Smokers, we're getting $crewed again......

[01rangerxl]

Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker

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.



It isn't becoming the standard outlook, it has been for a long time. It just took longer to have an impact on tobacco users.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
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.


..but I think your tune will change when something you want to do ..and do routinely, gets taxed. Right now there is nothing that you do that is penalized beyond your ability to afford it.

When that changes, I expect you to whine like the most stuck of stuck pigs. You'll say that it's unfair ..and that you've always lived within your means and "deserve" to continue with your modest distraction unencumbered with having to pay for (fill in the blank of some demonized "group" that you're excluded from) and that it's a crime against YOU.

That about it in honest self evaluation??

 

[Hollow]

Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
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?

I'll answer the rest when I'm through with homework. But first, I think you misread my sig. 1996 Totaled. No more. No longer own. 2003 replaced it. So I don't own two Subarus. And no, I don't deserve to have a car in the first place. I have the privilege of owning a tool that makes my life easier by allowing me increased mobility.

 

[Gary Allan]

Well, what, if anything, do you deserve? Most could sensibly argue "whatever you have" under the notion that if you didn't deserve it, you wouldn't have it. This gets clouded in the mitigating circumstances of our complicated existence.

I'd say that it's more accurate to say that you deserve what you have (rights, economic mobility, toys, distractions) until someone figures a way to take them from you ..either actively or passively.

 

[Beehive_Poker]

Originally Posted By: HollowEyes
I think you misread my sig. 1996 Totaled. No more. No longer own. 2003 replaced it. So I don't own two Subarus. And no, I don't deserve to have a car in the first place. I have the privilege of owning a tool that makes my life easier by allowing me increased mobility.


What I meant was, do you deserve to have owned two Subarus?

And why don't you deserve to own a vehicle? What did you do to render obsolete the inalienable American right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? If your Subaru, present or past model, contributed in any way to your pursuit of happiness, then by all means you deserve it under the ideals set forth under the Declaration of Independence of this beautiful, sovereign nation. And don't let me, your neighbor, or your governing body tell you otherwise. To do so would be patently un-American, and offensive to anyone that has ever called themselves a Patriot.

You deserve your Subaru, just as I deserve the right to smoke unfiltered Camels, and your son deserves the right to play the X-Box, and your neighbor deserves the right to collect model trains. These activities are all legal, and by golly so is the right to tell people what you think they deserve and don't deserve. But when the Guvment starts unfairly taxing my preferred happiness pursuit, and the Guvment starts telling me I don't deserve to be happy, well that's where we have a problem. That's something they don't have the right to do.

 

[Schmoe]

But you know, the tobacco tax isn't done yet. The FDA will soon get involved and then there is the internet sales tax that is pending a vote. Some states, mine included, will not allow UPS or Fedex deliver tobacco or tobacco related products to your home. We have to use USPS priority mail. There is another bill in place that will ban USPS from shipping tobacco products period. So we're constantly getting beat to death. Is that right? Seriously, think of some other vices you may have and enjoy....then Gov. steps in and either taxes you to death on it or somehow makes it illegal for you to get the stuff in the first place. Now stop and think....what's next? You don't think gun control is next? I didn't vote for him.

 

[cven]

+1

It amazes me that some people think taxing stuff out of reach for your own good is a great idea, soon only rich people will be able to live their life the way they want and the average Joe can live like others see fit.

This whole "I don't approve or like something so lets tax it out of normal peoples lives is CRAZY"!

Wake up people!!

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
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.



I deserve to not have to smell the filthy stench coming from your cigarette then!

Your guns, beer, and porn don't affect me. If I'm sitting in a restaurant and you're chain smoking Lucky Strikes, it certainly affects me.

If you want to pay for lung cancer in your own home, then by god, have at it.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker




neither of them are comparable except in that they both contribute to the decline in health of the user (based on popular public opinion).


What? So all the empirical evidence and medical studies that show you your tenfold likely to get lung cancer from smoking, and you're more likely to get cancer and have liver and organ decline/problems from drinking...that's just popular opinion and not fact?

