A rant about smokers and taxes.

[Lester C.]

I just have to get this off my chest. Today I learned that my state is going to raise cigarette prices from seven dollars to eight dollars a pack in April. My state has also made purchasing online illegal and have hired a collection agency to aggressively go after smokers who do buy online or over the phone for back taxes.

Now I've never smoked, and have no plans to start. I think smoking is incredibly stupid, but it's legal. And I think it's an outrage to tax a legal product three or for times over its base price because you are punishing someone enjoying a perfectly legal product.

I know people are going to point out that the taxes are needed to combat medical costs and whatnot associated from smoking. But here is the thing. The money they get from taxing cigarettes goes toward funding local and national governmental institutions NOT treating some poor bastard battling lung cancer. This is bullshit and it has to stop. A smoker shouldn't have to pay exponentially more than their product is worth because the local and state government needs more money to build school s no matter how noble building a school is.

[Paul McEnery]

I just have to get this off my chest. Today I learned that my state is going to raise cigarette prices from seven dollars to eight dollars a pack in April. My state has also made purchasing online illegal and have hired a collection agency to aggressively go after smokers who do buy online or over the phone for back taxes.

Now I've never smoked, and have no plans to start. I think smoking is incredibly stupid, but it's legal. And I think it's an outrage to tax a legal product three or for times over its base price because you are punishing someone enjoying a perfectly legal product.

I know people are going to point out that the taxes are needed to combat medical costs and whatnot associated from smoking. But here is the thing. The money they get from taxing cigarettes goes toward funding local and national governmental institutions NOT treating some poor bastard battling lung cancer. This is bullshit and it has to stop. A smoker shouldn't have to pay exponentially more than their product is worth because the local and state government needs more money to build school s no matter how noble building a school is.

Speaking as a smoker:

Shut up, Lester.

The point isn't to punish people. What kind of an idiot would think such a thing -- though of course plenty do, and rant about it. The point is to discourage people from doing it.

And fair enough, really.

And big deal anyway. Taxation on specific goods is one of the ways in which we can effect social policy, and a completely valid one.

You don't like it? Vote in someone who'll do the other thing.

[Linkara]

I agree with Lester, Paul, and I did vote for someone who said they wouldn't.

The problem is he went back on his promise to do so, calling them "user fees" instead of taxes. I don't smoke either, but fine, people want to do it, let them. I know the point is to discourage it. But it IS punishing them. It's saying, "If you don't do what you're told, we're going to keep raising the price until you do." And the fact that they're making it illegal to buy online is just another nail in the coffin.

[section 8]

What possible consequences could there be for putting such restrictions on a substance that is more addictive than heroin?

Apparently the prisons aren't over crowded enough

[Lester C.]

The point isn't to discourage it. Its the government they could make it illegal if they wanted to and I'd actually give serious thought to such an action. The point is to milk them as much as possible because they can use the money and who is going to come to the defense of smokers? The end result is you have people paying three or four times the base value of a product which becomes punitive because you've limited all other forms of purchase such online shops or mail orders.

[section 8]

The point isn't to discourage it. Its the government they could make it illegal if they wanted to and I'd actually give serious thought to such an action. The point is to milk them as much as possible because they can use the money and who is going to come to the defense of smokers? The end result is you have people paying three or four times the base value of a product which becomes punitive because you've limited all other forms of purchase such online shops or mail orders.

Which HAS to be a violation of Antitrust laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

[Paul McEnery]

I agree with Lester, Paul, and I did vote for someone who said they wouldn't.

The problem is he went back on his promise to do so, calling them "user fees" instead of taxes. I don't smoke either, but fine, people want to do it, let them. I know the point is to discourage it. But it IS punishing them. It's saying, "If you don't do what you're told, we're going to keep raising the price until you do." And the fact that they're making it illegal to buy online is just another nail in the coffin.

I understand. Just the word "taxation" gives you cooties and makes you all fluttery about the pseudo-concept of freedom.

No, it isn't punishing them. That's an incredibly childish way to think about it. No doubt the same kind of childishness that regards taxation in general as a punishment for wealth.

And I think it's hilarious watching people who don't have any skin in the game getting worked up about it on a matter of supposed principle.

Here's another use of the same principle for you:

We want to bring down carbon emissions, so we impose a tax on SUVs. People still buy and make SUVs; we increase the tax.

That's completely reasonable. And I like to see it done for stupid things we need to see the back of.

That I'm personally doing a stupid thing we need to see the back of doesn't change its nature, does it. I'll take my lumps and accept it, the same way I always have.

[Paul McEnery]

Which HAS to be a violation of Antitrust laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

How?
......

[Lester C.]

Speaking as a smoker:

Shut up, Lester.

The point isn't to punish people. What kind of an idiot would think such a thing -- though of course plenty do, and rant about it. The point is to discourage people from doing it.

And fair enough, really.

And big deal anyway. Taxation on specific goods is one of the ways in which we can effect social policy, and a completely valid one.

You don't like it? Vote in someone who'll do the other thing.

By your logic a hamburger from MacDonald should be twenty bucks. Obesity is an epidemic in this country. I'd imagine the deaths and medical costs from heart attacks and type two diabetes are in far excess of deaths and associated medical costs derived from cigarettes. But the government knows that if they go after people who are fat the American public would never stand for it so let's gouge someone who people don't like.

[Infra-Man]

I smoke, but the prices here in NYC ($8-$9 a pack) have caused me to switch brands (Marlboros to American Spirits, which take longer to finish), to cut back (usually one smoke a day that I split with one of my roommates), and to consider quitting seriously this time rather than quitting and then taking up smoking again after a few months.

Oh, and that hamburger analogy doesn't work. You can jog off a hamburger in an afternoon, but smoking screws with your lungs for awhile (and makes it harder to jog off that hamburger).

[Lester C.]

I smoke, but the prices here in NYC ($8-$9 a pack) have caused me to switch brands (Marlboros to American Spirits, which take longer to finish), to cut back (usually one smoke a day that I split with one of my roommates), and to consider quitting seriously this time rather than quitting and then taking up smoking again after a few months.

Oh, and that hamburger analogy doesn't work. You can jog off a hamburger in an afternoon, but smoking screws with your lungs for awhile (and makes it harder to jog off that hamburger).

It does work. Smoking in excess very bad for you so we must tax you several times what the product is worth in order to discourage it. Well eating fatty foods is even worse for you than smoking and yet I'm not seeing any plans on charging people exponentially for the fatty foods they eat.

[section 8]

How?
......my state is going to raise cigarette prices from seven dollars to eight dollars a pack in April. My state has also made purchasing online illegal
[/QUOTE]

The point is to milk them as much as possible because they can use the money and who is going to come to the defense of smokers? The end result is you have people paying three or four times the base value of a product which becomes punitive because you've limited all other forms of purchase such online shops or mail orders.

From the link:

practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.

[Infra-Man]

It does work. Smoking in excess very bad for you so we must tax you several times what the product is worth in order to discourage it. Well eating fatty foods is even worse for you than smoking and yet I'm not seeing any plans on charging people exponentially for the fatty foods they eat.

You can exercise off the calories and cholesterol and fat in a hamburger and fries.

What can you do to reverse the effects of smoking?

[section 8]

Oh, and that hamburger analogy doesn't work.).

You are right,heart disease kills more people in the US. than Lung Cancer

[Paul McEnery]

By your logic a hamburger from MacDonald should be twenty bucks. .

I think that would be an excellent idea. I'd certainly never eat anything McDonald's-oriented if it weren't cheap as hell. So that would be a fine piece of social engineering via the pocket book.

But also, the point is that a lot of businesses exclude the real cost of their product and foist them off on the customer.

Now, personally, the way I'd go about it isn't to bust the customer with sales tax -- hell, I'd get rid of sales tax in general if I had my way -- but to bust the company. Sure, and the company would pass the cost along, but it would be a way to hit the big boys more than the small boys.

But those are two separate issues, and we shouldn't confuse them.

One is to make the company pay the real cost for their business instead of letting them get the state to pick up their slack (AIG, anyone?).

The other is to effect change through taxation -- which is, funnily enough, part of the business I work in, in international customs and tariffs brokerage (at a very low level, I hasten to add). Moving taxes around is a way to increase production and aid the economy. Sometimes taxes go up, sometimes down. It's how the system works.

And it beats hell out of jailing people, because that costs us money.

[Paul McEnery]

You are right,heart disease kills more people in the US. than Lung Cancer

And smoking causes heart disease, as does junk food.

[Lester C.]

You can exercise off the calories in a hamburger and fries.

What can you do to reverse the effects of smoking?

If a person stops smoking before they get cancer they reverse the effects of smoking. If a person stops eating fatty heart clogging foods before they get a heart attack they can reverse the damage done to them. In both instances the smoker and fatty food eater are gambling with their heath which is their right to do since both products are legal.

Also there are plenty of skinny people who exercise, are slim, but die young because of their diet. So you really can't exorcise transfats any more than you can cigarettes smoke so both products are the same in that regard.

[Paul McEnery]

my state is going to raise cigarette prices from seven dollars to eight dollars a pack in April. My state has also made purchasing online illegal




From the link:[/QUOTE]

So you're saying, I think, that Amazon could have been bashed with this because they're ducking sales tax, thereby driving brick and mortar bookstores out of business, yes?

[Infra-Man]

You are right,heart disease kills more people in the US. than Lung Cancer

"Tobacco use leads most commonly to diseases affecting the heart and lungs, with smoking being a major risk factor for heart attacks, strokes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), emphysema, and cancer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking

[Infra-Man]

If a person stops smoking before they get cancer they reverse the effects of smoking.

Agreed.

If a person stops eating fatty heart clogging foods before they get a heart attack they can reverse the damage done to them.

Or they could also eat said fatty foods in moderation and get some exercise in.

Also there are plenty of skinny people who exercise, are slim, but die young because of their diet. So you really can't exorcise transfats any more than you can cigarettes smoke so both products are the same in that regard.

Trans fats are another issue, though, and we've seen governments try to ban or phase out trans fats and regulate their use in restaurants even though trans fats are (or were) legally used in restaurants.

What about calories, cholesterol, and saturated fats? Exercise certainly can help in those cases, which gives an additional option to stave off the health effects of unhealthy food apart from abstaining outright.

[section 8]

And smoking causes heart disease, as does junk food.
For many it is easier to quit smoking than to kick un heathy junk food


So you're saying, I think, that Amazon could have been bashed with this because they're ducking sales tax, thereby driving brick and mortar bookstores out of business, yes?

No more than Barns & Nobel or any larger chain, that's just smart market practices, and as of today consumers still have a choice between B&N, Amazon, or any other bookstore. The Consumer would also not be penalized for buying a book for a lesser price in another state ( which is a cigarette Cigarette law that has been passed in Utah)

In short you are comparing apples and oranges, how you even managed to even make that connection is baffling.

