Comments (23) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   oldlegodad said, 7 months ago

   WHAT EVER IT TAKES!

2. 

   Simon_Jester said, 7 months ago

   Somebody must be doing something right, oldlegodad, Do you see as many people smoking these days as you did 10, 20 years ago? I don’t and I especially don’t see as many kids smoking as I used to.

3. 

   Dale Hopson said, 7 months ago

   Due to Bloomberg’s ban NYC smokers HAVE quit! And the younger generations knows not to start this habit…

4. 

   churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

   OLDLEGODAD: If our (spineless) government wants to have an honest debate on whether tobacco should be legal or illegal, that’s one thing. But they have no right to balance budgets or fund SCHIP on MY BACK! If you believe in their programs PAY FOR THEM! Don’t expect a minority group to pay for them for you! (although it’s really easy to do when only 20% of the population smokes)

   Since when has social engineering become a noble cause? I’m aware smoking is not good for me (I’m bombarded with messages all day long, and I’m not saying that’s a bad thing). But the government should not have the right to make a legal product prohibitively expensive for me to afford.

   Now I’m relatively thin, but I see alot of lardos down there at the fast food joints. How about a buck tax on each Big Mac? (wouldn’t bother me, I don’t eat much of it–processed food is bad for you). I hear red meat is bad for you– how about an extra $20 per steak? That’ll get people to stop eating it! (I’m sure vegetarians will support the bill!)

   “THEY” don’t want “assisted care residents” to eat donuts, or kids to have ice cream socials. Where would YOU draw the line? And who are YOU to draw this line, anyway?

5. 

   tracht47 said, 7 months ago

   This is the only way some people will be able to give up smoking.

6. 

   Anthony 2816 said, 7 months ago

   Churchill, if you don’t want to pay this voluntary tax, then don’t pay it.

   And if you want to put another voluntary tax on fatty fast foods, I’ll support you.

7. 

   Singess said, 7 months ago

   I wish that smokers were required to eat their cigarette butts.

8. 

   rookie26201 said, 7 months ago

   Raise the tax higher!!!!

9. 

   oldlegodad said, 7 months ago

   Churchill I am that worst of the nanny naggers AN EX-SMOKER understand now?

10. 

    churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

    OLDLEGODAD: You may be the second biggest nagger, my father is an ex-smoker and cancer survivor. HE’S the biggest nagger! But I don’t need a nanny-state government telling me what I can and cannot do! If you had gotten clogged arteries due to meat consumption, would you be taking away peoples rights to eat meat now too?

    First they came for Cigarettes, but I did not speak out, for I was not a smoker;

    Then they came for Alcohol, but I did not speak out, for I did not embibe;

    Then they came for Big Macs, but I did not speak out, for I enjoy their Southwest Salad;

    Then they came for Red Meat, but did not speak out, for I am a vegetarian;

    Then they came for my Ding Dongs, but there was no one left to speak out for me.

    With apologies to Martin Niemoller

11. 

    motivemagus said, 7 months ago

    There is a big difference between tobacco and some of the other things you cite, church - primarily, that you can eat all the fatty foods you like, it doesn’t affect the guy sitting next to you. The same is not true of smoking. My father smoked, I never did, and I still was diagnosed with a “smoker’s cough” at one point. Took me years to get that out of my system. A public health issue is just that - public. Smoke in your home, but what about the kids?
    And since I believe you’ve commented on the Pro-Life issue before, note that tobacco inhibits growth of the fetus, leads to higher odds of “failure to thrive” syndrome, and generally has a strongly negative impact on health. We’ve known that for over forty years.

12. 

    churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

    MOTIVE: I’ve never commented on the “pro life” issue. And I wouldn’t recommend pregnant people smoke. That has nothing to do with my post anyway.

    And I’m not locking anyone in a room with my when I smoke (like your father did). There are plenty of laws on the books on when and where I can smoke (It’s amazing that our species survived before the anti-smoking lobby got their way)

    You’re probably one of those people who want to ban (or rate them R) those old movies that show people smoking, because just the site of that offends you.

