Smoking

[MrktMkr1986]

Don't give me the bull**** that it is bad for my body. It is my body, and I can do what I choose with it.

That's nice, but what happens when you smoke around other people. Then it's no longer an issue about you.

Smokers pay for your roads, your Medicare, and much more with our cigarette tax dollars.

Much appreciated, but cigarettes are not taxed high enough. If capital gains tax is 28%, cigarettes should be 56% -- and there should be a price floor.

We are the scapegoat of the American society. Being a (almost completely) alchohol-free individual, how about we tax beer to 3 or 4 times it's cost? Alcohol causes plenty of problems and endangers all members of society--but it is somehow accepted while the smokers are perpetually denied their rights.

Blame Prohibition for that.

It sickens me in this supposedly "free" country.
We aren't hurting anyone but ourselves. Why is this such a chip off your back?

Actually, when you smoke around other people, you are hurting them as well.

 

[Delirious]

you didnt respond to how much you are spending on hurting your lungs

i do respect what you do...i dont agree with it, but who am i to judge

 

[skip0110]

That's nice, but what happens when you smoke around other people. Then it's no longer an issue about you.

So it appears my "fair" solution in which all groups are equally represented was completely lost on you. If cigarette smoke is offensive, then the solution that gives fair representation to all groups (in the American fashion) would be to provide us with a comfortable place to do it where we are not going to expose you to smoke. Problem solved.

Much appreciated, but cigarettes are not taxed high enough. If capital gains tax is 28%, cigarettes should be 56% -- and there should be a price floor.

How is that fair? Let's tax caffiene while we're at it...thats bad for you as well. Here....have a $10 20 oz Coke to complement the pack of cigarettes that is $8 a pack. Red Bull should cost $15 rather than $2 lest we have people driving around all hopped up on that sh**.

you didnt respond to how much you are spending on hurting your lungs

Probably about $3 a week. I avoid taxes by rolling my own. I view it as a small price for pleasure...I enjoy it far more than an unhealthy grease filled $5 Burger King meal.

i do respect what you do...i dont agree with it, but who am i to judge

This is all I ask.

 

[Delirious]

3x56=156 dollars a year on cigarettes

156x30=4680 dollars over 30 years if you do the same for cigarettes

i just see it as a pratical reason to quit smoking for financial reasons...not to mention you wont have to suffer later on in life with lung problems...

 

[skip0110]

3x56=156 dollars a year on cigarettes

5x56 = 280 dollars if I was buying Burger King instead. 20x56 = 1120 dollars a year if I was getting p*ss drunk in a bar instead. When compared to these, it doesnt strike me as all that bad...

Everyone has an addiction, whether they admit it or not. It may not be to a substance, but the brain patterns are the same. Based on no statistics at all, I would say that the risk of being a smoker is comparable to that of being an adrenaline junky (and adrenaline is a very expensive addiction to fulfill). But you never here these adrenaline junkies being chastised in the news.

i just see it as a pratical reason to quit smoking for financial reasons...not to mention you wont have to suffer later on in life with lung problems...

I am sure I will suffer later on life due to (very stupid) decisions I have already made. Cigarettes will most likely only affect me long after every other idiotic thing I have done has taken it's toll. Just pointing out that my particular situation may not fit into the general rule "smoking is bad" that they drill into your head from the Sesame Street days.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

So it appears my "fair" solution in which all groups are equally represented was completely lost on you. If cigarette smoke is offensive, then the solution that gives fair representation to all groups (in the American fashion) would be to provide us with a comfortable place to do it where we are not going to expose you to smoke. Problem solved.

It wasn't. I read your solution. So we're suppose to spend more tax dollars on providing smokers with a place to enjoy their habits.

How is that fair?

How is charging an 18-year old male a higher insurance rate than a 35-year old female fair? Increased risk.

Cigarette smokers have an increased risk of health issues as well as endangering the people they smoke around.

Let's tax caffiene while we're at it...thats bad for you as well. Here....have a $10 20 oz Coke to complement the pack of cigarettes that is $8 a pack. Red Bull should cost $15 rather than $2 lest we have people driving around all hopped up on that sh**.

Caffeine is just as physically addictive as nicotine (which is to say it's not that addictive in comparison to other drugs). However, caffeine has not been associated with any serious health risks. That is why it is so popular.

 

[skip0110]

It wasn't. I read your solution. So we're suppose to spend more tax dollars on providing smokers with a place to enjoy their habits.

