Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/18/2003 10:37:23 PM EDT
Why is it that society would be all aghast (rightfully so) if a bunch of kids were hanging out at school drinking but yet says nothing about them smoking their lungs out? I've actually had parents buy their underage kids tobacco & hand it to them right in the store. Would they do that at the liquor store? Why the double standard? Both are illegal for underage kids. In case you can't tell, I HATE tobacco products in general, cigarettes in particular.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 10:41:04 PM EDT
If these stupid ass polichickens were serious about stamping out teen smoking they would crack down on smoking at HS. I'm willing to bet that most of them are < 18 years old.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 10:44:11 PM EDT
I think the law in California now is that you have to be 1000 ft. from a school to smoke. Man, I'd rather have my kid drink than smoke.
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 11:36:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: Why is it that society would be all aghast (rightfully so) if a bunch of kids were hanging out at school drinking but yet says nothing about them smoking their lungs out?
View Quote
Hell Bob, I started smoking back in the late 50's, and I can tell you that I have smoked some SERIOUS shit in that time. That said, I have NEVER had my lungs out, nor have I known anyone who did. Next time ya see them kids with their lungs out, ask 'em what they're smoking will ya?
I've actually had parents buy their underage kids tobacco & hand it to them right in the store. Would they do that at the liquor store? Why the double standard? Both are illegal for underage kids.
View Quote
EGADS Bob, Heaven forbid that parents teach their children disrespect for the law!! Hrmph, next thing ya know, they'll be clamoring for freedom, liberty, and all THAT lot!
In case you can't tell, I HATE tobacco products in general, cigarettes in particular.
View Quote
And the difference between you, and a fucking gun grabber, is exactly WHAT Bob?? Got a light??[;D]
Link Posted: 6/18/2003 11:46:15 PM EDT
And the difference between you, and a fucking gun grabber, is exactly WHAT Bob?? Got a light??[;D]
View Quote
No need to get yer panties in a bunch, just because you like to breath smoke for fun. All he was saying, is why are we more tolerant of smoking then drinking, when alcohol has less health implications.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 12:04:53 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SNorman:
And the difference between you, and a fucking gun grabber, is exactly WHAT Bob?? Got a light??[;D]
View Quote
No need to get yer panties in a bunch, just because you like to breath smoke for fun. All he was saying, is why are we more tolerant of smoking then drinking, when alcohol has less health implications.
View Quote
Well, I guess, if ya don't wanna tolerate something, don't do it!! How is telling other people what they can ingest into their bodies, any different than a gun grabber wanting a ban because "they" can't "tolerate" guns?? Hmmmmm?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 1:55:14 AM EDT
Light-em if you got-em. ED
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 2:07:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 2:10:27 AM EDT by DEC]
Why is it that people seem to think they know what is best for you???? To each his own. Freedom has been paid for. Dave c [:K]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 2:09:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Ratters: I think the law in California now is that you have to be 1000 ft. from a school to smoke. Man, I'd rather have my kid drink than smoke.
View Quote
Speaking as the father of a daughter that was raped while too intoxicated to know what was going on....Id rather she had been smoking.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 2:20:06 AM EDT
Regulating smoking is not like banning guns. I hate tobacco, but if you want to consume it in the confines of a private place then go ahead. I'm not allowed to walk down the street shooting pigeons off the telephone line with my AK so why should people be allowed to smoke in public? For those that do smoke in public where I might inhale some of that nasty shit I should be allowed to legally pistol whip 'em. Law says I can't own a gun until I'm 18 so why shouldn't it say others can't buy cigarettes until they are 18? I'm not sure but I think it is legal for minors to smoke if their parents give consent. At least that is how I think it works in AZ. I don't see cigarettes as much of a problem among teens as narcotics are. I know a lot more minors in on weed and free basing coke than I do who smoke tobacco.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 3:07:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 4:12:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 4:19:11 AM EDT by u-baddog]
Originally Posted By liberty86: And the difference between you, and a fucking gun grabber, is exactly WHAT Bob?? Got a light??[;D]
View Quote
Other people owning guns do not drain my pocket book. I don't have to watch some dumbass throw his gun on the ground and watch it wash into the storm drain and then into the bay.Its trash, garbage , pollution. I don't have to worry about some rude person sitting down next to me and him polluting MY AIR if he wants to. If you were not a ADDICTED to smoking would you still make the same statement. If you smoking around me YOU are infringing on MY AIR with YOUR VICE. I have to support the ailments that comes with putting poison in your body with my tax dollars by the way of medicare for those who cant afford to fund their own demise. The FED gives money to farmers and welfare to those who cant work anymore because they are too sick. How do guns fit into this ? Your kung fu is weak EDITED to add: If you want to smoke anything ROCK ON. I think you should be able to kill yourself if you like. Just dont Ask me to fund it or put up with the rude nature of burning shitty smelling little sticks around me.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 5:06:10 AM EDT
don't blame the smoker because the gov't is giving your money to someone for some dumbass welfare vote buying scheme. This, from a non-smoker who has had 2 aunts and an uncle die from smoking, and a mom and 4 sisters who all smoke 2packs+ a day. It is nearly the same as the anti-gun bs from idiot libs. If someone near you is smoking, ask them to put it out, they probably will. TXL
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 5:18:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By u-baddog: Other people owning guns do not drain my pocket book.
View Quote
(gungrabber)sure it does, it costs the public money everytime some gangbanger gets shot(/gungrabber)
I don't have to watch some dumbass throw his gun on the ground and watch it wash into the storm drain and then into the bay.Its trash, garbage , pollution.
