• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Smoking insanity

Yes, but then you wouldn't get the benefits of participating in sports, such as better cardiovascular health, improved stamina, the social benefits of learning to play as a member of a team, and yes, even resistance to injury that comes from proper sports training.

What health and social benefits would you miss out on if you quit smoking?

Stress relief. Stress causes Hypertension. Hypertension causes heart disease. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America.

(I'm BSing. There are no health advantages to smoking. For me it's a personal right issue)
 
Then let's ban all sports because that's a choice and 100% of athletes get injuries. Only 6.9% of smokers get cancer.
Sports? You gotta be kidding me. What percentage of sports injuries even require hospitalization? How many scores (hundreds?) of sports injury treatments does it take to equal the costs of treating even one lung cancer patient?
 
Every single lawsuit involving secondhand smoke has been thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. The statistics just aren't there. In 2013 a U.S. District Court judge ruled that secondhand some does not violate constitutional rights. As for smokers burdening the tax system, I have to go right back to sports being a burden. Tax both or don't tax either.

I said that you, going about your business, was now affected by someone lighting up a cigarette next to you in an environment where you didn't want to be around a cigarette smoker. I didn't say anything about a lawsuit or any such matter. You however said that, and I'm quoting here "I don't smoke either, but it's none of my business if someone chooses." By choosing to smoke near you and your family, you're now inconvenienced by them if by nothing else than the smell. Your enjoyment of your meal is now lessened by the odor, which doesn't just leave when the smoker leaves, but will instead linger, persisting until it can be removed or dissipates on it's own.

People still have the ability to smoke in their own homes, in their own cars, on their own property, out doors, etc.
 
Holy cow! 7 pages... :hiding:

I think my original intent got off track a bit - I didn't want a smoker / anti-smoker or political thing to start.

I'm a smoker and it sucks. I don't mind that smoking in public places is banned, I never throw my butts on the ground - basically, I try no not let my bad habit effect other people.

The insanity - as I see it - is in these new regulations that seem hair-brained to me. CVS can't sell smokes because....? Nobody can sell cigar papers because...? All this tax money being collected on cig sales is being spent on......? $2.50 is more money than your average teenager is going to have???

I made a bong out of a Dr. Pepper bottle - does that mean we have to put soda behind the counter and card soda purchasers?

These reg's are being implemented so that the people who made them can look like they're doing something and protecting our children. They still bury their head in the sand about the fact that you can't regulate cigarettes and drugs away from people. It's like throwing money in a shredder. Actually, somebody for sure is making $$ off of this.

The healthcare issues are another whole can-o-worms that should probably be avoided at TB methinks.

Oh, and I'm not upset or anything - this whole thing is amusing to me. No amount of regulations are going to make me quit smoking just as no amount of regulations has won the war on drugs. The stairs at my house will do that one day...
 
I said that you, going about your business, was now affected by someone lighting up a cigarette next to you in an environment where you didn't want to be around a cigarette smoker. I didn't say anything about a lawsuit or any such matter. You however said that, and I'm quoting here "I don't smoke either, but it's none of my business if someone chooses." By choosing to smoke near you and your family, you're now inconvenienced by them if by nothing else than the smell. Your enjoyment of your meal is now lessened by the odor, which doesn't just leave when the smoker leaves, but will instead linger, persisting until it can be removed or dissipates on it's own.

People still have the ability to smoke in their own homes, in their own cars, on their own property, out doors, etc.

Well, you're the one who brought up secondhand smoke as justification for... what, i don't know... taxing smokers? I don't believe that the role of government is to protect people from being inconvenienced because where do you draw the line? People who answer their phones in movie theaters? People who pay with checks in the express lanes at grocery stores? People who drive big pickup trucks that you cant see around?
 
Never mind lost productivity costs, and all the hundreds of other related diseases and illnesses...

According to the CDC -smoking cost the United States over $193 billion in 2004, an average of $4,260 per adult smoker.

Highest cigarette taxes? New York, where combined state and federal taxes will cost about $5.40/pack.

That would be about 2 packs a day, every day of the year - for the taxes to cover the average smoker costs.

