It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The true cost of smoking

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:23 PM
I am against the companies that make tobacco products.

I am against advertising that markets those addictive products to children.

I think that politicians work hand in hand with those companies to somehow protect them from the courts.

Why isn't nicotine regulated like any other addictive substance?

Why do product liability laws not work against tobacco companies.
Show me one other product that is legal that does this much damage to the health of the country and is addictive that is legal.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:28 PM
reply to post by Wildbob77

caffeine and alcohol.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by Wildbob77

Wildbob , you are against things out of your control, this is a drain on your energy. all you can do is affect the things in your imediate life positively.

one of my mantras 'never f*&^ with things you cant control.'

Excuse my beeped out language but its how it is.

Another one 'no pity for the dumb' harsh but it saves you heaps of head space to concentrate on your own life.

all the best

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by themuse


We should all work to make society a better place.

I don't think that we need to burden future generations with tobacco.

Perhaps, I've ranted a bit too much on this post. If so, excuse me.

Have a wonderful life.


posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:36 PM
Wow. OP, are you serious? I'd conclude that your depressive complaint is probably causing more harm to the readers then my second hand smoke ever will. Now I'm going to be forced to pay for their deteriorating health because of you. Pffft...

If one is dumb enough to inhale enough second-hand smoke to affect one's health, they're obviously competing for a Darwin Award to begin with. Get over yourself, Captain Planet. There's plenty of room here on earth. If you don't like smoking, don't do it. If you don't like smoke, get out of it.

P.S. There ARE additional taxes added to both alcohol and tobacco products here in the United States. Probably for the exact same reasons you've mentioned. Try doing some research before you start aimlessly whining about things. Ffs.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by themuse


We should all work to make society a better place.

I don't think that we need to burden future generations with tobacco.

Perhaps, I've ranted a bit too much on this post. If so, excuse me.

Have a wonderful life.


We all need a rant everynow and then its all good. But to make the world a better place we have to undeerstand emotions are a choice and make virtue a way of life. I personally dont say the word hate. It changes a persons energy slightly, even if you say I h&*e choc icecream and it puts it out there as energy too. I dont like how it makes me and others feel energy wise so i will not contribute to that.I will not do that to myself or others. these types of personal convictions make for peaceful world. Society is just the game we play until survival becomes a struggle.

You also have a wonderful life Bob

and a great day today as well



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:00 PM
Smoking is only a detriment to those who smoke. The EPA's report of second hand smoke is subject to skewed data in order to make their case that second hand smoke being bad for people is true, when in fact the true data shows that death and health problems are statisticly insignificant only raising 2.5 people per 12 million when second hand smoke is factored in.

The EPA is an environmental agency not a health facility or a health watch dog group or anything else pertaining to health for that matter. And to top it off their skewed reports are the only factor in banning smoking in public facilities and public areas. All other reports by actual health research departments and the government (actual, factual reports with sound data sets) all agree that second hand smoke is about as dangerous as regular ol' air.

Just because you don't like second hand smoke doesn't mean it's going to kill you. Go get the facts. And then talk about it.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:04 PM
Smokers can be so damned Orwellian and rely on socialism. They should have the right to smoke, those who wish to live without smoke are the oppressors, they should be able to smoke wherever they want, a doctor is oppressive if they tell people to stop smoking for their health, and they seem to think that, because they'll probably live less time, it's okay to socialize the cost of their excesses.

That last bit is about insurance. Whether it's government or it's private insurance, the cost is spread out amongst everyone, so the cost is indeed socialized.

Heh, on I recently did a post titled a Libertarian argument against public smoking? Uncharacteristically, it's still going. I was told that I was trying to hide a liberal agenda in Libertarian rhetoric (might be true, since I'm not really all that Libertarian-leaning) and that I was defending slavery. Um. I'm sorry, but some of us need to work, need to go out in public, and simply telling us that we should stay home isn't viable. Cars: A car is a utility. Smoking is a habit. The car has a redeeming quality. What's the redeeming quality of smoking in public?

