Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove causation in a situation like this? Philosophically, it isn't even possible. From a supremely rigorous scientific viewpoint, it would require experiments that could never be conducted (isolating people for years, giving people lung cancer, etc.).
True, this is correlation, not causality, but in the real world we have to deal with carefully analyzed correlations because most of the time that's all we're ever going to get, especially when dealing with large demographics, social sciences (including social health), and such.
Keep reading. This point is brought up again in one of my other posts.
I still fail to see what these detrimental effects are. In fact, I see the exact opposite. If what I said was the case, you wouldnt have to worry about smokers and non smokers in the same place. People would visit the establishments they felt comfortable in and accept the risks associated with going to that establishment. The shop owner could run his business as he sees fit, and I guarentee, the place that allowed smoking, esp. a bar, would have a greater income than those that didnt.
At which point the other bars would then proceed to allow smoking. At which point neither patrons nor bartenders would have a choice of a smoke-free environment. Also, you'd then have smokers and non-smokers in the same place.
You didn't really think this through, did you?
Also, once nearly every bar, restaurant, and airline decides to allow smoking, your argument that "oh, people can just work elsewhere" will start to fall apart as well.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove causation in a situation like this? Philosophically, it isn't even possible. From a supremely rigorous scientific viewpoint, it would require experiments that could never be conducted (isolating people for years, giving people lung cancer, etc.).
True, this is correlation, not causality, but in the real world we have to deal with carefully analyzed correlations because most of the time that's all we're ever going to get, especially when dealing with large demographics, social sciences (including social health), and such.
Keep reading. This point is brought up again in one of my other posts.
My bad. Just a touchy subject for those of us who've had to deal with a lot of pseudo-science-based political bullshit in our day.
Shame on me for not finishing the thread before posting.
Although in all fairness, I'll wager "correlation =/= causality" gets said by somebody else down the line, with none of the self-conscious quasi-sarcasm you intended.
I still fail to see what these detrimental effects are. In fact, I see the exact opposite. If what I said was the case, you wouldnt have to worry about smokers and non smokers in the same place. People would visit the establishments they felt comfortable in and accept the risks associated with going to that establishment. The shop owner could run his business as he sees fit, and I guarentee, the place that allowed smoking, esp. a bar, would have a greater income than those that didnt.
At which point the other bars would then proceed to allow smoking. At which point neither patrons nor bartenders would have a choice of a smoke-free environment. Also, you'd then have smokers and non-smokers in the same place.
You didn't really think this through, did you?
Also, once nearly every bar, restaurant, and airline decides to allow smoking, your argument that "oh, people can just work elsewhere" will start to fall apart as well.
At that point it again comes down to personal convictions. Whats more important, greed or safety of yourself and others? This arguement is more based toward personally owned businesses not large corporations such as airlines and the rest. I agree with restrictions on airlines, there arent nearly as many airlines to choose from as there are bars and restaraunts. In those type situations, I still feel that regulation is necessary.
when as I said before, its not an illegal activity
Please understand the effects of a ban on smoking before making this statement.
Furthermore, note the existence of the argument that you have no right to do anything the state chooses to prohibit. Whilst I disagree with this, I do not believe that a right (in the context of something that cannot be denied by the state) to free enterprise necessarily exists.
I understand that a ban makes it illegal in a certain area, but still smoking in general is not illegal.
However, it could be. Many activities are barred in specific locations, so it is hardly an unprecedented issue. Certainly, I wouldn't advocate it in general.
Smoking is a choice and as such shouldnt fall under the fair hiring laws. Sex/Age/Religion/etc, these cannot be chaged and as such do need protection.
Creed. That said, I oppose the view that one should have the right to employ people in a environment unnecessarily detrimental to their health, even if they accept it. The exception would be when the act of carrying out their duties is in itself detrimental, and that it, to me, dangerous ground.
Oh, and because it caused some confusion: Sorry about using the word "state". "Nation" would have been better – I keep forgetting the American interpretation.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove causation in a situation like this? Philosophically, it isn't even possible. From a supremely rigorous scientific viewpoint, it would require experiments that could never be conducted (isolating people for years, giving people lung cancer, etc.).
