NationStates Jolt Archive

the point is not the revenue but the encouragement of people to quit.
the cost of the smuggled cigars would increase, probably in proportion, as the price of the legal ones did.
After all if you only need to cut off 10% from the govt price you are going to sell a lot, if the govt price goes up you may as well put up the price on the black market ones...

Anyway i thought it was generally more expensive for illegal items than legal variants of the same thing.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

Oh yea. lets let the tobbaco companies get everyone addicted.
Do you have any idea how many PEOPLE (childern, toddlers, babies) die from second hand smoke? In fact, marijuana is safer than smoking! But hey, if you want to die a gruesome, honorless, pitiful death thats fine by me. But the kid in the car doesnt want to. I dont want to. No one wants to. So you need to "pull your head out of your ass and realize some people ARENt content with smoking. You can die from some petty addiction that made some buy a trillionaire but your not dragging the rest of us down with you.

I dont care if people smoke, the problem is when they smoke around non-smokers and slowly murder them. You would also give smokers who are trying to quit cravings. Passive smoking is responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 per year in the US and about 11,000 in the UK and 13 a day in france (i dont know how old those stats are) if you smoke around children you dratically increase their risk of asthma.

I am in favour of designated smoking areas, if a non-smoker chooses to go near them its their choice

If a smoker walks past you its not a big deal, just a few seconds of smoke but they light up at bus stops and stations basically anywhere where they have to wait, other people have to wait to and dont want to stand in your smoke

I dont care if people smoke, the problem is when they smoke around non-smokers and slowly murder them.

This kind of dumbass melodramatic accusation is exactly what I was talking about.

You would also give smokers who are trying to quit cravings.

Please. If you're "trying" to quit, you will have to learn how to deal with "cravings" regardless. The blame, and responsibility, of quitters is with themselves alone.

Passive smoking is responsible for 35,000 to 40,000 per year in the US and about 11,000 in the UK and 13 a day in france (i dont know how old those stats are) if you smoke around children you dratically increase their risk of asthma.

Invariably such statistics are iffy at best. That statistic is from a 1996 NIOSH paper which itself concludes "An individual male never-smoker living with a current or former smoker is estimated to have an approximately 9.6% chance of dying of ischemic heart disease by the age of 74 years, compared with a 7.4% chance for a male never-smoker living with a nonsmoker."

Most studies on passive smoking are done based on indoor smoking, or case studies with people who live with smokers, or who work in an environment constantly filled with smoke.

And people like you seem to want to use those studies to show that by walking down the street I'm MURDERING you. That's what I meant when I said earlier about "not at risk." Not that you don't have a risk of cancer or whatnot - you do, we all do, thanks in no small part to automobile emissions and a few decades of nuclear testing - but you're not a member of the risk groups that these studies target.

And by "you" I mean considerate folks who think I'm literally committing genocide when I walk down the street with a cigarette.


If a smoker walks past you its not a big deal, just a few seconds of smoke but they light up at bus stops and stations basically anywhere where they have to wait, other people have to wait to and dont want to stand in your smoke

How can it not be a big deal? I'm SLOWLY MURDERING you. I should be imprisoned.

My concern with smoking outdoors isn't second hand smoke. It takes a real fucking asshole to show absolute no concern for the discomfort one is causing to the person standing next to him, but that's a whole other story.

What gets me is the cigarette butts. Have you ever looked down as you walk along the sidewalk on a typical city street? Nevermind anywhere that people gather or spend time like bus stops and outside buildings. Take a look some time. It's a travesty.

I remember one place I used to work for had an outdoor employee area I frequented during nice weather. The smokers hung out there too. The smoking area had ashcans and ashtrays scattered about every ten feet and had two by the door on the way back in for the tossing convenience of those heading back inside. I watched a man smoking a cigarette next to an ashcan... ...next to! He was literally six inches from it... ...drop his butt onto the concrete at his feet, stand up and walked inside as his smouldering butt lay on the ground next to the ashcan.

