We can all agree, smoking tobacco inside is quite unhealthy and annoying. Parks, school grounds -heck even church grounds, were added to the "city limits" as for smoking.
today, however, Mayor Bloomberg has legally enacted a city wide no Public Smoking Ban.
Keep in mind, nearly 4 million people are actively walking the city streets on a rain or shine basis daily, over 250,000 pubs and restaurants and 25,000 kiosks (news stands) making quite a profit from tobacco sales. Not to mention the cities ridiculous tax revenue from people lighting up. A $4 package of tobacco cigarettes sells for $10.25. Yup $10.25.
a. Should the city legally be allowed to do this? Is this a violation of freedom to. (I mean this isn't like DUI)
b. Who exactly is going to enforce it with the recent huge cuts in the cities workforce, the meter maids?
c. the city kiosk owners stand to loss 10,000 a month in revenue not to mention the city losing multi-millions in tax revenue ( the city of NY retains 47% of the 10.25 per pack -around $4.82 per; the average smoker in NY buys 2 packs a day, every day. $10 a head x +/- 1MM smokers x 365 days. 356MM in tax revenue a year. plus tourists...)
i live in ny and a smoker its hell with the prices but bloomberg thinks if there was no smoking that health cost would be more of a save for the city in the future then taxes on ciggs he is making it so hard to buy that some people are quitting.. mattty
well at least I had already been there a few times
This is truly draconian. Pretty soon the Government will be policing you for what you eat too ! Government is getting way to intrusive at all levels.
As pop and candy machines are removed from schools and TV cameras begin to record what goes on their plate and what is left there when they finish eating. As big brother decides what is good for them to eat based on politics and serves only that.
As fast food joints are forced (through more subtle means than outright laws) to produce only more healthy foods.
Big Brother is indeed watching what you eat and is slowly but surely intruding dinner plans all the time. Potatoes are very bad for you and will surely kill you is the latest one I've heard. To listen to the jabber a potato must be far worse that 100 cigarettes!
And I am gonna step out right now for a cup of coffee and a smoke , they can bite me !
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2011/04/06/ … ppy-meals/
For sure. Just make sure it isn't in NYC and that you don't take a doughnut with you. And limit the coffee to black with no sugar or dairy products. And certainly no happy meals!
Yep, Big Brother is watching and doesn't like toys for kids to go with meals.
The FDA already regulates much of what is consumed.
Tobacco companies are legal drug dealers and smoker are legal drug addict.
At least with a coke addict, they're not blowing fumes in your face.
Don't want my lungs polluted
Peace and Love
Just another BS method to control and force people to live in a manner which other people prefer. It's absurd and ridiculous.
Is it a violation? Yes, too much infringement of individual rights.
People can't Jay-Walk either since it is against the law. Ever been in NY? The rule of thumb for any TRUE New York Commuter is Never Cross At the Corner, Always in the Middle of the Block - it takes too much time waiting for the light.
Who is going to police smoking in public? It takes a cop about 1/2 hour to show up for an emergency 911 call. Most are too lazy to even hand out tickets since that is beneath them.
Peter, I don't even do that. I dodge the traffic as they are coming, light or no light. Hey, its NY!
Hey Peter, I wrote a Hub on Jaywalking Law and how it is a system of control.
Control- of masses. New York? No, Jaywalking and it's basis for being a law.
gottcha - which is why it is ignored during a NY rush hour, along with every other law on the books.
Methane is highly explosive and it can cause death by asphyxiation.
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/12055 … z1NCkSe99F
Public releasing of gaseous clouds should also be outlawed.
A No-Farting in public law. yeah, that makes sense.
lol, careful what you suggest! It might happen.
I have a friend who got a ticket by a State Trooper for "taking-a-leak" off the side of a highway. He was out of sight to traffic, but the Trooper cited him for disposal of toxic waste!
He had to pay a fine!
Interesting..I dont believe it.
$20.50 a day in cigarettes? so over $600 monthly in cigarettes?
bottom line, if you can afford to live in NY, more than likely you can afford to buy tobacco. A one room apt (studio w/ a bathroom & kitchenette goes for $2,000 a month in the city).
