Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right. Anyone can see, driving through the rez, how luxuriously Native Americans live.
Anyone can see that you have no idea how it works. Why do people assume that all NDNs want to live some kind of opulent life? That's a white man thing.
I used to live in the Everglades, and while the Miccosukee out there were not fond of white people, and often times would not even acknowledge white females, I had respect for them. I did not respect all of the drunk driving by some of them, which did kill too many innocent people, but I respected their desire to a private life and their way of life.
The Tiger family lived right across the road from where we worked...they do not live like us white people do. Yes, they have homes, and yes, you'll see brand new big trucks like F-150s or whatever when the money from the casino gets distributed, (and you'll notice they don't come in to town for jobs - because they don't have to - the casino money takes care of them), but HOW they live is still quite different than any white person in a town, city, or suburbs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd trick op
Personally, I have never smoked a conventional cigarette in my life, and had only a very brief flirtation with marijuana (almost forty years ago) so the bill wouldn't affect me.
But the do-gooders, as usual, don't seem to recognize that at some point, the war against cigarettes will simply drive the habit underground. I've seen enough to know that those most addicted will turn to rolling their own, or smuggling. And the failures of previous attempts at a revival of Prohibition, including a 21-year drinking age that doesn't even exempt the military, should stand as testimony that it isn't going to work -- there are just too many ways around the law.
California has just taken another step toward proving that no system of law can survive if it expends too much effort in legislating morality, equality, or security. I can only hope that reason will be allowed to prevail when the effort finally collapses under its own inertia and dead weight.
Correct. Why was Eric Garner standing on a corner selling individual smokes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange
...I choose to smoke pot, and I am fully aware of any risk that I may be taking on in doing so. What doesn't jive with me is the fact that there are a million other pollutants, particulates, and other things spewed into the air we breathe that I, myself have absolutely no control over. I am basically forced against my will to breathe in chemicals that are more than likely much worse for your body than marijuana smoke or even cigarettes for that matter given the fact you are CONSTANTLY inhaling it with every breath. It isn't limited to once every hour, or a few times a day for example. This is why I am very glad that California has dramatically reduced pollution and hope to see it continue to improve.
Anyway, in regards to this tax, I see some are thinking that that it will lead to a prohibition-era styled black market tobacco trade , but I am wondering if this bill is rather to discourage teens and non-smokers from picking up the habit. I am a smoker myself, and this will just be more of an annoyance rather than something that will make me legitimately consider quitting (although I should, but spare the lectures ). Half of today's adult smokers picked up the habit prior to turning 18, and the share jumps to 3/4 who were established, regular smokers by the age of 21. $7-8 a pack for those of us who are mid-20's or older and have more disposable income isn't all that much, but I can imagine that a 17 year old would be less inclined to start smoking given how financially draining it can be spending around $50/week, $200/month, and so on.
You are one of the few who admits that smoking pot is not "safe" like some pretend it is. And you are spot on about all of the other chemicals that we inhale every day - we need to concentrate on that more than we need to concentrate on someone smoking a cigarette...but then that would take away controlling an individual which so many on the left seem to squeal in delight at the mere idea of the opportunity.
As for 17 year olds, do you not remember what it was like? You SHARED. One gets a pack one day, another gets a pack another day. Most 17 year olds are not pack a day smokers. They have plenty to go around, and they know that when they run out, one of their friends will have a pack. Raising the price by $2 isn't going to stop that. The more adults tell kids not to do something, the more kids want to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teckeeee
Glad they are raising the smokes tax but never want the highest because I don't want Eric Garner selling cigs on streets to get around tax.
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shooting4life
Just another example of democrats pushing regressive tax schemes that disproportionately affect minorities.
Hmmm. As much as I detest cigarette smoking and find its legality at least bordering on criminality, and as much as these studies you cite beg very serious continued examination of their implications - strange realities in science continually appear in life. The mere presence of ingredients found to be carcinogenic in other studies doesn't guarantee they will also trigger cancers in this e-cigarette crap. The studies we cited in the posts addressing the issue of whether smoking marijuana risks lung cancer showed that, in spite of the presence of carcinogenic elements in marijuana smoke, the incidence of lung cancer was lower than for the general public - indicating, it would seem, that smoking marijuana actually may have an effect of reducing lung cancer risk. Strange indeed. Begs further study, sure.