The graveyard of butts on the daily cleaned slab of concrete patio spoke of the number of people doing exactly the same thing within the previous 24 hours.

My concern with smoking outdoors isn't second hand smoke. It takes a real fucking asshole to show absolute no concern for the discomfort one is causing to the person standing next to him, but that's a whole other story.

That's a story I like to hear about. Like I want to know why the "person standing next to him" assumes that the smoker has telepathic powers and will just magically know about the "discomfort."

Discomfort to the point where you believe you're being murdered - that sounds like something the fellow might want to bring up? As a discussion point? You know, if I feel that way, I tend to mention it, but that's just me.

It's easier to harbor anger and resentment at smokers for 1) All of them being the exact same and 2) Not one of them having telepathic powers.

If a smoker walks past you its not a big deal, just a few seconds of smoke

so you ignored this and claimed I said the opposite?

you seem to be saying that the 2.2% increase for the study you quoted the results of is insignificant and denying that your fumes are having a detrimental effect on the health of those you smoke around for prolonged periods of time yet call me a dumbass.

I tend to give smokers disapproving glares and move away from them if they go near me I also refuse to talk to people while they are smoking.

If you were allowed to smoke everywhere you would make places virtually inaccessable to people with respiratory diseases, if someone had emphysema for example the smoke would speed up the collapse of their airways

That's a story I like to hear about. Like I want to know why the "person standing next to him" assumes that the smoker has telepathic powers and will just magically know about the "discomfort."

Oh, absolutely. It's understandable to assume that those around you will be perfectly comfortable in close proximity to clouds of malodrous smoke. It's also understandable to assume that those around you will be perfectly comfortable with you hosing down their legs with urine. Surely people will let you know if it bothers them. :p

Did you? Then why exactly did you try and claim that the law was necessary because rude smokers wouldn't quit when asked by the establishment? I didn't. Someone posted saying that they should MAKE it up to the establishment's owners. I said it was that way before the ban and you popped in asking for proof that it was the norm before the ban.

I posted examples of people NOT following the request, but that didn't mean NO ONE listened.

Depends on what you mean by "worked". It certainly didn't mean that most establishments completely prohibited smoking.and it didn't mean that everyone will put out their cigs when asked. Assholes are everywhere, and it's not just limited to the Anti-Smoking People.

Cute! You found pictures of people breaking rules! That never happens, right? if they don't obey a sign put there by management...

And I'm sure no one tries to light up in places now that they are legally required to prohibit it instead of choosing for themselves, right? Sort of like how nobody speeds, or jaywalks, or listens to loud music after hours. and now, when those that smoke in non-smoking areas are caught, they will recieve their punishment (a ticket/fine) just like those Speeders, Jaywalkers, and people breaking the excessive noise laws. nice no?

In other words, the results you are looking for is that all establishments prohibit smoking. You are saying that the owners of the establishments do not have the right to make that decision for themselves, and that they must be forced by the law to prohibit smoking. wow, nice mis-interpreting what I said.
try again please.

I've smoked less than a 100 cigarretes in my whole life, but i don't like green-lovers and governments telling me that i can't do it. If tobacco is really that bad let's make it illegal, and if it isn't let's just respect the freedom of the people to smoke. "Laissez Faire, Laissez Passer" guys!!

I'm forcing people to perceive through their senses (visual) something (Jew, icky!) they find offensive. Similar to perceiving through your senses (olfactory) something (ew, icky!) you find offensive. I don't think that's a dipshit comparison.

You're desperately clinging to this losing analogy which simply doesn't work for the argument being made.

Firstly, the problem non-smokers have with being around people who are smoking is a HEALTH concern.

Secondly, it is valid to complain that you are being made to feel uncomfortable by some idiot inconsiderate enough to be smoking around you.
It is not a valid complaint to say that seeing a Jew makes you uncomfortable.