You know the odd thing, up near Lincoln Center and AMDA, 90% of the ballerina smoke an average of two packs a day. Most of the students do. Stress related, I think.
Lol, im with you, Im only a stones throw away from nyc - not wondering about the cost, they are still $9-$10 through the rest of Ny anyway , just the thought that the average are 2 pack a day smokers seems out there.
Past data Ive seen has shown 13-18 cigarettes a day to be the ny average, which is a rather large distinction.
Its a nonsense law - laws are only as good as the ability to enforce, people are still walking up and down the streets with open containers and blunts, so good luck with a cigarette crackdown
As a citizen of America, a Mass resident, not New York, I spend enough on my smoking. I purchase two cartons a week- two people live in my household who smoke. I pay $136 per week, due to state and federal taxes.
There is now more tax on tobacco than the original price. The company continues to receive it's profit margin, while government tries to extinguish cancer, in the form of taxation.
It's absurd. The level of government interference into people's lives is becoming detrimental to the stability of society.
i'm soo glad were stamping out second hand smoke,.... now that the bulk (pun intended) of america is so grosely overwight that our clothing sizes arent even close to the reality of 100 years ago,... we can all over burden the med care system with weight related illness,... because we all know that cancer has dissapeared,... right?
in the grand scope of life, i could care less is someone smokes a cigaret next to me on the side walk,... i dont want you to blow it in my face, but thats a matter of manners,... i dont want porky to slobber a sandwich in my ear while i'm forced to see the remnants slide down his shirt iether...hence i do not dine in at fast food with any regularity, i do the drive through.
i'm equaly glad that our government has waged a 40 year war on drugs, spending millions and billions fighting human nature,... cause we know our schools are an oasis of safty and learning now dont we?.... math is now spelled M-E-T-H,,.... so gld its a weapons free zone too,... my child cant carry nail clippers to school,... WTF is going to do?????..... thretento give some one an agressive mannicure????? realy?
i am a frequent customer of commom class bars, pool halls and pubs, and the idea of removing the smoke from the room would be the same as removing the senure of insense from mass,... i hope some pin head never proves it causes cancer or reproductive harm, or they'll have to use dry ice at mass. (reproductive harm would seem very ironic considdering the churches stance on birth controll, ha!)
i like a vanilla burly in a corncob myself, or a mediocre cigar,... and i am considderate of those around me,... the world needs to grow up,... but we wont,...
mean while,... cigars and pipe tobaco have NOT been attacked by the taxes like cigaretts have,... just a thought,.. and its stylish, smells better,.... and .... a cigar is never just a cigar!
This is the first place I have heard of with a complete NO Smoking in Public law. Here in Europe it is not allowed in bars or public places like libraries or supermarkets, or even at work in the office. Here in Spain you now cannot smoke near school grounds or kids play areas.
Bars are closing in droves because they have lost their custom. Bars now smell of human sweat instead of tobacco and beer.
But if you can't smoke at work, are they really stopping people from smoking in the streets?
Oh, we have companies, mostly privately held, where you can't smoke on company property. In NY, no real problem. Outside the cities, such companies may have 1000 acres of property. so the smokers pack into cars every couple of hours, drive around, smoke god knows how many cigarettes and nearly pass out from the lack of oxygen. Figure smokers do this 3-4 times per day and how much time is lost. Very productive. company could easily open a smoking room but the they won't.
Years ago when I was a gov't bureaucrat at management level, before it was illegal to smoke inside a gov't building, the boss would call a meeting and 3/4 of those who attended were sucking on the butt end of a cig!
I have never smoked! There was no intent to consider the non- smokers in the room.
I would leave the 1 hour or more meetings with burning eyes and turning slightly green fighting the urge to puke on the table!
I decided to make a point at the next meeting and came in the room with a diving tank, breathing apparatus and a diving mask!
I sat down and laid the tank on the table a was breathing nice clean air while everyone else was busy pounding nails in their coffins and laughing their dumb asses of at my "childish" effort to make my point.
The boss wasn't entertained! With a cigar hanging from his lips and with rancid breath, he ordered me to take the equipment off and particpate or leave the room and meet with him later for an ass chewing!
