There still has to be "smoking monies" involved?

In Canada we have universal healthcare. So anybody who smokes and ends up there ends up costing taxpayers.



So do all the overweight people who eat themselves to death, all the lazy people who let thier bodies fall into disrepair from lack of exersise. We have warning labels with pictures on them on our cigarette packs. And over half the price of said pack is taxes. Now fine, that's all well and good, I don't want kids picking up this filthy habit. But where are the warning labels at McDonalds? Where is the bloated artery picture on my Big Mac box? Why dosen't a McDonalds cheeseburger cost twice as much? Obesity is killing North America and only getting worse, but no finger wagging there. McDonalds, Burger King can sponser whomever they want.



And the argument that "my taxdollars are going there" is ......... You know what else is dangerous, is an unnescary thill and costs taxpayers millions? Motorcycles.



How would you like the ....... down the street saying "I don't want you to be able to ride your bike anymore, if you get into an accident it costs me money".



Now before you get all pissed at me let me make myself clear on a couple of things.



1) Not condoning smoking. I smoke two packs a day and wish I had never started. They are .........



2) It is my fault I smoke. Not anybody elses.



3)I'm not comparing smoking to riding motorcycles. That would be retarted. I'm saying the "my tax dollars go to healthcare therfore I feel I can tell you what to do" is ......... There is a long list of vices that could fall under this. Maybe one of yours is on there.

bluegreen said:

In Canada we have universal healthcare. So anybody who smokes and ends up there ends up costing taxpayers.



So do all the overweight people who eat themselves to death, all the lazy people who let thier bodies fall into disrepair from lack of exersise. We have warning labels with pictures on them on our cigarette packs. And over half the price of said pack is taxes. Now fine, that's all well and good, I don't want kids picking up this filthy habit. But where are the warning labels at McDonalds? Where is the bloated artery picture on my Big Mac box? Why dosen't a McDonalds cheeseburger cost twice as much? Obesity is killing North America and only getting worse, but no finger wagging there. McDonalds, Burger King can sponser whomever they want.



And the argument that "my taxdollars are going there" is ......... You know what else is dangerous, is an unnescary thill and costs taxpayers millions? Motorcycles.



How would you like the ....... down the street saying "I don't want you to be able to ride your bike anymore, if you get into an accident it costs me money".



Now before you get all pissed at me let me make myself clear on a couple of things.



1) Not condoning smoking. I smoke two packs a day and wish I had never started. They are .........



2) It is my fault I smoke. Not anybody elses.



3)I'm not comparing smoking to riding motorcycles. That would be retarted. I'm saying the "my tax dollars go to healthcare therfore I feel I can tell you what to do" is ......... There is a long list of vices that could fall under this. Maybe one of yours is on there.

Click to expand...

Fortunately - it is - in most civilized countries - not possible for a ten-year-old to buy and insure a 1000cc street bike.

However - I can tell you that I started smoking at the age of 10 and found it easy as .... to buy cigarettes either from

a vending machine - or from socially irresponsible ........ in candy store - who knew better. As a result I ended up

with the early stages of emphysema and later a spontaneous lung collapse that nearly killed me when I was 19 at which

point I was smoking 2.5 packs a day. Luckily I was young enough to overcome - to a great degree - the damage.



The fact that so much advertising is focused on young kids is totally criminal. And young kids do watch racing.

Keshav said:

Fortunately - it is - in most civilized countries - not possible for a ten-year-old to buy and insure a 1000cc street bike.

However - I can tell you that I started smoking at the age of 10 and found it easy as .... to buy cigarettes either from

a vending machine - or from socially irresponsible ........ in candy store - who knew better. As a result I ended up

with the early stages of emphysema and later a spontaneous lung collapse that nearly killed me when I was 19 at which

point I was smoking 2.5 packs a day. Luckily I was young enough to overcome - to a great degree - the damage.



The fact that so much advertising is focused on young kids is totally criminal. And young kids do watch racing.

Click to expand...

Totally agree with you. I'm in no way condoning smoking or the advertising.



