Why couldn't the US do that? Tax the hell out of cigarettes and pay for basic helthcare for everyone?

blah

50 banned smokers

Planning on taking a chain saw to the pub?

While your at it, as a tax payer I would like to also not pay for the following:
School education - no kids here.
Welfare
Anything art related
Medical expenses for - obesity related disorders, self inflicted injuries, automobile accident issues, alcohol related disorders, pregnancy, and so on.
Subsidies - of any type.
Public transportation
After school programs
School lunch programs
Court waived filing costs
And so on.

Then I also want a law passed that rentors can not vote on measures that envolve property taxes.

There was this really nice club in Hollywood that had a room like that. It was a comfy downstairs room with vents in the walls where people could smoke inside. There were plush sofas and it was really cool.

Guess what happened? Some asshole drunk smoker started a fire and the entire club burned down. End of story.

They do tax the hell out of it. They just use the taxes for stupid shit.
By the way I also do not want healthcare for everyone, so they better not spend it there either.

http://www.ramblers.8k.com/funney1.jpg

Now you are arguing to get rid of smoking entirely. That is not what this discussion was about, but ok, I'll go for it. At least in my country, 90% of the price you pay for a pack og cigarettes or tobacco is going to the state, and I believe this more than covers the treatment of smoking-induced illnesses that some or many smokers get later on.

But since we are talking about costs to society now, I'd venture to say that non-smokers cost society much more, because non-smokers to a much larger degree become really old and can raise social security checks or whatever benefits you have for the elderly in your country for a much longer time.

And I find it offensive that people who are poor are having Children and then relying on goverment social programs. I, the tax payer, of course pay for their children. Fuck all you want but don't make me pay for your babies.

Drinking has a direct link to Domestic Violence. Drunk drivers kill and injure millions each year. Ban drinking period.

I think the potty analogy might be too vulger a comparison and easy to shoot down, but as an alternative, let's consider the person next to you opens up a can of tear gas.

It may be somewhat uncomfortable (as is smoke to many), probably too not healthy to be around (as is smoke to many), and many would probably support some rules about tear gas in public places.

As for business being private with noone having the right to regulate it, anyone who has done even the smallest enterprise (brick and mortar or otherwise) knows without a doubt there there are tons of regulations and rules that a 'private' business must adhere to.

A proprietor may not like the rules, but as a consumer, I'm happy there are some rules like monitoring of health standards in cooking places, knowing that a set of stairs I'm about to step onto is safe, etc.

-Dino

Tear gas renders you temporarily blind and causes immediate and significant pain. And unlike smoking, releasing tear gas for fun does not have a long-standing tradition and history, or acceptance for that matter.

So that comparison is also too easy to shoot down.

Don't tempt me :Graucho

So would you allow a private business to pollute the air or water any way they wish simply because they are privately owned?

Private business are bound by all kinds of "social laws", such as anti-pollution requirements and anti-discrimination laws. They don't operate in a vacuum; they're a part of the greater society. There's no such thing anywhere as pure capitalism or pure socialism; every country is trying to find the right balance of both. For countries that offer free universal healthcare, I can see why they believe they have a responsibility to try and limit the cost to taxpayers.

Smoking serves no positive purpose. There is not one single good reason to inhale smoke. Nobody gets any benefit for it. (even a cheesburger provides calories/protien/nutrients....) And it's negative effects are not an accidental byproduct of a necessary activity (like car crashes are to transport) so trying to limit its exposure to the public makes sense. They're not saying you can't do it; they're just saying you can't do it to strangers. IMO that is the right balance.

1st. Yes private business does operate under many set regulations. In your instance they can only pollute the air or water as much as they are given tonage credits for, and in the event they need or want to pollute even more they may buy additional credits from other companies or choose to just pollute and pay fines that are not only less than what it costs to not pollute, but also have these fines spread out across many years.

This is all besides the point though.
Polluting is illegal, smoking is legal. Catering to smokers and non smokers can be easily done without regulating a third party.

As for it serving no positive effect and that nobody gets any benefit for it, that is pure bull shit. Tobacco has literally bought and paid for more items than almost any other taxed product in history. From farmers to schools, they all recieve money from smokers and the "evil" tobacco companies.
As for non social bennifits, it provides very little and would fall into the vice category. Same place alcohol, drugs, gambling, and non reproductive sex fall into. People do it because they like it and it feels good.

And that has what to do with ME or what I said? I agree so move on.

Ya know what's even worse at a bar than smokers? Drunks.