...but the average smoker only smokes 14 cigarettes a day. Which means (even at the highest tax rates in the country on cigarettes) the average smokers costs about $2,900 per year more than they contribute in tobacco taxes.

Realistically, most folks pay way less than that in cig taxes - and as such are much further from the break even point.

Sound numbers, I was wrong on that one!


Stress relief. Stress causes Hypertension. Hypertension causes heart disease. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America.

(I'm BSing. There are no health advantages to smoking. For me it's a personal right issue)

Smoking is one of the biggest causes of heart disease.

However, smoking can suppress appetite, so it could reduce the growing obesity problem. :ninja:
 
Sports? You gotta be kidding me. What percentage of sports injuries even require hospitalization? How many scores (hundreds?) of sports injury treatments does it take to equal the costs of treating even one lung cancer patient?

First of all, I don't want to ban sports. I was illustrating a point. And if you really want to compare apples to apples you need to look at all medical treatment related to sports, not just hospitalization. You need to take into account all the sprained ankles, skinned knees, stitches, tennis elbows, swimmer's ears, baseball fingers, ACL tears, Achilles heels, planter's warts, skin staff infections, bad backs, concussions... I can't think of any minor smoking injuries that require doctors visits, but maybe there are some.
 
First of all, I don't want to ban sports. I was illustrating a point. And if you really want to compare apples to apples you need to look at all medical treatment of sports, not just hospitalization. You need to take into account all, the sprained ankles, skinned knees, stitches, tennis elbows, swimmer's ears, ACL tears, Achilles heels, planter's warts, skin staff infections, bad backs, concussions... I can't think of any minor smoking injuries that require doctors visits, but maybe there are some.

Except you're not comparing apples to apples. You're picking something you yourself called absurd. A more accurate comparison would be alcohol.
Sports, while slightly dangerous, are on the whole, hugely beneficial to the people partaking in it, while not posing much (if any) danger to those around them.

Alcohol on the other hand, is taxed like cigarettes, lowers motor function, reduces reaction time, impairs judgement, and kills probably hundreds of people each year due to alcohol poisoning, and millions more on the roads.
 
Until it becomes your business with higher insurance premiums, and increased medicare medicaid costs incurred by smokers that have to be paid for by American tax payers as a whole. I also think it's a good idea that people can't smoke in public buildings like malls or restaurants anymore. You may not smoke, and some one may not smoke in doors as a courtesy, but some one else might think it would be appropriate to light up at the table right next to you. So now, some one else's business and personal choice is directly impacting you and your personal choice to go to a restaurant and enjoy your dinner.

The bolded part is the only reason most of us care. I know I'm not the only one who looks at his paycheck and sees all the taxes. About the last thing I want is the government taking more taxes.

Hell, as much as people hate on Big Pharma, think of how much the drug companies make selling various inhalers for smokers.

I've worked with enough social workers who get more than a little annoyed that a patient can't pay for a $5/mong generic, but can still smoke 2 packs per day. Any non-smoker can smell that one a mile away.
 
Well, you're the one who brought up secondhand smoke as justification for... what, i don't know... taxing smokers? I don't believe that the role of government is to protect people from being inconvenienced because where do you draw the line? People who answer their phones in movie theaters? People who pay with checks in the express lanes at grocery stores? People who drive big pickup trucks that you cant see around?

I brought it up to illustrate that people smoking can, in fact, be your business if they do it near you. It's true there is no constitutionally protected right to not be around a smoker, but there is also no constitutionally protected right to smoke in public places.
 
First of all, I don't want to ban sports. I was illustrating a point. And if you really want to compare apples to apples you need to look at all medical treatment related to sports, not just hospitalization. You need to take into account all the sprained ankles, skinned knees, stitches, tennis elbows, swimmer's ears, baseball fingers, ACL tears, Achilles heels, planter's warts, skin staff infections, bad backs, concussions... I can't think of any minor smoking injuries that require doctors visits, but maybe there are some.
That's fine, but some of the things you're listing cost absolutely nothing except maybe the price of a bandaid or an over-the-counter cream. No way, IMO, these compare to the health-care costs related to smoking. I didn't even bring up heart problems and emphysema.

