When did my world become your ashtray?
- Thread starter MojoRisin'
- Start date
O
OnTheWayOut
Those stats are from 1991, since then thousands, maybe millions have quit smoking (like me) so those numbers have to be lower these days .........Esco! said:
Maybe - maybe not. Things get more expensive too, so that might offset the reduction in smokers.
As for the government stretching the truth, anyone can present statistics to prove their agenda, although a certain poster in this thread as done little more than try to force his opinions as being the bible for smokers carrying their own weight.
Common sense, some statistics and research indicate otherwise.
I think it is very reasonable to believe that smokers are a burden to society in many ways. As for other issues, it is obvious we are screwing up our planet through emissions and other forms of pollution. Too bad the smartest species on the planet is too stupid to do anything about it.
The almighty dollar rules!!!
As for the government stretching the truth, anyone can present statistics to prove their agenda, although a certain poster in this thread as done little more than try to force his opinions as being the bible for smokers carrying their own weight.
Common sense, some statistics and research indicate otherwise.
I think it is very reasonable to believe that smokers are a burden to society in many ways. As for other issues, it is obvious we are screwing up our planet through emissions and other forms of pollution. Too bad the smartest species on the planet is too stupid to do anything about it.
The almighty dollar rules!!!
O
OnTheWayOut
i smoke and i'm sorry if my cigarette butts fly onto your windshield 
...
i dont even have an ashtray in my car!!!
...i dont even have an ashtray in my car!!!
Typical of today's society. I've said it before and I'll say it again:
Why is it when people are inconvienced, rather than deal with it in an appropriate manner, they merely do what is easiest for them and pass that inconvenience to someone else?
You justify throwing your waste onto the street because you do not have an ashtray in your car. How about installing one, or just putting a regular ashtray somewhere in the front of your car?
Why is it when people are inconvienced, rather than deal with it in an appropriate manner, they merely do what is easiest for them and pass that inconvenience to someone else?
You justify throwing your waste onto the street because you do not have an ashtray in your car. How about installing one, or just putting a regular ashtray somewhere in the front of your car?
Angéliqueforyou said:
Good for you and thanks. The reason people like tboy and others cant see it as a bad thing is that they are still knee deep in the crap that they are addicted too. He also continues to rant about other issues and make useless comments to try and deflect the attention from what it is this post is about. He knows he's wrong and we can all hope one day he follows your lead.
I smoke
...it is a legal choice in Canada. Much has been made about the economic cost to society of smoking...health care costs, lost productivity, etc.
I would like to ask the following question: if smoking has a net economic cost to society, why doesn't the government enact an outright ban on the production, sale, and possession of all tobacco products?
Surely, if this premise is true, the net savings from health care costs would more than offset a) the lost tax revenue from the income taxes paid by everyone employed by the tobacco industry; b) the lost tax revenue earned by the government on the (legal) sale of all tobacco products; c) the cost to compensate the farmers who grow tobacco to switch to an alternative crop.
It is easy to claim that you would support higher taxes if it meant that tobacco sales would be banned. However, every statistic quoted in this thread that "shows" the net economic cost to society outweighs the revenue earned includes factors that CANNOT empiracally be directly attributable to tobacco consumption: lost work days, premature death, etc. There is NO WAY to prove that these costs would have been lower (or higher) but for tobacco consumption.
I am a law abiding citizen; if the government banned the production, sale, and possession of all tobacco products tomorrow, I would find a way to quit. Until they do however, I am consuming a legal product in Canada. As such, I resent the hypocrisy of governments that benefit from the taxes I pay to purchase a legal product, and then attempt to restrict the use of the product which I legally purchased.
Given the nature of this particular website, I daresay many of the posters here who have targeted this particular (legal) vice, have no problem with the fact that they are breaking the law in participating in their own vice. How hypocritical is that?
...it is a legal choice in Canada. Much has been made about the economic cost to society of smoking...health care costs, lost productivity, etc.
I would like to ask the following question: if smoking has a net economic cost to society, why doesn't the government enact an outright ban on the production, sale, and possession of all tobacco products?