True, this is correlation, not causality, but in the real world we have to deal with carefully analyzed correlations because most of the time that's all we're ever going to get, especially when dealing with large demographics, social sciences (including social health), and such.
No, shut up. Shut the fuck up right now. Wtf, philosophy? Psy-ints? Gtfo.
Now.
Hey
hey
we're having an edbate here. You don't get to post like that.
Smoking is a choice and as such shouldnt fall under the fair hiring laws. Sex/Age/Religion/etc, these cannot be chaged and as such do need protection.
I'm pretty sure nobody is saying you can't discriminate against nonsmokers. They're simply saying that you cannot require people to cause harm to their own bodies as a requirement of employment, especially when that harm doesn't come from the actual performance of their duties. You can hire smokers exclusively all you want, as far as I'm concerned.
Same way you can't require people to cut themselves daily as a requirement of employment (at least I don't think you can...but hell, who knows). Even if they enjoy cutting themselves on their own time at home.
Furthermore, note the existence of the argument that you have no right to do anything the state chooses to prohibit. Whilst I disagree with this, I do not believe that a right (in the context of something that cannot be denied by the state) to free enterprise necessarily exists.
Yeah, I thought that right was federally guaranteed.
The entire text of the US Constitution is available on the internet. Go wild. Also, sites like FindLaw are good for finding court cases that clarify such things. I challenge you to point out where the right to free enterprise is federally guaranteed. I don't know for a fact that it isn't, so maybe you'll surprise me.
Ah, all right. You're right. Only rights specifically stated in the constitution count. Nothing is implied.
Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Now, assuming the founders didn't write letters detailing their intents, or papers, (for instance, "Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes) we'd still understand their intention with this amendment. The very point of the ninth amendment was to assure that rights not specifically laid out by the constitution would still be protected. That the, "But it's not in the constitution" argument could never be used. Free enterprise?
Thomas Jefferson, what do you think?
"[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry..."
when as I said before, its not an illegal activity
Please understand the effects of a ban on smoking before making this statement.
Furthermore, note the existence of the argument that you have no right to do anything the state chooses to prohibit. Whilst I disagree with this, I do not believe that a right (in the context of something that cannot be denied by the state) to free enterprise necessarily exists.
I understand that a ban makes it illegal in a certain area, but still smoking in general is not illegal.
However, it could be. Many activities are barred in specific locations, so it is hardly an unprecedented issue. Certainly, I wouldn't advocate it in general.
Smoking is a choice and as such shouldnt fall under the fair hiring laws. Sex/Age/Religion/etc, these cannot be chaged and as such do need protection.
Creed. That said, I oppose the view that one should have the right to employ people in a environment unnecessarily detrimental to their health, even if they accept it. The exception would be when the act of carrying out their duties is in itself detrimental, and that it, to me, dangerous ground.
Oh, and because it caused some confusion: Sorry about using the word "state". "Nation" would have been better – I keep forgetting the American interpretation.
I understand what you are saying, but now you are imposing your will upon others. In a free nation, people have the right to choose. Why should you have the right to tell me how to live my life, if in fact, the way I live my life doesn't affect yours?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to prove causation in a situation like this? Philosophically, it isn't even possible. From a supremely rigorous scientific viewpoint, it would require experiments that could never be conducted (isolating people for years, giving people lung cancer, etc.).
True, this is correlation, not causality, but in the real world we have to deal with carefully analyzed correlations because most of the time that's all we're ever going to get, especially when dealing with large demographics, social sciences (including social health), and such.
No, shut up. Shut the fuck up right now. Wtf, philosophy? Psy-ints? Gtfo.
Now.
Hey
hey
we're having an edbate here. You don't get to post like that.
Sorry. I thought about putting "kidding" in spoiler tags. But I thought that might be insulting, like I didn't think anyone would get it. But, then again...
I still fail to see what these detrimental effects are. In fact, I see the exact opposite. If what I said was the case, you wouldnt have to worry about smokers and non smokers in the same place. People would visit the establishments they felt comfortable in and accept the risks associated with going to that establishment. The shop owner could run his business as he sees fit, and I guarentee, the place that allowed smoking, esp. a bar, would have a greater income than those that didnt.
At which point the other bars would then proceed to allow smoking. At which point neither patrons nor bartenders would have a choice of a smoke-free environment. Also, you'd then have smokers and non-smokers in the same place.
