What should be done with smokers?

[Solly]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Can I have a refund of my taxes that went on your education?

Maybe in twenty years for your health care.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I plan on being a hale and hearty 51-year old. I really don't think the fact that once a month or so I go out to a pub or club and smoke 5-10 fags will change that.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
I plan on being a hale and hearty 51-year old. I really don't think the fact that once a month or so I go out to a pub or club and smoke 5-10 fags will change that.

OK, maybe when you're 71 then instead.

[Drekkus]

Originally posted by Guynemer


It's "established"? Where the hell did you hear that? Jesse Helms?

The tobacco industry told me so herself!!

Scientific research can be bend in every which way you want.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

[Jac de Molay]

Hell Dave, I'll hit you in the pocketbook so hard that you'll never be able to afford

Please read my follow-up post. I didn't propose this method of taxation as a panacea. Only as a way to dissuade those from beginning smoking in the first place. The real nic addicts will always seek out sources for their "fix", and pay any price.

Give us a kiss, honey.

, etc.

There's a distinction between behaviors that put one at increased risk for harm and ones that directly cause disease. The environmental carcinogens of modern life no doubt put us all at risk. However, smoking is preventable and a direct cause of many, many ailments.

Pardon me, but I have to convey the illusion of being productive today. Be back in a few.

[Gatekeeper]

Everyone:

[soapbox]

Hmm ... what to do with smokers, eh? Well, I say NOTHING.

Let them think they're sexy when they light up (never minding the fact that smokers shrivel and wizen faster than normal and have less blood flow going to "essential" areas of the body during sex). Let them think they're cool when they reek like some freakish combination of a fireplace and chemical factory. Let them think they're "hip" when standing outside in all sorts of inclement weather so the addicts can have their "fix." Let them go on about their "rights" when, like clock-work, they need a "break" to nurture their addiction "X" times per hour/day.

Let them learn the hard way when they're choking with emphysema (sp). Let the tears flow down their face when the doctor tells them they have lung cancer that's mestasizing throughout their bodies. Let them learn the hard way when a loved one is sick or dying because of "sidestream" smoke from smokers' deadly and addictive products.

When they're dead and buried (or cremated), they will have all the time in the world to think long and hard about an addiction that ruled their former lives.

Hey, isn't it about time for some smokers to "step outside" to imbibe in their addiction? I mean, my "soapbox" statement has been a somewhat long and rambling one ... and I'm certain the "need" is building, right?

[/soapbox]

IMHO, the only reason smoking is legal today and defended as a "right" is because it had time to worm its way into human societies before we realized how DEADLY and ADDICTIVE it is to the addict him/herself and just plain DEADLY to anyone who has to live or associate extensively with an addict.

Can you imagine what our world might look like had marijuana, cocaine and heroin been mass produced and distributed since the 1600s, their effects on health unknown or deliberately ignored? Well, that's the story of tobacco. This insidious poison had centuries in which to become "mainstream" and "normal," and that's the ONLY reason it isn't treated legally and socially as an outcast, poisonous and addictive drug, much as marijuana, cocaine and heroin have always been treated.

In conclusion, smokers are addicts. Nothing more, nothing less. Sad, huh? Enslaved to an addiction that's legal and has corporate marketing muscle behind it. You know what's worse? The fact that not only smokers pay the price for their addiction. Non-smokers do as well.

CYBERAmazon

[Blackwidow24]

Lookie here...we may be addicted to this but that doesn't make all of us bad people..everyone is addicted to something in one shape or fashion. I don't think I am cool
OI don't think I am sexy..and i certainly don't agree with your stereotype of me. What makes you so high and mighty to down smokers???? i am courteous about it but this feels to me like an attack on my Character. I am not a child..i understand the lconsequences and health problems that come with smoking so preach what you will but don't condemn me because you aren't perfect either. And like I said in my earlier post I do not smoke in front of people who do not want me to infact I do not smoke until the SUN GOES DOWN. I GO WITHOUT ALL DAY.....

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Balls, dear boy. That's like saying that all drinkers are alcoholics.

Brace yourself for a shock, but I've been smoking for 13 years and I'm not addicted to nicotine. Why lump those who use nicotine with those who abuse it?

The means of avoiding addiction is very simple. Allow breaks between smoking sessions- ideally of over a week. No physical addiction will occur. I am proof of that. I feel no withdrawal at all when in the weeks (and I mean "weeks") when I'm not smoking. The trouble is that the health witches refuse to promote responsible approaches to smoking, preferring to treat it as if one were fellating the cancerous phallus of Satan rather than indulging in a mild diversion.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon
Can you imagine what our world might look like had marijuana, cocaine and heroin been mass produced and distributed since the 1600s, their effects on health unknown or deliberately ignored?

