Cigarette Ban

[jimmy4321]

Maybe take some of that tax money from smokes throw it into commercials tv, radio, provincial signs, bus stops etc.

[WalterWhite]

...Can't save us all.

This should be about responsibility not banning

That really doesn't work though - one has to consider the outrageous costs associated with cigarettes.

I have no idea but wonder what the associated costs of motorcycle accidents, skateboard injuries, snowboarders landing on their heads etc.
Should a skateboard cost $800 to cover the costs?

Skateboards don't result in millions of dollars in lost structures and firefighting costs. Skateboards don't litter the environment. Healthcare premiums already support injury costs associated with recreational activities.

[WalterWhite]

Maybe take some of that tax money from smokes throw it into commercials tv, radio, provincial signs, bus stops etc.

Commercials for what - telling people not to act like complete imbeciles? It's been done for decades - and clearly doesn't work. People need to have an impact on their pocket books before they get a message. As I suggested a few posts back, I'd prefer a positive spin and actually give smokers a reason and positive consequence for not to toss their butts - and actually reward them for it (although in essence it's a net gain of zero because the money paid out was already taken in by way of a deposit fee upon purchase).

[neilsimon]

Already mentioned - death is the ultimate cost.

Since we cannot put a monetary figure on life, from an economics point of view, the cost of death at one age vs another is: lost earnings + incurred costs - avoided costs
Since we all die, we are basically dealing with the difference in cost of death of someone 10 years younger due to smoking, which would be around 72 instead of 82. Since people at 72 years of age are not usually earning, and are actually incurring costs to the economy from their pension, healthcare costs, etc. the fact is that smokers are almost certainly cheaper for our economy than non-smokers, as the cost of dying from lung cancer is almost certainly less than the cost of 10 years of pension + healthcare, etc. + dying from other causes.
Again, smokers are not doing us a favour by dying, but they are helping to fight the problems of an ageing population.

[neilsimon]

...
Skateboards don't result in millions of dollars in lost structures and firefighting costs. Skateboards don't litter the environment. Healthcare premiums already support injury costs associated with recreational activities.

Skateboarders don't pay $600,000,000 into public coffers because they skateboard and smoking can well be classified as a recreational activity and even if not, our healthcare premiums already support the costs associated with smoking.

[jimmy4321]

Commercials for what - telling people not to act like complete imbeciles?

Well people don't drink and drive to nearly the extent they used to.
Not nearly as many smoke as they used to.

Can't solve all your problems in one fire season, then after the first downpour drop the issue Lol


I'm out

Don't speed
Don't drink and drive
Don't drink while pregnant
Say NO to drugs
Don't smoke, it's bad for you. - If you do however, please discard your ashes & butts in a safe manor.

Adios amigos

[Glacier]

I told someone to stop smoking, and got beat up the other day. It was caught on camera... https://www.facebook.com/myiannopoulos/ ... 3635193865

[Fancy]

Since we all die, we are basically dealing with the difference in cost of death of someone 10 years younger due to smoking,..

Actually, I'd already posted a link regarding fires and death caused from careless smoking and have mentioned the wildlife lost. There is a broader picture here regarding costs other than effects from just smoking.

[Glacier]

Emotionally, I against neilsimon. I just don't like smoking and think it's a dumb habit, but factually, he's right. Smokers pay way more taxes and live much shorter, so they don't collect as much benefits nor cost the public as much given their shorter lives. We all die, and it costs about the same whether you die from smoking or simply of some other awful disease totally unrelated. Actually, lung cancer is a fairly swift killer, so you probably cost the healthcare system less to smoke. Plus, you avoid an extra 5 or 10 years of in and out of hospitals that tends to happen in old age.

[neilsimon]

Since we all die, we are basically dealing with the difference in cost of death of someone 10 years younger due to smoking,..

Actually, I'd already posted a link regarding fires and death caused from careless smoking and have mentioned the wildlife lost. There is a broader picture here regarding costs other than effects from just smoking.

And I already pointed out that smokers contribute about $1000/year each (or about $600,000,000) to offset this harm. I am certainly not arguing that the rules around smoking shouldn't be such as to manage the risk, but banning smoking without attempting other remedies is unnecessarily restrictive. Smokers are people too, entitled to freedom so long as such freedom doesn't excessively harm others. With proper smoking restrictions (most of which are already in place) and the additional taxes they contribute, I see no reason to ban smoking other than attempts to impose a puritanical morality on those who smoke.

[Silverstarqueen]

Cigarette ban won't fly. It just won't. Too many addicts out there.


I'm proposing:
No smoking in public places.
No smoking in Parks.
No smoking within 20 feet of a non-consenting adult or child and everyone is presumed to be non-consenting unless otherwise stated, (children can not give consent).

Also, any fires directly related to smoking should have the costs added up and yearly tacked on to the tax put on cigarettes. If it means a pack of cigarettes goes up by 500% one year, so be it. While we're at it, lets readdress the health impacts from smoking and the drain it puts on our health care system. Are we taxing them enough as is?

People are addicted to nicotine, which I have some sympathy for, but there are many ways to get a nicotine fix besides lighting up a cigarette, which have less health consequences (no smoke damage), and less property damage (far far fewer discarded cigarette butts by the roadside, in bushes, or houses burning down).

[Fancy]

And I already pointed out that smokers contribute about $1000/year each (or about $600,000,000) to offset this harm.

Children and wildlife dying I wouldn't equate to "harm".

[neilsimon]

Emotionally, I against neilsimon...

Don't worry, so am I. I hate smoking, I hate almost everything about it. I think it is a blight we would be so much better off without. Emotionally, I want to see a great big tobacco ban. Hell, I feel dirty just arguing that smoking shouldn't be banned. But I really like freedom and to that end I will defend the freedom of others, even when it is freedom to do something I detest.

That said, I shouldn't worry, the tobacco industry is powerful enough and the taxes are valuable enough that there certainly isn't the political will to completely ban cigarettes.

[neilsimon]

And I already pointed out that smokers contribute about $1000/year each (or about $600,000,000) to offset this harm.

Children and wildlife dying I wouldn't equate to "harm".

I'm using "harm" in the more broad legal sense, which certainly does include killing people and animals, but also includes damage to property, etc.

Just in case you feel the need to suggest that we can't apply a monetary value to life, you are right, but the courts often have to do something akin to that (car accidents, etc.) and in those cases the amounts are usually in the low millions (under $10,000,000 for most US agencies) for the death of a person.

[Silverstarqueen]

Re: cost of smoking paid for by smokers: I've seen an estimate of cost to U.S for smoking related illness to be 133B per year. If you estimated 60 million smokers, paying $1000 per year, that is 60B. Doesn't seem to be coming even close, and it does not take into account the property damage from fires caused. I don't know what the estimates would be for CAnada, but I recall some years ago an article that said the taxes from cigarettes was not likely to cover the costs to treat related illness. Sure, when a smoker is 30 years old,they may not have much more than a case of bronchitis now and then, costs a couple of hundred for doctor visit or maybe an xray. But by the time they are getting on, and they are having pneumonia(brought on by a simple cold or flu), maybe a stay in hospital, perhaps decreased mobility, more frequent doctor visits to plan prescriptions or oxygen therapy. Not to mention cost of lung cancer treatment, or heart disease, stroke. When influenza is going around, smokers are more likely to need hospitalization than healthier people. Perhaps insurance rates should reflect that.