1/12: Canadian cigarette warnings - Page 4

jaguar · 01-13-2002, 09:01 PM

You know what NIC, i think you just hit on the one thing that WOULD stop most U-18s as much as anyone else - stop smoking.

MaggieL · 01-13-2002, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jaguar
Maggie, ever had smoking addiction?

Yes indeed.
Started once, smoked for for three or four years, managed to quit (had godawful bronchitis, which helped)...and then after six months was dumb enough to go back and get hooked again.
Then I quit again, that time for good.

bluebomber · 01-14-2002, 08:11 AM

Quote:

The easiest solution? Tax the bejesus out of them, that way the sufferers cough (bad pun) up the money, without much choice.

When the State of Florida hiked tobacco taxes through the stratosphere, it had the effect of increasing the size of the black market for cigarettes. See http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/.../pdf/0129.pdf, and http://www.floridataxwatch.org/cigs.htm. I wish I could find one of the original reports, but this is pretty good:

http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/199...1/us/us.4.html

Quote:

"Significant criminal black-market activities are occurring today both in the United States and Canada," says Rep. Thomas Bliley (R) of Virginia, House Commerce Committee chairman. "It is much more serious than most people know." John Magaw, director of the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, estimates that several high-tobacco-tax states are already losing hundreds of millions of dollars because of smuggling from low-tax states such as Virginia, Kentucky, and the Carolinas.

kaleidoscopic ziggurat · 01-14-2002, 09:31 AM

what a big can of worms

as the resident canadian i feel like i should say something but ahh... i don't really know that many smokers! so, wheeee!

modernhamlet · 01-14-2002, 11:41 AM

First of all: I am a smoker. (So take it all with a grain or three of salt...)

That said, DEAR GOD PEOPLE!! Give me a break!

I've done the research. I know the risks. I choose to smoke. Now leave me alone.

Ok, that rant out of the way, I have a couple of actual points:

1. Prohibition didn't work on alcohol. It certainly hasn't worked on marijuana. It won't work on cigarettes (which it has been pointed out, are FAR more addictive than either of the others).

2. The single most annoying human being in the world is the self-righteous former smoker. I am a peaceful human being, but I swear, the next stranger that walks up and starts preaching at me gets it. Why must people always push their beliefs onto others? This isn't just a smoking thing. It goes for pretty much any way that someone might choose to spend their time.

3. I agree that people shouldn't smoke in restaurants. 'Nough said there. But BARS? Look. It's a bar. People smoke in bars. Bar owners don't mind if people smoke in their place of business. If want to go to a smokeless bar, open your own. See how many people show up. There comes a point where marginalization (for public safety purposes) turns into outright persecution of a minority.

Every day the government noses a little further into our lives...
Every day I become a little more Libertarian...
Coincidence? I think not.

mh

elSicomoro · 01-14-2002, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by modernhamlet
The single most annoying human being in the world is the self-righteous former smoker.

AMEN! PREACH ON!

Quote:

I agree that people shouldn't smoke in restaurants. 'Nough said there. But BARS? Look. It's a bar. People smoke in bars. Bar owners don't mind if people smoke in their place of business. If want to go to a smokeless bar, open your own. See how many people show up. There comes a point where marginalization (for public safety purposes) turns into outright persecution of a minority.

I have no problem not smoking at a restaurant. I can go an hour or so without smoking a cigarette...I'm not THAT addicted.

I agree on the bar thing though...I wonder how much of a hit bars in California are taking b/c of the law out there.

01-14-2002, 12:23 PM

I would venture a guess that it's probably pretty low (the hit that bars are taking). Think that people will probably just smoke outside or whatever, and if not, it's not like they had much else to do before going to a bar. Now, maybe people are going to bars because they appreciate the fact that they don't have to put up with cigarette smoke there. I dunno. I'm guessing it's not so bad.

That having been said, it is a pretty stupid law...

Nic Name · 01-14-2002, 12:30 PM

Look Hamlet. Fact is, nobody gives a damn if you choose to smoke. Enjoy.

Fact is, many people assert their right to smoke in their households with children.

Now, that's not a bar. It's your home. It's your right. Or is it?

Does government have a right to speak for the children?

And don't give anyone that self-righteous put down.

You're just blowin' smoke!

Undertoad · 01-14-2002, 12:38 PM

One thing that occurred to me is, what if all people were forced to carry around a gruesome image of how they'd look when they were about to die? What if all people were forced to carry around an image of the worst possible result of their choices?

