KMA-628

And you spend what on defense?

I am not talking about Canada, I am talking about my government. A government that thinks as long as there are checks left in the checkbook, they can still spend money.

What Canada does with its laws and how it spends its money has no bearing on my opinion.

I am coming from the limited gov't standpoint, so using Canada as an example isn't going to have any effect on me....at least when I want less gov't, not more.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

KMA-628

Because there are some things the gov't can provide that the private sector can't. But, we are gonna go way into left field if we want to go into this one. I am not saying "no government", I am saying "less government".

I agree.

And banning smoking fits into this equation how?

No, it is not.

We consistently spend more than we bring in....way more. We run massive deficits because of this.

How do you fix overspending? Easy, you spend less. How do you spend less? Well, you can start by not wasting gov't time and money on something like this. Is it going to fix the problem? Nope. We need to cut back and quit going overboard in our entire fiscal policy. We need to decrease the scope of the gov't, not increase it. Plus, we need to take a close look at the current programs and see if we can do things more efficiently.

No faith needed on this one.

Anyone who supports this ban, or "sin taxes", doesn't give one shit about the "sinners" they are taxing.

"Sin taxes" are for creating revenue, nothing else.

If your argument were true, they wouldn't have long-term plans to spend this new found money, because the amount of money coming in would dwindle because everyone is now aware of their sin and people start to quit smoking.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

Here in Colorado, they just voted in a massive increase to the existing "sin tax" for cigarettes.

Guess how much is earmaked for "smoking cessation"? 16%.

84% of this new tax will be spent elsewhere. As I said, it isn't about cutting down on smokers. They don't want that, they want their money.

I'm sorry, this ban and sin taxes are bullshit, pure and simple.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

filtherton

Sounds like murky waters. Let me guess, you're the only one with the light?

The point is that you denounce big government until it benefits you. Then you rationalize it. If you don't see inconsistency, what do you see?


How is it not going to fix the problem? People want smoking banned in public places, they act legally using their wondrous magical powers as citizens of the republic to ban smoking in public. Problem solved. They decide that banning smoking in public is a worthwhile use of public resources. Bada boom bada bing, done and done.

Your opinion on the direction the government should go is your opinion. All predictions on economic matters are an act of faith.



I agree that sin taxes would probably be more effective if they made the cost of consumption prohibitive. Unfortunately in the instance of cigarettes that seems like a bad idea, since that would just create illicit markets.

All taxes are for creating revenue. Sin taxes create revenue and also discourage people from doing certain things. It may seem unfair, but life rarely is fair.

Yep, well, times are tough. The funny thing is the number of smokers who will complain about being exploited, yet still plop down that $5+ for a pack of smokes every day. They say the lottery is a tax on people who don't understand basic statistics. I would wager that cigarette taxes run along the same lines.

Maybe you have a case for sin taxes being bullshit. I still don't understand how the ban is bullshit though. Do you think liquor licenses are bullshit? Are health regulations bullshit?

KMA-628

We are just going to go in circles on your other stuff, but this really caught my eye.

What inconsistency? It is easy to throw out such an accusation, but much harder to back it up. I am not aware of any rationalizing I have done for the expansion of government.

If anything, I have said quite the opposite, and been very consistent about it.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

raveneye

On big government: banning smoking in public places makes for a cheaper and more efficient government than allowing smoking in public places. The medical costs of second hand smoke are staggering and local governments pay a big chunk of those costs.

It's much more efficient and cheaper to handle the problem with the legislative and executive branches than the judiciary. Every city that ever enacted a ban first commissioned an economic cost-benefit analysis and found that the economic benefits are enormous. In fact the only certain economic costs are to the tobacco companies.

So if you're in favor of a cheaper and more efficient government, then it's a no-brainer. You should be in favor of smoking bans in public places.

filtherton

Maybe i misread what you were saying, but it seems like you express a huge dislike of big government. Then you agree with me that big government is a boogeyman. You agree that everyone hates it until it helps them. This seems to imply that you yourself quite enjoy big government if it suits your purposes. Forgive me for labelling you as inconsistent when you criticise others' support for something that you also support (big government when it suits you.)

Charlatan

My that's a pretty closed point of view... the thing I was trying to underscore is that smaller government is not always the solution. Here is an example of a goverment that is successful.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

raveneye

The whole big vs. small government is really a red herring wrt. the smoking ban. Government is always involved, whether or not smoking is banned. The question is not whether to involve it, the question is how to involve it.

If public smoking is not banned, then second-hand smoke causes cancer, disability, and death, and government is involved in paying out the medical costs, the unemployment payments, the disability payments, the life insurance payments, higher health insurance rates, litigation costs, court costs, etc.

