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.
"The decision should be totally up to the owner of the business"
If you don't like people smoking, head to establishments that don't allow smoking on premises. If you want to smoke at a restaurant, bar, etc then head over to one that allows smoking. Seems like it would make everyone happy... but there are people out there who love to make other people's decisions for them and micromanage every aspect of our lives. Let people make their own choices.
Deflection..that's a good one..I specifically commented on just a post made by a poster about what a SMOKER does, i didn't say anything about a business. I mean do you not understand English, perhaps? I am no longer going to answer the question of someone that doesn't even have the reading comprehension of a 3rd grader. This is not the first time you have done this before to a poster. I answered your stupid little poll because I was bored, but just like before, you have to argue with people that don't agree with YOUR view..so then why the hell do you put a poll? Just put, I think X and what do you guys think about that ..problem solved...
LMAO Sorry, BS. You are simply ever-more, self-destructing. If you are so super-sensitive you have a problem with having your opinions questioned and/or challenged? Well, you just need to grow up a bit.
Yes, to be fair, you are right that I argue with people who disagree with me. You don't? LOL I try to keep it civil and respectful in disagreement, and at least try to make a point to apologize if I get/got a little "hot" and fail to live up to that standard. In fact, I said to you along the lines of "let's wipe the slate clean" and start anew on the possibility that perhaps there really was a misunderstanding concerning the intent and wording of the poll.
But ponder? You are coming across like a child who is used to having their own way. I hope that is not the way you usually are in your every day dealings with the rest of the world...but that is your choice to make. Also, I hope you are under no delusions that I am in the least impressed with your sophomoric temper-tantrum insults (in fact I am amused -- such as (bolded above, anyway) questioning my reading levels, understanding of the English language, etc.
I spent almost 15 years as a public school teacher all the way from K - 12, and ELA was a large part of it. Do you honestly think I care a lick about what someone who could very easily have been a former student, thinks as concerns my credentials in that regard?
So try to do a little studying and reading -- as other have said as well -- of your own in the area of comprehension. Then join those who are carrying on a mature conversation/debate, even in disagreement.
This poll really gets to the question of freedom in mass society. I read a statistic several years ago (maybe 5, even) that said that there were more people alive on the earth right then in the early 21st century than all the people who had lived before since the beginning of humankind. I mention that statistic because I think it shows that life is very different in a modern mass society than it was when many of our notions of "freedom" were constructed. We live amongst many others, and we are dependent upon each-other for many things. Many of my individual "freedoms" do really impact others in ways that are quite clear in the cold light of day. For instance, when one "chooses" to smoke one also chooses to saddle the rest of society with at least a part of the burden of their healthcare. "Freedom," says the country singer Jim White, "is just a stupid superstition." At the end of the day, I tend to agree.
This poll really gets to the question of freedom in mass society. I read a statistic several years ago (maybe 5, even) that said that there were more people alive on the earth right then in the early 21st century than all the people who had lived before since the beginning of humankind. I mention that statistic because I think it shows that life is very different in a modern mass society than it was when many of our notions of "freedom" were constructed. We live amongst many others, and we are dependent upon each-other for many things. Many of my individual "freedoms" do really impact others in ways that are quite clear in the cold light of day. For instance, when one "chooses" to smoke one also chooses to saddle the rest of society with at least a part of the burden of their healthcare. "Freedom," says the country singer Jim White, "is just a stupid superstition." At the end of the day, I tend to agree.
But on the other hand, jerbear30? Wouldn't it be equally true that those who choose to smoke have shorter life spans than non-smokers; thus saving "society" money in the long run in terms of healthcare?
That is the real issue with the cost/benefit argument. It is a double-edged sword!
This poll really gets to the question of freedom in mass society. I read a statistic several years ago (maybe 5, even) that said that there were more people alive on the earth right then in the early 21st century than all the people who had lived before since the beginning of humankind. I mention that statistic because I think it shows that life is very different in a modern mass society than it was when many of our notions of "freedom" were constructed. We live amongst many others, and we are dependent upon each-other for many things. Many of my individual "freedoms" do really impact others in ways that are quite clear in the cold light of day. For instance, when one "chooses" to smoke one also chooses to saddle the rest of society with at least a part of the burden of their healthcare. "Freedom," says the country singer Jim White, "is just a stupid superstition." At the end of the day, I tend to agree.
Sigh. Almost any choice you make as a consumer affects the rest of us. I'd love to breathe cleaner air but some people love to drive SUVs, use charcoal barbecues, and eat beef and chicken (which produces a LOT of pollution). I can't do anything about that.
If you catch a whiff of cigarette smoke in public, please just suck it up and stop complaining. Seriously. I can understand not wanting to be in a smoky bar, but theatrically waving your hand in front of your face when I'm smoking in a parking lot FAR from any doors? Not cool. Stop it.
"But on the other hand, jerbear30? Wouldn't it be equally true that those who choose to smoke have shorter life spans than non-smokers; thus saving "society" money in the long run in terms of healthcare? "
TR, that's what my own research in the area indicated, even back at a time when cigarette taxes were MUCH lower than they are now (in both counted and real dollars). In recent years research on it over in Europe shows that both the obese and the smokers end up costing the public less in the way of overall health care dollars than the supposedly healthy if one believes the statistics produced about health care costs overall. The various expenses and costs of a "healthy" old age mount up enormously.