Thirdly, smoking is a filthy, stupid and damaging habit. Being Jewish is not.

Your comparison of anti-smoking to anti-semitism isn't making smoking seem any better. Nothing would.

I think the one thing that all of us can agree on is:

That everyone, non-smokers and smokers alike would all complain like hell if there taxes went up because smoking was made illegal completly

Think on that one, smoking is worth 100's of billions of dollars a year in every nation of the Western world in taxes!

I regret my earier stupidity. I'll smoke outside because its the law on 1 proviso:

If smoking is made illegal, don't come running to me when your tax goes up 10-20%!

the point is not the revenue but the encouragement of people to quit.
the cost of the smuggled cigars would increase, probably in proportion, as the price of the legal ones did.
After all if you only need to cut off 10% from the govt price you are going to sell a lot, if the govt price goes up you may as well put up the price on the black market ones...

Anyway i thought it was generally more expensive for illegal items than legal variants of the same thing.

No. The only purpose to the smuggling would be to evade taxes. All profit would lie in that.

Aside: I would also participate in a "Boston Cigar Party".

so you dont think the people doing the smuggling would increase the costs associated with it?
How much does a black market pack of smokes cost nowadays? and how much was it 10 years ago? has it gone up in line with the legal price?

I assume yes, because the people who are smuggling it will want to make money as well - especially if there are significant risks (jailtime/large fines) associated with said smuggling.

so you dont think the people doing the smuggling would increase the costs associated with it?
How much does a black market pack of smokes cost nowadays? and how much was it 10 years ago? has it gone up in line with the legal price?

I assume yes, because the people who are smuggling it will want to make money as well - especially if there are significant risks (jailtime/large fines) associated with said smuggling.

You've got it bang on the nail. It is more expensive to purchase black market tobacco, though still cheaper (in the uk) than buying it legally

so you dont think the people doing the smuggling would increase the costs associated with it?
How much does a black market pack of smokes cost nowadays? and how much was it 10 years ago? has it gone up in line with the legal price?

I assume yes, because the people who are smuggling it will want to make money as well - especially if there are significant risks (jailtime/large fines) associated with said smuggling.

The more interesting question is whether prices rise in the source area for black market tobacco. Since it's almost certainly arbitrage trading (in other words buying that tobacco for a cheaper price in an area with lower taxes and reselling it in another for a profit), the prices might end up leveling out as suppliers in those other zones raise their prices to capitalize on the demand for cheaper tobacco in other regions.

There was a guy today outside of the building I had class in this morning wearing a homemade t-shirt that said "Smoking kills" with a skull and crossbone on it. He was standng right by where all of us usually congregate to smoke and by all the ash trays. Just standing there. His own little protest. When I walked outside I went over there, and took the time to obviously read his shirt.

Me: Wow, I did not know smoking kills, thank you for telling me that. Ive never heard that before. *takes out a camel and lights up while looking directly at him*

Him: Youre a jackass.

Me: *Shrug* Meh, what are ya gonna do? *walks off*



I hate moralist nannies. Two days ago I had a guy pull over on the side of the road while I was walking from class with a cigarette, just to yell "Aw, cmon man, smoking kills," at me. I told him its not as fast as Id kill him if he doesnt get the fuck away from me.

Im losing my patience with these people.

That was me!


(I'm joking. I can be fairly obnoxious when I want to be, but not like that)

Screw you. I'm quite happy that I can enjoy a restaurant in clean air. Non-smoker rights trump smoker "rights" any day of the week.

It is always an amusing moment when rights begin to be bantered about, and someone raises the ante with the old "my rights are more important than yours"...gotta love the true progress of the tyrannical heart.

In the interest of "rights", should the people decide what can and cannot be done on publicly owned property, definitely yes...what about private property? Every day, more and more of this sort of legislation is becoming common-place. The people exercising their "rights" and dictating what can and cannot occur on private property. Surely, the property is still owned privately, but it's use is slowly but surely becoming dictated by the populace in general, aka the state.