[section 8]

"Tobacco use leads most commonly to diseases affecting the heart and lungs, with smoking being a major risk factor for heart attacks, strokes, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), emphysema, and cancer."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco_smoking

So you agree that Junkfoods should be taxed as well?

[Paul McEnery]

For many it is easier to quit smoking than to kick un heathy junk food



No more than Barns & Nobel or any larger chain, that's just smart market practices, and as of today consumers still have a choice between B&N, Amazon, or any other bookstore. The Consumer would also not be penalized for buying a book for a lesser price in another state ( which is a cigarette Cigarette law that has been passed in Utah)

In short you are comparing apples and oranges, how you even managed to even make that connection is baffling.

Um, because it is in fact exactly the same thing? Avoiding sales tax by selling online?

[Infra-Man]

So you agree that Junkfoods should be taxed as well?

Personally no because I don't see the fast food or junk food issue as completely analogous to the smoking issue.

The health issues associated with junk foods and fast food are much more complicated, and if we're to lump in junk food in general into some larger tax against unhealthy foods, the classification of "what is junk food" would lead to some difficulty (e.g., would there have to be a birthday cake tax, ice cream tax, cheese tax, sour cream tax, cupcake tax, hamburger patty tax, etc.).

A mix of exercise and moderation on the personal responsibility side and trying to educate people on healthy food choices when possible seems like a better route to take, though this is just the ideal and not necessarily feasible.

[Black Atom]

Not sure the comparion holds up. People only eat fast food because it's cheap. And well, fast. If it weren't people would stop.

[Paradox]

What nanny state BS, Paul. If they were that concerned about people's health, they'd make tobacco illegal. Instead they sin tax it, because the tobacco lobby has so much influence they'd never get away with making it illegal. They're jobbing "us" for money.

Which, of course, they're allowed to do. And they do need the money.

But let's not sugar-coat it that it's about their concern for our health or social engineering.

[section 8]

I .

[QUOTE=Paul McEnery;8604949]
And it beats hell out of jailing people, because that costs us money.
These new restrictions are an open invitation to smuggling, and trade of ill gotten tobacco products. It isn't as if cigarettes have serial numbers now is it?
Um, because it is in fact exactly the same thing? Avoiding sales tax by selling online?
"user fees" :tongue:
First, How often do the sales taxes for books all books and nothing else but books increase?



The health issues associated with junk foods and fast food are much more complicated, and if we're to lump in junk food in general into some larger tax against unhealthy foods, the classification of "what is junk food" would lead to some difficulty (e.g., would there have to be a birthday cake tax, ice cream tax, cheese tax, sour cream tax, cupcake tax, hamburger patty tax, etc.).
A mix of exercise and moderation on the personal responsibility side and trying to educate people on healthy food choices when possible seems like a better route to take, though this is just the ideal and not necessarily feasible.

So now you believe in personal responsibility?

not long ago you seemed to think this tax gouge would be a good deterrent, for would be smokers. (as if there was still more than three people in America that do not know the health risks of smoking.)

So tell me, Why is a smokers tax more just than a non smokers?

Also assuming the restrictions DO succeed, why wouldn't the Government start regulating what we eat "for our own good"?

[Infra-Man]

So now you believe in personal responsibility?

not long ago you seemed to think this tax gouge would be a good deterrent, for would be smokers. (as if there was still more than three people in America that do not know the health risks of smoking.)

So tell me, Why is a smokers tax more just than a non smokers?

I'm certainly an advocate for personal responsibility, but once again, I also don't think that junk food is analogous to smoking, and therefore the comparison between the two is an imperfect one since the individual issues involved in these subjects have different solutions that need to be considered and need to be dealt with differently.

Also assuming the restrictions DO succeed, why wouldn't the Government start regulating what we eat "for our own good"?

They already have in the case of the bans and regulations on the use of trans fats in restaurants.

[Crowforge]

It's smoking not clean water, you don't need it. And if this makes someone quit then it's great. Since when is cheap poison a good thing?

[Paradox]

Since when is expensive poison a good thing? When "we" (the gov't) gets money out of it?

[section 8]

It's smoking not clean water, you don't need it. And if this makes someone quit then it's great. Since when is cheap poison a good thing?

Since when is financial bullying?

Why can't people be allowed to make their own decisions?

Why is it a blatant targeting, and taxing of lower income smokers, and not a federally funded program to help low income smokers who want to quit?
Because one costs money, and the other makes money.

[thehod]

Boo fucking hoo.

Regardless of the motive, higher prices on fags mean less people smoking. Other than a few smokers bitching about how its now more expensive to kill themselves, how is this a bad thing?

And this is coming from a guy who smoked for ten years.

[section 8]

Boo fucking hoo.

Regardless of the motive, higher prices on fags mean less people smoking. Other than a few smokers bitching about how its now more expensive to kill themselves, how is this a bad thing?

And this is coming from a guy who smoked for ten years.

it is a bad thing because the choice is being nullified.

People aren't quitting because they want to, but because they have no choice.

[TomStillwell]

The point isn't to discourage it. Its the government they could make it illegal if they wanted to and I'd actually give serious thought to such an action. The point is to milk them as much as possible because they can use the money and who is going to come to the defense of smokers? The end result is you have people paying three or four times the base value of a product which becomes punitive because you've limited all other forms of purchase such online shops or mail orders.

Couldn't they, you know, just quit?

[Paradox]

thehod gently weeps:

Boo fucking hoo.

Regardless of the motive, higher prices on fags mean less people smoking. Other than a few smokers bitching about how its now more expensive to kill themselves, how is this a bad thing?

And this is coming from a guy who smoked for ten years.

I, personally, don't argue their right. I just get tired of them bullshitting me. At least when our Governor Granholm popped sin taxes on us, she was honest. She said it was to try and help balance our state budget.

[Paradox]

TomStillwell thinks it's that easy:

Couldn't they, you know, just quit?

The majority of the smokers that are left? Probably not. It IS, after all, a HIGHLY addictive substance. There's no "just" about quitting.

[thehod]

it is a bad thing because the choice is being nullified.

People aren't quitting because they want to, but because they have no choice.

Yes they do.

If they really want to smoke that much they can do without that new DVD they wanted, or buy cheaper groceries or get the bus to work rather than drive or even walk or a zillion other things that everyone else cuts back on when prices go up on goods.

I don't give a shit whether tax is increased on smokes to save smokers or pay for a new school, because the result is less smokers and a new school.

Sure, government could be honest about it, but then when have they been honest about anything and when did people start expecting them to be honest about anything.

[Paradox]

thehod missed it:

Sure, government could be honest about it, but then when have they been honest about anything and when did people start expecting them to be honest about anything.

Sometimes they do. And unless they're doing something really shitty, they get better support when they do. As I said, our Governor was straight up, and while there was some grumbling, we sucked it up for the better of all. And I don't even LIKE her, nor did I vote for her. :wink:

[thehod]

Sometimes they do. And unless they're doing something really shitty, they get better support when they do. As I said, our Governor was straight up, and while there was some grumbling, we sucked it up for the better of all. And I don't even LIKE her, nor did I vote for her. :wink:

Then she's clearly one of the better ones.

[Paradox]

Eh, in this one instance. She may have been honest, but she wasn't successful at her goal.

[Gail Simone]

Speaking as a smoker:

Shut up, Lester.

The point isn't to punish people. What kind of an idiot would think such a thing -- though of course plenty do, and rant about it. The point is to discourage people from doing it.

And fair enough, really.

And big deal anyway. Taxation on specific goods is one of the ways in which we can effect social policy, and a completely valid one.

You don't like it? Vote in someone who'll do the other thing.


Is it necessary for you to talk like that?

Do you really think it makes your point any clearer or more persuasive?

[section 8]

Yes they do.

If they really want to smoke that much they can do without that new DVD they wanted, or buy cheaper groceries or get the bus to work rather than drive or even walk or a zillion other things that everyone else cuts back on when prices go up on goods.



You assume everyone has disposable income.

[thehod]

You assume everyone has disposable income.

If they smoke, they do.

Can't afford it? Just another reason to stop. Its not bread and water.

[section 8]

If they smoke, they do.

Can't afford it? Just another reason to stop. Its not bread and water.

*facepalm*

Again, you keep missing the entire point.

[thehod]

*facepalm*

Again, you keep missing the entire point.

Which is what?

What's this big obvious point that I'm missing?

[Paradox]

I'm curious, too. While I admit (and even said) it's damned hard to quit, when given the choice between that and rent or food or a host of etcs., you can't justify the money. Heck, I'm a heavy smoker, and I'm lucky if I can buy two-three packs every two weeks. I've been having to scrape by with roll-your-own loose tobacco and what's left out of the butts of the "real" cigarettes. Sometimes it's nasty, but who's got the cash these days?

[the4thpip]

Smokers are leeches on society. My health insurance would cost a fraction of what I have to pay if nobody smoked. 40% less cancer cases without smoking, not to mention the cardiovascular disease. Add to that the cost of fires caused by cigarettes that drive up my insurance payments and the cost of cleaning up after smokers.

I pay so much money for my health insurance that I don't have a lot left over to be a good little consumer. So smokers are hurting the comic book industry, the music industry, the fashion industry and the fine food industry by grabbing my money for their self-destructive addiction.

So 8 $ isn't nearly enough.

[Lester C.]

Is it necessary for you to talk like that?

Do you really think it makes your point any clearer or more persuasive?

We are butting heads in this thread but I am giving Paul the benefit of the doubt. People say shut up all the time and most of the time it's said in a playful or lighthearted manner meant to diffuse tension and put a light empahsis on a point of conversation. This is the way I chose to interpret the shut up comment because the rest of his post was in no way malicious or personal as he was attacking my points and not me personally.

[Lester C.]

Smokers are leeches on society. My health insurance would cost a fraction of what I have to pay if nobody smoked. 40% less cancer cases without smoking, not to mention the cardiovascular disease. Add to that the cost of fires caused by cigarettes that drive up my insurance payments and the cost of cleaning up after smokers.

I pay so much money for my health insurance that I don't have a lot left over to be a good little consumer. So smokers are hurting the comic book industry, the music industry, the fashion industry and the fine food industry by grabbing my money for their self-destructive addiction.

So 8 $ isn't nearly enough.

Pip the eight bucks isn't going toward offsetting the cost you are incurring but rather used as a source of a windfall for government. Also people have other medical issues that are self-inflicted and they aren't paying three or four times the amount the product in taxes. It's discrimination if you think about it.

[the4thpip]

Pip the eight bucks isn't going toward offsetting the cost you are incurring but rather used as a source of a windfall for government. Also people have other medical issues that are self-inflicted and they aren't paying three or four times the amount the product in taxes. It's discrimination if you think about it.

It is not UNFAIR discrimination, though.

Society constantly has to discriminate to survive: Between illegal and legal behaviour, between behavior to be encouraged and behavior to be discouraged. You are misunderstanding the assignment.

