California Town: Ban Smoking Everywhere

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, lots of things are harmful, so let's just keep piling on the harm. In fact, the drinking water contains trace amounts of arsenic, so you might as well just blow your brains out.

That's actually the same mentality a lot of sceptics of AGW take to the issue. So the Earth pumps out a lot of greenhouse gases anyway, we may as well pump out as much as we can too, at least they're the product of something helping society flourish.

[Spyder]

Smokers need to demonstrate why they have a right to smoke and why this right outweighs the healthcare and other costs associated with tolerating their habit. I don't see any harm in a total smoking ban, starting with the distribution channels.

[Molyneux]

This is a pretty limp-wristed law. Just go balls-out and make tobacco illegal within city limits. Bam, done. Fine people who violate the law and you've even got a new source of revenue.

This is essentially what was done with Prohibition.
See how well that worked.

The 'step-by-step' approach seems to be working pretty well to me; it's taking awhile, but it's actually functioning. Wean people off of smoking and there won't be an outcry when it's gone entirely.

[salm]

I think smoking is a bit different than drinking. Most people don´t really want to smoke. Everybody knows that it´s very harmful and they only smoke because they´re addicted. They started smoking because they wanted to be cool during their teens or twens not because it´s a whole lot of fun.
While everybody knows that alcohol is addictive and unhealthy as well people want to drink because it´s a whole lot of fun. Compared to smoking, the fun you get from drinking is in a whole different league.
So a step by step thingy might work. Make it hard to buy them (for example get rid of the retarted cigarette vending machines), make it hard to smoke (e.g. ban smoking from bars, restaurants and generally everything where alcohol is involved) and so on and more and more people will quit smoking.

[Agent Fisher]

I think smoking is a bit different than drinking. Most people don´t really want to smoke. Everybody knows that it´s very harmful and they only smoke because they´re addicted. They started smoking because they wanted to be cool during their teens or twens not because it´s a whole lot of fun.

I disagree, those who smoke, usually want to. I enjoy smoking, not because I'm addicted (haven't had one in about a month), I find it relaxing and it is nice to do with friends.

[General Zod]

I think smoking is a bit different than drinking. Most people don´t really want to smoke. Everybody knows that it´s very harmful and they only smoke because they´re addicted. They started smoking because they wanted to be cool during their teens or twens not because it´s a whole lot of fun.

I disagree, those who smoke, usually want to. I enjoy smoking, not because I'm addicted (haven't had one in about a month), I find it relaxing and it is nice to do with friends.

I take it you've never heard of any of the hundreds of studies done that show niccotine is one of the most physically addictive consumer products you can buy?

[KrauserKrauser]

Obviously you are crazy and your civil liberties should be reduced accordingly. Death to smoking!

If the people in that area want to ban smoking, that is what their votes have decided. However, if the powers that be decide to make this into a federal statute that is complete BS and unconstitutional, it's clearly a state's right's issue and should remain so.

[Big Phil]

I think smoking is a bit different than drinking. Most people don´t really want to smoke. Everybody knows that it´s very harmful and they only smoke because they´re addicted. They started smoking because they wanted to be cool during their teens or twens not because it´s a whole lot of fun.

I disagree, those who smoke, usually want to. I enjoy smoking, not because I'm addicted (haven't had one in about a month), I find it relaxing and it is nice to do with friends.

I take it you've never heard of any of the hundreds of studies done that show niccotine is one of the most physically addictive consumer products you can buy?

Many smokers say they want to quit because that's what they're supposed to say. If they really wanted to quit, they'd take the steps necessary to do so, whether it's a treatment program or simply quitting. All sorts of substances are addictive, but if you really want to quit, you can - smokers are simply making the decision that the trouble of quitting isn't worth the health benefits.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I find a lot of people who put "trying to quit" under "Smoke?" in many social networking sites simply can't be bothered to actually go ahead, whether it be through apathy or because they genuinely find inhaling that stuff appealing. It's like some sort of security blanket from criticism that terms like "pro-life" have where otherwise there is an abhorrent idea beneath.

Smokers need to demonstrate why they have a right to smoke and why this right outweighs the healthcare and other costs associated with tolerating their habit. I don't see any harm in a total smoking ban, starting with the distribution channels.