If smoking is banned, then government is involved in enforcing the ban.

Which option involves less government?

flstf

It looks like second hand smoke isn't the only thing that bothers people. Maybe the government can enforce a non-perfume policy, Just kidding:

KMA-628

Nope, I didn't agree to that.

Wow, that's a classy way of calling me a liar.

Once again, I feel I have been very consistent with my views on big gov't. I don't support any increase to the size or scope of our gov't in almost any way that comes to my mind. That is not to say I won't ever support something, the possibility is always there. However, on the whole, I do not support it.

How many times do you want to go rounds on this? I have denied your accusation several times and your only response is to repeat the same accusation.


That is actually a very good point, and I admit that I didn't think of it this way. I am so against expanding the gov't that I react quickly, maybe too quickly, to anyone's suggesting of expanding it.

I would mention on this point, however, that this argument only works if people actually stop smoking because of the bans.

I would guess that if any do, it is a very small percentage, thus making the potential cost savings practically negligible. But, once again, that is just a guess.

I would also note the story mentioned in this thread about the guy that got sick 12 years after quiting. That tells me that not every smoker that quits is going to save the gov't or the taxpayers any money.

So, it almost seems six-to-one-half-dozen-to-the-other on this.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Charlatan

This is because you are looking for a short term solution... Yes, those who quit now may get cancer 12 years later. But those who never start because of the bans (directly or indirectly) are good results... but results that will take time to realize.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

raveneye

??? No, the argument works if nonsmokers are no longer exposed to second-hand smoke.

filtherton

Then what exactly did you agree to? A boogeyman is an imaginary monster use to frighten children into compliance. I made a statement claiming that the big government argument is of the boogeyman variety. You agreed. Everyone hates big government until big government can help them. You agreed with me. I assume that you are a part of that big group consisting of everyone. Agreeing with me here implies a certain level of guilt in this on your behalf. Excuse me if i thought that you meant what you said.



Once again, i apologize for assuming that you meant what you said.

Though i would be interested in how you define "big government". You say less government is better, and your standard seems to be based on the citizen's ability to get something done without the aid of the government. Is that not the basis for your opposition to the government involvement in the prohibition of public smoking? The citizens have it within their power to affect the market and bring about an end, or at the very least a decrease, in the amount of smoking allowed in public, correct?

Here's the thing. If that is the basis for your personal opinion as to whether a certain activity should justifiably require government help, well, then, that's not very strict criteria at all. In fact, i think that it could be argued that since it is the citizen who gives the government its power, that there is nothing the government can do that cannot also be accomplished by a sufficiently organized and motivated populace. Can you agree with me on that? Would this self empowered citizen group then essentially be a government, full of all the hugeness and bureaucracy that is inherent in any larger-than-small sized organization? Would that put us back where we started?

I see your distaste for big government, but i don't understand where you draw the line. I know you see the necessity of a big government for some things. If you admit that big government is at least in part a necessary thing, than how does it make sense to arbitrarily denounce something solely because it represents an increase in the size of government?

kramus

That argument won't fly unless you either accept the inherent hypocracy of judicious application or a universal steamroller of legislation that crushes every possible health-non enhancing act/interaction/process/substance ... you get the picture. The right of others to breath fresh air in a restaurant is persuable. The health cost of smoking is a specificly targeted argument that is more propoganda/spin doctor crap than anything else, or we would ban internal combustion and air conditioning and plastic and ...

__________________
And now to disengage the clutch of the forebrain ...
I'm going with this - if you like artwork visit http://markfineart.ca

KMA-628

filtherton -

I didn't edit well. I was agreeing with the first statement, not all of them. By showing all, I led you to believe I was referring to all of your comment. I just wasn't paying close enough attention when I was editing down your comment.

It is obvious, from my other comments, that I don't agree, with pretty much anything else you said.

Let me rephrase, since I gumbled up my previous attempt:
I agree with this comment--kinda hard not too.

However, I don't see how smoking bans can pass the constitutional water test.

Hell, the money we gave for the tsunami can't pass that test either, but we did it anyway. That doesn't mean the money was wrong, it just means we have been forgetting the constitution a lot lately.

We all have different beliefs regarding the role of gov't, the size, scope, etc. I fall under the "less is more" category--and always have--that is how I see gov't serving my purpose.

now am i making sense?

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

filtherton

Yes, thank you.

retsuki03

Red Herring?

