BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Dec 13 - 01:28 AM

Tell you what, Giovanni. If you're driving through the downtown business district and you're distracted because you dropped your burning cigarette between your legs and while you're desperately trying to fish it out, you manage to drive through the show window of a department store, injuring an old lady who was window-shopping at the time, you're liable to find your insurance rates going up a bit.

Hard to blame that on President Obama.

But Songwronger would sure as hell try!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,giovanni
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 03:59 AM

An earlier post suggested that bad drivers should have to pay more too.

JUST HOW SEXIST IS THAT!!!

g

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Dec 13 - 01:34 AM

Apparently, Songwronger, you have been dozing.

Although the Obama Administration has been fairly discreet about it, it has been encouraging the states to pass laws legalizing same-sex marriage. If this became widely accepted, it would be a great encouragement for gays and lesbians to come out of the closet, form stable, monogamous relationships, and get married.

This—despite Akenaton's insistence that gay men want to be promiscuous, contrary to all the evidence. For example, the rush to the alter by gay and lesbian couples in states where same-sex marriage laws have been passed. Apparently, living in Scotland, he doesn't see this and keeps beating the hum-drum that this is not the case. But it IS here in the United States.

And, Songwronger, if you get your information from WND (World Net Daily), no wonder you're as bewildered as you are!! THAT outfit is so far Right that it makes Rush Limbaugh look like a raving Liberal!!

In addition to the regular garbage WND peddles every day, they sell books on the coming apocalypse and how YOU can survive it!   

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Songwronger
Date: 23 Dec 13 - 11:08 PM

OK, I'm officially baffled. We're pretty much in agreement here that smoking is bad for you and those around you. And Obamacare is making smokers pay 50% more for insurance, because it's only right that smokers should have to repay society for medical treatment stemming from their dangerous behavior, blah blah blah. I get all that. So then, why is Obamacare encouraging the spread of HIV/AIDS?

http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/obamacare-jumps-the-shark-with-gay-christmas/

According to this article, the Obama administration is running ads encouraging gay men to sign up for Obamacare. Among the things being sold to gays is lifetime coverage for HIV.

So, what am I missing here? Where is the incentive to stop the spread of HIV? Where is the 50% additional cost for gays? Why is one dangerous behavior being punished while another is being encouraged?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 08:11 PM

Joe, I first became fully aware of how a populace changes when zip codes were installed. Who would have thought - I didn't - that people would accept adding digits to their addresses.

I imagine that people felt the same when electrical outlets became available. "If you think I'm going to pay to have those holes put in MY walls, you're crazy."

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 01:55 AM

I don't generally believe in the power of legislation to make changes in the behavior of the general populace, but the laws laying heavy taxes on smoking and limiting places where people can smoke, have been very effective.

It's really amazing to see how the culture of smoking has changed in the U.S. since about 1980. I wish the American Affordable Care Act would work so effectively.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 01:45 AM

Akenaton, Keith, Jim and Musket will be along to take over shortly............

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 01:28 AM

You are just hilarious.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Songwronger
Date: 09 Dec 13 - 12:19 AM

Congrats to those who have quit smoking. Good luck to those who want to.

Seems that people here generally go along with the government line of fuck those who can't get out of the way. I still can't sign on to that. It's the Hitler mentality. Don't like it.

But I can understand the reasoning behind making those who engage in unsound physical behaviors pay more, so society won't have to foot so much of the bill.

And seeing as that is how so many of you think, maybe we should look at some other behaviors that cause financial problems for society.

There's overeating, but that's been done to death. Cities are already adding "fat taxes" to various foods around the U.S., but what about some sort of HIV tax?

I saw some figures at this CDC site that are pretty sobering. The Centers for Disease Control, a government site. From the site:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young MSM (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all MSM....

Damn. If I'm reading that right, then society is having to pay a hell of a cost for gay men spreading HIV. So, shouldn't gays have to at least pay more for health insurance? Maybe they do, I don't know. Smokers pay 50% more under the new Obamacare policies, so do gays pay more too? It would only be right that they do, right? Because of their physically dangerous behavior? Based on how you people want to punish smokers, you should want to punish gays too, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 01:43 PM

I'm in, as long as he smokes 'em in deep space. Preferrably in the vicinity of a black hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Jack Campin
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 01:07 PM

Please can we all club together to buy Songwronger 20 packs a day on condition he smokes them all?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: MikeL2
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 09:45 AM

Hi

I lost my voice through other peoples' smoking.

