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.
First off I will say that I am a smoker. However, the things I am about to type would be the same even it I weren't.
First I do not think it is right to tax something that only some people use. I think it would be much more beneficial to tax something that everyone uses to help pay for the things that everyone needs. Now if they needed to make money to make cigarettes then by all means tax cigaretts, but as my home state did years ago, don't tax cigarettes to help pay for new bridges that everyone is going to drive. The reason why more people aren't upset about this is because not everyone smokes so that makes it ok. What if they doubled the price of bottled water?
My husband once told me that he almost didn't talk to me when we met because I smoked. I laughed at him, because my smoking does not change who I am. I can get behind a wheel of a car and not be risking killing myself or others by having a couple of cigarettes before I drive. I don't fail to pay the electricity or the rent so I can get my next pack. Someone lights up next to you and you don't like the smell, either A. move to a different location or B. let them know that it bothers you.
everyone and I mean everyone has an addiction of some kind. Though most will not admit it. Whether it be smoking, drinking, gambling, sex, shopping, eating, I could go on and on and on. But then again we are a world of hypocrites.
First off I will say that I am a smoker. However, the things I am about to type would be the same even it I weren't.
First I do not think it is right to tax something that only some people use. I think it would be much more beneficial to tax something that everyone uses to help pay for the things that everyone needs. Now if they needed to make money to make cigarettes then by all means tax cigaretts, but as my home state did years ago, don't tax cigarettes to help pay for new bridges that everyone is going to drive. The reason why more people aren't upset about this is because not everyone smokes so that makes it ok. What if they doubled the price of bottled water?
My husband once told me that he almost didn't talk to me when we met because I smoked. I laughed at him, because my smoking does not change who I am. I can get behind a wheel of a car and not be risking killing myself or others by having a couple of cigarettes before I drive. I don't fail to pay the electricity or the rent so I can get my next pack. Someone lights up next to you and you don't like the smell, either A. move to a different location or B. let them know that it bothers you.
everyone and I mean everyone has an addiction of some kind. Though most will not admit it. Whether it be smoking, drinking, gambling, sex, shopping, eating, I could go on and on and on. But then again we are a world of hypocrites.
True, but most addictions are not inflicted on innocent bystanders nor do they cause harm to others.
If you lose or spend all your money or choose to dig your grave with your teeth, it's no skin off my honkus. When you light up nearby, I am forced to breathe the smoke.
Would it be OK with you if someone chewed tobacco and spit on the street in front of you where you were walking?
What freedom does a non-smoker have when a smoker lights up next to them? Why is the freedom to smoke more important than a non-smoker's freedom to breathe air free of second hand smoke? Whose freedoms are we protecting anyways?
The freedom to move away? If a restaurant allows smoking, the freedom to choose another. If no non-smoking restaurants exist, the freedom to start your own and make a non-smoking a requirement.
Now lets look at it from the other side. The smoker is not allowed to smoke, so they do not get a choice. Restaurants are dictated that they must be non-smoking, so again the smoker has no choice, no ability to choose, no freedom.
The smoker isn't dictating to you your freedoms, you though are dictating to them theirs. There is no condition to you, but you place a condition on them. Do you not see the difference?
Honestly, nobody is saying you must stay and be a part of the things that annoy or irritate you, but the fact that you do not get your way when you do make a choice is not an infringement on your freedom, it is merely a fact of adult life. Sometimes, when we do things we want to do, the conditions will not always be catering to our specific needs. We have the choice to either deal with it or leave, but we always have that choice. When you stop having that choice, then I will support your position on this.
The same way it impacts the lives of relatives of a driver who "might" get in an accident. Or the way it "might" affect people who cross the street, ride roller coasters, etc.. I guess they're being selfish for taking risks of their life for enjoyment. I guess they should avoid everything so that people don't have to experience pain or loss.
You really do not understand "relative risk". Go take a statistics course.
The freedom to move away? If a restaurant allows smoking, the freedom to choose another. If no non-smoking restaurants exist, the freedom to start your own and make a non-smoking a requirement.
Now lets look at it from the other side. The smoker is not allowed to smoke, so they do not get a choice. Restaurants are dictated that they must be non-smoking, so again the smoker has no choice, no ability to choose, no freedom.
The smoker isn't dictating to you your freedoms, you though are dictating to them theirs. There is no condition to you, but you place a condition on them. Do you not see the difference?
Honestly, nobody is saying you must stay and be a part of the things that annoy or irritate you, but the fact that you do not get your way when you do make a choice is not an infringement on your freedom, it is merely a fact of adult life. Sometimes, when we do things we want to do, the conditions will not always be catering to our specific needs. We have the choice to either deal with it or leave, but we always have that choice. When you stop having that choice, then I will support your position on this.
So if I'm in a strange town (for example) and I'm hungry, and all the restaurants are smoking, I should go start up my own? Right!
You seem to not see that this is a public health issue, not one of these highly vaunted "choice", "freedom" issues that smokers like to argue with.
So if I'm in a strange town (for example) and I'm hungry, and all the restaurants are smoking, I should go start up my own? Right!
You seem to not see that this is a public health issue, not one of these highly vaunted "choice", "freedom" issues that smokers like to argue with.
So you're good with freedom as long as YOU agree with it right? OBTW, it seems there's a plan in the works to start taxing soda next in an attempt to fight obesity... Yep, gotta love the nanny state.
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.
