Regular smoking, in itself, is a consistent and intentional use of a product that has NO redeeming value, and has been consistently shown to have negative effects up to and including death. It is a DIRECT cause of diseases that lead to death. You can't sugar coat it in any way, shape, or form.
Artman, yes, obesity may be a bigger killer. My point was that smoking is a VOLUNTARY USE -- or at least starting is voluntary, ending is not so much thanks to nicotine -- of a damaging product.
People don't use obesity as a product, and many people have a difficult time with obesity, no matter how badly they try to diet and exercise.
I really don't see why so many people get in such a tizzy over smoking. There are a thousand things that non-enlightened regimes could ban which, arguably, would improve public health.
While you're at it, why not ban cars with engines bigger than 4L. You can also go ahead and ban fireplaces: they are a frivolous waste of good trees and they put unecessary pollutants into the air. In the winter when I walk outside with my nonexistent kids, we all breathe soot into our lungs and it's shortening our lives. Also ban hobbies that aren't good for the environment like skydiving.
As far as the tax issue is concerned, curbing smoking will shrink a certain, enormous piece of GDP. In the end, the tax revenues that you miss from that, and all of the money the tobacco industry has to concede to the government in addition will be lost.
In that case, I'm in fine shape. I slide in there right at 1.3L, though in Japan rotaries get a 1.5x multiplier when it comes time to pay car tax. (Anything under 2.0L is cheap).
Of course, my car pollutes like a mar-far since it's not ozone friendly to begin with (old school turbo rotary), and I removed the catalytic converter to boot. If it's any consolation, I almost never drive my RX-7, though I'm tempted to start smoking -- or at least to hold buring cigarettes in my hand -- just to piss off the new left.
Artman, yes, obesity may be a bigger killer. My point was that smoking is a VOLUNTARY USE -- or at least starting is voluntary, ending is not so much thanks to nicotine -- of a damaging product.
People don't use obesity as a product, and many people have a difficult time with obesity, no matter how badly they try to diet and exercise.
Good clarification. I guess eating is involantary (you'd starve). But how about the many individuals who "volunteer" to gorge themselves everyday at Mcdonald's on a daily basis...and can't stop.
why isn't cigarette smoking illegal if mary jane smoking is...anyway, if we can cut medical bills, cut social security payments to families who lose a parent at an early age, cut the number of children with asthma, etc etc, then why aren't we doing this??
probably easy for me to ask, nobody in my family smokes (well two did, but they are both dead now from it...one emphysema, one heart attack)...how did we every manage to pick and choose what is legal and what is not??
i say un-ban gay marriage
and ban public smoking (you could still smoke at home...and smoke anything you want...just no smoking at work, at schools, at church, at the park, at the zoo, no "designated smoking areas" etc...no smoking anyplace but your house and your yard
the world would be healthier and happier
g
edit: ps...before rants of "this is america, land of the free", remember that we ban lots of things in public (some with very little reasoning behind it, at least smoking has health concerns)...no public nudity is a silly one that comes to mind (no public spitting was a law when TB was very common...also for health reasons)...can we think of some more??
You know, generally speaking, people don't have accidents because they smoked a few too many cigarettes. And I don't remember hearing about too many industrial accidents because someone smoked too many cigarettes.
Make no mistake, I lost an older sister to cancer and yes she smoked. But I don't see the point in "banning" smoking. It won't stop anything. Social pressure is much more effective for this kind of thing. A "government mandate" would do nothing but create a black market.
But I also don't believe in compenstating the idiots who smoke their whole lives and then want others to pick up the medical bills that result. "Smoke and you pay your own medical bills" would be a much more effective deterrent.
Note: I don't smoke and I can smell it from a mile away and it drives me nuts. I still think it should be legal.
And if you could read, you would see that I also think it should be legal.
Land use bullshit? You're just ignorant. Go learn something before you comment about it.
