More Second Hand Smoke Scare Tactics....

[spookyturtle 9,466]

You're just happy about the raw buttsecks.

:lol: That will take away a lot of worry. Boing.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well you gotta die of something and I really don't care what you die of or how you get it. I think we should ban cigarettes as a tax protest. Paul...think of the billions in taxes it would deny the government!

They'll make it up with the taxes they want to put on 'sugary' beverages..... Even though HFCS is not 'sugary'

[Amby 490]

I have asthma because my dad smoked in the house when I was little. I know someone who never smoked and died from lung cancer. My grandfather died from emphysema, he never smoked but his wife smoked in the house.

Secondhand smoke is horrible for people. Just because smokers choose to inhale smoke doesn't mean everyone else wants to breathe it in. People can have all sorts of vices and addictions that are bad for them, but smoking negatively affects the health of non smokers as well.

[SuperDuper! 230]

:lol: That will take away a lot of worry. Boing.

Don't involve me in this, The great one is speaking to you, as usual.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nazi references?

Stop being such a drama queen, Paul.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

They'll make it up with the taxes they want to put on 'sugary' beverages..... Even though HFCS is not 'sugary'

Paul...the Repubs go about this all wrong. You cannot argue about made up science with people that don't like smoking. What the Republicans need to do is propose that cigarettes be BANNED and then watch as the Dems go into convulsions at the thought of losing billions in tax revenue from tabacco. All these studies amount to, for Dems, is another excuse for a tax. As soon as their revenue source is threatened they will be exposed for the phonies they are, they will fight for the continuance of tabacco products.

Cigarettes are like illegal aliens, the politicians have their use for them. The sooner we expose that for what it is, the sooner this nonsense comes to a halt.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Gary and Alla

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I have asthma because my dad smoked in the house when I was little. I know someone who never smoked and died from lung cancer. My grandfather died from emphysema, he never smoked but his wife smoked in the house.

Secondhand smoke is horrible for people. Just because smokers choose to inhale smoke doesn't mean everyone else wants to breathe it in. People can have all sorts of vices and addictions that are bad for them, but smoking negatively affects the health of non smokers as well.

And those things should be handled within people's homes/private property and businesses. NOT by government. How does a TAX prevent your father from smoking in the house?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And those things should be handled within people's homes/private property and businesses. NOT by government. How does a TAX prevent your father from smoking in the house?

It's intended to discourage people from smoking without imposing anything on what people do in their homes. Deal with it.

[Amby 490]

And those things should be handled within people's homes/private property and businesses. NOT by government. How does a TAX prevent your father from smoking in the house?

I didn't say anything about the tax. It was just my personal experience on how harmful secondhand smoke actually is. I don't care if you smoke yourself to death but if you're killing non smokers along the way and arguing the whole time that secondhand smoke isn't harmful just cos you enjoy smoking, then you're an azzhole.

[peejay 327]

Paul...the Repubs go about this all wrong. You cannot argue about made up science with people that don't like smoking. What the Republicans need to do is propose that cigarettes be BANNED and then watch as the Dems go into convulsions at the thought of losing billions in tax revenue from tabacco. All these studies amount to, for Dems, is another excuse for a tax. As soon as their revenue source is threatened they will be exposed for the phonies they are, they will fight for the continuance of tabacco products.

Cigarettes are like illegal aliens, the politicians have their use for them. The sooner we expose that for what it is, the sooner this nonsense comes to a halt.

The same goes for the loony Left's big push to legalize marijuana. They disguise it as some sort of a moral crusade to end the victimization of persecuted dope smokers and sick people that need it for so-called "medicinal" purposes (while pushing to tax the hell out of the sh*t). And at the same time demonizing the smoking of tobacco (while pushing to further tax the hell out of the sh*t). Yes..."phonies" and charlatans is an appropriate term to describe these people.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I didn't say anything about the tax. It was just my personal experience on how harmful secondhand smoke actually is. I don't care if you smoke yourself to death but if you're killing non smokers along the way and arguing the whole time that secondhand smoke isn't harmful just cos you enjoy smoking, then you're an azzhole.

Yep.