Smoking is dangerous, but there are other dangerous activities. Take ice climbing for example. Want to force ice climbers to carry around pictures of cold, dead, mangled, frozen bodies at the bottom of tall cliffs of ice? Gee, why not?

Most forms of death are kinda-sorta optional. Heart disease is aggravated by diet and stress and inactivity. Cancer is too. Most accidents are preventable (through training and good infrastructure and systems). Almost all of us make choices that will kill us, they're just not as visible and obvious and not as legislatable. They're just not at the forefront of public opinion, not so subject to the public whim and political fantasy.

In the end, it's all really a weird form of politics, you know. When everyone's doing it, oh, well you can't change it if *everyone's* doing it. If 20% are doing it? Well they're a very visible minority, so we can make ourselves feel better and have more confidence in our OWN choices, by publically putting THEIR choices down.

Now an attempt to really fan the flames. I can think of one activity that is seriously dangerous to the public at large, seriously dangerous to the people who do it, and banning it would have almost no impact on the economy. I'm talking about general aviation.

As we have just seen, general aviation can be easily abused for terroristic purposes. Not a week goes by where you don't hear of some all-too-young person offing themselves by crashing in a forest. It can wreak havoc at any airport, just as much or MORE than a guy running the wrong way down an elevator does. The system appears to be fraught with problems and causing a ton of expenses in homeland security.

We can't ban general aviation without appearing to be too draconian. But we can force pilots to carry with them images of crash scenes. It's just common and fiscal sense to deter these people from making a choice that's inappropriate for society.

We may not be able to force these pilots not to fly, but if we just make them THINK about not flying, I'd consider such a program a success.

01-14-2002, 01:11 PM

Tony -

I think you're missing (or ignoring) the fact that smoking contains chemicals that are addictive, whereas rockclimbing contains no such additives.

I think they're there to make sure a person take a little think session before lighting up from that next pack of cigarettes and strengthening their addiction.

elSicomoro · 01-14-2002, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dhamsaic
I think you're missing (or ignoring) the fact that smoking contains chemicals that are addictive, whereas rockclimbing contains no such additives.

From what I understand though, there has been some research as to whether people are addicted to "dangerous" activities (rock climbing, skydiving, etc.).

01-14-2002, 01:23 PM

Yeah. It's more about whether or not they're addicted to the adrenaline from such activities. But from what I've read (admittedly, not a whole lot, but not just a little either), it's not at all the same as an addiction to, say, alcohol, nicotine or even caffeine - in that you can give it up and not suffer withdrawal-type symptoms.

elSicomoro · 01-14-2002, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Undertoad
Smoking is dangerous, but there are other dangerous activities. Take ice climbing for example. Want to force ice climbers to carry around pictures of cold, dead, mangled, frozen bodies at the bottom of tall cliffs of ice? Gee, why not?

What about people who like to have lots of sex with lots of different people? Do we make them carry around pictures of people with advanced cases of AIDS? Or pictures of genital herpes? (Ewww!

)

MaggieL · 01-14-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by modernhamlet

3. I agree that people shouldn't smoke in restaurants. 'Nough said there. But BARS? Look. It's a bar. People smoke in bars.

People used to smoke in restaurants and movie theaters , too.

01-14-2002, 01:28 PM

Nah - sooner or later, they'll have to look at their shriveling penis or warty-vagina anyway, and no one will have anything to do with them after that. 'Sides, sex isn't addictive either (well, for most people, anyway). It's just highly desireable.

01-13-2002, 09:01 PM	#46
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	You know what NIC, i think you just hit on the one thing that WOULD stop most U-18s as much as anyone else - stop smoking. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

01-14-2002, 12:23 PM	#52
dave Guest Posts: n/a	I would venture a guess that it's probably pretty low (the hit that bars are taking). Think that people will probably just smoke outside or whatever, and if not, it's not like they had much else to do before going to a bar. Now, maybe people are going to bars because they appreciate the fact that they don't have to put up with cigarette smoke there. I dunno. I'm guessing it's not so bad. That having been said, it <b>is</b> a pretty stupid law...

01-14-2002, 12:30 PM	#53
Nic Name retired Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,930	Look Hamlet. Fact is, nobody gives a damn if you choose to smoke. Enjoy. Fact is, many people assert their right to smoke in their households with children. Now, that's not a bar. It's your home. It's your right. Or is it? Does government have a right to speak for the children? And don't give anyone that self-righteous put down. You're just blowin' smoke! Last edited by Nic Name; 01-14-2002 at 01:31 PM.

