Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Smoking bans in US
- Thread starter Rimbaud88
- Start date
I'd vote to double the gas tax and the tobacco tax in a heartbeat. The first because gas is too inexpensive (hasn't been raised in about 20 years) and the money is needed for roads and bridges nationwide, the latter because the greater disincentive to smoke, the better.
I'm absolutely serious.
I'm absolutely serious.
Last edited:
Smokes here average 10 dollars a pack Cdn.
Since smoking by the general public had decreased about 70 % over the last number of years (up here they say), why is it that they keep touting stats like lung cancer is a major killer?
If 7 out of 10 people don't smoke then where are they coming from
They argue that cigarette prices are high because they don't want people to smoke. But people are not smoking much anymore anyway.
The more people quit smoking the higher the prices go.
Now in any other commodity the prices drop when (a) nobody wants it..or (b) there is an oversupply.
The public decided to quit smoking in increasing numbers...and it was nothing done by the government that affected that choice back a couple of decades or so ago.
Suing the tobacco companies was a cash grab. If you are so dumb that you smoked for twenty years and weren't aware of any perils....it wasn't the tobacco company's fault.
It's your fault for living under a rock.
How come nobody sues the liquor companies?
All you have to say is" I didn't know that getting drunk might lead to me doing something bad and calamitous so it's your fault for not telling me... give me 25 million".
I pay pretty high medical premiums monthly....which goes to paying for everybody else's sicknesses. I haven't stayed in a hospital since I was 9 years old.
I've never been on continual prescribed medication. I go to the doctor maybe once every 4 years.
My dollars in part pay for cancer work.....but most of the public cancers aren't lung cancer from smoking.
They're every other kind of cancer plus diabetes plus heart attacks etc etc etc.
The government can't make much money off existing cigarette consumption....so they raise the price to compensate.
Now they want to legalize marijuana up here.....after decades of telling us to "say no" and how it is a gateway drug etc etc etc.
Lots of money in marijuana for the government. Wait...what about the stacks of info warning us against the perils?
Oh I see...quietly shove those under the table and delete existing info...
Pretty hard to tell your kids not to take drugs as they watch you light up a doob.
Silly me......I just realised the next government motto will be "Get stoned responsibly".......or ...."The family that gets ripped together stays together"
Second-hand tobacco smoke replaced with contact high from marijuana smoke.
The latest news on vaping says that you can develop a horrible irreversible lung condition from the flavors they put in it in the vape.
Anyway 99% of the money I pay into medical has gone to somebody elses medical issues ( see ..there's no free medical up here , somebody has to foot the bill)
Medical issues that by and large weren't lung cancer from smoking.
If the government really didn't want you to smoke marijuana (for your own good).
they would do exactly what they're doing now most places......outlaw it.
If the government really didn't want you to kill somebody driving drunk, the penalties would be much much stiffer.
If the government really didn't want you to gamble all your money away..they would impose binding spending limits at casinos..
Gas is too inexpensive? Don't make me laugh.
Raising the price of gas to include more taxes does not ( and I mean emphatically 'does not') guarantee you any new roads or bridges.
The "ecology" tax they charge up here when you buy paint/tires/chemicals etc. just goes into General Revenue.
Across from where I live is the city of Vancouver. They pay about ten cents a litre more than me on average at any given time.
Vancouver's mindset is such that they can't wait to get rid of cars and replace them with bicycles and mass transit like SkyTrain. Bigger plans are in the works.
So...less cars = less gasoline consumption= less tax revenue from gas=raise taxes and rates somewhere else to pay for all the grandiose anti-car schemes.
Of course!! Bicycle Tax!! Mass transit "surcharge".
Street "user" tax....(if you use a street for any reason, be it even walking, you really should pay a toll to use it shouldn't you?)
Since smoking by the general public had decreased about 70 % over the last number of years (up here they say), why is it that they keep touting stats like lung cancer is a major killer?
If 7 out of 10 people don't smoke then where are they coming from
They argue that cigarette prices are high because they don't want people to smoke. But people are not smoking much anymore anyway.
The more people quit smoking the higher the prices go.
Now in any other commodity the prices drop when (a) nobody wants it..or (b) there is an oversupply.
The public decided to quit smoking in increasing numbers...and it was nothing done by the government that affected that choice back a couple of decades or so ago.
Suing the tobacco companies was a cash grab. If you are so dumb that you smoked for twenty years and weren't aware of any perils....it wasn't the tobacco company's fault.
It's your fault for living under a rock.
How come nobody sues the liquor companies?
All you have to say is" I didn't know that getting drunk might lead to me doing something bad and calamitous so it's your fault for not telling me... give me 25 million".
I pay pretty high medical premiums monthly....which goes to paying for everybody else's sicknesses. I haven't stayed in a hospital since I was 9 years old.
I've never been on continual prescribed medication. I go to the doctor maybe once every 4 years.
My dollars in part pay for cancer work.....but most of the public cancers aren't lung cancer from smoking.
They're every other kind of cancer plus diabetes plus heart attacks etc etc etc.
The government can't make much money off existing cigarette consumption....so they raise the price to compensate.
Now they want to legalize marijuana up here.....after decades of telling us to "say no" and how it is a gateway drug etc etc etc.