13. 

    motivemagus said, 7 months ago

    Cripes, churchill, you don’t know jack about me. I said in my post “smoke in your home.”
    (My dad didn’t lock me in a room with his smoke either – but it was all around me nonetheless, in the house, in the clothes, in the car.)
    All I’m saying is not to pretend an apple is an orange. I have the utmost sympathy for tobacco addicts, which include my father and my mother-in-law, and note that the tobacco industries put in additives to make that addiction worse (unless you really think ammonia was added “for flavor”). I just think we ought to be honest about it!

14. 

    richgrise said, 7 months ago

    Clearly, the Church of Antismokerism doesn’t want to be passed up by the Church of Global Warmingism.

15. 

    motivemagus said, 7 months ago

    richgrise - you mean the Church of Prosmokerism can’t deal with science.

16. 

    richgrise said, 7 months ago

    I was a paralegal assistant during TWO of the big moneygrab lawsuits. The actual science demonstrates that smoking does NOT cause cancer, but, being real science, those documents had too many big words for the juries to grasp, and so got ignored. they just went for the emotional argument, like “I don’t like it, so NOBODY should be allowed to do it!”

    Which, of course, makes it a religious cult. Ever notice how overjoyed the antismokerists get when they get a new convert?

    And that second-hand smoke bleeep is a total strawman - how about second-hand car exhaust?

    I’d like to challenge any antismokerist to the Garage Challenge - You get in your garage with your car and a full tank of gas, seal up the windows and doors, and I’ll get in my garage with a couple of cartons of cigarettes and seal up my doors and windows. You start your car and I’ll start chain-smoking, and when your car runs out of gas, we’ll both come out and
    compare our experiences.

17. 

    cdward said, 7 months ago

    Any real scientists want to say something to richgrise’s claim that science proves smoking is harmless? I know his status as a paralegal makes his scientific prowess daunting, but I bet one or two could take him on, no?

18. 

    motivemagus said, 7 months ago

    He’s managed to ignore my point about smoking inhibiting fetal growth, which was established somewhere around 1968 (yes, sixty-eight), but perhaps our resident biologist fennec cares to respond.

19. 

    churchillwasright said, 7 months ago

    You won’t find many smokers that claim that it isn’t bad for your health. (That fetal warning is on the side of cigarette packs BTW) That was never my point.

    My gripe is government passing stupid laws and paying for it on the backs of smokers. And I don’t need nor want a nanny state government telling me what I can and cannot due, and then lying and telling me these taxes are for my own good, we’re just doing a little social engineering.

    If you believe SCHIP is sound policy, then ALL Americans should pay for it, not just smokers– so pony up!

20. 

    cdward said, 7 months ago

    It’s been a nanny state for ever. Remember blue laws? Remember sodomy laws? Remember abortion laws? All that’s changing is what the state says we can or can’t do.

21. 

    fennec said, 7 months ago

    Sorry to be so late in the game, guys. Rich’s post was just so absurd, I didn’t even bother to reply. However, first, epidemiological evidence shows strong correlation between smoking and cancer. Laboratory evidence shows components in cigarette smoke have what we call transformational effects on cells in culture. Therefore, scientists accept this as strong evidence for causal connection. Caveat: We cannot attribute any specific case of cancer to smoking; we can say, however, that your chances of developing cancer increase with exposure to smoke. Second, the absurd comparison with automobile exhaust: teh lethal component of exhaust is carbon monoxide which binds strongly to hemoglobin and other heme-containing proteins. Massive inactivation of these proteins is immediately lethal. Cancer, in contrast, requires time to develop. In many types we have identified a series of changes that must take place for the final transformation of a cell into malignancy and is often on a time scale of years. Hope this helps.

22. 

    deadheadzan said, 7 months ago

    40 years ago when I was a nursing student our pathologist gave up smoking because of the number of people dead of lung cancer and the blackened lung tissue that presented on autopsy of smokers.

23. 

    tracht47 said, 7 months ago

    fennec- Thanks for the information. Just because you don’t drop dead as soon as you smoke a cigarette doesn’t mean they’re not harmful. Some people just can’t seem to grasp that concept.