Surely, if this premise is true, the net savings from health care costs would more than offset a) the lost tax revenue from the income taxes paid by everyone employed by the tobacco industry; b) the lost tax revenue earned by the government on the (legal) sale of all tobacco products; c) the cost to compensate the farmers who grow tobacco to switch to an alternative crop.
It is easy to claim that you would support higher taxes if it meant that tobacco sales would be banned. However, every statistic quoted in this thread that "shows" the net economic cost to society outweighs the revenue earned includes factors that CANNOT empiracally be directly attributable to tobacco consumption: lost work days, premature death, etc. There is NO WAY to prove that these costs would have been lower (or higher) but for tobacco consumption.
I am a law abiding citizen; if the government banned the production, sale, and possession of all tobacco products tomorrow, I would find a way to quit. Until they do however, I am consuming a legal product in Canada. As such, I resent the hypocrisy of governments that benefit from the taxes I pay to purchase a legal product, and then attempt to restrict the use of the product which I legally purchased.
Given the nature of this particular website, I daresay many of the posters here who have targeted this particular (legal) vice, have no problem with the fact that they are breaking the law in participating in their own vice. How hypocritical is that?
wow once again can you not see what this particular thread is about? NOT whether its ok or not to smoke illegal or not or moral or not but how dirty and inconsiderate some smokers can be. Geez try to get a handle on this people. Start your own thread if you are pissed about something else out there. Stay on topic please will ya? thanks. We dont want to restrict the use of it (not in this thread in particular) just stop being dirty fucking litter bugs and respect non smokers and the environment. It appears smoking clouds the brain as well as the lungs and our environment. Thanks againhoser1970 said:...it is a legal choice in Canada. Much has been made about the economic cost to society of smoking...health care costs, lost productivity, etc.
I would like to ask the following question: if smoking has a net economic cost to society, why doesn't the government enact an outright ban on the production, sale, and possession of all tobacco products?
Surely, if this premise is true, the net savings from health care costs would more than offset a) the lost tax revenue from the income taxes paid by everyone employed by the tobacco industry; b) the lost tax revenue earned by the government on the (legal) sale of all tobacco products; c) the cost to compensate the farmers who grow tobacco to switch to an alternative crop.
It is easy to claim that you would support higher taxes if it meant that tobacco sales would be banned. However, every statistic quoted in this thread that "shows" the net economic cost to society outweighs the revenue earned includes factors that CANNOT empiracally be directly attributable to tobacco consumption: lost work days, premature death, etc. There is NO WAY to prove that these costs would have been lower (or higher) but for tobacco consumption.
I am a law abiding citizen; if the government banned the production, sale, and possession of all tobacco products tomorrow, I would find a way to quit. Until they do however, I am consuming a legal product in Canada. As such, I resent the hypocrisy of governments that benefit from the taxes I pay to purchase a legal product, and then attempt to restrict the use of the product which I legally purchased.
Given the nature of this particular website, I daresay many of the posters here who have targeted this particular (legal) vice, have no problem with the fact that they are breaking the law in participating in their own vice. How hypocritical is that?
O
OnTheWayOut
Sure .............. a pretty girl says she recently quit and you can't wait to congratulate her! Did I get any kudos when I told you I quit???? *LOL*MojoRisin' said:
You're just pissed cuz I used to target windshields of tailgaters aren't ya? It was in the past and it was around Ottawa, I only visited TO a few times and remember nailing only 1 or 2 guys who wouldn't get off my bumper .... what's the odds one of them was you? get over it, ancient history ..... but I am thinking of taking up chewing gum to replace the butts I used to sling at tailgaters .....
Btw, congrats Angelique, I know how tough it is .... just don't let your guard down, after @ 30 months the urge still pops up now and then ........
every summer beaches in my waterways are closed because you pump your shit into my water...........You need to keep this at your home. Septic tanks are available and you need to own one.
Please not I am not demanding you do nbot shit...........but rather you keep it to yourself.
Please not I am not demanding you do nbot shit...........but rather you keep it to yourself.
