should menthol cigarettes be banned

[© tweed]

How about we don't ban any cigs and get the government out of regulating tobacco.

obviously.

although menthol light smokers should be publicly stoned, especially males under the age of 30.  I encountered this 18 year old smoking menthol lights last night.  if you are that young why would you want to smoke a fake cigarette?  man up and grab yourself a pack of Reds.

[© tweed]

I'm for banning all forms of Tobacco.



Cue nanny-statist remarks in 3....2...1...

Nanny?  You're a ing Nazi.

Well, then I'm a Nazi who cares about my state's health care system. The price-tag to the tax-payers for lighting up was $1.7 trillion in 2005. Smokers force tax-payers to pay higher taxes and higher insurance costs. Not to mention the fact that we are sacrificing services to the public on the excuse that's "there's no money for that!" Some family's here can ill-afford to pay for people's addictions when they are going from paycheck to paycheck, trying to feed their family. Tobacco taxes don't even begin to make up for the costs either. States on average bring in about $16 billion a year from tobacco taxes. That's barely enough to pay 10% of the average state's health care costs attributed to smoking.

so then, why get out of your house in the morning?  think of all the bad things that could happen.

[© tweed]

you missed my point.  (but you bring up another in your failed sarcasm - nicotine is arguably the most addictive substance on the planet and most smokers have no control over their smoking).

and you wrongly assume all of the costs associated with smoking would be eradicated if tobacco were  illegalized.  they wouldn't, and you'd just create a whole new set of problems by fueling the black market, bootleggers, etc.

[© tweed]

Everybody has the self-control to quit smoking. Nicotine is very addicting and it's hard to get off, hard but not impossible. Smoking isn't a natural event, people choose to smoke and they can choose to quit. The key is self-control and support.

you don't have the faintest idea of what you're talking about.  you make it sound so easy.  perhaps you can explain why 95-97% of non-medicated attempts to quit smoking fail and 90-94% of medicated attempts to quit fail.

you've never had a nicotine addiction.  you have no idea what it's like.  you're wrong, period.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

people will go to extremes to satisfy their nicotine receptors.  it's been proven.  besides, look up "prohibition" on Wikipedia and see exactly how well it works.  or how well the drug war works in the present-day.

[© tweed]

Oh how quickly you seem to assume thing. Yes, I've never been addicted to nicotine. However, my dad has and my grandpa has, dying from it a few months ago. If your study is correct then I guess my dad and my uncle were of the 3-5% that quit...cold turkey. I never said it was easy. Just don't go around saying it is impossible, because its not.

oh, I have anecotes too.  my maternal grandfather supposedly quit smoking first try around 30-35 years ago after heavily smoking Lucky Strikes for decades.  regardless, the numbers and science don't lie.  nicotine is extremely addictive (in some lab tests, more addictive than cocaine and heroin) and a miniscule percentage of attempts to quit succeed.  I've tried to quit 2-3 times and failed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the secondhand smoke kills debate is still alive and it's never been completely proven.  but regardless, most establishments (nearly all around here) ban smoking indoors.  it isn't too hard to avoid secondhand smoke - just boycott the few establishments around you that permit smoking if it bothers you so much.

and it isn't the government's job to cater to your interests and your personal dislikes.  look at automobiles, for example.  they no doubt kill hundreds of thousands every year.  and it just pisses me off so much that cars are all over the streets I walk.  should the government ban cars as a result?  personal choice exists for a reason - life would be hell without it, even if the average lifespan increased as a result.

[© tweed]

think of all of the things parents do to endanger their children.  the state simply can't regulate personal behavior beyond a certain point.  banning tobacco wouldn't work and isn't desirable.

and most restaurants/bars don't ban smoking because it's economically beneficial for them not to.

[© tweed]

RACISM

not quite sure what you mean.  obviously Newports are black-dominated (though a lot of white-trashy types smoke them) but plenty of whites smoke menthol lights.

[© tweed]

think of all of the things parents do to endanger their children.  the state simply can't regulate personal behavior beyond a certain point.  banning tobacco wouldn't work and isn't desirable.

and most restaurants/bars don't ban smoking because it's economically beneficial for them not to.

Actually, many non-partisan reports have shown that a smoking ban slowly decreases business for a short while but eventually rebounds and actually increases business in some cases since 80% of people don't smoke.

the said businesses wouldn't allow smoking if they didn't think it was beneficial monetarily.

and non-partisan reports also have shown that smoking bans increase drunk driving deaths.

[© tweed]

I'm not quite sure which of my two statements you are calling a "myth," but neither has anything to do with "tobacco companies."  it's simply how businesses work: they exist to make a profit.  they choose to allow smoking because they believe that is the path to maximizing profit.  this concept has nothing to do with tobacco.

[© tweed]

I'm not quite sure which of my two statements you are calling a "myth," but neither has anything to do with "tobacco companies."  it's simply how businesses work: they exist to make a profit.  they choose to allow smoking because they believe that is the path to maximizing profit.  this concept has nothing to do with tobacco.

The first one.