I think it's pathetic for people to deny the effects of their own harmful behaviours just to justify their doing them

[spookyturtle 9,466]

Are the pro smokers here arguing that smoking and second hand smoke aren't harmful or are you against taxes on tobacco products?

[SuperDuper! 230]

Paul...the Repubs go about this all wrong. You cannot argue about made up science with people that don't like smoking. What the Republicans need to do is propose that cigarettes be BANNED and then watch as the Dems go into convulsions at the thought of losing billions in tax revenue from tabacco. All these studies amount to, for Dems, is another excuse for a tax. As soon as their revenue source is threatened they will be exposed for the phonies they are, they will fight for the continuance of tabacco products.

Cigarettes are like illegal aliens, the politicians have their use for them. The sooner we expose that for what it is, the sooner this nonsense comes to a halt.

Gary, what have YOU been smoking. Whaddaya mean Repubs don't like smoking?! The Dems don't have a lock on the smoking ya know....

[scandal 951]

The same goes for the loony Left's big push to legalize marijuana. They disguise it as some sort of a moral crusade to end the victimization of persecuted dope smokers and sick people that need it for so-called "medicinal" purposes (while pushing to tax the hell out of the sh*t). And at the same time demonizing the smoking of tobacco (while pushing to further tax the hell out of the sh*t). Yes..."phonies" and charlatans is an appropriate term to describe these people.

I'm trying to see the loony aspect of this? Actually, I think there is a very defensible and consistent position one can take on both pot and tobacco that would treat them virtually identically.

It starts by recognizing that pot is really no more harmful than tobacco. No more - and really no less.

So, the civil libertarian individual-rights guy in me says both should be legal. Government should not be banning an criminalizing personal behavior individual behavior. Criminalizing pot possession is just wrong, and it should be decriminalized.

However, there are serious health consequences to both tobacco and pot. So, we want to do several things.

First - restrict its access only to those 18 or older. It should still be illegal to sell to kids under 18. That is perfectly consistent with civil liberties on the one hand, and government playing a legitimate role in public health and safety.

Second - recognize that pot impairs alertness and concentration. Being high and driving is just as dangerous as being drunk and driving. Strict "no toking" rules should be imposed on driving, with DUI penalties applying.

Third - there is a public health cost to inhaling smoke. Whether its tobacco smoke or marijuana smoke. So efforts to defray this public health cost - in the form of imposed taxes and regulating smoking in public places (second hand smoke) are good policy and fair play. They should be applied to all forms of smoke. Smoking a joint in a restaurant or bar should be banned, just as smoking a cigarette there should be banned. Or shopping mall, or office, or any public place.

Finally - the pot industry is based on illegal growers and distributors. Gangs and criminals have filled an economic vacuum since there is no legal supply/demand market. By decriminalizing pot we'll enable a legal industry that can be regulated, taxed, and subjected to inspections and regulations. That would decrease violence, increase government revenues, stop wasteful prosecutions and police efforts and jail sentences, and improve the quality and consistency of the product Americans choose to smoke. It might even decrease the final street price. A regulated and taxed legal joint in all likelihood will cost less than an illegal street joint which has the markups and distribution costs of gangs and mobs built into it.

Civil Liberties. Public Health. Public Finances. Winding down a criminal industry. Stopping the hypocritical and ineffective war on drugs.

Win. Win. Win. Win. Win.

[DEDixon 39]

I have asthma because my dad smoked in the house when I was little. I know someone who never smoked and died from lung cancer. My grandfather died from emphysema, he never smoked but his wife smoked in the house.

Secondhand smoke is horrible for people. Just because smokers choose to inhale smoke doesn't mean everyone else wants to breathe it in. People can have all sorts of vices and addictions that are bad for them, but smoking negatively affects the health of non smokers as well.

how do you know your asthma came from your dad's smoking? you may have it regardless of your dad's smoking. many people have asthma and were not ever subjected to second hand smoke.

the person that died from lung cancer but never smoked. there is no way to attribute this to second hand smoke.... it would be guessing.

same thing with your grandfather's emphysema, there is no way to attribute it to second hand smoke... it would be guessing.