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.
One link is an article, the second is a study conducted by a very prominent researcher and Professor in the field over a period of more than 35 years. His methodology was sound. Many of the methodologies used in studies that say the opposite are appallingly bad and misleading. No one ever bother's to scroll down and read the Methodology sections even though that is the most important part of the study. The Government is an organization who has a significant stake in propagating the story that second hand smoke is dangerous and thus, uses that justification as an impetus as to levy more taxes. I would really take a deep look at what studies and the methodologies used therein for their evidence.
I also do not smoke, but I am not a puritan. We are free individuals to dispose of our own bodies how we want. What right does another person have to tell me how I can use my own body if I am not in the process violating one of their liberties? I am not in the process of telling others how to run their own bodies using Government as the enforcement hand levying fines and taxes on people thereby causing more financial hardships and violating basic tenets of individual liberties.
I can't imagine the average American being dropped in 1790. While some things are significantly better (no chattel slavery), many other areas are much much worse (income tax, Federal Reserve/Fiat money, trashed Bill of Rights, 17th Amendment, etc.). The amount of freedom we have today is an illusion and that illusion is being shattered quicker and quicker. I just want to live my life the way I want to so long as I don't violate another's liberties. Why is that so bad? We respect intellectual freedoms (less and less each day, but nonetheless we do). Why not others?
Again though, you're making the socialization point. Whenever you start to socialize other's behaviors, you're on a path to a totalitarian society. I want FREEDOM. I want Lockean property rights. The 'I am paying for you so I get to tell you how to live and if you defy it Government agents will come fine you, and or imprison you', is not so friendly and peaceful. Why can't we all just live and let live?
As far as addicting behaviors, most people have some addictions of some sorts, but an addiction doesn't necessarily have to be debilitating. I always offer my help and assistance to those seeking it, but I try not to impose myself on their lives.
True addictive behavior is subjective. Mine is Chocolate Pecan Buds (See's Candies). But if there is significant studies both medically and environmental that show second hand smoke is detrimental to one's health, I pay attention.
Of course I live in California, where many folks outside (and some within) believe we're all Communist. Well, here, cigarette smoke is banned in most settings. My Condo complex is smoke free! Of course government dictating personal behavior is sticky, but should always come down on the side of reason based on science and the law.
True addictive behavior is subjective. Mine is Chocolate Pecan Buds (See's Candies). But if there is significant studies both medically and environmental that show second hand smoke is detrimental to one's health, I pay attention.
Of course I live in California, where many folks outside (and some within) believe we're all Communist. Well, here, cigarette smoke is banned in most settings. My Condo complex is smoke free! Of course government dictating personal behavior is sticky, but should always come down on the side of reason based on science and the law.
Indeed it is. Wasn't there a poster before who laughed at food as an addictive substance? You ever try to eat just one?
You can pretty much find a study that will say anything you want. Just for ****s and giggles some times I browse EBSCO for contradictory items and it never fails. What is important isn't that a study was conducted and it had a certain outcome - what is important is scientific applications and principles used correctly and conclusions drawn not on hard truths, but probable likelihoods. Hume pretty much shattered the idea that science ever gives truth, and Kant tried to ameliorate it, only partially succeeding though. In other words, most folks ideas of truth and science are wrong. They say Philosophy isn't worth anything, but it really helps if you want to know what truth and knowledge is (epistemology).
We can never really know for certain because there are so many variables that I take every study highly critical and usually err on the side of one thing isn't going to increase your odds of death by such high magnitudes unless it is chronic and excessive (binge drinking for instance) and has easily identifiable causal relationships. You're not going to develop cancer because you inhaled some smoke every now and then from someone 20 feet away from you. (And if you do, it is most likely from another source.) << Hume called this Habit of Association. It is pretty much your basic inductive reasoning problem. (http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume/ you can just cntrl F and then type in habit. It is an interesting read for those who haven't ever come across it before)
Yeah, California is pretty darn un-free. Communist? Nah. Definitely the American hybridization of Corporatism (Fascism) and Socialism though, but hey, if Californians want that, that's their business, just don't bring it upon everyone else in the country. (Feinstein is HORRIBLE almost as bad as Lieberman and Graham)
I agree Government policy should come down to reason. Reason tells us that each individual is free and has self-propriety, which entails inviolable rights such as just property, speech, travel, and trade of said property (your person is property which you own yourself. Prostitution for instance should be legal and unregulated). No Government has authority to violate our persons and property, especially not on the orders of a group of other people (voters).