Being a subserviant, loyal, ass kissing public servant who had too much retirement time accrued to jeopardize it, I removed the "equipment" and breathed in 2nd hand smoke in shallow breaths.
My action was reflected, by the boss, in my monthly "efficiency report."
But, my point was made and a year later a law was passed that no one could smoke inside a gov't building! Hallellujahhhh!
If NY did pass that law, 2 thumbs up for 'em!
OK you won and you made a point.
I would have preferred to see a blanket no smoking ban brought in unless the premises have air-con and extraction fans for the benefit of non-smokers.
It really does make a difference. I paid to have them fitted when I ran a public bar, and the non smokers were happy.
Now we all have to sit outside exposed to the elements, and in New York City, even that isn't allowed, apparently.
"Now we all have to sit outside exposed to the elements, and in New York City, even that isn't allowed, apparently."
Nicotine is one of the most powerfully addictive drugs on earth and most "addicts" are helpless slaves to it.
If you are a smoker,you ARE an ADDICT and you need help.
I've visited "Indian Casinos" here in the USA which have air conditioning and extraction fans. A guy sits next to me and chain smokes.
When I've left, my eyes were burning and my lungs were gasping for the fresh air outside.
Needless to say, I'm not a drinker or a gambler, so I never spend anytime in bars or casinos.
I keep my distance from addicts and addictives (if that's a word?)
Sorry for the delay in answering, have to sleep sometimes you know!
Yes you are perfectly correct. I am an addict.
I have tried stopping but it is difficult. The withdrawal from stopping smoking has been compared to heroin withdrawal. Having never taken heroin I cannot compare the two, but I do suffer physical withdrawal symptoms which includes a feeling of crawling under the skin.
The point is however, that smoking was legal and acceptable but now they have moved the goalposts leaving smokers in limbo with nowhere to go.
This apparent world-wide clampdown has the unfortunate effect of making smokers, who by the way, have paid proportionately more tax than non-smokers throughout their lifetime, more socially unacceptable than those who mug and knife little old ladies or rob banks at gunpoint, or get stoned out of their brains in public.
I have a few friends who smoke.
A couple of them even hit the gym every day.
They, like you, KNOW that they are addicted to nicotine and are trying to overcome the powerful need for it.
I have to give them credit for trying to overcome the addiction.
I don't believe any smoker should be made a criminal because he smokes.
Anyone should be allowed to smoke in the confines of thier own home but once outside, in public in public? NO.
My goodness, why isn't the cost of "smoking" enuf incentive to get busy and overcome the addiction? It can be done, IF the incentive is as powerful as the addiction.
I feel no pity for smokers who choose to continue to "pound-nails-into-their-coffers," knowing full well the potential outcome of remaining to be addict.
There is enuf everyday stress in just living from day to day without having to consider that because of someones smoking addiction, I have to add them to my list of stresses.
Smokers DO have a place to go and choices to make.
Seriously, I wish ya good luck in re-adjusting your life and in gaining better health. :
But where do you stop, Quark? Smoking only in your own home - do you believe that all the noxious gases will remain in the home, never entering the atmosphere outside? Obviously not (it may cut it down, but smoke will still get outside), so better stop that, too.
In my area vehicle emission testing in mandatory. Good - we have problems with pollution bad enough to at time to hospitalize people from short time exposure (never heard of that from cigarette smoke). BUT, older cars are allowed more pollutants, and many are far worse than a smoker. Personally, I drive a Prius, perhaps the cleanest car in the country, and I smoke. Chances are that I pollute less (from these two sources) than most people - shall we ban all cars that cannot maintain the near zero pollution levels of a Prius? Can you just imagine the pollution from a NASCAR or drag race day?
I use no chemicals on my lawn, but lawn care chemicals are a major business and most end up in our water supply. Shall we ban them all, then, because it pollutes some one else's environment? Ditto for cars that leak oil - it ends up in the water supply.