View Quote
Been to a public range lately? seen the garbage left around, the ground with more brass than a 200 pc marching band?
I don't have to worry about some rude person sitting down next to me and him polluting MY AIR if he wants to.
View Quote
Nope, but what about the idiots that shoot into the air during celebrations, or are just stupid with guns?
If you were not a ADDICTED to smoking would you still make the same statement. If you smoking around me YOU are infringing on MY AIR with YOUR VICE. I have to support the ailments that comes with putting poison in your body with my tax dollars by the way of medicare for those who cant afford to fund their own demise.
View Quote
Erm actually smokers/tabacco users save medicare money because they die sooner. The ones that really drain it are the 'healthies' that hold on til they are 80-90+ and live off of medicare/social security/welfare for 20-30 years. The government will spend the medicare money either way.
The FED gives money to farmers and welfare to those who cant work anymore because they are too sick.
View Quote
And tobacco has little to do with this. the Fed gives money to farmers for ust about any reason, and tobacco use has little to with welfare.
How do guns fit into this ?
View Quote
Because the same idiotic arguments made against smoking is used against gun owners.
Your kung fu is weak
View Quote
True, but your appears weaker
EDITED to add: If you want to smoke anything ROCK ON. I think you should be able to kill yourself if you like. Just dont Ask me to fund it or put up with the rude nature of burning shitty smelling little sticks around me.
View Quote
Ahh, but contrary to the hype/propaganda put forth by the 'anti-smokers' very little public funds that wouldnt already be used for the same purpose (such as health care for the elderly) are used for tobacco. As to the rudeness involved, that is true.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 5:37:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: Why is it that society would be all aghast (rightfully so) if a bunch of kids were hanging out at school drinking but yet says nothing about them smoking their lungs out? I've actually had parents buy their underage kids tobacco & hand it to them right in the store. Would they do that at the liquor store? Why the double standard? Both are illegal for underage kids. In case you can't tell, I HATE tobacco products in general, cigarettes in particular.
View Quote
Got any good tips on how to quit smoking?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 5:42:19 AM EDT
Yeah, Don't put the cigarette your fucking mouth. I'm not being a smart ass. That's how I quit 5 years ago. Then my GF went psycho tried to have me arrested, blah, blah blah. Gonna go have that smoke now.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 5:48:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
Originally Posted By Ratters: I think the law in California now is that you have to be 1000 ft. from a school to smoke. Man, I'd rather have my kid drink than smoke.
View Quote
Speaking as the father of a daughter that was raped while too intoxicated to know what was going on....Id rather she had been smoking.
View Quote
Ples tell me you killed the sumbitch. Or at least he is doing 15-20 with bubba (jeez, there's that topic again).
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:03:10 AM EDT
Between the state and feds, there is anywhere from $15-$30 tax per carton of cigarettes. That combined with the unpaid Social Security payments, unpaid Medicare payments on dead smokers and the payments from the tobacco industry means that the Gov. is making HUGE money on each smoker and the industry in general. Even now states are yelling that they are loosing big bucks on tobacco sales due to lower smoker rates (over past history), illegal sales and internet sales. It ain't about health...its about $$$. Think of smokers as walking Tax Reduction Programs. Maybe we can ban smoking and replace the tax income with a 7.5 - 15 cent/round tax on ammo. Makes the Calif. 5 cent/round tax look reasonable! [}:D] As for Bob's original posting. Around here, adults (even parents) who buy cigarettes for kids are subject to arrest. The state stages sting operations where an adult cop tries to buy cigarettes for a kid and if the store owner knowingly sells it, is arrested and fined (another revenue source). They do the same for alcohol sales too.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:10:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 6:22:53 AM EDT by nightstalker]
You need to look at the way society tolerates tobacco versus alcohol. Most businesses tolerate smokers IF they smoke in designated places and at designated times. They do not tolerate drinking during the workday unless you are an UNTOUCHABLE, like the boss's son. From this you can see that although, as you say they are both illegal for teens, they are not perceived to be the SAME. The bathrooms were plenty smoky when I was going to high school in the 60's and I had no trouble getting cigarettes. I think that parents that would buy their kids tobacco WOULD likely buy them the alcohol, although they wouldn't hand it over in the store so blatantly. The way I look at it it's 40 years later and not much has changed. Kids rebel, parents get fooled and then hopefully before nature disposes of them they wise up and realize they are responsible for their actions. Too many laws are the sign of a weak society. Nicotine is highly addictive. Why don't we ban tobacco? One reason why is we learned something from Prohibition? If there's no public will to ban it's a great way to extract tax money. The sky's the limit. Kinda like extortion.[X]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:23:11 AM EDT
HA! In the peoples republic of Boulder, you can get arrested for smoking a cigarette, but they won't do a thing for smoking a joint. beat that!
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:36:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By thedave1164: HA! In the peoples republic of Boulder, you can get arrested for smoking a cigarette, but they won't do a thing for smoking a joint. beat that!
View Quote
[url]http://www.tdl.com/~psg/bco.htm[/url] Berkeley looks like a push. All restaurants in CA are SMOKE-FREE....BEAT THAT
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:38:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 6:47:07 AM EDT by u-baddog]
Originally Posted By u-baddog: Other people owning guns do not drain my pocket book.
View Quote
(gungrabber)sure it does, it costs the public money everytime some gangbanger gets shot(/gungrabber) I really dont mind that, do you ? I dont mind it when I fund his girlfriends abortion either.
I don't have to watch some dumbass throw his gun on the ground and watch it wash into the storm drain and then into the bay.Its trash, garbage , pollution.
