Even though I think smokers are lower than a snake's belly in a wagon wheel rut

please try to avoid trotting out the same tired old truisms you've seen on TV.

Why is it that Ephedra is blamed for the death of some athlete and is banned within months but cigarettes are blamed for thousands a year but are never banned?

Why is that exactly? I hear this kind of rhetoric a lot, but nobody ever actually explains the thinking, if any, behind it. Oh, and please try to avoid trotting out the same tired old truisms you've seen on TV.

Why is it that Ephedra is blamed for the death of some athlete and is banned within months but cigarettes are blamed for thousands a year but are never banned?

Why is that exactly? I hear this kind of rhetoric a lot, but nobody ever actually explains the thinking, if any, behind it. Oh, and please try to avoid trotting out the same tired old truisms you've seen on TV.

Addicted to Tobacco Taxes


Written By: Robert A. Levy
Published In: Health Care News
Publication Date: November 1, 2002
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arizona’s politicians can’t make up their minds about tobacco.

When Arizona sued the cigarette makers in 1996, the state minced no words in describing the pernicious effects of smoking: “Tobacco products are not only addictive, they are abnormally dangerous and unfit for human use. Tobacco products kill, maim, and injure virtually all who use them.”

Reading that, any rational person would have to conclude the state would criminalize cigarettes. Evidently, consistency and logic take a back seat when big bucks are at stake.

Instead, the “cash-cow” coalition signed a national settlement that protected the profits of the tobacco giants so they can be milked periodically to replenish depleted state coffers.

Now that same coalition is promoting Proposition 303, a statewide referendum on the November ballot to increase Arizona’s cigarette tax from 58 cents to $1.18 per pack—the nation’s fifth highest rate. The goal of 303 is to pay for a laundry list of programs, like expanded health insurance and funding for trauma centers. Those programs, desirable or not, are mostly unrelated to tobacco prevention.

If taxpayers want more health insurance and trauma centers, let all the taxpayers—not just smokers—foot the bill. Indeed, cigarette surcharges are brutally regressive. They represent a wealth transfer from generally poor smokers to more affluent non-smokers.

Roughly 60 percent of tobacco taxes are paid by smokers with annual incomes under $40,000. Furthermore, federal and state cigarette taxes already generate far more than smoking-related costs paid out of the public purse. The contrast between tax receipts and public costs is mind-boggling.

In 1995, Arizona’s excise taxes were 58 cents per pack. According to Harvard economist Kip Viscusi, the state spent 1.12 cents per pack on tobacco-related medical care, and lost 1.55 cents per pack in payroll taxes due to smokers’ early mortality.

Thus, the 58 cents per pack excise tax was more than 20 times the combined tobacco-related cost to the state of 2.67 cents. In short, smokers have more than paid their way.

That reminds me, has anyone seen that Truth.com ad that says there is uranium in cigarettes?

Come on now, that cannot be true.

In the United States, where chemical fertilizer use is more prevalent, the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research reports that polonium in American dairy and meat products expose human organs to radiation levels equivalent to tobacco use.

In short, because they do things you don't like.

Welcome to the real world. Not very nice, is it?

Cigarettes and their associated harms are worse than that, though. Pollution and littering are two problems that distinguish them from simply being an annoyance, like for example you.

So, one in 800 deaths in the US is attributed to secondhand smoke.

Scary :shock:

One in three personal-care products has at least one ingredient classified as a possible carcinogen. And one in 100 has ingredients certified by the U.S. government as known or probable causers of cancer.
That's according to a study of the labels of 7,500 hair, skin and tooth care products, makeup, baby oils and shaving aids by the Environmental Working Group, a research organization.

Examples cited include the hormone progesterone, a possible carcinogen, that appears in sunscreen, moisturizers and foundation makeup. And benzyl violet 4B, used as a colorant, is a known carcinogen. It is found in nail ......

They have an interesting add campaign here in Canada

Ah, but there's the murky waters of thedouble-standard again, right?

Cigarettes cause harm so you want to ban them. But then if that's the criterion, you're going to have to ban a lot of other stuff too - cars, fatty foods, heavy industry, nuclear power... oooh, just about everything in fact.

I feel very strongly that use of any substance; whether it be drugs, alcohol or cigarettes should be the decision of an adult, but I also feel that most of these things, including cigarettes, should be enjoyed at home. By smoking in a public place you are subjecting others to your habit. When drinking you are not forcing those around you to also feel the effects of the drink.

Hey unabonger, you drive a car by chance? Well you should ride a bike, because the smell of your car bothers me.
We live in a place where is normal to drive a 6 wheel drive 3.0 SUV and you bother me about "the smoke you have to pass trough while getting to your car"?
But give mr a fkg break!

It's like a soldier during an attack worried about blisters while RPGs are flying.

LOL!

But the people hurt or killed by drunk drivers certainly feel "the effects of the drink".

Easy, lizard. Take a smoke break. Out by the dumpster please. We already addressed the distinctions between using a polluting vehicle for transportation, and smoking.

Easy, lizard. Take a smoke break. Out by the dumpster please. We already addressed the distinctions between using a polluting vehicle for transportation, and smoking.

If you have trouble distinguishing the differences, you need a something stronger than nicotine to make it through your existence.

And why would you argue that one harm is ok because we allow another one? That's like saying soldiers should never worry about blisters because they might get blown up by an RPG. You moron, of course they can worry about blisters too. Quit using one bad behaviour to justify another one!



LOL Indeed.

UB