While tobacco use could and did, in limited environments such as a room, end up extremely noxious, conditions that end up with "lungs gasping for breath" from tobacco smoke would be hard to find today. Certainly tobacco use outside of buildings will not produce it. Any reasonable line has been crossed by NYC - smokers are clearly being persecuted by Big Brother in yet another attempt to take care of Big Brother's "children" (legal adults) in whatever way he thinks is right for them. Rather than celebrate this, you should be praying that your own list of wants, needs and desires that might run afoul of "it's good for you!" will not be next on the list.
Excellent point about car pollution, and its time some of those politically bent scientists started telling us the truth.
They do a study in any major city and conclude that those living in the poorer areas have more health issues due to smoking.
They don't happen to mention that it is the poor areas who are more likely to suffer from higher carcinogenic vehicle emissions due to them having older vehicles which get serviced less often because of a lack of funds, or that it is those people who use public transport more often - standing waiting in the pollution filled corridors of busy streets for buses that continually pollute the atmosphere with exhaust fumes that become so commonplace that you don't know you are breathing exhaust fumes all the time until you visit the country and appreciate that 'fresh country air' smell.
Maybe smoking is harmless, and it is a mix of cigarette smoke plus all those other carcinogens that are in the air due, as Wilderness says, to the use of pesticides and other chemicals as well as vehicle pollution?
Why do smokers get it in the neck all the time, when it is us that props up many government coffers.
They also fail to mention that is generally the poorer population that smokes.
I doubt that it is harmless, but the "second hand smoke" so ballyhooed about is nonsense. Smoke that has been filtered by the cigarette filter, then human lungs, is less hazardous than straight smoke. And then to claim (as I've seen) that it is more dangerous to someone 10 feet away than to the smoker themselves (enclosed in a cloud of it) is just stupid.
Prop up govt. coffers? Idaho recently finished a multi, multi million dollar renovation of the statehouse, 100% paid for by tobacco taxes. Great news for non-smokers that didn't have to pay for it, but not so great for the small percentage that footed the entire bill themselves. I also see continual comments that increasing tobacco taxes will be great in that it will encourage people to stop, but one must always be careful not to affect total taxes taken in. Just put them on an ever decreasing percentage of the population.
New Yorkers not able to smoke even outside?
"Violent crime escalates! Mayor's next move, re-instate the Prohibition Act!"
I grew up in NYC. I don't smoke... so I don't care about any of this, but it's fun to read all the uproar... LOL! After listening to how much it costs to smoke, I'm thinking there are way more things I'd rather spend my money on than a cancer stick that leads to nothing more than an early grave.
However, I do agree with those that recognize this as nothing more than another control and restriction of our freedoms.
To all of ya who responded to my comment, I don't care if ya smoke!
Nicotine is a legal drug. If ya want to use it, do it!
True story: My next door neighbor was a chain smoker. She lit one off the other.
She lived (past tense) with her little dog.
I lived in my home in Ft.Laud. Fla. for almost 30 yrs and never saw her without a "nail" in her mouth.
Her dog died. The Vet said the dog died of cancer due to it's lungs being ruined by "2ND HAND SMOKE!"
My neighbor was 67 and sucking on an oxygen hose when she passed from lung cancer.
Hey! It's your decision.
If I were in charge, I'd try to pass a law that'd make deadly nicotine and nicotine products listed as a class 1 drug!...and outlaw it.
Of course it'd never happen 'cause, like booze, it is much to profitable to be able end its use.
If ya smoke, your addiction is your choice.
Our air is polluted by so many carcinogenic substances that it is just a "stress," that modern day living produces, that ya can do nothing about.
Thank goodness, according to stats, only about 20% of Americans still do it.
As generations die off, that percentage should be reduced.
I wish all you smokers well and hope ya don't die prematurely.
hey qwark - following your thinking, why don't they ban alcohol too since it kills more people each year than smoking, though much of it is never reported - car crashes due to impaired,suicide, crime related due to impaired, etc.
Smoking is an addition harder to stop than alcoholism, and most major drugs since the person doesn't hit bottom till it's too late.
I'm waiting for the cigarette smoke contributes to global warming study by Dr. Slacker at the University of Nothing Better To Do, funded by a grant that only cost several million taxpayer dollars.
If the guy sitting next to you in a bar is drinking alcohol, it doesn't affect you. If he's smoking, you're breathing in his second hand smoke.