View Quote
Been to a public range lately? seen the garbage left around, the ground with more brass than a 200 pc marching band?
View Quote
I guess that hit home. Are you a litter bug ? I pick up after myself. I guess you dont ? Look around is everyplace a public smoking range.
I don't have to worry about some rude person sitting down next to me and him polluting MY AIR if he wants to.
View Quote
Nope, but what about the idiots that shoot into the air during celebrations, or are just stupid with guns?
View Quote
weak ........very weak. I am surprised you even wrote that.
If you were not a ADDICTED to smoking would you still make the same statement. If you smoking around me YOU are infringing on MY AIR with YOUR VICE. I have to support the ailments that comes with putting poison in your body with my tax dollars by the way of medicare for those who cant afford to fund their own demise.
View Quote
Erm actually smokers/tabacco users save medicare money because they die sooner. The ones that really drain it are the 'healthies' that hold on til they are 80-90+ and live off of medicare/social security/welfare for 20-30 years. The government will spend the medicare money either way.
View Quote
I think this is the addiction talking because it is simply not true. Smoking will limit your live span for sure but you will possible died a long and drawn out death due to the complication from COPD.
The FED gives money to farmers and welfare to those who cant work anymore because they are too sick.
View Quote
And tobacco has little to do with this. the Fed gives money to farmers for just about any reason, and tobacco use has little to with welfare.
View Quote
Not in VA buddy, Tobacco rules the farm money. we just cut a bunch of farm subsidies out last year. Guess what, the money went to schools. NON-income to Lower income have a higher rate of smoking, thus smoking related illness. They are on welfare more often than people that have private health insurance. I am working with what I have, unless you know of a way to make the government stop supporting this type of stupidity,I will have keep paying.
How do guns fit into this ?
View Quote
Because the same idiotic arguments made against smoking is used against gun owners.
View Quote
Thats very funny. You have a addition and you call me a idiot. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHHA I cant even grasp the connection between doing something stupid and owning a gun.
Your kung fu is weak
View Quote
True, but your appears weaker
View Quote
Of course it does, TO YOU. To a addict anything that gets in the way of his next fix is weak and immaterial. I dont expect you to get it. Quit for a couple of years and then lets talk
EDITED to add: If you want to smoke anything ROCK ON. I think you should be able to kill yourself if you like. Just dont Ask me to fund it or put up with the rude nature of burning shitty smelling little sticks around me.
View Quote
Ahh, but contrary to the hype/propaganda put forth by the 'anti-smokers' very little public funds that wouldnt already be used for the same purpose (such as health care for the elderly) are used for tobacco.
View Quote
How can money be used for the same purpose if the cause of the problem wasnt social accepted to begin with.
As to the rudeness involved, that is true.
View Quote
I want people that are tired of footing the bill money and rudeness to say to the people that cause the problem. "HEY you are infringing on me with your addition" and make it SOCIABLY unacceptable to smoke. I dont care what the government does. I dont want to pay for others drug abuse problems. Same thing goes for any type of drugs. Good luck.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:51:56 AM EDT
Originally Posted By u-baddog:
Originally Posted By liberty86: And the difference between you, and a fucking gun grabber, is exactly WHAT Bob?? Got a light??[;D]
View Quote
Other people owning guns do not drain my pocket book. I don't have to watch some dumbass throw his gun on the ground and watch it wash into the storm drain and then into the bay.Its trash, garbage , pollution.
View Quote
Ya, and when I'm walking in the peaceful beautiful woods, and come upon several hundred rounds of brass, and 20 empty ammo box's that's ok eh?? BTW city slick, water that goes down the storm drain is "Treated" first. Stuff from the street does not wash into the bay.
I don't have to worry about some rude person sitting down next to me and him polluting MY AIR if he wants to.
View Quote
And your shooting in my area, and making all that "noise pollution", for everyone is fine and dandy?
If you were not a ADDICTED to smoking would you still make the same statement. If you smoking around me YOU are infringing on MY AIR with YOUR VICE.
View Quote
Any addictions I may/may not have, are certainly no business of govt.
I have to support the ailments that comes with putting poison in your body with my tax dollars by the way of medicare for those who cant afford to fund their own demise. The FED gives money to farmers and welfare to those who cant work anymore because they are too sick.
View Quote
So rather than bitch about govt socialist programs, YOU bitch about your fellow citizens's HABITS???
How do guns fit into this ? Your kung fu is weak
View Quote
Perhaps, but your failure to support American principles of freedom and liberty are more telling...
EDITED to add: If you want to smoke anything ROCK ON. I think you should be able to kill yourself if you like. Just dont Ask me to fund it or put up with the rude nature of burning shitty smelling little sticks around me.