I think the one thing that all of us can agree on is:

That everyone, non-smokers and smokers alike would all complain like hell if there taxes went up because smoking was made illegal completly

Think on that one, smoking is worth 100's of billions of dollars a year in every nation of the Western world in taxes!

I regret my earier stupidity. I'll smoke outside because its the law on 1 proviso:

If smoking is made illegal, don't come running to me when your tax goes up 10-20%!


You just gave me an idea. Increase the tax on cigarettes, so high, that only the rich can afford it. Then increase the poison amount in cigarettes and the addictiveness factor. And increase inheritance taxes too, that way everyone but the rich benefits. And we pay less taxes, let's do it!

I think the one thing that all of us can agree on is:

That everyone, non-smokers and smokers alike would all complain like hell if there taxes went up because smoking was made illegal completly

Think on that one, smoking is worth 100's of billions of dollars a year in every nation of the Western world in taxes!

I regret my earier stupidity. I'll smoke outside because its the law on 1 proviso:

If smoking is made illegal, don't come running to me when your tax goes up 10-20%!I'm pretty certain that the reduced healthcare expenses, not to mentioned the increased GDP due to considerably less instances of calling in sick, would more than make up for it.

Regardless. While I'd be pretty okay with you swallowing assorted happy pills filled with amphetamines or whatever (Well, assuming that you're no longer covered by any kind of public healthcare, and assuming that you're keeping your mouth shut and just die quietly, as opposed to crying for the state - that is, the taxpayer - to help when your errors cause extended hospital visits), I'm most certainly not okay with you poisoning everyone around you (The aesthetic issue of you smelling worse than a mountain of shit aside), this causing additional costs, taxes, and thereby waste of funds that'd be better spent on, I dunno... education or some such thing.

The whole 'Consciously poisoning everyone around you and not giving a shit' bit aside, of course.

"You just gave me an idea. Increase the tax on cigarettes, so high, that only the rich can afford it. Then increase the poison amount in cigarettes and the addictiveness factor. And increase inheritance taxes too, that way everyone but the rich benefits. And we pay less taxes, let's do it!"

@Shofercia - are u freaking dumb -- why the whole affection with all things poor -- rich people are good for the world -- no - one -- and i mean no one gets rich without working hard -- respect money -- rich people are not inhuman - they are not insects supposed to be stamped out !!!!

@Shofercia - are u freaking dumb -- why the whole affection with all things poor -- rich people are good for the world -- no - one -- and i mean no one gets rich without working hard -- respect money -- rich people are not inhuman - they are not insects supposed to be stamped out !!!!
*cough*Inheritance*cough*

i think someone has a broken sarcasm meter...

@Shofercia - are u freaking dumb -- why the whole affection with all things poor -- rich people are good for the world -- no - one -- and i mean no one gets rich without working hard -- respect money -- rich people are not inhuman - they are not insects supposed to be stamped out !!!!

one day you will learn the truth young padawan.
remember... use the force!

On YouTube they've been hosting the "Truth" Ads, and here are what two people had to say about the "Truth" Ads.





So apparently the "Truth" Ads fail.



...Which isn't that surprising when you consider that the Truth ad campaign was created as a result of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. "The Truth" is what you get when you task Big Tobacco with funding their own defamation campaign.

You're desperately clinging to this losing analogy which simply doesn't work for the argument being made.

Firstly, the problem non-smokers have with being around people who are smoking is a HEALTH concern.

And you're saying stress isn't a health concern? Seeing Jews causes anti-semites unhealthful amounts of stress, which can cause heart disease (the number one killer in the USA).

Secondly, it is valid to complain that you are being made to feel uncomfortable by some idiot inconsiderate enough to be smoking around you.

Sure. And one person I know in over ten years of smoking, has made such a complaint.

