a motion introduced to place a ban on cigarette sales to anyone born after the year 2000?

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Exactly my point. Their freedom to smoke stops when I breathe it because I have the freedom to not.

reply to post by Agit8dChop

Tell me, do I not have the right to walk around a city park and not breathe in chemicals I normally would avoid just because someone else feels they have the right to pollute the air i walk through for nothing but a chemical addication created by a fat cat corporation through greed?

Tobacco has been used for centuries.

As far as air pollution goes, I hope you don't own a vehicle, because you are actually polluting the air and making a realized impact on air quality which will affect my health and the health of my children. And I can't strafe 5 feet to dodge it.

Sooo....

I don't want you to drive anymore.

Fair?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Advantages in making smoke outlawed?
How about the cost on healthcare?

The cost of smoking to the health system alone is a very hefty $31.5 billion a year. Annually, some 15,000 of us go to meet our maker many years before we otherwise would. Think back to early 2010 when then prime minister Kevin Rudd jacked up the price of a packet of fags by 25 per cent a packet. Even that whopping increase only raised $5 billion, which is just one-sixth the annual illness bill from our vulgar little habit.

www.thepunch.com.au...

obviously this figure is up for debate, but its a starting point

In 2004–05, social costs of tobacco abuse totalled just under $31.5 billion,1 more than 56% of the total estimated social costs of drug abuse in Australia in that year. Of the total estimated social costs of tobacco abuse, 38% were tangible costs and 62% were intangible.

www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au...


thats a lot of money spent on saving people who dont want to save themselves.

That's terrible reporting by The Punch. Read the Collins & Lapsley reports. $31B is the inflated "cost to society" which includes Tangible costs:

$12.026M consisting of:
$318.4M Healthcare
$63M fires

These are the only costs that comes out of the public purse. The others:

$3.578B - Lost production in the workforce. Not of concern to anyone but businesses.
$3.538B - Lost production in the home. What does this even mean?

Then we have intangible costs:

$19.459B i.e. figures plucked out of the air

"Tobacco tax revenue in 2004/05 exceeded tobacco-attributable costs borne by the public
sector by more than $3.5 billion. Of this surplus $2.7 billion accrued to the Commonwealth
and around $800 million to state governments."

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

Exactly my point. Their freedom to smoke stops when I breathe it because I have the freedom to not.

edit on 22-8-2012 by Poopooplatter because: (no reason given)

And your freedom stops at another person's lungs and airspace. I believe we will have to agree to disagree, as I do not see either of us swaying from our positions.

On topic to the OP, I wish Tasmania the best in this. I do not see it being enforceable, or even practical.

reply to post by boncho


Thats a good point,

I would say that car fumes are a necessity in today’s society. Like factories.

Cars have a tangible result on our way of life, we can get from A to B. We can work, we can travel.

I would say its a worthy cause/trade off.

So, what about smoking is a positive on society that is a fair trade off for poor lil timmy in his pram breathing in your 2nd hand chemically enhanced, addictive smoke?

What good comes of cigerettes that is worth our degredation in health?

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

Exactly my point. Their freedom to smoke stops when I breathe it because I have the freedom to not.

edit on 22-8-2012 by Poopooplatter because: (no reason given)

And your freedom stops at another person's lungs and airspace. I believe we will have to agree to disagree, as I do not see either of us swaying from our positions.

On topic to the OP, I wish Tasmania the best in this. I do not see it being enforceable, or even practical.

Lol you can say you disagree, but you are making my point. My freedom does stop at their airspace, so I better not smoke in it.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Thats a good point,

I would say that car fumes are a necessity in today’s society. Like factories.

Cars have a tangible result on our way of life, we can get from A to B. We can work, we can travel.

I would say its a worthy cause/trade off.

So, what about smoking is a positive on society that is a fair trade off for poor lil timmy in his pram breathing in your 2nd hand chemically enhanced, addictive smoke?

edit on 22-8-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

Haha you said it better than me, that's exactly the point.

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by aaron2209

 

I shouldn't have to breathe stinky ass cigarettes that are harmful if I'm not a smoker. It infringes upon me. If people weren't so rude and considered others this wouldn't be an issue. Smoke at home.

I shouldn't have to listen to stories about drunk drivers, all around the world, killing people, making thier family life hell, perpetrating violence because of a drug, and being a burden on the health system when thier liver gives way...

...and thats just what I shouldn't have to listen to...

...another poster has poo-pooed the idea of red meat being harmful...colon, lower bowel cancer...