Smokers are killing themselves and it is costing society a fortune. So society is asking for some back. And my government constantnly has to pump tax dollars into the health systems, so OF COURSE the money goes to paying for (a small part of) the enormous health bill of smoking. Not to mention the fact that smokers, who often go on disability sooner and have more sick days, pay less taxes in other areas due to that loss of income.

[Solaris]

By your logic a hamburger from MacDonald should be twenty bucks. Obesity is an epidemic in this country. I'd imagine the deaths and medical costs from heart attacks and type two diabetes are in far excess of deaths and associated medical costs derived from cigarettes. But the government knows that if they go after people who are fat the American public would never stand for it so let's gouge someone who people don't like.

I love you, Lester. (You too, Section.)

It's so good when someone sees a thing for what it really is, sees the unfairness (and if Section's right about the antitrust laws, illegality) of something govt. is doing, and speaks up about it.

This is low, underhanded, and vile, and I think you're absolutely right: they are sure few people will stand up for smokers being singled out this way (aside from the smokers themselves), and it's government punishing lifestyle.

They could do it to burgers. They could do it to porn. They could do it to alcohol, or guns.

But if they do it to any of *those* categories, people would be outraged, no matter *what* the arguments given of how obesity damages more people, and creates more health cost than smoking (it does), no matter what religions will say about how "porn corrupts," no matter how many people die from drunk drivers and how many are alcoholic, no matter how many point to kids dying from finding a gun, or general statistics on people getting shot by gun owners.

It seems like smoking, (of all legal products) is the ONLY one of multiple behaviors labeled "bad" by a faction of the public than means those who do it are "fair game" to any and all efforts to force people to quit.

This certainly illustrates why smokers insist they're treated like second-class citizens... because they ARE treated that way. And few give a good goddamn about it. Nevermind that the same policies may, at some point, be instituted to affect *them* at some point in the future. For instance, obese people may look back on this with regret, when it's become so socially acceptable to treat *them* like second class citizens (once they become less than a majority) when the government starts hypertaxing products that promote it, and/or limiting what foods they can buy over the internet.



BTW, Les---what state are you in again?

[Paradox]

Also, pip, I'm pretty sure your health insurance is so high because the insurance industry damn well wants it that way. Their profits are massive and getting them to pay off is often like pulling teeth. Granted, they probably would be lower with less cigarette cancer, but I'm not buying that that's as major a cause as you're portraying it as.

[Lester C.]

I love you, Lester. (You too, Section.)

It's so good when someone sees a thing for what it really is, sees the unfairness (and if Section's right about the antitrust laws, illegality) of something govt. is doing, and speaks up about it.

This is low, underhanded, and vile, and I think you're absolutely right: they are sure few people will stand up for smokers being singled out this way (aside from the smokers themselves), and it's government punishing lifestyle.

They could do it to burgers. They could do it to porn. They could do it to alcohol, or guns.

But if they do it to any of *those* categories, people would be outraged, no matter *what* the arguments given of how obesity damages more people, and creates more health cost than smoking (it does), no matter what religions will say about how "porn corrupts," no matter how many people die from drunk drivers and how many are alcoholic, no matter how many point to kids dying from finding a gun, or general statistics on people getting shot by gun owners.

It seems like smoking, (of all legal products) is the ONLY one of multiple behaviors labeled "bad" by a faction of the public than means those who do it are "fair game" to any and all efforts to force people to quit.

This certainly illustrates why smokers insist they're treated like second-class citizens... because they ARE treated that way. And few give a good goddamn about it. Nevermind that the same policies may, at some point, be instituted to affect *them* at some point in the future. For instance, obese people may look back on this with regret, when it's become so socially acceptable to treat *them* like second class citizens (once they become less than a majority) when the government starts hypertaxing products that promote it, and/or limiting what foods they can buy over the internet.



BTW, Les---what state are you in again?

I live in IL. It's 6:30 in the morning and I've already had one cup of freshly ground coffee. Thank you for giving me that habit.:mad: :biggrin:

[Solaris]

You can exercise off the calories and cholesterol and fat in a hamburger and fries.

What can you do to reverse the effects of smoking?

Yeah, you can jog it off, IF you do so.

So tell me: how do you fix your plaque-encrusted arteries? How do you reverse your Diabetes? How do you reverse the damage done by that stroke you got, and that heart attack?

Stop trying to pretend obesity is only about the fat, and nothing about the permanent damage and diseases *it* causes.

In fact, I remember a study being posted here within the past year or so, that showed obesity does far more damage to far more people than smoking---and drives up heathcare costs far more than smoking does, also.

Of course, this kind of taxation on high fat and sugar foods won't *affect* a healthy eater, or someone who only does the occasional indulgence... just as the "occasional" smoker feels minimal effect from this kind of taxation.

So---are you ready for your next twelve-pack of sodas from the grocery store to cost 3 bucks per can? (That's $36.00 for a twelve-pack, btw.) And don't laugh at that: sodas are the number one consumable that most people get the most sugar from. Of course, you could switch to diet sodas, which cost less. But let's see, we're not done; how about 12 bucks for a bag of sugar? 9 bucks for a chocolate bar? 23 bucks for a six-pack of beer? Oh, and those pasta meals? Way high in carbs---let's run those up to 18 bucks per meal.

And that's just at the grocery store---some of the highest fat, sugar, carb, and bad cholesterol meals are fast food... so let's put the package meals at McDonalds, Wendy's, and all those guys up to 22 buck per meal---after all, you get excess fat and carbs and bad cholesterol from the burger and fries, and excess sugar from the soda, so it's a *totally* lethal package.

And as Paul says, who cares? It's obviously government's duty to implement social policy in this... and it's just a bunch of fat people anyway who refuse to change their disgusting habit despite healthy alternatives being out there... and I'm tired of paying their enormous healthcare costs. [/sarcasm]

[Solaris]

I live in IL. It's 6:30 in the morning and I've already had one cup of freshly ground coffee. Thank you for giving me that habit.:mad: :biggrin:


A little bit of caffeine is actually good for you, Les. :wink: Besides, it makes you awake enough to post some damn fine stuff. :biggrin:

[section 8]

Which is what?

What's this big obvious point that I'm missing?

That this will only effect smokers below the poverty line.
That the idea has nothing to do with health, but draining the wallets of already struggling Americans.
and that the very principal is asinine, I neither need nor want the Government trying to force me into quitting for the same reason I don't need my mother to pick out my socks for me each morning.

If the market demands that the price goes up, fine.
But record people are quitting, indoor smoking is all but a memory, and the public is well aware of the heath problems caused by smoking, anyone who has the slightest interest in quitting has enough reason to do so. These restrictions are overkill that won't "help" a damned soul no mater how many people quit. their only purpose is to the away the freedom of choice for the poor, while strong arming the middle class for more money.

But given your "end justifies the means" mentality I'm sure you still refuse to see my point

Smokers are leeches on society. My health insurance would cost a fraction of what I have to pay if nobody smoked. 40% less cancer cases without smoking, not to mention the cardiovascular disease. Add to that the cost of fires caused by cigarettes that drive up my insurance payments and the cost of cleaning up after smokers.

I pay so much money for my health insurance that I don't have a lot left over to be a good little consumer. So smokers are hurting the comic book industry, the music industry, the fashion industry and the fine food industry by grabbing my money for their self-destructive addiction.

So 8 $ isn't nearly enough.

Pip, I quit smoking three weeks ago, and I didn't want a cigarette until i saw your post, I also want to smoke that cigarette in your favorite restaurant as you try to enjoy a meal, but that's beside the point

"leeches on society" eh?
In the US we have plenty of people who abuse the welfare system, the purposely, and chronically unemployed, the many many "undocumented non-citizens", wasteful govt. spending, and overcrowded prisons. i

all of which drain tax dollars, all of which are hurting the comic book, music, etc industries more than your average smoker who DOES work, Who DOES pay taxes, who DOES contribute to society.

Which is no doubt the heart of the matter after all, you can't draw blood from a turnip.
And where do you get this 40% less cancer stuff from?
do you have a link?
is there even any way to accurately prove/determine this?
or is the old saying true? "94% of statistics are made up"


It is not UNFAIR discrimination, though.

Society constantly has to discriminate to survive: Between illegal and legal behaviour, between behavior to be encouraged and behavior to be discouraged. You are misunderstanding the assignment.

Smokers are killing themselves and it is costing society a fortune. So society is asking for some back. And my government constantnly has to pump tax dollars into the health systems, so OF COURSE the money goes to paying for (a small part of) the enormous health bill of smoking. Not to mention the fact that smokers, who often go on disability sooner and have more sick days, pay less taxes in other areas due to that loss of income.

*See above*
This is another reason I'm not entirely sold on universal heath care in this country,

If it means having non-smokers feel entitled to force smokers to quit, all while the same smokers are having to pay for the non smoker's fat kid's diabetic medicine, then I doubt it's worth it.

it would be funny if it were not so sad

[Solaris]

It's smoking not clean water, you don't need it. And if this makes someone quit then it's great. Since when is cheap poison a good thing?

First, it's not cheap. They're talking eight dollars a PACK---not per CARTON. That means your average carton costs between $75-$85, depending on whether or not they give any kind of discount for buying by the carton, rather than individual packs.

Second, okay, let's run with your "poison" thing---so when are you going to start lobbying for getting rid of alcohol? After all, it's "poison" too---and it's certainly not "clean water."

[TomStillwell]

That this will only effect smokers below the poverty line.

Then maybe poor people shouldn't take up an expensive habit like smoking. Seems to me that if you're below the poverty and probably on some kind of government aid than you shouldn't be setting money aside for cigarettes.

[section 8]

Then maybe poor people shouldn't take up an expensive habit like smoking. Seems to me that if you're below the poverty and probably on some kind of government aid than you shouldn't be setting money aside for cigarettes.

and how is a smoker supposed to know when they are about to be blindsided with new taxes and fees? It is already well known that nicotine is more addictive than many illegal drugs. Many people smoke because they are addicted to nicotine and are living hand to mouth. They can afford a pack today, but not the patches, or gums, or what have you, to help them quit.

yet the gov't isn't capping the prices of stop smoking aides. they are taxing cigarettes. This doesn't seem a little backward to you?

[Solaris]

Smokers are leeches on society. My health insurance would cost a fraction of what I have to pay if nobody smoked. 40% less cancer cases without smoking, not to mention the cardiovascular disease. Add to that the cost of fires caused by cigarettes that drive up my insurance payments and the cost of cleaning up after smokers.

I pay so much money for my health insurance that I don't have a lot left over to be a good little consumer. So smokers are hurting the comic book industry, the music industry, the fashion industry and the fine food industry by grabbing my money for their self-destructive addiction.

So 8 $ isn't nearly enough.


Really? REALLY?

You know what? I'm TIRED of this BULLSHIT, and I'm LEAVING THIS THREAD.