Although I had never smoked I contacted Throat Cancer. All the Medics I saw told me to " stop smoking immediately". When I explained that I had never smoked they said that I had a throat that looked as if I had smoked extremely heavily for many years.

Being in the music game I played most of my time in smoky pubs, clubs and bars.

So I say the price of tobacco is far too small !!

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 07:32 AM

They always touted them as 'mild' "I'd walk a mile for a mild, mild Camel, they're so mild they suit you to a 'T'."

We always used to regard Camel as the only cigarettes with a picture of the factory on the packet front.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 07:30 AM

certain herbal substances mixed with tobacco occasionally

Call a constable, somebody! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 07:23 AM

I was lucky enough to be able to stop, after many failed attempts, pretty easily around 15 years ago. I don't know the why's and wherefores but I effectively decided to convince myself that I was a non-smoker! Daft as it sounds it did seem to work. Like Steve I used every type of tobacco available but my main one was Golden Virginia in Rizla liquorice papers. Funny thing is, I am still convinced that while tobacco is harmful, the effects of 'raw' tobacco never seemed as bad a pre-made cigarettes.

Anyway, I did smoke a few times after becoming a non-smoker and, yes, I do know how daft that sounds. But even if I had a few cigars when on holiday or certain herbal substances mixed with tobacco occasionally, I never once felt the need to continue doing so afterwards. The last time I smoked was nearly two years ago when I had about 6 Mehari Sweet Orient cigars out of a pack of 10 at a lads weekend away. I just binned the rest. Time before that was probably the previous year. So over the last fifteen or so years I have probably smoked on a dozen or so occasions and not at all for the last two.

All this means is that I have been on both sides of the fence so to speak. I think the high tax is right if it does help people stop or even not start. Quite a big if though. It is far from a simple question and does not therefore have a simple answer. I am more concerned at the moment with the proposed taxation on 'e-cigarettes'. It seems very unfair to tax what may be some peoples only chance to rid themselves of the habit. OK - They are still getting nicotine but non of the other harmful substances in cigarette smoke. Maybe there should be tax incentives to get people to switch? Maybe we need to help make the addiction safer? Just a thought.

Cough

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 07:15 AM

For a start, if at least 80% of your diet isn't made up of raw veg/fruit/nuts/seeds your not doing things correctly!

Fine, but don't expect me to travel with you in a lift.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 06:22 AM

Re Steve's point that one is a fool ever to start: in my youth it was a social expectation to smoke; not that non-smokers were actually discriminated against, but it was thought maybe just a a bit eccentric, & a bit wimpish, not to. Hence the hell so many of us had to give up ~~ because we didn't know. But today's young people do know what it does to them; & some will still do it. Nothing so distresses me as to see a young person smoking. Now, they really are idiots.

I am sure I have retailed here before the story of my father: once towards the end of his life in the 1970s, well after the tobacco-cancer·&c link was well established, going on once about young people & rock music. "I saw some interviewed on television; and, when it was pointed out to them that if they went on playing their music at the volume they all do they would finish up deaf, do you know what they said? They said they didn't care!" he concluded in tones of absolute horror -- and took a great long drag on his cigarette...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 05 Dec 13 - 03:52 AM

I'm pretty sure that changing people's diets is as important to saving money in, Uk's case, the national health service, as tackling smoking.
I'm also sure that poor eating habits have a hell of a lot to do with the rise in dementia numbers. And, God knows how much that cost the health service.
I would guess that less than 10% of the UK population are doing the right things concerning diet.
For a start, if at least 80% of your diet isn't made up of raw veg/fruit/nuts/seeds your not doing things correctly!

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:43 PM

As for the tax, if I thought it was to offset the cost of health care for smoking-related illnesses or smoking prevention/cessation programs, it would make sense.

This the penny-in-the-slot correlation that many people make, but, as with most things, it's far more complicated than that. We don't just set up clinics for smokers out of cigarette tax money. We treat smokers in the same hospitals as everyone else. Self-inflicted illnesses such as those caused by smoking don't "pay for themselves", even though smokers raise a lot of revenue, in the sense that they can't provide the extra infrastructure that would allow them to be treated without disadvantaging other (more deserving???) cases. Many smokers, for example, present with life-threatening heart disease which means they don't "take their place in the queue." That's what I'm on about. It is far more complicated than smokers' tax money offsetting what it costs to treat them. Smokers put a strain on the whole system, and that isn't always a question of just money.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:19 PM

And BTW, when I smoked, the cost of smoking wasn't relevant.