Except you're not comparing apples to apples. You're picking something you yourself called absurd. A more accurate comparison would be alcohol.
Sports, while slightly dangerous, are on the whole, hugely beneficial to the people partaking in it, while not posing much (if any) danger to those around them.

Alcohol on the other hand, is taxed like cigarettes, lowers motor function, reduces reaction time, impairs judgement, and kills probably hundreds of people each year due to alcohol poisoning, and millions more on the roads.
+1.

And compare the ancillary benefits of sports to those of smoking--fires and litter.
 
Except you're not comparing apples to apples. You're picking something you yourself called absurd. A more accurate comparison would be alcohol.
Sports, while slightly dangerous, are on the whole, hugely beneficial to the people partaking in it, while not posing much (if any) danger to those around them.

I never said it was an absurd comparison, I illustrated that imposing the same standards on sports would be absurd. The only one making an issue out of "posing much (if any) danger to those around them" is you. The fact that every secondhand lawsuit has been dismissed shows the government doesn't even take that position.

Alcohol on the other hand, is taxed like cigarettes, lowers motor function, reduces reaction time, impairs judgement, and kills probably hundreds of people each year due to alcohol poisoning, and millions more on the roads.

Then why doesn't the tax revenue from alcohol go directly to the victims of drunk drivers? The government started taxing rum 200 years ago, long before healthcare or drunk driving
 
I never said it was an absurd comparison, I illustrated that imposing the same standards on sports would be absurd. The only one making an issue out of "posing much (if any) danger to those around them" is you. The fact that every secondhand lawsuit has been dismissed shows the government doesn't even take that position.



Then why doesn't the tax revenue from alcohol go directly to the victims of drunk drivers? The government started taxing rum 200 years ago, long before healthcare or drunk driving

Feel free to name me one amateur or professional athlete who has never had an injury. Sprained ankle, torn muscle, broken finger, torn muscle, tendonitis, tennis elbow, torn ACL, rotator cuff injuries, concussions... doctors don't treat those for free. Sports are burden on the healthcare system! Let's put giant warning labels showing gruesome sports injuries on all sneaker boxes and tax them 400%! Why should my tax dollars go to treating their bad choices?!?

Okay, I'm obviously being absurd. We shouldn't tax sports. I'm just illustrating that if you draw the line on smokers, there's lots of other places you'd need to draw the line. Surfers go in the ocean with sharks, skydivers jump out of planes, people climb El Capiton with just a rope, skiers fly down the hill at 30mph. I don't hear anyone saying they should be taxed because of their choices.

Should we tax bass playing because it causes carpal tunnel syndrome?
Emphasis is mine. You admitted yourself that you were being absurd, ergo you're making an absurd comparison. And in regard to this post, there are a few dangerous activities that require you to get a license for and for which you pay taxes on the equipment you need to do said activities. One in particular is motorcycle riding. In Florida, there was such a problem with motorcycle related deaths and accidents that they mandated everyone who wants to get their endorsement take and pass the Motorcycle Safety Foundation Basic Rider Safety Course before they could legally ride a bike. They did that to better prepare riders for safety issues related to their hobby. And you have to pay tax on the Gas you need to ride your bike, the oil you need to run it, and other such things.

You're latching onto some second hand smoking thing that isn't there. The danger to others was in reference to alcohol, which was further in the post.

I have no idea why it doesn't go to the victims of drunk drivers. Why don't you write your congressman?
 
The one thing that gets lost here, is the reason some people smoke. Nicotine is addictive! However, on it's own, it's no more addictive or dangerous than caffeine.(Also poisonous if over-consumed) (I Googled it.) :) There may be some benefits, (Sharper focus, better recall) but...the problem is the delivery system. Burning organic materials creates all the bad crud in tobacco smoke. This in turn causes lung cancers and the other killer diseases. It can also cause issues to others, as mentioned. This is why I now vape. No second hand smoke, I no longer stink of smoke, and my health has improved. I also avoid paying those extortion taxes. (At least until the feds figure out how/if they can tax it the same.)