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.
I brought this up over on GD thread but its not going well so maybe I will try it here.
Other than the banning of smoking from enclosed public areas (which I am for) I feel cigarettes are getting unfairly ostracized. If a guy wants to go outside and smoke, why should he have to pay unfair taxes? Some claim its so we do not have to pay for the medical expenses when everyone gets sick from smoking, well I would say Obesity falls under the same category, yet nobody does anything about obesity. Why can we tax cigarettes but leave obese people to get as unhealthy as humanly possible??
But there are people who talk about taxing obesity and junk food. Many of these people just so happen to be anti-smokers as well. Lawyer John Banzhaf (who was the first lawyer to successfully sue a tobacco company) and Dr. Kelly Brownell are two that come to mind.
If you mean get you from Point A to Point B, then yes, mass transit does accomplish the same thing. However, if you mean a car can take you where you actually want to go at the time when you want to go there, well, no, mass transit doesn't accomplish the same thing. And have you ever seen what comes out the rear of a bus?
I have, & it's not fun. However, think of how much more of that comes out of the millions of cars on the road everyday. I'm a big proponent of mass transit because A. I think it's better in the end for the environment, B. better for your wallet since you don't have to spend as much money on gas & car repairs or parking & C. it would just be nice to NOT have to have a car in this day & age. I'd actually like to get rid of my car, I spend $400./month just on car payment & insurance alone. That's just too much for any average person to pay.
From what I can tell from your post, karfar, you are driving your car, so apparently you find the freedom that a car gives you something you like.
Oh I know, I never said that I didn't drive my car. What I was trying to say, is that I would like to NOT drive it so much. Actually, even though I think the bus system here in Milwaukee is not up to par, in all reality, I could get around just fine. It'd take some planning & time, but I could do it. It's the trips up north or to my parents that would REALLY require the car....but I guess, I couldl just rent one at those times. No, I know what you're saying, having a car is nice. But it's also a luxury, at least for me.
Honestly? I agree - poor people shouldn't smoke. I don't think rich people should smoke, either. But have you walked through poor areas of cities? The predominant advertising you will see is for cigarettes ... or is it alcohol? They're #1 and #2 in every poor area I've lived in or gone through. Lottery tickets are big sellers in poor areas, too.
Why not ask why companies who sell unhealthy products advertise heavily in poor neighborhoods?
Oh, and if you are poor - and I have been - and you don't smoke, you will not be "financially secure". You'd be better off, yes, but not secure. I didn't smoke and I was surely not financially secure because of it.
As far as advertising, this will sound cruel, but do you remember what (I hope) your parents always said, about "if your friend jumped off a cliff would you do it too just because he/she did?"
Advertising is just that...advertising. Nobody is forcing you to turn to that. There's a reason I have a strong intolerance for such things and it's the reason I don't buy into the whole "poor have no other choice" arguments that some have posed. And if you take people who smoke 2 packs a day, at ~$10/pack, that's over $7,000 a year! On JUST cigarettes! Defining poor as $0-$20,000 a year income, you can see how that is a hefty chunk of change, and to save it rather than blow it on smokes would result in a better financial situation for absolutely certain.
My brother left home after he turned 21. He was living homeless, no job, literally 100 feet from my parents' house. He could have come home to a warm bed, but chose not to, as he felt he could not abide by the rules which were admittedly overbearing. He had a smoking problem at one time. Time passes, and then nobody can find him. We all look and look, and then one day my uncle, who lives in Ft. Smith Arkansas, calls us and tells us that he's there, living in my great grandparents' old home. No more smoking problem, but he's got a job and is stable. After kicking the smoking he managed to collect enough money to catch a train all the way to Fort Smith, get clothes for an interview, food to carry him, and water turned on in a 125 year old house. Now, he's stable, no smoking, solid job even in this economy, and lives in his own place. All he had to do was stop smoking and will himself to improve.
He was homeless from the moment he left home to the moment he arrived in Arkansas. No job. Don't ask me where he got cash to buy smokes. But the bottom line is, the money he would normally have sent on packs went to a better life for himself. That he could do that is why I am 100% anti-smoking, and don't buy into the PC that people can't stop, or that stopping would not result in a better financial situation. I know better than that; the problem is that most people don't want to exert the effort to improve themselves.