You didn't really think this through, did you?
Also, once nearly every bar, restaurant, and airline decides to allow smoking, your argument that "oh, people can just work elsewhere" will start to fall apart as well.
And in what tobacco loving world do you imagine that all businesses will start to arbitrarily all allow smoking. For no good reason. Is this, like... the tobacco version of the domino theory?
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
Sorry. I thought about putting "kidding" in spoiler tags. But I thought that might be insulting, like I didn't think anyone would get it. But, then again...
Well, you probably should have, being as you seem to be slightly humor-impaired.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. Every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
Why, Absurdist, that's... that's... absurd!
I would start a post on the idea of luxury taxes (higher taxes on esteemed luxury items like cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana if I got my way), but I've upset* enough people tonight with my craziness.
*Upset in the literally sense. Not so much, made angry, but... disturbed their peace. I'm a disturber of the peace. That's actually the name of my new Norwegian metal band.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. Every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
Why, Absurdist, that's... that's... absurd!
I would start a post on the idea of luxury taxes (higher taxes on esteemed luxury items like cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana if I got my way), but I've upset* enough people tonight with my craziness.
*Upset in the literally sense. Not so much, made angry, but... disturbed their peace. I'm a disturber of the peace. That's actually the name of my new Norwegian metal band.
Nah, you said "psy-ints" and I lulled. Totally got the joke
Sorry. I thought about putting "kidding" in spoiler tags. But I thought that might be insulting, like I didn't think anyone would get it. But, then again...
Well, you probably should have, being as you seem to be slightly humor-impaired.
I like to think my humor isn't so much impaired as it is just really, really dry.
Which is unfair. Because it's the internet. No one really knows me, and text =! good tone carrier. You may notice my excessive use of italics. I try.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: 5a) "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Which part of "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes" were you unclear on?
And for the record, the state can raise the tax to whatever it wants. They just put another $1.56 per pack on the newest round of legislation. Because California rules.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
You know, I really think there's something inherently appealing about the actual act of smoking. Rhythmic breathing, perhaps?
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
I think I can answer this with my extensive experience with materials not related to tobacco. Where as a vaporizer is almost completely healthy, and a water pipe is a wholly preferable situation, how often do you see a guy carrying around a mini, key-chain water pipe?
Basically, convention and mobility accounts for the popularity of cigarettes.
I stand strongly by a bong, and would by a vaporizer could I find a legitimate reason for owning one.
You know, I really think there's something inherently appealing about the actual act of smoking. Rhythmic breathing, perhaps?
Have you ever seen an older, black and white movie? Smoking is like the most default, badass way to stand idly. And what better way to consume time during a dramatic pause in speech then by taking a seemingly bitter puff, and inhaling, before continuing.
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
I think I can answer this with my extensive experience with materials not related to tobacco. Where as a vaporizer is almost completely healthy, and a water pipe is a wholly preferable situation, how often do you see a guy carrying around a mini, key-chain water pipe?
Basically, convention and mobility accounts for the popularity of cigarettes.
I stand strongly by a bong, and would by a vaporizer could I find a legitimate reason for owning one.
If you could see the water afterward... scary.
Gum's pretty portable, though. And people like gum. So why not poison-flavored gum?
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
I think I can answer this with my extensive experience with materials not related to tobacco. Where as a vaporizer is almost completely healthy, and a water pipe is a wholly preferable situation, how often do you see a guy carrying around a mini, key-chain water pipe?
Basically, convention and mobility accounts for the popularity of cigarettes.
I stand strongly by a bong, and would by a vaporizer could I find a legitimate reason for owning one.
If you could see the water afterward... scary.
Gum's pretty portable, though. And people like gum. So why not poison-flavored gum?
Are you kidding? Do you know how dangerous that gum is? Example.
P.S. I just now realized I've been posting a lot of images, so I'll stop. They just all seemed relevant, and I was proud of thinking of them.
Okay, here's one for the smokers: I can't figure out why other nicotine-delivery systems haven't taken off. Bongs? gum? patches? needle-to-the-eyeball? There are sooooo many ways to get the drug into your system, and most of them manage to avoid all the other nasties that come with the smoke (like, its not really the nicotine that gives you Teh Cancer so much as the smoke particles and weird additives etc). They also manage to avoid the area-effect that pisses so many people off. So what's the deal? Doesn't make sense to me.