As long as cigarettes were legal and I could afford buying them, I would keep smoking. The government seems to be careful not to make the price not be more than people can afford, as long as buying cigarettes is a priority,

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Jeri
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:14 PM

...and again a thread reverts to the lowest common demoninator, the argument people already have a script for.

As for the tax, if I thought it was to offset the cost of health care for smoking-related illnesses or smoking prevention/cessation programs, it would make sense. It doesn't pay for those, or it doesn't in many cases. New Hampshire revenue from the tobacco tax pays for schools. So do my property taxes. Because New Hampshire is "tax free" -- at least it's INCOME tax free. Addicts are often monetarily taken advantage for because of their addiction. SOMEBODY is gonna make money off them. In this case, there's no dealer, so the government gets the dough.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:46 PM

When I smoked tobacco, I gradually moved up to two packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day. I lit one off of the previous one. That was 40 odd years ago.


There was some social enjoyment talking with the "smokers". Beyond that, it was a dependency - I never enjoyed the taste of the cigs , for sure.

I now occasionally enjoy the varied tastes of a good cigar and drink on a warm evening. I never inhale the smoke directly, and have no desire to do so. These cigars are costly- but well worth the price.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:38 PM

Indeed, Steve... overindulgence is always an issue. Myself, I have a sweet tooth, and eat far too many cookies (biscuits?) when they are available. But I tolerate sweets pretty well and don't gain weight... and I drink good beer, some wine, single malt scotch, good liqueurs, the occasional cider... and never abuse them. One.. I can't afford to overdo, and two, I don't LIKE being drunk. I don't think I have been over the legal limit since I was about 30.. and that was one night of warm wine on a porch.

When I first moved to Wash DC for the folk music, there were ashtrays at public singarounds and in pubs, and we used to spend inordinate amounts of time sweeping up discarded butts in grocery stores I worked in..... now there are NONE. It is an amazing change in the life of a guy who grew up in a smoke-filled world.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: kendall
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:03 PM

Smoking cost me my voice and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
At least I never lied to myself by saying I enjoyed it. I smoked to avoid the discomfort of NOT smoking.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:46 PM

You want to grow a crop for your own use? Great. I grow my own spuds, parsley, broccoli, carrots, tomatoes and beans. I don't supply them to anyone else though. Therein lieth the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,Ed T
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:40 PM

Gave tobac up many years ago - as I hacked too much while sleeping and feared for my health.

A related question I have is why should good weed cost so much (it isn't even taxed by the gov't folks, is easy to grow, and it is (or could be) in fairly good supply - if you know the right people, who know the right people, or find your way to a remote wooded location, down a dirt road in northern New Brunswick, entrance watched over by deer-cams, nudge-nudge, say no more)?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:33 PM

That's right, Bill, no denying, but the obstinate bottom line is that fatty fast food and booze puts an awful lot of people in hospital, one way or the other. Debating the relative lack of demerit for one form of indulgence over the other is, well, a bit of a waste of time. Point taken, however. I have a rather large glass of a lovely Spanish Garnacha before me as I type, and it's still midweek... And I could polish off that lump of brie...

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:27 PM

she did it all without the prop of the tobacco

Aye, but she supped an awful lot of malt whisky into the wee small hours.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:26 PM

To reply to some of Steve Shaw's points... wine & beer & Big Macs are not directly harmful in and of themselves. They even have some positive elements, taken in reasonable doses. People do not 'usually' chain-eat Big Macs. Alcoholic beverages ARE abused by many, but doing so is not directly offensive & dangerous to those around. (don't go on about drinking & driving & abusing the wife... I know those problems.)
The point is, tobacco has almost NO virtues and has, as far as I know, no health benefits while it causes many dangers.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 07:25 PM

stop smoking? easy ..just have a little self control, determination and a lot of will power.

Why of course! the professor of cod-philosophy speaketh!

Now I'm one o' them ex-smokers who made it, and (possibly unlike you, tho' I might eat my words if I get to see your smoking history), I happen to know that giving up is a bloody ordeal and a half. The kind of unhelpful bunkum contained in your post is exactly what aspiring giver-upperers don't want to hear. I don't really know what it takes to give up a severely-addictive habit, because what worked for me (5% will-power, 95% the good luck of the missus getting pregnant, plus me being a biology teacher who recognised the evils of passive smoking, plus me having a bad conscience) will not work for most other people. If you smoke, you were an arse for starting smoking in the first place. But you might have been a thirteen-year-old arse subjected to God knows what peer group pressure, etc. (like me for example, fifteen in my case). By the time I was seventeen me mum was borrowing me fags off me fer chrissake. What people need is help and support, not some wanker preaching at them telling them how bloody weak-willed they are. Plus society making it tough to have a fag almost everywhere. Do think outcome, oh Knott-ender.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,troll from knott end
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 04:20 PM

I do enjoy reading about you no nothing, pseudo intellectual nomark ideas about poisoning yourselves,, stop smoking? easy ..just have a little self control, determination and a lot of will power.. the trouble is today is that you all have life to easy.