Yes, they believe smoking bans will reduce profits, wrongly. I can point you to many studies that back the concept that banning smoking doesn't hurt business in the long-term, if you want.

you're talking about something else altogether: smoking bans instituted by the government against the choices of individual establishments in an area where the state has not banned smoking.  obviously if an entire county bans smoking, it isn't going to make too much difference, as smokers and non-smokers alike are robbed of their freedom of choice.  but what we're talking about here are individual establishments near you allowing smoking.  they allow smoking because it is profitable for them to do so, or at minimum, they believe so.  it's comical that you profess to know more about running your local Friday's or diner than the owner himself does when you have no access to the data.

[© tweed]

It makes me laugh when you argue about a smokers "right" to smoke is going to be infringed by a ban on public smoking. However, aren't my rights to health and happiness being infringed by smokers. In Michigan, we have no ban whatsoever. So my choices as an individual are severely limited by smokers.

no - it's your choice to passionately hate smokers and cigarette smoke, and it isn't the government's job to cater to your tastes, unfortunately for you.  there is also nothing forcing you to enter establishments in which smoking is permitted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

it's nice to see you back off of your main thesis of the thread after you realize it's an indefensibly fascist position to hold.

[© tweed]

it is the government's job to protect personal freedom and choice.  again, your choices are limited because you CHOOSE to limit them.  the government doesn't have to cater to one man's interests by disenfranchising others arbitrarily.

if I felt it was the government's job to cater to the interests of smokers, as you allege, I wouldn't support allowing business owners to set their own smoking policies.  the opposite of a smoking ban would be the government forcing all establishments to permit smoking.  not the status quo, a concept that you can't quite grasp.

[© tweed]

that's an extremely dangerous mindset to hold.  that is mob rule, pure and simple.  by that logic, we could easily ban automobiles, perhaps tap water, public restrooms, sexual intercourse, etc.

if you don't want to inhale secondhand smoke, don't.  it's that easy.  nobody is forcing you to enter establishments where smoking is permitted.  nobody is forcing you!  you have choice.  you must feel so free.

[© tweed]

I'd be willing to answer any questions you may have, Snowguy.

[© tweed]

Well, the difference is consent. People consent to those things, 2nd hand smokers don't or at least shouldn't have to.

yes, you do consent to it by putting yourself in situations where cigarettes may well be present.  the same way a driver doesn't try to get into car accidents but goes a long way towards increasing his risk by getting behind the wheel.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

so?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

most jobs in which there will be rampant smoking tend to be at bars or restaurants, where a few factors come into play; 1) it's a low-skill job, 2) the worker likely could make a similar wage somewhere else, and 3) these jobs are not the difference between heating your house or freezing to death.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

you know what, this is a good point.  but also take a look at alcohol.  babies get birth defects when their mothers drink, and kids get beaten by their drunken fathers on a nightly basis.  so I think we should ban alcohol too.  oh, wait.  we already tried that, no?

[© tweed]

it is interesting for you to declare something "the worst argument this forum has ever seen" (paraphrase) when I can't quite remember you ever making an argument.  instead, as is above, you state opinions as if they are facts and infer some sort of knowledge without really saying much of anything.

[© tweed]

just because others have put it previously or more eloquently does not make it untrue.

I tend to define 'consent' as 'agree to' in most context.  now that we're in question time, could you explain to me how my argument earlier in this thread is "one of the worst arguments this forum has ever seen?"

[© tweed]

Btw, don't you think it a little odd that you criticise me for not making "real" arguments and for stating opinion as if it were fact when that's exactly what you're doing here?

I suppose in a certain sense that's what debate is, although I tend to add qualifiers and defense after my thesis while you often don't.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

the situations aren't applicable as the people in the above situations have no opportunity to leave.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

not quite sure what that means

[© tweed]

Not true actually. Try again.

once the event is/was in process, the people in question have no ability to leave.  a Jew would have a very difficult time leaving Germany during the Holocaust and a rape victim would have difficulty escaping a rapist in a park at midnight.  someone encountering second-hand smoke in a restaurant most certainly does not face this predicament.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

here we go again

[© tweed]

One could compare it to that awful argument for DC disenfranchisement that if residents of DC don't like it they can leave.

no, as a majority (or large minority) of DC residents are far too poor to just up and leave.  the same predicament does not apply to people at a restaurant.

[© tweed]

Al, there is a key difference between all of your examples and second-hand smoke in a restaurant that you seem to be ignoring; while it may be unwise to walk through Central Park at midnight or for Jews to stay in Germany in 1938 (and the US didn't do a great job of allowing them to immigrate here but that's a different story), once their ultimate events were underway they had no escape.  the rape victim probably can't stop from being raped and the Jew probably can't get out of Germany.  but if you smell cigarette smoke in a restaurant, nothing on Earth prevents you from leaving.  nobody is going to stop you and nobody is going to physically restrain you and no government is going to prevent you.

[© tweed]

Anyway, we need to ban clove cigarettes and PBR in New York. 

what's with the avatar?  presuming you actually believe that.