is not as harmful as actual smoking. That is complete nonsense. And what I'm saying is that when I (and sure a lot of many other people who smoke) don't go out of our own way to find someone to blow our smoke on. You're been watching the TV show Bullshit, I imagine. They actually recanted everything they said in that episode, you know. Because it's been scientifically proven that passive smoking is more harmful than actual smoking. Hey stop with the personal insults to compensate the lack of substance in your arguments. If you make a claim of 'scientific research' show me some evidence- a publication or at least provide an argument on the idea level that supports your claim. And you are not even listening to what I'm trying to tell you. When I smoke I do so respecting others and not exposing anyone to the second hand smoke. The only person affected by my smoke is me or my friends who CHOOSE to be around me when I go to have a smoke.
What insults?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence - Feel free to click the [XX] links and ta-da, there are plenty of sources for you.
And you didn't seem to be listening to what I was trying to convey in my post either. I was talking about these certain breed of person who do not care about the fact that they are inconveniencing non-smokers who they are around. If you're at a party and you're sitting outside and one suddenly lights up a cigarette, that's not acceptable. Move away and have your cigarette away from the rest of the group because not everyone wants to have to inhale your pollution. It's THOSE people I'm referring to.
|
On April 19 2011 22:31 SolHeiM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 20:13 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 20:02 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:58 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:54 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:52 HeaDStrong wrote:On April 19 2011 19:43 SolHeiM wrote:On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely. This isn't an attack on you, but on a certain breed of person who thinks that just because they're a smoker and there are no laws against smoking they're allowed to smoke wherever they fucking want. Sure, pollute your own system if you want but please realize that not everyone wants to breathe the cancerous smoke you're spewing. I shouldn't have to move away from the group to breathe crisp, clean air because you decided you needed to feed your pathetic addiction. You should move away so as to spare the health of everyone else. People like those annoy me to no end. He didn't say or imply that he blows smoke on babies and pregnant women. You know one can smoke without doing harm to anyone else. But no you have to dramatize it and make a personal attack on someone who does not deserve it. People like you annoy me to no end. Also most of the arguments used against smokers can be used against fat people as well- they don't work out, they eat unhealthy- it's bad it should be banned. You do realize that passive smoking is even worse for the people around you than it is for the smoker right? That is what I'm talking about. Did you neglect the fact that passive smoking exist? 1st no passive smoking is not as harmful as actual smoking. That is complete nonsense. And what I'm saying is that when I (and sure a lot of many other people who smoke) don't go out of our own way to find someone to blow our smoke on. You're been watching the TV show Bullshit, I imagine. They actually recanted everything they said in that episode, you know. Because it's been scientifically proven that passive smoking is more harmful than actual smoking. Hey stop with the personal insults to compensate the lack of substance in your arguments. If you make a claim of 'scientific research' show me some evidence- a publication or at least provide an argument on the idea level that supports your claim. And you are not even listening to what I'm trying to tell you. When I smoke I do so respecting others and not exposing anyone to the second hand smoke. The only person affected by my smoke is me or my friends who CHOOSE to be around me when I go to have a smoke. What insults? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Evidence - Feel free to click the [XX] links and ta-da, there are plenty of sources for you. And you didn't seem to be listening to what I was trying to convey in my post either. I was talking about these certain breed of person who do not care about the fact that they are inconveniencing non-smokers who they are around. If you're at a party and you're sitting outside and one suddenly lights up a cigarette, that's not acceptable. Move away and have your cigarette away from the rest of the group because not everyone wants to have to inhale your pollution. It's THOSE people I'm referring to.
"your pathetic addiction" quite offensive, you talk about things you don't understand and thus are being ignorant...
"You're been watching the TV show Bullshit, I imagine. They actually recanted everything they said in that episode, you know." absolutely uncalled for and insulting. What do you know what I have been watching or not? So don't talk about things you don't know and make claims about others without any basis.
Your way of proving someone wrong and yourself right is by trying to make the other person look bad instead of actually tackling what they are saying and trying to find flaws in that.
So here's why you are wrong and why I called you out:
You do realize that passive smoking is even worse for the people around you than it is for the smoker right?
Short answer: no.
Long answer no, because no.
All the Wikipedia page said was: yea second hand smoke is bad... kind of... hard to prove actually...
