I suggest that we should make a bill sying that the age limit for smoking should be put up a year once a year making it so that only the people who are currently allowed to smoke are allowed to smoke.-- tduff, Jan 03 2001 Like this, waugsqueke? https://web.archive...h/docs/ei-price.htmThe US approach would be to maintain current prices, but reduce the number of cgs/pack by a few each year. [reensure, Jan 03 2001] Smoking world-wide http://www1.worldba...k/html/chapter1.htm [Monkfish, Jan 03 2001, last modified Oct 17 2004] Framework convention on tobacco control http://tobacco.who.int/en/fctc/index.htmlYou know you're bothering the WHO when they've got a web server named after your product. They say four million deaths in '98, ten million annually by about 2030. [Monkfish, Jan 03 2001, last modified Oct 17 2004] "Death and Taxes: Economics of Tobacco Control" http://www.imf.org/...ndd/1999/12/jha.htmThe IMF suggests that, at current rates, there will be around 450 million deaths from tobacco between now and 2050. [Monkfish, Jan 03 2001, last modified Oct 17 2004] Keep smoking http://www.vhemt.org/there's way too many people anyway. [mrthingy, Oct 17 2004] They decided to do Oreos before Twinkies http://www.msnbc.com/news/912868.asp [scad mientist, Oct 17 2004] hmmm... maybe progressively make them more expensive instead? that way only the die-hards (ahem) and the excessively wealthy continue? I mean, at $25/pack (eventually), you'd reconsider how much you really need that cigarette (and you'd be less likely to let *that* guy bum one!). Ah, but either way, Big Tobacco loses money, and we can't have that now, can we...-- absterge, Jan 03 2001 Yeah, because we know that kids actually pay attention to the age limit for smoking...-- PotatoStew, Jan 03 2001 That's not really fair. The point of the higher taxes was to drive down use, which would have lost the government tax money in exactly the same way. Why always look to the most sinister explanation when a government is involved? The profit motive is hardly the most important thing to most (developed-country) governments.
When cheap cigarettes were bounced across the border and sold for less and less, the government faced the possibility of a similar -- or higher -- level of smoking along with a booming smuggling trade and loss of control over tobacco sales (which would have put more smokes in younger hands).
The thing might have worked a little better had tobacco taxes in the States been higher; but trying to wipe things out with higher taxes does have a way of driving them underground, so it's not a very likely solution on its own.
Still, yeah, it was a bit of a shame.-- Monkfish, Jan 03 2001 Just genetic-engineer a virus to kill all tobacco plants.
"Just"... heh.-- badoingdoing, Jan 04 2001 the idea is it will be illegal to smoke under age and if people get addicted under age it will be illegal for them all their life and it will be easier for them to stop because it will be harder to get cigarrettes. Another fact is that if we put the tobbaco taxes up all that it will do is drive the people who already into poverty because of smoking deeper into poverty.-- tduff, Jan 04 2001 actually neptune yes it is health care issues, you see I can't stand car exhaust or being around people who smoke, so I'm coming up with these Ideas because I'm sure there are a lot of other peopl who can't stand being around this stuff. (see parking regulations the actual point of that is to stop having all that car exhaust in a single place.)-- tduff, Jan 04 2001 Okay, we really have a problem with cgs. My best suggestion has been to symbolize the social choice to abstain from smoking, rather than to go for restriction or prevention. The suggestion was to provide smoking points at public buildings. There would be interior signs, weather protection, 24/7 access from inside the building only, free air exchange from without the building. The drawback would be that there would be room within the point for no more than two people comfortably--one seated, one to stand. I feel this configuration would announce clearly the majority feeling that smoking is a gutless response to social bullying, and addicts deserve nothing but to feed their addiction privately. I'm ready to die now.-- reensure, Jan 05 2001 Neptune: I am personally an anti-smoker for a number of reasons, one of which you mentioned already and I think maybe dismissed a little too quickly. It stinks! Cigarette smoke is vile and nauseating and to have that inflicted on me as I walk down the street is quite maddening. Coming home after a night out and smelling smoke in your clothes and hair is disgusting. I would equate someone exhaling smoke on me to someone coughing or sneezing on me. Add to all of that the fact that when these strangers are done blowing their smoke on you, they are disrespectful enough to discard their butt onto the sidewalk without a thought. The evidence of smoking litter is everywhere and it is too bad that it is so "accepted". Personal Choice? Sadly it is not. By choosing to smoke, a person is forcing everyone around them to suffer the consequences of their smoking.