One person.

No one else.

So answer me this. Was everyone else just too "considerate" to deign to communicate their apparent Grave Health Concern with me?

It is not a valid complaint to say that seeing a Jew makes you uncomfortable.

Why not? If it does, is that not something to complain about?

What makes a "valid" complaint?

Thirdly, smoking is a filthy, stupid and damaging habit. Being Jewish is not.

Irrelevant to the analogy..

Your comparison of anti-smoking to anti-semitism isn't making smoking seem any better. Nothing would.

Oh, I see. You thought I was trying to make smoking "seem better." Missed the point completely, you did.

Oh, absolutely. It's understandable to assume that those around you will be perfectly comfortable in close proximity to clouds of malodrous smoke.

Yeah, it is. Because THEY ALREADY DO.

Or is it not "malodorous" if it's only automobile emissions?

It's also understandable to assume that those around you will be perfectly comfortable with you hosing down their legs with urine. Surely people will let you know if it bothers them.

Well, if they DON'T let you know that it bothers them - either way - then they're fucking idiots and don't deserve any courtesy. Period.

If I have something to complain about, I will. And if I don't complain about it I'm not going to expect everyone to have magical mind-reading powers and detect my complaint, and then modify themselves accordingly without me having to lift a finger.

You just gave me an idea. Increase the tax on cigarettes, so high, that only the rich can afford it. Then increase the poison amount in cigarettes and the addictiveness factor. And increase inheritance taxes too, that way everyone but the rich benefits. And we pay less taxes, let's do it!

Now that I would be all for! I'd be forced to give up smoking on cash and health reasons.. and i'd end up paying less tax!

I'm pretty certain that the reduced healthcare expenses, not to mentioned the increased GDP due to considerably less instances of calling in sick, would more than make up for it.

Regardless. While I'd be pretty okay with you swallowing assorted happy pills filled with amphetamines or whatever (Well, assuming that you're no longer covered by any kind of public healthcare, and assuming that you're keeping your mouth shut and just die quietly, as opposed to crying for the state - that is, the taxpayer - to help when your errors cause extended hospital visits), I'm most certainly not okay with you poisoning everyone around you (The aesthetic issue of you smelling worse than a mountain of shit aside), this causing additional costs, taxes, and thereby waste of funds that'd be better spent on, I dunno... education or some such thing.


The NHS in the uk still has things that cost more than smoking.. Under/Over active thyroid cases who are entitled to free nhs perscriptions (the medication costs more than nicotine patches) - same with diabieties (sp?)

Smoking also funds wars and ther aspects to some extents.. plus you also have liver/kidney damage from drinking being paid for. If anything, costs to the nhs would not really be affected, they'd just be able to be more cost efficient.

When the average tax payer in the uk now pays more for things like education, wars, social wellfare etc due to the abolishment of the 10p tax rate banning smoking doesn't decrease the burden.

I have no counter argument to the poisoning you though - That is a given, as much as cars are. And given that things are already being don about car exhausts a ban on smoking in enclosed public spaces makes sense.

...Which isn't that surprising when you consider that the Truth ad campaign was created as a result of the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. "The Truth" is what you get when you task Big Tobacco with funding their own defamation campaign.

Have you guys ever seen the movie "Thank you for Smoking"? It's a masterpiece. And only in the US would Congress be so stupid, or so much at the mercy of the Lobbyists, as to allow smoking companies to fund their own defamation campaign: "kids you shouldn't really try smoking, it's an adult thing to do, like PORN and sex".

Kinda funny, my Health Ed Class taught by a non-too smart teacher back in 8th grade played a non-smoking ad:

Non-smoking ad: "I mean does this guy look cool?" (they showed a cool looking guy smoking)
Coolest guys in class: "Yeah!"
Retarded Teacher: "Ian, keep your comments to yourself!"

