Smoking

[FoolKiller]

So non-smokers should be faced with the question of whether they want to put their health at risk just so they can go out? That doesn't seem fair if the majority has to give up a basic right so the minority doesn't have to give up anything.

No, I didn't say smoking has to be allowed. That is up to the business owner. So non-smokers have to decide if they want to go to a business that allows smoking over one that doesn't. They can still go out. But as always, they have to accept any legal activities allowed by a business owner.

And what right is the majority giving up? When they walk into a building owned by someone else what right, exactly, do they have to tell that business owner what legal activities he can and cannot allow? They are losing zero rights because they didn't have the right you perceive them to.

If you had a guest in your home do they have the right to tell you what you can and can't allow other guests whom are there at the same time to do? Or if they don't like what you chose to allow your other guests to do would you tell them they can leave if it bothers them that much?

See, you have this concept that a customer in a business has more rights over how the business should operate than the business owner just because there are more of them, but they don't. Ownership of the business gives the business owner primary property rights.

That said, customers dollars can influence how a business owner runs his business. If places that are non-smoking are doing better business then they can chose to go smoke free, but then that is part of the voluntary business transaction that makes the economy work.

I still don't really think they deserve anything over and above what every other citizen should be entitled too.

The only thing I disagree with this statement on is legal drinking age. If the government wants to arbitrarily set alcohol above all other legal activities the least they can do is make it legal for those that volunteer to risk their lives to drink, no matter their age.

Of course, I would use this same argument to lower the legal drinking age to 18 in general. Totally off topic though.

 

[CTznOfTime]

smoking is sexy ... but STUPID.

 

[Joey D]

The only thing I disagree with this statement on is legal drinking age. If the government wants to arbitrarily set alcohol above all other legal activities the least they can do is make it legal for those that volunteer to risk their lives to drink, no matter their age.

Of course, I would use this same argument to lower the legal drinking age to 18 in general. Totally off topic though.

Eh, sort of off topic. I've often wondered how the government can justify banning smoking but not drinking. People die due to "second-hand" drinking if you will when a drunk gets behind a wheel of a car.

But any way I thought you could drink if you were 18 and in the military or am I wrong on that?

 

[Scaff]

It

Smoking ban here has stupid implications, absolutely worst case (level 4, and you have to go up through 1-3) is a £2,500 fine. That's not a lot to some businesses. It cannot get worse than that. No risk of loss of licenses, nothing.

True, but that could be (the legislation is not well worded or specific at all) per offence.

So should a judge feel they wanted to, and it could be proven that 10 people each smoked 10 cigs each, the fine could reach £250,000.

Its not happened yet, but given the current wording it certainly couldn't be ruled out.

Here is one example in which the fine exceeded £2,500 due to mutliple offences.....

http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/4746687.Internet_cafe_owner_fined_for_breaking_smoking_ban/





Scaff

 

[FoolKiller]

But any way I thought you could drink if you were 18 and in the military or am I wrong on that?

I think on base or whatever, yes, but my co-worker couldn't get a drink in a private bar ever.

 

[Barracuda]

It seems the government has gotten tired of just taxing smokers to make them stop and has decided to make it so they either quit or suffer. I'm talking about fire safe cigarettes (I'm not sure if it's been discussed before but I didn't find anything).

It's been probably a month or so since they've changed over and they're really starting to bother me. I'm coughing a lot more than I used to, they give me headaches, and most of all they taste horrible.

Symptoms include:
Nausea, sores in mouth and throat, dry throat, constant headaches, extreme coughing, tightness in the chest, vomiting, body aches, pain in the abdomen and respiratory conditions including asthma and bronchitis.

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-...fe-cigarettes-making-smokers-sicker-than-ever

The chemical they're using, if there weren't enough chemicals already in there, is strips of ethylene-vinyl acetate.

EVA is used in orthotics, fire safe cigarettes, surfboard and skimboard traction pads, and for the manufacturing of some artificial flowers. It is also used as a clinginess-enhancing additive in plastic wraps, a cold flow improver for diesel fuel and a separater in HEPA filters. EVA is easily cut from sheets and molded to shape. It is also used to make thermoplastic mouthguards that soften in boiling water for a user specific fit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethylene-vinyl_acetate

Your thoughts and opinions?

 

[Joey D]

What I don't understand is the government needs people to smoke so they can continue getting the tax revenue, but they are doing everything in their power to stop people from actually smoking.