Nanny state springs to mind..

The late great Dame Thatcher had the right idea..tighten the screw until it hurts,,then turn it once more.and she did it all without the prop of the tobacco..just one strong minded fine lady with a single minded determination to succeed..Don't you just wish she was back with us instead of the pussys running? this country.?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 03:53 PM

Smoking. Darwin in action.

Ever consider, Don, that the reason the world is turning into the shithole it is, overrun with mindless idiots, is that we've been intervening to short-circuit natural selection for far too long?

The eugenecists may have been on to something, after all....

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 02:46 PM

Steve ~~ Good post indeed. Fortunate, though, that we are such a law-abiding society so that non-smo areas are respected. My first wife spent several years lecturing in Chinese universities, and obviously travelled a fair bit to see the country in her leisure time. She invariably found that, if she ever ventured to point to one of the No Smoking signs which were prominently displayed in every railway carriage, she could be sure of a burst of hearty laughter from her fellow travellers.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 02:35 PM

Steve Shaw, I see that you are firmly on both sides of the question. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 02:30 PM

Smoking.

Darwin in action.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 01:45 PM

Er, this isn't so simple really. I speak as an ex-smoker (who'd definitely have been long-dead by now had I not stopped - I was smoking like a maniac. Cigs, pipe - Three Nuns Dark Shag was my favourite ;-) - and cigars, snuff, the lot). I stopped on Feb 21 1978 at 8.05pm. A few weeks later the missus got pregnant with our first, so that kept me going. No tobacco product of any description has passed my lips since that day. I still dream of smoking, half a lifetime on. Giving up was agony for months. I'd tried many times before that. I don't think many non-smokers quite realise how bloody addictive it is. Neither do smokers who haven't seriously tried to give up, say for a month or more.

Whacking up taxes on ciggies (I'd call 'em fags if this was an all-Brit website, of course) is a very blunt instrument. Relatively speaking, it hits poor people much harder than the rich (not unique in that respect, of course, but it still doesn't make it right). I don't necessarily think that the rich deserve to be able to afford to smoke any more than the poor. That's one thing.

Now the health service. Well, it's a very bad thing that the health service gets clogged up with people suffering from illnesses that were in large part avoidable. But, as others have pointed out, smoking-related illness is just one out of many of those. Fast food, ready meals, obesity, lack of exercise, driving too fast and booze also put people in hospital in their droves. The argument "why should the taxpayer pay for these ne'er-do-wells!" is, to say the least, a little thin in the cases of booze and ciggies, at least in the UK, as the government here taxes these things until we squeak. It does very nicely, thank you, out of our bad habits. Less so these days out of smoking, as far fewer people now smoke (but that, in turn, means far less dough spent on treating smoking-treated diseases).

I think we've done quite well (so far) in this country in getting people to stop smoking. There is still a big issue with schoolkids in some areas. I wouldn't deny that draconian levels of tax on smoking must have helped, though a massive amount of baccy-smuggling goes on round here (that's what tax can do for us). But smoking bans in public places - making it really inconvenient for you to have a smoke, a measure that knows no social distinctions - has not only discouraged people from bothering to smoke but has turned the general mindset of the population as a whole against the evil weed. Make 'em stand outside in the cold looking like a right bunch of tits! That's the way to do it, that and making sure we tell the kids every possible smoking horror story available to juice up the horror statistics. I'd like to see the places where smoking is permitted even more tightly defined than now. I don't think anyone should be smoking in the open street or in a moving vehicle of any kind. Designated areas only. People have been prosecuted in the UK for driving whilst holding an apple or a KitKat, so a thing with its end glowing at 900 degrees...?

