Who has to deal with a smoking ban in their city? What are everyone's thoughts? I'm ENRAGED!!!!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It is outrageous that out of the 4$ you pay for a pack only about 1.50$ is actually for the cigarettes.

so what happens if people really do quit smoking? The government is quite addicted to revenues from cigarettes.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I guess i missed any one else actualy calling for that my dear

San Francisco has in motion a proposed ban on smoking in city parks and beaches, with the rather noticeable exception of golf courses. $$ still out trumps showing those damn smokers who's in charge.

So yeah, if you missed it, it's there.

[billvon 2,476]

>so what happens if people really do quit smoking? The government
>is quite addicted to revenues from cigarettes.

They'll save on their care. People dying of COPD, emphysema and lung cancer are more expensive to treat than people dying of traumatic injury, stroke or (most) heart disease.

[minobu 0]

agreed it will save them alot of money for treatments and such. Hell I will most likely quit if our gov here in LA gets her sin tax passed which would increase the price per pack another 1$ which would be a good thing for me
It still worries me though if the government suceeds in elimating smoking via this tatic ... whats next?

And yeah once they do eliminate it can you imagine the cries about lack of tax revenue

Only skydivers know why the birds sing!

Jim

[AndyMan 7]

Quote

They'll save on their care. People dying of COPD, emphysema and lung cancer are more expensive to treat than people dying of traumatic injury, stroke or (most) heart disease.

Even with Canadas socialized healthcare, best estimates are that the government does turn a "profit" on smokers.

Canada has very high taxes on cigarettes, maybe somebody can update me but when I last bought a pack they cost well over $6.00/pack.

I have trouble believing that cigarettes are not revenue positive south of the border, given that the federal gov't role in healthcare is so much smaller than Canada.

_Am

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[Pendejo 0]

This is an interesting thread... I find it that way because of some of the comments about justifying the addition and so on.... Yet I see people saying things like "and don't compare it to alcohol." I really don't see any difference in the two. While I am a smoker (and drinker), it seems there is a double standard here.... Before you start flaming me about how you don't go around spilling your drink on me, think about the families of the 16,654 (according to the MADD web site) people that died in 2004 in alcohol related traffic accidents (not to mention the innocent people that they killed).

I think the real problem I have with banning smoking, is where do they stop "protecting us from ourselves." While you shouldn't have to breath second hand smoke, where do they stop taking things away in the name of our protection? I remember when they first started banning smoking in the restaurants in my home town. There were a lot of people that said "they will never ban smoking completely." Yet it seems we are headed that way... With all the drunk driving deaths and the associated health problems that arise from drinking... You can bet that the government will have it in their cross-hares (cause soon they will be the only ones with cross-hares) sooner than you think.

It seems that we will soon be unable to think at all for ourselves....

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

>so what happens if people really do quit smoking? The government
>is quite addicted to revenues from cigarettes.

They'll save on their care. People dying of COPD, emphysema and lung cancer are more expensive to treat than people dying of traumatic injury, stroke or (most) heart disease.

[wringing hands] Oh my....then what will I do for a living. I count on smoking to support me and mine for the rest of my life....[/wringing hands]

linz

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>so what happens if people really do quit smoking? The government
>is quite addicted to revenues from cigarettes.

They'll save on their care. People dying of COPD, emphysema and lung cancer are more expensive to treat than people dying of traumatic injury, stroke or (most) heart disease.

That may or may not be true (shorter SS/MC payments), but it's also an event in the long term horizon. If someone quits or doesn't start smoking, that's money lost now! Let's throw out $500/smoker/year. That's less than a pack a day.

CA is using that money to fund day cares, among many rather spending programs irrelevent to smoking. I imagine we, and know many other states, are using it to balance the general budget. As a society we might be better off eliminating smoking, but there will be some necessary tax changes. Personally I don't think smokers should be subsidizing the rest of us - any sin taxes should stay on subject.

