Please don't smoke... - by Strangeblue
Agent Monkeysee on 11/7/2006 at 19:37
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
I'm sure thats a real source of comfort to the families of those killed by drunk drivers.
Okaaaaaaaay. And your point is? Should we make it
more illegal?
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
Of course, I've always wondered, since drinking and driveing is against the law, why do bars have parking lots?
Why do we drive on a parkway* and park on a driveway? And what's the deal with airline peanuts I mean have you seen these things?
*wtf is a parkway we have highways freeways and arterials this joke doesn't make sense fs
Nicker on 11/7/2006 at 19:43
In Canada at least I think it is because the worst addicts of tobacco, booze and gambling are our federal and provincial governments. While they beat their collective breasts over the terrible social cost of these vices they can bearly contain their glee as they rake in the taxes they extract from them. Until those taxes are excluded from general revenue the parking lots will remain.
Ghostly Apparition on 11/7/2006 at 20:28
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Okaaaaaaaay. And your point is? Should we make it
more illegal?
My point is: at least here in california, smoking is illegal in public buildings, workplaces, even bars. yet, we still have more whining about smoking than just about anything else. Calabasas, Ca. has even outlawed smoking on the public streets in thier city, even as millions of exhuast spewing automobiles speed down the 101 right through thier fair city. Its a cause for anti-smoking zealots beyond all reason.
There is at least as much problems relateing to alcohol use (cirrosis, alcoholism, drunk driving, lost time from work, police time taken up for domestic and or public disturbances because some asshole was drunk) as smoking, yet the crusade continues.
I'm not saying smoking is good, far from it, just the reactions to a little second-hand smoke is blown way out of proportion to the danger it causes.
SD on 11/7/2006 at 20:33
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
There is at least as much problems relateing to alcohol use (cirrosis, alcoholism, drunk driving, lost time from work, police time taken up for domestic and or public disturbances because some asshole was drunk) as smoking, yet the crusade continues.
Nobody ever died from passive drinking.
Ghostly Apparition on 11/7/2006 at 20:45
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Nobody ever died from passive drinking.
You're right, I've NEVER heard of a family driving home from somewhere getting killed by a drunk driver.
Swiss Mercenary on 11/7/2006 at 20:45
Quote Posted by Nicker
In Canada at least I think it is because the worst addicts of tobacco, booze and gambling are our federal and provincial governments. While they beat their collective breasts over the terrible social cost of these vices they can bearly contain their glee as they rake in the taxes they extract from them. Until those taxes are excluded from general revenue the parking lots will remain.
Considering the amount of money spent on providing free healthcare to smokers suffering from smoking-related diseases, I don't think that the total cost ends up to be in the black.
SD on 11/7/2006 at 20:46
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
You're right, I've NEVER heard of a family driving home from somewhere getting killed by a drunk driver.
Wow, you really are spectacularly fucking dense.
Drinking alcohol is not the same thing as driving home after drinking alcohol.
Ghostly Apparition on 11/7/2006 at 20:52
Quote Posted by Strontium Dog
Wow, you really are spectacularly fucking dense.
Drinking alcohol is not the same thing as driving home after drinking alcohol.
Like the majority of drinkers have enough sense to know not to drive when they've had a few too many. I bet you've driven after haveing a few haven't you? Be honest.
They've actually conducted tests where they had people drink enough too get too the legal limit then asked them if thye felt confident enough to drive.
The majority answered they thought they could drive, big surprise since judgement is the first thing to go when you're drinking.
I think the problem is in perception, it seems alot of people think drinking is cool but smoking is not,
see its amusing when someone gets on the internet and posts something while drunk and probably alot of you drink, so god forbid anyone say anything bad about it.
I've seen enough problems with alcohol too know the dangers. Thats not to say that alot of healthcare money is spent on smokers and related illnesses. It most assuredly is the biggest .
SD on 11/7/2006 at 20:56
Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition
Like the majority of drinkers have enough sense to know not to drive when they've had a few too many. I bet you've driven after haveing a few haven't you? Be honest.
No, I don't even drive. I use this quaint old thing we have in Europe called
public transport.
And that a proportion of people are too fucking dumb to not get behind the wheel when they've been drinking is not an excuse to bitch about people drinking.
I don't even know what you're arguing against. You think we should be as zealous about public alcohol use as we are about public tobacco use? You think we should just allow people to harm others with their smoke?
Nicker on 11/7/2006 at 21:33
Quote Posted by Swiss Mercenary
Considering the amount of money spent on providing free healthcare to smokers suffering from smoking-related diseases, I don't think that the total cost ends up to be in the black.
A pack of smokes costs over $10 in much of Canada. The revenue from the tax would more than cover the cost of specific treatment and prevention programs. Unfortunately that revenue goes into the general tax pool and only a fraction goes to treatment and almost nothing into prevention. (Same goes for alcohol and gambling.)
Of course since the treatment of smoking related disease is lumped in with general health care costs and those costs are born by the provincial governments (who may or may not get direct revenue from their own tobacco taxes) it can be rather confounding tracking the dollar trail.
My sense is that our governments do indeed profit from tobacco taxes and the justification that tax increases create reductions in smoking rates (which they do) is a publicity ruse.
(
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/173/11/1307)
Best info I have found so far:
Quote:
Just how much provinces might recover is the subject of speculation. Health Canada estimates tobacco-related health care costs total $4 billion annually in Canada. BC estimates its costs at more than $430 million last year.
Meanwhile, Canadian tobacco companies, with annual profits of about $1.5 billion, have said judgments in these lawsuits could ultimately bankrupt them. Industry spokespeople say the big profit-makers in tobacco are the federal and provincial governments, which collected $9 billion in tobacco taxes last year.
So about half the revenue is "profit".