People with asthma, babies, heart patients -- these are all groups that shouldn't have to be subjected to the harmful effects of someone else's habit. Hence, the smoking laws.
No one has a right to cause poison to enter someone else's body.
my smoking in my car at 60mph doesn't affect anyone else. A drunk coming at me at 60mph crossing the yellow line is a killer.
Not a particularly good post. Not thought out at all. That's unusual for you.
My post is probably not well thought out as I was operating from emotion, I guess. My father died of lung cancer from smoking and I was with him when he tried to get that last breath that just wouldn't come.
Smokers aren't evil people - my dad was a good man. But smokers use a dangerous product and non-smokers have a right to be protected from it.
And, I will tell you that I can understand your position. I'll even give you condolences, as I've lived through the ordeal with my father who died of cancer.
You're right. Smokers aren't evil people. And, my dad was a good man as well. He smoked for 40 years.
Excuse sir....just who is suppose to protect you? You claim this right to be protected? Who is do that?
The government has no place in doing it. You protect yourself.
On top of that- as I said above, my dad smoked for 40 years, died of cancer, but smoking was NOT the cause of his cancer.
Smokers aren't evil people - my dad was a good man. But smokers use a dangerous product and non-smokers have a right to be protected from it.
And booze wrecks alot of lives too ! They already tried to outlaw that. And smokers have a right to be protected from the self righteous !
You are right - non-smokers need protection from smokers as far too many smokers simply don't care about anyone else. The smoke filled bars are a very good case in point.
To smoke while walking down the street, however, harms no one but the smoker. At most a quickly dissipating objectionable odor
I'm all for controlling what cigarette manufacturers are allowed to put in their tobacco.
The British TV program 'Horizon' a few years ago disclosed that cigarette manufacturers put unnecessary substances into their cigarettes to make them more addictive - like ammonia.
The manufacturers admitted on camera that they deliberately added those chemicals to make them more addictive, to ensure the long term profitability of their company.
The more new smokers they roped in, the more money they made long term.
Here is Spain there are a couple of brands you can buy of what is 'pure tobacco'. They call it black tobacco, but it is additive free and therefore healthier.
If the world government (s) really want a healthier population why not force the makers to give us pure tobacco instead of that chemical concoction they sell just now.
That's a good question. Like Spain, you can buy "pure tobacco" cigarettes here in the US, but the price goes up. With increased competition I would expect it to cost no more than the mixture we now get.
How can ya use the words "healthy" in any manner when ya refer it to tobacco?
Health and tobacco are opposites!
Are you sure?
Maybe I'm just looking for trouble, but tobacco is a PLANT, just like cannabis or Deadly Nightshade or Foxglove or a million other plants that are used medicinally.
It's not, or shouldn't be, some concoction put together in a laboratory.
It's completely natural, so it stands that it has good uses and bad uses.
Give digoxin to a healthy person and it will kill them (foxglove).
Give digoxin to a person whose heart beats too slow and it will save their life.
Cannabis has its place in modern medicine as a palliative and analgesic for many symptoms.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe for a minute that tobacco alone is responsible for all the deaths it is blamed for.
I DO think tobacco, in conjunction with other things like petrol fumes or pesticides is a killer.
But no-one is looking for that link - they are all too busy finding ways to ostracize smokers.
This is all I can provide for ya at the moment:
Nicotine - The Nerve Poison.
Which of the following poisons is the most deadly?
If you guessed # 3, you are correct. The lethal dosage for a 150 pound adult is 60 mg. The lethal dosage for # 2 is 75 mg and the lethal dosage for # 1 is 200 mg. In other words, nicotine is three times as toxic as arsenic and one and one half times as toxic as strychnine.
(source: Poisoning/Toxicology, Third Edition, Jay M. Arena, B.S., M.D.)
I can't think of "nicotine" as being "healthful."