Well for me smoking helps me in social situations. If I don't have a cig and get into an awkward conversation I tend stutter and get fidgety. Also when you use different methods of nicotine delivery it doesn't feel the same. I guess the best way for me to compare it would be if you are in a hospital with one of feeding tubes vs Eating regularly, with the tube you get food but its nowhere near as satisfying. Smoking cravings (for me anyway) feel very similar to being hungry (hence the analogy). I hope that makes sense.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Which part of "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes" were you unclear on?
And for the record, the state can raise the tax to whatever it wants. They just put another $1.56 per pack on the newest round of legislation. Because California rules.
What part of a black market economy of cigarettes dont you understand? The state wont be getting .1cent of thier super taxes, because people will just quit buying them legally. I can get Marlboro's for about $2.50 a pack where I am at. Whats the price of a pack in California right now? I gaurentee myself, and a large number of people out there will be willing to sell them at $4 a pack, make a healthy profit, and laugh in your governors face.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Which part of "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes" were you unclear on?
And for the record, the state can raise the tax to whatever it wants. They just put another $1.56 per pack on the newest round of legislation. Because California rules.
What part of a black market economy of cigarettes dont you understand? The state wont be getting .1cent of thier super taxes, because people will just quit buying them legally. I can get Marlboro's for about $2.50 a pack where I am at. Whats the price of a pack in California right now? I gaurentee myself, and a large number of people out there will be willing to sell them at $4 a pack, make a healthy profit, and laugh in your governors face.
I would prefer people to smoke over chewing tobacco.
That shit is just sick and I would rather inhale death than see/her you spit a black goo onto the pavement in front of me. Or a cup. A cup I have had to clean up before.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Which part of "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes" were you unclear on?
And for the record, the state can raise the tax to whatever it wants. They just put another $1.56 per pack on the newest round of legislation. Because California rules.
What part of a black market economy of cigarettes dont you understand? The state wont be getting .1cent of thier super taxes, because people will just quit buying them legally. I can get Marlboro's for about $2.50 a pack where I am at. Whats the price of a pack in California right now? I gaurentee myself, and a large number of people out there will be willing to sell them at $4 a pack, make a healthy profit, and laugh in your governors face.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Which part of "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes" were you unclear on?
And for the record, the state can raise the tax to whatever it wants. They just put another $1.56 per pack on the newest round of legislation. Because California rules.
What part of a black market economy of cigarettes dont you understand? The state wont be getting .1cent of thier super taxes, because people will just quit buying them legally. I can get Marlboro's for about $2.50 a pack where I am at. Whats the price of a pack in California right now? I gaurentee myself, and a large number of people out there will be willing to sell them at $4 a pack, make a healthy profit, and laugh in your governors face.
Laugh until they get fined for illegal distribution. Which said fine is payable immediately, and by confiscation of property. Property of equal to or greater value than the estimated amount of tax revenue the state has lost.
Think of it this way, what if instead of going to jail for selling pot, the state just took away everything you owned?
EDIT: Plus, unlike confiscating your weed, this has the state confiscating something it can turn around and sell for a profit. It's win-win. Well, win-win as long as you're a non-smoking, law-abiding citizen, that is. Otherwise, you're pretty well screwed.
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs imposed by driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Which part of "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes" were you unclear on?
And for the record, the state can raise the tax to whatever it wants. They just put another $1.56 per pack on the newest round of legislation. Because California rules.
What part of a black market economy of cigarettes dont you understand? The state wont be getting .1cent of thier super taxes, because people will just quit buying them legally. I can get Marlboro's for about $2.50 a pack where I am at. Whats the price of a pack in California right now? I gaurentee myself, and a large number of people out there will be willing to sell them at $4 a pack, make a healthy profit, and laugh in your governors face.
Laugh until they get fined for illegal distribution. Which said fine is payable immediately, and by confiscation of property. Property of equal to or greater value than the estimated amount of tax revenue the state has lost.
Think of it this way, what if instead of going to jail for selling pot, the state just took away everything you owned?
