Rant...

Skynut

I should add that I am in that expendable catagory.

steveinaz

shack wrote:

I don't care how the smokers, drinkers, drug users, overeaters, thrill junkies, etc., choose to (more than likely) shorten their life...that IS their choice. I have a problem with the costs passed on to me and the rest of society of keeping them alive after the effects of their chosen pursuits.

Hit those folks up who charge me $2.74 in tax for every pack of cigs I buy. Nobody's paying my bills are far as I know, and never will. I won't burden my family with it either, they'll be the last to know if I develope lung cancer, I won't seek treatment and bury them in bills for a bad habit I chose to indulge in.

Demiurge

I do know people who are affected by it, and I sympathize with you. My line is drawn when you choose to come into a private establishment and tell them what they can or can't do because of your affliction.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

A smoking ban for restauarants and bars was recently passed here, but the argument was not for the non-smoking patrons, it was for the employees of those establishments.

I don't agree with forcing business owners against their will, but my clothes are 1000% less stinky now when I do choose to go downtown to the bars and I really like that.

You're not forced to work in a place that allows smoking.

PhantomOG

Skynut wrote:

The additional taxes on tobacco should go toward health care only, since the tobacco users are the ones paying it. How does the gov. get off charging people taxes for tobacco and using the revenue on other issues.

What about the family of 4 who's house just got burned down because someone want to smoke in their car but doesn't want the butt in their car?

What about cleanup for the BILLIONS of cigarette butts on the ground?

I'm sure there are plenty of other negative side effects on society than just the smoker's lungs.

What about the millions of dollars of wasted on the stupid bureaucracy revolving around the fact that you are depending on the government to FORCE you to save money for the health care costs associated with your bad habit?

How about people take responsibility for their own actions instead wanting the government to take care of them?

Whining to the government about someone else's second hand smoke isn't too different from whining to the government about getting lung cancer after smoking cigarettes your whole life.

steveinaz

Man, 126 replies to this thread, this is better than a cable debate!

Ok, group hug...hold on lemme change my shirt this one smells like smoke..ok, group hug...

It's all good, communication on issues is how you resolve problems, if you can keep an open mind and try to be objective about it, regardless of your "official" stand on the subject.

PhantomOG

Demiurge wrote:

You're not forced to work in a place that allows smoking.

So the guy who works as a bartender for 30 years gets lung cancer... who pays the bill? Big brother? The bar owner for choosing to allow it? No one because the guy wasn't forced to work there?

I agree with you but was just curious as to where you think responsibility lies.

markmarc

It all comes down to respect for one another, pure and simple. Smoke in your home, garage, car, fine by me. But, when you're around those who don't smoke in a public or business place, be respectful of the air quality they wish to breath.
My neighbor smokes, when I'm bsing on his property, I deal with him smoking (although he does practice common decency by blowing it in another direction). When he visits me, he doesn't smoke.

I feel strongly on this issue based upon what I haved learned in the past year about an old HS girlfriend's family. Both parents were 2 pack a day smokers. Non of the six kids ever smoked. I even helped her wash the walls of smoke residue (earning brownie points). Now, twenty five years later both parents no longer smoke, two of the kids suffer from early stages of emphasema(sp?). None of the kids can look at any other factors as a source. The devastation the parents feel is unmeasurable, for they know that their actions have reduced the health and lifespan of their children.

Demiurge

PhantomOG wrote:

So the guy who works as a bartender for 30 years gets lung cancer... who pays the bill? Big brother? The bar owner for choosing to allow it? No one because the guy wasn't forced to work there?

I agree with you but was just curious as to where you think responsibility lies.

That's why we have health insurance. People who smoke should be paying more. Smoking cigarettes or being around people who smoke doesn't mean you're going to die from it. It just makes you more likely. Just how a fat guy is more likely to die of a heart attack.

....and now you see where the overweight folks come in?

bobman1235

Demiurge wrote:

....and now you see where the overweight folks come in?

Through the garage door? :cool:

Skynut

bobman1235 wrote:

Through the garage door? :cool:

Waaaaaaaaaaaaa

PolkThug

Demiurge wrote:

My line is drawn when you choose to come into a private establishment and tell them what they can or can't do because of your affliction.

lol I'm no crusader.

shack

Anyone who thinks that several operations, radiation therapy, chemo-therapy and an extended stay in the hospital is paid for in full by your "cigarette taxes" and insurance premiums is sadly mistaken. Lung cancer is the #1 form of cancer in men and women jointly and second behind prostate and breast cancer when taking the sexes individually. Smoking causes approximately 87% of all lung cancer cases. You have a 1 in 10 chance of developing lung cancer in your lifetime if you smoke. We all pay for that in the form of higher insurance and medical costs as well as diversion of research funds from other forms of disease to lung cancer.