Apparently even suggesting that we remove the socialization of medical expenses is "slavery" somehow.

But as others have pointed out in this thread, this isn't an argument you can win. An addict will defend their addiction to the death.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:06 PM

"It must be noted that the interval between first exposure to a carcinogen and the development of an occupational cancer averages roughly 20 years and can be anything from 5-45 years. Therefore, it is
necessary to look into the past use of chemicals, if necessary, up to 45 years ago.

so....whatever you were exposed to 45 years ago, could come back and bite ya now....


Guess what, the inks screen printers use contain chemicals that when heated, kind guessed it!! Aminobiphenyl


arsenic is found in tobacco for the same reason it's found in most of the food you eat. the farm land was contaminated with pesticides containing, you guessed it....arsenic!

also found in the printing industry, and!

gee...what ya know...that one is in the inks also!! an well, seems it's also in food??


again, common in the printing industry....look it up.


guess what....

Vinyl chloride

the plastic in your little id cards??? I did a little searching but couldn't anything that clearly states that styrene is a within this family, but I suspect it is... let me tell how it was printing on styrene.

the sheets came to us with so much dust on them that we had to get someone just to dust each sheet off. I am pretty sure this dust got
into the air, know for sure we all came into some skin contact with

hmmm, we were feeding this stuff to babies for quite awhile! who know maybe we still are. ric-Pressure-Chemical-Ionization-Mass-Spectrometry-from-Applied-BiosystemsAnd47MDS-Sciex.html

do you eat grilled meats?

is found in many cosmetics....
hey, I know, I am allegic to many of these cosmetics, so, well, I kind of restrict myself to the basics, ya know, shampoo, soap, perfume, make-up and such...maybe my attempt to refrain from
these products could possibly have offset my smoking habit?

"Cadmium is an extremely toxic metal commonly found in industrial workplaces, particularly where any ore is being processed or smelted. Due to its low permissible exposure limit (PEL), overexposures may occur even in situations where trace quantities of cadmium are found in the parent ore or smelter dust. Cadmium is used extensively in electroplating, although the nature of the operation does not generally lead to overexposures. Several deaths from acute exposure have occurred among welders who have unsuspectingly welded on cadmium-containing alloys or worked with silver solders. Cadmium is also found in some industrial paints and may represent a hazard when sprayed. Operations involving removal of cadmium paints by scraping or blasting may similarly pose a significant hazard.
Cadmium is also present in the manufacture of some types of batteries. Cadmium emits a characteristic brown fume (CdO) upon heating, which is relatively non-irritating, and thus does not alarm the exposed individual."


betcha walking down a busy city street during rush hour probably exposes a person to much more than a pack of cigarettes... and well think I've spent more time walking places than driving.

Many of these chemicals are found in the printing industry, others are found in plastic industry, the metal working industry, and well, a few are found when you just cook your meat.

So, shall we also declare war on the producers in this country? What about those meat eaters? Shall we slap ourageous taxes on the producers of this country because they are willinglly exposing themselves to these harmful products?

When I was growing up, my city decided to turn the city dump into a nice park. Well, there was a little creek we found in back of the park that we would go and catch frogs and such. A few years ago I walk down to
that creek, you can't get to it, there's epa signs along it....I honestly think it's one of thier superfund sites, if I have the name of the creek right.

I've been a screen printer, worked in a plastics factory, and I've cut rubber gaskets. My occupations have demanded that I come into contact with many of these chemicals on this list!
They can be found in our food, in the shampoo we use, in all that crap that many women, and men now too, slap on their bodies every morning.
First it was, oh, it's the smoking, then it was oh, they were around smokers, and soon it will be, well, they rubbed their arm against the after the smoker touched it with their finger. All the time ignoring the obvious....
Industrialization and our modern world produces alot of toxins that we'd otherwise not be having as much contact to and our bodies are illequipped to deal with this fact. The paradox is though, without all this industrialzation and modern technology, our lifespans would probably be much shorter.
Maybe that is the choice that society refuses to accept and thus decides a few good scapegoats are needed. They can have their close to toxen free life, when they give up all thier modern luxuries...some of which our
lives are prolonged by.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by dawnstar]