It's a public safety issue. Once otherwise good people have a few drinks in 'em they lose their inhibitions. They get more aggressive and are more prone to violence. Then of course there's all the people killed by drunk drivers on their way home from the bar.

Of course it's also an issue of workers safety and rights. Can you imagine how the waitresses must feel being sexualy harassed by drunks in the workplace. Also bar workers shouldn't have to worry about the possibility of brawling drunks on the job. It's just not fair to them.

It's also a medical issue. It's not fair that people drink for decades and screw up their liver and expect the costs to be covered by medicare at the expense of tax payers.

Oh yeah, and alcohol stinks.

The government should ban alcohol to protect people from themselves and each other. If you support banning smoking in bars how can you possibly be against banning alcohol in bars as well?

No I'm not. It's called personal responsibility by republicans. Go ahead and smoke, but take RESPONSIBILTY over your bad health later on and stop asking me to pay for you heart transplant. Did II put a gun to your head and force you to smoke? Nope.

I was just pointing out that the nature of social programs in general never punish those who contributed to their situation.

In Canada, the tax we pay on cigarettes is very, very high. I'd venture to guess it offsets medical treatment costs.

So should employers be required to ensure a safe work environment for their employees? or not?

First of all I'm talking about PUBLIC spaces. Spaces where you might find children and babies. You're not going to find babies in a bar. Also if you are in a bar you most likely are consuming something unheathly so to bitch about snoke when you are drinking poison( which alcohol is ) is kind of stupid. By the way I don't drink or smoke so if they banned alcohol and cigs it wouldn't effect me one bit.

Also the GOVERNMENT has a right to dictate whether or not they want smoking in a GOVERNMENT building by the way, so I hope you aren't arguing that point.

Do you have the memory of a goldfish?

You came with the argument that smoking costs society. This was a discussion about the banning of smoking from a small part of society. Therefore you argued for the ending of smoking rather than any stance in the issue this thread is about, because people will continue to smoke whether they are allowed to do it in a few selected places or not.

Further, at least in my country (Norway), non-smokers costs us more than smokers, so you have absolutely no basis for your ridiculous position that I have somehow tried to defend or advance an imaginary right to cost society more than others.

pussy :)

Well say you smoke 2 packs a day and pay $1 per pack tax. That's $730 a year. Now your smoke for 40 years. That's $29,200. I can guarantee you you you medical costs related to all that smoking are going to be WELL OVER $29,200. Cig taxes in my state are WELL under $1 per pack. So I know who's paying for the cost majority of smokers health care.

1$ per pack tax? :1orglaugh Try triple or quadrupal that.

I just like to play devil's advocate.

Quote:

Further, at least in my country (Norway), non-smokers costs us more than smokers, so you have absolutely no basis for your ridiculous position that I have somehow tried to defend or advance an imaginary right to cost society more than others.

Bullshit! How does a NON smoker have HIGHER health care costs than a smoker? Are you saying smoking doesn't cause health problems? Also I live in the US, states sued the trobacco companies and got millions of $ beause of all the money states we out for paying for the health care of smokers. If smokers didn't have more health problems why did the tobacco companies pay out?

Actually, I know many people who are rendered virtually blind (yes, legally they can still see, but they cannot drive) by smoke and suffer incredible discomfort.

I do agree that releasing tear gas for fun is not currently a popular past time - at least amongst civillians.

:)

That's an extreme case, and what you have already forgotten (out of either convenience or disability) is the fact that non-smokers have a LONGER UNPRODUCTIVE LIVING TIME than smokers since it is a given that they live longer.

The day everyone stops polluting the air with their cars is the day I won't blow smoke in your face.

Let's do the real math.

In BC cigarettes are about $8 a pack. Of that some $5-6 or so is tax.

I smoke two packs a day. That's $3650 a year. Now if I smoke for 40 years that's $146,000 in taxes. Now if I have two friends that do the same, cumaltively we'll pay $438,000 in taxes. Statistically only one of us will die from a smoking related disease.

An employee shouldn't have to "choose" if he/she wants to work in a place that will be detrimental to their health. For many people, especially students, a restaurant or bar is the only place they can get a job.

You can't compare indoor smoking to alcohol. Anyone working in that environment is exposed to second hand smoke, and their health will be affected, just for trying to earn a living. A business cannot be an equal opportunity establishment if an employee has to choose to suffer health risks to work there.

Smoking has been banned in all restaurants, bars, clubs, hotels, stores, malls, etc for several years now, and it's great. Saying that I can "choose" not to be in a place I want to be because you're creating an unhealthy environment there is completely ridiculous.