[Lindsey 0]

Many of the medical benefits of quitting smoking are not down-the-road benefits, but are actually short-term benefits.

A person with coronary artery disease who stops smoking, changes his diet, exercizes, and takes lipitor (lol), will likely see dramatic health improvement within the year.

A person with early COPD/emphysema who stops smoking will not get better, but will likely not get any worse. That saves HUGE dollars in the short-term.

linz

[UntamedDOG 0]

The laws exist to protect the people who work in these bars/venues.

It is one thing to be exposed to second hand smoke during an evening out on the town. It is another to work 10 hour days, 5 nights a week as a cocktail waitress/bartender, security, and anyone else who earns a living in nightclubs and bars.

Now think about how much second hand smoke a full time employee at a bar has to inhale for you to get your nicotine fix. How incredibly selfish and pigheaded to not realise that others have to deal with your "issue" on a full time basis.

Think before you bitch.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

This is an interesting thread... I find it that way because of some of the comments about justifying the addition and so on.... Yet I see people saying things like "and don't compare it to alcohol." I really don't see any difference in the two. While I am a smoker (and drinker), it seems there is a double standard here.... Before you start flaming me about how you don't go around spilling your drink on me, think about the families of the 16,654 (according to the MADD web site) people that died in 2004 in alcohol related traffic accidents (not to mention the innocent people that they killed).

I think the real problem I have with banning smoking, is where do they stop "protecting us from ourselves." While you shouldn't have to breath second hand smoke, where do they stop taking things away in the name of our protection? I remember when they first started banning smoking in the restaurants in my home town. There were a lot of people that said "they will never ban smoking completely." Yet it seems we are headed that way... With all the drunk driving deaths and the associated health problems that arise from drinking... You can bet that the government will have it in their cross-hares (cause soon they will be the only ones with cross-hares) sooner than you think.

It seems that we will soon be unable to think at all for ourselves....

Well, I agree that alcohol can cause deaths, but mere consumption doesn't cause that, you must add driving to it. The same could be said with smoking, you must add innocent people. What it comes down to is that both are deadly to others, but due to tax incentives for the gov they are allowed. So how do they regulate them so the gov gets their tax and the people don't klll each other?

Another hypocrisy is that weed is contraband, a felony and booze is legal. See, the world is full of hypocrisies, but that doesn't justify any of them. IOW's, it's not rational ta say, "hey, he gets to kill others with his habit, why can't I kill others with my habit?" See how that doesn't work?

As for protecting us from ourselves, the rules will stop at your doorway most likely. What I wonder si why it takes 50 years?

While you shouldn't have to breath second hand smoke, where do they stop taking things away in the name of our protection?

The so-called right revocation stops where the offense ends.

With all the drunk driving deaths and the associated health problems that arise from drinking... You can bet that the government will have it in their cross-hares

CAn't you see that that logic is irrational? It's like saying, "How can they increase the penalties on burglary when there are other people doing only 5 years for some murders?" To defer to some proportion of fairness that your sin kills fewer than other people's sin is just bizzare logic. If you were outside looking into that reasoning you would understand.

I'm not against your so-called right to smoke, in fact I'm for the legalization of all drugs, but I'm against your right to impose them on me regardless of whether others get to do it more, as I'm aganst their right to do it as well.

[crozby 0]

Quote

They'll save on their care. People dying of COPD, emphysema and lung cancer are more expensive to treat than people dying of traumatic injury, stroke or (most) heart disease.

Yeah but they'll lose out on the fact that people will live longer.

Cigarette companies have been exposed using this fact as part of their sales pitch. Wankers.

Quote

The premature deaths of smokers has economic benefits, according to a controversial report commissioned by a leading US cigarette manufacturer.
The report, drawn up for tobacco giant Philip Morris Inc, found that the Czech Republic saved about $147m in 1997 through the deaths of smokers who would not live to use healthcare or housing for the elderly.

