Smoking Bans

There was a point, and you missed it.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

If it costs as much to quit smoking as it costs to smoke, then the best choice is to quit smoking. Because you're not on gun or nicotine patches for the rest of your life.

It's not over. Not yet.

Still missing it.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

Why do you think I want the "institution" up. Yes, I know that.

...Please call me Irene.

Er-hem, I don't like that either. But you have to understand why it's hard for some of us to feel sorry for smokers in general when many are just plain rude too. Don't forget, you're harming a lot of people with your habit. So us being a bit angry should not be that unusual. That said, I'd rather work together to rid the habit than an extremist solution.

Drunk, to be honest, you're missing the point Medicus is making entirely. He knows clearly what you mean. But in the long run, you'll spend less overall with that stuff than if you continued on with your habit. ...Assuming your habit doesn't kill you first, of course.(instead of spending more money on it)

edited 30th Aug '12 10:35:27 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

@Hydronix/Irene: No, he's still missing it. My point is, if the taxes were really an attempt to get people to quit smoking they'd go directly into a fund from which I would be able to acquire the stuff that'd help me quit.

But they don't. They go to roads, police, public works, etc...basically stuff that has nothing to do with the tax. So I say that the increased taxes are nothing more than an excuse for revenue generation.

And as far as I'm concerned it also casts a doubt on the moral purity of the anti-smoking crusade in general, considering that if they meant what they said they'd be making sure that the money generated by my sin-taxes went directly to help abolish this terrible habit of mine.

But it doesn't. And again, if I want to quit I have to pay for it and feel shitty in the bargain. I'd rather smoke...because the people who are so worked up have demonstrated by their actions that they really don't give a flying fuck about me or anyone in my position. So, why should I care about them?

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~

While they'll save more money in the long run, poorer smokers might not be able to afford a higher cost upfront. You also have to consider that one of the hallmarks of drug dependency is pursuit of the drug consuming time and money, even though one is aware of the negative consequences. Making NRT more widely and cheaply available has been shown to help.

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

You know what? You're right. How dare they use those taxes for pure revenue generation! I've never used a road, and I doubt anyone else has too!

Edit: Actually I do agree that the stuff should be subsidised, that makes sense.

edited 30th Aug '12 10:57:49 PM by Medicus

It's not over. Not yet.

And to be honest, calling us "jerks" for not doing that won't help you faster at all. Basically, stop trying to cast a moral thing on us. It's not really going to help solve the issue or anything. This is not a matter of morals, this is about the law. Leave that at the door here.

What we need to concentrate on is fixing it, not blaming us anymore. It goes both ways. We blame you for essentially killing many of us. You blame us for being mad... and using bad solutions. It's a circle.

It's not going to be broken by whining either. Yes, we need to get that Rehabilitation Center up. That's what we should be concentrating on. And yes, we get the poor thing as well. But we're not going to listen to that at this point. It's still not a solution you're offering, you're just telling us to stop trying to stop you guys from hurting others.(this is what it boils down to) So the whole "blame game" has to stop to improve the situation. Same with emotional blackmail, or any of this "moral fiber" crap. Drop it off at the door. Not interested here.

Now, how can get this Rehabilitation Center up?

Quest 64 thread

In fairness to the taxes, Smoking costs society money in lost productivity and medical costs. The Government needs to make that money up some how.

edited 30th Aug '12 11:03:56 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

This is a great comprehensive resource for information on smoking in Australia. Is there anything like it discussing smoking in the US?

Edit: Specifically, I was looking at their economic analysis, which might not apply in the US due to differing policies.

edited 30th Aug '12 11:08:51 PM by Yuanchosaan

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

@Irene: Stepping in here because Drunkscriblerian has stopped listening. Yes, smoking hurts people. We all understand that.

But the taxes aren't going towards stopping smoking. Therein lies the problem, and therein likes the sort of hypocrisy that pisses off smokers.

Both Drunkscriblerian and myself have offered the solution of "subsidize smoking cessation" and "treat smoking like an addiction". However, that continually gets ignored in favor of "tax them harder" and "treat it like a moral failing".

However, as much as I would like to see smokers actually quit, I highly doubt that my solutions will ever be implemented. The anti-smoking crusaders around here are in the business of blocking everything that even remotely pertains to tobacco. They're campaigning to make all smoking cessation aids prescription-only, they're campaigning to ban smoking from every possible venue (including inside personal vehicles), but what they're not doing is helping.

You can't say "I want smokers to quit" and then ignore everything that they say when it comes to ways that will help them quit. Drunkscriblerian's point of "smoking, in the short term, feels better and is just as cost effective as quitting" has been completely ignored.