I just not a fan of the "my tax dollars" argument is all. Again, that is a very slipery slope.

Here in New South Wales, they have outlawed all forms of tobacco advertising and in relation to the colourful displays at eye level at the checkout, these are now behind a cover and not visible to the shoppers as a result of recent law changes. The next push is to ban coloured packaging of cigarettes.



To take up Bluegreen's point about obesity, there is a growing push to do similar sorts of things with advertising for McDonalds, KFC etc. Alcohol is the other big killer/health cost and not too much has happened there other than limiting the times of day that advertising can occur.



Smoking costs tax dollars and it annoys the .... out of me when people light up beside me unless I'm having a couple of beers. Being exposed to large amounts of passive smoke can do damage and people have no control over that all the time especially where it occurs in a work environment. That's why they've banned smoking indoors in public areas. The difference between smoking and obesity and alcohol is for the most part smoking can affect those around the smoker and wreck their occasion (and health in some circumstances), obesity just wrecks the hungry person's life and alcohol is an indiviual issue. Excess consumption of alcohol can lead to anti-social behaviour etc but that is against the law. It's against the law to be drunk in public to the point where you are anti-social.



The other difference between smoking and eating/drinking is that if you eat and drink, you can do so responsibly and it can be good for you. A wine with dinner can release anti-oxidents which are good for the body. In no circumstances is having a cigarette good for you. One in two smokers in Australia will get lung cancer. That is simply from using the product as it is intended without necessarily abusing that product. If you use a motorcycle as it is intended, it is more than likely that you won't cost tax dollars. This can be distinguished from smoking which if you use the product as it is intended, it will more than likely end up killing you.

The root hipocrisy is that our states are the first to accept smoking money in the form of taxes. If something kills so many people, why not forbidding its production and use altogether? Because the mOney is too good. This is our states and governments, i.e. all of us. We get the money first, then invent some ineffective laws and limitations to feel righteous. In this situation faulting a company for accepting a sponsorship within the existing rules is a double hipocrisy...

woody996 said:

Here in New South Wales, they have outlawed all forms of tobacco advertising and in relation to the colourful displays at eye level at the checkout, these are now behind a cover and not visible to the shoppers as a result of recent law changes. The next push is to ban coloured packaging of cigarettes.



To take up Bluegreen's point about obesity, there is a growing push to do similar sorts of things with advertising for McDonalds, KFC etc. Alcohol is the other big killer/health cost and not too much has happened there other than limiting the times of day that advertising can occur.



Smoking costs tax dollars and it annoys the .... out of me when people light up beside me unless I'm having a couple of beers. Being exposed to large amounts of passive smoke can do damage and people have no control over that all the time especially where it occurs in a work environment. That's why they've banned smoking indoors in public areas. The difference between smoking and obesity and alcohol is for the most part smoking can affect those around the smoker and wreck their occasion (and health in some circumstances), obesity just wrecks the hungry person's life and alcohol is an indiviual issue. Excess consumption of alcohol can lead to anti-social behaviour etc but that is against the law. It's against the law to be drunk in public to the point where you are anti-social.



The other difference between smoking and eating/drinking is that if you eat and drink, you can do so responsibly and it can be good for you. A wine with dinner can release anti-oxidents which are good for the body. In no circumstances is having a cigarette good for you. One in two smokers in Australia will get lung cancer. That is simply from using the product as it is intended without necessarily abusing that product. If you use a motorcycle as it is intended, it is more than likely that you won't cost tax dollars. This can be distinguished from smoking which if you use the product as it is intended, it will more than likely end up killing you.

Click to expand...

I agree with all your points, save two.



Alcohol is in no way an individual issue. I've seen it destroy families.



And with the motorcycle thing, my example was more about other people not allowing you to do want you want because of thier tax dollars being involved. But that being said, they are more dangerous, if only because of the idiots in cars that don't pay attention to them and the rider suffers the consequences. It's not the motorcycle itself, but you get the point. Nevermind the squids...

I meant that the health affects of alcohol are an individual issue, there are social effects which I didn't go into fully before and drunk in public is only half of it, impact on excess drinking at home is the other. Note however that these are problems resulting from the abuse of alcohol.