There was a guy who came up with a great idea, a few years back using a different brand of tobacco from Iran. In essence it was a shisha ( mu'assel) cigarette. I thought it was a perfect remedy for hard tobacco smokers.
alas, It never made it to market. And I do like shisha, over a game of backgammon and rice pudding.
although we did laugh at the idea for, say, meth users, and the wide variety of flavors it could come in, like crystal cinnamon, `nilla wafer, watermelon, etc.)
n e way...
ps, studies have shown, tobacco is excellent in uses like natural pesticide, healing of minor wounds, relaxation...the additives make it addictive.
I think it's wrong. It's the additives that should be banned. Natural tobacco has many uses beyond just smoking it. Little by little we are being stripped of our rights and this is no exception.
Ok, granted, cigs have lots of nasty, carcinogenic "additives" in 'em that result in addiction and lung cancer.
If one'd only smoke "organically grown tobacco would all ya'd get is Organic lung cancer?
Which kinda cancer is worst?
Organic lung cancer LOL! You're having a laugh surely.
You are totally missing the point here - tobacco in itself contains nicotine, yes?
Did you know the body actually needs nicotine? It does, but only in small amounts - the equivalent of one cigarette a day.
I can cut down to that...provided I am allowed to nip that cigarette out and re-light it when necessary.
It is the other additives in tobacco that makes me want to smoke 20 a day instead of one!
Make the manufacturers cut the crap!
Have you any idea how hard it is for smokers to cut down, or cut out their habit?
It is horrific - thanks to those addictive additives.
If I lived in New York, I would take my chances on the streets with a quick light-up and fly drags when no-one was looking. I did that in school and I could do it again.
How dare any government reduce us to school-kids again? And they allowed it. They must take responsibility for it.
It is NOT the smoking of tobacco, it is the additives companies were allowed to add.
I think ya by passed my post about the deadliness of nicotine.
I have never found any evidence of the body needing nicotine. Nor have I ever found any evidence that "alveoli" function well with any kind of smoke in the lungs.
In fact, FACT,once the "alveoli" are destroyed the lungs cannot heal or replace them. They're finished.
1 cigarette a day is what the body needs? I'd like ya to back that with medical proofs.
in my book, anyone who knowingly and willingly decides to put one of the most deadly poisons i,e. nicotine in there body, has a death wish.
It's your decision. Hope ya make a good one and quit poisoning yourself. :
Ya might consider reading this it's quite informative"
Izzy, I'm sceptical about your claim that the body needs nicotine, can you back that up?
Meanwhile, here's a list of allowed additives~:-
http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/nicotin … dients.htm
Sorry I missed this last night, I suddenly couldn't access HP although the rest of the web was fine - it stayed like that for several hours before I finally gave up in disgust and went to bed!
I've just spent some time searching the web which was very difficult when so many sites blatantly copy off each other, and the no smoking brigade are definitely the loudest!
Anyway, I didn't find the information I was looking for. The body needing nicotine was something I learned offline anyway, over the years, and I don't remember from where (I came from a medical family).
I did come across some interesting stuff all the same. Here is one guy on a pro-smoking forum saying more or less what I said, although to be honest his links don't fully back up what he is saying, unless niacin and nicotinic acid are the same thing as nicotine.
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/ … ealth.html
I don't know if they are or not. I did find one site that tried to explain it, but confusingly. It seems they are very similar - perhaps the same - but extracted or treated differently.
Here is one link he linked to, that suggest nicotine may help sufferers of Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006184
Also, http://www.merckmanuals.com/professiona … ch004d-265 taking about niacins.
This one I haven't read yet but it is linked - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC437758/
This NY ban on smoking is really, really overstepping.
Don't like cigarette smoke but this is wrong, wrong, wrong.
How about this one?
San Francisco is proposing to ban circumcising male infants.
I wish I was kidding.
And I just saw something on the news that they want to put black boxes in our cars.
I can only guess which powerful lobby is behind that brilliant idea.
Where is the ACLU when we really need them???
I recall smoking rooms in UK bars when I was a kid and by the time I got to drinking they had become lounge bars where those better than us would go. I recall that it was simple bad manners to smoke around other people in pblic and buses allowed it on the top deck and coaches in the back. Where did all that common sense go in the face of the control of current society by the whinging whining creeps !