View Quote
Okey-Dokey.............[:D]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:57:01 AM EDT
I guess you missed the point entirely. Your arguments seem to be based on these two things: 1- Smokers cost you money. 2- Smokers interfer with your 'air'. In response: 1- The point I was making, which you missed, is that smokers in reality, once you get away from the anti-smoking propaganda, cost the taxpayer base LESS than a non-smoker, in terms of healthcare/welfare/social security. They do this by dying younger than a non-smoker. Most smokers barely live beyond retirement age, whereas non-smokers become a drain on society for 10-15 or more years. And you end up having to pay for nearly the same medical treaments for the same diseases in the 'non-smokers' as you do with the smokers. After all everybody dies of something, and the medical profession nearly always attempts to fight that 'something' with some drug or proceedure. 2- Yes, if they stand on top of you and smoke they do, but the same could be said of nearly anything. It is a matter of manners, if someone is blowing smoke in your face, ask em to stop in a polite manner. If they dont stop then get rude back at em. Same goes for those that toss their butts on the ground, bust em for littering. And yes gun owners can be just as rude and polluting as smokers, according to the anti-gunners. I love how you attempt to attach that to my actions when in fact I never said I did those things, I was simply using them as an example, a sure sign of a weak argument from you. I place the 'anti-smokers' in the same category as the 'anti-gun', and now the 'anti-fast fooders'. They tend to be people that want to enforce their viewpoint upon others via the force of law. They will lie and cheat to spread their propaganda.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:33:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: I guess you missed the point entirely. Your arguments seem to be based on these two things: 1- Smokers cost you money. 2- Smokers interfer with your 'air'. In response: 1- The point I was making, which you missed, is that smokers in reality, once you get away from the anti-smoking propaganda, cost the taxpayer base LESS than a non-smoker, in terms of healthcare/welfare/social security. They do this by dying younger than a non-smoker. Most smokers barely live beyond retirement age, whereas non-smokers become a drain on society for 10-15 or more years. And you end up having to pay for nearly the same medical treaments for the same diseases in the 'non-smokers' as you do with the smokers. After all everybody dies of something, and the medical profession nearly always attempts to fight that 'something' with some drug or proceedure. 2- Yes, if they stand on top of you and smoke they do, but the same could be said of nearly anything. It is a matter of manners, if someone is blowing smoke in your face, ask em to stop in a polite manner. If they dont stop then get rude back at em. Same goes for those that toss their butts on the ground, bust em for littering. And yes gun owners can be just as rude and polluting as smokers, according to the anti-gunners. I love how you attempt to attach that to my actions when in fact I never said I did those things, I was simply using them as an example, a sure sign of a weak argument from you. I place the 'anti-smokers' in the same category as the 'anti-gun', and now the 'anti-fast fooders'. They tend to be people that want to enforce their viewpoint upon others via the force of law. They will lie and cheat to spread their propaganda.
View Quote
Thanks for not using the original post. It was getting spread out. I have never seen any figures to back up what you are saying about the cost factor. Is this something you thought up ? Could you point me in a direction that would back up you claims. Maybe a website ? It seems to contradict what I have seen for myself. If I am wrong I will change my tune. I hate to look foolish. Unlike the old man on OXYGEN asking to have it turn off, so he can go outside and have a smoke. Stand on top of me you say....[whacko]...Have you have trained your smoke to stay right next to you. Why should I have to ASK someone to stop bothering me ? Is the point that everything is OK until someone has to tell you its bothers them. Then its up to you to decide wether or not you would like to accommodate them.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 7:47:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 7:47:45 AM EDT by u-baddog]
liberty86 "City Slick" , you know what happens when you assume dont you. I bet you I spent more time out in the woods this year that you have. How is storm water treated before it gets in to the watershed system ? I hate to appear stupid when I am talking to my fellow colleagues who just happen to study watersheds and design storm water drainage systems. Please help me out and tell me of this " TREATMENT" that you speak of. I dont care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me. To turn that in to a anti-gun is a big reach.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:04:24 AM EDT
ubaddog- Dont speak for making assupmtions. You seem to have assumed I smoke, I dont. As to the cost thing, it is common sense. Who costs the system more? Someone that lives to 80-85 and dies of a heart attack (or some type or cancer, or whatever), or someone that lives to 65-70 and dies of a heart attack (or lung cancer or whatever)? The 80-85 year old will not only have to be treated for whatever ailment that kills them but will also drain the social security/welfare/whatever system for a longer period of time before corking off. The medical system rarely just lets anyone 'die' they always attempt to prolong life as long as possible, regardless of ages or medical problems, so the 'death cost' (the cost associated with treating the disease/condition that causes death) of a smoker or non-smoker will be very similiar. But the non-smoker will have a greater time to drain the public funds through other means, simply because they live longer in a non-productive period of live.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:36:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 8:39:38 AM EDT by liberty86]
Originally Posted By u-baddog: liberty86 "City Slick" , you know what happens when you assume dont you. I bet you I spent more time out in the woods this year that you have.
View Quote
Here's a shot out my front deck. I LIVE in the woods...[:D] [img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=12046[/img]
How is storm water treated before it gets in to the watershed system ? I hate to appear stupid when I am talking to my fellow colleagues who just happen to study watersheds and design storm water drainage systems. Please help me out and tell me of this " TREATMENT" that you speak of.
View Quote
Your original post did not read "watershed", you said sewer drain. Ask your collegues about EPA requirements on storm drain water. It MUST be treated before dumping in ANY body of water.
I dont care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me. To turn that in to a anti-gun is a big reach.
View Quote
I didn't say it was anti-gun, I asked the difference between the two. There ain't any. One wants to ban guns, the other wants to control what you put in your body. What's the diff??
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 8:53:26 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 8:55:26 AM EDT by The_Macallan]
Originally Posted By liberty86: Ya, and when I'm walking in the peaceful beautiful woods, and come upon several hundred rounds of brass, and 20 empty ammo box's that's ok eh??
View Quote
There are laws against littering for that exact reason. It should apply to those who litter the air too.
Originally Posted By liberty86:And your shooting in my area, and making all that "noise pollution", for everyone is fine and dandy?
View Quote
Same thing. There are already laws against noise pollution too. You can't crank your boombox over 150,000 dB or whatever and you can't have an unmuffled exhaust on your ride either. Besides, that's all the more reason to fully legalize firearm silencers.