Thank God there are folks on this forum articulate enough to set us straight on the misinformation from the likes of the EPA, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, American Cancer Society, the AMA and so forth....

IE:

Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke ETS)

In 1992, the EPA completed its risk assessment on The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders (PDF, 525 pp, 4MB, About PDF) and concluded that the widespread exposure to ETS in the United States presents a serious and substantial public health impact.

More specifically, EPA concluded that ETS is a human lung carcinogen, responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually in U.S. nonsmokers.

Furthermore, infants and young children are especially sensitive to ETS. In children, ETS exposure is causally associated with:

- an increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. (EPA estimates that 150,000 to 300,000 cases annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to ETS.),
- an increased prevalence of fluid in the middle ear, symptoms of upper respiratory tract irritation, and small reductions in lung function, and additional episodes and increased severity of symptoms in children with asthma. (EPA estimates that up to 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to ETS.)
- ETS exposure may also be a risk factor for the development of new cases of asthma.

steveinaz

Yeah, we all pay for others bad decisions, diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, poor drivers, teenagers riding sport bikes, shoplifters, the list goes on an on...welcome to democratic society.

1 in 4 overweight adults will develop diabetes, whose payin that bill?

shack

steveinaz wrote:

Yeah, we all pay for others bad decisions, diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, poor drivers, teenagers riding sport bikes, shoplifters, the list goes on an on...welcome to democratic society.

1 in 4 overweight adults will develop diabetes, whose payin that bill?

I mentioned that in an earlier post. Paying for everyone else's bad decisions gets old.

ohskigod

yeah, addiction is a ****.....................hmmmmmmmmmmm. canoli cream. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!

AsSiMiLaTeD

steveinaz wrote:

Yeah, we all pay for others bad decisions, diabetes, heart disease, alcoholism, poor drivers, teenagers riding sport bikes, shoplifters, the list goes on an on...welcome to democratic society.

1 in 4 overweight adults will develop diabetes, whose payin that bill?

While I agree in general and don't like paying for other's bad decisions...none of the things you've mentioned is nearly as pervasive as lung cancer and the other problems caused by smoking - that's the difference. Diabetes and heart disease may be the exception to that, but those are many times not cause by poor eating habbits or only evident in 'fat' people. I'm diabetic, weigh 160 pounds, and can knock out 5 miles in less than half an hour easily. I'm not sure what percentage of diabetics are type 1 or tpye 2, but I'd guess the type 2 people (those who got it by not eating right) make up considerably less than 87% of the diabetic population. And the care that is needed for most diabetics is pennies on the dollar compared to lung cancer patients, most of us are fine with insulin, which is super cheap...

Oh, and I DO pay a higher rate because I'm diabetic, even though it's 'not my fault'. Is it fair for me to pay more because of something I have no control over but then for a smoker to not pay more for something that he has complete control over? Think about that one...

F1nut

I smoke. If you don't like it kiss my hairy white arse!

shack

F1nut wrote:

I smoke. If you don't like it kiss my hairy white arse!

I'll pass....there probably more stuff there that will kill you than all the unfiltered cigarettes on Tobacco Road!

cfrizz

Shack, WAAAA!:D

polkatese

you're killing me, shack!

StopherJJ1980

steveinaz wrote:

Stopher
I'm not making a comparison between the 2, I'm simply saying who is next on the "you annoy me" list? I'm talking about the long term impact that this will have on ALL of us, you included.

Obesity may or may not be genetic, it depends on the individual. I'm sure there are overweight people who were destined to be overweight from birth, no problem--but lets see how sympathetic this country will be.

You can't smell/taste automobile emmissions? I know how pollution is in Tempe, give me a break. The point I ws making there, is that people make a stand against something they don't like, but accept other things as a matter of course; this is the "attitude" with arrogant anti-smokers. Automobiles a necessity? Nope. I work with a guy that rides a bike exclusively, all the time, regardless of weather. Automobiles are a necessity when it's convenient to say so.

It's people like you that aren't satisfied with just banning smoking in bars, restaurants, etc (which, btw I'm fine with that); no you want smoking banned. Hey it's a free country bub, just remember what I said...it will effect you--it already has. That's the difference between the hardcore anti-smokers and the smokers, smokers are willing bend and make concessions, the arrogant anti-smokers are not. You people aren't the slightest bit concerned for my health, or your health...you just can't stand smokers, and thats fine with me, you got nothing I need partner.