 

[Beehive_Poker]

Drew, if you're sitting in the non-smoking section of your restaurant and someone is sitting in a smoking section, why would the smell of cigarettes effect you? That's why there's two separate sections. If the set up is not to your liking, then don't eat there. If I'm going to spend around forty dollars on a meal for two, then I choose a restaurant that has an adequate smoking section, and not one that makes you sit at a bar like a bad boy being forced to be a dunce.

Alcohol and tobacco use in moderation will not contribute to long term health defects. Nicotine and tobacco are no more harmful than a can of Pepsi. The mass produced cigarettes that get an industrial dose of poison sprayed on them by the companies that produce them are what gives you cancer. What's funny is that the "healthy" tobacco that is sold to the RYO crowd that is smart enough to tell the difference gets the biggest tax hike- from 1.10 a pound to now almost thirty dollars a pound, effectively pushing health conscious tobacco users closer to buying the stuff that will more than likely give them long term health defects.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
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.



I deserve to not have to smell the filthy stench coming from your cigarette then!

Your guns, beer, and porn don't affect me. If I'm sitting in a restaurant and you're chain smoking Lucky Strikes, it certainly affects me.

If you want to pay for lung cancer in your own home, then by god, have at it.

So what was the problem leaving the choice to the owners of those restaurants and the customers? You've always had the choice not to patronize a business that allows smoking.

Instead, you've decided you deserve to not smell smoke and that's more of a right that my right to smoke, or the property owners right to operate his business.

It's certainly not about some minimum level of air quality in public places or we would have seen people pushing for indoor air quality laws instead of blanket smoking bans.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: MarkC
" 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?



But I did this, in my private office, at substantial expense so that if I wanted to enjoy a cigar in my property I could do so, at no inconvenience to others.

My state banned smoking in buildings of public accomodation anyway. ***? It's my property - since when do people that have no investment in my property get to dictate to me what I do in it?

If potential customers don't like the way I do things, then good riddance and they can go somewhere else with their business that better suits them, it won't hurt my feelings.

This used to be a free country - it's rapidly becoming a country of know it all sissy hand wringers.

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
why would the smell of cigarettes effect you? That's why there's two separate sections. If the set up is not to your liking, then don't eat there. If I'm going to spend around forty dollars on a meal for two, then I choose a restaurant that has an adequate smoking section, and not one that makes you sit at a bar like a bad boy being forced to be a dunce.


There's this thing call diffusion. Smoke doesn't just stay in your little corner of the restaurant. It affects me because I don't like the stench. Would you like it if I sat next to you in a restaurant and started singing karaoke very loud because I deserve to be able to sing?

Before smoking bans, there was no such thing as a smoke free restaurant. If some of the restaurants I like to eat at were smoke free by the choice of their owners, I'd gladly eat there.

 

[Schmoe]

so, your equating "stench," or smell, to cancer? Maybe your kimchi dish could have the same affect on me..........

 

[Drew99GT]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
so, your equating "stench," or smell, to cancer?


No, but to deny that smoke isn't carcinogenic, even when inhaled from chemical free tobacco, is ludicrous. I think my grandfather, who died at 63 from smoking chemical free tobacco, would agree!

I have NO problem what-so-ever with smoking, as long as it's done in your personal space. When it affects everyone else, then it's an issue.

Like I said, if you want to pay for cancer in the privacy of your home or vehicle, then puff away.

 

[Drew99GT]

Oh, and by the way, funding S-Chip by taxing smokers IMO is ridiculous. If it's an equally shared program, we all should be taxed to pay for it - if one believes in such a program, of which I'm sure there's few here!

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan

..but I think your tune will change when something you want to do ..and do routinely, gets taxed. Right now there is nothing that you do that is penalized beyond your ability to afford it.

When that changes, I expect you to whine like the most stuck of stuck pigs. You'll say that it's unfair ..and that you've always lived within your means and "deserve" to continue with your modest distraction unencumbered with having to pay for (fill in the blank of some demonized "group" that you're excluded from) and that it's a crime against YOU.

That about it in honest self evaluation??


