quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
The idea that smokers cost the government, and by extension you as a taxpayer, due to additional medical care is simply false. In fact, smoking actually SAVES the government quite a bit in total. While it is true that a smoker may incur medical costs directly associated with smoking, what you are failing to consider is that everybody who doesn’t die from an accident will likely incur extensive medical costs regardless. Whether it is from lung cancer in your fifties, or congestive heart failure in your eighties, the costs will be incurred one way or another. The savings to the government are realized when a smoker dies before spending 25 years drawing a Social Security check and receiving decades of medical care, followed by high medical costs in their final years.

In other words, smoking kills you quickly before you can cash all those government checks, but usually after you’ve had a chance to pay a lifetime of taxes.

As a rule, I’m opposed to dictating people’s behavior because of the cost to a social program. If we’ve collectively decided to have a social program, we shouldn’t use that program’s cost to justify social controls. To do so would allow nearly anything to be scrutinized due to the cost to some government program. I prefer freedom. If there’s a problem caused by someone’s freedom, then eliminate the social program altogether, but keep the freedom.

Data?

+1 Bold claims. Time to back them up.

Clearly there’s way more data the other way. It is politically incorrect to even suggest there are economic benefits of smoking. The U.S. government refuses to place an economic value on early death, but it nevertheless is still there. I suppose the government doesn’t want us reminded that social security is a program we’re obligated to fund, but the benefit is dubious. This is why we should have a private, personal asset system for retirement. But that’s a topic for a different thread.

Here’s a reference to that Vanderbilt study of a few years back.

https://m.medicalxpress.com/ne...s-society-money.html

quote:

...
A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."

However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."
...

Thumbs down.

Im just flabherghasted that people START smoking.

Hey, do you want to spend $6 to $18 per day on a terrible habit that smells nasty, is socially unaceptable, is terrible for your health? Fuck yeah,sign me up!

Its like the crack dealer coming around. Want to suck dick for $5 in an alley so you can get your next fix? Sign me up!!

Like how stupid do you have to be? It makes no damn sense...

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Of course smoking is guaranteed under which part of the constitution...?
Oh yeah... it ain't.

That would be the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Don't forget the 10th amendment.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It's arguable, at the State level to impose such restrictions. But whether it's wise or not at the State level, there's no way the federal government should have anything to say about it.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by bionic218:

quote:

If it stops one smoker

Dude. WTAF? Replace "one smoker" with "one robbery" or "one murder" or whatever anti-gun jargon you want to use, and think about the things you're actually writing. You're using the actual words of the GDC's when they call for confiscation, control, whatever.

Of course smoking is guaranteed under which part of the constitution...?

Oh yeah... it ain't.

Nothing sacred about smoking. It sucks. BTDT. It's a drain on society.

I believe people should be able to do it, but I believe I shouldn't have to pay for life giving care when they come down with lung cancer or whatever else they'll burden society with. Of course that's a pipe dream, I know...

Do you have ANY idea how much the government taxes a pack of cigarettes and how much a smoker pays in taxes over their life? You shouldn't have to pay for anything. I could say the same thing about alcohol which kills a hell of a lot of innocent people (drunk drivers etc.) that cigarettes don't do. Sure smokers have a higher incidence of lung cancer, but at the same time they live a much shorter life (average lifespan) than non smokers, so it costs less in total overall health care costs, than the guy who's 90 years old OR your average alcoholic.

I have a lot of conflicting thoughts on this one, most of it has been covered already. I smoked about six years, pretty heavily towards the end. I've been quit for nine years now. I started when I was 22, so this wouldn't have affected me. I want my son to have all the freedom to make choices in his life without the nanny state further limiting them in scope, but I don't want to ever smell cigarette smoke again in my life. All I can do is try to teach him and set that boundary for mysef: "I don't ever want you around me if you smell like cigarettes, and it surely isn't welcome in my home." I got caught behind a driver yesterday who so badly fumed up my car with heavy smoke smell that I flipped a U-turn in the pissing rain, opened all the windows, drove a block until it aired out sufficiently and then turned it back around.

I truly get both sides of it, having been a heavy smoker and feeling increasingly chased from society for it, and now that I'm not, I'm glad for the social pressure to change a shitty habit. That's what that's for, right? As a former heavy smoker, and an ardent believer in the constitution, I think comparisons of this behavior to the 2A debate are... silly.

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
Nothing sacred about smoking. It sucks.

Exactly. I suggest a minimum age of 91 for purchasing, possessing, and/or using tobacco products.

I don't think you understand the concept of liberty. Really - it appears you want a government that will act as our nanny to ensure we live a nice, safe, healthy life. That's not liberty.

You hate tobacco and are more than aware of how detrimental it is to a person's health. I hate it, too, and I absolutely hate the smell of it, etc.

But, I consider personal freedom much, much more important that any inconvenience I might experience because of someone else' decision to smoke.

I desperately DO NOT WANT the government telling me what I can and cannot do - especially if it doesn't affect anybody else!

Do you agree with helmet laws? Do you believe that it is up to the government to dictate to adults that they must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, otherwise you'll be arrested and be forced to pay a fine? This is a classic example of the government overstepping their bounds and treating their constituents like children. "We know better than you, and everything we do is for your own good." That's "liberty" according to you?

And, where does it end? You know, salt causes your blood pressure to go up, and high blood pressure causes severe damage to your organs. I guess the government better step in and dictate to you how much salt you may consume? Seriously, where does it end?

