Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
Rogue Keeper on 10/7/2006 at 15:17
Hmm, fine, that's a good example. However I'm curious why did you pick Australia? Are you from Australia? What about North America or the EU? What about world stats?
And please notice that I considered it would be "good to compare the costs on treatment of smoking related diseases to incomes to state budget from tobacco industry in a particular country." I was neutral on this question, or at least unsure. However I have my suspicions and I am still curious about the situation in other countries.
Taxpayers always have to foot the bill for their health costs. But the system I was suggesting would practically ban big tobacco "druglords", parasiting on the health of millions. Multinational tobacco industry is a pretty dirty lobby.
Specialized and licensed tobacco shops under state observation would also make it harder for kids to buy cigarettes at every corner. Also, strict regulations on production of tobacco products would object adding dangerous chemicals to them. Because they would be produced by small enterpreneurs, it would be easier to contol quality of their production by regular inspections.
Deep Qantas on 10/7/2006 at 17:03
Quote Posted by Convict
I resent paying tax to support people who smoked and severely damaged their health even though they knew smoking only damages your health.
Well that's not true at all. In addition to damaging your health smoking also feels good and makes you cooler. ;)
Strangeblue on 10/7/2006 at 18:24
I feel remarkably superior: I don't have a car, I don't smoke, and I call in smoldering telephone poles.
Does this offset my drinking, swearing, and screwing sufficiently? Do you think anyone will mind too much about the dead guy?
Convict on 10/7/2006 at 21:41
Quote Posted by BR796164
Hmm, fine, that's a good example. However I'm curious why did you pick Australia? Are you from Australia? What about North America or the EU? What about world stats?
Yes I'm from Australia. From what I hear there are a lot more ppl in Europe who smoke and it includes better educated and richer ppl so the argument about tobacco tax being a tax on the poor only may not apply to Europe (but still almost certainly not be a progressive tax).
I don't have a problem with taxpayers footing the bill for ppl's illnesses to a reasonable degree, however footing the bill for ppl who decide to smoke when they knew it would only damage their health (ok yes make them cooler apparently) seems unfair.
Keeper Mallinson on 11/7/2006 at 01:12
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?
"Billions of"? Oh now really.
Besides, there's the old cliche of two wrongs; places like Vancouver are working on your problem. What's wrong with working on the present one? I mean, I don't have to sit right beside a tail pipe as it blows in my face.
SlyFoxx on 11/7/2006 at 02:14
I love how all this gets started by a minor fire that MIGHT have been started by somebody smoking. Damn, comm chat is full of twats. If second hand tobacco smoke is SO dangerous how in the hell do people smoke two packs a day for 50 years?
It smells bad and people hate it and I think people should not smoke in most places but really...
I'm not saying it does no harm but while you're on your fucking soapbox...how about people who drink too much or eat too many burgers at McD's? How about people who speed or don't wear seat belts? People who are too stressed out at work...? How about people who are just fucking stupid and cause a concrete pipe to fall on somebody while on the job?
Christ go live on a fucking mountain by yourself if you don't want to risk living in the real world. OMFG, did somebody fart...methane is DANGEROUS!
I now return you to your regularly scheduled twat whine thread where somebody will tell me about their sick aunt who can't go outside because of all the pollution in the air.
Nicker on 11/7/2006 at 03:21
Quote Posted by SlyFoxx
Damn, comm chat is full of twats.
And here you are.
SlyFoxx on 11/7/2006 at 03:55
Oh...I'm slain by your razor like wit.:D
Where are StD and ZB when you need them?:p :laff:
Keeper Mallinson on 11/7/2006 at 03:59
Look, the effects of smoking take years to progress. It's a life-long rotting. It's not like if you binge, you'll be dead in 5 years. It doesn't work like that. Therefore, the fact that people survive for a generation while smoking does not mean there is no serious effect being done by indirect smoke intake.
& yet, this was indeed a thread about something else entirely. In fact, it was a funny story. I wanted to quell this tangent, but maybe that's not possible. So be it.
Strangeblue on 11/7/2006 at 04:19
On the upside... the telephone pole appears to have survived its ordeal and is still standing, proudly, wearing its burn scar. I guess the firemen managed to put out all possible smolders--of whatever orgin. Quite a sizable scorch mark, too: about a foot long and four or five inches wide--wide enough to spot from across the street quite plainly.
O, poor pole: to endure so much only to be pissed upon by drunks coming home from basketball games.
The real irony was that the firemen who answered the call had just returned to the station from attending the Great Seattle Fire Festival--in honor of our Great Seattle Fire which burned the original downtown to the ground. This, of course, was not started by a smoker, but by a glue pot in a furniture factory. Plainly hot glue is much more dangerous than smoking, which is why we shouldn't allow our mums and grannies to do those silly crafts with hot glue guns--what if they burn down the whole town?!
So, the compound moral: don't smoke poles, don't sniff glue, and especially, don't set the glue on fire. Most especially, don't set fire to any gluey phone poles, or attempt ill-advised arts-and-crafts projects with any of the above. You might get stuck (in a stupid debate, with 14-year-old firemen.)