But why put anything into your body, especially smoke into your lungs, without some benefit? It seems quite common for humans - and even for many animals - to enjoy some occasional altering of their normal states of perception and physical tension. It's a reasonable trade off as long as the indulgence isn't persistent and doesn't interfere with nominal safety and productivity. But how smoking tobacco has ANY pleasurable benefit while presenting the undeniably known extraordinarily destructive effects, is beyond my comprehension.
You have never smoked a cigarette...it's ridiculous of you to ask such a question. There is definitely a benefit, specifically for those who are just starting out, or for those who only smoke once in awhile. Ask anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette what benefits caused them to keep smoking. Those benefits far outweigh any concern about possible "destructive effects". You do not comprehend nicotine at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
You have forgotten how ignorant some of us were as teenagers, Tule?
As a former pack a day smoker (starting at age 19....how stupid), knowing full well the dangers of smoking but probably believing the old "that won't happen to me" myth, I can tell you benefits: the smell, the taste, the supposed mental boost (actually documented scientifically, due to nicotine), the "relaxing agent," etc, etc. I would have made up benefits back then just to keep smoking. One of the hardest things I ever did was quit, several years later.
I hate the idea of another young person casually picking up the cigarette habit. Maybe if they have to pay $$, they won't.
You can tell him all you want, until a person has actually felt those things, they will not ever comprehend. You can tell that by the ignorant comments, the hateful comments, the holier than thou comments by some non smokers. (Not all non smokers are arrogant, just the majority.)
Also, again, the rise in price will not stop kids - remember, they share that type of stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun
Who financed those studies? Big Tobacco?
Government misses the tax revenues it got from regular cigs. And, if you're from California, you should know California government never misses an opportunity to tax (except for the oddly sacrosanct real property taxes,which are kept artificially low to prop up housing values in a supreme act of crony capitalism) or to ban and then fine. E-cig bans are about raising revenues not health.
E-cig bans are absolutely all about more money towards the government, but don't kid yourself about their "safety":
The fact remains, there's not enough study done on them to conclude one way or another if they are "safe" or "safer" than cigarettes.
Having said that, I completely disagree with any government entity trying to tell me that they are not a good "stop smoking" device. It is because of a disposable e-cig that I quit smoking. I used it when the cravings were bad - took my one hit of nicotine, (and who knows what else), my craving went away, I was able to go on with my life. I only bought one e-cig. It gave 400 puffs, according to the box. I have no idea how many I used before I could say I was "an ex-smoker", but I didn't use the entire thing up. I had tried cold turkey, I had tried the patch, I had tried other alternatives - nothing worked except the e-cig. I don't even smoke the e-cig like some people now smoke e-cigs or vape as a habit. I used it to stop any type of smoking altogether, and for me, it completely and totally worked. So the government and anyone else on this planet, can kiss my backside if they want to have the audacity to tell me "it won't work, you have to do this..." because I am living proof that it does work.
Having said all of that, any time you inhale something in to your lungs besides the air that we breathe...which is disastrous enough, you are causing damage to yourself and your health - cigarettes, e-cigs, vaping pens, marijuana, etc....it all damages your health. But trying to force people to do something has often backfired, yet we never seem to learn from history. About the last person I would want pissed off is someone jonesing for a cigarette...they can get pretty desperate and start doing desperate things. Scientists say it's as addictive as heroin, and if the idiots in this country start treating it that way, don't be surprised when people start doing things for a cigarette as they would for a hit of heroin. Set up your smoke free zones, fine people for littering, and leave them the hell alone to do their thing.
I hate marijuana, and not impressed by anyone who smokes it for funsies, and think it stinks FAR worse than any cigarette....FAR FAR worse....but I am not interested in the government telling people what they can and cannot smoke. I don't believe the government should have any say in it at all - including cigarettes, e-cigs, vaping pens, marijuana, or anything else. Let people do to themselves what they want to do. And before anyone cries about having to pay for those disgusting useless pieces of garbage who smoke, we all have to pay for your health, too - and despite your vegan diet and work outs on a treadmill at the gym, you're not as healthy as you think you are. Most of us aren't no matter how many fad diets we follow and what gym membership we have.