[edit on 30-1-2009 by dawnstar]

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:09 PM
reply to post by regeya

I for one do not mind smoking outdoors from pubs and clubs, i believe that it is justified for smokers to go outside to smoke. However they do not need to keep finding ways to make that "wrong and immoral to others".
As i said in one thread, (maybe this one) when a smoker smokes outside the smoke rises straight away, no one could possibly inhale it (apart from the 50ft woman) I for one never blow smoke in peoples faces, and no no-one that would do such a thing.
Its just picking on a crowd of people, it always happens. Next will be overweight people and charging tax on calories.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:12 PM
reply to post by Trolloks

All the non smokers appreciate it when you choose to smoke away from them.

I don't want people to think that I hate people because they smoke.

I would prefer it if all smokers were polite like you.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:16 PM
Whatever, I guess smoking is another form of population control.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:19 PM

Originally posted by regeya
An addict will defend their addiction to the death.

And this is another one that annoys the you-know-what out of me. Where do you get off calling me an addict?

Is the fellow who enjoys his wine after dinner, or even the guy who has a few cold beers every Friday night an alcoholic? You'll be in for a fight most likely if you try to take them away, but it doesn't make him an "addict."

Is the family with a "Friday night Pizza" tradition collectively suffering from bulimia because they'll be annoyed if you take away something they enjoy? No, don't think so.

I spend all day at work without a smoke, but smoke in the evenings. The last time I spent a weekend at a friend's house, I didn't smoke all weekend because she doesn't. I've quit for a year, or six months, at a time on several different occasions. I smoke because I ENJOY it and I WANT to, not because it's an addiction. So stop diagnosing me with a medical condition based on the fact that I use tobacco.

Your so-called "addicts," the smokers, lead productive lives, have jobs and families, and pay taxes. They aren't making meth in the kitchen, mugging people for coke hits, or driving while incapacitated and killing people. These are the images brought to mind when the word "addict" is used, and you (collective you referring to anti-smokers) use it deliberately not because nicotine is an addictive substance, but because you want to evoke that highly negative and emotionally charged image in peoples' minds and have them connect it to smoking and smokers.

Bad Form, I say! Bad Form!

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:28 PM

Originally posted by Mynaeris
I went on vacation to the Dominican Republic in December - one night we woke up at 5 am coughing - the neighbors were smoking and we had to air the room afterwards. Of course they are smokers and had the right to smoke indoors. Plus they had two small children in the room with them.

Parents should know they have done damage to their children when they smoke around them and they no longer cough.

[edit on 29-1-2009 by Mynaeris]

You might want to stop traveling. Egypt, the Dominican seem to have problems with smokers every time you mention traveling.

Since those smokers had the right to smoke indoors, by your own admission, they were doing nothing wrong. Maybe in the future a bit of due diligence in determining which accommodations allow smoking should be done before you choose where to stay. If you continue to travel and pick hotels/resorts/what have you that allow smoking, you are likely to continue running into this problem.

Take care,

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:43 PM
Over 100 hundred posts and I am the only one to actually spell out what the article says. Of the $40 cost per pack featured in this thread's title, almost all, if not all of the cost are borne by the smokers directly. which is presented further down in the article. If you add in the tobacco settlements, which reduce state taxes for everyone, then smoking is a definite net gain in money to society.

So stop saying that society is covering the cost for smokers. It is totally false. This is where the moderators need to step in and make sure that people are posting about what was actually said. Obviosly all of you have me ignore. The question is: will my post mean the end of a thread once again.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by Wildbob77

Bob, I do try and stay away from anti-smokers. The main reason is that they always seem to look down their noses at me as though I were some sort of trash can.