Any addictions I may/may not have, are certainly no business of govt.
View Quote
Agreed.
So rather than bitch about govt socialist programs, YOU bitch about your fellow citizens's HABITS???
View Quote
BOTH infringe on MY personal freedoms. You have every right to your smokes ONLY if you can "police up" your smoke and make DAMN sure no one in else in public inhales it. K? If exercising your right to smoke causes ME to "share" your pleasure, you've overstepped your freedom and are now infringing on MY rights. I'm not in favor of banning smokes. Just keep it to yourself.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:25:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By The_Macallan: I'm not in favor of banning smokes. Just keep it to yourself.
View Quote
That's all ya needed to say, that's what my posts have been about..[:D]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 9:57:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By u-baddog: liberty86 "Your original post did not read "watershed", you said sewer drain. Ask your collegues about EPA requirements on storm drain water. It MUST be treated before dumping in ANY body of water.
View Quote
Storm drains go straight to the ocean. Here in Huntington Beach they are planning to "treat" (bleach minimum) this water as we are getting mysterious plumes of unhealthy water samples at the beaches that have defied source identity. BTW, nice place you have, at least by the picture it looks pretty idyllic.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:25:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 10:34:11 AM EDT by u-baddog]
Originally Posted By liberty86:
Originally Posted By u-baddog: liberty86 "City Slick" , you know what happens when you assume dont you. I bet you I spent more time out in the woods this year that you have.
View Quote
Here's a shot out my front deck. I LIVE in the woods...[:D] [url]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=12046[/url]
View Quote
Sweet [hail] I can only dream. How far out are you ? Your[b] house [/b]maybe in the woods but you spend alot of time behind the key board or hanging out in key west with your buddys [:D]
How is storm water treated before it gets in to the watershed system ? I hate to appear stupid when I am talking to my fellow colleagues who just happen to study watersheds and design storm water drainage systems. Please help me out and tell me of this " TREATMENT" that you speak of.
View Quote
Your original post did not read "watershed", you said sewer drain. Ask your collegues about EPA requirements on storm drain water. It MUST be treated before dumping in ANY body of water.
View Quote
Sorry you can replace the word watershed with storm drain and it should not change a thing. You still didnt answer my question. How is hundered of thousand cig butt in the water that goes down the storm drain treated before it enters a stream, river or the bay. I think you are confused between a sanitary sewer and a storm water system. It is not treated 99 % of the time.
I dont care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me. To turn that in to a anti-gun is a big reach.
View Quote
I didn't say it was anti-gun, I asked the difference between the two. There ain't any. One wants to ban guns, the other wants to control what you put in your body.
View Quote
What's the diff??
View Quote
Why do you keep saying I want to control what you do ? I dont give a shit what smokers do as long as it doesnt affect me. I dont want to be bothered by litter and stinky smoke or pay for someone addiction. I still dont mind chipping for a gangbanging types abortion. Pro gun and anti smoke ? Cant happen in your world ?
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:30:34 AM EDT
The_Macallan [beer] Thanks we are of like mind.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:48:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By liberty86: Hell Bob, I started smoking back in the late 50's, and I can tell you that I have smoked some SERIOUS shit in that time. [blue]So hurry up & die from cancer.[/blue] And the difference between you, and a fucking gun grabber, is exactly WHAT Bob?? [blue]It would take complete moron & dumbass idiot to compare this to a gun grabber. Congrats on setting a new low standard for stupidity. Go smoke some more.[/blue]
View Quote
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 10:59:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: ubaddog- Dont speak for making assupmtions. You seem to have assumed I smoke, I dont. As to the cost thing, it is common sense. Who costs the system more? Someone that lives to 80-85 and dies of a heart attack (or some type or cancer, or whatever), or someone that lives to 65-70 and dies of a heart attack (or lung cancer or whatever)? The 80-85 year old will not only have to be treated for whatever ailment that kills them but will also drain the social security/welfare/whatever system for a longer period of time before corking off. The medical system rarely just lets anyone 'die' they always attempt to prolong life as long as possible, regardless of ages or medical problems, so the 'death cost' (the cost associated with treating the disease/condition that causes death) of a smoker or non-smoker will be very similiar. But the non-smoker will have a greater time to drain the public funds through other means, simply because they live longer in a non-productive period of live.
View Quote
I am sorry if I insulted you. You are correct I did assume and I do feel like a ass for assuming you smoke. What I said about people who do smoke stands. As for the cost to the system I asked for some kind of data or even a point in the right direction so I may ejumcate myself. You give me YOUR view and call it common sence. WOW thanks alot I know you didnt ask me for any facts to cover what I am saying but I though in the interest of ending this disscuion I would supply some. This took me 6 seconds to google. Please try to use it to help me see just how little common sence I have. This is not a pro or anti smoking site as far as I could tell [url] http://dmoz.org/Health/Addictions/Substance_Abuse/Tobacco/Effects/Costs/[/url] This is a short blurb for just one state [b]Direct medical costs associated with smoking are around $50 billion a year.1 Productivity and lost earnings because of smoking-related disease and premature deaths cost an additional $50 billion a year.2 It is estimated that Medicare will spend $800 billion over the next 20 years caring for people with smoking-related illnesses.3 The most recent analysis by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that in 1993 approximately $2.06 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking for each of the 24 billion packs of cigarettes sold.4 Smoking cost every man, woman, and child in Indiana $548 per year for health-related costs.5 In 1990, smoking resulted in $700 million in direct medical costs in Indiana.6 [/b]
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:06:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By u-baddog:
Originally Posted By Silence: ubaddog- Dont speak for making assupmtions. You seem to have assumed I smoke, I dont. As to the cost thing, it is common sense. Who costs the system more? Someone that lives to 80-85 and dies of a heart attack (or some type or cancer, or whatever), or someone that lives to 65-70 and dies of a heart attack (or lung cancer or whatever)? The 80-85 year old will not only have to be treated for whatever ailment that kills them but will also drain the social security/welfare/whatever system for a longer period of time before corking off. The medical system rarely just lets anyone 'die' they always attempt to prolong life as long as possible, regardless of ages or medical problems, so the 'death cost' (the cost associated with treating the disease/condition that causes death) of a smoker or non-smoker will be very similiar. But the non-smoker will have a greater time to drain the public funds through other means, simply because they live longer in a non-productive period of live.