Not a single claim was made that it's more harmful than actual smoking. QED
EDIT: if you still don's see it this is for you:
Harm done to smoker: Active smoking + Passive smoking
Harm done to non-smoker: Passive smoking
Harm done to smoker >= Harm done to non-smoker
|
The notion second hand smoke is worse than smoking itself for the individual fails to comply with logic even in its most rudimentary interpretations.
|
Dip their cigarettes in peroxide?
|
Really, I don't think smoke is that much of a big deal, I walk past alot of smokers each day, just don't get addicted like that and the world will be fine. Also, smoking isn't that huge of a distraction, if you've engorged yourself in what your doing, nothing can really distract you from it. Like when i'm playing some SC2 :O, sometimes it takes 5 calls for me to respond. Well, just my opinion.
|
the entire purpose of not smoking in bars, clubs and other public places isn't to get people to quit. It's because 2nd hand smoke has a lot of wonderful side effects that a non-smoker can't escape.
people don't ask nicely for smokers to not blow smoke in their face because you're dense enough to be so rude to do it in the first place. Pretty common sense!
|
On April 19 2011 23:40 Hawk wrote:
the entire purpose of not smoking in bars, clubs and other public places isn't to get people to quit. It's because 2nd hand smoke has a lot of wonderful side effects that a non-smoker can't escape.
people don't ask nicely for smokers to not blow smoke in their face because you're dense enough to be so rude to do it in the first place. Pretty common sense!
Yeah, the non-smoker totally has to go to "smoker" Bars/Clubs... Oh wait.. he doesn't and still went... But it's the evil smokers that "assault" him with their smoke.
If there would have been a demand, there would have been "non"-smoker Bars/Clubs... Afaik there were none or they closed...
Hypocrits...
|
It's not gonna work until cigarettes are no longer addicting. The raise in tax made me think not "oh fuck its too expensive I will buy less" but "Oh fuck it's expensive so Ill buy the same but when they sell them 2 for 6.85 ill just buy 2 packs!! nice!"
Its a great business and people are not going to stop us from killing ourselves. But hey I have quit for weeks at a time, I just like smoking ok?? I hope i grow out of it soon though because running a mile in 8 minutes is not that impressive..
|
On April 20 2011 00:18 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 23:40 Hawk wrote:
the entire purpose of not smoking in bars, clubs and other public places isn't to get people to quit. It's because 2nd hand smoke has a lot of wonderful side effects that a non-smoker can't escape.
people don't ask nicely for smokers to not blow smoke in their face because you're dense enough to be so rude to do it in the first place. Pretty common sense! Yeah, the non-smoker totally has to go to "smoker" Bars/Clubs... Oh wait.. he doesn't and still went... But it's the evil smokers that "assault" him with their smoke. If there would have been a demand, there would have been "non"-smoker Bars/Clubs... Afaik there were none or they closed... Hypocrits...
yes, because potentially subjecting everyone to cancer is preferable to those people going outside or to designated smoking areas. Wooooooooooo
|
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health
|
i hear good things about the patch
|
On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health
A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare?
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
|
On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver? Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised? As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist. Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
OBSCENE taxation really, 8 dollars in NY last time I was there? The taxation on equally harmful products such as alcohol is nowhere as high.
|
Wow, I really didn't expect so much hatred towards smokers here. They're people too you know. And just like everyone else, they have flaws.
Some things I'd like to address:
- Passive smoking and no-smoking areas: Here everyone is hating on the smokers while they should be hating on bad organization. There should be bars/clubs for smokers and for non-smokers, so everyone knows what he's up to and can't whine that he can't smoke here or that others are. Bullshit goes both ways really, non-smokers bitching about people smoking in a club where smoking is not forbidden is a farse. So is smokers bitching about smoking being forbidden in a club.
But I guess it all really boils down to basic common sense and, truth be told, 99% of the world population seems to lack this feature.
- It's bad for the society, bad for the country, bad for my taxes/other expenses: Please...
- smokers are a part of the society, they've been as long as time immemorial and, honestly, I have no clue how the society would even look like without them
- someone has already mentioned smokers dying younger which saves money on pension, no-one has mentioned the amount of money the country gets from cigarette sails (in taxes, customs and what not)
- I don't think that health costs due to cigarette smoking are higher than those of people who are alcoholics or whatever addicts really, there are also disabled people or those with serious, uncurable diseases. Would you like them all to go away too? Perhaps we should revert back to Spartan ways and throw babies down the ravine when they show any signs of less-than-perfect health?
Moral of this story:
The world would be a better place for everyone if more people used common sense and stopped hating on each other.
Edit: Also, if large, international companies would have reduced ways/chances of lobbying and be brought under control. As it is now, some of them are comparable, if not exceeding the power of entire modern governments (one of the things Giddens mentions in his problems with globalisation).
|
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything.
|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
On April 19 2011 19:13 Velr wrote:
Just let the people smoke.
