TheMadCap Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 what i'm trying to say is, the costs of the health expenses to smokers during the age of 50 when smoking really begins to take its effects is paid by the taxpayer. This is evident here in Canada as a result of free health care. When a smoker has a smoking related illness, the taxpayer has to pay the bill for the medical expenses. In the US, i'm not too familiar with the health plans but i'm guessing it's similar to insurance coverage. Therefore, the more insured members that smoke who get sick and need to go to the hospital, the higher the other insured members have to pay of premiums. Therefore it is a big cost to society. The Canadian government uses high taxes to cover these costs by taxing the smoker in tremendous amounts. I personally am a non-smoker (although I do smoke marijuanna) and I can't go anywhere without being surrounded by second hand smoke. It doesn't bother me that much but I can understand some people's point of view. 541094[/snapback] What you say may be true, but the same can be said for fast food, or alcohol, or just about everything if you want to split hairs about it. People usually don't notice reductions in freedoms until it's too late. Cinc pretty much hit the nail on the head. THe governments, both Federal and State, make so much money off cigarette sales, it's ridiculous for them to do anything serious to challenge it. Take for example, the RICO trial they just lost. The feds tried to say that Big Tobacco profited illegally from cigarette sales, and sued for 200billion or some nonsense. Oh, by the way, they didn't happen to make it spend alot of time talking about the fact that they made boatloads of cash in taxes for the years they claim money was made illegally. THe states have no grounds to cry about rising health costs due to smoking. They raked in over 200 billion from the major tobacco companies in 1998 (one article of the Master's Settlement Agreement of 1998) among other things...
Bill from NYC Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Good. Maybe smokers will eventually get the hint that their individual rights do not extend to people around them, especially kids. And by the way, I'm a recovering (smokeless) tobacco user - 17 years. 540630[/snapback] Hi Berg. Did you once work in a bar? I seem to recall that you posted this. Perhaps I am mistaken; please forgive me if I am. People go to bars, and sometimes kill other persons on the way home. Do you know much about domestic violence? I have a little background on this topic. I am asserting that more than 70% of domestic assaults involve alcohol. Would you care to take me to task on this? My obvious question to you is whether or not that you think that alcohol drinker's rights should extend to people around them? I sense that you are a drinker, and that is certainly OK. I do not expect perfection from you, nor do I have a right to draw up personal standards for you, and expect you to fulfill them. What do you think should be banned, alcohol, bars, or both? I sit awaiting your personal set of rules for America. In any event, don't take this personally. I view you as one of many who comes with a set of judgements and rules to impose upon us. I don't throw out the possibility that you are in some way correct and that I am in fact wrong about wanting freedom for property owners. Again, I hope that the next generation is less self absorbed and more tolerant.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Hi Berg. Did you once work in a bar? I seem to recall that you posted this. Perhaps I am mistaken; please forgive me if I am. People go to bars, and sometimes kill other persons on the way home. Do you know much about domestic violence? I have a little background on this topic. I am asserting that more than 70% of domestic assaults involve alcohol. Would you care to take me to task on this? My obvious question to you is whether or not that you think that alcohol drinker's rights should extend to people around them? I sense that you are a drinker, and that is certainly OK. I do not expect perfection from you, nor do I have a right to draw up personal standards for you, and expect you to fulfill them. What do you think should be banned, alcohol, bars, or both? I sit awaiting your personal set of rules for America. In any event, don't take this personally. I view you as one of many who comes with a set of judgements and rules to impose upon us. I don't throw out the possibility that you are in some way correct and that I am in fact wrong about wanting freedom for property owners. Again, I hope that the next generation is less self absorbed and more tolerant. 541177[/snapback] I've got a simple solution to all of this: legalize duelling. Secondhand smoke a problem? Challenge the guy to a duel. Someone's drinking and driving and plows into your car and kills your wife? A duel. Bill in NYC's a proselytizing elitist disparaging everyone who disagrees with him? Pistols at 10 paces. Everyone would get along much better, and the world would probably be a better place, if we knew our actions were answerable with our lives. At the very least, the world would be a lot less crowded.