As far as advertising, this will sound cruel, but do you remember what (I hope) your parents always said, about "if your friend jumped off a cliff would you do it too just because he/she did?"
Advertising is just that...advertising. Nobody is forcing you to turn to that. There's a reason I have a strong intolerance for such things and it's the reason I don't buy into the whole "poor have no other choice" arguments that some have posed. And if you take people who smoke 2 packs a day, at ~$10/pack, that's over $7,000 a year! On JUST cigarettes! Defining poor as $0-$20,000 a year income, you can see how that is a hefty chunk of change, and to save it rather than blow it on smokes would result in a better financial situation for absolutely certain.
My brother left home after he turned 21. He was living homeless, no job, literally 100 feet from my parents' house. He could have come home to a warm bed, but chose not to, as he felt he could not abide by the rules which were admittedly overbearing. He had a smoking problem at one time. Time passes, and then nobody can find him. We all look and look, and then one day my uncle, who lives in Ft. Smith Arkansas, calls us and tells us that he's there, living in my great grandparents' old home. No more smoking problem, but he's got a job and is stable. After kicking the smoking he managed to collect enough money to catch a train all the way to Fort Smith, get clothes for an interview, food to carry him, and water turned on in a 125 year old house. Now, he's stable, no smoking, solid job even in this economy, and lives in his own place. All he had to do was stop smoking and will himself to improve.
He was homeless from the moment he left home to the moment he arrived in Arkansas. No job. Don't ask me where he got cash to buy smokes. But the bottom line is, the money he would normally have sent on packs went to a better life for himself. That he could do that is why I am 100% anti-smoking, and don't buy into the PC that people can't stop, or that stopping would not result in a better financial situation. I know better than that; the problem is that most people don't want to exert the effort to improve themselves.
I don't disagree with you that money spent on smoking is money wasted. The bit about advertising, though, is valid. You do know why companies advertise, right? Because it works. And one of the things you will find about people in poverty is that they will allow themselves a vice (sometimes two or three) because they are poor and with few choices. That doesn't mean that I think they are making good choices with their money; i don't. But I do think that advertisers are taking advantage by advertising so heavily in those areas. Why aren't they advertising granola bars and vitamin water? These items don't cost any more.
As far as being 100% against smoking - I am. My father died from lung cancer at 41, and my maternal grandfather died from complications from lung cancer at 89. My mother in law has had a lobe of her lung removed due to lung cancer. They were all heavy smokers - my father, up until the day he was diagnosed. The other two had quit for twenty or more years before they were diagnosed (that's the latency period for smoking-related lung cancers, btw).
ETA - good on your brother! He may not have been emotionally able to live under draconian rule; many aren't. But he did well in the end, and that's the best thing of all.
It is stupid to spell words incorrectly, thus those that spell words incorrectly are stupid.
It is a "play on words", you do know the meaning of the word "to loot" don't you? Well please explain why a it is more correct to call it a lottery that an lootery.
Beside it is usually the small minded without a valid point that choose to attack a spelling error typo, now that is stupid. This is not a Masters Thesis we are submitting here.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,542,607 times
Reputation: 8559
Oh, gawd! I can't believe this is still going on!!!!!!!!!!
Let's just say nobody should ever smoke, drink, wear perfume, drive, listen to loud music, fart, have a zit, wear ugly clothes, talk loudly, spit, swear or scratch themselves in an inappropriate place in public. What have I forgotten?
There are as many Nazis as there are ways to be offended.
If you mean get you from Point A to Point B, then yes, mass transit does accomplish the same thing. However, if you mean a car can take you where you actually want to go at the time when you want to go there, well, no, mass transit doesn't accomplish the same thing. And have you ever seen what comes out the rear of a bus?
And, have you seen what your precious car does to the world, environmentally and politically? All for the sake of YOUR convenience. That's quite selfish if you ask me. I think you should give up your car for the benefit of the rest of us. It's rude, selfish, and inconsiderate to others based on the reasons stated in my previous post. I mean, that's why people should stop smoking in public, right?
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.