Well, we already are spending tax dollars on trying to exterminate smokers. Why not spend the smae dollars to just accomodate them? I bet each dollar would go much farther for everyone's happiness that way. You seem to keep forgetting that the smokers have rights as well.

How is charging an 18-year old male a higher insurance rate than a 35-year old female fair? Increased risk.

Cigarette smokers have an increased risk of health issues as well as endangering the people they smoke around.

So this somehow validates cigarette tax dollars being used to fix the roads? How about the 18 year old male is charged a higehr insurance premium, and that goes to fund the war in Iraq? How would you feel about that?

Caffeine is just as physically addictive as nicotine (which is to say it's not that addictive in comparison to other drugs). However, caffeine has not been associated with any serious health risks. That is why it is so popular.

First of all, if you just began to know what you were talking about, you would have noted that caffine is much more addictive than nicotene. The physical addiction to cigarettes only lasts 1 to 2 days. The rest is psychological. Those that have not experienced strong withdrawal of some sort are in no position to talk about it in my opinion.

Caffine not related to any heath risks? You have got to be kidding me. How about:
- doubling in the risk of heart attacks
- high blood pressure
- kidney, bladder, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, and colon cancer

Yeah, its safe.

 

[Delirious]

not to mention you dont need an ID when you buy coke

plus not to mention the value of your house/car if smoked in do decrease...more pratical reasons to quit

get some febreze if you spill some coke

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Well, we already are spending tax dollars on trying to exterminate smokers.

That's not the way I see it. Cigarette companies are spending millions of dollars to market their product to you. There has to be some balance.

Why not spend the smae dollars to just accomodate them?

I don't see why not. Just keep it the hell away from me.

I bet each dollar would go much farther for everyone's happiness that way.

You're only saying that because you are trying to justify your habit.

You seem to keep forgetting that the smokers have rights as well.

Of course smokers have rights. The right to endanger their lives and the lives of others.

So this somehow validates cigarette tax dollars being used to fix the roads?

Don't be facetious. You know exactly what I was trying to say.

How about the 18 year old male is charged a higehr insurance premium, and that goes to fund the war in Iraq? How would you feel about that?

There are other ways to fund wars.

I already explained to you why 18 year old males are charged more for car insurance. How does it relates to cigarettes? The increased health risks attributed to smoking causes increases in medical expenses and insurance premiums -- whether you are a smoker or not.

First of all, if you just began to know what you were talking about, you would have noted that caffine is much more addictive than nicotene. The physical addiction to cigarettes only lasts 1 to 2 days. The rest is psychological. Those that have not experienced strong withdrawal of some sort are in no position to talk about it in my opinion.

Well, this is an opinions thread. Anyway, whether or not that's true is irrelevant -- you're still trying to justify your habit.

Caffine not related to any heath risks? You have got to be kidding me. How about:
- doubling in the risk of heart attacks
- high blood pressure
- kidney, bladder, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, and colon cancer

Yeah, its safe.

Still trying to justify your habit, I see...

I'm aware that caffeine when taken repeatedly at high quantities can cause high blood pressure and increases the risk of heart attacks. Maybe I should have been more clear, but what I meant to say was:

Caffeine is not known for it's serious health risks. Nicotine, along with the 4,000 other chemicals in cigarettes is considerably more dangerous.

As far as caffeine being a carcinogen, that has yet to be proven. The website you provided even admits to that.

Coffee has been implicated in kidney, bladder, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, and colon cancer. Although further research is necessary, our feeling is "Why take a chance?"

If the only ingredient in a cigarette was nicotine, I really wouldn't give a damn. It's the 4,000 other chemicals that make cigarettes considerably more dangerous than a cup of coffee. Not to mention the fact that when you drink coffee/soda/tea or eat chocolate, YOU YOURSELF are the only one ingesting it. When you smoke cigarettes around other people, you are harming them whether you want to admit to it or not.

 

[Max Powers]

Well, I can't say I read the whole thread, just the last 25 posts or so, but....nothing like a bunch of non-smokers discussing this topic to create a biased discussion.

I couldn't agree more, it just made me sick to see the uppity attitude these people have. I guess us smokers are the scum of society, right?


I get my cigarettes imported from the Ukraine so I don't have to deal with the ridiculously high taxes they try to put on smokers.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I couldn't agree more, it just made me sick to see the uppity attitude these people have.

Are you calling me uppity just because I don't smoke?

I guess us smokers are the scum of society, right?

I never said that -- and self-deprecating speech won't help your cause either.

