Smoking thread

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

what Bill said can be seen in his post (Don)

I hear you Bill there was a recent article in the local paper of what our state takes in per year on just the cigarette tax and its something like $400,000,000 yes thats million dollars per year and now the non smokers are saying keep on smoking for the fact that if we quit where is that tax money going to be coming from when we all do quit .I can bet the property tax will go up $100-$300 per year per homeowner if this money maker comes to a end for them (the state ) We had a temporary 6% sales tax (on everything bought)in the 1980's (I cant remember the year ) come into effect that was going to help pay highway improvements and only last a short time well its 2007 and we still have that tax .This country is screwed us middle class poor are living pay check to pay check and I dont see a good ending to this .
Well that is just my 2 cents who's next LOL

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:24 am

I think lower costs to the health system of reduced numbers of smoking related diseases in the future will more than cover the difference. Not sure how services are taxed/funded in the US, but in NZ as it's all through central government lower numbers of smokers is actually likely to save the country money in the long run, even if the tax take is lower.

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:43 pm

Amazing how smokers are the only "minority" it is now legal to discriminate against.

If the vitriol spouted by some people were directed at any other group of people, they'd (quite rightly) end up in jail.

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:37 pm

Josh wrote:

I think lower costs to the health system of reduced numbers of smoking related diseases in the future will more than cover the difference.

Ah but when you factor in the fact that non-smokers live longer and therefore suffer more age related health problems - such as Alzeimers for example, draw their state pensions for longer, are more likely to need to live in a state funded nursing home etc the balance might well tilt the other way (in the UK and anywhere else those sort of benefits are available at least). Personally I think we smokers ought to be rewarded, not penalised.

And then factor in the annoyance caused to all of their kids and grandchildren who have to watch their inheritances delayed and eroded whilst the old folks go out spending their savings instead of having the good grace to pop their clogs and pass them on. Wink

Was in the land of the bogs and the little people earlier this year - they've had the ban for a while of course. A taxi driver called it "Irish speed dating", not least because he found that more girls than blokes would be popping out for a smoke. The bouncers were less lonely, too.

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:06 pm

If smoking would result in a negative economic output for a country it would be forbidden. Simple as that.

And BLZ is spot on. I've been non-smoker and smoker for many years in my life and in both sides you'll find intolerant pricks that have nothing else to do than trying to make their company unbearable. I don't mind people smoking at a bar although I prefer smoke-free environments. If my clothes stink after a night out I will wash them, if I consider second hand-smoke a health hazard I try not to go to that bar every night.

I don't smoke anymore but I do drive a car and a motorbike and am responsible for risking my own health as well as that of others and I'm doing my fair share to further damage the environment. I have a house full of electrical appliances which will further increase the CO2 output. So I personally find bitching about smokers pretty ridiculous.

It's (still) a perfectly legal pastime and as such people should be given the opportunity to enjoy their drug of choice in reasonable public places (ie such where I can chose to go, not workplaces and hospitals) with some dignity.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

I have never smoked and I have no intention to. I will make sure my children don't smoke, and my wife doesn't either.

puke

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Smoking is a big money maker for all that are involved with the process of buying and Dying do you really think that they dont have a cure for cancer of coarse they do IT'S TOO Big of a money maker if that happened the only ones making money would be big tobacco and not the rest of the world .Thats just my thought on this Razz

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:50 am

^^ There's always a conspiracy theorist somewhere around Wink

Hello I'm New here! Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 10

Some other facts,
http://www.thinkandask.com/2005/1004smoke.html

First; the second-hand smoke figure, which is the leading cause of smoking bans across the United States and now in Europe. If a non-smoker hangs around smokers for a long period of time, 10 consecutive years in a smoke-filled room at a standard 40-hours per week, the risk of developing lung cancer from breathing in a lot of other people's smoke is 1 out of 1,000. In fact, the figure is so low it is impossible to tell whether or not that risk is actually related to other factors; environmental pollution, diet, or genetic predisposition.

Second, the real numbers on smokers show that teens who pick up the habit and smoke until age 30 run the risk of developing lung cancer by 2 percent, which is 2 in 100 (a figure still too low to determine if other factors were actually the cause.) A 40-year veteran smoker stands an 8 percent chance of developing lung cancer due primarily to smoking, which is 8 in 100. If you are a life-long smoker, at age 70, the risk you'd die of lung cancer is 16 percent or 16 out of 100. However...you have a 100 percent chance of dying, no matter what you do. Does death at 74 prevent a prolonged death due to other, more painful causes at age 93? Science can not answer for what is already determined by your genes.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:00 am

Isn't the whole "does smoking cause cancer" debate so 1960s? I thought it was beyond doubt these days.