Financial: I will estimate that the average smoker takes 3 to 4, 10 - 15 minute breaks a day to smoke (I think that is conservative) . That is 30 to 60 minutes a day that they are not working where your average non-smoker is working. That works out to 15 to 30 days a year that your average smoker essentially gets in paid break time. ( 20 days vacation = an entire month off of work). This is compounded by the fact that smokers are sick more often (more time off) and use doctors more often (thus skewing your company health plan expenses). All of this and non-smokers are not compensated at all for having the decency and self restraint to not smoke.
There are bigger fish to fry? Of course there are, there are always bigger fish to fry. But that is no reason not to cook up some of the small fish too. You would not be ok with Drunk Drivers just because terrorism is a "bigger" problem. When it comes down to day to day quality of life issues smoking is at the top of my list. Don't get me wrong...I have friends who smoke and I am not a ranter or preacher or crusader in real life. (My mantra when it comes to smoking is 'live and let them kill themselves'). I do see the attraction to smoking when I see how cool Brad Pitt looks up on the screen when flicks a butt to the street. Unfortunately I think too many people try to grab a piece of that coolness by smoking. Never mind sex and violence in the media, lets stop glamorizing smoking! I agree with a friend of mine who said "The only thing worse than someone who smokes, is someone who smokes badly."
</RANT OFF>
whew! I need a drink ;)-- blahginger, Jan 05 2001 Oops, I put my butt out in your drink.-- thumbwax, Jan 05 2001 My two cents: Secondhand smoke is a major annoyance to me. Not only do I find it disgusting to see people smoke (analagous to them picking their nose, in my book), I find it disgusting that they are poisoning my air. This is not a bodily function they cannot help, like flatulence, it is their own choice. I equate this aspect of smoking to them picking *my* nose. I think I have a right to ask them to stop.-- badoingdoing, Jan 06 2001 This discussion is like a discussion of malaria that never mentions the fly that spreads malaria.
There is an industry that makes $50 billion a year on tobacco. It knows that money would dry up in a generation if it didn't keep smoking popular, glamorous, accepted, cheap, and highly addictive. This industry makes sure this happens.
Engineering addiction, selling smoking, keeping the product accepted by the public, and defeating measures that would reduce smoking, is done expertly and every day by an industry with "more money than God".
Brown and Williamson papers http://www.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/cigpapers/book/contents.html
The California experience: what you're up against if you want to fight tobacco use http://escholarship.cdlib.org/ucpress/tobacco-war.xml
What the industry's (formerly) secret memos have revealed http://www.tobacco.org/Documents/dd/dd.html
Various items on tobacco industry presence, power, and conduct http://dmoz.org/Health/Substance_Abuse/Tobacco/Industry/
What the industry didn't say about its products at a time when it knew far more than outside science http://www.ama-assn.org/sci-pubs/journals/archive/jama/vol_274/no_3/5042t1b.htm
The industry in its own words http://www.ash.org.uk/html/conduct/html/tobexpld0.html
To talk about tobacco and smoking without mentioning this industry is like talking about an infectious disease and not mentioning the disease vector.
Except this industry is far smarter than any disease. It organizes, strategies, plans years ahead, and defeats measures that would lower its income stream. Imagine if the fly actually had an interest in spreading malaria, and imagine if the fly were a good deal smarter than most humans.-- jpk, Mar 02 2001 Welcome to the site, jpk.
I don't think any of us will argue that smoking is harmful and the tobacco companies are less than forthcoming about it. I also don't think that any of us really believe that this idea would ever be implemented. That's why it's on this site.
This is isn't Complaints. You want the room next door. This is Being Hit On The Head Lessons.-- centauri, Mar 02 2001 Good to be here. Intend to say awhile.
Being Hit On The Head meets Holy Grail: what would you say about a medieval village that talked about the plague and never mentioned the flea that spreads the plague? Well, you'd say, they didn't know any better.
So, what would you say about a 21st century discussion of smoking that never mentions the tobacco industry?