But before I go, ALL of you folks who think it's just FINE AND DANDY to BITCH and WHINE about what "Smokers cost YOU," and how "It's OKAY to do this... because they're better off anyway," and "Well I think it's a disgusting habit," I'd like to say this:

I am willing to bet that at least HALF, if not MORE of you who are saying these things are clinically obese, eat far more junk food and fast food than is good for you, and the amount of exercise you get is roughly equivalent to the number of times you've lost your remote and have to get up and change the channel by hand. IT'S BEEN PROVEN that obesity, consumption of harmful foods, and lack of exercise CAUSES MORE HEALTH PROBLEMS THAN SMOKING. Want a list?


heart disease
stroke
diabetes
cancer (lack of oxygen to cells)
high blood pressure
depressed immune system
permanent damage to joints


There are more, but those are the biggies.

Now, I'm just as tired of THE NUMBER ONE FACTOR IN RISING HEALTH COST BEING BECAUSE A BUNCH OF YOU ARE FAT, as you are for the costs caused by smokers.

We ALL do a LOT of things that are bad for us, that affect our health---and so long as the products we use are legal, that's our choice.

So get off your fucking high horses, people. STOP poking at the mote in the smoker's eyes and ignoring the BIG FREAKIN' BEAM in your own. YOUR healthcare costs affect me FAR more than mine does YOURS---because there's a whole helluva lot more of you out there shovin' those burgers to a farethewell.


And, further, not ALL heart disease, high cholesterol, etc. can be fixed with mere diet and not smoking---there's a lot of people out there who die of heart attacks every year because they thought that being thin, eating well, and exercise was enough---so they didn't bother to get the physical that would tell them that they have an inherited tendency to high bad cholesterol. I've known of some like that---AND, they're the most likely to have a massive heart attack and die... because they are the most likely to NOT have had the health checks that would detect they were at risk. SO... we can't blame all the occurrences of this disease on smoking OR diet. Get educated on it.


I'm done with this thread. The stench of hypocrisy, the singling-out of smokers while ignoring America's number one health risk (and all our collective *other* bad health behaviors), and the digust being thrown at smokers is sickening and stupid. :mad:

[Infra-Man]

Yeah, you can jog it off, IF you do so.

So tell me: how do you fix your plaque-encrusted arteries? How do you reverse your Diabetes? How do you reverse the damage done by that stroke you got, and that heart attack?

Stop trying to pretend obesity is only about the fat, and nothing about the permanent damage and diseases *it* causes.

In fact, I remember a study being posted here within the past year or so, that showed obesity does far more damage to far more people than smoking---and drives up heathcare costs far more than smoking does, also.

Where did I say it was only about fat? In another post, I mention that the issue is much more complex and state that the complexity of the fast food and junk food issue is why I don't find it analogous to smoking since each subject presents different issues that need to be addressed.

Of course, this kind of taxation on high fat and sugar foods won't *affect* a healthy eater, or someone who only does the occasional indulgence... just as the "occasional" smoker feels minimal effect from this kind of taxation.

So---are you ready for your next twelve-pack of sodas from the grocery store to cost 3 bucks per can? (That's $36.00 for a twelve-pack, btw.) And don't laugh at that: sodas are the number one consumable that most people get the most sugar from. Of course, you could switch to diet sodas, which cost less. But let's see, we're not done; how about 12 bucks for a bag of sugar? 9 bucks for a chocolate bar? 23 bucks for a six-pack of beer? Oh, and those pasta meals? Way high in carbs---let's run those up to 18 bucks per meal.

And that's just at the grocery store---some of the highest fat, sugar, carb, and bad cholesterol meals are fast food... so let's put the package meals at McDonalds, Wendy's, and all those guys up to 22 buck per meal---after all, you get excess fat and carbs and bad cholesterol from the burger and fries, and excess sugar from the soda, so it's a *totally* lethal package.

And as Paul says, who cares? It's obviously government's duty to implement social policy in this... and it's just a bunch of fat people anyway who refuse to change their disgusting habit despite healthy alternatives being out there... and I'm tired of paying their enormous healthcare costs. [/sarcasm]

Where did I say I support a tax on junk food or fast food?

I've said in various posts that I don't support taxation of junk foods and fast foods because the health issues surrounding food are much more complex (i.e., involve geography, access to certain kinds of stores, income level, etc.) and have to be dealt with differently than smoking.

The difficulty with the junk food issue (with some broad points) is that at the store, it is generally cheaper to buy junk food rather than buy healthy food (at least in terms of a study of calories to dollars). A tax on junk food would thus hurt people of lower income brackets since they tend to be more likely to spend money on more filling, high-calorie foods as their money can stretch farther on those types of foods. In addition, people who live in certain areas may not have access to a grocery store with produce or healthy food options. They may be stuck with just the corner convenience store, whose prices are often already higher than a grocery store. People in this situation are basically limited in their healthy eating options, and so a tax on junk foods would also be a tax on the area someone lives (which would usually be a less well off neighborhood than a neighborhood with a grocery store).

I also mention the difficulties of taxation on other junk food items in a previous post, asking if we'd have to pay a birthday cake tax, a cupcake tax, a cheese tax, etc. I don't think we should because I don't think we should tax junk food (all this playing to the point that the junk food issue and the smoking issue are two separate things).

I remember hearing Michael Pollan talk about healthy eating on Fresh Air (if I remember right) one time and he proposed so sort of co-op system to help people get the fresh fruits and vegetables they need in areas that do not usually have the fresh fruits and vegetables. I thought it sounded nice, but the question becomes how much the implementation of such a system cost, how much will the produce cost to the consumer, if the availability of produce necessarily means the consumption of produce taking into account the previous factor, and if the idea is even feasible given the size of the country. It reminded me of the same thing a friend of mine and I discussed a year or two ago about how some areas just don't have healthy food options and how the ideas of local co-ops sound great but too utopian to be realistic.

There are other issues involved and this is just a cursory glimpse, but I want to clarify with you one last time that I don't believe in taxing junk foods like cigarettes because each issue presents different issues that must be addressed on their own terms.

[section 8]

Really? REALLY?

You know what? I'm TIRED of this BULLSHIT, and I'm LEAVING THIS THREAD.


Right behind you Sol,
This thread isn't headed anywhere healthy (no pun intended)

[LewisH]

smoking (which it does seem to do) then I'm all for it. To be honest though, I have no sympathy for anyone who started smoking after 1968. They started doing the PSAs and putting warnings on the packs around then. If you are so stupid as to put poison in your lungs after that, then to hell with you.

[Paradox]

'66 to be precise.

And it never should have been needed. Anyone who thinks lighting something on fire and inhaling the smoke into your lungs isn't bad for you is a moron, and the '50s and before medical profession should be absolutely ashamed of themselves.

[thehod]

That this will only effect smokers below the poverty line.
That the idea has nothing to do with health, but draining the wallets of already struggling Americans.
and that the very principal is asinine, I neither need nor want the Government trying to force me into quitting for the same reason I don't need my mother to pick out my socks for me each morning.

If the market demands that the price goes up, fine.
But record people are quitting, indoor smoking is all but a memory, and the public is well aware of the heath problems caused by smoking, anyone who has the slightest interest in quitting has enough reason to do so. These restrictions are overkill that won't "help" a damned soul no mater how many people quit. their only purpose is to the away the freedom of choice for the poor, while strong arming the middle class for more money.

But given your "end justifies the means" mentality I'm sure you still refuse to see my point

That's not what I said.

I have no problem with people who smoke mainly because I used to be one, so I've been at the sharp end of seeing the prices rise on my fags 400% over the ten years I smoked.

However, I never considered them to be a neccesity and when times were hard I went without.

That's all I was saying, so you can knock off the "end justifies the means mentality" jab.

[thehod]

I'll also be the first to say that if scoffing huge chunks of processed, fried, cheesy meat every single meal has become more of a health risk than inhaling tobacco smoke, then maybe there should be a tax on junk food.

Lord know the world and its healthcare systems could do with less lard-arses to look after.

[Paradox]

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL EVERYTHING I LOVE?????


:wink:

[GozertheGozarian]

WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL EVERYTHING I LOVE?????


:wink:
There's no porn tax yet.

[thehod]

There's no porn tax yet.

I'm going after tissues next.

[Infra-Man]

There's no porn tax yet.

Half the internet would be gone if there was a porn tax.

[Alan Lynch]

Half the internet would be gone if there was a porn tax.
Half? A conservative guess if ever I saw one.

[jessecuster3]

Boo fucking hoo.

Regardless of the motive, higher prices on fags mean less people smoking. Other than a few smokers bitching about how its now more expensive to kill themselves, how is this a bad thing?

And this is coming from a guy who smoked for ten years.

Well the government here in Illinois, has been basing their tax revenue off the number of smokers, say 5 years ago, and counting on that base remaining the same but increasing the taxes to add to their coffers for public works. They think its a flat line, its not, its a bell curve. As they increase the taxes at this point people will begin to quit(I know I am), and that revenue will begin to drop, what will they do then?

[sk716]

Arkansas kicked up the sales taxes, too. They went up two and a half weeks ago. Guess when I stuck the first patch on my arm? Steph quit about a week ago.

[thehod]

Well the government here in Illinois, has been basing their tax revenue off the number of smokers, say 5 years ago, and counting on that base remaining the same but increasing the taxes to add to their coffers for public works. They think its a flat line, its not, its a bell curve. As they increase the taxes at this point people will begin to quit(I know I am), and that revenue will begin to drop, what will they do then?

Start treating tax from cigarettes as a bonus to the budget and not an intergral part?

Or just take the cash direct from Paradox's bank account.

[the4thpip]

Also, pip, I'm pretty sure your health insurance is so high because the insurance industry damn well wants it that way. Their profits are massive and getting them to pay off is often like pulling teeth. Granted, they probably would be lower with less cigarette cancer, but I'm not buying that that's as major a cause as you're portraying it as.

Not really. Years of people freely choosing the cheapest affordable health insurers in a country with universal health insurance led to quite a bit of competition. Most of the insurance companies are actually in debt. Not a lot of massive profits there.

[the4thpip]

You can exercise off the calories and cholesterol and fat in a hamburger and fries.

What can you do to reverse the effects of smoking?

Also, Lester eating a burger isn't making the people standing around him sick, too.

And my health insurance actually pays me back about € 100,- each year because I get my vaccinations, go to a gym at least once a year and have a healthy Body Mass Index. It's a bit of a hassle getting that paperwork done, but in that way, they ARE making people who eat too much unhealthy stuff pay more.

[GozertheGozarian]

Well the government here in Illinois, has been basing their tax revenue off the number of smokers, say 5 years ago, and counting on that base remaining the same but increasing the taxes to add to their coffers for public works. They think its a flat line, its not, its a bell curve. As they increase the taxes at this point people will begin to quit(I know I am), and that revenue will begin to drop, what will they do then?
They learned nothing from the last tax hike. It's going to be another border boom.

[the4thpip]

Pip, I quit smoking three weeks ago, and I didn't want a cigarette until i saw your post, I also want to smoke that cigarette in your favorite restaurant as you try to enjoy a meal, but that's beside the point

"leeches on society" eh?
In the US we have plenty of people who abuse the welfare system, the purposely, and chronically unemployed, the many many "undocumented non-citizens", wasteful govt. spending, and overcrowded prisons. i


The truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?