Tobacco is one of the most heavily fertilized crop, fertilized with chemicals that go into the water table. It also kills the soil more than any food crop, leaving the land dead and needing more fertilizer to sustain any crops. It devastates the soil. Just because someone, or a company, owns the land doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with the land.
And if you could read, you would see that I also think it should be legal.
Land use bullshit? You're just ignorant. Go learn something before you comment about it.
Tobacco is one of the most heavily fertilized crop, fertilized with chemicals that go into the water table. It also kills the soil more than any food crop, leaving the land dead and needing more fertilizer to sustain any crops. It devastates the soil. Just because someone, or a company, owns the land doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with the land.
There is plenty of land for crops. Tobacco is very profitable. Amen. The choice of the growers to use harmful fertilizers, as opposed to safe ones, is not part of the argument. Since everyone's still into banning stuff, you could push to ban the use of harmful fertilizers and solve that problem without getting rid of tobacco.
By the way, tobacco is extremely useful. It provides a high and sells for a ton of cash, which incidentally can be used for all sorts of useful things.
banning public smoking only folks...you can do what you want in your home, on your land...as for cars...that is questionable,i don't think that would be a problem except that people are constantly throwing cigarettes out their car windows, which often start fires out here in the high desert i live in...
India used to be one of the most fertile places on earth. The Sahara too.
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
By the way, tobacco is extremely useful. It provides a high and sells for a ton of cash, which incidentally can be used for all sorts of useful things.
This certainly is elementary thinking. If you have the cash for tobacco in the first place, why no use it for all sorts of useful things?
And I'm all in favor of not banning smoking. I've said it several times, but you all need your scapegoat to avoid solid arguments. Too bad.
Comments
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Regular smoking, in itself, is a consistent and intentional use of a product that has NO redeeming value, and has been consistently shown to have negative effects up to and including death. It is a DIRECT cause of diseases that lead to death. You can't sugar coat it in any way, shape, or form.
It helps with digestion.
Originally posted by BR
HAHA!
Bunge, the planet has been ravaged by asteroids and lava flows the size of continents. I think it can survive a little second hand smoke.
Well, it's not exactly the smoke that I'm worried about. I thought I mentioned that earlier.
People don't use obesity as a product, and many people have a difficult time with obesity, no matter how badly they try to diet and exercise.
While you're at it, why not ban cars with engines bigger than 4L. You can also go ahead and ban fireplaces: they are a frivolous waste of good trees and they put unecessary pollutants into the air. In the winter when I walk outside with my nonexistent kids, we all breathe soot into our lungs and it's shortening our lives. Also ban hobbies that aren't good for the environment like skydiving.
As far as the tax issue is concerned, curbing smoking will shrink a certain, enormous piece of GDP. In the end, the tax revenues that you miss from that, and all of the money the tobacco industry has to concede to the government in addition will be lost.
Lastly, to CosmoNut:
No redeeming values? What about the high?
Oh, that's right. You guys frown on pleasure.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
While you're at it, why not ban cars with engines bigger than 4L.
Why not 1.3l while you're at it?
Originally posted by Gon
Why not 1.3l while you're at it?
In that case, I'm in fine shape. I slide in there right at 1.3L, though in Japan rotaries get a 1.5x multiplier when it comes time to pay car tax. (Anything under 2.0L is cheap).
Of course, my car pollutes like a mar-far since it's not ozone friendly to begin with (old school turbo rotary), and I removed the catalytic converter to boot. If it's any consolation, I almost never drive my RX-7, though I'm tempted to start smoking -- or at least to hold buring cigarettes in my hand -- just to piss off the new left.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Artman, yes, obesity may be a bigger killer. My point was that smoking is a VOLUNTARY USE -- or at least starting is voluntary, ending is not so much thanks to nicotine -- of a damaging product.
People don't use obesity as a product, and many people have a difficult time with obesity, no matter how badly they try to diet and exercise.