My feeling on this is, the day when petrol cars are banned to protect me from their pollution is the day I will happily accept a ban on smokers being allowed to smoke outside their homes and designated smoking areas. I work outdoors on the road side helping kids cross the road and I often see cars spewing nasty stinking pollutants that make smoking like breathing a lung full of fresh air. Disgusting those cars! ugh!
Gov't controls many things in our lives and it often does take some very questionable steps that are "in our best interest." The tobacco lobby bought influence and delayed many smoking regulations -- this was not in the general interest.
I do not agree with the heavy sin taxes leveled on smokers because this money is by and large wasted -- not used for healthcare, as they said it would be.
I don't know what the particulars of the NYC outdoor smoking ban are so I won't comment, however, I don't think making public establishments smoke-free is too intrusive. As a former smoker (years ago) I had to deal with being in places where I couldn't smoke - that's just part of the deal.
Smoking does shorten a smoker's life expectancy. It's an addiction for the smoker and a danger to those near him/her and that's why it's regulated.
While it is true that tobacco taxes usually go into the general fund, we spend enough tax dollars on health care (AIDS, breast cancer, obesity and so on) that it could be said that tobacco taxes pay for a good share of it.
Would this make it all right? If tobacco taxes were bookmarked straight through to some kind of health care, albeit not care that has much correlation to tobacco? Would it then be OK to ding a small minority for the unrelated health care of the majority?
It seems to me that if tobacco taxes were limited to enough to fund work in a portion of lung cancer, heart disease etc. that was attributable to tobacco products it would be reasonable. Any more is just another way to get a few to pay for the many.
The rationale used by the States to enact huge taxes on cigarettes was that smokers cause increased medical expenses and so they should help pay for them through these high taxes. That was the theory.
What happened was that in most cases this money disappeared into the general coffers, never to be seen again. I question whether this enormous hike in the price of cigs helped anyone except those who get to spend the bonanza of quick cash.
"It seems to me that if tobacco taxes were limited to enough to fund work in a portion of lung cancer, heart disease etc. that was attributable to tobacco products it would be reasonable."
This sounds ideal. How would this be implemented so that it didn't get hijacked for other purposes?
You're funny! How to you dangle money in front of a politician and keep him/her from spending it? You don't. That's why tobacco taxes are in the general fund; that money will buy more votes if spent in the "proper" way instead of using it as promised.
If you could figure out an answer to your question you would be the most important (and loved) person on the planet.
The best interest of the nation has three parts to it- (a)foreign policy(government handles, poorly but handles), (b) domestic policy(government laws, poorly handles, but handles) and (c) individual responsibility to self.
No doubt that they bought influence and delayed smoking regulations- simply because they represented business, which is a particular sector of the Economy. The product is legal to sell. Government did it's job when it deemed the product could be sold to the consumer. Now, they are saying that they were originally wrong in allowing it? If they were wrong, then how can they be trusted to what's right with regards to the best interest of the individual? It cannot. Government isn't responsible for any individual being and acting responsible for their own life.
I don't agree with it either. It's most likely not being used for what they claim? It wouldn't be a surprise. It's the same thing government and business continues to play at the expense of the consumers.
This depends on whether or not rights were infringed upon, in some way?
But, it is a person right to do what they want with their life, which is a choice of their own making.
Untrue. The average person is most likely addicted, but those who are stronger will are not addicted. Yes, some people have a physical issue when they quit smoking, but it isn't anything which the mind and will of a person cannot overcome. Second hand smoke isn't dangerous to others, because 8 out of 10 times, a person who is a non-smoker is exposed to smoke is only temporary.
Hmm, I guess I come down on the side of the evil dictators. Public smoking damages public health, and I think city governments should have every right to ban it. Smoking is not like eating a triple cheeseburger, where the only person you're harming is yourself - it affects the health of anyone nearby as well. I had a college friend with severe asthma who started wheezing over little more than a whiff of cigarette smoke. I don't see why people stupid enough to get themselves addicted to a habit that is almost guaranteed to kill them should have the right to poison her lungs as well as her own. If they want to kill themselves, they should do it in their privacy of their own homes.
"lol You're funny! How to you dangle money in front of a politician and keep him/her from spending it? You don't. That's why tobacco taxes are in the general fund; that money will buy more votes if spent in the "proper" way instead of using it as promised."