"Hur hur, fat people are allowed to eat McDonald's and other shit, so why aren't you harping on about their vice? Why is it always us smokers who have to be ratted on about unhealthy lifestyles?"

[Spyder]

I disagree, those who smoke, usually want to. I enjoy smoking, not because I'm addicted (haven't had one in about a month), I find it relaxing and it is nice to do with friends.

I take it you've never heard of any of the hundreds of studies done that show niccotine is one of the most physically addictive consumer products you can buy?

Many smokers say they want to quit because that's what they're supposed to say. If they really wanted to quit, they'd take the steps necessary to do so, whether it's a treatment program or simply quitting. All sorts of substances are addictive, but if you really want to quit, you can - smokers are simply making the decision that the trouble of quitting isn't worth the health benefits.

If it was just a simple decision then why would it be any trouble? Not smoking requires less action then smoking.

[Admiral Valdemar]

It does depend on genetics to an extent. There are some people - as with alcohol - who are easily taken in by the nicotine in the fags and need their fix just to make it through a day. I've known people who need to smoke under pain of death, as if going cold turkey would be lethal. On the flip-side, I've known people who could quit and quit permanently in an instant. They tend to revert back after proving a point, like going Lent without lighting up, so I can only assume they're the few who genuinely love smoking but aren't too physically addicted.

[Stark]

Most of the people I know who smoke would jump at a magic pill that stops the need to smoke. Sure, they 'enjoy' smoking - because nicotine is horrible addictive shit, they feel they need to smoke, and they enjoy it when they do, then they start wanting another one. Breaking out of that is hard, but if you offered smokers a quick fix most of the adults I know would go for it. My dad did it the hard way.

[LordShaithis]

You can put up with my smoking because I'm not doing it anywhere you're going to have to smell it. This "someday you might have a medical procedure related to smoking and some of my tax money might go to pay for it, therefore I own you and you have to live healthy" argument sucks so much shit I don't know why it's taken seriously.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You can put up with my smoking because I'm not doing it anywhere you're going to have to smell it. This "someday you might have a medical procedure related to smoking and some of my tax money might go to pay for it, therefore I own you and you have to live healthy" argument sucks so much shit I don't know why it's taken seriously.

So you would also agree that the rampant obesity in the West sucking resources from healthcare institutions isn't a problem also? I was under the mistaken impression that people voluntarily making themselves unhealthy to the point of harming the economy were often seen in a bad light. Believe it or not, healthcare works because society exists and society abusing itself means more strain on the healthcare sector. This isn't rocket science, you pump/smoke/eat shit, you carry that extra weight. So either premiums go up on those who abuse their body which most certainly does leech off limited resources, or you shut the fuck up and let me "own you", as you so eloquently put it.

[FSTargetDrone]

That the cost borne by society in the US for treating smoking is not exactly trivial.

Embargoed until Noon ET June 30, 2005

Smoking Deaths Cost Nation $92 Billion in Lost Productivity Annually

Smoking cost the nation about $92 billion in the form of lost productivity in 1997-2001, up about $10 billion from the annual mortality related productivity losses for the years 1995-1999, according to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The new lost productivity estimate when combined with smoking-related health-care costs, which was reported at $75.5 billion in 1998, exceeds $167 billion per year in the United States.

The report also finds that during 1997-2001 an estimated 438,000 premature deaths occur each year as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke. In comparison, approximately 440,000 smoking-related deaths were estimated to have occurred annually from 1995-1999.

“Cigarette smoking continues to impose substantial health and financial costs on individuals and society,” said CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding. "We’ve made good progress in reducing the number of people who smoke, but we have much more work to do. If we want to significantly reduce the toll in this decade, we must provide the 32 million smokers who say they want to quit with the tools and support to do so successfully.”

This latest study updates the number of deaths due to smoking during 1997-2001, specifically updating the 1995-1999 average estimates previously released. It also reports productivity losses from deaths and finds that smoking causes 3.3 million years of potential life lost for men and 2.2 million years for women. Smoking, on average, reduces adult life expectancy by approximately 14 years.

“Despite the slow steady declines in prevalence in the United States, cigarette smoking still causes hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths each year," said Dr. Corinne Husten, acting director, CDC Office on Smoking and Health. “It’s in everyone’s best interest to prevent and reduce tobacco use. People will have longer, healthier lives, and there will be fewer smoking-related costs."