Actually they were. 100 years ago it's estimated that over 7% of Britain's population was addicted to opiates, usually in the form of laudanum. What's more, as it was cheap and fairly pure, the proportion of drug deaths compared to today were far lower.

Even Queen Victoria smoked dope. S'true.

[Blackwidow24]

RIGHT ON BFB

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Blackwidow24
Lookie here...we may be addicted to this but that doesn't make all of us bad people..everyone is addicted to something in one shape or fashion. I don't think I am cool
OI don't think I am sexy..and i certainly don't agree with your stereotype of me. What makes you so high and mighty to down smokers???? i am courteous about it but this feels to me like an attack on my Character. I am not a child..i understand the lconsequences and health problems that come with smoking so preach what you will but don't condemn me because you aren't perfect either. And like I said in my earlier post I do not smoke in front of people who do not want me to infact I do not smoke until the SUN GOES DOWN. I GO WITHOUT ALL DAY.....

I never said smokers were bad people. I said they were addicts. There is a difference between the two words, ma'am. I am also quite sure you're not a "child" and that you're nice IRL. Most people are.

Secondly, I am not perfect, nor have I made any claim as such. My anti-smoking stance comes from family experience — both my parents smoke on and off and my grandparents were smokers as well, but have since "kicked" the addiction at great personal suffering. Other members of my family continue to be hooked (an uncle and who knows how many grandchildren), and they're nice folks (I attest to that personally), But they're also cigarette addicts.

CYBERAmazon

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Balls, dear boy. That's like saying that all drinkers are alcoholics.

Brace yourself for a shock, but I've been smoking for 13 years and I'm not addicted to nicotine. Why lump those who use nicotine with those who abuse it?

The means of avoiding addiction is very simple. Allow breaks between smoking sessions- ideally of over a week. No physical addiction will occur. I am proof of that. I feel no withdrawal at all when in the weeks (and I mean "weeks") when I'm not smoking. The trouble is that the health witches refuse to promote responsible approaches to smoking, preferring to treat it as if one were fellating the cancerous phallus of Satan rather than indulging in a mild diversion.

Perhaps you should market your particular approach to smoking. You might be able to make a bundle from other "non-addicted" smokers or, more likely, from those who are addicted. Kind of like those "gradual step-down" approaches that are on the market nowadays.

CYBERAmazon

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Actually they were. 100 years ago it's estimated that over 7% of Britain's population was addicted to opiates, usually in the form of laudanum. What's more, as it was cheap and fairly pure, the proportion of drug deaths compared to today were far lower.

Imagine if the tobacco companies marketing power of today were present back then. Makes you wonder how many more people might have ended up becoming hooked on opiates.

Even Queen Victoria smoked dope. S'true.

Yes, that is true. It's one of the things I learned from books and The History Channel. Quite fascinating, in its own way, I guess. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was quite the smoker, too.

CYBERAmazon

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Drekkus


The tobacco industry told me so herself!!

Scientific research can be bend in every which way you want.

http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html

Look, I'm not saying that second-hand smoke is a vicious killer that must be eliminated. But saying that it's as harmful as a cookie, that's just BS. Thousands upon thousands of cases of childhood asthma have been attributed to second-hand smoke.

Should smoking be illegal? Of course not. But smokers should realize that they ARE jeopardizing the health of those around them.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Are these thousands of childhood asthma sufferers kept in protective bubbles when they go outside to keep them away from diesel fumes?

Or, for that matter, all those other lovely airborne pollutants that come out of the US....?

[Guynemer]

No, of course not. That's not the point. And I'm really not sure what your point is. What's the problem with getting people to stop smoking? (Again, I do NOT want to make it illegal.)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh.... dumping toxic waste is illegal... smoking isn't.

You know, that's why it's so ironic. After all, tobacco smoke is toxic waste.

Originally posted by Ming
I do think an owner has the right to determine what "legal" actions should be allowed in his place of business. It is ok for the government to limit it on government property, that's their choice.

Why is that? If a owner of a bookstore doesn't allow customers to browse through magazines, it's kosher, no?

Originally posted by Ming
But to tell somebody they can't allow smoking is just crap.

Again, why? The society needs to restict individuals from performing acts that are harmful to others.