View Quote
I am sorry if I insulted you. You are correct I did assume and I do feel like a ass for assuming you smoke. What I said about people who do smoke stands. As for the cost to the system I asked for some kind of data or even a point in the right direction so I may ejumcate myself. You give me YOUR view and call it common sence. WOW thanks alot I know you didnt ask me for any facts to cover what I am saying but I though in the interest of ending this disscuion I would supply some. This took me 6 seconds to google. Please try to use it to help me see just how little common sence I have. This is not a pro or anti smoking site as far as I could tell [url] http://dmoz.org/Health/Addictions/Substance_Abuse/Tobacco/Effects/Costs/[/url] This is a short blurb for just one state [b]Direct medical costs associated with smoking are around $50 billion a year.1 Productivity and lost earnings because of smoking-related disease and premature deaths cost an additional $50 billion a year.2 It is estimated that Medicare will spend $800 billion over the next 20 years caring for people with smoking-related illnesses.3 The most recent analysis by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that in 1993 approximately $2.06 was spent on medical care attributable to smoking for each of the 24 billion packs of cigarettes sold.4 Smoking cost every man, woman, and child in Indiana $548 per year for health-related costs.5 In 1990, smoking resulted in $700 million in direct medical costs in Indiana.6 [/b]
View Quote
Those are not cost over and above what would still be spent on those people if they didnt smoke and lived to suffer some other ailment, which would then have to be treated. Those are simply the costs of 'smoking illnesses'. Well guess what, 'old age' causes illnesses and it costs money to treat them too. The point I am attempting to make to you which you seem to refuse to grasp, is that these 'medical costs' will be paid regardless of whether or not the people smoked. And that the smokers save money by corking off at a younger age.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:10:23 AM EDT
http://epm-leistikow.ucdavis.edu/BereftYouths.htm Here's some more common sence. Estimates of Smoking-Attributable Deaths at Ages 15-54, Motherless or Fatherless Youths, and Resulting Social Security Costs in the United States in 1994 Bruce N. Leistikow, Daniel C. Martin, Christina E. Milano Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of California, Davis, California, 95616-8638 Preventive Medicine, 2000, 30 (5):353-360 Background. Deaths of parents often harm their children, taxpayers, and society, for decades. So we estimated the smoking-attributable (SA) counts and percentages (SA%) of U.S. 1994 deaths at child-rearing ages; youths (ages <18) left motherless or fatherless; and resulting Social Security Survivors Insurance taxes. Design. U.S. 1994 age/sex/education-specific total and SA death counts were estimated using death certificate data and standard CDC SAMMEC methods (with added injury mortality), respectively. We separately summed (a) total and (b) SA age/sex/education-specific death counts times their average number of youths per adult (cumulative fertility, adjusted for infant mortality). We then multiplied the SA and total bereft youth counts by their average duration of Survivors Insurance, and calculated the SA cost of youth Survivors Insurance. Results. In 1994, smoking caused an estimated 44,000 male and 19,000 female U.S. deaths at ages 15-54, leaving 31,000 fatherless and 12,000 motherless youths. On December 31, 1994, the SA prevalences [count (SA%)] of fatherless or motherless youths were an estimated 220,000 (17%) and 86,000 (16%), respectively. Resulting Survivors Insurance costs were about $1.4 (sensitivity range: $0.58-3.7) billion in 1994. Conclusions. Smoking causes many U.S. deaths at ages 15-54, youth bereavements, and Survivors Insurance costs. Reductions in smoking may greatly reduce those deaths, bereavements, and taxpayer and societal costs. Copyright 2000 American Health Foundation and Academic Press. Key Words: smoking; child of impaired parents; middle age; mothers; fathers.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:15:01 AM EDT
More silly shit. http://www.mit.edu/people/jeffrey/House_Testimony_Nov_1993.html Just a little burb I have estimated that in 1995, under universal health insurance, people who never smoked will pay $55 billion toward the health-care costs of smoking. This is one of many important, but less quantifiable external costs of cigarette use. The $11 to $12 billion increase in net revenues in 1995-- to be derived from the Administration's proposed cigarette tax hike-- will not come close to covering these external costs.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:23:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Silence: Those are not cost over and above what would still be spent on those people if they didnt smoke and lived to suffer some other ailment, which would then have to be treated. Those are simply the costs of 'smoking illnesses'. Well guess what, 'old age' causes illnesses and it costs money to treat them too. The point I am attempting to make to you which you seem to refuse to grasp, is that these 'medical costs' will be paid regardless of whether or not the people smoked. And that the smokers save money by corking off at a younger age.