This anti-smoking ban is a no-brainer...if it is so harmful, relinquish ALL taxes on its sale...IMMEDIATELY...
...next, ban alcohol (I won't go into the figures for 'first-hand' and 'second-hand' effects and how it impacts on all the points ever brought up by anti-smoking officionados)...
...next, ban red meat...
...next, ban white sugar...
...next, ban all processed food...
...next, ban...

A99

He probably got the idea from Mayor Bloomberg.Bloomberg has been very busy taking away freedoms in his state.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

reply to post by boncho

 

Thats a good point,

I would say that car fumes are a necessity in today’s society. Like factories.

Cars have a tangible result on our way of life, we can get from A to B. We can work, we can travel.

I would say its a worthy cause/trade off.

So, what about smoking is a positive on society that is a fair trade off for poor lil timmy in his pram breathing in your 2nd hand chemically enhanced, addictive smoke?

What good comes of cigerettes that is worth our degredation in health?

edit on 22-8-2012 by Agit8dChop because: (no reason given)

...but then you really have no problem with 'little Timmy in his pram' breathing in car, truck and industry fumes?...and you are all convinced that this second hand smoke is not a contributing cause of lung cancer around the world?...priceless...

A99

reply to post by Agit8dChop

What good comes of cigerettes that is worth our degredation in health?

Well for one, being emotionally sound. While nicotine is highly addictive, it also is great for people dealing with their addictive personalities. Nicotine isn't so bad considered to some other things. The bottom line, is that people need fixes. Be it caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, pharmaceuticals. Smoking can offer a bout of clarity to many people. There are a number of famous writers that were smokers. A number of geniuses that I already listed in this thread.

This has been going on since someone ate some naturally fermented berries a thousand years past, for eons when plants were smoked by many dead ancestors.

*Essentially, people just need to be altered in some way throughout their lives. Living is hard to cope with for many, because eventually we all know were gonna die. And if you go through life worrying about every little bit of something that's going to kill you, well, that's a pretty crappy life, considering a tree could fall on you tomorrow and it wouldn't make a difference.

You say that a car is a necessity, but it isn't. Especially in a city. Transportation is. But not necessarily a car. Sorry.

We enjoy modern vehicles for a number of reasons, not all of them being practical.

And there is nothing wrong with that, neither is there with someone smoking...

reply to post by Agit8dChop


Those same questions can be asked of Alcohol too.

After all it costs society over $15B a year.

What benefits are we getting that justifies little Timmy being wiped out in his pram by a drunk driver?

Originally posted by Poopooplatter

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

Exactly my point. Their freedom to smoke stops when I breathe it because I have the freedom to not.

edit on 22-8-2012 by Poopooplatter because: (no reason given)

And your freedom stops at another person's lungs and airspace. I believe we will have to agree to disagree, as I do not see either of us swaying from our positions.

On topic to the OP, I wish Tasmania the best in this. I do not see it being enforceable, or even practical.

Lol you can say you disagree, but you are making my point. My freedom does stop at their airspace, so I better not smoke in it.

It stops at their airspace, which evenly divided between the human population is many acres per person. So move out of their airspace.

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Those same questions can be asked of Alcohol too.

After all it costs society over $15B a year.

What benefits are we getting that justifies little Timmy being wiped out in his pram by a drunk driver?

PERFECT!
I would hazard a guess, that, a good proportion of non-smokers are drinkers of alcohol in some form...I wonder what reaction there would be to a ban on alcohol, given its NON-BENEFITS to society...

A99

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


Their airspace is what hits their lungs. Sorry we can't divide the world up in some imaginary world.

I do find it odd that despite the number of smokers decreasing and the tax on cigarettes rising twice a year yet the supposed "cost to society" keeps increasing....

How is this possible and why does no one question it?

Originally posted by akushla99

Originally posted by aaron2209
reply to post by Agit8dChop

 

Those same questions can be asked of Alcohol too.

After all it costs society over $15B a year.

What benefits are we getting that justifies little Timmy being wiped out in his pram by a drunk driver?

PERFECT!
I would hazard a guess, that, a good proportion of non-smokers are drinkers of alcohol in some form

A99

and that would be a damn fine guess

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

Their airspace is what hits their lungs. Sorry we can't divide the world up in some imaginary world.

Hopefully you do not eat meat...because the amount of methane from meat production really is taking my air away...

A99

reply to post by akushla99


Drinking doesn't emit smoke... Next poor comparison...

Originally posted by Poopooplatter
reply to post by akushla99

 

Drinking doesn't emit smoke... Next poor comparison...

Damn looks like we've been outsmarted!