Let them drink....
Fuck the "health-facism" and tons of retarded rules that are taking over...
Drunk drivers exercised their personal freedom of choice to drink and drive. Why do people complain about them so much I wonder?
|
On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare?
You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life.
|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
Musta missed this but exactly. I don't see what is so foreign about this concept.
|
On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again. Show nested quote +
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines Re-read the last two lines Show nested quote +
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines Show nested quote +
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life.
You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable.
You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen.
If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned.
Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use.
|
On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use.
Not sure why these arguments always pop up.
Okay, smoking is bad. So is many other things. That doesn’t make smoking any “better” for you. The logic that because other things are also bad for you, that we shouldn’t as a society crack down on something that is so taxing on worldwide healthcare is plain wrong.
That brings me to the other point. Your point about taxation on tobacco strikes me as odd. Are you actually trying to justify the existence of the tobacco industry – that kills millions annually through their products – because they bring in MONEY? Holy shit. That is exactly the line of thinking that is wrong with society. And while we’re talking about money, why don’t you pull up some numbers about how much money is coming out from taxpayers’ wallets (read: YOU) that goes into research and treatment of diseases directly or indirectly caused by tobacco smoking? How does that compare? Something tells me your net gain will be much less glamorous considering the much better use of such money and efforts elsewhere.
|
On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use.
this is a thread about smokers/smoking, i am here to talk about that - if you want me to tell you how fat people should change, maybe you can make a thread and i will post there
keep in mind, most addictive people (see; smokers) will have an addiction regardless of what their current fix is - even if not, they still would most likely be spending that money still (even if it is a slight loss).. unless you are suggesting that if smoking weren't an option, all smokers would simply save the money they normally spent on smoking?
|
On April 20 2011 04:33 fush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use. Not sure why these arguments always pop up. Okay, smoking is bad. So is many other things. That doesn’t make smoking any “better” for you. The logic that because other things are also bad for you, that we shouldn’t as a society crack down on something that is so taxing on worldwide healthcare is plain wrong. That brings me to the other point. Your point about taxation on tobacco strikes me as odd. Are you actually trying to justify the existence of the tobacco industry – that kills millions annually through their products – because they bring in MONEY? Holy shit. That is exactly the line of thinking that is wrong with society. And while we’re talking about money, why don’t you pull up some numbers about how much money is coming out from taxpayers’ wallets (read: YOU) that goes into research and treatment of diseases directly or indirectly caused by tobacco smoking? How does that compare? Something tells me your net gain will be much less glamorous considering the much better use of such money and efforts elsewhere.
Millions annually dying as a direct result of smoking? Wow! Show me THOSE studies.
I didn't say smoking is any better for you than anything else, since we're discussing reading comprehension skills. What I said is that your argument about tax money supporting smokers is logically absurd until you bring in all the other unhealthy things you can do during your life, and comment on people who ate butter instead of margarine sucking down medicaid dollars. Really, if you take every person being supported by medicare, medicaid, social security, and welfare, and look at them, they've ALL done things that increased the amount of money that it costs those services to maintain them.
The issue I take is that you try to put the entire weight on smokers for every unhealthy thing people can do. Obviously, you think that laws should conform to your exact standards and values, and anything you dislike should be illegal. That, sadly for you, isn't how the USA works.
As to "justifying the tobacco industry", I don't need to. It justifies itself, by providing a product people want. Welcome to capitalism. Try Russia 25 years ago if you don't like this system much. If people choose to spend money on a vice, that's on them. They aren't forcing you to smoke.
On April 20 2011 04:38 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable. You can't make it a question of smokers and non-smokers, you have to make it self-inflicted health issues vs not self-inflicted health issues. If you do that, you START to have an argument, but then who exactly decides which studies to use on what can cause people health issues? If you ask the state of California, every single thing ever sold in a store is a potential carcinogen. If you raise the taxes on other luxury items, you might make up the money, but that doesn't change the fact that the smokers ARE putting money back into society through the addiction, which is a valid counterpoint no matter what other ways that money could be gleaned. Also, those tax rates are higher than most luxury items are taxed, just due to the fact that tobacco is EASY to tax. Here is a list of taxes by state. The taxes per pack are 20-25% in some states. Some counties have additional taxes, plus the federal ones. Hard to imagine that THAT much would end up getting taxed on other items that more people use. this is a thread about smokers/smoking, i am here to talk about that - if you want me to tell you how fat people should change, maybe you can make a thread and i will post there keep in mind, most addictive people (see; smokers) will have an addiction regardless of what their current fix is - even if not, they still would most likely be spending that money still (even if it is a slight loss).. unless you are suggesting that if smoking weren't an option, all smokers would simply save the money they normally spent on smoking?