If this was really a health issue, couldn't we just ban alcohol. It is poison. Also, I would argue that the costs of alcohol far outweigh second-hand smoke. If you can find a study that suggests a few hours in a bar a week next to a guy smoking a cigarette kills 17,013 a year, I'd be glad to read it. I might be able to find a study that shows a few hours a week in a bar drinking alcohol leads to astronomical government/societal costs when compared to second-hand smoke ($185 billion!).

I just don't see how this is a societal health issue if alcohol is not.

PS. I think the $185 billion thing is probably high.


The Atlanta Journal and Constitution is hardly Peer-Reviewed. If smoking doesn't hurt sales, explain this (pay careful attention to where it says "Closed."

The article you posted seems to focus on restaurants, rather than bars. Also, the part about 76% of business owners saying the lost business... can we really just toss that out because it was just an opinion poll? I understand that it is not scientific, but that does not mean that there claims are unfounded.


Not that any of this really matters to me. As I said before, for me it is a freedom issue.

raveneye

It's more than a health issue. It's a health issue in which unwilling people have their health compromised, due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever. I'm less concerned about banning a behavior that harms others needlessly than banning a behavior that harms only the user in privacy.

Drinkers don't force other people to drink, by virtue of being in public.

They both are. But people are obviously more open to a public smoking ban than an alcohol ban because because public smoking directly infringes on the rights of bystanders, whereas public drinking does not. That should be easy to see.

Nor did I say it was. However it referenced several peer reviewed studies that demonstrated economic benefits of the public smoking ban. Did you read it?

Of course. But we as a society tend to allow people to harm themselves in costly ways. However we generally don't take kindly to people harming innocent bystanders in costly ways.

That's hardly a peer-reviewed article. Nor is it remotely unbiased, having been published by smokersinc., a smoker's rights organization.

So you don't dispute its conclusions about the economic effects of a ban in restaurants?

Sure we can, if it conflicts with undisputed peer-reviewed studies.

Freedom for whom? Smokers or non-smokers?

retsuki03

I don't see it that way. If someone gets tanked at a bar and gets on the freeway, the "bystanders" can end up dead. So saying that only the drinker is harmed is not fair, especially if your the in the car he/she drives into.

I would say that people are more open to banning smoking because of simple majorities. Over 60% of people drink alcohol while about 25% of people (in Texas) smoke.
Is losing a life costly? If you can't see a connection between alcohol related fatalies and a cost to society, I might as well abandon this discussion.
I didn't say it was peer-reviewed. My point is that many owners say it hurts business. Think of it like this. When a smoking ban goes into effect and a business has an uncovered patio, people could still smoke outside. Smokers will go to this business rather than another. Because of the usually limited number of bars that have patio space, 10% of bars will experience increased sales, while others will lose sales. Usually small, independently owned bars. In Austin, the same thing applies to venues. Some open air venues, will automatically become the most popular with smokers. The smoke ban may have no aggregate negative effect of sales, but it affects each place individually.

As far as the article you posted. Look up that professor. He has spent his whole life trying to get rid of tobacco. It is not surprising that when he puts some data together, he comes up with the conclusions he was after. Is he not biased?

Studies (even scientific ones) sponsored by tobacco companies are not ipso facto wrong. Biased, yes. But everyone has an agenda. It is best to at least look at both sides.
Freedom for everyone. Freedom to choose whatever bar you want- be it smoking or smoke free.

KMA-628

Please explain the last statement. From the way I am reading it, you would rather ban smoking in private than public.

Actually, I thought retsuki03's analogy was pretty good.

When drinkers drive drunk, they put every person they are near in immediate danger, public or private. The family that is killed by a drunk driver didn't have drinks forced on them, they had a several thousand pound vehicle, manned by a drunk, forced on them.

And....anyone that has been in an accident with a drunk driver has "their health compromised due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever".

What about the kid beaten and abused by an alcholic parent? Would you say that "their health [was] compromised due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever".

Sounds very parallel to me.....drinking should be banned because of the risks/dangers it inflicts on the unwilling in society.......oh yeah, we tried that.

Edit: Jinx

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

Charlatan

You're really stretching... the harm to others caused by the irresponsible use of alcohol is completely different from the harm to others cause by the proper use of smoking tobacco.

Surely you can see the difference.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

KMA-628

nope, I don't see a difference.

The drunk is "properly" drinking his/her alcohol. It is how they act after they consumed alcohol that is the problem.

The irresponsible act isn't the drinking, it is getting into a car after drinking. It isn't the "use" of alcohol.

And, according to most here, it is irresponsible for a smoker to "share" their smoke, so that would make it an "irresponsible" act.

Nope, don't see a stretch and don't see a difference.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

raveneye

Sure, and that's why drunk driving is illegal. And that's also why public smoking should be illegal.

Good analogy. Thanks for making my point.