01-14-2002, 01:11 PM	#55
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Tony - I think you're missing (or ignoring) the fact that smoking contains chemicals that are <b>addictive</b>, whereas rockclimbing contains no such additives. I think they're there to make sure a person take a little think session before lighting up from that next pack of cigarettes and strengthening their addiction.

01-14-2002, 01:28 PM	#60
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Nah - sooner or later, they'll have to look at their shriveling penis or warty-vagina anyway, and no one will have anything to do with them after that. 'Sides, sex isn't addictive either (well, for most people, anyway). It's just <b>highly desireable</b>.

01-14-2002, 09:31 AM	#49
kaleidoscopic ziggurat Coronation Incarnate Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 90	what a big can of worms as the resident canadian i feel like i should say something but ahh... i don't really know that many smokers! so, wheeee!

01-14-2002, 11:41 AM	#50
modernhamlet Regulator of Squalor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Columbus, OH Posts: 37	First of all: I am a smoker. (So take it all with a grain or three of salt...) That said, DEAR GOD PEOPLE!! Give me a break! I've done the research. I know the risks. I choose to smoke. Now leave me alone. Ok, that rant out of the way, I have a couple of actual points: 1. Prohibition didn't work on alcohol. It certainly hasn't worked on marijuana. It won't work on cigarettes (which it has been pointed out, are FAR more addictive than either of the others). 2. The single most annoying human being in the world is the self-righteous former smoker. I am a peaceful human being, but I swear, the next stranger that walks up and starts preaching at me gets it. Why must people always push their beliefs onto others? This isn't just a smoking thing. It goes for pretty much any way that someone might choose to spend their time. 3. I agree that people shouldn't smoke in restaurants. 'Nough said there. But BARS? Look. It's a bar. People smoke in bars. Bar owners don't mind if people smoke in their place of business. If want to go to a smokeless bar, open your own. See how many people show up. There comes a point where marginalization (for public safety purposes) turns into outright persecution of a minority. Every day the government noses a little further into our lives... Every day I become a little more Libertarian... Coincidence? I think not. mh

01-14-2002, 12:38 PM	#54
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	One thing that occurred to me is, what if all people were forced to carry around a gruesome image of how they'd look when they were about to die? What if all people were forced to carry around an image of the worst possible result of their choices? Smoking is dangerous, but there are other dangerous activities. Take ice climbing for example. Want to force ice climbers to carry around pictures of cold, dead, mangled, frozen bodies at the bottom of tall cliffs of ice? Gee, why not? Most forms of death are kinda-sorta optional. Heart disease is aggravated by diet and stress and inactivity. Cancer is too. Most accidents are preventable (through training and good infrastructure and systems). Almost all of us make choices that will kill us, they're just not as visible and obvious and not as legislatable. They're just not at the forefront of public opinion, not so subject to the public whim and political fantasy. In the end, it's all really a weird form of politics, you know. When everyone's doing it, oh, well you can't change it if everyone's doing it. If 20% are doing it? Well they're a very visible minority, so we can make ourselves feel better and have more confidence in our OWN choices, by publically putting THEIR choices down. Now an attempt to really fan the flames. I can think of one activity that is seriously dangerous to the public at large, seriously dangerous to the people who do it, and banning it would have almost no impact on the economy. I'm talking about general aviation. As we have just seen, general aviation can be easily abused for terroristic purposes. Not a week goes by where you don't hear of some all-too-young person offing themselves by crashing in a forest. It can wreak havoc at any airport, just as much or MORE than a guy running the wrong way down an elevator does. The system appears to be fraught with problems and causing a ton of expenses in homeland security. We can't ban general aviation without appearing to be too draconian. But we can force pilots to carry with them images of crash scenes. It's just common and fiscal sense to deter these people from making a choice that's inappropriate for society. We may not be able to force these pilots not to fly, but if we just make them THINK about not flying, I'd consider such a program a success.

01-14-2002, 01:23 PM	#57
dave Guest Posts: n/a	Yeah. It's more about whether or not they're addicted to the adrenaline from such activities. But from what I've read (admittedly, not a whole lot, but not just a little either), it's not at all the same as an addiction to, say, alcohol, nicotine or even caffeine - in that you can give it up and not suffer withdrawal-type symptoms.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)