Second-hand smoke damage is hard to prove and if we tax the industry too much, we become dependent on the revenue and end up having to prop up the industry during hard times. Sort of like we keep bad airlines in business.
Alcohol is similar to tobacco, but there is a health-risk difference. Small amounts of alcohol may actually be good for you, especially if it comes with the anti-oxidant chemicals found in red wine. I am not sure there is any dosage of cigarette smoke that is actually good for you. Is this rationalization? I don't know. I drink less than one small glass of red wine per day, no hard booze, and rarely any beer. From what I have read and heard from physicians, if you don't have diabetes, blood disorders, or liver problems, modest amounts of alcohol are actually good for you.
Christian, That is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen posted in this part of the site. lol!
During prohibition, most people didn't start producing their own alcohol. It just went underground, black market, organized crime, etc. Sounds pretty similar (as was said) to just weed, cocaine, meth, etc. You can make it illegal, but that doesn't stop it. I was thinking the same thing as OldDan (about people growing... things). Yeah, that would make sense, but when large amounts of taxes are involved, things get away quickly. There are two pending ballot initiatives for 2006 in CA. There was an article in the Daily Breeze titled: It's open season on tobacco as $1.50-a-pack tax is proposed -but it's been archived on the site and now costs money to read. Bascially though, it said that a $1.50/pack tax was being proposed, however there were different ways groups wanted to spend the money. Neither of the initiatives propose spending the money on smoking related issues for non-smokers (nor smoking related issues for smokers). I remember one was for non-insured children's heathcare coverage. I think the other was to help fund emergency rooms in CA (which have been closing, etc.) Neither of these are smoking related (yes, they could be I suppose, but so could a host of other things that aren't being taxed). It's just another sin tax that relies on people smoking for unrelated revenue, which isn't a good thing. Might as well tax smokers $10/pack and fix the uni system and homelessness while you're at it.
I heard that Dean and Kerry like to smoke in front of newborn babies and then have a contest with seeing who could blow a smoke ring first thru the babies head. It's true, Hillary holds the kids with one under each arm and then Dean and Kerry bend over and take turns blowing.
Smoking is one drug that DIRECTLY affect other people (as in having others forced to inhale your second hand smoke). It should be outlawed universally. It's addictive, physically harmful. Why it's still allowed while other narcotics are banned is beyond me. Policy makers are getting way too much campaign money from tobacco companies I bet.
Smoking was one of the things I had to give up because of the old ticker. The Drs. thought it would be a good idea and I accepted their decision on the matter. Having said that, I would also like for you and those Drs. to know that smoking was one of those things that I personally enjoyed and used to relax at the end of a hard day. I have always said that when they tell me (if the do) that I only have 3 or 4 months to live, I would smoke, non stop, for all the remaining time. To hell with you, your little sister and your mother. Stay away from me and you won't get second hand smoke. As a matter of fact, when I go into a resturant and take a table, I try and arrange to sit next to a party that is smoking so the fragrance drifts my direction and I can remember all the good days. That is the way it is around here, and come hell or high water that is the way things will stay if within my ability to control this matter.
Old Dan"things that I personally enjoyed and used to relax at the end of a hard day." no way.. old dan is really the marlboro man
I really don't have a problem with people smoking if they want to. I work with a lady who is 45 and loves to smoke. When asked if she ever has tried to quit or wants to she says, "Why would I do that? I like to smoke." To each her own, as OldDan said. I actually think it's dumb that they've made tobacco companies advertise against their own product. Who the heck else has to do that? A few, but not many companies. You don't see Ford being forced as the main thing they advertise to say how dangerous driving is or Breyers having to advertise how bad their ice cream is for you and that it may clog your arteries and you may die. People know that smoking is bad for them. Nobody in their right mind can claim any differently in today's society. However, I do think smoking should be banned in most indoor public places except maybe somewhere like cigar bars, for obvious reasons.
It's offical, as of January 16th, smoking in Chicago restaurants and bars is a No No. Actually, smoking is banned in restaurants without bars and in most buildings and public spaces, including stores, stadiums and the lobbies, hallways and common areas of buildings. Outdoors, Smoking is prohibited within 15 feet of an entrance to a building. As of July 1st 2008, Smoking is banned in taverns and restaurant bars. On this topic, I have been dealing with a problem lately. My two oldest kids are in a community Christmas play and about half the actors smoke in the theater and next to the kids in the play. They come home smelling like smoke every night after rehearsal and the nicotine from the second hand smoke tends to hype them up. Last night one of the non-smoking actors complained that the kids in the play are too wild backstage yet no one has complained about all of the smoke in the air. Obviously the smokers don't care who they smoke around or what affect it is having on others around them as long as they don't have to put their coats on and go outside to smoke. So if you smoke and don't understand why non-smokers resent you, this is one possible reason.
What some adults consider wild, kids consider being kids and the more adults complain about kids, the more likely they never had a child of that sex or never had a child. Besides, I always felt that kids being a little bit "wild" are less likely to follow orders blindly as an adult then the kids who sit and obeys. Let kids be kids and let them enjoy their energy I say. As for second hand smoke. I am very much against it. If someone wants to smoke in the privacy of their own home or a cigar bar, fine. That is there own choice, its their life. But to smoke in front of others and expose others to the dangers of cancer never mind the foul smelling smoke itself is just plain wrong.
I never go out to bars. Because I don't drink...and I don't smoke. It looks like a ban will arrive here soon in the UK. Then I might go out every once and I while.
Knowing how careful you are in making such statements, I was curious as to where you learned this cause and effect of nicotine? Would you be so kind as to share your source. Thank you.
Nicotine, is by definition a stimulant similar to caffeine in its affect on the body. It increases heart rate, etc. However, its affect on the mind is quite different. Nicotine is an artificial chemical key that releases elevated levels of dopamine....the same stuff that gives that warm fuzzy "I've done good" satisfaction feeling. This is why stressful situations trip most x-smokers back into smoking....also the reason why a lot of x-smokers are cranky all the time Learned all that back in 9th grade health class....when truth was still taught....and your feelings were not part of the curriculum.
It's a pretty well documented side-effect of second-hand smoke. If you google "smoking and children hyperactivity" there will be no end to the sources that state children from birth to teens show increases in hyperactivity when exposed to second-hand smoke. And that is only one of the many adverse health effects you'll come across. It's nothing that hasn't been in the scientific data for years. Are you doubting the cause and effect or were you just curious? In all fairness, I’m sure there are tobacco industry sponsored studies out there that say the opposite. I think they may have a slight bias and a mild integrity problem though.
I had never heard this before and was curious as to where you came up with it. Simple as that. Thank you for the suggestion, and I will now go and do a little searching with google.