EDIT: Plus, unlike confiscating your weed, this has the state confiscating something it can turn around and sell for a profit. It's win-win. Well, win-win as long as you're a non-smoking, law-abiding citizen, that is. Otherwise, you're pretty well screwed.
I don't get what you mean here. Prohibition was successful. It completely stamped out alcohol, alcoholism, immorality and the chicken pox. We won that war.
Posts
Keep reading. This point is brought up again in one of my other posts.
At which point the other bars would then proceed to allow smoking. At which point neither patrons nor bartenders would have a choice of a smoke-free environment. Also, you'd then have smokers and non-smokers in the same place.
You didn't really think this through, did you?
Also, once nearly every bar, restaurant, and airline decides to allow smoking, your argument that "oh, people can just work elsewhere" will start to fall apart as well.
My bad. Just a touchy subject for those of us who've had to deal with a lot of pseudo-science-based political bullshit in our day.
Shame on me for not finishing the thread before posting.
Although in all fairness, I'll wager "correlation =/= causality" gets said by somebody else down the line, with none of the self-conscious quasi-sarcasm you intended.
At that point it again comes down to personal convictions. Whats more important, greed or safety of yourself and others? This arguement is more based toward personally owned businesses not large corporations such as airlines and the rest. I agree with restrictions on airlines, there arent nearly as many airlines to choose from as there are bars and restaraunts. In those type situations, I still feel that regulation is necessary.
However, it could be. Many activities are barred in specific locations, so it is hardly an unprecedented issue. Certainly, I wouldn't advocate it in general.
Creed. That said, I oppose the view that one should have the right to employ people in a environment unnecessarily detrimental to their health, even if they accept it. The exception would be when the act of carrying out their duties is in itself detrimental, and that it, to me, dangerous ground.
Oh, and because it caused some confusion: Sorry about using the word "state". "Nation" would have been better – I keep forgetting the American interpretation.
Hey
hey
we're having an edbate here. You don't get to post like that.
Ah, all right. You're right. Only rights specifically stated in the constitution count. Nothing is implied.
Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Now, assuming the founders didn't write letters detailing their intents, or papers, (for instance, "Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes) we'd still understand their intention with this amendment. The very point of the ninth amendment was to assure that rights not specifically laid out by the constitution would still be protected. That the, "But it's not in the constitution" argument could never be used. Free enterprise?
Thomas Jefferson, what do you think?
"[We in America entertain] a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisitions of our own industry..."
I understand what you are saying, but now you are imposing your will upon others. In a free nation, people have the right to choose. Why should you have the right to tell me how to live my life, if in fact, the way I live my life doesn't affect yours?
Sorry. I thought about putting "kidding" in spoiler tags. But I thought that might be insulting, like I didn't think anyone would get it. But, then again...
And in what tobacco loving world do you imagine that all businesses will start to arbitrarily all allow smoking. For no good reason. Is this, like... the tobacco version of the domino theory?
1) Cigarette smoke (including secondhand smoke) contains known carcinogens.
2) Exposure to known carcinogens increases the risk of various health problems.
3) Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of various health problems.
4) Health problems necessitate health-care.
5) Health-care costs are a freaking enormous burden on our state economy.
6) Let's ban smoking pretty much everywhere but inside your house, and increase the tax on a pack of cigarettes by $1.00. $1.00 every year. Until people fucking quit.
God, I love this state.
Why, Absurdist, that's... that's... absurd!
I would start a post on the idea of luxury taxes (higher taxes on esteemed luxury items like cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana if I got my way), but I've upset* enough people tonight with my craziness.
*Upset in the literally sense. Not so much, made angry, but... disturbed their peace. I'm a disturber of the peace. That's actually the name of my new Norwegian metal band.
Nah, you said "psy-ints" and I lulled. Totally got the joke
I like to think my humor isn't so much impaired as it is just really, really dry.
Which is unfair. Because it's the internet. No one really knows me, and text =! good tone carrier. You may notice my excessive use of italics. I try.
The same reason that number 6 wont happen is the same reason that Marijuana will never be legalized. And number 4 and 5 arent changed by allowing smoking in a personally owned business, because people will continue to smoke any other place they can. Car exhaust and smog contain carcinogens too if Im not mistaken, so unless we ban driving, number 1, 2, and 3 are out the window.