Not all tolerance is equally merited. Not all discrimination is bad, some of it is, as I have shown, essential for a functioning society.

And after Clinton did away with "welfare as y'all knew it" it's not like the chronically unemployed have such a cushy life in your country, do they?

[sk716]

. . .

They could do it to burgers. They could do it to porn. They could do it to alcohol, or guns.

But if they do it to any of *those* categories, people would be outraged, no matter *what* the arguments given of how obesity damages more people, and creates more health cost than smoking (it does), no matter what religions will say about how "porn corrupts," no matter how many people die from drunk drivers and how many are alcoholic, no matter how many point to kids dying from finding a gun, or general statistics on people getting shot by gun owners.

. . .

Arkansas has a statewide 2% "hamburger tax." We've had it for a couple of years, it applies to all prepared foods. The 'outrage' hasn't been loud enough to keep the legislature from constantly debating adding another 1%, though.

Also, some cities have added city hamburger taxes, mostly it seems to fund advertising and city promotions. One city is currently in discussion about adding a 5% alcohol tax in restaurants with that revenue going to fund the police department.

But to help balance this out, the state has been steadily reducing the percentage of the grocery tax with the intent of eliminating it altogether.

[Gilda Dent]

Arkansas has a statewide 2% "hamburger tax." We've had it for a couple of years, it applies to all prepared foods. The 'outrage' hasn't been loud enough to keep the legislature from constantly debating adding another 1%, though.

Also, some cities have added city hamburger taxes, mostly it seems to fund advertising and city promotions. One city is currently in discussion about adding a 5% alcohol tax in restaurants with that revenue going to fund the police department.

But to help balance this out, the state has been steadily reducing the percentage of the grocery tax with the intent of eliminating it altogether.

I like every part of that.

Eating healthy shouldn't cost more than eating junk.

[beetlebum]

What nanny state BS, Paul. If they were that concerned about people's health, they'd make tobacco illegal. Instead they sin tax it, because the tobacco lobby has so much influence they'd never get away with making it illegal. They're jobbing "us" for money.

Which, of course, they're allowed to do. And they do need the money.

But let's not sugar-coat it that it's about their concern for our health or social engineering.

I agree with this.

Really? REALLY?

You know what? I'm TIRED of this BULLSHIT, and I'm LEAVING THIS THREAD.

But before I go, ALL of you folks who think it's just FINE AND DANDY to BITCH and WHINE about what "Smokers cost YOU," and how "It's OKAY to do this... because they're better off anyway," and "Well I think it's a disgusting habit," I'd like to say this:

I am willing to bet that at least HALF, if not MORE of you who are saying these things are clinically obese, eat far more junk food and fast food than is good for you, and the amount of exercise you get is roughly equivalent to the number of times you've lost your remote and have to get up and change the channel by hand. IT'S BEEN PROVEN that obesity, consumption of harmful foods, and lack of exercise CAUSES MORE HEALTH PROBLEMS THAN SMOKING. Want a list?


heart disease
stroke
diabetes
cancer (lack of oxygen to cells)
high blood pressure
depressed immune system
permanent damage to joints


There are more, but those are the biggies.

Now, I'm just as tired of THE NUMBER ONE FACTOR IN RISING HEALTH COST BEING BECAUSE A BUNCH OF YOU ARE FAT, as you are for the costs caused by smokers.

We ALL do a LOT of things that are bad for us, that affect our health---and so long as the products we use are legal, that's our choice.

So get off your fucking high horses, people. STOP poking at the mote in the smoker's eyes and ignoring the BIG FREAKIN' BEAM in your own. YOUR healthcare costs affect me FAR more than mine does YOURS---because there's a whole helluva lot more of you out there shovin' those burgers to a farethewell.


And, further, not ALL heart disease, high cholesterol, etc. can be fixed with mere diet and not smoking---there's a lot of people out there who die of heart attacks every year because they thought that being thin, eating well, and exercise was enough---so they didn't bother to get the physical that would tell them that they have an inherited tendency to high bad cholesterol. I've known of some like that---AND, they're the most likely to have a massive heart attack and die... because they are the most likely to NOT have had the health checks that would detect they were at risk. SO... we can't blame all the occurrences of this disease on smoking OR diet. Get educated on it.


I'm done with this thread. The stench of hypocrisy, the singling-out of smokers while ignoring America's number one health risk (and all our collective *other* bad health behaviors), and the digust being thrown at smokers is sickening and stupid. :mad:

Solaris; I love you.

[Lester C.]

Then maybe poor people shouldn't take up an expensive habit like smoking. Seems to me that if you're below the poverty and probably on some kind of government aid than you shouldn't be setting money aside for cigarettes.

Tom you are acting as if cigarettes are a luxury product. They aren't. When I was a teen my older brother used to buy them for a dollar and a quarter per pack. They would still be that price if it wasn't for the taxes driving them to, after April, eight bucks a pack.

[thehod]

Tom you are acting as if cigarettes are a luxury product. They aren't.

Hang on.

In what way aren't cigarettes a luxury product?

[beetlebum]

"leeches on society" eh?
In the US we have plenty of people who abuse the welfare system, the purposely, and chronically unemployed, the many many "undocumented non-citizens", wasteful govt. spending, and overcrowded prisons. i



[Slightly off-topic]

But illegal immigrants aren't the leeches on society that some claim they are:

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive any "welfare" benefits and even legal immigrants are severely restricted in the benefits they can receive.

As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits -- ever.

Legal permanent residents must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for approximately 10 years before they are eligible to receive benefits when they retire. In most cases, LPRs can not receive SSI, which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards.

Also, the reforms that Clinton implemented in 1996 require most recipients to work within two years of receiving assistance. It also limits most assistance to five years total, and lets states establish "family caps" to deny additional benefits to mothers for children born while the mothers are already on public assistance.

Back on topic: I agree, smokers aren't leeches on society, as most of them do work and actually pay their taxes, whether it be federal or in the form of local, excise taxes.

[Lester C.]

Hang on.

In what way aren't cigarettes a luxury product?

Without taxes above and beyond the normal sales tax rate cigarettes are cheap.

[thehod]

Without taxes above and beyond the normal sales tax rate cigarettes are cheap.

Then we probably have a different definition as to what contitutes luxury.

To my mind, luxury products are ones you cannot live without, not just the ones that happen to be cheap.

I can get a dirt cheap packet of rich tea biscuits, but they are still a luxury item.

[Infra-Man]

Arkansas has a statewide 2% "hamburger tax." We've had it for a couple of years, it applies to all prepared foods. The 'outrage' hasn't been loud enough to keep the legislature from constantly debating adding another 1%, though.

Also, some cities have added city hamburger taxes, mostly it seems to fund advertising and city promotions. One city is currently in discussion about adding a 5% alcohol tax in restaurants with that revenue going to fund the police department.

But to help balance this out, the state has been steadily reducing the percentage of the grocery tax with the intent of eliminating it altogether.

If they could somehow balance out this taxation with a means of lowering the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables and increasing the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables to areas in which they are difficult to get, that'd be a pretty keen step in the right direction. The next issue is convincing people to spend more money in order to buy healthier foods.

[Lester C.]

Then we probably have a different definition as to what contitutes luxury.

To my mind, luxury products are ones you cannot live without, not just the ones that happen to be cheap.

I can get a dirt cheap packet of rich tea biscuits, but they are still a luxury item.

From a physical point of view it could be argued that once a person is addicted to cigarettes they can't live without it, hence the withdrawal symptoms.

[Dazzler]

When I found out about the tax, I lit up right there and blew the smoke in a baby's face.

I agree with Solaris. This crap is just filled to the brim with hypocrisy.

Now, I'm off to leech off the system and society.

(which by the way I think is hilarious and so sanctimonious. I hope that smarmy sanctimoniousness is in place when people with other high risk bad choices "leech" off the system...like people who jaywalk and get hit by cars, people who have unprotected sex and contract diseases, and people who go have skiing accidents and suffer brain damage. Let's face it...it just makes some people feel like better human beings to have something to be holier than thou about.)

--Dazz

[Nick Soapdish]

The point isn't to discourage it. Its the government they could make it illegal if they wanted to and I'd actually give serious thought to such an action. The point is to milk them as much as possible because they can use the money and who is going to come to the defense of smokers? The end result is you have people paying three or four times the base value of a product which becomes punitive because you've limited all other forms of purchase such online shops or mail orders.

I'm probably way too late on this, but I'd like to make three points.


The first thing that I ever hear when raising taxes on cigarettes is proposed is that it will discourage people from smokers, especially teenagers. It's often closely followed by the potential for revenue gain, but decreasing the number of smokers is a top goal.
Opponents of those taxes usually try to point out that the revenue gains are going to be minimal because of the lowered demand or because people will buy them out-of-state or online. Since Florida currently has the 5th lowest tax rate on cigarettes ($.339 - lower than North Carolina!), I'm not too concerned about that.

How many taxes are exclusively used to offset the direct costs of the activity of product that they tax? Gas and ... ?

The problem with making it illegal is that it only drives the market underground and we already have a lot of addicts. I think that a better solution is education and regulation.
I'm also in favor of legalizing marijuana for essentially the same reasons. Legally, they should both be regulated by the FDA and prohibited (or only allowed for medical use with marijuana), but practically, legalization is better IMO. People have the right to be stupid, but government has the right to discourage them from doing it.


That being said, $8 a pack is a bit high. I live in Florida which is a bit of an outlier, tax-wise. We haven't raised taxes in over 20 years and are well below the median cigarette tax. However, that hasn't stopped the tobacco industry from going ballistic over the possibility of raising taxes (to a dollar) and warning of crime from the new cigarette cartels.

[thehod]

From a physical point of view it could be argued that once a person is addicted to cigarettes they can't live without it, hence the withdrawal symptoms.

Bit of a stretch that.

Addicted or not, smoking is still a choice.

[Dreadstar]

That being said, $8 a pack is a bit high.

On a product costs around a buck to make? Ya think?

[beetlebum]

If they could somehow balance out this taxation with a means of lowering the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables and increasing the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables to areas in which they are difficult to get, that'd be a pretty keen step in the right direction. The next issue is convincing people to spend more money in order to buy healthier foods.

That's part of the reason why I'm more apt to stop into Carl's Jr. for a chicken sandwich; it's only a dollar and twenty-five cents.

But there are also places like Dollar Tree which sell canned vegetables and fruits for less than a dollar.

But I agree with you, there needs to be an effort on making healthier foods more available in low income areas, and convincing people to eat them.

[Infra-Man]

One has to develop the addiction in the first place. Prior to the addiction, the product with the addictive substance is not essential to the basic function of a person and therefore is something they can live without.

(This does not take into account possible genetic predispositions to develop addictive behaviors.)