Maybe, maybe not... I'd love to buy diesels besides my 81 240D which is a garage queen.

Id love new ones - a jetta TDI wagon and a BMW 335D, maybe an MB e320CDI, even just a honda accord diesel or subaru diesel. Id take them used too (since new is $$$$), I'd love to have diesels. But the bad, bad government taxes them to death...

What is worse, they put a tax which is meant to account for the wear and tear that 18 wheelers put on the road, onto me, a four wheeler. Is that unfair? Is it unfair that diesel, a product that historically has been less than gasoline is now a dollar a gallon more? Is it fair that they mandate ULSD, which has huge capital costs and drives diesel prices higher (mandating ULSD, which costs $$$ to produce, is effectively an environmental tax).

Well, maybe I deserve mobility - after all, that probably falls under "Liberty" or "Persuit of Happiness". However, I find the taxation unfair, and find that it negates much of the economical advantage of diesels. Do I have to get around? In reality, yes. Do I have to drive a diesel? no. Do I "deserve" to drive a diesel? I dont deserve anything.

The reality is that nobody deserves to do anything. There are rights - life liberty and the persuit of happiness, or call them what you want. I don't deny them.

However, liberty and the persuit of happiness can only practically be performed to the point of which one can afford them. Nobody is denied liberty because they can't afford a car... nobody is denied liberty because they can't afford to smoke.

Is it unfair that tobacco or cigarettes are taxed? Perhaps... especially if they are the main way to fund certain insurance programs as Drew alluded to.

Is it unfair for cigarettes to be taxed to pay for statistically higher healthcare costs? Not really.

So again, if you can afford to pay the full bill for the habit, fine. The masses have spoken, given the situation of LOTS of anti-smoking rules everywhere. Smokers can protest like crazy any vote against the non-smoking politicians if they like. Majority rules, and we have to deal with it.

So, again, I frankly don't care if it is a "tax on the poor". Again, if people are poor, they shouldnt smoke. Smoking is an optional actvity - nobody has to do it. And if youre "poor" you should really be saving, not burning dollars.

I dont find anything unfair, unjust, or unreal about that. If I cannot afford it, I do without.

 

[oldmaninsc]

Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Originally Posted By: Beehive_Poker
why would the smell of cigarettes effect you? That's why there's two separate sections.


There's this thing call diffusion. Smoke doesn't just stay in your little corner of the restaurant. It affects me because I don't like the stench.

Before smoking bans, there was no such thing as a smoke free restaurant. If some of the restaurants I like to eat at were smoke free by the choice of their owners, I'd gladly eat there.


I'm not going to debate the tax issue because most everything is taxed anymore, but I agree with Drew on this. For years here in Ca. we had Smoking and Non Smoking sections. Often the tables of the non smoking section were literally 2 or 3 feet from the "smoking" section.

Problem is - smoke doesn't know to stay in it's own section. As a smoker you may not notice it - but many of us non-smokers will smell the smoke at the other end of the restaurant!

My personal favorite is when I'm sitting in traffic with the heater or the a/c on, and the driver of the car next to me is smoking and has the cigarette hanging out the window. Guess where at least some of the smoke goes? Right into my car. Smokers think the smoke just goes into the air and disappears, but sorry to say, it DOESN'T!

I've never understand why smokers did this. If the smell of the smoke is so good - why don't they keep their windows up so it stays in their car?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
so, your equating "stench," or smell, to cancer? Maybe your kimchi dish could have the same affect on me..........


Than dont eat at a restaurant that serves kimchi... I dont eat at restaurants that are smoky inside. Everyone has their freedom to do what they want.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2

So again, if you can afford to pay the full bill for the habit, fine. The masses have spoken, given the situation of LOTS of anti-smoking rules everywhere. Smokers can protest like crazy any vote against the non-smoking politicians if they like. Majority rules, and we have to deal with it.


Sure, that's reasonable. As long as you're a believer in the rule of the mob. It's great as long as your a member of the 50.1%. Not so much if you're one of the 49.9%

Good luck staying in the larger group on every issue.