Banning Smoking

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thoreau, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Hmm I think they might actually be about the same price. I was thinking of the price of a pack of camel (25) before. Those are 5.10Euro, which is about 7.65USD.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    In Washington state they average around $7 after tax.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    My prices are including tax, to avoid confusion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    Those are some expensive cigs man.
     
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    It's normal here.. sigh..
     
  9. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    They will never ban cigs because of the tax revenue. What I don't understand is why they don't make other drugs legal and taxable.

    "look at the legal drugs, Alcohol and Nicotine – two drugs that do absolutely nothing for you whatsoever. Now look at Cannabis and Mushrooms, two drugs that open your eyes and realise you’re being fucked every day of your life – those drugs are against the law? Co-incidence? I’m sure their motives are pure…" - Bill Hicks.
     
  10. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Ok, on topic, does anyone agree/disagree with this?

     
  11. Anti-Flag Pun intended Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,714
    I think only the insane would disagree with you.

    EDIT-apart from the bit about banning it completely. I'm for legalisation of any drugs so long as you don't harm other people.

    "What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet!" - Bill Hicks.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2009
  12. shichimenshyo Caught in the machine Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,110
    never mind, I misread the post.

    I do not agree with a ban on cigs though.
     
  13. wsionynw Master Queef Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,309
    Maybe it is, but then what about the bar staff and other people that don't smoke?

    We've had this argument before.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Personally, I've never understood why bar owners can't choose to have a smoking establishment if they wish to. Bars are completely frivolous, unnecessary places - you can always just choose not to go to one. Places like airports, grocery stores, etc, everyone has to go to, so you can't really make the "if you don't like the smoking, just go somewhere else..." argument. But with bars, it seems like a pretty reasonable argument.
     
  15. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I think its one of the reasons my husband had no issues with joining the Moose Lodge. Its a members only club and they don't have to follow the smoking ban law
     
  16. christa Frankly, I don't give a dam! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,905
    we have...

    and I still say, there are other non smoking bars out there, noone if forcing them to apply to that bar
     
  17. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    So how is it that we haven't been able to smoke on airplanes for many years now, and yet fuckers with head and chest colds can still ride? At the minimum, they should be confined to a special enclosed sick bay at the back of the plane.
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    there are repercussions. you want no one to care? i doubt it. there can be some kind of self imposed eugenics program but dont u want p[eople to help you?
     
  19. spaceChild Registered Member

    Messages:
    94
    Slightly off point but do any of the smokers ever feel like smoking after an anti-smoking ad?
    It's like every time I see someone lighting up I reach for my 50g
    I thought anti-smoking ads were meant to put you off, cancer, blindness, harming your unborn baby etc. But watching them doesn't make me wanna quit it makes me want a smoke
     
  20. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    i dont know what a 50g is. they certainly dont make me want to smoke, i am a smoker too.

    smoking is very stupid and it is an addiction but then you have to be willing to accept the consequences.
     
  21. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Mod Note: Closed for repairs.
     
  22. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,110
    Why should bars and restaurants be required to foot the bill of YOUR addiction. Nobody is making you or anybody smoke. It's ridiculous. The club where I work would be required to rebuild the entire front of the building just to make it amenable to housing the smokers. It would be like saying, "Hey we have all these pot smokers, they don't like having to go outside in the cold, so you're required to build a special facility to allow them to pursue their addiction." The only difference is: One addiction is illegal, the other is highly regulated.

    In the end, you're placing undue responsibility on private facilities to remodel or restructure in order to accommodate an addictive tendency they may not even like or support, just because you find it too uncomfortable to go outside! Here's a thought: quit smoking and you won't have to stand outside! No harm done.

    A poor hyperbole. I could make some comparative exaggeration as well, and it wouldn't prove a thing. But for starters, yes it would be immoral to kick smokers in the balls, but since nobody is kicking smokers in the balls, and--in fact--are simply asking them to not smoke near non-smokers, a reverse of that analogy would be more apt. Stop kicking non-smokers in the balls (or lungs, in this case) and stop wining about having to take your smoking some other place and stop trying to weave this into a moral issue when all it comes down to is the fact that you like it and want other people to accommodate your addiction.

    A good question, but one that doesn't negate the issue discussed in the OP. Nobody chooses, specifically, to be sick and it's impossible to ask them to not be sick for the ride from Atlanta to Madrid. It is, however, very possible to ask those who smoke to not smoke for the length of the trip. One act is dealing with voluntary behavior. The other deals with an unwanted illness, which can't even be readily proven without lengthy, and costly tests before coming to the airport.

    ~String
     
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Yeah, it wasn't intended as such. It's more that I just got off of a plane ride surrounded by sneezing, snotty bastards who kept me awake the entire flight with their snoring and coughing. And the contrast between the indignity directed at the health risks smokers impose on others, as compared to the total nonchalance about people with actual contagious diseases, struck me as I sat here praying that I won't wake up sick tomorrow.

    True, but many people do choose to engage in behaviors and lifestyles that they know will markedly increase the chances of them becoming sick with infectious diseases. When was the last time you came down with a cold and didn't kick yourself for staying out too late/drinking too much/hanging out with that sick friend/whatever?

    In point of fact, we routinely force them to do exactly that, when it comes to more dangerous diseases. Aren't we supposed to be worrying about a flu epidemic right now, after all?

    But all I really want is a sick-people section of the plane, so that the hundreds of others passengers aren't involuntarily subjected to contagions (and loud snoring).

    Oh come on. Do you imagine that these sneezing, coughing, red-nosed types don't know perfectly well that they have a contagious disease when they choose to get on a plane and subject all of the other passengers to their contagions?

    But I understand that travel can't typically be delayed to account for unexpected sickness without undue costs. All I ask is that sick people be isolated from everyone else, in the same way that we used to segregate smokers on planes and in restaurants.

    Or at least make them wear masks so they aren't coughing particles of infectious phlegm everywhere.

    Point is that 200+ healthy people shouldn't be forced to subject themselves to hours in an enclosed space with contagious people, just so those few contagious people can avoid the costs of delaying their flight by a few days. The costs they are imposing on everyone else seem pretty considerable, to me, when multiplied by the number of people being exposed.

    Or we could just charge the sick people a bunch more, and use the proceeds to rebate all the healthy people's ticket prices.
     

Share This Page