This is indeed a thread about smokers and smoking. But if you bring public healthcare into question, you MUST discuss all related facets, or you aren't really bringing anything to the discussion.
I don't think people would save all the money they spend on smokes, but I do certainly think that getting through a law to raise taxes on every other luxury item to make up the money currently being squeezed out of smokers would be difficult.
People scream when it hits their wallet, but they still pay when it's for their vice. Raise tax revenue other ways, and the general public will go ballistic.
|
I'm not too picky on second-hand smoke or people who smoke around me in a public area. When it becomes a problem is when they do it in my personal space. It's pretty rare for a smoker to blow smoke directly in my face (since that's downright disrespect towards a person) so what I mean are like inside my house and car and stuff of that sort.
For example say I'm hosting a party and my friends are smokers, I don't mind them smoking in the backyard/frontyard or balcony-ish area if I'm in an apartment not on ground floor. I do have major problems if it's inside my house though. Other than that, unless there's a sign explicitly stating "No Smoking" then all's fair.
It's not for health reasons of second-hand smoking and the like. Its simply because I don't like the lingering smell it leaves afterwards.
|
On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything.
Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one:
I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it?
If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact?
Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time:
Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray?
Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke.
No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar.
Non-smoker:
Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here?
Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah.
No = Oh, ok.
How is that fair?
|
On April 20 2011 10:08 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything. Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one: I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it? If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact? Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time: Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray? Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke. No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar. Non-smoker: Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here? Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah. No = Oh, ok. How is that fair?
so are non smokers expected to have to avoid an entire establishment because they want to breath clean air? everyone can breath fine inside of a non-smoking establishment
basically, i shouldn't have to leave a place because you and your friends want to light up a cigarette, i shouldn't have to avoid a place just so that i can breath clean air while i eat or drink or hang out with friends
|
Cost-benefit Analysis of Increasing Tobacco Tax in UK
A little evidence for people comparing costs to society, etc of smoking. Personally you want to smoke, that is your choice. I have no problem as long as it doesn't affect me. Taxing tobacco does provide society with benefits, it is your choice to smoke. I don't mind taking advantage of that.
Personally I feel sorry for smokers. What would motivate you to continue the habit is beyond me, but I guess that is why I am not a smoker. As for smoking in public places, I believe, at least in Australia, there is a definite belief that smoking is a public health hazard. Hence there is a move to minimise smoking. Increased taxation, plain packaging, disease pictures on packets and limiting smoking areas is how we are trying to minimise that hazard. Cause and effect.
|
I hope smoking continues to exist, it's almost a culture that the whole world can identify with and I think it's nice to have that social tradition.
That's why the only time I've ever smoked a cigarette is when I'm drunk and want to accompany friends in conversation -- but even then I refuse 90% of the time. They are harsh and taste terrible, expensive and inevitably will get you hooked. Most people who get addicted are the ones who start at an early age and for naive reasons.
Why can't cigarettes just be that occasional social experience? Or that one time where you need to go outside and think about something and relieve stress? I feel like they have a place in the world, but so many people simply abuse them. If you've become hooked, you simply don't know how to smoke IMO. I'm not going to look down on you, anymore then I would someone who is a bit overweight -- we all have choices and problems we face.
It seems the thread has gotten a bit OT so I'm just throwing random thoughts here.
|
On April 19 2011 19:33 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same. Right point of view. Agreed completely.
please do not activate asthmatic symptoms in me, bad smells or otherwise hinder my right to enjoy public places. since smoking is harmful smokers dont have some special right to do it in others way..
|
On April 20 2011 04:19 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 03:50 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:On April 20 2011 02:19 JingleHell wrote:On April 20 2011 00:43 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:
smokers are a detriment to society (a large amount of smokers/former smokers relying on welfare/medicare/medicaid/social security to pay their smoking related medical bills)
not to say that it's the only thing that causes this kind of problem, but it is huge - i don't like paying for the bad choices that others make with their activities, money, and health A large amount of non-smokers also rely on all those services. Maybe we should just get rid of welfare and medicare? You clearly didn't read the last two lines of what I said, try again.
What about alcoholics/former alcoholics relying on those services for medical bills for their liver?
Re-read the last two lines
Obese people who should have watched their diet and exercised?
Re-read the last two lines
As it turns out, people will always have self inflicted health issues. The question should be whether we support people who can't support themselves at all or not, instead of basing it on where their issues came from. If medicare and medicaid were only for people in perfect health, they wouldn't need to exist.