You get the point I'm making...

and now, when those that smoke in non-smoking areas are caught, they will recieve their punishment (a ticket/fine) just like those Speeders, Jaywalkers, and people breaking the excessive noise laws. nice no?

Um.....no. I don't know of any fines placed on people smoking in non-smoking areas. Establishments are forced to ban smoking. If someone tries to smoke there, they can have the evicted from the premises, just as they could when they had the choice.

At most, you might be able to get a trespassing charge to stick if you tell someone to put out the cigarette or leave and they don't comply.

wow, nice mis-interpreting what I said.
try again please.

Not at all. You are supporting laws to force establishments to prohibit smoking. This makes it quite clear that you don't think the owners of said establishments have the right to make that decision for themselves.

Screw you. I'm quite happy that I can enjoy a restaurant in clean air. Non-smoker rights trump smoker "rights" any day of the week.

What about the rights of the owner of the restaurant?

Do you really think you have a right to dictate what legal activities do and do not take place on someone else's private property?

You are upset because you can't smoke in a car with a minor? That makes no sense. I am a minor. Once, my mom's friend lit up in the car while me and my brother were in there. I had undiagnosed asthma. Do you know how horrible that was?

Smoke at your house, in bars, in the designated smoking area of an airport. But most of the laws make sense.

You are upset because you can't smoke in a car with a minor? That makes no sense. I am a minor. Once, my mom's friend lit up in the car while me and my brother were in there. I had undiagnosed asthma. Do you know how horrible that was?

Smoke at your house, in bars, in the designated smoking area of an airport. But most of the laws make sense.

These are my thoughts exactly but points like this tend to get ignored - just watch, Greater Trostia will come and defend his right to kill maybe even twisting your words as he does so, throwing in a plethora of profanities and anti-semitism for good measure.

and of course the smoking is detrimental to the health of healthy people not just those with respiratory problems. I never argued against people smoking outside - while I find it unpleasant it's not really to difficult to move away or stand so the wind is blowing the smoke away from you

also it is perfectly understandable that people are unwilling to tell smokers that they are causing them great discomfort, no-one wants to get in a large debate while waiting for a bus and some smokers can be violent and intimidating

What about the rights of the owner of the restaurant?

Do you really think you have a right to dictate what legal activities do and do not take place on someone else's private property?

I would bring up the rights of the restaurant employees, but I figure it's been done already. Maybe we're getting close to square one again.

What about the rights of the owner of the restaurant?

Do you really think you have a right to dictate what legal activities do and do not take place on someone else's private property?

Umm if that place is open to the public, then yes of course.

I don't know about anyone else, but the anti-tobacco groups are really pushing it. I don't even smoke. I probably have had less than 30 cigarettes in my whole life. Only on rare occassion do I ever light up.

Who thought we'd get to a point in the USA where legislation telling people that they can't allow smoking on the property that they own would become common? People seem to have misinterpreted "public place". If there's government property that your tax dollars are going into, by all means you can ban smoking there. But a restaurant or a bar or any type of business is not "public". There are plenty of places that ban smoking. If you want clean air, go to a restaurant where the person who owns it prohibits smoking.

And now they're telling us not to smoke in our cars if there's a minor in there? You have got to be fucking shitting me.

Anti-tobacco activists need to pull their head out of their ass and realize some people are content with breathing in smoke. No one is saying it's healthy, some people just like it.

Rant over.

Umm, I believe anti-smoking groups have gone to far. I've seen people treat smokers like second-class citizens, which is ridiculous! I think smokers should still be given respect like any other person, and I think they have the right to do whatever they want to their own body.

I also believe you're fucking retarded if you can't understand why it should be illegal to smoke in a car with a minor.

Smoking should be illegal in cars, around children, inside buildings, at bus stops, at schools and anywhere that it can't be properly ventilated. I've seen people burn themselves smoking in the car thousands of times, and I don't think anyone has the right to knowingly endanger a child by smoking around them.