It seems that by adding the fire safe chemical to cigarettes all the government is doing is attempting to give smokers a greater risk of cancer (I have to imagine that chemical causes cancer somehow). If not that then the list of symptoms you posted defiantly show that they some how made cigarettes even less healthy for you.

Our government is a very strange entity I don't understand.

 

[LSX]

But any way I thought you could drink if you were 18 and in the military or am I wrong on that?

I know it's late Absolutely not, they do not tolerate underage drinking whatsoever. You can kiss your career in the military goodbye if you get caught too many times. On base or not.

It's been probably a month or so since they've changed over and they're really starting to bother me. I'm coughing a lot more than I used to, they give me headaches, and most of all they taste horrible.

Your thoughts and opinions?

I've noticed it the most in Marlboro/L&M cigarettes. I've given those up. Camel does not seem to be any different. JMO.

I'd like to try those E Cigarettes. Nothing gets burnt, so there are no carcinogens, they can't even stop you from using them indoors anywhere because they don't violate the clean air act. You just get nicotine, and no foul chemicals or second hand smoke. Expensive though, upfront anyway, and they need to be charged. Minor details. Though the owners still make the final ruling on what you do in their establishment.

 

[Slicks]

What I don't understand is the government needs people to smoke so they can continue getting the tax revenue, but they are doing everything in their power to stop people from actually smoking.

Our government is a very strange entity I don't understand.

You might think it's because the $20b raised annually in taxes on cigarettes (state and federal) kinda pales in comparison to the $70b (which is a 1995 figure!!) spent on smoking-related health issues.

[I imply here that no smokers = no spending on health issues = $50b minimum saved annually on health care. Same concept for reducing numbers. Money spent on healthcare will always overshadow taxes collected to offset that amount.]

That said, I'm not necessarily anti-smoking. I just had to reply to a dumb statement.
I enjoy the occasional cigarette in a social setting, but I might point out that at the low occurrence rate for myself, the health risks are negligible.

 

[Joey D]

But is that $70 billion funded by the government or is it funded by insurance companies and thus the people at large? The government still needs that $20 billion, and if they lost it they'd just take it from somewhere else. I don't think it's that dumb of a statement to be honest with you.

** As I thought more about it, even if everyone stopped smoking right away and that $20 billion ceases to exist, there would still be a $70 billion out pay assuming the government is the one who's footing that bill. That means they'd be $20 billion short on those payments and would really take it from elsewhere.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I'm coughing a lot more than I used to, they give me headaches, and most of all they taste horrible.

And that's anything new?

I don't smoke, except on rare social occasions—this past night being the first one of the new year—and I still see no incentive, attraction, or merit in smoking a cigarette; that they managed to catch on in the first place is a mystery to me.

I've since drank 3 pints of lager and 4 martinis, brushed my teeth, and used mouthwash, and I still have the aftertaste of tobacco smoke tinging my throat.

PS- they also kill you if you do it for long enough. Granted, so does alcohol—but it's like if I started complaining that despite my liver shutting down from alcohol abuse, alcohol has also caused me to start, say, getting arthritis, my complaints would be comparatively superfluous to the already numerous detrimental effects. (Cigarettes, uniquely, have many detrimental effects even in moderation—I'm still currently short of breath and experiencing chest tightness after only 2 of them.)

But is that $70 billion funded by the government or is it funded by insurance companies and thus the people at large? The government still needs that $20 billion, and if they lost it they'd just take it from somewhere else. I don't think it's that dumb of a statement to be honest with you.

If we're to assume it's the Gov't, it's still the people at large. If it's the insurance companies, it's safe to say it's also the people at large—though, only the ones actually paying for themselves. It's a vague statistic.

However, if it's the gov't, consider the difference: $70b combating/treating smoking related illness is still $50b more than $20b raised from taxes: there's no apparent financial incentive to continue their existence, and with the gov't now floating your Health Insurance industry, just how fiscally intelligent is this?

 

[Barracuda]

And that's anything new?

Sorry you can't handle a cigarette, but some people actually enjoy the taste with no effects afterward.

Before these fire safe cigarettes came along I was smoking the same amount with no problems at all.

I don't smoke, except on rare social occasions

Exactly, you're just the kind of person who would think this isn't a bad idea. After all, there are tons of chemicals in them already, and they already pose a threat to smoker's health, so why not just increase those chances to save a few dumbasses that somehow set their house on fire with a cigarette.

 

[homeforsummer]

that they managed to catch on in the first place is a mystery to me.

Err... it's a mystery that an addictive substance caught on?