I was very surprised to see so many people smoking cigarettes in San Francisco on my last trip there. In fact, I've never seen so many smokers in a single California city in all my time here. I suppose it was shocking because the Bay Area is often at the forefront of national health movements and trends along with LA and is touted as one of the healthiest regions of the country.
However, outside of the Asian-dominated areas in Orange County, smoking cigarettes is as taboo as it is in Phoenix or Salt Lake City. And in San Diego, forget it! LOL.
I'm surrounded by smokers at my house. No matter which direction the wind blows.
The whole thing is a joke.Ever since Obama got the 2000% tax on loose baccy I buy on the black market and make my own filter smokes for about 45 cents a pack.Free Americans will always beat the Gov remember when they banned alchohol how did that work out?
The whole thing is a joke.Ever since Obama got the 2000% tax on loose baccy I buy on the black market and make my own filter smokes for about 45 cents a pack.Free Americans will always beat the Gov remember when they banned alchohol how did that work out?
Well I, for one, think it's great that you have figured out how to get around the gubmint and decimate your health and destroy yourself on the cheap! Prideworthy achievement! Kudos!
["Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Right. Anyone can see, driving through the rez, how luxuriously Native Americans live."]
Three Wolves In Snow:
Anyone can see that you have no idea how it works. Why do people assume that all NDNs want to live some kind of opulent life? That's a white man thing.
I used to live in the Everglades, and while the Miccosukee out there were not fond of white people, and often times would not even acknowledge white females, I had respect for them. I did not respect all of the drunk driving by some of them, which did kill too many innocent people, but I respected their desire to a private life and their way of life.
The Tiger family lived right across the road from where we worked...they do not live like us white people do. Yes, they have homes, and yes, you'll see brand new big trucks like F-150s or whatever when the money from the casino gets distributed, (and you'll notice they don't come in to town for jobs - because they don't have to - the casino money takes care of them), but HOW they live is still quite different than any white person in a town, city, or suburbs.
Nothing you wrote (above) changes the truth of what I wrote. Zip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
You are one of the few who admits that smoking pot is not "safe" like some pretend it is. And you are spot on about all of the other chemicals that we inhale every day - we need to concentrate on that more than we need to concentrate on someone smoking a cigarette...but then that would take away controlling an individual which so many on the left seem to squeal in delight at the mere idea of the opportunity.
Smoking anything is not safe. Right. Correct. Now then, name the other things "we [all] inhale everyday that kill 500,000 people annually, saying nothing of the other health problems caused. Of course cigarettes are as important to recognize and focus on as other health threats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
You have never smoked a cigarette...it's ridiculous of you to ask such a question. There is definitely a benefit, specifically for those who are just starting out, or for those who only smoke once in awhile. Ask anyone who has ever smoked a cigarette what benefits caused them to keep smoking. Those benefits far outweigh any concern about possible "destructive effects". You do not comprehend nicotine at all.
You have no idea if I have smoked a cigarette in my life. As a matter of fact, I was a smoker for several years in the military when I was young till I wised up. There are NO benefits to smoking, as benefits are sanely defined. Any pleasure derived is simultaneously and perpetually accompanied by self-destruction. Damages from a tobacco habit are not washed away by other healthy compensating behaviors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
You can tell him all you want, until a person has actually felt those things, they will not ever comprehend. You can tell that by the ignorant comments, the hateful comments, the holier than thou comments by some non smokers. (Not all non smokers are arrogant, just the majority.)
I'm not holier than thou. Just smarter, and better disciplined, apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
Having said all of that, any time you inhale something in to your lungs besides the air that we breathe...which is disastrous enough, you are causing damage to yourself and your health - cigarettes, e-cigs, vaping pens, marijuana, etc....it all damages your health. But trying to force people to do something has often backfired, yet we never seem to learn from history.