I get my cigarettes imported from the Ukraine so I don't have to deal with the ridiculously high taxes they try to put on smokers.

Interesting. According to Skip, I guess that means you don't support the War in Iraq.

 

[Max Powers]

I think everyone knows smoking is bad -- but everyone who smokes has their own [twisted] reasons for doing so.

If that's not uppity, I don't know what is. Why must somebody's reasons for smoking be twisted? Am I twisted because I smoke cigarettes?

Cigarette smoking is the root of all evil.

Again, the root of all evil? Give me a break.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If that's not uppity, I don't know what is. Why must somebody's reasons for smoking be twisted? Am I twisted because I smoke cigarettes?

If you can give me one good reason why you smoke, I promise you I will edit ALL of my posts, and will even go so far as to become an advocate for smoker's rights. Give me a reason...

Again, the root of all evil? Give me a break.

If you know cigarettes are dangerous, are you comfortable with the fact that some children under the age of 16 smoke cigarettes?

 

[Max Powers]

I smoke because I enjoy smoking, and I have every right to. Whenever I'm racking my brains studying for a test or writing a paper, it's always great to step outside, enjoy the weather, and smoke a cigarette to calm down and clear my mind.

I don't care if that's a good enough reason for you or not, but it's a good enough reason for me, which is all that really matters, since it's my body that I'm doing harm to.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I smoke because I enjoy smoking, and I have every right to. Whenever I'm racking my brains studying for a test or writing a paper, it's always great to step outside, enjoy the weather, and smoke a cigarette to calm down and clear my mind.

I don't care if that's a good enough reason for you or not, but it's a good enough reason for me, which is all that really matters, since it's my body that I'm doing harm to.

Sure -- just ignore my second question.

If you don't care about your health, that's fine with me. You have every right to do what you wish with your body. I'm more concerned about younger people, and non-smokers.

By the way, peppermint has the same "calming" effect on some people, but without the side effects. You should try it sometime.

 

[Max Powers]

If kids smoke, they know exactly what they're getting themselves into, especially at the age of 16. I've known about the dangers of smoking since I was 7 or 8. Businesses that sell cigarettes card the people who buy them, so underage kids can't buy the cigarettes.

If the kids get around that, it's themselves that they're hurting.

As for secondhand smoke, it's all about being polite. I don't smoke when I know I'm around non-smokers, and whenever I have a cigarette it's always either outside, or in a house that allows smoking, and in which the people around me are all smokers too. It pisses me off beyond belief when I see a pregnant woman smoking, or people smoking cigarettes while walking around with young children, and I agree that people shouldnt smoke in that situation.

They're already fazing out smoking in resturants and bars, so what more can you ask for in preventing secondhand smoke.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

If kids smoke, they know exactly what they're getting themselves into, especially at the age of 16.

Well I did say under the age of 16, but it's a moot point now.

I've known about the dangers of smoking since I was 7 or 8.

And yet you continue to smoke anyway? I fail to see the logic.

Businesses that sell cigarettes card the people who buy them, so underage kids can't buy the cigarettes.

If they wanted it them that badly, they will find other ways to get cigarettes. They don't necessarily have to stop in a gas station to pick up a few Marlboros.

If the kids get around that, it's themselves that they're hurting.

As for secondhand smoke, it's all about being polite. I don't smoke when I know I'm around non-smokers, and whenever I have a cigarette it's always either outside, or in a house that allows smoking, and in which the people around me are all smokers too. It pisses me off beyond belief when I see a pregnant woman smoking, or people smoking cigarettes while walking around with young children, and I agree that people shouldnt smoke in that situation.

Why didn't you say this from the beginning? 👍

They're already fazing out smoking in resturants and bars, so what more can you ask for in preventing secondhand smoke.

All I'm asking is:

Why smoke if you know the dangers?
Why waste money on cigarettes?

There are more questions, but it's getting late. Will have more of them for tomorrow.

 

[Swift]

It's very simple. There is only one downside to tobacco disappearing, that's the loss of jobs.

Other then that, it's just plain stupid to smoke. It has no benifits. None. You can claim it all you want, but were you born with a need for cigarettes? Most likely not. So what possible benifits are there? Zero. Period. All it does is cost you money, raise my medical insurance rates, polute the airspace that you're occupying, make your clothes and breath stink, and of course destroy your health on so many levels.

you say it's "My Body! I'll do what I want!" What about the people that care about you? What about you're friends and family. You're killing yourself because you want to do what you want and they get to be the ones to go through all the grief and torment of cancer treatments and all the rest?