Great, Im glad you know a guy who doesnt drive. Sure, you dont need to drive to live but compare smoking to driving and see how many people say smoking is more important to them. You know if you had to choose life without a car or smoking which one you'd choose. Besides driving is actually productive and has a purpose.

By the way "people like me" dont want to ban smoking everywhere. Like I said, smoke wherever you want as long as you arent imposing on others. Keep it mind too it is YOU who is imposing. We are not imposing on you because YOU are the one who wants to do something. Dont whine just because someone wont let you do what you want when you want where you want that happens to annoy the hell out of other people.

StopherJJ1980

steveinaz wrote:

Here's the bottom line:

If you set a precidence by trying to enforce these anti-smoking measures, you are going to open a can of worms that you will regret. How do think these things will be enforced? Huh? Use your damn common sense. Smokers will be "tested" for the presence of nicotine. Now, how long do you think that will go on before EVERYONE will be required to be tested for everything. "Oh gee-whiz Mr. Jones, while your test indicates that you're a non-smoker, very commendable, we have found evidence that you have other issues that may impact the cost of your future healthcare costs."

Come on, it ain't rocket science.

Yup, first step banning public smoking, next is computer chips and barcodes put on us by the gov't... This is PERFECTLY logical... Please...

You know I never mind people who argue a point I disagree with as long as they have a valid point. These arguments are just plain juvenile...

Skynut

steveinaz wrote:

Here's the bottom line:

If you set a precidence by trying to enforce these anti-smoking measures, you are going to open a can of worms that you will regret. How do think these things will be enforced? Huh? Use your damn common sense. Smokers will be "tested" for the presence of nicotine. Now, how long do you think that will go on before EVERYONE will be required to be tested for everything. "Oh gee-whiz Mr. Jones, while your test indicates that you're a non-smoker, very commendable, we have found evidence that you have other issues that may impact the cost of your future healthcare costs."

Come on, it ain't rocket science.

I tend to agree with this.
the people in charge want to make as much money as possible and they tend to want as much freedom as possible, this is how they like to do things.
They take one step at a time. There are people who agree it is ok to check for nicotine but as soon as it affects them they want to ****.
If they can check for nicotine why can't they check for anything.
They never used to check for alcohol or drugs. people feel like drugs are bad so the government decides to check people whenever they want and not enough people come out to stop them so they win. No one thinks it is ok to drink and drive so we get checked for that. Drink and drive and you loose. Then they take it a step further, drink and ride your bike and you loose.
Thats right if you are drunk on your bicycle you can loose your drivers license.
So if you ride your bike home from the bar to avoid driving drunk you still did not avoid it.
You can loose your license if you operate a boat or personal watercraft drunk.
You are not allowed to be drunk in public so you can not even stagger home from the bar without getting into trouble.
All of these laws came about because not enough people came out against any of these measures and the lawmakers had momentum to keep going.

So in closing if you think this type of government intervention will never affect you, you are mistaken.

steveinaz

Let them believe whatever gives them a warm and fuzzy...but it won't change a thing when it happens. People have been cutting off their noses despite their face for centuries, because ignorance is bliss.

Once you get the ball rolling downhill, it's damn hard to go back once you realize you've made a mistake.

Prime Example: Discipline (or lack there of) in public schools. "Zero tolerance" rules have replaced appropriate discipline; who does that hurt? Your kid, big time. What used to be a Saturday detention is now a criminal record...

steveinaz

Smokers need to hit them where it hurts--their pocket book. Don't patronize restaurants/bars that don't allow smoking. Don't fly unless absolutely necessary. Buy your cigarettes on-line from Indian reservations, pay with money order so the anti-smoking crowd (who sure do love your cig tax dollars) can't track you down for back-taxes. Hey, you don't want me smoking, no problem. But I'll be damned if you see a cent of my money.

We have a local restaurant which is family owned and quite popular. They originally had a smoking area, then attempted to go all non-smoking. In 2 weeks they had the smoking section back in place. Smokers (probably 30% of their business) simply said "****, I'll eat somewhere else." Same thing with our local Applebees; first month or so you could smoke/eat in the bar area, then they went all non-smoking. It took care of the mile long lines outside of the restaurant every night---and the extra money they were bringing in. It was also very good for Chili's business which has a smoking bar/restaurant side. Needless to say, I eat at Chili's.