But where do I go when I am standing in line waiting to check out for 45 minutes because some non-smoker can't get their change counted out right and the store has refused to put enough cashiers on duty to handle the load? All this after I spent an hour and a half trying to get through the store to get the things I need. You see, that politeness works both ways. You want to get a smile out of this old redneck, regardless of how I feel emotionally at the moment? Just say "it's OK if you need a smoke" and watch my eyes light up.

I cannot go out to eat in a nice restaurant anymore, because I can't get that smoke to calm the volcano inside me I was born with. I spend most of my time away from home outdoors, despite the weather, because all indoor areas are non-smoking, usually at the edict of the government rather than a decision by the owners. There is only one building I feel comfortable in now, my home. And some people will condemn me for even that! God forbid the day someone demands I stop smoking there; I will either be in the morgue or in jail.

You can talk about impolite smokers all you want. I know they're out there, because I used to tell them to quiet the literal cloud of exhaust hovering over their head in stores. But let's not forget about the anti-smokers. Where is their politeness? Where is their compassion? This is not a one-sided issue, attempts to make it such notwithstanding.

I was fine with having a back room in restaurants where I could go and eat and smoke (with other smokers) when I went out. That served me, and served the non-smokers by segregating me away from them. That wasn't enough; nothing is ever enough. The anti-smoking cause first demanded that domestic airline flights of less than 2 hours had to be smoke-free. No one complained too loudly about that, since it was only 2 hours. Then it was all domestic airline flights. Then all flights period. Then all buses (it is now against Federal Law to smoke in a commercial bus, even if you're the only one on it). All government buildings were declared non-smoking. Then assembly buildings were declared non-smoking. Then all public buildings were declared non-smoking. In some areas of the country now, parking lots are non-smoking, outdoor arenas are non-smoking, and even sidewalks have been declared non-smoking. California at one time tried to declare trucks non-smoking areas, until they couldn't get their freight out of the state. WHERE DOES IT END?

I'll tell you where it ends for me. Right now, right here. I am a smoker. I choose to smoke, as there is no law that states I cannot and I am a sovereign individual with the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any one else. I am not less human because I choose to ingest a substance you do not like. I will continue to smoke tobacco as long as I choose to smoke tobacco, and no one will take that away from me while I live and breath.

So I say it's high time you, and Mynah, and all the other anti-smokers back off and sit down and shut up. You can run my life as soon as you have proven to me to be superior at it. NOT BEFORE.

Sorry for the rant, but this subject is touching a raw nerve pretty hard right now. I do not like disrespect.


posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:56 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

I second that motion.

2nd line motion.


posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:58 PM
Im so tired of hearing people belly ach about smokers. OH NO no the medical cost. So your saying it's ok to get treated for Brain cancer but not Lung cancer? What's the difference either way im dead and still costing the "taxpayer" money.

Then there is the other side of it. If I pay my taxes every day of every year for my entire life. Should that not cover the cost of my own hospital treatment.

I am personally looking forward to the day where I can publicly ridicule obese people in the street like a smoker. Or ban them from living next to me.

Get over yourself.

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by disgustedbyhumanity

No, I get that fact. If any other vice were to be taxed at the rate cigarettes are taxed, the outcry would be amazing. Over half the cost of cigarettes goes to some form of tax, either in production, distribution, or direct taxation of the product. Over 50%! And yet I hear the same people who have just given me a lecture about the evils of smoking complaining about paying a few cents on the dollar sales tax.

The problem is not that no one is listening, it is that no one cares. The 'evils of tobacco' have been drummed into the public mind through propaganda for so long that most people can not understand how smokers do not fall over dead as soon as soon as the flame touches the tip. In their minds, anything they can do to stop this deadly super-killer is warranted, regardless of the means used to accomplish their ends. I am still waiting for the media to report how some rabid anti-smoker shot a group of smokers to death to keep them from killing themselves.

Keep preaching the facts. Maybe someday someone somewhere will take the red pill and wake up to see what's been going on all around them the whole time.

I need a smoke....


posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by TheRedneck

ive tried saying exactly what you just pointed out, believe me, its impossible for them to listen

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in