TheMadCap Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 I've got a simple solution to all of this: legalize duelling. Secondhand smoke a problem? Challenge the guy to a duel. Someone's drinking and driving and plows into your car and kills your wife? A duel. Bill in NYC's a proselytizing elitist disparaging everyone who disagrees with him? Pistols at 10 paces. Everyone would get along much better, and the world would probably be a better place, if we knew our actions were answerable with our lives. At the very least, the world would be a lot less crowded. 541188[/snapback] Reminds me of a comedian who once said something to the effect of: each person should be able to legally kill one person in thier lifetime. People would be extremely nice to each other, since they wouldn't know if they still had thier one freebee to use...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Reminds me of a comedian who once said something to the effect of: each person should be able to legally kill one person in thier lifetime. People would be extremely nice to each other, since they wouldn't know if they still had thier one freebee to use... 541191[/snapback] I mentioned my duelling idea to my sister (a pansy liberal). She was aghast at the thought...until I pointed out that most people would be completely incapable of even wounding much less killing someone in cold blood, but the mere threat of having to fight someone who you didn't know was capable or not would keep people in line.
Berg Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Hi Berg. Did you once work in a bar? I seem to recall that you posted this. Perhaps I am mistaken; please forgive me if I am. People go to bars, and sometimes kill other persons on the way home. Do you know much about domestic violence? I have a little background on this topic. I am asserting that more than 70% of domestic assaults involve alcohol. Would you care to take me to task on this? My obvious question to you is whether or not that you think that alcohol drinker's rights should extend to people around them? I sense that you are a drinker, and that is certainly OK. I do not expect perfection from you, nor do I have a right to draw up personal standards for you, and expect you to fulfill them. What do you think should be banned, alcohol, bars, or both? I sit awaiting your personal set of rules for America. In any event, don't take this personally. I view you as one of many who comes with a set of judgements and rules to impose upon us. I don't throw out the possibility that you are in some way correct and that I am in fact wrong about wanting freedom for property owners. Again, I hope that the next generation is less self absorbed and more tolerant. 541177[/snapback] No, my Wife worked in a bar before we were married and so did her sister. As far as me being a drinker, not really. A beer here and there nowadays, but I used to in college. I'm not really sure what your point is about alcohol. I believe people should be able to drink if they so choose. However, if it results in domestic violence, DUI, property damage, or anything else that affects someone other than themselves, there should be laws and repurcussions, which in fact there are. So like I said, I don't think I understand the analogy. I believe I stated unequivocally that smoking should NOT be banned nor taxed. However, smokers cannot ensure their habit is self-contained in a public setting. Therefore, my "personal set of rules for America" are quite simply that any individual's rights should not infringe on another's. In my opinion, it is the smokers who are selfabsorbed and intolerant. Their attitude is "!@#$ you, if you don't like my smoke, stay home". If that isn't the epitome of selfishness, I don't know what is. I am simply asking for common courtesy. I don't want to breathe the smoke that smokers choose to breath when I am at a restaurant or bar. I don't think that's much to ask. If I went around spitting my tobacco juice into people's hair and on their clothes, I'm thinking they'd be pissed even if they were smokers. IMO, it is a classic example of people choosing to take absolutely no responsibilty for how their actions affect others. No offense intended, but most smokers are extremely discourteous when it comes to their habit.