Re-read the last two lines
Also, you complain about smokers being a detriment to society, but consider the obscene tax on tobacco products paid in most parts of the US. Comes to a LOT of money flowing back in.
We could make up for that with increasing taxes on other "luxury" purchases, as well as reducing the amount of money we pay for their life support for the last 10 years of their life. You like your last two lines, don't you? But they don't actually answer the question I asked. What do you want done about the other ways people ruin their health? Smoking is just another one, no different than any other. People ruin their health all kinds of ways and end up using all those services you mention, and many of those ways are avoidable.
Nothing, except the major ones. We can only fix problems to the best of our time and ability, and smoking is a huge fucking problem. Yes, people do ruin their health all kinds of different ways. Does this mean that we should include coverage on all of them because we do some of them? No, thats not logical in the slightest.
|
Education on smoking has reached a point where, for people growing up today, smoking is very much a choice. The only exception to this is poorer demographics (there's more pressure on them to smoke due to the nature of their environment), but that's a time thing which should change with continued exposure to smoking education.
I think the only thing left to do is increase taxes on smoking to a point where they cover the costs of smoking related health issues. If that happens then people have to stop complaining about smokers and they'll take their high horses elsewhere.
You can't complain about a person smoking when the only person they're harming is themselves.
|
On April 19 2011 19:15 fearus wrote:
Another smoker's point of view:
Please enjoy your personal freedom of choice to smoke or not, and allow others the same.
/thread
I'm not a smoker by the way.
|
On April 20 2011 13:12 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 10:08 Manit0u wrote:On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything. Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one: I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it? If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact? Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time: Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray? Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke. No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar. Non-smoker: Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here? Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah. No = Oh, ok. How is that fair? so are non smokers expected to have to avoid an entire establishment because they want to breath clean air? everyone can breath fine inside of a non-smoking establishment basically, i shouldn't have to leave a place because you and your friends want to light up a cigarette, i shouldn't have to avoid a place just so that i can breath clean air while i eat or drink or hang out with friends
Maybe you should make your own choices based on the decision that the establishment makes. If they allow smoking and you don't go there are a result they lose your business. Either they fail or succeed because of that. Either way end of story.
There are plenty of choices of smoke free establishments you can frequent instead.
That said I definitely support smoke-free establishments, especially given that smoking is a minority and smokers can still take smoke breaks outside. It's just a good business decision.
|
On April 20 2011 19:28 Kashll wrote:
That said I definitely support smoke-free establishments, especially given that smoking is a minority and smokers can still take smoke breaks outside. It's just a good business decision.
Where I live, easily 70-80% of club/bar customers are smokers. The no-smoking bar law really hurt some businesses.
|
On April 20 2011 13:12 LaSt)ChAnCe wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 10:08 Manit0u wrote:On April 20 2011 03:20 Hawk wrote:
How is someone having to go outside to smoke anything like one smoker subjecting 10 other people in a room to harmful chemicals???? I cannot wrap my head around this at all. You are creating health problems for people who have no choice in the matter.
How is everyone having to deal with 2nd hand smoke and all the shit that comes with it preferable to a few people not pushing themselves on others and going outside to smoke some kind of desecration of your rights?? It's the other way around if anything. Since most of the people in this thread seem to focus on discussing their own issues with health, I'll address this one: I'm sorry, I'm a smoker, this thing has always baffled me. If a person is entering a room/place/establishment, whre he (I'm always using the male form if you haven't noticed before, just because it's easier for me) knows thst people are smoking within. Why does he do that? Can he really whine about it? If he didn't know, why doesn't he leave immediately after discovering the fact? Edit: Let me try this again, with a life experience this time: Me: Excuse me, could I get an ash tray? Response: Yes = I get an ash tray and I sit at the place I choose and smoke. No = I conform and don't smoke or leave the bar. Non-smoker: Me: Excuse me, is smoking allowed here? Response: Yes = WTFBBQ ima shit on you crazy assholes blahblahblah. No = Oh, ok. How is that fair? so are non smokers expected to have to avoid an entire establishment because they want to breath clean air? everyone can breath fine inside of a non-smoking establishment basically, i shouldn't have to leave a place because you and your friends want to light up a cigarette, i shouldn't have to avoid a place just so that i can breath clean air while i eat or drink or hang out with friends
This is the most arrogant point of view imaginable. Why should you have to make a decision about where to go based on your preference, when other people can just be inconvenienced instead?
If an establishment allows smoking inside, don't go if you don't like it. That's the exact same option smokers get with an establishment that doesn't. We call that EQUAL rights, since you're trying to act like your rights are getting shit on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
