Please don't smoke...

Gingerbread Man on 11/7/2006 at 21:47

Quote Posted by Nicker

A pack of smokes costs over $10 in much of Canada.

I call Gross Misrepresentation Tantamount To Bullshit there, I'm sorry. Its more like "somewhere around $8 for the most part, except for the 90% of the country that comprises Bummfuxx0r, Canada where it is still more like $4 or $5"

Nicker on 11/7/2006 at 22:08

Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man

OK - guilty. I was guessing. In BC it is close to $10 ($9 and big change.)

This (http://www.nsra-adnf.ca/cms/file/pdf/Cigarette%20price%20map%20January%2031%202006.pdf) map of carton prices gives a comparison but not of the per-pack price, which is higher of course.

In any case, exageration aside, it seems that tax revenue is greater than the related health expenses = profit$ for government.

I haven't been to Bummfuxx0r but I hear it is lovely in the fall...

Stitch on 11/7/2006 at 22:20

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

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.

And yet that study doesn't really prove anything in regards to people's ability to drink responsibly and drive afterwards. Part of drinking responsibly is knowing your limit and keeping yourself from getting to that point where there's enough alcohol in your system to affect judgment.

Keeper Mallinson on 11/7/2006 at 23:10

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

(http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm)

There, here is a list of causes of death in the U.S. every year.
Yes, Smoking is number one, but surprise, poor diet and physical inactivity is a very close second. Someone obviously needs to make a law regarding secondhand inactivity. Or a law requiring excercise everyday.

Hier is right, there's no reason the analogy stands. When you eat, you make a choice about yourself, and only yourself. When you smoke, it's an invasion on those around you. Blowing the same stuff out so that other people can breathe it in or find somewhere else to be? I don't think overeaters vomit up their food and force it down others' throats. It's just not the same.

Quote:

Hier, if you drive a car, everybody on the sidewalk breathes it's exhalations. Not to mention if you manage to kill somebody with your car during an accident.

Fine, you're right, actually, and have a point. It's harmful, even to others' health, not just the environment. Two differences:
1. It's necessary, for now; cars are essential to modern life; and having a girlfriend, frankly.
2. We're WORKING ON IT. Alleged government and corporational conspiracies to keep oil a necessity aside, we're trying to put a stop, or at least a reduction on it. Increasing public transportation is reducing the number of vehicles out there, even if this is being done by more gas vehicles (1 bus = 40 would-be drivers; 80-100 if it's one of those Translink dubla-busses). Also, in my area, we're experimenting with alternative fuels, and about half of our busses, if not 2/3s, are electrical. And yet, if you had your way, smokers would be allowed, with the justification that we're endangered in multiple other ways. Well we're working on it. This goes for drunk driving, too.

Agent Monkeysee on 12/7/2006 at 00:05

Quote Posted by Ghostly Apparition

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.

Others have already pointed it out so I'll just reiterate. The car argument isn't equivalent because cars are currently a necessity to modern American life. Our public transport systems suck and we all live in suburban sprawl so what are you going to do. Its measure of damage is irrelevant to this consideration as we simply can't do away with automobile transport. The same is not true of public smoking.

The drinking argument isn't equivalent because the mere act of drinking doesn't affect other people; smoking does. You don't get cirrhosis by sitting next to a guy downing tequila shots.

I don't know where your drunk driving argument is going as that behavior is already outlawed. The fact that it still adversely affects people is just... okay that's life. Turns out people still do illegal stuff even though it's illegal.

TheGreatGodPan on 12/7/2006 at 00:49

Smoking bans for bars and restaurants are idiotic. If you don't want to go to a place with smokers, (http://www.mises.org/story/2117) then don't go. Go to a restaurant where the owner decides to ban smoking.

I remember years back when the Greaseman was on the radio (to this day I've still never heard more than a minute of the show), he mentioned having an "only smoking restaurant". They wouldn't even allow clothes. And they'd serve nothing but meat. And once the smokers keeled over, they'd throw them in a fire to make more smoke. I wonder why smoking bans can't make exceptions for institutions that cater exclusively to smokers.

Random_Taffer on 12/7/2006 at 01:44

I was once a host/server at a restaurant. When customers came in I was to ask

"smoking or non?"

Some people would either politely say "non" or politely say "smoking".

Surprisingly enough the majority of the people would give me a look like I had just desecrated baby Jesus and very snidely say "NON!!!"

Once I sat them they'd ask, "So this is NON-SMOKING, right?"

:tsktsk:

Pyrian on 12/7/2006 at 02:06

Quote Posted by Convict

Letting people grow their own tobacco still means that taxpayers have to foot the bill for their health costs.

Prohibiting tobacco means means the taxpayers have to foot the bill for combatting the crime syndicates that will inevitably grow out of meeting the needs of addicts, while STILL paying for the health care of the addicts as they do themselves in despite the government's best efforts.

Quote:

...how in the hell do people smoke two packs a day for 50 years?

Luck.

Quote:

My key point was that automobile exhalations from cars are toxic as well, yet nobody is limiting car owners from driving their cars.

The restrictions on automobile exhaust have created an entire industry of catalytic conversion products.

Quote:

They probably WERE competent to drive, the legal limit is deliberately less than the level required for significant impairment. Nonetheless, everyone I know adheres to the basic rules of drinking responsibly, so I'm not too convinced of your "everyone does it" argument. Obviously some people do, but not legally, and you know what? That's a bad thing. Two bad things do not make a good thing.

Agent Monkeysee on 12/7/2006 at 03:09

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

Part of me agrees and that part voted against the ban. But an increasing part of me sure enjoys bars a lot more than I used to.

Ghostly Apparition on 12/7/2006 at 03:49

Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee

The fact that it still adversely affects people is just... okay that's life. Turns out people still do illegal stuff even though it's illegal.

Remember that the next time someone blows smoke in your face who's smoking somewhere they have banned smoking.

Thats life, Turns out people still do stuff even though its illegel. LOL

That is an absurd arguement.

Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan

That link you posted brings up a whole other question, the governments right to impose blanket rules on private establishments. I can see the arguement both ways.