Compiled as a cost-benefit analysis and delivered to the Czech Government, the study weighted the savings against the income tax lost and cost of caring for smokers before they died.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1442555.stm

[crozby 0]

Quote

I think the real problem I have with banning smoking, is where do they stop "protecting us from ourselves."

Young people need protecting from addictive substances.

Quote

You can bet that the government will have it in their cross-hares (cause soon they will be the only ones with cross-hares) sooner than you think.

When you say cross-hares, what you really mean is angry bunnies, right?

[billvon 2,476]

>Yeah but they'll lose out on the fact that people will live longer.

Why? Healthy people pay more taxes than sick or dead people.

[crozby 0]

Quote

Why? Healthy people pay more taxes than sick or dead people.

Checkout the BBC report I linked to - healthy people cost governments more in retirement benefits. The ideal situation for any government that pays retirement benefits is for its citizens to pop their clogs the day after their 65th birthday (or whatever the retirement date).

[ernguru 0]

I have to laugh at this thread as it has been started by someone who obviously is to narrow minded to look into the future.
For your business can you not see that by stopping smoking yuo may actually encourage people who don't like being in a smoky bar to your establishment. In the near future trust me the smokers will return.
I spent a weekend in ireland (Dublin) a few months ago where smoking has been banned in all bars/restaurants. Every single bar/club that i went to over the course of the weekend was packed.
People just went outside to have a smoke. It did not stop them coming.

As a non smoker I also had to laugh at all the posts of Well whats next Alcohol?
All you so much against alcohol Do you drink and if not and you are so against it.
GO START YOUR OWN FREAKING THREAD DON'T HIJACK THIS ONE

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

Well, I agree that alcohol can cause deaths, but mere consumption doesn't cause that, you must add driving to it. The same could be said with smoking, you must add innocent people. What it comes down to is that both are deadly to others, but due to tax incentives for the gov they are allowed. So how do they regulate them so the gov gets their tax and the people don't klll each other?

It seems that this has been the question on a lot of topics. There will never be an easy answer, at least not in my mind (other than the thoughtless... just make it illegal).

Quote

As for protecting us from ourselves, the rules will stop at your doorway most likely. What I wonder si why it takes 50 years?

The "at your doorway most likely" part is what bothers me.

In Singapore it is illegal to chew gum (can you believe that?!). I think they rescinded that law ( to allow only nicorette), but I will have to dig up the info on that.

My point in this illustration is that if we continue to give up our freedoms in the name of protecting ourselves it is very possible that it can go further than most would think.

Quote

With all the drunk driving deaths and the associated health problems that arise from drinking... You can bet that the government will have it in their cross-hares

CAn't you see that that logic is irrational? It's like saying, "How can they increase the penalties on burglary when there are other people doing only 5 years for some murders?" To defer to some proportion of fairness that your sin kills fewer than other people's sin is just bizzare logic. If you were outside looking into that reasoning you would understand.

This was not an attempt to justify my position on smoking, only an illustration that if they can stop one thing in the name of saving us from ourselves they can and will stop other things (that some of us are right now thinking will never happen).

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[Pendejo 0]

Quote

I think the real problem I have with banning smoking, is where do they stop "protecting us from ourselves."


Young people need protecting from addictive substances.***

There are many things that are addictive (and illegal) that young people still obtain. Education (and no I don't mean just at school) is a better solution (imho).

When you say cross-hares, what you really mean is angry bunnies, right? ***
Careful... We don't want PETA all pissed off at us!

Pendejo

He who swoops the ditch and does not get out buys the BEER!!

[Rdutch 0]

We have a smoking ban in Florida, and everyone thought it would hurt business in clubs, bars and restaurants. It had little to no effect. The Bars that I frequent are just as busy, with the only side effect is you can breathe in there now and you dont have to stink like smoke when you go home because of other peoples second hand smoke.

Ray
Small and fast what every girl dreams of!