Gavin in Va Beach Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 No, my Wife worked in a bar before we were married and so did her sister. As far as me being a drinker, not really. A beer here and there nowadays, but I used to in college. I'm not really sure what your point is about alcohol. I believe people should be able to drink if they so choose. However, if it results in domestic violence, DUI, property damage, or anything else that affects someone other than themselves, there should be laws and repurcussions, which in fact there are. So like I said, I don't think I understand the analogy. I believe I stated unequivocally that smoking should NOT be banned nor taxed. However, smokers cannot ensure their habit is self-contained in a public setting. Therefore, my "personal set of rules for America" are quite simply that any individual's rights should not infringe on another's. In my opinion, it is the smokers who are selfabsorbed and intolerant. Their attitude is "!@#$ you, if you don't like my smoke, stay home". If that isn't the epitome of selfishness, I don't know what is. I am simply asking for common courtesy. I don't want to breathe the smoke that smokers choose to breath when I am at a restaurant or bar. I don't think that's much to ask. If I went around spitting my tobacco juice into people's hair and on their clothes, I'm thinking they'd be pissed even if they were smokers. IMO, it is a classic example of people choosing to take absolutely no responsibilty for how their actions affect others. No offense intended, but most smokers are extremely discourteous when it comes to their habit. 541196[/snapback] How hard would it be to allow a bar owner to decide for his/herself if they want smoking? You seem to enjoy the government TELLING the bar/restaurant industry that they need to ban smoking. Why can't people walk up to a bar, read a sign that either says 'Smoke-Free' or 'Smoking Allowed' and then make their own personal choice as to go in or work there?
Alaska Darin Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 How hard would it be to allow a bar owner to decide for his/herself if they want smoking? You seem to enjoy the government TELLING the bar/restaurant industry that they need to ban smoking. Why can't people walk up to a bar, read a sign that either says 'Smoke-Free' or 'Smoking Allowed' and then make their own personal choice as to go in or work there? 541292[/snapback] Thank you.
stuckincincy Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 I am against any of the so-called "sin" taxes - in fact I'm against lots of taxes, but I digress. My problem with smokers is strictly that I don't personally like to smell it, have my eyes water, or have my clothes and hair smell like it. Anyone can smoke anything they want, just do it in a way that doesn't infringe on my clean air and clothes. I don't think that's much to ask, but apparently many smokers think it is. Again, as a tobacco addict myself, I understand how hard it is but I went to great lengths to keep my use strictly personal. 541136[/snapback] 100% agree on not letting my smoking bother others. Were people in public as mindful about their brats as I am with my ciggies, life would be more pleasant all around. However, in a world filled with the exhause of a gazillion cars, and folks dumping gallons of cologne and perfume on themselves, I feel no guilt about my stinky clothing.
EC-Bills Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 How hard would it be to allow a bar owner to decide for his/herself if they want smoking? You seem to enjoy the government TELLING the bar/restaurant industry that they need to ban smoking. Why can't people walk up to a bar, read a sign that either says 'Smoke-Free' or 'Smoking Allowed' and then make their own personal choice as to go in or work there? 541292[/snapback] That's it! I am requesting one of the mods here ban you. There will be no making sense on this board!
Berg Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 How hard would it be to allow a bar owner to decide for his/herself if they want smoking? You seem to enjoy the government TELLING the bar/restaurant industry that they need to ban smoking. Why can't people walk up to a bar, read a sign that either says 'Smoke-Free' or 'Smoking Allowed' and then make their own personal choice as to go in or work there? 541292[/snapback] Do you know of ANY establishment that does that? It sounds really nice in principle, and it makes all the personal freedom kool-aid drinkers (Darin ) applaud. However, we live in the real world, and no business owner is going to intentionally alienate part of his/her customer base without being forced. It is for the same basic reasons that OSHA and Unions even exist. Bottom line, I want to go to a restaurant and not breathe other people's smoke and not end up smelling like an ash tray. How hard would it be for the self-absorbed smokers to respect that? I repeat - I wonder how people would react if I walked around spitting my tobacco juice in their hair and on their clothes. I see none of you addressed that particular comment.