Doesn't seem that mysterious to me. I'm sure nobody would do cocaine either if it didn't give you a high - after all, what's the point of snorting lines if you don't get a kick from it?

Cigarettes = addictive = something people want to continue doing.

@ Diablo' - that chemical certainly doesn't sound like something you'd want to inhale. Is it in all cigarettes now then or just the brand you smoke?

 

[FoolKiller]

You might think it's because the $20b raised annually in taxes on cigarettes (state and federal) kinda pales in comparison to the $70b (which is a 1995 figure!!) spent on smoking-related health issues.

The problem some have run into is that they rely on tobacco taxes to balance a budget because it is more acceptable than a tax on something like income. So, when people begin quitting the accuracy of their budget estimates relies on how accurately they assumed the number of smokers. In states where you can't tax without appropriating where the funding goes (also required on the federal level) it is even worse because it can wind up causing a single program to rely on a tax that, by its own nature, is designed to decrease.

And careful where you find your estimates of costs of smoking related disease. Some groups will lump every heart related death (#1 killer in the US) in that without looking to see who smoked and didn't. A quick Google search showed everything from $70bn to over $100bn, changing from one group to another. There is a lot of obfuscation in there.

I also found this one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/08/how-much-does-smoking-cos_n_184554.html

Supporters of the FDA bill cited figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.

A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."

However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."

Viscusi worked as a litigation expert for the tobacco industry in lawsuits by states but said that his research, which has been published in peer-reviewed journals, has never been funded by industry.

Other researchers have reached similar conclusions.

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

The reason: The thin, healthy people lived much longer.

As I said, figures are all over the board because a lot of politics are involved.

and I still see no incentive, attraction, or merit in smoking a cigarette;

Then why?

I don't smoke, except on rare social occasions—this past night being the first one of the new year—

If you don't enjoy it, don't see any reasoning, then why do it at all?

that they managed to catch on in the first place is a mystery to me.

It started with pipe tobacco and cigars, which used pure tobacco, and are not commonly inhaled. Cigarettes added convenience at the cost of quality, but also added filtration that made inhaling an easier and common practice.

PS- they also kill you if you do it for long enough.

At least one study shows that your rare social occasions aren't much better. It is something I find humorous as I know of many "social smokers" that act like chain smokers are some lower class citizen.

(Cigarettes, uniquely, have many detrimental effects even in moderation—I'm still currently short of breath and experiencing chest tightness after only 2 of them.)

Sure you don't have asthma or another underlying issue that tobacco smoke is irritating?

 

[Exorcet]

Err... it's a mystery that an addictive substance caught on?

Being around lit cigarettes was enough to make me hate them. I too wonder why people bother the first time.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

What about this Avatar on GTPlanet (Nothing personal Sascha).

Will it pose issues in certain countries? (Smoking in a public place like a forum)
Is it a bad example for youth? (For those that do not know Rudi is fast, an idol, an example)

I'm anti-smoking, so I notice. I support the ban on advertising tobacco, since to allow convincing people to use tobacco seems against a sane health policy.
Even if it almost made F1 go away from Spa-Francorchamps.

But Gainsbourg (French singer, producer) and Rudi Raser have this image.

I do not get smoke from this avatar.
The forum is an open place and this thread shows people can discuss and inform all, so no issue for me. It exists, it can be shown.

 

[Barracuda]

@ Diablo' - that chemical certainly doesn't sound like something you'd want to inhale. Is it in all cigarettes now then or just the brand you smoke?

Unfortunately it's in all of them now. Apparently it's the worst in Marlboro, which epically sucks because that's my favorite brand. It's made my favorite cigarettes, Marlboro 27s, go from the best testing and relatively smooth to disgusting and almost unbearable to smoke. I've heard camels aren't too affected by it so I'm probably going to go that route, but I have a really strong brand dedication so it's almost like me buying a 66 mustang

They're actually even harder to smoke somehow, feels like I'm sucking through two filters.

Apparently they sell papers already rolled with a filter, as well as pouches of tobacco, so I might just start rolling my own depending on the cost. Time consuming, hell yes, but in the end I'd rather spend time to enjoy a cigarette then have to deal with this crap.

 

[Sureboss]

*does some research*

I see, the point being that the states are trying to cut down on cigarette induced fires and have made every cigarette have these "speed bumps" where they can go out if discarded. Not heard of these over here. Though they've all gone up 40p a pack since the start of the year. Yay.

 

[Loon]

It seems the government has gotten tired of just taxing smokers to make them stop and has decided to make it so they either quit or suffer. I'm talking about fire safe cigarettes (I'm not sure if it's been discussed before but I didn't find anything).