Now as to tobacco sponsorship, I have no problem with it while ever actually smoking is legal.

I think it's kind of sad one of the few industries that offered big sponsorship money was big tobacco, but I guess it was not a surprise given that the demographics that follow MotoGP is exactly who those tobacco companies were targeting. I think it is good that big tobacco is mostly out of advertising in motorsports. I personally find smoking repulsive, it not only affects your health but others around you (hello secondhand smoke). The less people persuaded to smoke, the better.

Traverser said:

eltoro, I agree completely with ya. All those who smoke that I've talked to about "Why" all say cause they are addicted.



BTW what is the going rate for a pack of cig's in your area's?



Last I saw here in Colorado was about $5.50......my father in-law was telling me in Singapore they are getting $20 (sings) a pack. Last I was there I noticed all the packs had .... photo's from the effects of the cancer sticks...it dose not keep my brother in-law away from them.

Click to expand...

They're like $12.75 a pack in New York City. Re:above... that speaks to one of the primary differences between booze and smokes.

Everyday folks - who don't have addictive personalities - can have the occasional beer or a couple of shooters on a Saturday night

and live normal lives. On the other hand - anyone who smokes cigarettes will quickly become addicted. A lot of my homies are

ex druggies and alkies and when I ask them what's hardest to quit, they all say nicotine. Guys I know who were "hopeless junkies"

for half their lives, who got clean - and stayed that way for decades - still can't put down the smokes. Nicotine addiction is some

insidious .....

No Government will ever just ban smoking as they would lose votes and revenue, 2 things all politicians fear more than anything.



The way to end smoking is to increase the legal age of smoking by one year every year. Sure it will take a generation to eliminate it but a generation is better than never. That way someone who is 16 years old now will never be legally, throughout their life, be allowed to smoke.

Mental Anarchist said:

No Government will ever just ban smoking as they would lose votes and revenue, 2 things all politicians fear more than anything.



The way to end smoking is to increase the legal age of smoking by one year every year. Sure it will take a generation to eliminate it but a generation is better than never. That way someone who is 16 years old now will never be legally, throughout their life, be allowed to smoke.

Click to expand...

The government say they spend more on health care due to smoking than they make on the tax's they reap from tobacco . To say the government will lose revenue is naive! of course they wont, they will just increase tax's on things like fuel to make up for it.a

[quote name='Keshav' timestamp='1295041588' post='264166']

The same is true here. Lot's of folks with no insurance filling up cancer wards and emphysema clinics paid for by American tax dollars.



And to say it's all the parent's responsibility is the biggest cop-out in the world.

Kids are very susceptible to advertising and what they see portrayed in all the

various media. They are bombarded by it and parents can only do so much

to stem the influence of films, videos, billboards and magazine advertising.

To blame smoking by teenagers on parents is like blaming them when their

kids listen to Hip Hop. Social responsibility is the responsibility of society as a whole.



If someone tries to kidnap a child on the street in front of my house - I'm not going

to phone the kid's parents. We're, all of us, morally obligated to do the right thing when the opportunity arises.

[/quote:

LOL I guess you had some ...... parents or something cause it is the responsibility of the parent to teach and to make sure their kids are on the right track. Your arguements are flimsy at best. Parents shouldn't just lets their kids watch whatever so they are not bombarded then. Social responsibility in tobaccos case is ........, you sound like a commie. It isn't societys responsibility, it is an individuals responsibilty to make the choice and if that individual is to young such as a child then the parent better be vigilant and make sure they are being watched so as they don't make the wrong choice. Kids don't smoke because they see a camel or an add, they do it because they are taught to by peers in almost every case. ANd those peers learned it from....you guessed it their parents.

Mental Anarchist said:

No Government will ever just ban smoking as they would lose votes and revenue, 2 things all politicians fear more than anything.



The way to end smoking is to increase the legal age of smoking by one year every year. Sure it will take a generation to eliminate it but a generation is better than never. That way someone who is 16 years old now will never be legally, throughout their life, be allowed to smoke.