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 what i'm trying to say is, the costs of the health expenses to smokers during the age of 50 when smoking really begins to take its effects is paid by the taxpayer. This is evident here in Canada as a result of free health care. When a smoker has a smoking related illness, the taxpayer has to pay the bill for the medical expenses. In the US, i'm not too familiar with the health plans but i'm guessing it's similar to insurance coverage. Therefore, the more insured members that smoke who get sick and need to go to the hospital, the higher the other insured members have to pay of premiums. Therefore it is a big cost to society. The Canadian government uses high taxes to cover these costs by taxing the smoker in tremendous amounts. I personally am a non-smoker (although I do smoke marijuanna) and I can't go anywhere without being surrounded by second hand smoke. It doesn't bother me that much but I can understand some people's point of view. 541094[/snapback] I have some difficulty with the argument that we must tax smokers more, because they drive the cost of healthcare up. Smokers die younger, thereby freeing the system from taking care of them in old age. It's just a money grab, that has been sold to the public. It's not the only one. Like charging more to insure a RED car, because suposedly, statistically, they get into more accidents. Whatever! BTW, I don't smoke, if that matters.
KD in CA Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 I have some difficulty with the argument that we must tax smokers more, because they drive the cost of healthcare up. Smokers die younger, thereby freeing the system from taking care of them in old age. It's just a money grab, that has been sold to the public. It's not the only one. Like charging more to insure a RED car, because suposedly, statistically, they get into more accidents. Whatever! BTW, I don't smoke, if that matters. 541379[/snapback] I agree. People get all upset about losing rights, but what happened to the right to operate a legal business without having the government decide that your product isn't healthy and using that as justification for levying extra taxes and/or suing those business for billions of dollars??? We're already seeing the next steps being taken by the targeting of Big Soda and the fast food companies. Who's next? Exhaust fumes aren't healthy -- let's tax/sue the oil companies. Candy isn't healthy -- let's tax/sue the sugar industry. Where does this end?? The politicians can go back to this well every time they need more money to ensure their power structure. That worries me a hell of lot more than whether or not I need to step outside to smoke a butt! Bring on the fuggin revolution.
Alaska Darin Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Do you know of ANY establishment that does that? It sounds really nice in principle, and it makes all the personal freedom kool-aid drinkers (Darin ) applaud. However, we live in the real world, and no business owner is going to intentionally alienate part of his/her customer base without being forced. It is for the same basic reasons that OSHA and Unions even exist. Bottom line, I want to go to a restaurant and not breathe other people's smoke and not end up smelling like an ash tray. How hard would it be for the self-absorbed smokers to respect that? I repeat - I wonder how people would react if I walked around spitting my tobacco juice in their hair and on their clothes. I see none of you addressed that particular comment. 541349[/snapback] Simply put, you're wrong. There are plenty of restaurants in areas that allow smoking yet the establishments are smoke free. It's probably not at the pace that would make the "why won't government take care of everything that annoys me" crowd would like, but if there's a demographic eventually the market adjusts to it. I never went to a bar to circuit train anything but my liver.
TheMadCap Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Therefore, my "personal set of rules for America" are quite simply that any individual's rights should not infringe on another's. 541196[/snapback] This is where the problem is. In our new wave, lawyer driven society, it's all about personal rights, and the good of others be damned. I totally agree with your position though... My point is that if you let government take away a right such as smoking in your house, it opens the door to getting rid of other unhealthy behavior. Before you know it, were all doing pushups in front of the Telescreens with the man imploring you to "give me five more Comrade". Then we can go to the two minutes hate to shout curses upon TD...
Berg Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Simply put, you're wrong. There are plenty of restaurants in areas that allow smoking yet the establishments are smoke free. It's probably not at the pace that would make the "why won't government take care of everything that annoys me" crowd would like, but if there's a demographic eventually the market adjusts to it. I never went to a bar to circuit train anything but my liver. 541433[/snapback] Try making an effort to understand personal responsibilities, although your kind of "!@#$ you" attitude is what causes this kind of issue to begin with.Re-read the post responded to, then provide proof that there are in fact establishments that operate as purported. I have never seen one in any of the areas I have lived in OH, NY, CO, CA, and TX. And also, you continue to avoid my main point - smokers personal freedom should not infringe on my right to eat (or drink since that's what you seem to be fixated on, not that the specific service matters) without feeling like I'm sucking on an exhaust pipe. Lastly, let me continue this until someone responds - howzabout I spit my tobacco juice all over your clothes and in your hair? Hey, my personal freedom to spit wherever I want, right? The "1984" attitude of some of you is just laughable. Have you not paid attention to current events?