[Nick Soapdish]

From a physical point of view it could be argued that once a person is addicted to cigarettes they can't live without it, hence the withdrawal symptoms.

My father just quit this year after smoking 2 packs a day for nearly 50 years and he claims that it was fairly easy. (There were some side effects from the drug, like nausea.) However, he has decent health insurance which was able to help him quit. If we can manage to get a decent universal health plan, I think that dealing with the addiction factor should be a lot less of a problem. The electronic cigarettes also sound promising. Same effect without the pollution or the taxes.

[Dazzler]

Bit of a stretch that.

Addicted or not, smoking is still a choice.

So is driving without a seat belt.

We gonna brow beat the people who end up in comas because they can't take the .5 seconds it takes to buckle up?

Stupid assholes. They shoulda known better. Pull the plug! They made their choice. Damn leeches.

--Dazz

[Nick Soapdish]

On a product costs around a buck to make? Ya think?

Would bolding the "bit" have made it a bit more obvious that I was understating?

[Nick Soapdish]

So is driving without a seat belt.

We gonna brow beat the people who end up in comas because they can't take the .5 seconds it takes to buckle up?

Stupid assholes. They shoulda known better. Pull the plug! They made their choice. Damn leeches.

--Dazz

You can get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in 49 states.

[Dazzler]

You can get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in 49 states.

So? People still do it, and shit happens because of it.

Futhermore, I don't drive anymore, and I refuse to let my tax dollars go to some asshole who got in a car accident and ended up on life support. I mean, the second he or she got in that car, they KNEW it was possible to get in a crash. They engaged in a risk behavior and I don't feel I should have to fit the bill for it.
Damn car drivers. Stinking up the air and causing crashes left and right.

--Dazz

[Dreadstar]

Would bolding the "bit" have made it a bit more obvious that I was understating?

Oh, I wasn't giving you shit, I was . . . well, I was in essence bolding the "bit."

IOW, I was agreeing with you and tossing in a bit of sarcasm to boot.

[thehod]

So is driving without a seat belt.

We gonna brow beat the people who end up in comas because they can't take the .5 seconds it takes to buckle up?

Stupid assholes. They shoulda known better. Pull the plug! They made their choice. Damn leeches.

--Dazz

Have I said anywhere that I consider smokers to be stupid? I used to be one myself, so I'm fully aware of exactly how much of a bitch it can be when the cost of fags goes up, again.

Have I brow beaten anyone over their choice to smoke. I've just said that it is a choice and that, if need be, all the people who smoke could do without it.

If you choose to smoke, please be my guest and puff away. I will not denegrate you in anyway. But please stop bloody moaning because your particular vice happens to cost more than someone elses vice. Either (excuse the pun) suck it up, or stop.

[Infra-Man]

That's part of the reason why I'm more apt to stop into Carl's Jr. for a chicken sandwich; it's only a dollar and twenty-five cents.

But there are also places like Dollar Tree which sell canned vegetables and fruits for less than a dollar.

But I agree with you, there needs to be an effort on making healthier foods more available in low income areas, and convincing people to eat them.

Yeah, I mean, I'll admit I'm not as well-versed in food issues as I could be, but my brother is a former chef and a foodie so I talk to him about this stuff every now and then; and I dabble in cooking so I kind of check into stuff like this every now and then as well.

There are two things about eating healthy that are rough--it takes money and time and often both, and both of these are hard to spare at times. When you get fast food, you pay for the convenience of not having to make it yourself so you save time; when you pay for junk food at the store, it's cheaper than pears and has more calories so from a dollar-to-calorie standpoint, it's cheaper to get junk food than healthy food. Junk food tends to be cheaper because the ingredients in them tend to be cheaper and healthier food tends to be more expensive because the foods themselves (say produce that has to be shipped) or the ingredients in foods tend to be more expensive.

So the big problem with pushing healthier food on people is that once you have an ideal situation of availability in place, you now have to convince people that they have to pay more for food and why that'd be a good thing; a hard thing to do when people are living on limited incomes. I think there was some statistic that it would cost about 7 to 9 times more to purchase 2,000 calories worth of healthy food compared to junk food from the store. While the prices change comparing fast food to healthy food, the preparation time thing comes into play.

[Nick Soapdish]

So? People still do it, and shit happens because of it.

Futhermore, I don't drive anymore, and I refuse to let my tax dollars go to some asshole who got in a car accident and ended up on life support. I mean, the second he or she got in that car, they KNEW it was possible to get in a crash. They engaged in a risk behavior and I don't feel I should have to fit the bill for it.
Damn car drivers. Stinking up the air and causing crashes left and right.

--Dazz

My point is that there is a fine (often heavy) for people that choose that behavior.

Just like taxes on cigarettes.

[Nick Soapdish]

Oh, I wasn't giving you shit, I was . . . well, I was in essence bolding the "bit."

IOW, I was agreeing with you and tossing in a bit of sarcasm to boot.

I'm sorry.

I guess I'm over-sensitive on this subject. It always annoys me and I don't really see a satisfactory fix to the conflict.

[Lester C.]

Guys let's keep this debate civil. We can each articulate our points without using inflammatory language.

[Slam_Bradley]

Which HAS to be a violation of Antitrust laws http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust


I know you professed to leave, but just in case anyone else was wondering this is in no way an Anti-trust issue. Governments are immune from anti-trust laws. In a large number of states the only place that distilled alcohol can be sold is at state-owned liquor dispensaries. It is the definition of a monopoly. Doesn't matter. The government can have a monopoly.

[Paradox]

Lester C. really needs a smack:

From a physical point of view it could be argued that once a person is addicted to cigarettes they can't live without it, hence the withdrawal symptoms.

No, you can live without smokes, even if you're addicted. They're definitely a luxury item. That can't even be brought into question.

[Nick Soapdish]

No, you can live without smokes, even if you're addicted. They're definitely a luxury item. That can't even be brought into question.

I guess it could depend on the definition that you use and the level of taxes.

The top definition is "a nonessential good, but conducive to pleasure and comfort", but second is "something expensive". If you go by the latter, they aren't a luxury in a few states at least.

[Alan Lynch]

Guys let's keep this debate civil. We can each articulate our points without using inflammatory language.
In my experience discussion smoking on the internet, no we can't. It's one of those topics that brings out the dick in people.

[bfrank]

some poor bastard battling lung cancer.
:rolleyes: LOL

This is bullshit and it has to stop.

:rolleyes: LOL

[Paradox]

Nick Soapdish should just go by topic:

I guess it could depend on the definition that you use and the level of taxes.

The top definition is "a nonessential good, but conducive to pleasure and comfort", but second is "something expensive". If you go by the latter, they aren't a luxury in a few states at least.

I'm going by the definition that would be used in a legal/economic sense of "luxury tax" which would be the first one (and the only one that would apply to this case). Context and all.

[bfrank]

If a person stops smoking before they get cancer they reverse the effects of smoking. If a person stops eating fatty heart clogging foods before they get a heart attack they can reverse the damage done to them. In both instances the smoker and fatty food eater are gambling with their heath which is their right to do since both products are legal.

Also there are plenty of skinny people who exercise, are slim, but die young because of their diet. So you really can't exorcise transfats any more than you can cigarettes smoke so both products are the same in that regard.


Is there an effect akin to second hand smoke that is caused by someone eating a whopper? If so, please link, if no, drop the bull shit......

[Slam_Bradley]

:rolleyes: LOL



:rolleyes: LOL


Well there's a well thought out argument.

[Dazzler]

Is there an effect akin to second hand smoke that is caused by someone eating a whopper? If so, please link, if no, drop the bull shit......
Yep. Parents with poor eating skills pass it on to their children.

How many monstrously fat moms and dads have you seen with their own little butterball in tow? Children under a certain age are dependent on their parents to provide food for them, and when that food is straight off the McDonald's value menu day after day....

--Dazz

[Merey]

No, you can live without smokes, even if you're addicted. They're definitely a luxury item. That can't even be brought into question.

Exactly, which is why bringing bad eating habits hypocrisy counter-argument is pretty ridiculous in my opinion. The problem with food consumption in this country is far more complex than the issue of cigarette smoking. Yes, people eat too much shitty food and they shouldn't (or should only eat it rarely). However, as the 'Weight Loss Tips' thread here in YABS illustrates, there are a whole lot of food that's not deemed junk food that is also bad for you simply because they are the products of the post Industrial Age's new processing of the once healthy whole foods; that combined with decades of government sponsored education on the food pyramid and the mighty power of the beef and dairy lobbyists have dictated our ingrained way of eating. The education and cultural re-wiring of proper eating habits is far more difficult implement than say the campaign to simply get the word out that smoking is hazardous to your health. I'm lucky that I live in NYC (trans fat-free land) where I have a lot of healthy foods options and I’m also fortunate have a decent enough income to afford to buy whole grains, organic milk, good quality vegetables, etc., but there are a vast number of people out there who don’t have my options. The system’s fucked-up and I truly believe that there has to be reform from the top down before real change is going to happen when it comes to the obesity problem in this country. So, while the effects of obesity is huge burden on our insurance healthcare costs, smoking and its effects are too, and although it’s not as big a problem, for the time being it’s a whole lot easier to nip in the bud.

[Dazzler]

EDIT:
Eh, screw it.

I'm gonna go smoke.


--Dazz

[Solaris]

Anger and Pain (even with Fear, it's Pain caused via imagination) are always siamese twins, with Pain either pulling Anger along, or pushing it from behind.

I got very angry yesterday. Now that I've had time to cool down, it's time to explain why.

A lot of you on here can get pretty angry over the "comic book geek" stereotype, no? The one that goes "All comic book geeks are lazy, ineffectual adult males who never matured past thirteen, who have no motivation for a job or for life, and who live in their parents' basement. They're dorky, creepy, pasty-white greasy-haired overweight slobs; they have bad hygene, no social skills, and if a pretty girl ever talked to them, they'd fall over in a fit of ecstasy. cream their pants, and die. They're permanently stuck in junior high, and worth less than the money they scrape up to feed their habit."

And, every time someone says even a part of that about comic geeks, you get angry---after all, you've heard it a million times before, you're sick and tired of being told you *are* that (after all, if you're a comics reader, it includes YOU too)... and you're just damn tired of one more, or several more, people jumping up and down and poking ice picks into the wound other people made, and keep making.

It's easy to dismiss people when you can throw them into a nameless, faceless group; when you can depersonalize and dehumanize them because you're looking at the *group*, not the individuals within it.

Basically, no one likes to be treated like that. When people are facing something that affects them, something that hurts or is unfair, hearing people who are *supposed* to be their friends say things like "Boo fucking hoo," and "Big deal, anyway," and "You're a leech on society," HURTS. (Those are all direct quotes from YOU guys, btw.)

Equally, it's hurtful to see these people look at another group with a problem and go "Oh, well it's HARD for these guys to change their behavior, get rid of their vice---but YOU guys are DIFFERENT---it should be EASY for YOU." (Direct example quote, one of many: "Well, can't they just quit?")