Originally posted by Ming
If they want to make laws determining that there has to be a clear division of smoking sections vs non smoking... the amount of ventilation required... fine. But to tell a bar owner that nobody is allowed to smoke in his/her establishment is a joke.

I don't see why this is a joke. Afterall, it's the society that lets the bar owner have a license to open the bar in the first place. We all know that there are certain conditions attached to said licenses, and these conditions are to protect the customers of the bar.

So why adding another protective condition is a joke?

Originally posted by Ming
If you don't like clubs that are filled with smoke... DON'T GO.

Sure, that's one of the things I can do. In fact, I don't. This is not the point however.

Originally posted by Ming
I personally never smoke in non smoking areas... in front of my kids or other kids... and when people tell me it bothers them.
I understand and I try to be considerate of others. But when I sit in a smoking section of a resturant, and somebody takes a table in the smoking section because it was faster to get a table that way... AND THEN ASKS ME TO PUT OUT THE CIG... I laugh in their face. Smokers have rights too... it is STILL A LEGAL product... just like many other harmful products...

It seems dubious that smoking is a right. This has been waved around like a fact by smokers and tobacco companies alike, but where is the basis of that? I certainly cannot recall any such provisions anywhere.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by blackice
Or drive cars, manufacture pollution we could go on here...I do not see them ordering by law car makers to stop killing us you?

If you can find something in cars that's as addictive as nicotine and as toxic as tar, we can talk.

Originally posted by blackice
And they are what tax exempt

Is it too hard to ask you to use your brain? Tell me, what percentage of the Canadian budget goes to medical care?

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

If you can find something in cars that's as addictive as nicotine and as toxic as tar, we can talk.

Well DUH! New car smell.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
That cost is very hard to quantify, especially when some of the most famous and oft quoted second-hand smoke studies are bogus.

I have heard that a lot from certain groups, no hard evidence is ever given, however.

Originally posted by Sikander
The cost of second hand smoke is extremely variable from person to person. A lot of people never smoke indoors because their spouse doesn't smoke, or they have children.

That's not the point though. The point is second-hand smoke will cause various sorts of diseases in those who are affected, therefore smokers incur a much higher medical cost to the society by harm they have done to themselves and others, contrary to what some economic analysis says.

Originally posted by Sikander
Additionally, in a country like the U.S. where the government doesn't pay for a huge percentage of medical costs, what is the logic in taxing Joe Blow for smoking because he is harming his son Joe Jr., when Joe Jr. is going to be paying his own health care costs, and perhaps paying them with an inheritance depleted by Joe Blow Sr.'s cigarette tax payments? Joe Jr. gets screwed twice.

Because by smoking, Joe is not only harming his son but anybody who happens to be around when he lights up. That's why smokers should pay a higher medical insurance.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
Brace yourself for a shock, but I've been smoking for 13 years and I'm not addicted to nicotine. Why lump those who use nicotine with those who abuse it?

Sure, there are always exceptions to the rules. I know of several smokers who lived to ripe old ages but that doesn't invaliate the fact that smoking causes all kinds of diseases and reduces life expectancy.

I don't know if you know how statistics works. Statistics just gives trends in aggregate, not casting unbreakable rules for individuals. That's why the uninitiated finds probability and statistics counterintuitive.

For example, just because there's a 50% chance for heads to turn up on a fair coin doesn't mean I can't get 10 tails in a row.

So just because you are not addicted to nicotine doesn't mean it's not one of the most addictive substances in the world, just as addictive - if not more so - as heroin and cocaine.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny

Brace yourself for a shock, but I've been smoking for 13 years and I'm not addicted to nicotine.

Then why the hell do you smoke?

[Dis]

good question

why smoke if you aren't addicted to nicotine.

Maybe you get a better buzz than I do. I have smoked cigarrettes and I wasn't impressed. Are you supposed to feel something? I don't get it.

People who smoked a while always say they hate it, but do it because they are addicted. So I'm guessing they wouldn't smoke if they weren't addicted. So if you aren't addicted why smoke? does that make any sense? probably not. I'm tired.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

That's not the point though. The point is second-hand smoke will cause various sorts of diseases in those who are affected, therefore smokers incur a much higher medical cost to the society by harm they have done to themselves and others, contrary to what some economic analysis says.

Eh? You say that even though smokers pay more than their fair share of taxes (above what they cost society for their own medical bills) that they still cost society more because of second hand smoke. I don't buy that. Between the exagerations in the initial well-publicized second hand smoke studies (do you remember the one which calculated that second hand smoke was more dangerous than smoking itself?) and the huge amount of behavior modification which has since happened I can't believe that second hand smoke is costing society a significant percentage of the costs of the smokers themselves. This may be different overseas, but here in the U.S. I rarely see people smoke around people who don't.

