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.
That's true, and I repped you for a posting that displays such common sense. Unfortunately, theory doesn't quite keep pace with reality. There always seem to be problems implementing a "Why can't we all just get along?" policy.
No argument there, but the question arises as to why? Why were the Hatfields and McCoys so upset with each other? Do we all think that the Hatfields and McCoys were good role models for us to follow? It isn't just theory. Problems really don't get resolved in the real world if people start out with the attitude that in reality, problems can't be resolved. Can either smokers or non-smokers claim to have been properly respectful and considerate of those in the other group? Certainly not on the basis of what has been posted in this thread. How about we fix that first. We are all capable of asking ourselves, "What would I sound like if I were actually being respectful and considerate of others and their interests in this discussion?" And if we all then said just those things, maybe we could make some progress with each other.
Which is exactly my argument. When government owns the healthcare process,it does own Medicaid and Medicare, those are the costs I'e mentioned, so it does own a stake in your behavior. then it has a stake in my behavior. It's not a very far step to telling me how to live my life. Heck, it would be to the nation's benefit if we all read an improving book every month, but would you really want the government to dictate that as well?that has nothing to do with health problems in millions of the citizentry through 2nd hand smoke and or 1st hand smoking that the government has to subsidize through its health care programs. And as far as costs are concerned, I'd imagine that alcohol causes far more economic harm than tobacco.Probably does, was banned, then re-instated in the constitution. Which is why I am not at all in favor of actually banning the product. I think marijuana should also be allowed. Are you going to disallow that as well? nope
Now as far as 'consequences' are concerned, that's a word that's fraught with mischief. What are the consequences? Second-hand smoke? That's reasonable. So let's ban smoking in offices, elevators, restaurants, theaters, airliners, and other enclosed public spaces. we have and do whenever possible. Some states aren't on board yet but will eventually be.
But beyond that, what are the consequences? Are you going to ban smoking in someone's private home?never, I would fight on the smokers rights in that case. Some officious people have tried to do that in a few cities and have been shouted down by lots of people, many of whom were non-smokers.
In short, where do your rights stop and the smokers' rights begin?
I think we've covered that. In short, your own private vehicle and home and in the outdoors away from the populace.
We can't ban smoking for health reasons. Taxes from cigarette sales fund children's healthcare.
Only part of the tobacco excise tax goes to support S-CHIP. Those revenues do not fully fund the program or even the most recent expansion of it. Total revenues from the tobacco excise tax are in the range of $10-15 billion per year. The government could easily afford to ban tobacco if it chose to and obtain equivalent revenue with tiny tinkerings elsewhere. It would prefer, however, that Americans simply decide for themselves to quit, or better yet, never to start smoking at all.
Only part of the tobacco excise tax goes to support S-CHIP. Those revenues do not fully fund the program or even the most recent expansion of it. Total revenues from the tobacco excise tax are in the range of $10-15 billion per year. The government could easily afford to ban tobacco if it chose to and obtain equivalent revenue with tiny tinkerings elsewhere. It would prefer, however, that Americans simply decide for themselves to quit, or better yet, never to start smoking at all.
Of course, but why would it choose to? That's the problem. It's a cash cow for them. They could take it out of the NEA. It is kind of ironic, though. The Gov't will not like to have to go looking for funds to replace those funds that it's getting now, otherwise this would have been made illeagal a long time ago since it is so hazardous. If asbestos had been taxed as much, we'd still be using it. They haven't because they don't want to. Just sayin'.
No argument there, but the question arises as to why? Why were the Hatfields and McCoys so upset with each other? Do we all think that the Hatfields and McCoys were good role models for us to follow? It isn't just theory. Problems really don't get resolved in the real world if people start out with the attitude that in reality, problems can't be resolved. Can either smokers or non-smokers claim to have been properly respectful and considerate of those in the other group? Certainly not on the basis of what has been posted in this thread. How about we fix that first. We are all capable of asking ourselves, "What would I sound like if I were actually being respectful and considerate of others and their interests in this discussion?" And if we all then said just those things, maybe we could make some progress with each other.
It is kind of tough in practice more than in theory. I just put up with smoking politely, on many occasions. Then later, I'd suggest they cut back in a nice way, once it was known to be bad for people's health. Getting along is not always easy. At least as a family group, if they all stood together, company could either not come or suffer without a cigarette. They'd know that our family is completely off cigarettes, then they other family might get the hint out of respect if they invited us.
Fortunately, a lot more people have cut back or quit altogether. I can feel at ease. I'm at the point now where I won't put up with it at all.
It is kind of tough in practice more than in theory. I just put up with smoking politely, on many occasions. Then later, I'd suggest they cut back in a nice way, once it was known to be bad for people's health. Getting along is not always easy. At least as a family group, if they all stood together, company could either not come or suffer without a cigarette. They'd know that our family is completely off cigarettes, then they other family might get the hint out of respect if they invited us.
Do you believe it is more respectful and considerate to expect other families to live up to your smoke-free standards in their own homes and lives or for you to understand that there are households that include smokers in the world and adjust your own behavior accordingly? Suppose a couple that included a smoker was good friends with a couple that included a smoke-allergic person (suppose also that there actually is such a thing). Should they stop seeing each other and come to consider that their one-time friends were actually unworthy people as the result of their practices and attitudes? Or should they continue to socialize, but only at the non-smokers house with the smoker always stepping outside or away to smoke as necessary and the smoking couple picking up extra tabs at dinners or events in order to help even out the costs and burdens a little?
Well, I've given up all the "wisdom, opinion, heartbreaking stories and clever retorts" that I could come up with as a former smoker...and being that I'm a non-smoker and not addicted to this particular thread....I shall leave you all to it and see you around the forum..... to quote my sister, also a former smoker..."you don't love to smoke....you have to smoke". Bye all.
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.
Well,