View Quote
You didnt even look at the studies , did ya Can you show me a study to back your claim up ? Common sence tells me if two people live to the the same age. They both die of a heart attack and one smokes the other doesnt the smoker will have a much higher cost of health care till he dies.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:26:10 AM EDT
Just thought I would get 4 in a row
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:27:33 AM EDT
here ya go: [url]http://www.house.gov/ronlewis/letters-2001/ltr100199.html[/url]
In June the Congressional Research Service reported on the use of tobacco excise taxes tofund Medicare reforms. [red]In this analysis, CRS determined that the federal government actually SAVES $29 billion per year when revenues from tobacco taxes are compared to the actual government-funded lifetime health care benefits paid to smokers. Federal taxpayers do not bear any external costs from tobacco use.[/red] Excise tax levels on tobacco meet and far exceed by billions of dollars any government health costs. Furthermore, the report states tobacco excise taxes are a declining revenue source, not to be counted on for stable program funding.
View Quote
Seems non-smokers OWE smokers 29 billion a year.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:45:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 11:47:09 AM EDT by Silence]
Originally Posted By u-baddog:
Originally Posted By Silence: Those are not cost over and above what would still be spent on those people if they didnt smoke and lived to suffer some other ailment, which would then have to be treated. Those are simply the costs of 'smoking illnesses'. Well guess what, 'old age' causes illnesses and it costs money to treat them too. The point I am attempting to make to you which you seem to refuse to grasp, is that these 'medical costs' will be paid regardless of whether or not the people smoked. And that the smokers save money by corking off at a younger age.
View Quote
You didnt even look at the studies , did ya Can you show me a study to back your claim up ? Common sence tells me if two people live to the the same age. They both die of a heart attack and one smokes the other doesnt the smoker will have a much higher cost of health care till he dies.
View Quote
Damn, you just dont get it. IF the 'smoker' in your example didnt smoke, he would (I think we both can agree) live several years (8-12 or so) longer. Which means that the government would have to pay out that amount of extra time in 'entitlements'. Get it? Smokers DIE younger, they spend less time getting the government 'old age' dole. Smokers pay MORE in taxes, die younger, and get less out of what they have paid in taxes. To be really cold, we as a people should be encouraging those on the government dole to smoke, because regardless of when they die we will pick up their health costs. If they smoke we will simpy have to spend less money to keep them alive longer. Get it? Government picking up 'health costs' is a zero sum thing, the government will pay for the cancer treatment of the 65 year old smoker, and the cancer treatment of the 75 year old non-smoker, the 'costs' of those treatments will be the EXACT SAME amount, but the 75 year old has 10 more years sucking the money out of 'the system'. Hell the smoker has already paid for his/her treatment with the excise taxes on each pack, something the non-smoker did not do. Get it yet? It is a real simple concept.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 11:54:15 AM EDT
I recently did a study for a class and by using data from the Dept. of Aging, Dept.of Labor and a couple of other sources, I calculated the average cost of smokers vs non-smokers to society using death rates, avg. cost health care, avg. life expectancy, avg. cost of nursing home care, avg. reveneue from smokers etc. and found that it is [b]a wash[/b]. Smokers cost about the same as non-smokers since they contribute lots in taxes and die young. This offsets expenses on smoking related illness expenses, lost productivity (which incidentally is a bullshit statistic). The cost of non-smoker care in the last ten years of life is astronomical. Smokers don't generally live long enough to get that last ten years of having someone wipe you and feed you. As for the comparison to gun-grabbers and anti-smokers - they are essentially the same creature. They hate something and do not want anyone else to have/do it. They are willing to pass laws that empower the state to use force to regulate said activity. As for you having to smell cigarette smoke - get over it. I have to smell heavy perfume, diesel exhaust and all manner of other foul smelling crap all the time. Tolerating crap that you don't particularly like is the price of freedom as long as it doesn't harm you. Like schools that ban peanut butter sandwiches because 1 in 100,000 kids is allergic to peanuts. WTF!!! What a load of B.S. Also, there has been no credible study that says that second-hand smoke has any negative effect on non-smokers. Plus, most of the studies shown in the prior threads are propaganda BS. University of California Study?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! [ROFL2] There's the place to go for non-biased information!!! Besides, all this is a lesson in why socialist programs kill liberty. Becuase they steal money from people at the point of a gun through taxation and then hand it to people for health care, they now think they have the right to regulate your actions because those actions might cost them money. No wonder our freedom is going down the tank. People like U-Bad(whatever the heck your name is) running around minding other people's business because they are sensitive. Just like a gun-grabber.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 12:09:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By BobCole: Why the double standard?[/qoute] Maybe it's because no one has ever gone out and slammed their car into a family of four, killing everyone, after having too much to smoke.
In case you can't tell, I HATE tobacco products in general, cigarettes in particular.
