JHZR2
Staff member
BTW, the president, plenty of actors, entertainers, hippies, etc., etc. smoke.
Smokers, we're getting $crewed again......
- Thread starter Schmoe
- Start date
- Status
So what?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,793
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
BTW, the president, plenty of actors, entertainers, hippies, etc., etc. smoke.
This clearly proves that they deserve to be actors, entertainers, hippies ..and etc.
BTW, the president, plenty of actors, entertainers, hippies, etc., etc. smoke.
This clearly proves that they deserve to be actors, entertainers, hippies ..and etc.
Originally Posted By: Julian
So smoking is cool Mark, duh! You're not un-cool, ARE YOU?
Anyone who tries to be cool cannot possibly be.
So smoking is cool Mark, duh! You're not un-cool, ARE YOU?
Anyone who tries to be cool cannot possibly be.
"Addiction needs a sacrifice."
Contemplate it upon the tree of woe....
Originally Posted By: XS650
Before smoking was regulated the stench of cigarette smoke permeated life anytime you were in a public place or a business.
And like everything that certain members of government touch, the legislation went overboard to where now you can't smoke in places like bars and restaurants. You want a non-smoking section? Fine. You want the whole building to be non-smoking? Not cool. I'll draw a line on this corner of the room with my Lucky Strike marker, and if you don't want to breath my smoke don't cross it, you big baby.
Quote:
A large share of smokers were inconsiderate jerks.
Alcohol can be a serious problem, but you weren't surrounded by inconsiderate drunks from dawn to dusk.
Yes, and I love it when those belligerent smokers get smoke drunk and vomit on my carpet, or get smoked and cross the center line into my vehicle head on at 90 mph in a school zone. Or when you can't walk into a bar without those smoked college kids, smoked out of their minds from smoking 12 tall Marlboro Reds pick a fist fight with you for no reason. Yes, smoking truly is as big of a nuisance as alcohol. And then you woke up.
Quote:
If people insisted oin getting drunk in every public place and every business, then there would be restrictions on alcohol too.
Oh, I forgot, there are severe restrictions on where you can consume alcohol. In many cases more severe restrictions than on smoking.
As I pointed out before, your argument holds no weight. Smoking and drinking are two different "vices", and neither of them are comparable except in that they both contribute to the decline in health of the user (based on popular public opinion). The same could be said of any pastime, [censored] if you drink too much water you'll die from that too.
This is a clearcut case of the government taxing something that they already tax to death. It shows the greed and hypocrisy of those that enacted the law. The Prez doesn't care if RYO tobacco goes up from three dollars a pouch to thirty three dollars, as he doesn't use it. He likewise doesn't care if his Newports go up an extra six dollars a pack, as he can afford it. The other fat cats don't want to outrageously tax cigar vendors to death, as they generally enjoy a good hand-rolled stogie every now and then. But those cursed, rotten, vile cigarette smokers that care nothing about the people around them that they're not hurting (look it up, second hand smoke leading to cancer is a myth supported by no independent study whatsoever), let's tax them unfairly to pay for healthcare for children of parents that can afford it elsewhere.
Yes, it truly is a rich mans world.
Before smoking was regulated the stench of cigarette smoke permeated life anytime you were in a public place or a business.
And like everything that certain members of government touch, the legislation went overboard to where now you can't smoke in places like bars and restaurants. You want a non-smoking section? Fine. You want the whole building to be non-smoking? Not cool. I'll draw a line on this corner of the room with my Lucky Strike marker, and if you don't want to breath my smoke don't cross it, you big baby.
Quote:
A large share of smokers were inconsiderate jerks.
Alcohol can be a serious problem, but you weren't surrounded by inconsiderate drunks from dawn to dusk.
Yes, and I love it when those belligerent smokers get smoke drunk and vomit on my carpet, or get smoked and cross the center line into my vehicle head on at 90 mph in a school zone. Or when you can't walk into a bar without those smoked college kids, smoked out of their minds from smoking 12 tall Marlboro Reds pick a fist fight with you for no reason. Yes, smoking truly is as big of a nuisance as alcohol. And then you woke up.
Quote:
If people insisted oin getting drunk in every public place and every business, then there would be restrictions on alcohol too.