 

[K_Speed]

It's very simple. There is only one downside to tobacco disappearing, that's the loss of jobs.

Other then that, it's just plain stupid to smoke. It has no benifits. None. You can claim it all you want, but were you born with a need for cigarettes? Most likely not. So what possible benifits are there? Zero. Period. All it does is cost you money, raise my medical insurance rates, polute the airspace that you're occupying, make your clothes and breath stink, and of course destroy your health on so many levels.

you say it's "My Body! I'll do what I want!" What about the people that care about you? What about you're friends and family. You're killing yourself because you want to do what you want and they get to be the ones to go through all the grief and torment of cancer treatments and all the rest?

Yeah I agree, I also wanted to add something to the statement " Its my Body! Ill do what I want". Its youre body yes, but what if youre sitting in a a restaurant and youre smoking. Great! Im breathin all youre ****ing smoke. If you want to smoke, smoke in the desert.

All my friends smoke, all pretty much. And that does suck! I mean, every party, smoke everywhere!

You know, I could smoke a cigarre...I mean, it tastes good....but cigarretes are just messed up full of poison, piece of ****.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah I agree, I also wanted to add something to the statement " Its my Body! Ill do what I want". Its youre body yes, but what if youre sitting in a a restaurant and youre smoking. Great! Im breathin all youre ****ing smoke. If you want to smoke, smoke in the desert.

Vote with your feet. Tell the owner of the restaurant that you won't bring your business to him until he refuses to allow people to smoke there. Stop trying to get legislation for your convenience.

Smoking anyhting (tobacco, marijuana, etc.) should be totally and completely allowed with a possible exception being on public property.

There is only one thing that tobacco companies owe their customers, and that is to warn them that their product is physically addictive. Consumers cannot make a choice if they use products that are addicitive and didn't have that knowledge prior to using the product. They have to know what they're getting themselves into and so I think it is fair to make the company warn them that it is addictive.

It is not, however, fair to say that you have a right not to breathe second-hand smoke. It does you so increadibly little harm (as long as you limit your exposure), that you might as well tell people they can't fart near you either.

So next time you're in a smokey restaurant and you're thinking, man these people are infringing on my right to go wherever the hell I want and not be bothered by anyone, remind yourself that you have feet and are choosing to endure the second-hand smoke.

 

[Swift]

There is only one thing that tobacco companies owe their customers, and that is to warn them that their product is physically addictive. Consumers cannot make a choice if they use products that are addicitive and didn't have that knowledge prior to using the product. They have to know what they're getting themselves into and so I think it is fair to make the company warn them that it is addictive.

It is not, however, fair to say that you have a right not to breathe second-hand smoke. It does you so increadibly little harm (as long as you limit your exposure), that you might as well tell people they can't fart near you either.

But with that statement, you are "grading" my level of injury or infringement. I'm not talking about smoking in a restaurant, I'm talking about in general. For you to say, "It doesn't harm you that much" is an oxymoron. You yourself stated in the Libertarinism thread that others should'nt be able to physically harm other people. Second hand smoke does physically harm others. So, again, where do we draw the line.

Smoking has no positive points at all. None, I don't care how you slice it. I for one find it just plain stupid that I have to help pay for a lung cancer patients treatment with my insurance premiums because they decided they wanted to smoke.

 

[Danoff]

Smoking has no positive points at all. None, I don't care how you slice it. I for one find it just plain stupid that I have to help pay for a lung cancer patients treatment with my insurance premiums because they decided they wanted to smoke.

This is a solid argument against government sponsored health care - not FOR banning smoking. Focus on the real problem, that you don't want to be forced to pay for other people's poor choices.

But with that statement, you are "grading" my level of injury or infringement. I'm not talking about smoking in a restaurant, I'm talking about in general. For you to say, "It doesn't harm you that much" is an oxymoron. You yourself stated in the Libertarinism thread that others should'nt be able to physically harm other people. Second hand smoke does physically harm others. So, again, where do we draw the line.

How about we draw the line at demonstrable. If you can demonstrate that someone harmed you, then you have a case. I'd like to see you demonstrate that by eating a meal in a smokey restaurant, you have been physically harmed.

 

[PS]

This is a solid argument against government sponsored health care - not FOR banning smoking. Focus on the real problem, that you don't want to be forced to pay for other people's poor choices.



How about we draw the line at demonstrable. If you can demonstrate that someone harmed you, then you have a case. I'd like to see you demonstrate that by eating a meal in a smokey restaurant, you have been physically harmed.