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

^^^^Oh . . . and I bet you believe we landed on the Moon, huh? Rolling Eyes

--J.D.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:11 am

BaitandSwitch wrote:

Some other facts,
http://www.thinkandask.com/2005/1004smoke.html

ThinkAndAsk.com wrote:

...probably in the Weekly World News Rolling Eyes

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

. . . or the Discovery Institute. . . .

--J.D.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:17 pm

Smoking is a vile stupid habit and all people who smoke are terrorists. I think it's per......

etc

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:14 pm

I personally think smoking is great. I do not smoke, nor have I ever smoked. However, the cigs are so heavily taxed (at least in the US) that I encourage smokers who don't want to quit to smoke more. I will support anyone who wants to pay a voluntary tax. That means they can keep taxes lower elsewhere.

I am quite happy that they have banned smoking in restaurants and public buildings. It makes the food taste bad, it makes my clothes smell bad and it makes me cough. What people do in the privacy of their homes, their cars or outside, though, is fine by me. Just not in confined spaces. Now, I wouldn't go to a bar and expect that to be smoke free. That is the atmosphere. However, restaurants and public buildings are different beasts.

Quote:

First; the second-hand smoke figure, which is the leading cause of smoking bans across the United States and now in Europe. If a non-smoker hangs around smokers for a long period of time, 10 consecutive years in a smoke-filled room at a standard 40-hours per week, the risk of developing lung cancer from breathing in a lot of other people's smoke is 1 out of 1,000. In fact, the figure is so low it is impossible to tell whether or not that risk is actually related to other factors; environmental pollution, diet, or genetic predisposition.

I don't know how many people really believe that they are going to get second hand lung cancer. Maybe there are a lot. I don't know. However, it is undeniable that second hand smoke can cause an irritated throat and smelly clothes.

Quote:

People with a weight problem are still able to eat what they want and when they want it, it is the main cause of ending your life on this side of the pond, but we don�t want to talk about it, YET.

That is true. However, if you went into a restaurant and I sprayed my trans fat all over you, I doubt you would just pass it off as my right to eat as I choose. That's the difference.

** ACCOUNT CLOSED ** Joined: 15 Apr 2007 Posts: 766

Sorry I am late . . . I have been busy forcing alcohol down the throats of everyone in my vicinity.

--J.D.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:38 pm

@jojobean

It's not that I want to make you share my bad habits, but I want to be able to practice mine. Second hand smoke is really bad and I think you should never force anyone to share that with you.
By law I can't have a bar (or even a closed club with members only) that allows me to have a conversation with a beer and a smoke. No we have to meet outside and have our smoke there and go back in for a beer. I quit going out.
Have a nice dinner and finish with a brandy and a cigar is only possible at home when there are all smokers and nobody complains. Around here there are still possibilities to have a smoke, but in other area�s it�s impossible to �practice� your rights as a smoker/human being.
The trend is to ban all unwanted behaviour and make a uniform population of it. (For their own good) And that�s where I object, I have a right to eat what I want if it doesn�t hurt anyone else. If it hurts/damages me, that doesn�t matter, I�m a smoker and at the bottom of the list anyway, even if it kills me. Rolling Eyes

If I would use cocaine, I can get all the help I want to deal with it, lots of programs to choose from and manny even funded by the government, but it is illegal to use it to begin with!
Now the same government, the one that collects the funds, orders that a �message� should be on every package of tobacco to prevent people/kids to start smoking and point out the dangers. (good point)
One of those messages reads� a tobacco addiction can be harder to beat then a cocaine addiction� and that same group allows the tobacco industry to add over 550 additives to make it a �better� smoke and more addictive. Canada Health? I wonder.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:10 pm

Don't get me wrong, I would fight to the death for your right to smoke cigs. I don't believe the government has a right to tell me what I can or cannot put into my own body. The problem comes when your right to smoke infringes upon everyone else's right to breath fresh air. I have no problem with a smoking section in a reastaurant, as long as it is completely isolated from the non-smoking portion. But I think it is foolish to think that just segregating the two without barriers truly does anything.

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:43 pm

At school the really cool kids smoked.

The other ones went to college and found employment. Wink