As for the dangers of second hand smoke, a recent air pollution study (quoted on the local news) found that the risk from (outdoor) air pollution to the health of a person living in the 8 largest cities in the U.S. was equivalent to the risk of living with a chain smoker. Should we charge an extra tax for people living in major cities as well? After all, they are costing the rest of us money by insisting on remaining in an area which is well-known to be dangerous to their health, in fact more dangerous than living with a vast majority of smokers. Where will this social engineering end? An extra tax on fat and sugar? The concept of using the sledgehammer of the state to micromanage the affairs of individuals is repellant to me. Some smokers don't give a damn and do damage to their children. Where I live the vast majority do not.

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Because by smoking, Joe is not only harming his son but anybody who happens to be around when he lights up. That's why smokers should pay a higher medical insurance.

Well, here in the U.S. smokers do pay higher medical insurance premiums, but that's still about their health and not about second hand smoke. You seem to assume that every smoker is sloughing a pretty significant amount of smoke off on other people. This may be true in places with very high population densities and no significant social awareness of the potential effects of second hand smoke. I'm assuming Joe lives in the U.S., and though he's a pig to smoke around Joe Jr., he can't get away with smoking at work, in public buildings or on public transit. Thus 98% his second hand smoke impact (whatever it is) is limited to Joe Jr. Why should Joe Jr. pay twice for the sins of Joe Sr. ?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon

[/soapbox]

IMHO, the only reason smoking is legal today and defended as a "right" is because it had time to worm its way into human societies before we realized how DEADLY and ADDICTIVE it is to the addict him/herself and just plain DEADLY to anyone who has to live or associate extensively with an addict.

Are you really saying that smoking is deadly to anyone who lives or associates extensively with a nicotine addict? It looks like you misplaced your end of soapbox marker. Your hyperbole reminds me of the worst excesses of the drug war propoganda. I don't even have to argue here, your statement destroys itself.

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon

Can you imagine what our world might look like had marijuana, cocaine and heroin been mass produced and distributed since the 1600s, their effects on health unknown or deliberately ignored? Well, that's the story of tobacco. This insidious poison had centuries in which to become "mainstream" and "normal," and that's the ONLY reason it isn't treated legally and socially as an outcast, poisonous and addictive drug, much as marijuana, cocaine and heroin have always been treated.

When smoking was introduced to Europe it was not even a minor health concern. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) Most people who did smoke didn't smoke much

2) Most people didn't live long enough to develop the cancers and heart diseases that kill some smokers today.

3) The levels of both indoor and outdoor air pollution in the 1600s make riding in a car with three chain smokers seem like a day in the fresh mountain air. This is due mainly to the fact that everyone had fires burning in their tiny houses to cook, and in cold weather for heat. A town or city was a large collection of such fires spewing vast amounts of soot into both interior spaces as well as the out of doors.

Everyone was "smoking" back then, and in truth for all of human history we have been inhaling the smoke from our cooking fires, and the fires that warmed our caves / tents / huts. This is one of the main reasons why we are so well adapted to handling smoke. We live long enough to have children and raise them before we pass away from the accumulated damage to our bodies, which is the standard for natural selection. It is only in the modern age with it's vastly improved lifespan (and the expectation of the same) and vast reduction in indoor air pollutants for it's richer members that we have even had an opportunity to notice that breathing smoke is not good for your health.

Originally posted by CYBERAmazon
In conclusion, smokers are addicts. Nothing more, nothing less. Sad, huh? Enslaved to an addiction that's legal and has corporate marketing muscle behind it. You know what's worse? The fact that not only smokers pay the price for their addiction. Non-smokers do as well.

CYBERAmazon

If you feel cheated by people in your family's behavior, then I'm sure you are entitled to do so. But don't paint me with your broad brush concerning second hand smoke or other secondary negative effects. You have never inhaled a wiff of one of my cigarettes. I pay for my own health insurance, and more than my fair share of taxes. I don't owe you or society anything. I smoke, other people drink, and still others drive SUVs. We are an imperfect species, and I very much doubt that any of us can stand a strict accounting without some embarrassment.

[Drekkus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
If you can find something in cars that's as addictive as nicotine and as toxic as tar, we can talk.

Ask a person to give up smoking or give up their car, they will gladly give up smoking.