Obviously they could, but it would have to be over a long term analyses, series of breathing tests, actual physical lung exmainations (which would cost thousands of dollars), and it would possibly only be proven until it's too late and you're in the hospital. It's like saying "hey, go stick your head in that bear trap. It closes on you, sue me."

If smoking harms the smoker, why the hell wouldn't it harm anyone else? Unless you are posing simply a theoretical question (ala do we even exist?- see Religion Thread ), I would have to say that it's just nonsense to assume smoke wouldn't harm the second hand smokers.

 

[Swift]

This is a solid argument against government sponsored health care - not FOR banning smoking. Focus on the real problem, that you don't want to be forced to pay for other people's poor choices.



How about we draw the line at demonstrable. If you can demonstrate that someone harmed you, then you have a case. I'd like to see you demonstrate that by eating a meal in a smokey restaurant, you have been physically harmed.

I pay my insurance premiums to Blue Cross and Blue sheild. So, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not sure how much BC & BS gets in federal funding, but all I know is that MY paycheck is garnished for medical insurance every pay period. I know it would be less if I wasn't helping to pay for people making incredible stupid decisions that they KNOW are stupid to begin with.

Obviously they could, but it would have to be over a long term analyses, series of breathing tests, actual physical lung exmainations (which would cost thousands of dollars), and it would possibly only be proven until it's too late and you're in the hospital. It's like saying "hey, go stick your head in that bear trap. It closes on you, sue me."

If smoking harms the smoker, why the hell wouldn't it harm anyone else? Unless you are posing simply a theoretical question (ala do we even exist?- see Religion Thread ), I would have to say that it's just nonsense to assume smoke wouldn't harm the second hand smokers.

Thank you very much.

 

[Duke]

So this somehow validates cigarette tax dollars being used to fix the roads? How about the 18 year old male is charged a higehr insurance premium, and that goes to fund the war in Iraq? How would you feel about that?

WHAT?! This is utter and total nonsense.

 

[PS]

Thank you very much.

Should my sarcasmometre be doing anything?

 

[Swift]

Should my sarcasmometre be doing anything?

Nope, not in the slightest.

 

[Duke]

How about we draw the line at demonstrable. If you can demonstrate that someone harmed you, then you have a case. I'd like to see you demonstrate that by eating a meal in a smokey restaurant, you have been physically harmed.

...particularly when you had a choice of non-smoking restaurants to patronize instead. Numerous restaurants in my town were privately designated as 'smoke free' by their owners, well before my state put a smoking ban into law.

 

[Danoff]

I pay my insurance premiums to Blue Cross and Blue sheild. So, that's what I'm talking about. I'm not sure how much BC & BS gets in federal funding, but all I know is that MY paycheck is garnished for medical insurance every pay period. I know it would be less if I wasn't helping to pay for people making incredible stupid decisions that they KNOW are stupid to begin with.

So get another insurance company - one that doesn't charge you more because some of its clients are smokers. Hell, don't have an insurance company at all... nobody put a gun to your head to pick your insurance company. Not like the gun you're advocating be put to the head of business owners insisting that they not serve clients who smoke.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

It is not, however, fair to say that you have a right not to breathe second-hand smoke. It does you so increadibly little harm (as long as you limit your exposure), that you might as well tell people they can't fart near you either.

That's madness.

Second hand smoke does MORE damage because the cigarette user has a filter. The person breathing in the second hand smoke does not.

Second-hand smoke contains almost 4,000 different chemicals. Of these, Health Canada has identified 42 chemicals that are toxic - many of these chemicals can cause cancer. For example one of the chemicals found in second-hand smoke, Benzo[a]pyrene, is also found in coal tar and is one of the world's most potent cancer-causing chemicals. Another chemical in second-hand smoke is formaldehyde, which is often used to preserve laboratory animals. Formaldehyde can cause cancer and damage your lungs, skin and digestive system.

The more you are exposed to second-hand smoke the greater your risk of having a heart attack or stroke, or getting lung cancer. Every year in Canada, more than 3,000 deaths occur from exposure to second-hand smoke. In B.C., that adds up to more than 500 deaths every year.

When you breathe in second-hand smoke, your lungs must work harder to function. The result may be coughing and chest discomfort. If someone has asthma, they may find that it gets worse after they have been in a smoky room.

Health experts have not established a safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke. Reducing exposure to second-hand smoke protects everyone's health.