Oh, I forgot, there are severe restrictions on where you can consume alcohol. In many cases more severe restrictions than on smoking.
As I pointed out before, your argument holds no weight. Smoking and drinking are two different "vices", and neither of them are comparable except in that they both contribute to the decline in health of the user (based on popular public opinion). The same could be said of any pastime, [censored] if you drink too much water you'll die from that too.
This is a clearcut case of the government taxing something that they already tax to death. It shows the greed and hypocrisy of those that enacted the law. The Prez doesn't care if RYO tobacco goes up from three dollars a pouch to thirty three dollars, as he doesn't use it. He likewise doesn't care if his Newports go up an extra six dollars a pack, as he can afford it. The other fat cats don't want to outrageously tax cigar vendors to death, as they generally enjoy a good hand-rolled stogie every now and then. But those cursed, rotten, vile cigarette smokers that care nothing about the people around them that they're not hurting (look it up, second hand smoke leading to cancer is a myth supported by no independent study whatsoever), let's tax them unfairly to pay for healthcare for children of parents that can afford it elsewhere.
Yes, it truly is a rich mans world.
" You want a non-smoking section? Fine. You want the whole building to be non-smoking? Not cool. I'll draw a line on this corner of the room with my Lucky Strike marker, and if you don't want to breath my smoke don't cross it, you big baby. "
No, you have it backwards. If you don't want to smoke outside the building, you should have "Smoking Rooms", which don't allow smoke to leave the room and bother people who shouldn't have to breathe smoke in public places if they don't want to.
After all, you can't really contain your smoke in your corner of the room, can you?
No, you have it backwards. If you don't want to smoke outside the building, you should have "Smoking Rooms", which don't allow smoke to leave the room and bother people who shouldn't have to breathe smoke in public places if they don't want to.
After all, you can't really contain your smoke in your corner of the room, can you?
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: MarkC
So what?
So What? So let's see...
The thread is about how the terrible government is imposing taxes on the poor, who statistically smoke more. Meanwhile, the most prominent government person, as well as LOTS of supporters of this government smoke. Ironic?
So what?
So What? So let's see...
The thread is about how the terrible government is imposing taxes on the poor, who statistically smoke more. Meanwhile, the most prominent government person, as well as LOTS of supporters of this government smoke. Ironic?
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
This is a clearcut case of the government taxing something that they already tax to death. It shows the greed and hypocrisy of those that enacted the law. The Prez doesn't care if RYO tobacco goes up from three dollars a pouch to thirty three dollars, as he doesn't use it. He likewise doesn't care if his Newports go up an extra six dollars a pack, as he can afford it. The other fat cats don't want to outrageously tax cigar vendors to death, as they generally enjoy a good hand-rolled stogie every now and then. But those cursed, rotten, vile cigarette smokers that care nothing about the people around them that they're not hurting (look it up, second hand smoke leading to cancer is a myth supported by no independent study whatsoever), let's tax them unfairly to pay for healthcare for children of parents that can afford it elsewhere.
Yes, it truly is a rich mans world.
You're right... they may not care because they can afford it. If you cannot afford the taxes, frankly, you probably cannot afford a lot of other things, and should not be smoking at all.
Save for your retirement instead... That $365-$2000 habit can buy a lot of stuff if youre truly poor...
Fiscal responsibility is why they can afford it. Pure and simple... If youre not at the point where you can afford it without blinking an eyelash, then dont smoke.
Its just that you think you "deserve" to smoke, just like people "deserve" oversized purses, BMWs and mcmansions...
This is a clearcut case of the government taxing something that they already tax to death. It shows the greed and hypocrisy of those that enacted the law. The Prez doesn't care if RYO tobacco goes up from three dollars a pouch to thirty three dollars, as he doesn't use it. He likewise doesn't care if his Newports go up an extra six dollars a pack, as he can afford it. The other fat cats don't want to outrageously tax cigar vendors to death, as they generally enjoy a good hand-rolled stogie every now and then. But those cursed, rotten, vile cigarette smokers that care nothing about the people around them that they're not hurting (look it up, second hand smoke leading to cancer is a myth supported by no independent study whatsoever), let's tax them unfairly to pay for healthcare for children of parents that can afford it elsewhere.
Yes, it truly is a rich mans world.