Bonk!-- jpk, Mar 09 2001 [Admin: jpk, under the links at the top of the page is a link labelled [link]. Click on that one to add a link to the existing list that people can actually click on.]-- jutta, Mar 10 2001 I'm so sick of our goody two shoes society. We have no right to tell people whether or not they should, shouldn't, can or cannot smoke. There are many dangerous things we do everyday: Smoke, drink alcohol, eat saturated fat and cholesterol, drive cars, go skydiving, drink caffine, have unprotected sex, ride airplanes, play tackle football, rock climbing... Should we ban everything people like? There are plenty of folks who like smoking and want to just be left alone. Yes, they'll die of cancer, but, who cares? They're happy smoking. Mind your own business. Ban smoking in all government funded public places to protect non-smokers. Leave it up to private establishments to set their own rules. But don't ruin corporations, demonize people and generally act like a bunch of pussywillows when it comes to something you don't like. I don't smoke. Never have even tried a cigarette and never will (I'm 24). It's stupid to smoke. It's ignorant to smoke. But, geese, if you like it, you should be allowed to do it in your home, car, backyard and in restaraunts and bars that permit it. Everyone else should find something better to worry about than "big tobacco" and those poor emphasima patients. Look at the hipocracy of our people and government. Smoking is perfectly legal for anyone over 18 years old, but the companies aren't allowed to advertise their product on TV, radio or with their choice of mascots (i.e. Joe Camel). That's un-American to do that to a company. It's criminal. Don't believe me? Watch what happens when they finally outlaw smoking. Next to fall will be beer and liquor. Then guns. Then Twinkies. It's happening right now and it makes me ill. Like I said, I don't smoke. I do like beer once in a while, but I don't own a gun and I rarely eat Twinkies. But I know what's right and wrong. And what is happening today is wrong.-- rcornell, Mar 10 2001 The difference between smoking and other legal drugs is that only smokers force others to partake of their harmful byproducts. If smokers did keep their waste in their own homes I'd have no problem but many don't. Many smokers seem to have no problem with lighting up in places clearly marked as no-smoking areas. rcornell might not mind eating in a restaurant that permits smoking but how would he feel if I threw up on his meal? (Tobacco smoke makes me nauseous.) Let tobacco companies keep on selling their product, let them keep advertising it (though hold them to laws regarding false advertising - no claiming it isn't addictive and harmful), let evolution take its course. By all means let smokers kill themselves but please don't let them take me with them. If you drink alcohol but don't smoke why not even the score. If someone lights up in the air you're breathing, urinate on them. It's only fair. rcornell: your example of hypocrisy is faulty. It's legal to do a lot of things you can't legally advertise. Hypocrisy is tobacco being legal while marijuana, heroin, cocaine etc are not.-- sirrobin, Mar 10 2001 its about £4.30 for 20 in the uk-- edski, Mar 10 2001 Unlike most ppl posting here i am a smoker. To ban smoking in public is akin to banning cars, because they do in fact hit innocent bystanders, or banning baseball, because homeruns could be a serious health hazard for passerbys
My business (a computer shop) is located next to a bar. We have drunks wonder in fairly often. This annoys my boss (a non smoker) far more than me lighting up in the building after hours. I would far rather see a ban on serving alcohol in public than on smoking in public. (and yes, drunks can be a health hazard)
Recently (at the begining of this year) smoking in restraunts was outlawed in Oregon. Previously restraunts were allowed to set their own policy. The local Denny's which previously allowed smoking after midnight went from being packed everynight with ppl who just wanted to sit down have some coffee and smoke, to practically empty. Several local coffee shop/restraunts have either closed completely or cut their hours.
Many restraunts had gone to non-smoking before the ban. (i very vaguely remember as a small child ppl smoking in some McDonalds, but i havent seen a smoking allowed McDonalds in over ten years.) This is a choice that should be left in the hands of a business owner. It is a simple matter of economics, if one caters to a predominantly non smoking clientelle, then one's restraunt should remain non-smoking (ex. chucky cheese), if ones clientelle is predominantly smokers, then ones business should be allowed to remain smoking optional. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE SMOKE, DON'T SPEND MONEY THERE. It will make them re-evaluate there policy.
Let the public speak. Let them speak with their $$ spent at businesses. and if you don't like smoke, don't go places where ppl smoke.-- slyphter, May 14 2003 I'm on record saying age restriction between voting age and 21 should be illegal.
A former smoker -- quit after walking down 68 floors after the FIRST WTC bombing.
But for the life of me I don't understand how we treat cigarettes and liquors in one way and everything else in another way.
Do casinos have to run TVs showing Alec Baldwin breaking someone's kneecaps <if you haven't seen The Cooler, see it, it's great>?
Do the car companies have to show rolled over SUVs?
It's nonsensical feeding into a lack of self responsibility and elimination of adulthood.-- theircompetitor, Jan 03 2004 If I were to stand up and announce to a supervisor or boss that, "I'm going outside to loiter and scratch myself for ten minutes, can I get you anything?" I doubt that it would be received with good humour. Maybe it's no significant financial burden, realistically, but it still indicates the anomalous social treatment given to one class of drug addicts.
[theircompetitor] - no, but they should, IMO.-- Detly, Jan 04 2004 Go ahead and smoke like I did for fifty years. The cigarette in one hand, and a drink usually in the other, gave the appearance of adulthood back in the beginning. The cigarettes, at least, became the habit; not the drink. Fortunately, now there are hoses long enough for me to get around my entire apartment while they are attached to my oxygen machine. Toting a small cylindar out in public isn't too great, either. I quit smoking six years ago....too late. I don't miss it. I do miss easy breathing.-- Granny, Jul 29 2004 random, halfbakery