Lots of money in marijuana for the government. Wait...what about the stacks of info warning us against the perils?
Oh I see...quietly shove those under the table and delete existing info...
Pretty hard to tell your kids not to take drugs as they watch you light up a doob.
Silly me......I just realised the next government motto will be "Get stoned responsibly".......or ...."The family that gets ripped together stays together"
Second-hand tobacco smoke replaced with contact high from marijuana smoke.
The latest news on vaping says that you can develop a horrible irreversible lung condition from the flavors they put in it in the vape.
Anyway 99% of the money I pay into medical has gone to somebody elses medical issues ( see ..there's no free medical up here , somebody has to foot the bill)
Medical issues that by and large weren't lung cancer from smoking.
If the government really didn't want you to smoke marijuana (for your own good).
they would do exactly what they're doing now most places......outlaw it.
If the government really didn't want you to kill somebody driving drunk, the penalties would be much much stiffer.
If the government really didn't want you to gamble all your money away..they would impose binding spending limits at casinos..
Gas is too inexpensive? Don't make me laugh.
Raising the price of gas to include more taxes does not ( and I mean emphatically 'does not') guarantee you any new roads or bridges.
The "ecology" tax they charge up here when you buy paint/tires/chemicals etc. just goes into General Revenue.
Across from where I live is the city of Vancouver. They pay about ten cents a litre more than me on average at any given time.
Vancouver's mindset is such that they can't wait to get rid of cars and replace them with bicycles and mass transit like SkyTrain. Bigger plans are in the works.
So...less cars = less gasoline consumption= less tax revenue from gas=raise taxes and rates somewhere else to pay for all the grandiose anti-car schemes.
Of course!! Bicycle Tax!! Mass transit "surcharge".
Street "user" tax....(if you use a street for any reason, be it even walking, you really should pay a toll to use it shouldn't you?)
Last edited:
The junior college prof who turned me on to higher ed was always hungover and drank black coffee and chainsmoked throughout his lectures, flipping the butts out the classroom window. His style was pure standup. He was awesome.
Cigarettes: Public nuisance but great prop.
One thing amuses me - if you introduced tobacco and alcoholic beverages today, there's no POSSIBLE way they'd be legalized. Much too destructive and damaging to health.
But since they're been around for so long, they're essentially grandfathered in. Their use is restricted but legal. I suppose that if we didn't have them, people would find plenty of other things to get addicted to.
But since they're been around for so long, they're essentially grandfathered in. Their use is restricted but legal. I suppose that if we didn't have them, people would find plenty of other things to get addicted to.
slobake
resident ... something
Which might or might not make the cut as a brand new substance...fulla that drug caffeine, y'know. Can affect the heart and other organs. Bet there would be a big opposition group.
Lots of statistics and claims being thrown around here. I'll address one, at least.
In fact the reduction in smoking was largely due to higher prices due to purposely high taxes, anti-smoking campaigns, and general attitude changing, which are also partly a result of campaigns and school education, etc. To claim the lawsuits were a money grab is hilarious; the tobacco companies conspired in a massive decades long campaign to fund bogus research, suppress negative reports and studies, and much much worse if you are interested in educating yourself. The same people and techniques were employed to do a job on the climate change research and public opinion.
Never making tobacco many times more addictive by the use of additives that they lobby so hard to be allowed to use, etc, etc. it's a depressing tawdry story you should look into that really might make you change your mind on this subject.
Lung cancer is way down and is one if not the largest reason life expectancy rates have up down over the last few decades.
Last edited:
Sorry ..don't believe any of what you say. I was there in those days and I know how it all went down.
According to the article the focus is on suing because of under-age drinkers as an attempt at copy-catting the tobacco industry which was targeted for the same thing at first.
But later the lawsuits against tobacco weren't just about under-agers......it was about everybody and his dog claiming they didn't know about the harm that could be caused.
I don't think Big Alcohol got whacked anywhere near close to what Big Tobacco got nailed overall to now.
Tobacco and alcohol are different in that a certain number of tobacco users will definitely die as a direct result of its use. The same cannot be said about alcohol, when consumed in moderation. Most tobacco users consume a pack a day and no less, often more. That's the way it is with addiction. It's a death sentence for many of them. Even small amounts of tobacco are bad for you. This is well established and told to us often, by the very same health industry that many paint as a money machine aimed at making us sick in order to treat us.
Alcohol risky? Certainly. Bad for you in any amount? No.
Alcohol risky? Certainly. Bad for you in any amount? No.
Last edited:
Ain't that annoying?
Here in Los Angeles, we've been hectored to save water to the extent that many have removed their lawns altogether and switched
to cultivating a garden of sculpted weeds and indigenous scrub. Angelenos have in fact done such a fine job of conserving water,
that now the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is lamenting that they are experiencing a cash shortfall due to the drop in consumption, and as a result, so as to meet their obligations, will be raising the price of water in the new year.
I feel you, but what would be a better plan? The water guys need a paycheck just like everybody else. The money has to come from somewhere. Maybe deregulate it and make it free - market. Consumption rises, price rises. And the inverse. Self - regulation? No, because rich folks will just use as much as they want, the price be damned. Free market won't work for this product in a small market such as one state, where many will happily conserve but many will not. I'm not sure what the solution might be.
Last edited:
