• 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

Good points Ayce. I tried out the e-cigarette for the reasons you mentioned and after a couple days, man I can just tell those things are addictive as hell! The e-cig wore out and I got regular cigs. I was smoking a cigarette and craving the e-cig!

I could definitely see switching to e-cigs but as of now they are 2x what I'm paying for my habit and I just don't have the $ to do so. I wouldn't mind smoking an e-cig that wasn't 'tobacco' flavored. Cherry would be cool. BUT, flavored e-cigs are <sarcasm>obviously</sarcasm> targeted at kids and will soon be banned.
 
Emphasis is mine. You admitted yourself that you were being absurd, ergo you're making an absurd comparison.

No, I illustrated that it would be absurd to impose the same taxes on athletes and warning labels on sports equipment ("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"). I never said that it was absurd to compare the medical cost of the two activities. I would love to see the figures compared.

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.

If you're in favor of motorcycle taxes then why aren't you in favor of the exact same tax and licences on all activities that lead to injury or death? Seems a bit Orwellian to me.

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?

I'm not latching onto secondhand smoke, I'm shooting down the argument that secondhand smoke is a reason for higher taxes and that the reason for alcohol taxes is not to benefit wrongful deaths caused by alcohol.
 
A lot of people don't have insurance (and often don't pay) or are on guv'mint healthcare, which is why we're moving towards socialized medicine.

So the solution is obviously more taxes? Because the government does such a bang up job spending all that money I worked for as it is.

Eventually, the people who pay for all the people who don't are going to either get sick of it and evade taxes or move. OR else they are going to run out of money.
 
Good points Ayce. I tried out the e-cigarette for the reasons you mentioned and after a couple days, man I can just tell those things are addictive as hell! The e-cig wore out and I got regular cigs. I was smoking a cigarette and craving the e-cig!

I could definitely see switching to e-cigs but as of now they are 2x what I'm paying for my habit and I just don't have the $ to do so. I wouldn't mind smoking an e-cig that wasn't 'tobacco' flavored. Cherry would be cool. BUT, flavored e-cigs are <sarcasm>obviously</sarcasm> targeted at kids and will soon be banned.

I spend ~ $30/mo for 24mg/ml juice, (which I cut with VG), with the occasional hardware purchase. Some go nuts and spend more than they did on smokes, but at least they're not killing themselves and others doing so. PM me if you want better info on ecigs than the store bought no-nic ones. :)
 
So the solution is obviously more taxes? Because the government does such a bang up job spending all that money I worked for as it is.

Eventually, the people who pay for all the people who don't are going to either get sick of it and evade taxes or move. OR else they are going to run out of money.

Out of interest, how do you feel about your taxes going towards things like police & firefighters?

Of course, you could always move to private police and fire services (some of the earliest fire services were run this way).

A lot of folks view medical care in a similar light as police and fire services.
 
There is one major difference between the effects of obesity and it's cost to the healthcare system and that of smoking: there is no scientific evidence of second hand fat. That's the real deal that people try to sidestep: the science about the 100+ carcinogenic or cancer- causing chemicals in second hand smoke even outdoors. If you can smell it, you are breathing it in: cyanide, benzine, formaldehyde, all sorts of great stuff.

No social stigma or judgement from me, I just don't to be forced to breathe in someone else's poison under the guise of personal freedom.
 
In addition, athletes exercise which reduces many chronic diseases. I am not aware of any chronic diseases that smoking prevents.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that nicotine can significantly reduce risk of Alzheimers, Parkingsons disease, and several other neurological degenerative diseases, along with several other positive day to day health effects.

Smoking isn't healthy, far from it, but buying into the ******** demonization it's gained within society is just stupid. It's not just an evil killer drug designed purely for the purpose of pain and suffering, it's simply a drug like any other, with it's own pro's and con's. No drug is inherently good or bad, it's the way people choose to use it that will bring on positive or negative effects.

All drugs have good and bad effects, it's a matter of thoroughly investigating those effects for yourself (much easier when information is readily available, which unfortunately governments tend to do away with in favour of their own flavour of the week propaganda) and making your own decisions.



The people who do those things generally take measures to ensure they are not injured or killed. And in the wake of a mishap where someone does get killed or injured, the rest of the participants in that activity will generally examine the incident to see if there is anything to be learned that will make the sport or activity safer in the future. Government might even get involved and produce laws regulating the activity in some way. Inspections. Certifications. Safety standards.

Haha! I sell equipment for and teach high-risk sports for a living (Kitesurfing, Whitewater kayaking, Downhill skateboarding, etc.). I'm a huge safety first person, 95% of my customer-base? Wouldn't think about the consequences of this sort of stuff if their life depended on it, which it generally does.

Injuries happen every day. On a good day at the points here if you head down to the emergency room, you'll find a good 50%+ of the people are there for fin-chops etc.
 
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that nicotine can significantly reduce risk of Alzheimers, Parkingsons disease, and several other neurological degenerative diseases, along with several other positive day to day health effects.

Smoking isn't healthy, far from it, but buying into the ******** demonization it's gained within society is just stupid. It's not just an evil killer drug designed purely for the purpose of pain and suffering, it's simply a drug like any other, with it's own pro's and con's. No drug is inherently good or bad, it's the way people choose to use it that will bring on positive or negative effects.

All drugs have good and bad effects, it's a matter of thoroughly investigating those effects for yourself (much easier when information is readily available, which unfortunately governments tend to do away with in favour of their own flavour of the week propaganda) and making your own decisions.

It doesn't reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, though it can slow the progression.

I don't think the issue is ever really with nicotine, though it is the active part, it's the delivery mechanism as that produces the majority of consequences (which is why governments may be anti smoking but still promote patches etc.).
 
So the solution is obviously more taxes? Because the government does such a bang up job spending all that money I worked for as it is.

Eventually, the people who pay for all the people who don't are going to either get sick of it and evade taxes or move. OR else they are going to run out of money.
Way to spoil the surprise twist ending to Atlas Shrugged for me!:hmm:
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that nicotine can significantly reduce risk of Alzheimers, Parkingsons disease, and several other neurological degenerative diseases, along with several other positive day to day health effects.
I don't think anyone on here has suggested taxing nicotine gum, or nicotine patches, especially if they go on to find a greater correlation between it and and health advantages. The taxation seems to be targeted around the unhealthy methods of nicotine intake.