Those people who so readily advocate taxing cigs (or, rather, smokers, rich and poor) to the hilt, I ask you this: should bottles of wine cost a minimum of thirty quid? Hows about twenty quid for a Big Mac 'n' fries? Beer twelve quid a pint? Pork pies ten quid a shout? Thousand-quid fines for speeding? Hows about fixed-penalty fines for failing to turn up at the gym? Make fatties pay more on trains, boats and planes?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 12:50 PM

Because the thread title deals with smokers.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 12:38 PM

People studiously avoid the question of drinkers, etc. Why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 12:01 PM

Right, SaulGoldie. Rescuing ourselves from ourselves is one of the hallmarks of a civilized society. An analogy might be that we require/encourage life vests on board boats, hard hats on construction sites and on bikers, seat belts in cars, etc. Each of those things cost money to the user but it can't be denied that they are a good idea. Not punishment.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 11:50 AM

saulgoldie: "The bigger question is how far will "we" go to rescue someone from their own actions"

Well, several people have tried to 'rescue' you from posting nonsensical posts...It doesn't seem to work.....might as well take up smoking!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,saulgoldie
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 11:30 AM

Yeah, SW is trolling, sho 'nuf. But the question goes way deeper than just ciggies, booze, meth, or too much food. By the way, if someone in the seat next to me is spilling over into my seat, I'm getting another seat or a refund.

But back to the topic (as I have redefined it). People do all sorts of things that are anywhere from extremely risky to just a little risky. Motorcycle riding, bungee jumping, base jumping, climbing tall mountains during snowy season. By the way, is it worth it to risk rescuers and helicopters at a cost of $$ to search and rescue two mountain climbers when that money could feed 1,000 starving infants for five years or vaccinate 50,000?? Or riding roller coasters, deep water diving, and you can add to the list.

The bigger question is how far will "we" go to rescue someone from their own actions. And by the way, not all smokers get disease, and some NON-smokers get lung cancer. I dunno, not easy answers. But higher prices for booze and ciggies will keep more children from getting the stuff. And that can only be good.

Saul

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 11:29 AM

Don't stop at smoking!
People who drink too much, people who are overweight, and people who eat a unhealthy diet!
Lump them in with the smokers!
God knows how much such people cost the UK National Health Service!

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 09:11 AM

I held my nose and clicked on Wronger's link to Velvetfistironglove and found, not surprisingly, that the website is owned by
Christopher Snowdon who is obviously a shill for the tobacco industry.
Wronger, next time you have to pay 5,10 or 15 bucks for a pack think of it as a surcharge for all the damage smokers have done to non-smokers with 2nd hand smoke and consider yourself getting off cheap.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Charmion
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 08:29 AM

Joe, did she tell you that kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray?

One of the little social challenges of middle age is the problem of holding a conversation with a person afflicted with stinky breath. Gum disease, digestive disorders -- these ailments come to plague us as we age, and naturally add halitosis to our burdens. Put a tobacco habit on top of that, and you've got a real recipe for arm's-length relationships.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 06:31 AM

Smoking costs UK £1.4bn pa in lost work days (2012)
Smoking disease costs NHS £5bn(2005)
annual 'tax take' attributable to tobacco (1990-2012).

It would seem that, in purely monetary terms, smoking gives the UK a net benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 04:20 AM

Prices of $5-$6 for a pack of 20 cigarettes, are in U.S. states that used to be called "tobacco states." Typically, these are mostly southern states where tobacco is grown, and these were the last states to enact any sort of restriction on smoking. I'm supposing the $5 price tag doesn't include much in the way of taxes. A hefty part of New York's $14.50, must be taxes.
I think I've said before that I quit smoking in 1994 because a beautiful woman told me it would improve my love life. It did - but not with her...
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 01:25 AM

I have to pay property tax and state sales tax, for example. What I get in return are little things like sidewalks in front of my apartment building, police protection from burglars and footpads, a fire department, Medic One in case of heart attack or other health emergency, good schools in the area. Gasoline tax on every gallon of gas I put in my car maintains streets and highways. . . .

Taxes are the dues you pay to live in a civilized world.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 13 - 12:44 AM

"That was me. Cookie issues." Frankly, friend, you have more than just cookie issues.

In Alaska, if your dog is 'whole', not neutered or spayed, an annual license costs $25. If he/she is 'fixed' it is $15.

I don't consider it punishment. Just the cost of doing business, you might say.

Subject: RE: BS: Shoulçd smokers have to pay so much?
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 11:45 PM

Godwin's Law was bound to apply sooner or late here, as AH was one of history's most noted anti-smokers ~~ one of the few things I have ever found to agree with him about. I have always enjoyed the aperçu attributed to him: "Cigarettes are the red man's revenge of the white man for gin".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Should smokers have to pay so much?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Dec 13 - 11:35 PM

So toss out the butts and lock up the cookies.

Eat an apple now and then.

(So because you have to ante up to feed your filthy habit, that makes President Obama a Nazi?)

Don Firth