The reason why cars aren't 100% clean, is that people aren't prepared to pay a premium for a clean car. But still they keep *****ing about the dangers of second hand smoke, which are less grave than carexhaust (sp?) fumes. Shell has introduced a petrol calles Shell Pura, which is better for your car and better for the environment, and people are still using normal petrol, because Shell Pura is more expensive.

Second hand smoke is maybe dangerous in huge quantities for long periods of time. I myself are a non-smoker, but I can't stand people who whine about smoke (unless ofcourse one has asthma). It always reminds me of two children playing: lots of toys around but one child always wants to take away the toy from the other because it feels the other has more fun then they do.

[Solly]

but I can't stand people who whine about smoke (unless ofcourse one has asthma).

My reasons:

1) The health effects - it worsens my hayfever; and any future problems it might cause

2) The direct cost on me - I don't particularly appreciately paying £3 to get my clothes washed only because they reek of second-hand smoke, especially since I'm on a tight budget

3) The indirect cost - having to breathe sub-standard air

4) All of the above lead to the group I go out with having to move pubs

I'm in favour of reducing tax on cigarettes, but imposing a cost of around £2 per cigarette if someone wishes to smoke in a pub, payable to the landlord. Thus drinks ought to be made cheaper, and smoking will occur less in public buildings.

It's quite obvious that someone who smokes while fishing, etc creates less of a negative externality than someone who puffs their way through a pack in a closed environment only metres from other people. Taxes should reflect this.

[Lancer]

*cough cough* "Oh gawd" *hack cough hack* "Damn all mornings" *kkkkhurrup* "oh man what a nasty luggie" "damn, I need a smoke and a coffee...

Good morning smoker. Time to go to Apolyton and defend your unsupportable addiction to the others you are harming...good luck.

Ahh the good life of an ex smoker, such high moral ground.


Actually I'm hoping all the vitamin C and anti oxidents I take will counteract the health effects of this habit of my foolish youth.

Now that I have something to live for I regret it extemely.

[blackice]

[q] from Urban ranger:

Because there's a thing called social cost. It's the same reason why you are not allowed to dump toxic waste.

From Blackice:

Or drive cars, manufacture pollution we could go on here...I do not see them ordering by law car makers to stop killing us you?

From Urban:

If you can find something in cars that's as addictive as nicotine and as toxic as tar, we can talk.[q]

Ok from social cost to addictiveness...ok I'll bite codine, and any other addictive drug is sold by perscrition why are cigarettes not? Back to the social cost cars and thier pollution have a far more reaching and deadly social cost than cigarettes in more ways than one.

[q]Is it too hard to ask you to use your brain? Tell me, what percentage of the Canadian budget goes to medical care? [/QUOTE]

The question should be how much more do smokers pay into healthcare.

"Overall, smokers impose higher medical-care costs of 46 cents per pack; higher sick-leave costs of 1 cent per pack; greater life-insurance costs of 11 cents per pack; additional costs due to fires of 2 cents per pack; and forgone Social Security taxes on their earnings of 33 cents per pack… Smokers save society 20 cents per pack in nursing-home care and $1 per pack in terms of lower pension and Social Security costs. On balance, smokers save society 27 cents per pack from an insurance standpoint." And he is not even counting the taxes smokers pay, "which average 53 cents per pack of cigarettes."

But how much worse off are smokers as against nonsmokers? Interestingly, it is hard to get an answer to that question. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that 400,000 people die every year from smoking-related diseases. How it arrives at this figure has always been a bit of a mystery. For one thing, what exactly is a smoking-related disease? According to the CDC it is something a smoker is more likely to get than a nonsmoker. Thus if a smoker dies of heart disease, say, the CDC will count it as a smoking-related death. This means that other possible causes of death such as a family history of heart disease or chronic lack of exercise are resolutely ignored.

Moreover, the CDC does not like to tell us at what age these 400,000 died. The suggestion is they died young. Yet there is no evidence of this. Everyone dies of something. Dying of lung cancer at 75 is not the same as dying of it at 45. As a Cato Institute study pointed out: "Almost 255,000 of the smoking-related deaths – nearly 60 percent of the total – occurred at age 70 or above. More than 192,000 deaths – nearly 45 percent of the total – occurred at age 75 or higher. And roughly 72,000 deaths – almost 17 percent of the total – occurred at the age of 85 or above[q]

I guess more than non smokers..

[SlowwHand]

Smokers are excellent for brisket and ribs.
I also like crock pots.
Both methods make cooking so easy.