This is correct. But we're not talking about forcing anyone to do anything except pay a higher rate for their disgusting, stupid, destructive habit - as they impose it on everyone around them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Three Wolves In Snow
I hate marijuana, and not impressed by anyone who smokes it for funsies, and think it stinks FAR worse than any cigarette....FAR FAR worse....but I am not interested in the government telling people what they can and cannot smoke. I don't believe the government should have any say in it at all - including cigarettes, e-cigs, vaping pens, marijuana, or anything else. Let people do to themselves what they want to do. And before anyone cries about having to pay for those disgusting useless pieces of garbage who smoke, we all have to pay for your health, too - and despite your vegan diet and work outs on a treadmill at the gym, you're not as healthy as you think you are. Most of us aren't no matter how many fad diets we follow and what gym membership we have.
You don't really have any basis to make this generalized assumption / accusation about other healthy habits and their outcomes on non-smokers.
Could they raise the taxes on bullets instead - probably deadlier than cigarettes.
No, actually...the number of people who die from smoking is many times those killed by guns. We just don't hear about people who die from smoking on the TV news.
No, actually...the number of people who die from smoking is many times those killed by guns. We just don't hear about people who die from smoking on the TV news.
Yeah. Correct. We are terrified by terrorism - while it is ourselves who are our own worst terrorists by our dumb and weak habits. No other single source of individual destruction in the world comes close to the devastation wreaked by tobacco. Not even close.
Indian casinos pay almost no tax at all. There getting a free ride and the Indians are now all billionaires.
Well a long time ago the government did take all their lands. Lying stealing killing and rounding them up to put them on Reservations. Only to be shafted again and again and again. I have no issue with Indians taking as much as they can financially and not paying any taxes. Hell I wish all Indian tribes would build casinos on their sovereign land. They finally figured out a way to get a piece of the pie and all of the sudden "it's unfair they don't pay taxes". Just like the "prop 13 is unfair get rid of it" crowd. Who has no idea what and how Prop 13 works or how it protects everyone from our greedy Sacramento dirtbag politicians. If you think you have high taxes now wait to see if Prop 13 gets defeated. You'll cry from the shafting you're gonna get. both tenants and homeowners. I guess the government can go back like they did before and try to negotiate/take it all back. For some reason I don't think shiny baubles and pox infested blankets are going to go over as well this time around. And there are plenty of poor Indians on the rez. They aren't all billionaires. That's too bad. They should all get a piece of that pie
The social impact of tobacco use is higher medical costs borne by property owners, as property taxes go to fund the network of County Hospitals which treat the poor and indigent.
The only moral thing to do is to funnel all Tobacco taxes into property tax relief.
Nothing you wrote (above) changes the truth of what I wrote. Zip.
Smoking anything is not safe. Right. Correct. Now then, name the other things "we [all] inhale everyday that kill 500,000 people annually, saying nothing of the other health problems caused. Of course cigarettes are as important to recognize and focus on as other health threats.
You have no idea if I have smoked a cigarette in my life. As a matter of fact, I was a smoker for several years in the military when I was young till I wised up. There are NO benefits to smoking, as benefits are sanely defined. Any pleasure derived is simultaneously and perpetually accompanied by self-destruction. Damages from a tobacco habit are not washed away by other healthy compensating behaviors.
I'm not holier than thou. Just smarter, and better disciplined, apparently.
This is correct. But we're not talking about forcing anyone to do anything except pay a higher rate for their disgusting, stupid, destructive habit - as they impose it on everyone around them.
You don't really have any basis to make this generalized assumption / accusation about other healthy habits and their outcomes on non-smokers.
Oh I most certainly do. There's plenty of medical journals for the "holier than thou" set to read. There's a hell of a lot more to health than "like, I don't meat, don't smoke, and like, workout 13 times a day".
The ones who think they are so healthy are usually rather unhealthy. Feel free to read up on what kills people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but I am wondering if this bill is rather to discourage teens and non-smokers from picking up the habit. I am a smoker myself, and this will just be more of an annoyance rather than something that will make me legitimately consider quitting (although I should, but spare the lectures 
). Half of today's adult smokers picked up the habit prior to turning 18, and the share jumps to 3/4 who were established, regular smokers by the age of 21. $7-8 a pack for those of us who are mid-20's or older and have more disposable income isn't all that much, but I can imagine that a 17 year old would be less inclined to start smoking given how financially draining it can be spending around $50/week, $200/month, and so on.