Do you want people to quit, or do you want to feel morally superior? Because if you want them to quit, you're going to have to stop treating them like dirt. It's making me angry, and I don't even smoke.

edited 30th Aug '12 11:17:51 PM by DrunkGirlfriend

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian

Our goal is to stop the addiction. Not to have moral battles with you.

Taxing you harder for hurting people? I'm sorry, but where do morals full under here? It does need to be fixed, but that's only because it's not solving the problem.

Certain Laws should not ever be based upon morality. They need to be based upon logic. Logically, the overtaxing is failing to do its job. That means we have to lower them or get that Center up(and lower them a little still, regardless). That way the people that can't afford it go to the Center. Those who can afford it continue to pay for the center.

By the time smoking entirely stops, the center will no longer be needed. If done right, which is to encourage people to not smoke in the first place(the entire point of plain packaging, not to hurt existing smokers, respectively, that's more or a less an unfortunate consequence), eventually it'll end up where there are no smokers, and thus, the Center is not needed. Kind of one of those circles, except it goes into a positive direction than the current negative one.

I find the first goal is to quit mudslinging and firing accusations, and make the Center before anything. And let it go from there. Patches may or may not help, but I know they are often too expensive, as obviously mentioned.(it should be cheaper to quit, sadly) I'm all for lowering those prices more than anything.

edited 30th Aug '12 11:27:24 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread

Don't the Taxes themselves deter people from trying cigarettes?

Look, its pretty obvious that most Anti-smoking agencies and groups have given up on getting current smokers to quit, in favor of preventing new people from taking up smoking in first place. Why? Because as many have pointed out in this thread quitting smoking is hard and costly. And it's not like many Anti-smoking agencies and groups are loaded on cash.

edited 30th Aug '12 11:29:44 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Citation?

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

And on the topic of "subsidize smoking cessation",Massachusetts just started there program to do just that.

edited 30th Aug '12 11:38:28 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016

Because people are not quitting.

The citation is everybody telling you it's clearly not working. Right in this topic.

Likewise, it's not cool to make people suffer who want to quit, but is made too hard to. I want to meet halfway and still this nonsense already. We need the Center, not heavy taxes.(sure, it discourages new users, but leaves the old ones out in the proverbial dust, and that's just not right)

Quest 64 thread

No, what this topic tells me is that some people haven't quit because of higher taxes. It doesn't tell me no one has quit because of them. Here's a systematic review that shows taxes are effective in getting people to quit globallyN.B.

. This has also been shown to be true in specific countries, such as Hungary, New Zealand and the UK. Can you provide evidence of a similarly high level?

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

You entirely misread what I said.

I didn't say it didn't cause anyone to quit. I said it didn't cause all. Hence "failing". I should've been more specific.

High taxes does not do it well enough. That's all.

Quest 64 thread

It's only failing to do its job if you view the goal as "everyone quits smoking, and no one starts up again", as opposed to "get as many people to quit as possible" (I thought the latter was what you meant). Taxes are the most effective method of improving smoking cessation. If your metric is "everyone quits", then by that standard, every other method fails as well.

If there are people not quitting, that doesn't imply taxes have failed. It implies that there need to be other methods to supplement it, such as training for doctors, education campaigns, subsidised NRT, prohibiting tobacco advertising and, yes, support and rehabilitation centres. Each of these will only have a small effect individually and will certainly not get everyone to quit. The integrated approach aims to maximise the number of people quitting and minimise the number of people starting.

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

So... pretty much what I'm saying the entire time.

Find another way to help move it along. Most important is to make the patches(etc.) much cheaper.

Quest 64 thread

I'm still trying to reconcile the attitude that smoking is a choice, made voluntarily in full knowledge of the consequences with the attitude that smoking is an addiction that the victim cannot control without help. "Why don't you stop?" "Because I like it. And I can't." Huh?

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

How do you know that wouldn't just be an attempt to get you to breath on them? In fact, that's what I would do.

edited 31st Aug '12 7:08:54 AM by Enzeru

@ Fighteer: You say that addition affects decision-making — so does that mean that addicts shouldn't be allowed the vote?

Keep Rolling On

Let's be clear — I didn't assert that addiction affects decision making; I heard that from the mouths of the addicts themselves. People impair their decision-making abilities all the time and they still get to vote. That's not even close to the issue here. However, an addict should not be trusted to make rational decisions where their addiction is concerned. That's just common sense.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

So you'd make it for them — that isn't very democratic, isn't it? Unless, of course, you don't actually believe in people making their own decisions, unless they are ones you agree with?

Now, I'm not a supporter of smoking, and I don't like smoking since I've got asthma, but isn't that a little too far?

edited 31st Aug '12 8:02:53 AM by Greenmantle

Keep Rolling On