Alaska Darin Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Try making an effort to understand personal responsibilities, although your kind of "!@#$ you" attitude is what causes this kind of issue to begin with.Re-read the post responded to, then provide proof that there are in fact establishments that operate as purported. I have never seen one in any of the areas I have lived in OH, NY, CO, CA, and TX. And also, you continue to avoid my main point - smokers personal freedom should not infringe on my right to eat (or drink since that's what you seem to be fixated on, not that the specific service matters) without feeling like I'm sucking on an exhaust pipe. Lastly, let me continue this until someone responds - howzabout I spit my tobacco juice all over your clothes and in your hair? Hey, my personal freedom to spit wherever I want, right? The "1984" attitude of some of you is just laughable. Have you not paid attention to current events? 541439[/snapback] You don't have the "RIGHT" to attend privately owned establishments, as the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should tell you. That is the entire point of the argument that seems to be just too big for you to get to. Smoking is a legal activity and any private entity that wants to allow it should be able to, just as is your right to: 1. Not attend such establishments 2. Let the owners know why you don't patronize such establishments. The reason that no one responds to your stupid question is because it's a stupid question. I fully understand personal responsibility and freedom (which is why I'm on the side of the argument I am, duh). I also understand that opening a door to government for pretty much anything means bad things to the individual over time. Case in point: the right to own a firearm in states like California and NY.
Berg Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 You don't have the "RIGHT" to attend privately owned establishments, as the sign "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" should tell you. That is the entire point of the argument that seems to be just too big for you to get to. Smoking is a legal activity and any private entity that wants to allow it should be able to, just as is your right to: 1. Not attend such establishments 2. Let the owners know why you don't patronize such establishments. The reason that no one responds to your stupid question is because it's a stupid question. I fully understand personal responsibility and freedom (which is why I'm on the side of the argument I am, duh). I also understand that opening a door to government for pretty much anything means bad things to the individual over time. Case in point: the right to own a firearm in states like California and NY. 541446[/snapback] The reason no one responds is because it debunks your side. You can't come up with a logical differentiation between blowing smoke everywhere and spitting tobacco juice everywhere, so you call it stupid. I think you know how that would be scored in a debate. And obviously you DON'T understand personal responsibility - I didn't say freedom, duh - or you wouldn't be claiming laws and common courtesy are left at the threshold of a "private establishment". Smokers have been catered to for years, and now they whine when non-smokers say enough. Boo-hoo. Either control your smoke, or don't do it. It's a concept even you should be able to grasp. Thankfully, your warped opinion is the minority, and non-smokers certainly ARE making their feelings known to establishment owners. How do you think the laws came about restricting smoking - duh? It is how our system works. C'mon Darin, at least make it challenging... PS - Merry Christmas A-$-$-h-o-l-e
Alaska Darin Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 The reason no one responds is because it debunks your side. You can't come up with a logical differentiation between blowing smoke everywhere and spitting tobacco juice everywhere, so you call it stupid. I think you know how that would be scored in a debate. Actually, I can't put them together. Whether you're chewing tobacco or not, if you spit on someone you can be charged with a crime. Again, smoking is a legal activity. And obviously you DON'T understand personal responsibility - I didn't say freedom, duh - or you wouldn't be claiming laws and common courtesy are left at the threshold of a "private establishment". Right, which is why the government is free to search a restaurant without a search warrant. It has nothing to do with common courtesy. It has to do with unrealistic expectations, like the right not to be offended and have everything your way, including government regulation of legal adult behavior in a private establishment. Smokers have been catered to for years, and now they whine when non-smokers say enough. Boo-hoo. Either control your smoke, or don't do it. It's a concept even you should be able to grasp. It has nothing to do with what the issue is to me. They could be talking about government regulation of healthy vs unhealthy cooking fat. I'm sorry you can't get that simple concept. Thankfully, your warped opinion is the minority, and non-smokers certainly ARE making their feelings known to establishment owners. How do you think the laws came about restricting smoking - duh? It is how our system works. Yeah, thankfully government is involved in virtually every facet of our every day lives while the very infrastructure they're Constitutionally mandated to maintain crumbles, effectively pissing all over the people who gave their lives to escape exactly such an entity. All because the majority feels they have some kind of entitlement to regulate everyone else's behavior. Slaveowners were once in the majority too and thought their version of freedom was great and everyone else was warped. PS - Merry Christmas A-$-$-h-o-l-e 541461[/snapback] Back atcha, bro!
