Something that bugs me about Prop 56 (Tobacco/E-cigarette tax) (Oakland: homes, living in)

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by ambient

Because when they get cancer from it, they're going to come demanding health care and invariably pass on costs to the rest of society.

But where does this line of thinking end? Shall we tax condoms to pay for kids on welfare?

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by NoMoreSnowForMe

The cost of a cigarette never influences someone's decision to try their first cigarette. Did you ever smoke?

Yes; I started at age 19.

Do you remember when and what the circumstances were? Was anyone discussing the cost of cigarettes?

Yes, and yes. We could barely afford the pack (I didn't buy them; my friend did).

Nope.

Were you there?

The cost won't stop someone from starting to smoke.

Do you read anything posted on here? You just keep posting your opinion over and over.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

Do you read anything posted on here? You just keep posting your opinion over and over.

...

[VLWH]

Originally Posted by CA4Now

But we haven't eradicated smoking yet. Anything to keep young people from picking up the habit. And anything the tobacco industry is against, I'm for.

"Proposition 56 would get us within spitting distance of wiping out smoking in California completely."
— Anti-smoking expert Stanton A. Glantz, UC San Francisco

The tobacco industry's deceitful Prop 56 campaign takes a page from its old playbook - LA Times

Without knowing where the money net is going? Nice.

[04kL4nD]

I voted yes. I also voted yes on the soda tax in Oakland, and I also voted yes on legalizing/regulating marijuana. To be frank, I'm tired of my insurance premiums rising because of smokers, and since I've lost several family members to lung cancer and emphysema, and I wouldn't mind at all if cigarettes went away altogether. FWIW, I used to smoke about a pack and half a day when I was a young, stupid teenager up until my early twenties. It took me a while to quit, and I'm ashamed to admit I was a ever a smoker, but it's one of the most harmful things you can do to your body and those around you. I personally wouldn't mind if a similar tax was levied on alcohol either. I drink, but California booze prices are ridiculously low compared to other parts of the country, so I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for a vice I enjoy.

To those who would say I'm a hypocrite for voting yes on this tax, and voting yes on legalized marijuana, I beg to differ. People should have a right to do whatever they want to their bodies in their own homes, but if it's going to cost society to clean up after them when they have bad side effects or their behaviors effect other people negatively (obesity/diabetes, second hand smoke, drunk/stoned driving, etc), that's when I say: if your vices matter to you so much, you might as well kick in some extra cash so you can enjoy them, while the rest of us are less burdened by your personal choices. We can argue about where the tax money should go (I prefer to specific causes, rather than just the general fund), but I'd rather that money at least come from someone else's personal vice fund than anywhere else.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by VLWH

Without knowing where the money net is going? Nice.

See post #38.

[CA4Now]

Originally Posted by shooting4life

Why not let people make a decision for themselves about what they put into their body without the government influencing the decision?

Right. While we're at it, let's remove ingredient labels from packaged foods and abolish the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) of 1967. Let people decide on their own what's inside that stuff they purchase.

[NoMoreSnowForMe]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I voted yes. I also voted yes on the soda tax in Oakland, and I also voted yes on legalizing/regulating marijuana. To be frank, I'm tired of my insurance premiums rising because of smokers, and since I've lost several family members to lung cancer and emphysema, and I wouldn't mind at all if cigarettes went away altogether. FWIW, I used to smoke about a pack and half a day when I was a young, stupid teenager up until my early twenties. It took me a while to quit, and I'm ashamed to admit I was a ever a smoker, but it's one of the most harmful things you can do to your body and those around you. I personally wouldn't mind if a similar tax was levied on alcohol either. I drink, but California booze prices are ridiculously low compared to other parts of the country, so I wouldn't mind paying a bit extra for a vice I enjoy.

To those who would say I'm a hypocrite for voting yes on this tax, and voting yes on legalized marijuana, I beg to differ. People should have a right to do whatever they want to their bodies in their own homes, but if it's going to cost society to clean up after them when they have bad side effects or their behaviors effect other people negatively (obesity/diabetes, second hand smoke, drunk/stoned driving, etc), that's when I say: if your vices matter to you so much, you might as well kick in some extra cash so you can enjoy them, while the rest of us are less burdened by your personal choices. We can argue about where the tax money should go (I prefer to specific causes, rather than just the general fund), but I'd rather that money at least come from someone else's personal vice fund than anywhere else.

I really don't see the logic in voting against tobacco, because it causes lung cancer, but voting yes to pot, which also causes lung cancer.

[04kL4nD]

You really need to brush on basic science/facts and learn the difference between both substances- it's pretty obvious you haven't done a lot of research on the topic. Tobacco causes many types of cancer (lung, throat, mouth, cervical), COPD/emphysema, it contributes to heart disease and increases the risk of heart attack, it can lead to pregnancy complications and it also promotes tooth/gum disease. Roughly 1/3 of smokers die from the side effects of smoking.

As for comparing the harmful effects of pot smoke vs cigarettes:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11...-lungs-tobacco
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389
Pot vs. Tobacco: Which Is The True Cancer Risk?*|*Marc Davis

I'm not saying firing up joints 24/7 is good for your lungs, but not everyone smokes that way. Many people vaporize, use water pipes, or consume it by eating edibles.

You are trying to equate the harms of both substances, but they aren't equally harmful to the human body- not even close. Marijuana has plenty of legitimate medical uses, while I can't think of a single reason a doctor would ever prescribe someone a cigarette. Lung cancer is just one of many harmful side effects of tobacco, which is why I think that if you're either dumb or stubborn enough to continue smoking, you should pay more for that "luxury".

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

You really need to brush on basic science/facts and learn the difference between both substances- it's pretty obvious you haven't done a lot of research on the topic. Tobacco causes many types of cancer (lung, throat, mouth, cervical), COPD/emphysema, it contributes to heart disease and increases the risk of heart attack, it can lead to pregnancy complications and it also promotes tooth/gum disease. Roughly 1/3 of smokers die from the side effects of smoking.

As for comparing the harmful effects of pot smoke vs cigarettes:

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/01/11...-lungs-tobacco
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17035389
Pot vs. Tobacco: Which Is The True Cancer Risk?*|*Marc Davis

I'm not saying firing up joints 24/7 is good for your lungs, but not everyone smokes that way. Many people vaporize, use water pipes, or consume it by eating edibles.

You are trying to equate the harms of both substances, but they aren't equally harmful to the human body- not even close. Marijuana has plenty of legitimate medical uses, while I can't think of a single reason a doctor would ever prescribe someone a cigarette. Lung cancer is just one of many harmful side effects of tobacco, which is why I think that if you're either dumb or stubborn enough to continue smoking, you should pay more for that "luxury".

100% correct. There is absolutely zero proof of pot causing lung cancer. There are allegations of that, based on correlations that some of the chemicals found in marijuana are also in tobacco cigarettes. But the evidence to the contrary is extensive. Strong academic studies dispute the correlations translate to causations. I won't bother posting a list of medical studies to support my claim here - unless someone wants to challenge me. I'm completely ready.

In fact, there are studies that indicate that marijuana actually kills lung cancer cells specifically. Yes, really. Peer-reviewed medical studies. I am not arguing it defeats lung cancer. Just saying.