Look, folks, when you're saying those things about smokers, you're saying them about ME. And DAZZ. And SECTION8. And a lot of OTHER people around here. People you are FRIENDS with.

Do YOU like it when YOUR friends say crappy things about a group you belong to? Some of you are Comic Geeks. Some of you are Overweight. Some of you are Gay. Some of you Chose Not to Have Children. Some of you Drink. Some of you are Unemployed. Some of you Live With Parents As Adults. Some of you are Christian, or Muslim, Jewish or Pagan or Wiccan or Atheist. Some of you are Black, or Asian, or Native American.

Do ANY of you sit back and ENJOY when someone stereotypes and slams a group you belong to, and/or dismisses your concerns as "petty," your feelings as "don't matter," and somehow thinks things should be "easy for you," just because they aren't what you are?

No. If you belong to a group that's getting this kind of treatment and dismissal, you get angry. You get even more angry when it's happened over and over again. You get even more angry than that, when it's friends who are doing it, people you would *expect* would look at you as an individual. People who won't try to pin the sin of some random asshole who blew smoke into their face onto YOU. People who *won't* ignore, or excuse, or legitimize their own vices and problems while villifying your own, and saying "You don't matter. You're a sorry excuse for a human being."

And that's the core of why smokers have become hair-trigger over this kind of thing---we get it over and over. We see other unhealthy behaviors getting a "pass," while we're told we're the Spawn of Satan. It's not right, it's not fair, and it HURTS.

As to former smokers who've quit, they can be some of the worst. They often take on a "holier-than-thou" attitude. So, to you former smokers who *do* that, I have to ask you: "Why haven't you forgiven yourselves yet for smoking---and why do you feel the need to make anyone who *hasn't* quit yet your whipping boy?" Because that's what it is. Forgive yourself for having had a bad habit in the past, and move on.

The fact that you're a former smoker doesn't ENTITLE you to belittle and dehumanize and talk down to someone who still smokes, any more than anyone else has the right to do so.

Now, if the day ever comes when ANY of you on here can say, "I met Solaris. She deliberately blew smoke in my face, laughed, and said 'Fuck You'---THEN you have every right in the world to criticize me. Until that day, don't lump me, or other smokers, in with the few you've met who were rude and obnoxious.

And... before you start picking on my vices, quoting inflated numbers on what *I* cost *you*, go take a look at your own bad habits and what they cost others. Obesity. Drinking. Risky behaviors. Extreme sports. Whatever it is, I know you've got at least one, because you're human.

Finally, I'm tired of smokers being lumped together. Yes, there are smokers out there who've developed cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses in which their smoking was a factor. There are also people out there who've smoked most of their lives and NEVER developed any of those diseases. Folks, it's not "you smoke, you die." Smoking puts stress on the system, as do many other things. Smoking is bad for you. Yes. It *increases* your chance of many illnesses and diseases. So do a lot of other factors, including inherited tendencies, other habits you have, the strength of your body and immune system, how and what you eat, whether or not you exercise, whether or not you drink and how much, whether or not you suffer depression, or stress, or anxiety, and even the kind of environment you live in---pollutants, allergens, etc.

Basically, the ad agencies have done a bang up job selling you a load of goods via overkill. Smoking is a heavy factor in health, yes... but it's not an "all or nothing." There are fat people out there who never develop diabetes, heart disease, or stroke. There are smokers who never get cancer or heart disease. There are drinkers out there who never get liver failure. Etc. etc. My point is, there are MANY factors out there than can affect your health negatively. Some are heavier influences than others---but when someone *gets* a disease, it's ALWAYS a COMBINATION of factors. We don't know what all of them are. Medical science does its best to determine them... but in the end, it's up to the individual living their life to decide which factors will be a part of their life, and/or what they'll do to combat things like inherited factors/risks.

For instance, some people with fair skin religiously wear sunblock. Others don't. For those that don't, some will develop skin cancer while others won't. Why? Because, for those with fair skin who don't use sunblock, some have the right combination of *other* factors to develop skin cancer, and others don't. Are you more at risk, being fair-skinned, if you don't wear sunblock. Yes. But it's *your* choice if you want to run that risk.

Health is an all-inclusive package. Our genes, our environment, our habits, our food, drink, mentality, economic situation---all these play a role in our health. And all of us play Russian Roulette with our health every day: from choosing not to wear a seatbelt, to jay walking or running the yellow light; from drinking ten cups of coffee or sodas, to avoiding getting that physical.

Yes, smoking is very bad for most people's health, and for many, can lead to very serious illnesses. So are a lot of other things people do. And honestly, I'm tired---no, WEARY, of people putting smoking out there as Satan, and ignoring the demon that lives on their own shoulder. If I'm not being rude to you with my smoking *in person*, it's none of your business---just like it's none of *my* business that you overeat, don't exercise, jaywalk, put away a six-pack per day, won't get a physical, won't see anyone for your depression or anxiety, buy a house next to a chemical plant, or any number of other things that can make you sick or cause a debilitating disease. So long as you know the risks and aren't risking anyone else with your behavior, the choice is up to you.

And don't come back and say "but you give me your second-hand smoke." I DO? Through the INTERNET? Wow. That's impressive. In this day and age, the places where ANYONE can get second-hand smoke are few and far between---because we've enacted all those laws about it, y' know. And second-hand smoke was your *only* point you could argue---now that smokers are severely restricted pretty much everywhere on *where* they can smoke, it's a moot point.

[Mr.EZ]

Anger and Pain (even with Fear, it's Pain caused via imagination) are always siamese twins, with Pain either pulling Anger along, or pushing it from behind.

I got very angry yesterday. Now that I've had time to cool down, it's time to explain why.

A lot of you on here can get pretty angry over the "comic book geek" stereotype, no? The one that goes "All comic book geeks are lazy, ineffectual adult males who never matured past thirteen, who have no motivation for a job or for life, and who live in their parents' basement. They're dorky, creepy, pasty-white greasy-haired overweight slobs; they have bad hygene, no social skills, and if a pretty girl ever talked to them, they'd fall over in a fit of ecstasy. cream their pants, and die. They're permanently stuck in junior high, and worth less than the money they scrape up to feed their habit."

And, every time someone says even a part of that about comic geeks, you get angry---after all, you've heard it a million times before, you're sick and tired of being told you *are* that (after all, if you're a comics reader, it includes YOU too)... and you're just damn tired of one more, or several more, people jumping up and down and poking ice picks into the wound other people made, and keep making.

It's easy to dismiss people when you can throw them into a nameless, faceless group; when you can depersonalize and dehumanize them because you're looking at the *group*, not the individuals within it.

Basically, no one likes to be treated like that. When people are facing something that affects them, something that hurts or is unfair, hearing people who are *supposed* to be their friends say things like "Boo fucking hoo," and "Big deal, anyway," and "You're a leech on society," HURTS. (Those are all direct quotes from YOU guys, btw.)

Equally, it's hurtful to see these people look at another group with a problem and go "Oh, well it's HARD for these guys to change their behavior, get rid of their vice---but YOU guys are DIFFERENT---it should be EASY for YOU." (Direct example quote, one of many: "Well, can't they just quit?")

Look, folks, when you're saying those things about smokers, you're saying them about ME. And DAZZ. And SECTION8. And a lot of OTHER people around here. People you are FRIENDS with.

Do YOU like it when YOUR friends say crappy things about a group you belong to? Some of you are Comic Geeks. Some of you are Overweight. Some of you are Gay. Some of you Chose Not to Have Children. Some of you Drink. Some of you are Unemployed. Some of you Live With Parents As Adults. Some of you are Christian, or Muslim, Jewish or Pagan or Wiccan or Atheist. Some of you are Black, or Asian, or Native American.

Do ANY of you sit back and ENJOY when someone stereotypes and slams a group you belong to, and/or dismisses your concerns as "petty," your feelings as "don't matter," and somehow thinks things should be "easy for you," just because they aren't what you are?

No. If you belong to a group that's getting this kind of treatment and dismissal, you get angry. You get even more angry when it's happened over and over again. You get even more angry than that, when it's friends who are doing it, people you would *expect* would look at you as an individual. People who won't try to pin the sin of some random asshole who blew smoke into their face onto YOU. People who *won't* ignore, or excuse, or legitimize their own vices and problems while villifying your own, and saying "You don't matter. You're a sorry excuse for a human being."

And that's the core of why smokers have become hair-trigger over this kind of thing---we get it over and over. We see other unhealthy behaviors getting a "pass," while we're told we're the Spawn of Satan. It's not right, it's not fair, and it HURTS.

As to former smokers who've quit, they can be some of the worst. They often take on a "holier-than-thou" attitude. So, to you former smokers who *do* that, I have to ask you: "Why haven't you forgiven yourselves yet for smoking---and why do you feel the need to make anyone who *hasn't* quit yet your whipping boy?" Because that's what it is. Forgive yourself for having had a bad habit in the past, and move on.

The fact that you're a former smoker doesn't ENTITLE you to belittle and dehumanize and talk down to someone who still smokes, any more than anyone else has the right to do so.

Now, if the day ever comes when ANY of you on here can say, "I met Solaris. She deliberately blew smoke in my face, laughed, and said 'Fuck You'---THEN you have every right in the world to criticize me. Until that day, don't lump me, or other smokers, in with the few you've met who were rude and obnoxious.

And... before you start picking on my vices, quoting inflated numbers on what *I* cost *you*, go take a look at your own bad habits and what they cost others. Obesity. Drinking. Risky behaviors. Extreme sports. Whatever it is, I know you've got at least one, because you're human.

Finally, I'm tired of smokers being lumped together. Yes, there are smokers out there who've developed cancer, heart disease, and other illnesses in which their smoking was a factor. There are also people out there who've smoked most of their lives and NEVER developed any of those diseases. Folks, it's not "you smoke, you die." Smoking puts stress on the system, as do many other things. Smoking is bad for you. Yes. It *increases* your chance of many illnesses and diseases. So do a lot of other factors, including inherited tendencies, other habits you have, the strength of your body and immune system, how and what you eat, whether or not you exercise, whether or not you drink and how much, whether or not you suffer depression, or stress, or anxiety, and even the kind of environment you live in---pollutants, allergens, etc.

Basically, the ad agencies have done a bang up job selling you a load of goods via overkill. Smoking is a heavy factor in health, yes... but it's not an "all or nothing." There are fat people out there who never develop diabetes, heart disease, or stroke. There are smokers who never get cancer or heart disease. There are drinkers out there who never get liver failure. Etc. etc. My point is, there are MANY factors out there than can affect your health negatively. Some are heavier influences than others---but when someone *gets* a disease, it's ALWAYS a COMBINATION of factors. We don't know what all of them are. Medical science does its best to determine them... but in the end, it's up to the individual living their life to decide which factors will be a part of their life, and/or what they'll do to combat things like inherited factors/risks.