ShaniFaye

I would just like to add....since the direction of the converstation is going this way....the person affected by the drunk driver doesnt in have to be in public.

They can be sitting in their house, minding their own business, and have their vehicle completly demolished by a drunk driver.....I know....its happened to me twice

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

retsuki03

Laws against driving drunk are really effective at stopping drunk driving. Therefore we can legislate a perfect society as defined by the majority.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --CS Lewis

raveneye

"Laws against murder are really effective at stopping murder. Therefore we can legislate a perfect society as defined by the majority."

So are you opposed to all laws, because laws reduce some people's freedom?

raveneye

Exactly how are smokers in restaurants "tormented for their own good will"?

retsuki03

No, I don't oppose laws at all. I just draw the line if different places.

My point lies in the efficacy of the laws. There are ways to combat all society's ills.

Obesity?
Ban unhealthy food and have mandatory exercise.

Murder?
Outlaw guns, kill people who commit murder within a week of their crime, and show it on national television.

Drunk Driving?
Outlaw Alcohol.

raveneye

What exactly is that point? That drunk driving laws are not effective, therefore we should not have drunk driving laws?

That drunk drivers are "tormented for their own good will" by drunk driving laws?

retsuki03

My point is, if the goal of society was truly to stopping drunk driving, the law most effective at this would be to outlaw alcohol... or maybe just a Breathalyzer on every car.

bendsley

California is already this way, the whole state. It's great. If you're smoking in any public place, there is a hefty fine. Last time I believe it was $500.

I'm with Charlatan on this one, about thinking it's a great thing. I don't smoke nor have I ever tried it. I don't think I should be able to deal with it when others smoke around me.

__________________
"You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter let him in. Sees a guy in a suit making a closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."

retsuki03

I would say your argument is much stronger on things generally considered public, like beaches (even then I don't agree completely). But when we start talking about someone's private business, I strongly disagree.

raveneye

So you're saying you're opposed to drunk driving laws, because they are ineffective in stopping drunk driving?

I'd accept a yes or no.

retsuki03

No, I am not opposed to drunk driving laws. I still believe they are ineffective.

Yakk

There is some evidence to the contrary:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in533451.shtml
http://www.safety-council.org/news/m...n19-drunk.html
Basically, the rates of Drunk Driving have plummetted over the last 20 years in both the USA and Canada, which correlates to a push to catch drunk drivers on the road and in the legal system.

I'm not saying it was the sole cause, but it is a contributing cause. People now believe (at least around here) that driving drunk is stupid and wrong.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

matthew330

...lets not convolute things here. The effects of second hand smoke, amounts to nothing more than a minor annoyance, in very rare instances a major annoyance. I smoke, and i've been in places where it bothers me. Those who would suggest that their health is at risk by second hand smoke, as they come in contact with it, have let emotion COMPLETELY take over reason (if noone else has notices, this is the only thread host has posted in that wasn't accompanied by 3 pages of quoted articles "supporting" his points).

The obligation of proving the dangerous effects of second hand smoke is in your hands, but that will never happen because the effects are clear - they're nonexistant. Not only is there no scientific evidence, there isn't even obvious basic correlations to warrent a scientific study to prove this point. I could go on and on, but it's time to whip on on some poor eager nine-ball wannabe's. I'll see you when i'm 400 bucks richer.

Fourtyrulz

"No scientific evidence..." Wow, I found these 3 links on google in less than 3 minutes, replete with references to scientific studies. Two of them are PDFs so I can't quote them.

Read 'em and weep matt:

SCIENTIFIC STUDY #1

SCIENTIFIC STUDY #2

SCIENTIFIC STUDY #3

You're just so blatantly ignorant/misinformed it's difficult to take your post seriously.

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

retsuki03

Not really. I was just stating an opinion. I know what the statistics, and in my opinion, the laws are ineffective. In your opinion, I guess they are, that is fine.

Fourtyrulz

Regardless of your opinion, facts are facts. You could swear up and down that the Sun revolved around the Earth and it wouldn't mean squat since evidence and proof tell us otherwise. Ignore the evidence if you want, but doing so still doesn't put the word fact in quotation marks.

Edit: What do drunk driving laws have to do with anything anyway?

__________________
the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation.
faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
- Merriam-Webster's dictionary

retsuki03

Ok... I am not ignoring the facts.

In 1982 - 26,173 Alcohol related fatalities
In 2003 - 17,013 Alcohol related fatalities

Wow. 35% reduction in over 20 years. Like I said before, I don't think they are effective. Just an opinion.

Why are we talking about DD?

We were talking about the societal costs of secondhand smoke vs. alcohol.