I guess I am old-styled fashioned liberal (in the classical sense) American.
The problem with this approach, however, is that in order for this tax to be primarily a fund-raiser, it must apply to all, not just some. We cannot go around dictating that certain people with certain habits should be the ones with the responsibility of raising funds without contradicting ourselves at some point. For instance, we cannot place funding responsibilities on smokers because it's an unhealthy habit without doing the same for those who don't exercise and eat junk food
This, of course, has never been the case, even back before we formed the country. Taxes were always selective... luxury goods were a popular category for high taxation on such elective purchases as lace and tea.
And alcohol taxes have been with us since even before the days when George Washington ran the largest distillery in America (which is how he became one of the wealthiest men of his day). Matter of fact, one of the biggest issues with invoking Prohibition was that until then alcohol taxes had furnished about 1/3 of the revenue of the Federal Government, despite the fact that large segments of the population did not drink at all.
If you are a smoker on a tight budget, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to live in a place where exposing co-workers to second-hand smoke is allowed, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to smoke in a restaurant and have everyone smile at the smell of the stinky smoke, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to live in a place where the public encourages unhealthful activities, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to live in a place where you can smoke around children in all places like schools and parks and every beach, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to complain on an anonymous public forum about laws but are too lazy to get involved in the legislative process, then Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
This, of course, has never been the case, even back before we formed the country. Taxes were always selective... luxury goods were a popular category for high taxation on such elective purchases as lace and tea.
And alcohol taxes have been with us since even before the days when George Washington ran the largest distillery in America (which is how he became one of the wealthiest men of his day). Matter of fact, one of the biggest issues with invoking Prohibition was that until then alcohol taxes had furnished about 1/3 of the revenue of the Federal Government, despite the fact that large segments of the population did not drink at all.
In short, that dog won't hunt.
Lest we forget such thing's as Whiskey Rebellion and the American Revolution over such things. Then, as revolutionaries come to find out, the people who come into charge after do the same before it. I think the point he was making is that is isn't ought. What is funny is that ol' Georgy having one of the largest distillery companies benefited from crushing out lots of competitors with the Whiskey tax. Sounds wonderful.
haha I love how you write all that out and no one cares. You work so hard to be on the side of the system and to be PC.. and no one cares. Your comments meaningless. It's just funny.
haha I love how you write all that out and no one cares. You work so hard to be on the side of the system and to be PC.. and no one cares. Your comments meaningless. It's just funny.
I found CyberCity to be quite helpful and friendly so I wouldn't characterize him like that. Honestly though, this thread should be closed since it really doesn't have anything to do with Oahu.
I found CyberCity to be quite helpful and friendly so I wouldn't characterize him like that. Honestly though, this thread should be closed since it really doesn't have anything to do with Oahu.
oh really why because it was subverted? Its about cheap places to buy cigarettes in honolulu. Thanks
oh really why because it was subverted? Its about cheap places to buy cigarettes in honolulu. Thanks
11$ a pack is quite a hefty sum...Too bad it is quite risky having new-comers fly in with cartons full (never know if you're going to get scammed or not). Seems like a great way to make some money, especially since in Florida it's like 5$ usually. This is why this tax to prohibition never works. Where there is money to be made, people will be fulfilling demand.
If you are a smoker on a tight budget, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to live in a place where exposing co-workers to second-hand smoke is allowed, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to smoke in a restaurant and have everyone smile at the smell of the stinky smoke, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to live in a place where the public encourages unhealthful activities, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to live in a place where you can smoke around children in all places like schools and parks and every beach, then moving to Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
If you want to complain on an anonymous public forum about laws but are too lazy to get involved in the legislative process, then Hawaii might not be the choice you want to make.
I love it! Excellent post and I gave you much deserved rep points!
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.
Why can't we all just live and let live? 
But if there is significant studies both medically and environmental that show second hand smoke is detrimental to one's health, I pay attention.
(Feinstein is HORRIBLE almost as bad as Lieberman and Graham)