It's been probably a month or so since they've changed over and they're really starting to bother me. I'm coughing a lot more than I used to, they give me headaches, and most of all they taste horrible.



The chemical they're using, if there weren't enough chemicals already in there, is strips of ethylene-vinyl acetate.



Your thoughts and opinions?

Like you just said, start rolling your own. When I was in Maine my mom made her own cigs using tobacco, empty cig papers w/ filter, and a machine used to jam the smoke in. If you get the machine then it'll take you like 30 minutes to roll a whole pack, if that.

 

[Sureboss]

I'm not a big fan of rollies myself, they just don't quite have that taste imo.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Err... it's a mystery that an addictive substance caught on?

The effects of nicotine's addictive properties is so moot as to be barely perceivable upon the initial cigarette; something so traumatic as the smoke going into your lungs is a natural deterrent if the body isn't exposed to recurrent intake of nicotine. Simply put, one cigarette does not get you addicted. (Though, as my own—and doubtless others'—behaviour indicates, social circumstances appear to be much stronger forces.)

Then why?

Me? Some good conversation, to me, is worth the average of 11 minutes taken off my life per cigarette.

If you don't enjoy it, don't see any reasoning, then why do it at all?

As explained above. I ask my best friend the same thing every day when he lights up around me; he started in highschool, and has been smoking for the last 6 years.

At least one study shows that your rare social occasions aren't much better. It is something I find humorous as I know of many "social smokers" that act like chain smokers are some lower class citizen.

My mother smokes, my father smokes, my best friend smokes—going by the statistics, I too should have grown to become a smoker. That said, I harbor no resentment, or look at them as 'second class' citizens; besides, most of us know the best writers all smoked.

Sure you don't have asthma or another underlying issue that tobacco smoke is irritating?

Quite sure, though it's funny to think someone might be skeptical of someone's irritation from inhaling a burning product.

 

[FoolKiller]

Me? Some good conversation, to me, is worth the average of 11 minutes taken off my life per cigarette.

I have plenty of friends who smoke and I can hang out with them while they smoke without smoking one myself. Secondhand smoke isn't exactly the best thing either, but it is far better than purposely inhaling the full cigarette into your lungs, and you can minimize secondhand interactions just by standing off to one side.

I do understand the temptation to try one when your friends do, and I have, but like you I didn't see the desire and have only ever done it sense if I was too drunk to notice.

As explained above. I ask my best friend the same thing every day when he lights up around me; he started in highschool, and has been smoking for the last 6 years.

But does he say:

I still see no incentive, attraction, or merit in smoking a cigarette;

My mother smokes, my father smokes, my best friend smokes—going by the statistics, I too should have grown to become a smoker.

Both my parents smoke, my wife did when I first met her, my brother did while he was in college, and my father worked in the factory that made Marlboro, so free cigarettes were readily available. We both beat the odds and that is a good thing.

That said, I harbor no resentment, or look at them as 'second class' citizens; besides, most of us know the best writers all smoked.

I wasn't referring to you, but some of the women I work with who like to lecture the smokers standing outside the building and even talk to them about while at their desks. They start spewing facts and talk about saving their health, and after a while they begin to sound like some religious nut who can't save their proselytizing for the appropriate time and place. But then bump into one of them out with friends at a bar or something and they are smoking, but just when they are "out drinking with friends."

Quite sure, though it's funny to think someone might be skeptical of someone's irritation from inhaling a burning product.

I am not being skeptical, but I know people with severe asthma that social smoke and don't talk about the chest tightening and irritation the way you make it sound. At the same time I do know people who do mention it and have their doctors pointing to something it is irritating. At a minimum it makes me think you may have an unusual sensitivity or allergy to tobacco smoke.

 

[Public'sTwin]

I have plenty of friends who smoke and I can hang out with them while they smoke without smoking one myself. Secondhand smoke isn't exactly the best thing either, but it is far better than purposely inhaling the full cigarette into your lungs, and you can minimize secondhand interactions just by standing off to one side.

I used to do that—and typically still do—but once I've been really drinking, I find the lack of integration frustrating.

But does he say:

Yes...

I didn't see the desire and have only ever done it sense if I was too drunk to notice.

Bingo.

But then bump into one of them out with friends at a bar or something and they are smoking, but just when they are "out drinking with friends."

Typical.

I am not being skeptical, but I know people with severe asthma that social smoke and don't talk about the chest tightening and irritation the way you make it sound.