"But on the other hand, jerbear30? Wouldn't it be equally true that those who choose to smoke have shorter life spans than non-smokers; thus saving "society" money in the long run in terms of healthcare? "
TR, that's what my own research in the area indicated, even back at a time when cigarette taxes were MUCH lower than they are now (in both counted and real dollars). In recent years research on it over in Europe shows that both the obese and the smokers end up costing the public less in the way of overall health care dollars than the supposedly healthy if one believes the statistics produced about health care costs overall. The various expenses and costs of a "healthy" old age mount up enormously.
Can you cite your research? I can't imagine that this is the case. But if it is, what are the ethical implications of your insight? Are they somehow less about social control than an anti-smoking law? I don't think so. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that it is precisely on the level of social control that we should consider allowing people to get fat and die of lung cancer, since the principle reason you give for it is the cost savings. This is where libertarianism and absurdity become indistinguishable.
Can you cite your research? I can't imagine that this is the case. But if it is, what are the ethical implications of your insight? Are they somehow less about social control than an anti-smoking law? I don't think so. In fact, you seem to be suggesting that it is precisely on the level of social control that we should consider allowing people to get fat and die of lung cancer, since the principle reason you give for it is the cost savings. This is where libertarianism and absurdity become indistinguishable.
Ethical implications? None, other than honesty. Antismokers are the ones who try to use the money argument in this discussion. All I've done is respond on their level.
Social control: I believe people have the right to make their own decisions about their lives without social "nudging" by Big Brother, and the right to be given honest information in making those decisions.
Ethical implications? None, other than honesty. Antismokers are the ones who try to use the money argument in this discussion. All I've done is respond on their level.
Social control: I believe people have the right to make their own decisions about their lives without social "nudging" by Big Brother, and the right to be given honest information in making those decisions.
I enjoyed reading your article; thank you for sharing it. I do have issues with your research, and have found a number of sources contradicting your findings. You'll find a bit of it in the online abstract below (notice too that this abstract in turn links to at least 20 others with similar concerns):
Your citation of the New England Journal of Medicine, which is a preeminent journal, should be taken seriously. It should also be noted, though, that journal uses the terms "may be" and "could" when referring to potential increases in healthcare expenditures over time if all smokers were to quit. This is an indication that the author(s) of the study are in fact uncertain about their own findings. Moreover, the authors don't seem to account for the lifespan differential as a plus factor in the production of money to pay for healthcare. If all workers were to live longer, there would be more workers, after all, and therefore there would not just be be more people consuming healthcare, there would also be more people paying for healthcare. You can't quantify the economic cost of the burden on society of longer life unless you take into account this important factor first.
But beyond these quibbles, the larger issue I wanted to address is the libertarian obsession with "Big Brother," as a destructive force in the life of the "free" individual. The lie of libertarian thought is most certainly this: that governmentality is somehow only limited to governments, themselves. In fact, mass society necessitates governmentality at all levels of public and private life. Tobacco companies, in "offering" their product are not outside of this circuit of knowledge and control but in fact at the heart of it. They do research, they FUND research (I'll bet they funded that Vandy guy you cite), and then they create narratives of coercion, heighten the addictive elements in their products, etc.... In short, they are "watching" the tobacco consumer in an effort to determine what you stubbornly insist on calling his "choice" just as much as any government agency does with the motive to get him to quit. The question is not whether "choice" is possible, but rather which of the various governmentalities, public or private, offers the least destructive alternative. With respect to smoking, I'd say that's the government.
Jerbear, thank you for reading the reference. You'd be surprised how seldom anyone bothers with that sort of thing in these discussions. I note your concern about using the terms "may be" and "could" and fully agree with you. My new book, TobakkoNacht, spends over 150 pages analyzing antismoking studies (which are obviously never funded by tobacco companies with their "no-strings" provisos, but are (sometimes? often?) funded by antismoking grants given by organizations openly devoted to antismoking support and often(?) based on grant proposals promising the "right" sort of results (hard to tell if "often" is correct: antismoking researchers don't like to share that sort of information for obvious reasons), and "may be", "could", "correlated with", "associated with", "up to", etc etc are all classic weasel words used to indicate findings that aren't really there.
I read the abstract you pointed to and have some quibbles with it (e.g. it ignores taxes paid by smokers, it seems to compare "heavy male smokers" with ALL "neversmokers", etc) but without the full study it's hard to know just what games have been played. It's like going into a fortune teller's tent after having exposed dozens of them as fakes, but this time being told I'm not allowed to look behind the curtain or under the table. Well, I might have trouble this time then seeing the tricks involved -- that doesn't mean that they're probably not there. You should see some of my emails with researchers where they're quite happy to share their data for analysis -- until they find out who I am: at that point the offer is withdrawn and communication cut off. The last thing they want is for their details to be examined in a critical way and exposed to the public.
I wouldn't put much faith in a tobacco-funded study either, if all I had access to was an abstract. Of the dozens of studies I "dissect" in TobakkoNacht I believe I read the full studies as well as all the publicly available peer-reviews, commentaries, criticisms and defenses in virtually every case before making my analyses. And they all uncovered hidden levers under the tables and funny little men pulling switches behind the curtains in the corners.
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.
-- such as (bolded above, anyway) questioning my reading levels, understanding of the English language, etc. 
Smoking costs & taxes