PolkThug

Maybe try getting some help and breaking the addiction, then you don't have to worry about where you eat. I've also heard from smokers that have quit, that food tastes better after you've quit.

steveinaz

Actually, in the past when I have quit smoking for period of time, I don't like the way most food taste. I've already cut way back on my smoking, and plan to cut back more, but I doubt I'll ever quit. I enjoy it.

Lets see, I'm a:

1. Smoker
2. Drinker
3. Biker
4. Gun owner

I'm probably the most hated person in America right about now!

Skynut

steveinaz wrote:

Lets see, I'm a:

1. Smoker
2. Drinker
3. Biker
4. Gun owner

I'm probably the most hated person in America right about now!

(Curley voice) Hey, I resemble that remark.

kingsqueak

PhantomOG wrote:

I don't understand. Just because someone makes a buck off selling you a cancer stick, their supposed to pay your medical bills when you get sick from it??

Not someone...the government is making money by taxing the hell out of a pack of cigarrettes. They claimed this was to offset the cost of the healthcare burden, however the money isn't being applied in this manner. The government is leveraging an addiction (this could easily be heroin or cocaine being taxed in the same way) to line their pockets and not do anything constructive with the earnings to solve the problem. It is a deception, and this is the core of why it irks me.

I don't hold the tobacco companies accountable, this is a free country, it was my choice to smoke (though regrettable), it is my problem. However, I should not be paying a penalty as I am, as what I'm paying is lining the pockets of people at my expense when the initial reasoning for the taxation was a deception.

It is $6.75 to $8 a pack for smokes in NYC now. I make a solid living and this still stings my budget. This is purely criminal. I am addicted to the point where if I were making minimum wage, I would very likely turn to criminal means to get cheaper smokes. As a matter of fact in NYC now a full on organized crime enterprise has been formed due to the taxation levels. This includes murderous turf wars and empires being formed....just like the prohibition of alcohol build the Kennedy family, now tobacco taxation at this level is building the Russian organized crime empires.

Last I knew for comparison, a pack of Marlboro in Brazil is $0.25 USD. That means that all the taxes our government currently takes in could easily provide FREE healthcare for smoking related illnesses, paid for ONLY by smokers with no burden to society. Now, this is simply not the case.

How is the government outlawing cigarettes to prevent the damage to your health any more stupid than the government taxing cigarettes to pay for your unnecessary medical bills? They are both cases of the government stepping in to try and stop you from hurting yourself and being a burden upon the rest of society. We're not talking about minimal medical treatment for those in need; we're talking about people doing something for years and years knowing the risks to their health.

It was never intended that our government protect me from myself. As a matter of fact the foundation of our government was to prevent just that sort of intrusion on my personal freedoms. At the core of this issue is our government gone amock with its rapidly advancing intrusion into private affairs.

As for the government using any of the money to offset costs or provide programs....it's simply not happening or I might not **** about this so much.

I have no problem if you choose to smoke. If the smoke bothers me I'll go someplace else. But don't cry to me or anyone else when you get cancer, that's a burden you have chosen to take on and no one but you should bear the responsibility for it.

Mind you, I'm a considerate smoker and I've never had a problem with restaurants that had non-smoking sections....I actually prefer them myself as a foodie and former chef, I don't like second hand smoke while I'm eating.

I also dont' mind non-smoking workplaces...it helps me cut down dramatically. I used to smoke 3 packs a day when I could smoke at my desk. Now I smoke maybe 4-6 cigarrettes a day during the work hours. Two short breaks and my lunch hour. I like that aspect.

I won't cry to anyone if I get COPD or cancer from smoking, but dont' fleece me in the name of providing care and spend the money somewhere else. The only people benefitting from the tax money or the judgements against big tobacco are the politically connected people who own or earn from the special interest groups living on the harvest.

You want to tax me $5/pack to provide medical care if and when I get sick, fine, I'll pay that gladly. Truth is, this isn't happening and I am just being robbed.

Give me back the literal $300/month in tax money I have to spend now on cigarrettes, let me worry about my own healthcare, apply that money to my already increased insurance rates. Stop lying to the public about where that tax money is going.

Just wanted to add some math here.

22 years of smoking so far.

Let's say the taxes are rounded out since they have only recently gone to ridiculous levels. Let's call it $2/pack because that is basically how high they are.

A low estimate of a carton a week. 520 packs a year.

$1040/year, with interest of course

Add in the fact that I've always paid a premium for health insurance, now it's probably $200/month.

With all that money, there shouldn't be any burden on the rest of society...but just open your eyes, there still is. That money is disappearing in one of the great hoaxes the big G has pulled over on all of us.