Ah—under normal circumstances, it's no problem, but I hit the gym the very next day and likely exacerbated what is normally a non-issue. I get the same feeling after I've smoked as one does waking up the next morning and realising the girl isn't nearly as hot as she looked last night—only, when I've smoked, I can do something about it.

At a minimum it makes me think you may have an unusual sensitivity or allergy to tobacco smoke.

Which is possible, having been raised in a family of smokers who absolutely refuse to smoke outside.

 

[Famine]

Too late.

One gem:

The doctors acknowledge that a ban on smoking in the home, however desirable it believes this to be, would be neither politically or practically possible

Yeah, not to mention morally reprehensible.

 

[Neal]

I know it’s only a report by the RCP but it is typical of the British trend to try and legislate every part of peoples lives although it’s not exclusive to Britain. Saying that I do approach this from a fairly hypocritical and biased point of view.

I smoked from about 15 years old until a little over 3 years ago when my wife and I quit prior to getting pregnant with our first child. It wasn’t that hard to quit because I didn’t want to be a smoking dad but it was made easier by the UK smoking ban coming into force 6 months later. Since I’ve quit I’ve become a bit of an anti smoker but they do say there’s no virgin like a reformed virgin! I nag my in-laws to stop smoking now and again but I know they won’t even though they know it could ultimately mean they won’t be around as long to see their grandkids grow up. Since the smoking ban eating and drinking out is more pleasant and it’s nice not to come home smelling of smoke but it has resulted in many more people smoking in the street and specifically at the entrance to public building. For me it’s pretty unpleasant to walk through a group of smokers outside building entrances but it is an inevitable result of the smoking ban although this is also under review. I wouldn’t be adverse to this coming into force from my own perspective but do concede it is not without practical limitations and potential safety risks for lone people having to walk a long way from a populated area at night when risk of attack is higher.

My son is 2 years old now (and we’ve just found out on Mothers Day we’ve got another one on the way, yay me ) so we spend quite a bit of time in playgrounds but I really hate it when adults smoke there. Children’s health should be protected as much as possible and it isn’t hard to implement a smoking ban in playgrounds and school entrances although due to these places being open air public places the change in legislation would likely be strongly objected. I think a ban on smoking in cars and homes is ridiculous and would be a pretty major breach of civil liberties. These are private places so shouldn’t be treated in the same way as enclosed or open air public spaces regardless of the good intentions to children’s health. Non-smokers and children have a right to breath clean air but smokers also have the right to do what they want in their own, or other consenting parties, private space so any changes to current laws need to reflect this.

That’s my tuppence worth anyway.

 

[DK]

Loads of teens in Ireland smoke. Most of them would be similar to "chavs" in England, but we call them "skangers", "knackers" (also a derogatory term for a Traveler) or "skobies".

 

[Sureboss]

Too late.

I'd like to see them try and prosecute someone for smoking in/on their own property, be that cars or homes. The legislation would be illegal.

 

[FoolKiller]

And California is looking to ban smoking in parks and beaches. But it isn't about public health and air quality. It is a bout littering.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...extend-smoking-ban-to-state-parks-and-beaches

Sixteen years after California set a national precedent by instating a smoking ban in restaurants, lawmakers have voted to outlaw smoking at 278 state parks and beaches in what experts say is one of the nation’s most far-reaching regulations of tobacco use.

The measure, SB 4, sponsored by state Sen. Jenny Oropeza, allows for a fine of $100 for those caught smoking at a state beach or in a designated section of a state park. Smoking will still be allowed in some parking lots and campgrounds. Backers say they were driven more by the threat of fire and the toxicity of cigarette butts on the ground than by the issue of clean air.

“This is a chance for California to continue to lead the country in protecting its irreplaceable state parks from forest fires,” says Ray Sotero, chief spokesman for Sen. Oropeza. The bill has not yet been signed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, but Oropeza's office says it expects him.

If this were truly about the disposal of cigarette butts then it should just be a litter law that punishes any "toxic" litter more harshly. I know in Kentucky littering is a $500 fine, and cigarette butts count. Make this a $1,000 fine. But the way this is reading, it seems like I should be allowed to dump an ashtray in the park, so long as I don't actually smoke while I do it.

 

[lbsf1]

Loads of teens in Ireland smoke. Most of them would be similar to "chavs" in England, but we call them "skangers", "knackers" (also a derogatory term for a Traveler) or "skobies".

About half of all the people in our year at school do smoke, have smoked or have tried smoking. (I'm part of the half that doesn't/hasn't)