You're right... they may not care because they can afford it. If you cannot afford the taxes, frankly, you probably cannot afford a lot of other things, and should not be smoking at all.
Save for your retirement instead... That $365-$2000 habit can buy a lot of stuff if youre truly poor...
Fiscal responsibility is why they can afford it. Pure and simple... If youre not at the point where you can afford it without blinking an eyelash, then dont smoke.
Its just that you think you "deserve" to smoke, just like people "deserve" oversized purses, BMWs and mcmansions...
Originally Posted By: MarkC
If you don't want to smoke outside the building
~1yr ago, new Canadian legislation was enacted that made smoking illegal outside building entrances. At my place of employment, they've setup a tent in the parking lot. Soon the smokers will have to be shipped 50 miles out of the city limits to have a smoke.
If you don't want to smoke outside the building
~1yr ago, new Canadian legislation was enacted that made smoking illegal outside building entrances. At my place of employment, they've setup a tent in the parking lot. Soon the smokers will have to be shipped 50 miles out of the city limits to have a smoke.
Quote:
Its just that you think you "deserve" to smoke, just like people "deserve" oversized purses, BMWs and mcmansions...
I do deserve to do it, and I deserve to be able to do it without getting hit with a burdensome and unfair tax. Do you recall the Boston Tea Party, by any chance?
Its just that you think you "deserve" to smoke, just like people "deserve" oversized purses, BMWs and mcmansions...
I do deserve to do it, and I deserve to be able to do it without getting hit with a burdensome and unfair tax. Do you recall the Boston Tea Party, by any chance?
I did not vote for the politicians,I would bet lots of smokers voted for the tax raisers.
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: MarkC
So what?
So What? So let's see...
The thread is about how the terrible government is imposing taxes on the poor, who statistically smoke more. Meanwhile, the most prominent government person, as well as LOTS of supporters of this government smoke. Ironic?
So one thing has nothing to do with another, and no, it isn't ironic.
Originally Posted By: MarkC
So what?
So What? So let's see...
The thread is about how the terrible government is imposing taxes on the poor, who statistically smoke more. Meanwhile, the most prominent government person, as well as LOTS of supporters of this government smoke. Ironic?
So one thing has nothing to do with another, and no, it isn't ironic.
Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
Quote:
Its just that you think you "deserve" to smoke, just like people "deserve" oversized purses, BMWs and mcmansions...
I do deserve to do it, and I deserve to be able to do it without getting hit with a burdensome and unfair tax. Do you recall the Boston Tea Party, by any chance?
Please explain how you deserve to smoke. I don't think I deserve to have a rum and coke, or a smoke, or really any such nonessential thing.
Quote:
Its just that you think you "deserve" to smoke, just like people "deserve" oversized purses, BMWs and mcmansions...
I do deserve to do it, and I deserve to be able to do it without getting hit with a burdensome and unfair tax. Do you recall the Boston Tea Party, by any chance?
Please explain how you deserve to smoke. I don't think I deserve to have a rum and coke, or a smoke, or really any such nonessential thing.
If I can afford it, and it's legal, and I want it, why don't I deserve to have it?
Think about the connotation of the word deserve. A spoiled child does not deserve a new toy. A millionaire does not deserve to win the lottery. You're telling me that if I don't deserve the right to buy tobacco products and not be taxed unfairly, then I must have done something that precludes me from receiving what I'm perfectly entitled to.
This is something that is becoming the standard outlook in this country in regards to personal freedoms. If you personally don't like guns, porn, beer, cigarettes, or fill in the blank- no one else deserves the right to enjoy them either.
How would you feel if I told you that you don't deserve to own a Subaru, much less two? Wouldn't it sound stupid and egotistical?
Think about the connotation of the word deserve. A spoiled child does not deserve a new toy. A millionaire does not deserve to win the lottery. You're telling me that if I don't deserve the right to buy tobacco products and not be taxed unfairly, then I must have done something that precludes me from receiving what I'm perfectly entitled to.
This is something that is becoming the standard outlook in this country in regards to personal freedoms. If you personally don't like guns, porn, beer, cigarettes, or fill in the blank- no one else deserves the right to enjoy them either.
How would you feel if I told you that you don't deserve to own a Subaru, much less two? Wouldn't it sound stupid and egotistical?
- Status
Similar threads