Berg Posted December 24, 2005 Posted December 24, 2005 Actually, I can't put them together. Whether you're chewing tobacco or not, if you spit on someone you can be charged with a crime. Again, smoking is a legal activity. I could find nothing supporting that. I did find that in certain places, spitting on seagulls and sidewalks is illegal, but nothing about spitting on other people. Even if I gave you the benefit of the doubt, you are grasping at straws as you know it would be an unenforced law. Is that the best you can do in differentiating? Right, which is why the government is free to search a restaurant without a search warrant. It has nothing to do with common courtesy. It has to do with unrealistic expectations, like the right not to be offended and have everything your way, including government regulation of legal adult behavior in a private establishment. Hypocrite. Smokers want it all their way, but that's OK. The avenue to prevent such has been taken via non-smokers sponsoring legislative action, as our system was set up to do, but somehow that's not comprehended by you? It has nothing to do with what the issue is to me. They could be talking about government regulation of healthy vs unhealthy cooking fat. I'm sorry you can't get that simple concept. The government is not doing this unilaterally. Reasearch how it came about in CA. It was because the populace sponsored and voted for it. Again, that is our system. Yeah, thankfully government is involved in virtually every facet of our every day lives while the very infrastructure they're Constitutionally mandated to maintain crumbles, effectively pissing all over the people who gave their lives to escape exactly such an entity. All because the majority feels they have some kind of entitlement to regulate everyone else's behavior. Slaveowners were once in the majority too and thought their version of freedom was great and everyone else was warped. Invoking the slave issue is beneath you. Do you really think there is a comparison? I surely hope not. The problem with the government is that normal everyday people do not get involved enough unless it pushes their buttons. Most are oblivious to the infrastructure to which you refer, but take away their hot pockets and you'll certainly get a rise. Bottom line, if smokers (and people in general) were considerate enough exercise their habit in a non-intrusive way, I wouldn't care. It's what I do, but unfortunately, personal responsibility is lost on most normal people. They feel they should be able to do what they want and to hell if it makes someone else uncomfortable or sick. Very sad commentary on the human race. Lastly, if there really were a model where private establishements like restaurants and bars did equitably divide their services between those allowing and those restricting smoking, I'd have no complaint. Problem is, I want to got out to dinner with my Wife, and I no longer live in CA. Unless we go to McD's, we pretty much have to deal with smoke. However, the avenue given to us to rectify the situation is enacting legislation. I don't see why anyone would have a problem support that type of system. There is nothing stopping smokers from going to cigar lounges if they want to smoke. Resaurants are for eating and bars are for drinking. You may pooh-pooh it, but there is a historical pass that has been given to smokers, and it is quickly running out, thankfully. Back atcha, bro! I was just thinking, how is it possible that the Jaguars are about to make the playoffs and the Bills are fighting for a top-5 draft pick?
Recommended Posts