Is it right to discriminate against tobacco smokers

How do you feel about the status of smokers?

  • They are harmless. Leave them alone.

    Votes: 6 27.3%

  • They need aggressive encouragement to break their addiction.

    Votes: 8 36.4%

  • We need secondclass citizens to stigmatize. Screw 'em.

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • I'm a smoker.

    Votes: 6 27.3%
  • Total voters
    22
It should be up to the bar owners as to what they want to do. If they want have a smoking section they should be entitled to do so... if not .. that's ok too.
 
PieAreSquared said:
It should be up to the bar owners as to what they want to do. If they want have a smoking section they should be entitled to do so... if not .. that's ok too.
Click to expand...

And if it wasn't for government interference, most establishments would allow smoking. This is nothing less than the government taking away liberty and self determination in the name of public health based on faulty science.
 
Bowser said:
Your point regarding automobile pollution is a good example of how silly the panic over second hand smoke has become. This world offers far greater dangers than anything a cigarette can produce.
Click to expand...

Personally ... I like to see a fat tax... we will have to do something to offset all the lost revenues from the smokers quitting.

So you go to the grocery store .. you get your height scanned and you get weighed... it calculates your BMI.. and if it's high you get charged more for food... less... you get a discount.

Same thing at a restaurant
 
PieAreSquared said:
Personally ... I like to see a fat tax... we will have to do something to offset all the lost revenues from the smokers quitting.

So you go to the grocery store .. you get your height scanned and you get weighed... it calculates your BMI.. and if it's high you get charged more for food... less... you get a discount.

Same thing at a restaurant
Click to expand...

I hate taxes, more so because I'm paying out this year, but I've never liked the idea of a "sin tax."
 
I don't like the taxes either.. but what's good for the goose is good for the gander

after all my medical insurance rates go up due to the obesity factor... yet they get a free ride
 
Enmos said:
What's wrong with smoke ?
Click to expand...

Besides making a room hazy, haven't people died from inhaling too much smoke? Not saying that smoking causes that, while smoking may not kill you (instantly), saying it's perfectly harmless is an understatement. Plus to those of us of who (at least me) aren't avid smokers, it's like someone came and sprayed you with stinky stuff. The room smells, the smoker smells, anyone who was near the smoker smells, anything the smoker touches smells, and anything a person who was near a smoker touches also smells; just like smoke. Not only am I irritated for smelling it once I have to smell it all day because it follows me and everyone and everything else.
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
Besides making a room hazy, haven't people died from inhaling too much smoke? Not saying that smoking causes that, while smoking may not kill you (instantly), saying it's perfectly harmless is an understatement. Plus to those of us of who (at least me) aren't avid smokers, it's like someone came and sprayed you with stinky stuff. The room smells, the smoker smells, anyone who was near the smoker smells, anything the smoker touches smells, and anything a person who was near a smoker touches also smells; just like smoke. Not only am I irritated for smelling it once I have to smell it all day because it follows me and everyone and everything else.
Click to expand...

I'm a heavy smoker, and I smell like Old Spice. Honestly, anything the smoker touches smells? I think you're taking that a bit far.
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
Besides making a room hazy, haven't people died from inhaling too much smoke? Not saying that smoking causes that, while smoking may not kill you (instantly), saying it's perfectly harmless is an understatement. Plus to those of us of who (at least me) aren't avid smokers, it's like someone came and sprayed you with stinky stuff. The room smells, the smoker smells, anyone who was near the smoker smells, anything the smoker touches smells, and anything a person who was near a smoker touches also smells; just like smoke. Not only am I irritated for smelling it once I have to smell it all day because it follows me and everyone and everything else.
Click to expand...

People don't die from going to a bar where smoking is allowed, come on..
Besides, they have a choice don't they ? They don't have to go to the bar..
And if the smell is an argument.. well, lets just say a lot of other things would be banned as well.
What amazes me most is that anti-smokers are quite happily inhaling exhaust fumes and think nothing of it.
 
Challenger78 said:
A Baron Max argument. How far is too far.. eh ?
Banning Alcohol doesn't work.
Perhaps a ban on alcohol above a certain limit.
Click to expand...

Banning smoking from pubs and bars doesn't work either. People don't smoke less, they just smoke at different places. Perhaps they smoke at home more now, good news for the kids.
 