Remember when the mayor of New York City dictated that soda pop is bad for you, so he outlawed "Big Gulps?" link Is this what you really want from your government? In America???

If any one of our Founding Fathers had been alive and living in NYC, he would have said with his actions, "F You Bloomberg!" Then, he would have doubled down on his soda pop consumption. That action would have stemmed from his overall expression of, "Don't tread on me!"

You and I are in agreement about our disdain for tobacco. But, you and I are in total DISagreement when you call for the almighty, incredibly-too-huge government dictating to its citizens what they can and cannot do in their personal lives.

I'm somewhat disturbed that a member of this forum would actually call for even more intrusion of government into our personal lives.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
I'm somewhat disturbed that a member of this forum would actually call for even more intrusion of government into our personal lives.

Well, being disturbed is your burden to bear.

One benefit of raising the legal smoking age to 21: It will slightly reduce purchases of good pipe tobaccos, making them easier for me to get. Many of my favorite pipe tobaccos are frequently out of stock. E.g.:

www.smokingpipes.com/pipe-toba...-50g/product_id/8997

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
I'm somewhat disturbed that a member of this forum would actually call for even more intrusion of government into our personal lives.

Well, being disturbed is your burden to bear.

Well, the intrusion of government into our personal lives is everyone's burden to bear.
Freedom imposes on no one.

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
Do you agree with helmet laws? Do you believe that it is up to the government to dictate to adults that they must wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, otherwise you'll be arrested and be forced to pay a fine? This is a classic example of the government overstepping their bounds and treating their constituents like children. "We know better than you, and everything we do is for your own good." That's "liberty" according to you?

The flaw in your logic is it does affect someone else when there is an accident. A helmet could be the difference between temporary injury and life altering injury or death. Quite a difference for the other driver going from ticket and higher insurance premiums to arrested for manslaughter. I’m in favor of manslaughter charges not being allowed if the victim wasn’t wearing a helmet. BTW, I’m a motorcyclist and think helmet laws are stupid but so is not wearing a helmet.

Being responsible for your own decisions is liberty but liberty needs to have its boundary at the point it impacts others. It’s the same reason I posted earlier about taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the Medicare or Medicaid tab who made the really illogical decision to smoke.

quote:

Being responsible for your own decisions is liberty but liberty needs to have its boundary at the point it impacts others. It’s the same reason I posted earlier about taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the Medicare or Medicaid tab who made the really illogical decision to smoke.

Absolutely.
Of course, the better solution is getting government out of healthcare rather than having government decide what we eat and drink.

quote:

Originally posted by sigcrazy7:
Here’s a reference to that Vanderbilt study of a few years back.

https://m.medicalxpress.com/ne...s-society-money.html

quote:

...
A White House statement supporting the bill, which awaits action in the Senate, echoed the argument by contending that tobacco use "accounts for over a $100 billion annually in financial costs to the economy."

However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."
...

Thanks. Interesting read.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
I'm somewhat disturbed that a member of this forum would actually call for even more intrusion of government into our personal lives.

Well, being disturbed is your burden to bear.

Well, the intrusion of government into our personal lives is everyone's burden to bear.
Freedom imposes on no one.

Smoking is a dip shit activity done by people who lack the capacity to understand its consequences. I have no problemss with laws against smoking.

If you have issues with my point of view, that's your burden to bear.

I have never smoked. Grew up in a house where mother and father both smoked. Hated the perpetual stink of it.

I was about 14 when dad approached me about smoking. Said he knew some of my friends were smoking, and if I wanted to smoke he had no objection but would have to buy my own cigarettes.

Took me about a nanosecond to figure that one out. I knew the cost of a pack of cigarettes was 25 cents. Cost of a box of 22 ammo was the same. Figured I would rather shoot than smoke. Plus that 22 ammo put a fair amount of meat on our table.

Still don't like the stink. Wish people who have to smoke would inhale some place where it does not stink up the place.

Other than the stink, I don't care even a little bit whether people choose to damage their health. I do mind having to inhale the second hand smoke.

I think it is sad that people who smoke simply do not consider the effects their smoking have on others. But then, that is where our culture is nowadays.

All about "me".

quote:

Originally posted by fritz:

Smoking is a dip shit activity done by people who lack the capacity to understand its consequences. I have no problemss with laws against smoking.

If you have issues with my point of view, that's your burden to bear.

Spoken like a true totalitarian.

Fritz, your logic or lack there of sounds exactly like the anti gunners when they lay out justification for banning guns.

Liberty is allowing and supporting people to do things you might not like. It’s easy to support people doing things you like, the real test is when it comes to people doing things you don’t like at all.

Everyone says they are all for liberty and freedom but then when someone uses their freedom in a potentially dangerous and self destructive manner it becomes much more tedious. The people who don’t really support freedom show their true colors in such a scenario.

quote:

Smoking is a dip shit activity done by people who lack the capacity to understand its consequences. I have no problemss with laws against smoking.

Speaking in absolute terms about limiting the freedoms of others is a dip shit activity, done by people who lack the capacity to understand its consequences.

^^^Bravo

quote:

Smoking is a dip shit activity done by people who lack the capacity to understand its consequences. I have no problems with laws against smoking.

I don't smoke... well, an occasional cigar. I agree with you that "smoking is a dip shit activity".
However, I see lot's of people "who lack the capacity to understand its consequences" make poor decisions about lots of things besides smoking.
Where do you draw the line?