"If you could figure out an answer to your question you would be the most important (and loved) person on the planet."
More than Oprah? Wow.
"Untrue. The average person is most likely addicted, but those who are stronger will are not addicted. Yes, some people have a physical issue when they quit smoking, but it isn't anything which the mind and will of a person cannot overcome. Second hand smoke isn't dangerous to others, because 8 out of 10 times, a person who is a non-smoker is exposed to smoke is only temporary."
I quit smoking 30 yrs ago. Everytime I see someone light up, I still yearn for just one big drag. If I did, I'd be back chain smoking. For some, at least, I don't know what else you could call it but an addiction.
Second hand smoke can send an asthmatic into an attack without long term exposure.
I think if there's such a thing as a purely evil enterprise, Big Tobacco has shown itself to fit the bill.
Second hand smoke in the long term? You're kidding right. Second hand smoke is only temporary and your body can protect itself. Long term? Maybe, if people were constantly in a smoking environment, but most non-smokers are not in that situation.
There are more harmful things in the air already than what comes from a smoker smoking a cig. The argument is nothing but control.
Here's another excellent link that suggests it is not the nicotine in cigarettes that is dangerous - read the header file. http://nicotinetruth.blogspot.com/search?q=targacept
"There are more harmful things in the air already than what comes from a smoker smoking a cig. The argument is nothing but control."
No, government isn't about control, it's about politicians whom we elect doing whatever will get them reelected. If we don't do our duty as citizens and make it our business to know what they're doing (and then vote accordingly) we are to blame. You get the government you deserve, as it is said.
Smoking laws would all be repealed if that was politically expedient. If that's a smoker's goal, then that person should join a group of like minded people and work toward it. That's how the anti-smoking lobby got these laws passed in the first place.
Of course, if most people do want smoking regulations, you're screwed I guess.
Man, you need to wake the F up.
Politicians doing whatever will get them reelected? They stopped worrying about that years ago. Too many stupid, ignorant, uninformed, bigots is all that is in the way of any office. Therefore, it's not hard to get re-elected.
This all brought to you by the Mayor that BOUGHT his third term.
"Man, you need to wake the F up.
Is that really necessary to make your point?
Only 58% of the eligible voters did vote in the last election. If the bigoted rednecks you mentioned vote and others dont, well, as I said you get the government you deserve.
There's nothing wrong with complaining about the gov't (I do it a lot) and there's nothing wrong with asserting your rights, but the flip side of the coin is that everyone has a duty to keep the gov't acting responsibly by being active in holding their feet to the fire.
Change the smoking laws? It could be done. Go for it.
by Rob Hampton 5 years ago
What do you think of the new Starbucks smoking ban?Starbucks has just ban smoking within 25 feet of all of their stores. This means no more enjoying a smoke with your coffee on the outdoor patio.
by GA Anderson 4 years ago
I heard the headline story about NYC and Chicago's e-cigarette bans going into effect tomorrow - 4/29/14First I thought it was stupid...Then I thought the citizens of NYC and Chicago get what their votes deserve.So I Googled a few articles...Then I considered... OMG! then is going to the national...
by Miss M 9 years ago
Do they have enough power to do it, or do some MPs smoke themselves?
by Timothy Brakhage 6 years ago
Why are cigarettes so expensive now days? With the cost of gas prices going up to $3.75 per gallon and the shipping cost for postages on the rise, this explains a part in prices going up. However Marlboro is one of the companies that are producing a same quality of cigarette. Marlboro blacks seem...
by Kevon Scott 4 years ago
Should a mother allow her 13 yr old child to smoke cigarettes or weed and display a tattoo?Some mothers nowadays just don't want their kids to remain kids. They openly let their children smoke and drink as if it was meant for them to do. Is this a fine line in the desert for you?
by Graham Gifford 5 years ago
Should the government have a say in what we eat and drink?If we allow our government to prohibit the selling of large and/or 'super-sized' drinks, are we then approving the regulation of ALL caloric intake on the basis of it's not good for us? Furthermore, if we allow laws based on health hazards,...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|