For instance, some people with fair skin religiously wear sunblock. Others don't. For those that don't, some will develop skin cancer while others won't. Why? Because, for those with fair skin who don't use sunblock, some have the right combination of *other* factors to develop skin cancer, and others don't. Are you more at risk, being fair-skinned, if you don't wear sunblock. Yes. But it's *your* choice if you want to run that risk.

Health is an all-inclusive package. Our genes, our environment, our habits, our food, drink, mentality, economic situation---all these play a role in our health. And all of us play Russian Roulette with our health every day: from choosing not to wear a seatbelt, to jay walking or running the yellow light; from drinking ten cups of coffee or sodas, to avoiding getting that physical.

Yes, smoking is very bad for most people's health, and for many, can lead to very serious illnesses. So are a lot of other things people do. And honestly, I'm tired---no, WEARY, of people putting smoking out there as Satan, and ignoring the demon that lives on their own shoulder. If I'm not being rude to you with my smoking *in person*, it's none of your business---just like it's none of *my* business that you overeat, don't exercise, jaywalk, put away a six-pack per day, won't get a physical, won't see anyone for your depression or anxiety, buy a house next to a chemical plant, or any number of other things that can make you sick or cause a debilitating disease. So long as you know the risks and aren't risking anyone else with your behavior, the choice is up to you.

And don't come back and say "but you give me your second-hand smoke." I DO? Through the INTERNET? Wow. That's impressive. In this day and age, the places where ANYONE can get second-hand smoke are few and far between---because we've enacted all those laws about it, y' know. And second-hand smoke was your *only* point you could argue---now that smokers are severely restricted pretty much everywhere on *where* they can smoke, it's a moot point.

I love my girlfriend very much, but after reading this, I want to marry you and have your babies Solaris. Well said.

[themightyjbowski]

I just have to get this off my chest. Today I learned that my state is going to raise cigarette prices from seven dollars to eight dollars a pack in April. My state has also made purchasing online illegal and have hired a collection agency to aggressively go after smokers who do buy online or over the phone for back taxes.

Now I've never smoked, and have no plans to start. I think smoking is incredibly stupid, but it's legal. And I think it's an outrage to tax a legal product three or for times over its base price because you are punishing someone enjoying a perfectly legal product.

I know people are going to point out that the taxes are needed to combat medical costs and whatnot associated from smoking. But here is the thing. The money they get from taxing cigarettes goes toward funding local and national governmental institutions NOT treating some poor bastard battling lung cancer. This is bullshit and it has to stop. A smoker shouldn't have to pay exponentially more than their product is worth because the local and state government needs more money to build school s no matter how noble building a school is.

I'm a non-smoker myself. I think it's stupid not to mention rude to
ppl who don't smoke. Which is why I'm glad they banned ppl from smoking
inside bars & other buildings. U wanna pollute yourself got right ahead. I got
a neightbor who smokes non-fricking stop right across from me and EVERY
damn time I step out I KNOW when she's been out cuz I can smell it down
the hall! *sigh* And me having bad allergys it doesn't help.

And I always saw the excessive taxing of cigerettes to be a way to get
money for the state & help motivate ppl to stop smoking. I think the
govt would prob want to ban smoking but KNOW that it wouldn't fly.
So they do this instead. Still pissing ppl off, but not as much as making
it illegal would. But the fact of the matter is that it IS legal and the govt
hasn't a right to say ppl can't buy them online or over the phone or any
other way they deem fit. THAT is overstepping their bounds. I do think
that it's okay for govt to give some of the money to the states and all.
But some of it should go to help ppl stop smoking & lung cancer too.

And yet dispite ALL of this the govt is now saying marjuna is alright for
medical purposes in some states. Which I think is good. But this is kinda
f%#@ked up. :rolleyes:

[Solaris]

I love my girlfriend very much, but after reading this, I want to marry you and have your babies Solaris. Well said.

Thank you. I gotta walk my talk. And my talk includes taking responsibility for what you say and what you do, and being as honest as you can be. I try to do that, even and especially when I blow up sometimes. I got very angry. I needed to figure out why, and when I did, I needed to tell others why, and what's going on under the surface.

People matter.

[Crowforge]

I'm not overweight and I live in my parents attic.

[Nick Soapdish]

Most of the smokers I know are very considerate. Most of the smokers that I don't know are jerks.

I think it's just human nature. If you know somebody personally, you're not likely to act like a jerk to them. But if you don't, you don't necessarily have a problem telling them to buzz off when asked to stop smoking in a non-smoking area. Or for showing a lack of sympathy at the higher taxes and dwindling smoking areas smokers face. I've gotten into a few arguments with my sisters on the latter and my lack of sympathy.

[Dazzler]

Most of the smokers I know are very considerate. Most of the smokers that I don't know are jerks.

I think it's just human nature. If you know somebody personally, you're not likely to act like a jerk to them. But if you don't, you don't necessarily have a problem telling them to buzz off when asked to stop smoking in a non-smoking area. Or for showing a lack of sympathy at the higher taxes and dwindling smoking areas smokers face. I've gotten into a few arguments with my sisters on the latter and my lack of sympathy.

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you caught a smoker you didn't know smoking in a no smoking area like a building, bar, or restaurant?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that smokers go out of their way to smoke in non-smoking areas and then tell people to buzz off if they don't know them.

Let's be honest. it's about non-smokers "disapproving" and showing that disapproval.

Non-smokers, on that same token, just don't often show any kind of human decency when dealing with smokers because "it's baaaaad!". They feel justified in not just showing no sympathy, but showing no courtesy.

I mean really, it's normal and non-jerky to respond with "Boo-fuckin'-hoo, you leech to society!"? Don't think so. If this were face-to-face or a conversation between two people who knew each other, would that be likely to be the first response someone has?

--Dazz

[Dreadstar]

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you caught a smoker you didn't know smoking in a no smoking area like a building, bar, or restaurant?

Personal anecdote: Not once.

Now ask me how many times I've been verbally accosted by the non-smoker while firmly ensconced in a designated smoking area . . .

My fave:

"That's a good place for you and your cancer stick."
"You know, you look and sound just like my father."
"He must have been a smart man."
"I stabbed him to death in 1979."

[Dazzler]

Personal anecdote: Not once.

Now ask me how many times I've been verbally accosted by the non-smoker while firmly ensconced in a designated smoking area . . .

My fave:

"That's a good place for you and your cancer stick."
"You know, you look and sound just like my father."
"He must have been a smart man."
"I stabbed him to death in 1979."
I'm stealing that line, you know that, right?

I always, ALWAYS smoke in designated smoking areas when they're around. But I cannot count the number of times I've had somebody walk through the designated area, seemingly just so they can flash some bitchitude.

If a situation arises where a smoker IS in the wrong, say like smoking too close to a door or something, it's common decency to give them the benefit of a doubt and politely inform them that they're too close. It's the same way you would treat anyone else. More often than not, smokers are left stunned and on the defensive because angry, pissy non-smokers come at them like they're killing puppies. And they feel justified being rude and angry because, "well, they're SMOKING!" as if that is a catch-all to excuse being a prick. You know, an, "Excuse me, but this is a non-smoking area" will suffice and most people will get the message. If not, the problem isn't that they're a smoker, it's that they're a total asshole.

--Dazz

[Nick Soapdish]

Just out of curiosity, how many times have you caught a smoker you didn't know smoking in a no smoking area like a building, bar, or restaurant?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that smokers go out of their way to smoke in non-smoking areas and then tell people to buzz off if they don't know them.

Exactly what is the question?

How many times have I seen smokers deliberately go out of their way to smoke in non-smoking areas? Not once. And I haven't ever seen anyone that was inconsiderate about smoking indoors in a non-smoking area.

How many times have I personally seen smokers unwilling to leave a non-smoking area before lighting up? I haven't counted, but it's probably over a hundred.

I used to attend college football games regularly. There is no smoking allowed in the stands although there are some areas up at the top. That probably accounts for half a hundred there. I usually didn't ask them to stop because it's tough to make yourself heard and because I'm fairly meek in person and asking rarely helps anyway. When I did ask, none ever did put it out and one lit up another shortly later.

I've complained about this before about Universal, but they don't bother to have anyone around to help enforce the no smoking signs while in line. There's usually somebody that can't manage to go the hour or so without a smoke. I'm also resentful that they open up the smoking area right after you get off the ride so that you have to walk though the clouds of relieved smokers. I don't go to Universal very often so it's only a few.

Most of the remainder are smokers that don't want to get away from the entrance. If it's cold (that's under 60 in Florida :rolleyes: ) or rainy, they're more likely to stay close even if there is a covered area elsewhere.

While I was in college, I stayed in a dorm for my first two years. The other students basically ignored that it was non-smoking, but they found out that I was sensitive so they were very careful around me even asking visitors.

I assume that they were just being considerate. I can't imagine that they'd fear what would happen if I told. Other people that know of my sensitivity are also very careful around me, even in their own homes.

The most important difference is simply that I'm not just a face to them like how Solaris was trying to personify smokers.


Let's be honest. it's about non-smokers "disapproving" and showing that disapproval.

Non-smokers, on that same token, just don't often show any kind of human decency when dealing with smokers because "it's baaaaad!". They feel justified in not just showing no sympathy, but showing no courtesy.

I mean really, it's normal and non-jerky to respond with "Boo-fuckin'-hoo, you leech to society!"? Don't think so. If this were face-to-face or a conversation between two people who knew each other, would that be likely to be the first response someone has?

--Dazz

I dunno.

I don't mean that I don't know whether or not it's a jerk thing to do. I think that it is.

I don't know that it's especially one-sided. I think that each group is more likely to be aware of the wrongs against them. Assuming that people are the same otherwise (and I don't see a reason to assume otherwise), smokers would be more likely to be on the receiving end in the US because there are more non-smokers to inflict upon smokers than vice-versa.

I've never gone into a designated smoking area. I barely would even know where to find one around here. In airports, stadiums, some spots in Disney and where?

And like I said, I'm sensitive and coughing or throwing up aren't my idea of fun.

I've argued with my sisters a bit about smoking (not about them being inconsiderate). But otherwise, this is the only place that I've discussed it or even seen it discussed. Since I don't visit smoker hangouts, I don't have an opportunity to see smokers on the receiving end.

BTW, if a smoker and I happen to cross paths and I start coughing and/or walking away quickly, I'm not trying to be inconsiderate. I'm trying to keep my breath. I don't always cough at the first whiff of smoke and it's not the only thing that makes me cough. But it's one of the most "effective". and if I get too much of a dose, I'll cough until I throw up (which is very rare).

[thehod]

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that smokers go out of their way to smoke in non-smoking areas and then tell people to buzz off if they don't know them.

Get on a bus in my city, because I promise you at some stage someone will light up despite the fact its now illegal to do so.

Not all smokers are angels, and not all non-smokers are jerks.

And not all ex-smokers have a holier-than-thou attitude to smoking, including this one who couldn't give a shit whether people choose to smoke or not. You can even do it around me if you want.