In Canada:

The cost of smoking
Last Updated February 15, 2007
CBC News

Increased taxes on cigarettes have been called the best smoking cessation program in the world.

In Canada, between 63 and 79 per cent of the price of a package of cigarettes is tax. In New York, by comparison, the tax on cigarettes is 38 per cent.

Ontario which had the lowest-priced cigarettes in Canada, added $5 a carton in June 2002 in an attempt to deter smoking. But they may have succeeded in pushing some smokers to seek out cheaper alternatives and bootleggers to claim a larger part of the cigarette market.

Sources: Finance Dept., Provincial Govt's, Finance Canada

On February 28, 2003, major Canadian tobacco company JTI-MacDonald Corp. and some of its former executives were charged with fraud after an investigation into alleged smuggling of cigarettes in the 1990s.

RCMP laid charges against the company, accusing it of supplying the Canadian black market with Canadian-blend tobacco products manufactured in Canada and Puerto Rico.

Police laid six counts of fraud against JTI-MacDonald Corp., formerly known as RJR-MacDonald, Inc., and several of its subsidiaries, alleging the companies conspired to defraud the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec out of $1.2 billion in tax revenue between 1991 and 1996.

Twenty-three per cent of Canadians over 15 years old were smoking in June of 2001... that's 5.7 million people.

Despite the availability of some cheaper cigarettes, the U.S. surgeon general reported that higher cigarette prices result in lower rates of consumption. A 10 per cent price increase should result in a two to three per cent drop in the number of smokers. The report also states that fewer young people will be likely to smoke if cigarette prices are higher, and more people will be driven to quit.

The Canadian government has initiated several programs to try to lower rates of smoking in Canada. These include:

* Informing Canadians about the health effects of smoking and second-hand smoke;
* Providing programs to support those who choose to quit smoking;
* Reducing access to tobacco products by minors;
* Deterring smokers by increasing product pricing through taxation;
* Placing restrictions on where smoking may occur;
* Restricting tobacco product advertising and promotion;
* Encouraging Canadians to support smoke-free living;
* Requiring tobacco companies to release information on the composition of cigarettes and cigarette smoke; and
* British Columbia challenged the tobacco industry to recover the costs due to tobacco related illnesses.

Health Canada recommends that these programs all continue, since all have enjoyed a level of success, but the government wants to go further.

It wants to increase taxes on cigarettes so that they are closer to covering the social costs incurred from smoking.

They estimate that, in Canada, the societal costs attributable to smoking for 1993 were approximately $11 billion, of which $3 billion was spent on direct health care costs such as hospitalization and physician time. The remaining $8 billion was due to lost productivity. In comparison, it is estimated that in 1993/94, revenue from taxes on cigarettes totalled $2.6 billion.

The argument around taxation and smoking is, and always has been, does the good outweigh the bad? Will the health and economic gains from taxation pay for the negative effects of the act of smoking? Well, more taxes might pay the governments bills, but will increased taxation be enough to make people quit?

That is a hell of a lot of money going toward treating problems that could largely be avoided.

Of course no one can make people stop smoking, short of outlawing it (which I see as problematic for several reasons), but there has got to be a way to make smoking socially unacceptable, even more than it is now. There is nothing more disheartening than seeing young people smoking.

I really think raising taxes is the best solution, as Canada has done.

[Darth Wong]

Quite frankly, there will come a time when society does have to look seriously at rationing health-care and forcing smokers and obese people to pay a serious premium for their harmful habits. In Canada, the government is going to have to look at extra co-pays and health insurance surtaxes for obesity and smoking. In the US, health insurers are going to have to be able to demand the same.

There are some health-care trend freight trains staring us down right now, and their names are demographics, smoking, and obesity. With an increasing elderly class supported by a shrinking working class in the decades to come, something has to give. To think otherwise is nothing more than head-in-sand Pollyanna stupidity.

[LordShaithis]

That's fine. If the healthcare industry wants to charge me a premium for my little 0.1 packs-per-day habit, then I'll either pay it or (more likely) give up the habit. I just don't give much credence to the Clean Living Jihad calling for my arrest in the name of their tax dollars.