Enmos said:
Global ban on tobacco.
I bet you didn't see that one coming.. :D
Click to expand...

You surprised me. Just a bit. I will admit.

That wouldn't work, the tobacco companies would call in all their favours and even then, people would smuggle it around.

Same reason why a global ban on drugs doesn't work.
 
Enmos said:
Global ban on tobacco.
Click to expand...

Governments may accomplish just that through excessive taxation:

Revenues Down Again - http://www.heartland.org viewed 04/05/09 at 11:03 AM EST (citation formatted to keep T happy :rolleyes:)

Conventional wisdom also holds that while total cigarette sales might fall in the first year of a tax hike, they will stabilize or rebound in the succeeding year. That assumption has been proven wrong, too. In the second year following New Jersey’s most recent tax hike, total sales continued to decline, as did tax revenues. So, as a result of a tax increase, New Jersey actually lost almost $24 million in revenues.

The anti-smoking hysteria that infects many high-tax advocates blinded them to economic realities. They believed only a small portion of smokers were price-sensitive. In fact, many smokers are price-sensitive.
Click to expand...


Conversely, this taxation policy can produce some bizarre implications:

22 Million New Smokers Needed: - www.heritage.org - viewed 04/05/09 at 11:03 AM EST
Funding SCHIP Expansion with a Tobacco Tax
by Michelle C. Bucci and William W. Beach

Members of Congress seeking to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to cover children from wealthier families are exploring new ways to pay for it. The Senate Finance Committee generally has agreed to reauthorize SCHIP for five years with a $35 billion expansion funded by an increase in the federal tobacco tax by 61 cents per pack.

...

Congress Needs More Smokers

Not only are some policymakers considering imposing a large, new burden on a small portion of the population, but they have chosen a revenue source that is in decline and will decrease even faster if the tax rate rises. Due to the sensitivity of consumers to increases in the price of tobacco products (known as "price elasticity"), the average consumer purchases fewer cigarettes when the price increases. Consequently, the additional revenue generated from increasing the tax will decline over time.

Due to this price elasticity, policymakers will somehow need to recruit new smokers if they insist on using the tobacco tax revenue to support SCHIP at proposed funding levels over the long term. In just five years, Congress will need over 9 million new smokers. Reauthorizing the program for 2013 to 2017 would require almost 22.4 million new smokers by the end of that period.
Click to expand...
[Emphasis mine]

Interesting that governmental policy has managed to create this "unintended consequence": It requires more people to smoke or it fails to generate necessary revenue for health care - i.e. more people will be healthier because they stop smoking because the government tried to pay for health care by taxing the shit out of smokers which causes them to quit smoking and become healthier which reduces the revenue needed to fund medical care to make people healthier... ad infinitum. (I think I managed to lose my own train of thought contemplating this one :p)
 
Enmos said:
People don't die from going to a bar where smoking is allowed, come on..
Besides, they have a choice don't they ? They don't have to go to the bar..
And if the smell is an argument.. well, lets just say a lot of other things would be banned as well.
What amazes me most is that anti-smokers are quite happily inhaling exhaust fumes and think nothing of it.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it killed you, but it's very uncomfortable, and i hate inhaling exhaust fumes as well, exhaust makes it difficult to breathe, but it doesn't cause me to break into coughing fits, and maybe you like coughing, but I find it really uncomfortable. I can hold my breath when I pass all the people smoking in the courtyard so I don't mind that they smoke, but if I'm in a restaurant or office building I can only hold my breath for so long. The may only bother me because I have developed a conditioned response to cough when I smell it. I guess this is one prejudice I have very little sympathy for.
 
Liebling said:
In all fairness, when personal choice taxes the public health system (I am speaking of Canada and some European countries) so heavily that it is going bankrupt... I think that some policy is needed so that all people can still get health care. I mean, I'd hate for my child to get sub-standard care for a major injury because the taxman had to spend $800k a year for the cigarette smoker on chemo and long hospitalization for lung cancer because of his personal choice. Canada's health care system was seriously in the red before the ban and the steep increase in cigarette taxes. You can still kill yourself with cigarettes there, but you pay a lot back into the system for that choice.
Click to expand...


That is not in all fairness. MANY things tax the public health system much more than smoking.
Some people's health care is more important than others'?
After paying a lot back into the system for that "choice", do the poor receieve as good treatment as others?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top