Good clarification. I guess eating is involantary (you'd starve). But how about the many individuals who "volunteer" to gorge themselves everyday at Mcdonald's on a daily basis...and can't stop.
Well, I guess they're happy...leave them be...
Originally posted by Splinemodel
I really don't see why so many people get in such a tizzy over smoking.
Because good crop growning land is destroyed for the relatively useless tobacco.
Note: I don't smoke and I can smell it from a mile away and it drives me nuts. I still think it should be legal.
Originally posted by thegelding
a link
why isn't cigarette smoking illegal if mary jane smoking is...anyway, if we can cut medical bills, cut social security payments to families who lose a parent at an early age, cut the number of children with asthma, etc etc, then why aren't we doing this??
probably easy for me to ask, nobody in my family smokes (well two did, but they are both dead now from it...one emphysema, one heart attack)...how did we every manage to pick and choose what is legal and what is not??
i say un-ban gay marriage
and ban public smoking (you could still smoke at home...and smoke anything you want...just no smoking at work, at schools, at church, at the park, at the zoo, no "designated smoking areas" etc...no smoking anyplace but your house and your yard
the world would be healthier and happier
g
edit: ps...before rants of "this is america, land of the free", remember that we ban lots of things in public (some with very little reasoning behind it, at least smoking has health concerns)...no public nudity is a silly one that comes to mind (no public spitting was a law when TB was very common...also for health reasons)...can we think of some more??
You know, generally speaking, people don't have accidents because they smoked a few too many cigarettes. And I don't remember hearing about too many industrial accidents because someone smoked too many cigarettes.
Make no mistake, I lost an older sister to cancer and yes she smoked. But I don't see the point in "banning" smoking. It won't stop anything. Social pressure is much more effective for this kind of thing. A "government mandate" would do nothing but create a black market.
But I also don't believe in compenstating the idiots who smoke their whole lives and then want others to pick up the medical bills that result. "Smoke and you pay your own medical bills" would be a much more effective deterrent.
Originally posted by BR
Note: I don't smoke and I can smell it from a mile away and it drives me nuts. I still think it should be legal.
And if you could read, you would see that I also think it should be legal.
Land use bullshit? You're just ignorant. Go learn something before you comment about it.
Tobacco is one of the most heavily fertilized crop, fertilized with chemicals that go into the water table. It also kills the soil more than any food crop, leaving the land dead and needing more fertilizer to sustain any crops. It devastates the soil. Just because someone, or a company, owns the land doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with the land.
Originally posted by bunge
And if you could read, you would see that I also think it should be legal.
Land use bullshit? You're just ignorant. Go learn something before you comment about it.
Tobacco is one of the most heavily fertilized crop, fertilized with chemicals that go into the water table. It also kills the soil more than any food crop, leaving the land dead and needing more fertilizer to sustain any crops. It devastates the soil. Just because someone, or a company, owns the land doesn't mean they can do whatever they want with the land.
There is plenty of land for crops. Tobacco is very profitable. Amen. The choice of the growers to use harmful fertilizers, as opposed to safe ones, is not part of the argument. Since everyone's still into banning stuff, you could push to ban the use of harmful fertilizers and solve that problem without getting rid of tobacco.
By the way, tobacco is extremely useful. It provides a high and sells for a ton of cash, which incidentally can be used for all sorts of useful things.
g
Originally posted by Splinemodel
There is plenty of land for crops.
India used to be one of the most fertile places on earth. The Sahara too.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
By the way, tobacco is extremely useful. It provides a high and sells for a ton of cash, which incidentally can be used for all sorts of useful things.
This certainly is elementary thinking. If you have the cash for tobacco in the first place, why no use it for all sorts of useful things?
And I'm all in favor of not banning smoking. I've said it several times, but you all need your scapegoat to avoid solid arguments. Too bad.
Originally posted by bunge
It helps with digestion.
Digestion of what?
Greasy hamburgers and fries?
-Neø