Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
Rogue Keeper on 10/7/2006 at 09:52
duh, these yuppies :grr:
Hier on 10/7/2006 at 12:19
Quote Posted by BR796164
This fuss about smoking ban is very hypocritical. Billions of non-smokers drive their lovely steel sweethearts which exhale much worse shit into the air! :grr:
I smoke and I don't drive one of those things. So who's better, huh?
I don't drive my steel sweetheart through an indoor restaurant and force everyone to inhale carbon monoxide.
Outdoor smoking bans are sort of silly, but banning smoking in public buildings is a great idea. Here you're not allowed to smoke in restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, stadiums, malls, or any other building open to the public. And it's wonderful.
Convict on 10/7/2006 at 12:52
Quote Posted by BR796164
This fuss about smoking ban is very hypocritical. Billions of non-smokers drive their lovely steel sweethearts which exhale much worse shit into the air! :grr:
I smoke and I don't drive one of those things. So who's better, huh?
I resent paying tax to support people who smoked and severely damaged their health even though they knew smoking only damages your health.
Ghostly Apparition on 10/7/2006 at 13:10
Quote Posted by Hier
I don't drive my steel sweetheart through an indoor restaurant and force everyone to inhale carbon monoxide.
And I don't smoke too many ciggerettes and get in a car too inebriated to operate one and potentially kill innocent people with my steel sweetheart.
Rogue Keeper on 10/7/2006 at 13:15
Carbon dioxide? That's least of a killer for a living organism coming out in exhalations of combustion engines (in the short term, not considering impact on climatic changes). Everybody has to inhale exhalations near the roads.
(EDIT: sorry Hier, I take it back, you wrote Monoxyde)
I agree that restaurants should be either smoking-free, or at least have separate areas for smokers and non smokers, with good air ventilation system. I don't have problem not smoking in buildings an areas where it's prohibited.
Convict:
And I feel sorry that my taxes have to be wasted on corrections of heavy fuck ups on the environment and health of the population, caused by car and industry exhalations. We've had a discussion on this topic just recently, right.
What are you complaining at anyway? The tobacco industry makes a considerable contribution to economy of your country. :rolleyes:
Combustion engine exhalations cause much bigger problem to the environment and quality of life of the general population than all cigarette smokers of the world. I believe that one day users of combustion engines will be frowned upon and considered as reckless and arrogant. Oh and one things I am sure of : smoking outlives combustion engines. :cool:
Convict on 10/7/2006 at 13:18
I think that in comparing damage from cars on other ppl vs damage from smoking on other ppl we need evidence to compare them. For 1 person using a car vs 1 person smoking, who does more damage to other people/environment and under what circumstances (ie cars damage ppl/environment outside and therefore this may be less than smokers who damage ppl inside via second-hand smoking)?
BR I don't drive and I don't smoke so I declare no bias in this matter.
Regarding the cost to Australia: "It is estimated to cost the Australian community about $21 billion in social costs per year" ((
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/factsheet-smoking.htm) Aus govt dpt of health and aging)). This is a lot of money for an economy the size of Australia (I our GDP is meant to be that of New York's or something).
Rogue Keeper on 10/7/2006 at 13:54
Quote Posted by Convict
BR I don't drive and I don't smoke so I declare no bias in this matter.
Okay... And what about that little bonfire you have ignited to roast some sausages during your last hike to the mountains. Awful! (Now you tell me you don't make trips to the mountains?) :joke:
Those costs are not pleasant, but it would be also good to compare the costs on treatment of smoking related diseases to incomes to state budget from tobacco industry in a particular country.
Somebody could argue that non-smokers have an option not to visit restaurants where people smoke. That's quite simple. Most public buildings have separate areas for smokers also. In fact, about 70 - 90 percent of public building areas in developed coutries are smoking free - while streets are BIG smoking zones.
People's taxes are being wasted on many stupid things, but the fact that smokers are so "visible" makes them a target of this big hypocritical witch hunt.
This whole tobacco business is actually pretty perverted. Many less dangerous drugs are criminalized and banned, but such shit as cigarettes (not talking about alcohol) are happily produced with support of the state, which puts tons of them on the shelves... and pretends it doesn't want people smoke them.
Smokers ARE paying big consumer tax with every pack of cigs they buy!
Convict on 10/7/2006 at 14:00
Well as a socialist surely you should be against smoking tax since in Australia it is the poor and the uneducated (and teenagers) who smoke and by putting a tax on cigarettes the poor get burdened with a tax that rich people don't have.
But then if you remove the tax from cigarettes then you can't argue for any revenue it supposedly creates (which I suspect is far less than what it costs in public health).
Rogue Keeper on 10/7/2006 at 14:15
This is not a simple issue, but then, what is. Ideally I would ban globalized tobacco business completely. But where it would lead, I don't know. Some minority would like to smoke whether they buy cigs in the shop, or they grow it themselves.
We can't wipe out the tobacco from the face of the earth either, that's ridiculous. Perhaps it would be suitable if the people were allowed to grow limited amount of tobacco for their personal use, or sell limited amount of home grown tobacco products in their private licensed shops? :erm:
My point with the tax was that it's smokers' contribution to the state budget, thus also contribution to medical treatment, possibly treatment of other smokers, possibly their own treatment in the future...