Sorry California, bring me back something new and interesting
This is pretty much a complete falsehood. As mentioned, those working in such an environment* will receive massive quantities of carcinogens.
*I'm still working with the bar concept here.
Won't happen, you say? Try has happened and is happening.
As for your other "point" about cars, I neglected to add the obvious, implied idea: 5a) "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes." Which is, how you say, perhaps slightly different from: "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to driving is infinitely fucking smaller than the net economic gain from allowing people to drive."
Um, these aren't freaking hypotheticals here. This is what we do in California. Now. Currently.
People will smoke, they arent going to stop. Eventually it will hit a point not where people will quit, but that the state cant raise the price any higher. And really, all raising the price by that much does is create an environment perfect for bootlegging and black market sales. So now, not only is the state losing money because they dont get any of the taxes, but they are opening themselves up more to organized crime. But I guess Arnold probably didnt take this into account did he.
Which part of "the net economic burden imposed by health care costs related to smoking is greater than the net economic gain from taxes on the sale of cigarettes" were you unclear on?
And for the record, the state can raise the tax to whatever it wants. They just put another $1.56 per pack on the newest round of legislation. Because California rules.
It's his fault for inhaling.
You know, I really think there's something inherently appealing about the actual act of smoking. Rhythmic breathing, perhaps?
I think I can answer this with my extensive experience with materials not related to tobacco. Where as a vaporizer is almost completely healthy, and a water pipe is a wholly preferable situation, how often do you see a guy carrying around a mini, key-chain water pipe?
Basically, convention and mobility accounts for the popularity of cigarettes.
I stand strongly by a bong, and would by a vaporizer could I find a legitimate reason for owning one.
If you could see the water afterward... scary.
Have you ever seen an older, black and white movie? Smoking is like the most default, badass way to stand idly. And what better way to consume time during a dramatic pause in speech then by taking a seemingly bitter puff, and inhaling, before continuing.
Best. Governor. Ever. 8-)
Gum's pretty portable, though. And people like gum. So why not poison-flavored gum?
Are you kidding? Do you know how dangerous that gum is? Example.
P.S. I just now realized I've been posting a lot of images, so I'll stop. They just all seemed relevant, and I was proud of thinking of them.
Well for me smoking helps me in social situations. If I don't have a cig and get into an awkward conversation I tend stutter and get fidgety. Also when you use different methods of nicotine delivery it doesn't feel the same. I guess the best way for me to compare it would be if you are in a hospital with one of feeding tubes vs Eating regularly, with the tube you get food but its nowhere near as satisfying. Smoking cravings (for me anyway) feel very similar to being hungry (hence the analogy). I hope that makes sense.
What part of a black market economy of cigarettes dont you understand? The state wont be getting .1cent of thier super taxes, because people will just quit buying them legally. I can get Marlboro's for about $2.50 a pack where I am at. Whats the price of a pack in California right now? I gaurentee myself, and a large number of people out there will be willing to sell them at $4 a pack, make a healthy profit, and laugh in your governors face.
I pay close to $5 for my 'Malboro Light Menthols'
That shit is just sick and I would rather inhale death than see/her you spit a black goo onto the pavement in front of me. Or a cup. A cup I have had to clean up before.
Ugh.
Interested in cutting a business deal?
well, congrats then.
This will bring the price per pack to around $6 US.
Thanks. If there are any smokers in here that wanna quit. Talk to your doc about chantix that stuff is amazing.
Chantix cured my chronic bed wetting.
Laugh until they get fined for illegal distribution. Which said fine is payable immediately, and by confiscation of property. Property of equal to or greater value than the estimated amount of tax revenue the state has lost.
Think of it this way, what if instead of going to jail for selling pot, the state just took away everything you owned?
EDIT: Plus, unlike confiscating your weed, this has the state confiscating something it can turn around and sell for a profit. It's win-win. Well, win-win as long as you're a non-smoking, law-abiding citizen, that is. Otherwise, you're pretty well screwed.
Yeah, just like they won back with prohibition.
I don't get what you mean here. Prohibition was successful. It completely stamped out alcohol, alcoholism, immorality and the chicken pox. We won that war.