View Quote
I understand. I have the same hatred for alcohol and people who can't control their consumption of it. We just happen to be on opposite sides of the fence.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 1:27:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 1:28:56 PM EDT by u-baddog]
Originally Posted By CassidyGT: I recently did a study for a class and by using data from the Dept. of Aging, Dept.of Labor and a couple of other sources, I calculated the average cost of smokers vs non-smokers to society using death rates, avg. cost health care, avg. life expectancy, avg. cost of nursing home care, avg. reveneue from smokers etc. and found that it is [b]a wash[/b]. Smokers cost about the same as non-smokers since they contribute lots in taxes and die young. This offsets expenses on smoking related illness expenses, lost productivity (which incidentally is a bullshit statistic). The cost of non-smoker care in the last ten years of life is astronomical. Smokers don't generally live long enough to get that last ten years of having someone wipe you and feed you. As for the comparison to gun-grabbers and anti-smokers - they are essentially the same creature. They hate something and do not want anyone else to have/do it. They are willing to pass laws that empower the state to use force to regulate said activity. As for you having to smell cigarette smoke - get over it. I have to smell heavy perfume, diesel exhaust and all manner of other foul smelling crap all the time. Tolerating crap that you don't particularly like is the price of freedom as long as it doesn't harm you. Like schools that ban peanut butter sandwiches because 1 in 100,000 kids is allergic to peanuts. WTF!!! What a load of B.S. Also, there has been no credible study that says that second-hand smoke has any negative effect on non-smokers. Plus, most of the studies shown in the prior threads are propaganda BS. University of California Study?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! [ROFL2] There's the place to go for non-biased information!!! Besides, all this is a lesson in why socialist programs kill liberty. Becuase they steal money from people at the point of a gun through taxation and then hand it to people for health care, they now think they have the right to regulate your actions because those actions might cost them money. No wonder our freedom is going down the tank. People like U-Bad(whatever the heck your name is) running around minding other people's business because they are sensitive. Just like a gun-grabber.
View Quote
WTF are you talking about ? Minding other peoples business. I have already been told in this thread if someone is smoking near me[b] I HAVE TO TELL HIM TO STOP[/b]. I dont hate smoking, I hate it when some dumbass brings me into his addiction. I dont want the government to do a damn thing. I want smokers to police up after themselves' and leave me and mine out of their stinking addiction. I don't want to pay for, smell or pick up after their habit. If people would pay their own way and keep there stinking habit to themselves we wouldn't even be having this discussion. What the fuck is wrong with that ? Wow, you did a paper for class. I wish I was an expert too. I did stay in a Hoiliday Inn Express once does that count too. Let talk about that. First you say its a wash because the money is there to pay for it. I agree it its there NOW. Its sucks its there due to smokers paying high taxes and law suit penalties. Then you say smokers are deprived of freedom and taxed by socialist programs. So if we remove the socialist programs ie tax money( by the way, I am all for removing any tax) where would the money come from to pay for the cost of their addiction ? Who would pay ? Taxes are bad for sure but you cant have it both ways. Wouldn't it be some much easier if people would just keep their addiction to themselves. Good luck with school. I am check out for the night . BYE BYE
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 3:20:57 PM EDT
Hey, if the guberment is not going to regulate you smoking in public then why should it regulate me shooting pigeons off the telephone line with my AK. Not my fault if you catch one of my rounds, you could have asked me to stop. I'm all for anarchy and the government that rules less is the government that is best, but that shit doesn't happen in our society, and until it does, god damnit you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in public places in the city. There, how's that? I can't shoot in the city you can't smoke in the city, unless you are at your house or at a smoking range, or some other private place. If they guberment is not going to regulate you from lighting up next to me on a city street, something I consider harmful to my physical health, then why should it regulate me from pistol whipping you for said action? I'm sure you would consider a good pistol whipping harmful to your physical health. I don't want to prevent you from smoking. Not at all. You want to put a .44 to your head and ponder whether or not the hammer is going to fall on an empty chamber, go ahead. I just don't want people lighting up next to me in public places IN THE CITY. BTW, the pollution factor is a moot point. Tragically, shooters, hunters, and smokers alike liter. It's something that's associated with the person not the hobby. I know people that pick up all their cigarette butts and brass/targets. I know others that throw shit all over the place. Personally I think literers need to be dispatched with extreme prejudice.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 3:28:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By u-baddog:I have to support the ailments that comes with putting poison in your body with my tax dollars by the way of medicare for those who cant afford to fund their own demise. The FED gives money to farmers and welfare to those who cant work anymore because they are too sick.
View Quote
fine get rid of the transfer payments from me to the sickys and let them die ban taxes not smokes! do it for the children!
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 3:53:18 PM EDT
And the difference between you, and a fucking gun grabber, is exactly WHAT Bob??
View Quote
There is a difference. I hate to admit it but I smoked everything under the sun at <18 years. IF guns were that big of a problem with people (especially youth), I would be a gun grabber. The problem is, anti's are trying to fix a non-existent problem. Smoking is a problem with youth, guns aren't.
Link Posted: 6/19/2003 6:02:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/19/2003 10:03:36 PM EDT by cynic]
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Is this ARFCOM, or did I just walk into a goddamn maternity ward? Judging by the preceding [s]ridiculous and pathetic whining[/s] arguments, it would appear there are only two kinds of people: victims and smokers. Just like the anti-gunners' rants make me want to go buy more guns, ya'll are making me want to take up smoking. Butts in the storm drains...sheesh...there are worse tragedies in life we all must suffer through, gentlemen. [rolleyes] cynic
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 4:28:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By cynic: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Is this ARFCOM, or did I just walk into a goddamn maternity ward? Judging by the preceding [s]ridiculous and pathetic whining[/s] arguments, it would appear there are only two kinds of people: victims and smokers. Just like the anti-gunners' rants make me want to go buy more guns, ya'll are making me want to take up smoking. Butts in the storm drains...sheesh...there are worse tragedies in life we all must suffer through, gentlemen. [rolleyes] cynic
View Quote
Well said.
Link Posted: 6/20/2003 5:07:59 AM EDT
Are you an ex-smoker, Bob??? It seems like the ex-smokers are the worst (as I light up a cigarette). They are the self appointed "Cigarette Gastopoes". Just cause they quit they think everyone should. Been smokeing since the early sixties and don't intend to quit. And yes I smoked in school and on school property. But I don't go around and blow smoke in non-smokers faces and force it on them and I don't like others to force their anti-smoking views on me. Its my choice.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top