Click to expand...

Tobacco isn't what gives people cancer it is all the extra .... they put in it that does. Pure tobacco would be fine compared to the tobacco with all those addatives.

ROCKGOD01 said:

Tobacco isn't what gives people cancer it is all the extra .... they put in it that does. Pure tobacco would be fine compared to the tobacco with all those addatives.

Click to expand...

There may be some truth to this, but then there are the vascular complications consequent on smoking. I am a libertarian on drugs in general, being of the belief that adults anyway are entitled to go to hell in a handbasket in any way they choose, but the fact remains that there is no way a new product remotely approaching the toxicity of tobacco would be allowed to be introduced in any western nation now.

ROCKGOD01 said:

And to say it's all the parent's responsibility is the biggest cop-out in the world.

Kids are very susceptible to advertising and what they see portrayed in all the

various media. They are bombarded by it and parents can only do so much

to stem the influence of films, videos, billboards and magazine advertising.

To blame smoking by teenagers on parents is like blaming them when their

kids listen to Hip Hop. Social responsibility is the responsibility of society as a whole.



If someone tries to kidnap a child on the street in front of my house - I'm not going

to phone the kid's parents. We're, all of us, morally obligated to do the right thing when the opportunity arises.

[/quote:

LOL I guess you had some ...... parents or something cause it is the responsibility of the parent to teach and to make sure their kids are on the right track. Your arguements are flimsy at best. Parents shouldn't just lets their kids watch whatever so they are not bombarded then. Social responsibility in tobaccos case is ........, you sound like a commie. It isn't societys responsibility, it is an individuals responsibilty to make the choice and if that individual is to young such as a child then the parent better be vigilant and make sure they are being watched so as they don't make the wrong choice. Kids don't smoke because they see a camel or an add, they do it because they are taught to by peers in almost every case. ANd those peers learned it from....you guessed it their parents.

Click to expand...

RG - Tell me. If someone was trying to sell heroin to your children in front of my house - while you're at work - you wouldn't

think less of me if I just sat there with my thumb up my ... and said you sucked as a parent? If I saved your kid's life by

kicking the drug dealer's ... and sending your kids home - you would call me a commie? What the .... is the matter with you?

Your comprehension of politics is right out of the McCarthy era - the height of American political naivete. You hear the word "society" and and you immediately start screaming "commie". Do you ....... live in a cave and wear animal skins? You seriously need to get off the couch, turn off the TV put down the cheap beer and ....... read a book. Society, community and neighbors - all the same thing. Don't be afraid of big words dude.

Double.

Mental Anarchist said:

No Government will ever just ban smoking as they would lose votes and revenue, 2 things all politicians fear more than anything.



The way to end smoking is to increase the legal age of smoking by one year every year. Sure it will take a generation to eliminate it but a generation is better than never. That way someone who is 16 years old now will never be legally, throughout their life, be allowed to smoke.

Click to expand...

I've thought this for years. I'd be completely behind it.

chopperman said:

The government say they spend more on health care due to smoking than they make on the tax's they reap from tobacco . To say the government will lose revenue is naive! of course they wont, they will just increase tax's on things like fuel to make up for it.a

Click to expand...

Wow Governments in the UK must be pretty good. Where I am from they don't think that far ahead and if they did they would probably just say lets increase the taxes on fuel and things and keep the tobacco money as well. I agree though that more is spent on health care for smokers then is collected from them. Not sure about the UK but a good percentage of the smokers here get the money to pay for the smokes from social security anyway so the government is really just paying there own taxes. It seems that as time goes on it is the less educated and or lower socioeconomic group that continues to smoke.

ROCKGOD01 said:

Tobacco isn't what gives people cancer it is all the extra .... they put in it that does. Pure tobacco would be fine compared to the tobacco with all those addatives.

Click to expand...

Sames as smoking pot I guess. Good old natural bush weed is not too harmful in my opinion and experience.

bluegreen said:

I've thought this for years. I'd be completely behind it.

Click to expand...

I knew there was someone else out there with a free thinking brain.