I meant should have said "The government should ban alcohol in bars" as I did through the rest of the post. My bad.

I'm not.

How much does a lung transplant cost?

At any rate in my state it's 13¢ a pack.

2nd hand smoke kicks ass

You are an UTTER RETARD. Non-smokers have many more years of unproductive lifespan than smokers, and I have already explained this given that even you can accept if you could just fit even the foundation of the concept into your tiny brain.

I got your post. They should allow fucking in strip clubs, but that's just me.

I doubt a HEALTHY person has more UNPRODUCTIVE years than a smoker. how in the fuck do YOU determine what unprodcutive is anyways? Quit insulting because you don't agree. Are assholes normal in Norway? With people like you no wonder your suicide rate is so high.

I cannot be where people are smoking. Before I moved to a non-smoking town, I couldn't comfortably go out anywhere. It makes my eyes water and it makes me choke. It may as well be tear gas.

Smokers don't seem to understand this. Most of them grew up in smoking homes and have had a lifetime to build up a tolerance. But when less than a quarter of adults smoke, why should the rest of us have to learn to tolerate it?

I honestly don't care what anyone does, as long as it doesn't directly negatively affect me in a very tangible way. IMO smoke fouling the air in virtually every resturaunt really starts to cross that line. It was one of the main reasons I moved. But not everyone may have that option.

Well, guess what, no matter how healthy of a lifestyle you have lead, the body starts to detoriate after a certain amount of years, and if you are tendered to reasonably well, you will lead many, many years of unproductive lifespan.

I did not point this out to be an asshole, I am merely adding another fact to the debunking of the claim you made about smokers costing society more than non-smokers.

And about the suicide comment; I think that you are right in pointing out that we have a slightly higher suicide rate than the rest of the west, but an important facet to its cause could lie in the fact that our brains are massive and succulent and thus more susceptible to depressing introspection and mind wandering about the future of this fucked up planet. :winkwink:

banned here

smokers bannage

JaJack La Lanne would disagree with you. And he be right.

Quote:

I did not point this out to be an asshole,

You called me a retard. Does that mean something else in Norweigan?

Quote:

I am merely adding another fact to the debunking of the claim you made about smokers costing society more than non-smokers.

I still stand by my facts. So we can agree to disgree. I KNOW I'm right and you are NOT going to EVER make me think otherwise. best to drop it.

Quote:

And about the suicide comment; I think that you are right in pointing out that we have a slightly higher suicide rate than the rest of the west, but an important facet to its cause could lie in the fact that our brains are massive and succulent and thus more susceptible to depressing introspection and mind wandering about the future of this fucked up planet. :winkwink:

Your massive succulent brains make you more susceptible to being eaten by zombies not suicide.

:eek2 :eek2 :eek2

oh my god, that's one big bitch

If the reality was that natural death is something that occurs randomly to perfectly healthy old people, then you'd be right. But the reality is that before you die naturally, you will have lived many years of unproductivity, years where you have received social security benefits and free medical attention and procedures. I don't know who this person you are referring to is though, and I don't feel like Googling for something when I already know to be a perfectly apparent and accessible fact.

Did you not have a harsh tone against me in advance, you cry baby?

Right about smokers costing society more than non-smokers? Maybe you really are right about that, in your state, where you claim the taxing on tobacco is nearly non-existant. Most everywhere else though, taxes on tobacco are ridiculously and perhaps justifiedly high.

I swear, that's a widespread phenomenon around these parts.

:thumbsup

And I'll bump it yet again for the benefit of those countries where a healthcare system is something they may wish to aspire to some decades ahead :winkwink:

Anyway.. fuck ya'll.. where's my cigars??

Thats right! Lets ban people from doing things that we don't personall like! If we think its distasteful and harmful even to be around, then lets BAN IT!

Course, lets not let anyone think that way about what WE do. Porn should always be around no matter how many people find it offensive, because lots of people like it. Wait... lots of people like smoking too.

I wonder if I talk while I exhale smoke if smoking will be protected under free speech?

Your comparison of the harmful effects of smoking vs porn is rather weak. Unless you can prove that millions of people die every year from looking at porn.

I suggest you choose a different comparison.

you people are idiots. i'm sick of you cry baby fucks making smokers second class citizens.

you fucking bigots sicken me.

....if we THINK it's harmful?!?!??! Dude, there is no thinking necessary here...it is a proven fact that second-hand smoke is harmful :2 cents: