US Navy Bans E-Cigarettes Fleet-Wide

[Tekara]

Sad part is that vaping has already been shown to be 95% safer by Public Health England. Nicotine has already been proven to not be related to the respiratory or cardiovascular diseases caused by cigarettes. These people vaping are the ones trying to actually trying to improve their overall health by switching and are being told that they should man up and go back to smoking cigarettes.

 

[travisty]

But you're only assuming that I smoke.

Plus, people partake in very many things that are unhealthy.

drink alcohol? Ingest sugar on a daily basis?

Would you point out to a 400lb obese person that they're incredibly stupid for being overweight? Just as bad as smoking. Actually, I see many more seniors that smoke then seniors that are obese(the ones that were obese die before hitting 60). I'm not taking a stance either way. Both things are very bad for your health but to single out and judge is just as silly. People will do what they do...

It all comes down to choice. I do not drink alcohol - waste of money and leads to stupidity as well. Sugar - which is not refined/bleached - is fine in reasonable quantities (not addictive to the same extent as smoking/alcohol).

A 400 lb person. If they have a medical condition then they need treatment. If they choose to be fat, then yes it's their fault and they're making a dumb choice.

If someone chooses to do something that will statistically ruin their lives/kill themselves, then yes they're dumb imo. [yes things like driving a car can be dangerous but i don't crash my car every day]

 

[lcpiper]

If people buying them would spend more than $1 on a battery or a crappy ecig or or box mod then they probably wouldn't have that problem. Spend a normal amount of money on quality hardware and the problem disappears. $30 for the box, $20 for a tank, and some for atomizers juice and quality battery/charger and it's safe as hell due to all the built in safety features that come with middle of the road units.

If you spend $7 on a gas station e-cig, you are kind of asking it to explode in your pocket.

Cause when you are deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, those Hadji shops are full of quality alternatives. Making port call in Dubai, same thing. See, the Exchange System won't carry that shit usually so they just don't always have alternatives. Not every sailor is stationed in CA brother.

 

[lcpiper]

So an agonizing lung cancer death is fine but 2nd degree burns are not ?

Not to the big shots. The Army is saying that they want to be completely smoke free within a few years and you can bet they are planning on enforcing it.

So as a twist, pot is being legalized all over the country while the Military is trying to ban all forms of nicotine consumption / use.

 

[lcpiper]

I find this silly.

Why don't they ban all devices with rechargeable batteries then? cell phones explode, laptops explode..... Seems like someone in the higher brass just doesn't like the devices.

I thought that was clear above, it seems people are modifying them and increasing their risk.

 

[lcpiper]

If you enjoy smoking - something that will kill you and the people around you (it's worse for them) - then i pity you.

And you can't get addicted to everything you like so your statement is incorrect.

If I understand what you are trying to say, you buy off on that bullshit about second hand smoke being worse for the others then for the one actually doing the smoking, which somehow completely ignores that the smoker is also breathing the same second hand smoke as well.

"Yea man, I don't actually breath when I'm smoking .... I just make the sounds you know"

"Like man, when I'm smoking a cig, I don't breath for that whole 6 minutes while I'm having that cig you know"

 

[Bandalo]

Sad part is that vaping has already been shown to be 95% safer by Public Health England. Nicotine has already been proven to not be related to the respiratory or cardiovascular diseases caused by cigarettes. These people vaping are the ones trying to actually trying to improve their overall health by switching and are being told that they should man up and go back to smoking cigarettes.

I think the military is telling them to man up and quit altogether.

 

[lcpiper]

It all comes down to choice. I do not drink alcohol - waste of money and leads to stupidity as well. Sugar - which is not refined/bleached - is fine in reasonable quantities (not addictive to the same extent as smoking/alcohol).

A 400 lb person. If they have a medical condition then they need treatment. If they choose to be fat, then yes it's their fault and they're making a dumb choice.

If someone chooses to do something that will statistically ruin their lives/kill themselves, then yes they're dumb imo. [yes things like driving a car can be dangerous but i don't crash my car every day]

When I was 30, I was over in Korea. I smoked 2 packs a day easy. I could run PT while smoking. I ran two miles in 12:05. I could call cadence for an entire run as I ran. I was an Army beast physically.

I finally quit smoking about 5 years ago. I just decided I didn't want to bullshit about quitting, the old lady wouldn't stop dogging me to quit, even tho she smoked too. I just decided that I didn't smoke any more and stopped.

Now I am 57. This guy who is just a couple years older than me asked me what my secret was, I don't look and act like an old man. They all know I am older, I just don't act and look older.

Fuck if I know for sure. It's not like I didn't abuse myself my entire life. I just don't stop moving like I used to, I just keep going, keep moving, keep living, keep gaming. My eyes are giving me troubles, my hands start to shake sometimes, fucks with my game you know. But I don't god damned well stop over it.

You want to talk about choices, make that one.

You start practicing how to be old you'll get good at it for sure

 

[Tekara]

I think the military is telling them to man up and quit altogether.

Unlikely, breaks are typically only ever afforded to smokers regardless of shift length. Don't smoke? get back to the grind!

 

[Bandalo]

Unlikely, breaks are typically only ever afforded to smokers regardless of shift length. Don't smoke? get back to the grind!

The military in general is very negative on smoking and tobacco use, and it's been getting more so as the years have gone by. Leadership will always be encouraging everyone to quit, and they're not going to do anything to make it easier to keep smoking/chewing.

 

[lcpiper]

I think the military is telling them to man up and quit altogether.

lol......... Army was busting everyone's balls for years to quit.

Then the wars started. I went over to Iraq in 2007, fucking everyone was smoking, Officers too. I shouldn't have been surprised. Officers didn't even try and hide it either when in the old days they never let an enlisted soldier see them smoking.

Now they are all back home and thumping that drum louder then ever.

 

[Tekara]

The military in general is very negative on smoking and tobacco use, and it's been getting more so as the years have gone by. Leadership will always be encouraging everyone to quit, and they're not going to do anything to make it easier to keep smoking/chewing.

I disagree there. Smoking has become more prevalent over the years, most especially while deployed. A good chunk of those that come back from the desert maintain the habit as well. The press releases and lip service don't jive with my experience. Hell, ever since I've been serving, the tobacco restrictions have been relaxed in spite of the increase in the anti-smoking propaganda, such as allowing pipeliners to keep tobacco products in their dorms which was a luxury I was never afforded.

 

[Bandalo]

lol......... Army was busting everyone's balls for years to quit.

Then the wars started. I went over to Iraq in 2007, fucking everyone was smoking, Officers too. I shouldn't have been surprised. Officers didn't even try and hide it either when in the old days they never let an enlisted soldier see them smoking.

Now they are all back home and thumping that drum louder then ever.

I've seen it on the Navy side, and they've been cracking down a bit more for years. It's a lot easier to control onboard ship than when you're deployed into the field though. There's still a bit of hypocracy though. Cigars with the Admiral and CO? Totally OK. Anything else? Seriously frowned upon.

I disagree there. Smoking has become more prevalent over the years, most especially while deployed. A good chunk of those that come back from the desert maintain the habit as well. The press releases and lip service don't jive with my experience. Hell, ever since I've been serving, the tobacco restrictions have been relaxed in spite of the increase in the anti-smoking propaganda, such as allowing pipeliners to keep tobacco products in their dorms which was a luxury I was never afforded.

It's not the same on the Navy side...they've been restricting when and where you can smoke for a long time now. It's only really a tiny minority of mostly junior enlisted that still smoke. And a very few crusty old chiefs and officers.

 

[travisty]

Now I am 57. This guy who is just a couple years older than me asked me what my secret was, I don't look and act like an old man. They all know I am older, I just don't act and look older.

Smoking doesn't effect a smoker's outward looks (at least not until throat cancer) but any smoker's lungs will look terrible in comparison to a non-smoker.

you buy off on that bullshit about second hand smoke being worse for the others then for the one actually doing the smoking, which somehow completely ignores that the smoker is also breathing the same second hand smoke as well"

It's better to say that 2nd hand smoke is worse to inform smokers that they are hurting/killing the others around them. Yes the smoker is getting the 2nd hand smoke but they're already killing themselves

 

[jaffy]

Use Swedish snus. Problem solved.

 

[lcpiper]

Smoking doesn't effect a smoker's outward looks (at least not until throat cancer) but any smoker's lungs will look terrible in comparison to a non-smoker.




It's better to say that 2nd hand smoke is worse to inform smokers that they are hurting/killing the others around them. Yes the smoker is getting the 2nd hand smoke but they're already killing themselves

So all those skinny shrews with the wrinkled up lips got them from sucking too much dick then?

Look, you tell me I need to quit cause I'm hurting myself it's my choice. You tell me I'm fucking other people over, get the fuck out of the room. But telling me I'm hurting them more then I am myself and your just full of shit so I don't believe fuck all you say.

That's just human beings dude.

It's what we call damaging your credibility.

 

[travisty]

So all those skinny shrews with the wrinkled up lips got them from sucking too much dick then?

Look, you tell me I need to quit cause I'm hurting myself it's my choice. You tell me I'm fucking other people over, get the fuck out of the room. But telling me I'm hurting them more then I am myself and your just full of shit so I don't believe fuck all you say.

That's just human beings dude.

It's what we call damaging your credibility.

2nd hand smoke is worse than smoking a cigarette directly. There's nothing wrong with that statement because the smoker has a filter between them and the cigarette when they in-hail.

Note: I never said the smoker is not hurting themselves more. I said that 2nd hand smoke is worse (the smoker is exposed to 2nd hand smoke, i never said they werent)

Some more information about second hand smoke and how bad smoking is:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/tobacco-and-cancer/secondhand-smoke.html

And really, tbh, if second hand and first hand smoke are equally dangerous it doesn't make me any more wrong/right. It still kills either way which is where my stance comes from for calling anyone who smokes and idiot.

 

[lcpiper]

2nd hand smoke is worse than smoking a cigarette directly. There's nothing wrong with that statement because the smoker has a filter between them and the cigarette when they in-hail.

Note: I never said the smoker is not hurting themselves more. I said that 2nd hand smoke is worse (the smoker is exposed to 2nd hand smoke, i never said they werent)

Some more information about second hand smoke and how bad smoking is:
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/

The statement itself is misleading and frankly, trying to claim otherwise is just cowardly horseshit.

You are trying to influence someone with an absurd falsehood. With that statement you are saying "smoking hurts others more then it hurts yourself" and it's a lie.

And there are dozens of unfiltered cigarette brands so there is not always a filter involved. I know, i used to smoke them myself. I was never even sold on the idea that those filters weren't part of the problem. When you are soldier that smokes, you don't have to leave any cigarette butts around for other soldiers to pick up on police call.

I smoked from age 23 until I was 51, ummm 28 years by my math. I have some serious experience with smoking. On a night where I had 24 hour duty, I have smoked as many as 5 packs in that time period. There were times I lit one cigarette with the butt of the previous one. I smoked, I inhaled, I breathed all that second hand smoke. I sat in tiny "smoking rooms" in airports waiting for connections where the smoke was so sickeningly thick I thought the assholes were fumigating us. Really, it had to be on purpose by some holier-then-though fucking non-smoker who figured we should all suffer cause he might have to catch a whiff once in awhile.

Go sell someone else your tripe, I ain't buying it.

P.S. And what was your reasoning about the shrivel-lipped women?
Just want to let that one slide and be forgotten.

Now ask me if I am happy that I quit.

 

[travisty]

Icpiper,

All i have to say is I pity you for your choices

And gj for quitting

 

[lcpiper]

Icpiper,

All i have to say is I pity you for your choices

Keep your pity, give me back the money you stole from me in 700%+ taxes "that is going to go to support people with smoking related health problems" like that money actually went to help any smokers.

Other than that, 28 years of smoking hasn't harmed me a bit.

 

[Shogon]

Icpiper,

All i have to say is I pity you for your choices

Don't worry. I'm sure many of us here pity a soul too busy looking down on others when they probably should just ignore you outright. Must be lonely up on Mount Olympus, being a divine an all.

 

[lcpiper]

Keep your pity, give me back the money you stole from me in 700%+ taxes "that is going to go to support people with smoking related health problems" like that money actually went to help any smokers.

Other than that, 28 years of smoking hasn't harmed me a bit.

EDIT: Your pity huh .... let's do some math. Ignore all the 5 pack a day binges and the heavier smoking while out at the bar chasing tail. Let's just work with the 2 packs a day, 20 smokes in a pack, 40 butts a day for 28 years.
Let's see, 40 X 356 = 14,240 x 28 years = 398,720 cigarettes smoked. Now if every cigarette I smoked is a day off my life, and I quite when I was 52 ...... 398.720 / 356 = 1,120 years.

Fuck me, I died 892 AD.


LOL, the Vikings were invading England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/892

Britain

• Autumn – A Viking force with a fleet of 250 longships arrives at the river mouth of the settlement of Lympne (East Kent). They attack the small fortification (called Eorpeburnan).[3]
• Viking raiders (80 ships) under Hastein arrive in the Thames Estuary, and set up camp at Middleton. King Alfred the Great decides to position his army in the Wealden Forest.[4]

 

[Bandalo]

EDIT: Your pity huh .... let's do some math. Ignore all the 5 pack a day binges and the heavier smoking while out at the bar chasing tail. Let's just work with the 2 packs a day, 20 smokes in a pack, 40 butts a day for 28 years.
Let's see, 40 X 356 = 14,240 x 28 years = 398,720 cigarettes smoked. Now if every cigarette I smoked is a day off my life, and I quite when I was 52 ...... 398.720 / 356 = 1,120 years.

Fuck me, I died 892 AD.


LOL, the Vikings were invading England.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/892

I'm not agreeing with the other guy, as far as I'm concerned it's your life, do what you want.

But the numbers and things you see in media are statistics, you can't compare your own experience, since it's anecdotal. Statistically smoking increases your odds of cancer quite a bit. Not a guarantee no matter how much you smoked, but you do have increased odds.

 

[lcpiper]

I'm not agreeing with the other guy, as far as I'm concerned it's your life, do what you want.

But the numbers and things you see in media are statistics, you can't compare your own experience, since it's anecdotal. Statistically smoking increases your odds of cancer quite a bit. Not a guarantee no matter how much you smoked, but you do have increased odds.

He didn't bite, but I asked him "Now ask me if I am happy that I quit." Perhaps he missed it at the bottom under those stupidly big pictures. The answer is yes, I am happy I quit.

I am also still angry with how I was financially coerced into it. When I say that people are paying 700%+ in taxes, that's 700% of the entire cost, product price + tax * 8 = the 700%. Not just the taxes but the entire ball of was 8 times over. Concerned with the math, something costs $1 and it doubles to $2, that's 100%, $3 is 200% but it's three times right, 3 dollars instead of 1 dollar. Anyone know of any other instance where we have taxed anything to this degree in order to effect a social engineering change?

Every time someone talks about doing things this way I am really against it. The people who support these tactics only see the end, the outcome. The means don't directly effect them negatively, and usually it's positive, so they are so selfishly all for it. But sooner or later it will happen to them too, see how they like it when it's their wallet people are digging into. It's wrong and there is no ethical justification for it.

And I do have an issue with your statistics. If I had died from a heart attack, these assholes would have said "See, another smoker with a heart attack" and I would have become one of those statistics whether smoking really had something to do with my heart attack or not. The numbers are baked. The stats are bullshit. I'm not saying that smoking won't increase a person's risks, I'm saying the risks are overblown. Me, my Dad, his Mom, all smokers, Dad is alive at 81, his Mom passed at 92. Genetics someone will say. And I say whenever a smoker lives a long life without any serious issues it's genetics, they were blessed, but every time a smoker dies from a heart attack or cancer it's always smoking that killed them. Lung cancer in a smoker, must have been the smoking, can't be some other carcinogenic crap they were exposed to for 30 years .... it has to be the cigarettes.

So when some guy runs his mouth like this one did it gets my attention.

 

[lcpiper]

The military in general is very negative on smoking and tobacco use, and it's been getting more so as the years have gone by. Leadership will always be encouraging everyone to quit, and they're not going to do anything to make it easier to keep smoking/chewing.

The thing is, they're sort of hypocritical about it. Oh they will make all the rules and shit to try and make life harder for smokers. Regulations all designed to fuck with you so that it's a pain, you have to leave the building, walk a block, they take away the anything that could make it comfortable like a roof to keep the hot sun or the rain off your head. They say it's because they are supposed to discourage the behavior and not support it. And all that is well and good for the rules, the detached non-personal part of the picture.

But when it comes to the direct approach, the individual Officer or NCO and their dealings with smokers, they are all over the place. Some smoke themselves, some don't care at all. Most will enforce the rules loosely, others are absolute tyrants about it. But take this to a war zone and all that crap goes out the window.

 

[Bandalo]

He didn't bite, but I asked him "Now ask me if I am happy that I quit." Perhaps he missed it at the bottom under those stupidly big pictures. The answer is yes, I am happy I quit.

I am also still angry with how I was financially coerced into it. When I say that people are paying 700%+ in taxes, that's 700% of the entire cost, product price + tax * 8 = the 700%. Not just the taxes but the entire ball of was 8 times over. Concerned with the math, something costs $1 and it doubles to $2, that's 100%, $3 is 200% but it's three times right, 3 dollars instead of 1 dollar. Anyone know of any other instance where we have taxed anything to this degree in order to effect a social engineering change?

Every time someone talks about doing things this way I am really against it. The people who support these tactics only see the end, the outcome. The means don't directly effect them negatively, and usually it's positive, so they are so selfishly all for it. But sooner or later it will happen to them too, see how they like it when it's their wallet people are digging into. It's wrong and there is no ethical justification for it.

And I do have an issue with your statistics. If I had died from a heart attack, these assholes would have said "See, another smoker with a heart attack" and I would have become one of those statistics whether smoking really had something to do with my heart attack or not. The numbers are baked. The stats are bullshit. I'm not saying that smoking won't increase a person's risks, I'm saying the risks are overblown. Me, my Dad, his Mom, all smokers, Dad is alive at 81, his Mom passed at 92. Genetics someone will say. And I say whenever a smoker lives a long life without any serious issues it's genetics, they were blessed, but every time a smoker dies from a heart attack or cancer it's always smoking that killed them. Lung cancer in a smoker, must have been the smoking, can't be some other carcinogenic crap they were exposed to for 30 years .... it has to be the cigarettes.

So when some guy runs his mouth like this one did it gets my attention.

Well, the taxes and social change are a separate topic altogether. I can understand why smoking has a such a social stigma over any other "bad habits". It's one of the few that has a measurable, provable negative impact on the people AROUND you, rather that just you. Second-hand smoke IS a problem. I don't get second-hand drunk, or second-hand high, or second-hand high-fructose-corn-syruped. I don't think that makes is right to tax it the way they do though. I DO think that makes it right to make people smoke outside and only in designated areas.

There's far too much medical evidence to refute the statistics. You and you family have been lucky, but that doesn't change the facts. Your average "man on the street" might say, oh yeah, smoking killed that guy. But a doctor is going to do an actual autopsy and determine what killed the guy. And that's where the statistics come from, not Facebook or random internet people.

If you DO think the numbers are "baked", I'd have to ask why? Who benefits? It surely wouldn't be the tobacco industry...they'd like nothing more than to be able to spout the health benefits of their products. It isn't the governement...they'd rather have tobacco thought of as healthy, then have "regular" sales taxes on tobacco and collect MORE taxes overall. It's not the medical community, they're pouring huge amounts of money and research into fixing the problem already.

 

[Bandalo]

The thing is, they're sort of hypocritical about it. Oh they will make all the rules and shit to try and make life harder for smokers. Regulations all designed to fuck with you so that it's a pain, you have to leave the building, walk a block, they take away the anything that could make it comfortable like a roof to keep the hot sun or the rain off your head. They say it's because they are supposed to discourage the behavior and not support it. And all that is well and good for the rules, the detached non-personal part of the picture.

But when it comes to the direct approach, the individual Officer or NCO and their dealings with smokers, they are all over the place. Some smoke themselves, some don't care at all. Most will enforce the rules loosely, others are absolute tyrants about it. But take this to a war zone and all that crap goes out the window.

I don't think the first part is hypocritical really. They DO try to discourage smoking, and they're not going to spend money to make nice outdoor smoking areas for something they DON'T want you to do in the first place. In my current job, the smoke pit is on the side of the parking lot, and they have a couple of benches under the trees and a couple ash cans.

The direct approach thing you mentioned is NO different than any other topics in the military. Everyone knows the rules, how much they push them depends largely on the individual. I know some O-6s that smoked, I know some that were firmly against it. I personally don't smoke, and don't really care if someone else does, but I do try to discourage it for those who work for me.

 

[lcpiper]

Well, the taxes and social change are a separate topic altogether. I can understand why smoking has a such a social stigma over any other "bad habits". It's one of the few that has a measurable, provable negative impact on the people AROUND you, rather that just you. Second-hand smoke IS a problem. I don't get second-hand drunk, or second-hand high, or second-hand high-fructose-corn-syruped. I don't think that makes is right to tax it the way they do though. I DO think that makes it right to make people smoke outside and only in designated areas.

There's far too much medical evidence to refute the statistics. You and you family have been lucky, but that doesn't change the facts. Your average "man on the street" might say, oh yeah, smoking killed that guy. But a doctor is going to do an actual autopsy and determine what killed the guy. And that's where the statistics come from, not Facebook or random internet people.

If you DO think the numbers are "baked", I'd have to ask why? Who benefits? It surely wouldn't be the tobacco industry...they'd like nothing more than to be able to spout the health benefits of their products. It isn't the governement...they'd rather have tobacco thought of as healthy, then have "regular" sales taxes on tobacco and collect MORE taxes overall. It's not the medical community, they're pouring huge amounts of money and research into fixing the problem already.

Wait, never been kissed by a drunk? or any of the other things drunks do? A guy in upper New York went outside the bar to have a smoke, slipped in a drunks puke and broke his hip on the curb.
Never heard of someone at Dennys taking out the garbage and getting stuck by a needle?

I mentioned those "smoking rooms" at the airport. Some are the most horrid experiences, but others are really nice and comfortable and the difference is, they are ventilated, imagine that, adequate ventilation.

So I traveled all over for years with my work. At first, this smoking ban thing in restaurants and bars started were most things start, along the coasts, Cali and New York driving change. Over the years this moved acrossed the country until even the heartland was following suite. But funny enough, about the same time the last bastions of smoking havens were changing their ways, the coasts were already changing back ..... real quiet like. For sure they didn't talk about it much, but the smokers weren't giving up smoking, they were giving up going out. So the cities in the northeast and California started issuing "waivers" or changed the laws to require adequate ventilation in smoking rooms. In simplest terms, they stopped being such assholes about it.

All that money they took from people to try and force them to smoke, they could have used it to subsidize remodeling and improving ventilation. But they used that money for everything but what they said they were taking it for.

 

[Comixbooks]

smoke the real stuff pussies

Popcorn lung over Smoke filled lungs?

 

[Bandalo]

Wait, never been kissed by a drunk? or any of the other things drunks do? A guy in upper New York went outside the bar to have a smoke, slipped in a drunks puke and broke his hip on the curb.
Never heard of someone at Dennys taking out the garbage and getting stuck by a needle?

I mentioned those "smoking rooms" at the airport. Some are the most horrid experiences, but others are really nice and comfortable and the difference is, they are ventilated, imagine that, adequate ventilation.

So I traveled all over for years with my work. At first, this smoking ban thing in restaurants and bars started were most things start, along the coasts, Cali and New York driving change. Over the years this moved acrossed the country until even the heartland was following suite. But funny enough, about the same time the last bastions of smoking havens were changing their ways, the coasts were already changing back ..... real quiet like. For sure they didn't talk about it much, but the smokers weren't giving up smoking, they were giving up going out. So the cities in the northeast and California started issuing "waivers" or changed the laws to require adequate ventilation in smoking rooms. In simplest terms, they stopped being such assholes about it.

All that money they took from people to try and force them to smoke, they could have used it to subsidize remodeling and improving ventilation. But they used that money for everything but what they said they were taking it for.

Maybe my point wasn't quite clear. You certainly CAN be hurt by a drunk idiot. But someone just sitting next to me having a casual beer or rum & coke isn't hurting me. Whereas someone sitting there smoking a cigarette next to me is a different matter.

Any company, restaurant, airline, or whatever is going to go with majority opinion. If the majority of their customers don't want to smell smoke while dining or flying, then they'll ban it. It'd be silly not to, because they'd drive away the majority of their customers. I personally don't care if there IS a smoking section or whatever, as long as I don't smell it while I'm eating. If I do, I'm not going to complain, I'll just go eat somewhere else.

Who took money to force people to smoke?

 

[lcpiper]

......................Who took money to force people to smoke?

Back when a carton of smokes used to cost around $10 - $16 depending on region, the federal government began trying to reduce smoking by increasing federal taxes levied at purchase. At the time when these taxes were proposed, they said that the money collected would go toward smoking cessation and health care for smoking related health problems. Then the taxes were increased. Then the States jumped on board the revenue bandwagon, followed by many cities until the price of a carton of cigarettes has climbed to over $70 dollars in much of the country.

They've taxed it for all they can in order to generate revenue and trying to get people to quit smoking, that was bullshit. Using that money to help smokers stop or with their medical problems, more bullshit.

Don't try to play that "who forced you to smoke card", I wasn't born a smoker and I chose to start ..... in 1982 when I could buy a carton of Marlboros for $2.68. Smoking is an addiction and I doubt many would challenge that, but quitting is something that only happens when the smoker actually chooses to quit. Pushing them to quit, peer pressure, Army regulations, all of those other motivations are useless. The only way a smoker quits smoking is by making a decision like I did, "I don't smoke". Every time I wanted a cigarette I told myself "I don't smoke", and I never smoked another one. Short of that, death is the only other out for quitting.

So how do you "make" someone choose to quit? Tax them all you can, but not so much that they can't actually keep smoking, that's how .... right?

No, that's how you rob people. You tell them the money will go to good causes because they all know they "should quit", they would quit if it were easier, they are "trying to quit". Make reasonable people believe that this small tax increase isn't that bad and they don't have a "decent" reason to oppose it. Then over the course of a few years, raise those taxes until it's taking so much of their income that it's really impacting their lives, but not enough that they truly have to stop. People who are addicted physically to a drug, take their money, all you can but not to the point that they actually have to stop.

Smoking was costing my wife and I over $500 a month. We could afford it, it's not why I stopped. I stopped because I got tired of how I smelled to other people. I got tired of always "trying to quit" and never really just quitting. Trying to quit sucks. Saving the money was incentive, but it wasn't compelling for me. My wife used it to try and drive me to quit and she was still trying to quit a year after I had stopped. She still sneaks them after 5 years.

Does that answer your question?

You know they are trying to do the same thing with Ammunition for guns, someone here talked about using taxes to make people live more healthy, give up sodas so a Coke can cost $20, "it's for your own good". Driving social change through taxation. That's what people had in mind when they decided that taxation was something we would do in this country, in order to fund the government and government works. That's what this is right, it's government running the country.

It all sounds reasonable until it's you that is the target. Then you'll get the point, then you'll remember this conversation.

 

[Bandalo]

Back when a carton of smokes used to cost around $10 - $16 depending on region, the federal government began trying to reduce smoking by increasing federal taxes levied at purchase. At the time when these taxes were proposed, they said that the money collected would go toward smoking cessation and health care for smoking related health problems. Then the taxes were increased. Then the States jumped on board the revenue bandwagon, followed by many cities until the price of a carton of cigarettes has climbed to over $70 dollars in much of the country.

They've taxed it for all they can in order to generate revenue and trying to get people to quit smoking, that was bullshit. Using that money to help smokers stop or with their medical problems, more bullshit.

Don't try to play that "who forced you to smoke card", I wasn't born a smoker and I chose to start ..... in 1982 when I could buy a carton of Marlboros for $2.68. Smoking is an addiction and I doubt many would challenge that, but quitting is something that only happens when the smoker actually chooses to quit. Pushing them to quit, peer pressure, Army regulations, all of those other motivations are useless. The only way a smoker quits smoking is by making a decision like I did, "I don't smoke". Every time I wanted a cigarette I told myself "I don't smoke", and I never smoked another one. Short of that, death is the only other out for quitting.

So how do you "make" someone choose to quit? Tax them all you can, but not so much that they can't actually keep smoking, that's how .... right?

No, that's how you rob people. You tell them the money will go to good causes because they all know they "should quit", they would quit if it were easier, they are "trying to quit". Make reasonable people believe that this small tax increase isn't that bad and they don't have a "decent" reason to oppose it. Then over the course of a few years, raise those taxes until it's taking so much of their income that it's really impacting their lives, but not enough that they truly have to stop. People who are addicted physically to a drug, take their money, all you can but not to the point that they actually have to stop.

Smoking was costing my wife and I over $500 a month. We could afford it, it's not why I stopped. I stopped because I got tired of how I smelled to other people. I got tired of always "trying to quit" and never really just quitting. Trying to quit sucks. Saving the money was incentive, but it wasn't compelling for me. My wife used it to try and drive me to quit and she was still trying to quit a year after I had stopped. She still sneaks them after 5 years.

Does that answer your question?

You know they are trying to do the same thing with Ammunition for guns, someone here talked about using taxes to make people live more healthy, give up sodas so a Coke can cost $20, "it's for your own good". Driving social change through taxation. That's what people had in mind when they decided that taxation was something we would do in this country, in order to fund the government and government works. That's what this is right, it's government running the country.

It all sounds reasonable until it's you that is the target. Then you'll get the point, then you'll remember this conversation.

Honestly it doesn't answer my question at all...you said people took money to FORCE you to smoke. I get that no one forced you, it was your choice. I also get the government taxed it. But no one took your money and used that money to make you smoke more, except maybe the tobacco company via advertising.

The government realized smoking was a medical issue. They realized there was significant social stigma. And then they realized they could tax the crap out of it. Not enough people would complain, since the majority didn't like smoking. The medical community would back it up because it was harmful. And the smokers would keep buying regardless, because either they were addicted or they didn't want to quit. So basically no down-side for the tax from the government's point of view.
Did they use all that money for anti-smoking efforts? Probably not. I don't have their ledgers, so I can't verify, but I'm sure they did use SOME of the taxes for that purpose. I do know almost every state has tax-funded anti-smoking programs, so there's SOME evidence the money is being used as intended.

Driving social change via taxation works, as long as enough people support it. I don't think a huge soda tax is a great idea, or a huge tax on ammo. I'm guessing there'd be a lot more public outcry when/if those are implemented.

 

[lcpiper]

Honestly it doesn't answer my question at all...you said people took money to FORCE you to smoke. I get that no one forced you, it was your choice. I also get the government taxed it. But no one took your money and used that money to make you smoke more, except maybe the tobacco company via advertising.

The government realized smoking was a medical issue. They realized there was significant social stigma. And then they realized they could tax the crap out of it. Not enough people would complain, since the majority didn't like smoking. The medical community would back it up because it was harmful. And the smokers would keep buying regardless, because either they were addicted or they didn't want to quit. So basically no down-side for the tax from the government's point of view.
Did they use all that money for anti-smoking efforts? Probably not. I don't have their ledgers, so I can't verify, but I'm sure they did use SOME of the taxes for that purpose. I do know almost every state has tax-funded anti-smoking programs, so there's SOME evidence the money is being used as intended.

Driving social change via taxation works, as long as enough people support it. I don't think a huge soda tax is a great idea, or a huge tax on ammo. I'm guessing there'd be a lot more public outcry when/if those are implemented.

I have to re-read what I wrote because that was not what I intended to say.


Ahhh I see it;

All that money they took from people to try and force them to smoke

I did mess myself up, sorry. It should have read;

All that money they took from people to try and force them to quit smoking.

 

[lcpiper]

................Driving social change via taxation works, as long as enough people support it. I don't think a huge soda tax is a great idea, or a huge tax on ammo. I'm guessing there'd be a lot more public outcry when/if those are implemented.

I disagree sir.

I would change your statement to "Driving social change through taxation is fundamentally wrong."

Taxes should always have a function related to covering government expenditures, paying for government functions or works. Those taxes should not be in excess of the government's needs in any unreasonable amount. Therefor taxing people in order to enforce, or restrict, or encourage behavior and choice, is simply completely outside of the government's authority to tax the populace. Furthermore, without some limits on what the government can and cannot tax, there is no limit to the reach of levied taxation.

The Xth Amendment establishes limitations on the scope of the Federal Government's powers and and specifies that everything not specifically charge to the Federal Government is remanded to the States and the Individual. Therefore not only does this limit the Federal Government, it actually establishes that even the individual has powers of self governance not to be encroached upon by the Federal Government. What we would call freedoms and choices are actually individual powers we ourselves are responsible for.


We are responsible for our choices ........ So why is the Federal Government using taxation as a means to inhibit choice?

 

[Bandalo]

I have to re-read what I wrote because that was not what I intended to say.


Ahhh I see it;
I did mess myself up, sorry. It should have read;

All that money they took from people to try and force them to quit smoking.

That makes more sense now.

I disagree sir.

I would change your statement to "Driving social change through taxation is fundamentally wrong."

Taxes should always have a function related to covering government expenditures, paying for government functions or works. Those taxes should not be in excess of the government's needs in any unreasonable amount. Therefor taxing people in order to enforce, or restrict, or encourage behavior and choice, is simply completely outside of the government's authority to tax the populace. Furthermore, without some limits on what the government can and cannot tax, there is no limit to the reach of levied taxation.

The Xth Amendment establishes limitations on the scope of the Federal Government's powers and and specifies that everything not specifically charge to the Federal Government is remanded to the States and the Individual. Therefore not only does this limit the Federal Government, it actually establishes that even the individual has powers of self governance not to be encroached upon by the Federal Government. What we would call freedoms and choices are actually individual powers we ourselves are responsible for.


We are responsible for our choices ........ So why is the Federal Government using taxation as a means to inhibit choice?

Driving social change through taxation is perfectly fine IMO, as long as the government accurately represents the will of the people. If the government does reflect the will of the people, then it reflects the society, and can and should TRY to cause social change.

I don't agree with a lot of changes and regulations, UNTIL they start affecting other people. Smoking is a big example of that. Second hand smoke DOES hurt people who did not choose to smoke. And when an uninsured smoker ends up in the ER with lung cancer, everyone else is hurt by paying the the bills they didn't choose to take on. Taxing smoking is a way of making the smoker pay up front for the increased costs they will statistically incur to the government over their life.

 

[tetris42]

If people want to kill themselves smoking, I have no issue with that. What I hate is that that I have to smell how fucking bad their nasty ass cigarettes are, then that stays on me all day until I shower and my clothes have gone through the laundry. And of course smokers think that's an exaggeration because they can't smell for shit anymore.

I think the health risks from second-hand smoke are pretty minimal unless you're hotboxing a room or something, but the smell, holy shit, that's the gift that keeps on giving. From a non-smoker's perspective, it's kind of like if people were accidentally pissing on you a little bit every day, then cried about society trying to curtail that. Drunks only smell like alcohol and the smell doesn't really get on you. Cigarettes smell like Satan's asshole. That's all there is to it. Now if people actually smoked real TOBACCO like cigars or pipes, then I'd be fine with it, because that actually smells good.

 

[lcpiper]

That makes more sense now.



Driving social change through taxation is perfectly fine IMO, as long as the government accurately represents the will of the people. If the government does reflect the will of the people, then it reflects the society, and can and should TRY to cause social change.

I don't agree with a lot of changes and regulations, UNTIL they start affecting other people. Smoking is a big example of that. Second hand smoke DOES hurt people who did not choose to smoke. And when an uninsured smoker ends up in the ER with lung cancer, everyone else is hurt by paying the the bills they didn't choose to take on. Taxing smoking is a way of making the smoker pay up front for the increased costs they will statistically incur to the government over their life.

That money didn't go to pay anyone's ER bills. It didn't go there, it didn't go to fund anything at all like that. Over half of those taxes were tacked on as the new revenue fad by States and Local governments and that didn't go to cover people's ER visits either. That money went to wherever those governments decided they needed more revenue to rebuild stadiums, host pro sporting events, fund broadband initiatives, brib ... umm, offer incentives to businesses to move ... or not move.

Good luck finding that Youtube video with the shout-out to the City for covering Joe TBs' ER visit and cancer treatments.

Go to an ER, any ER, check in and tell them you don't have insurance. As soon as they check you out and find that you are not imminently dying there on the spot, you are out the door. Yes there is a bill, but that don't mean they did anything for the patient. Shit, you can go in and have a stroke right in front of their faces and be discharged and told to see your PCM first chance, "don't need to come back unless it's worse". Happened exactly like that to my kid. I'm not a great friend of my local hospital. I am sure they are worse than most, but they are all we have here so .....


Like I say, wait until it's you, then see if you still thinks it's all OK.

 

[Bandalo]

That money didn't go to pay anyone's ER bills. It didn't go there, it didn't go to fund anything at all like that. Over half of those taxes were tacked on as the new revenue fad by States and Local governments and that didn't go to cover people's ER visits either. That money went to wherever those governments decided they needed more revenue to rebuild stadiums, host pro sporting events, fund broadband initiatives, brib ... umm, offer incentives to businesses to move ... or not move.

Good luck finding that Youtube video with the shout-out to the City for covering Joe TBs' ER visit and cancer treatments.

Go to an ER, any ER, check in and tell them you don't have insurance. As soon as they check you out and find that you are not imminently dying there on the spot, you are out the door. Yes there is a bill, but that don't mean they did anything for the patient. Shit, you can go in and have a stroke right in front of their faces and be discharged and told to see your PCM first chance, "don't need to come back unless it's worse". Happened exactly like that to my kid. I'm not a great friend of my local hospital. I am sure they are worse than most, but they are all we have here so .....


Like I say, wait until it's you, then see if you still thinks it's all OK.

Every state tracks their taxes differently, and the federal government is even more complex. I'm guessing SOMEONE tracks how much money....This page: http://www.transformtobacco.com/Pages/TaxMoney.aspx has a lot of info, but the page is owned and operated by a tobacco company, so I don't know if I'd trust their information. I do know the states do still operate anti-smoking and cessation assistance programs, so they're at least using SOME of the money properly.

 

[lcpiper]

Every state tracks their taxes differently, and the federal government is even more complex. I'm guessing SOMEONE tracks how much money....This page: http://www.transformtobacco.com/Pages/TaxMoney.aspx has a lot of info, but the page is owned and operated by a tobacco company, so I don't know if I'd trust their information. I do know the states do still operate anti-smoking and cessation assistance programs, so they're at least using SOME of the money properly.

It doesn't even matter how they use the money, it was wrong to tax people like that to begin with. You really should stop thinking about trying to debate with me and instead understand the underlying principle.

Where does it stop?

If they tax smokes by 8 times the entire cost of the product and that isn't improper, what about skate boards? Kids are falling and hurting themselves all the time so a skate board that costs $50 should be taxed until it costs $400. We'll tax Twinkies, $8 a pack of four, Michelin Radials are twice as expensive as Hankook tires but much safer so we are going to tax Hankook tires and they will cost three times as much as the Michelin radials. The bio-degradable flyswatter is $2.75 but the old $1.25 plastic one has been taxed until it costs you $6.75. Now let's talk about your favorite aftershave.

And the money from those taxes, how is any of it tied to some government function? I'm sure we can make something up, but it's hard to budget that way isn't it. If I decide that taxes levied against tires and automotive related products should go to the Dept of Transportation, how do I budget for that? Every year that department submits their budget request, we need $3.5 Billion for FY 2019. We estimate that the new "Less than the safest tire tax" will provide $.7 million towards this funding ...... but it's really just a wild assed guess cause were thinking everyone is going to buy Michelin this year.

So over the last few years it was the evil tobacco companies and their employees who were attacked by this tax scheme, who's next?

Who knows, cause there really is no end to this bullshit once it really gets rolling.

It's wrong. It got passed cause it was all about smoking but it was wrong. It was "the ends justify the means" and it was and is wrong.

 

[alxlwson]

It doesn't even matter how they use the money, it was wrong to tax people like that to begin with. You really should stop thinking about trying to debate with me and instead understand the underlying principle.

Where does it stop?

If they tax smokes by 8 times the entire cost of the product and that isn't improper, what about skate boards? Kids are falling and hurting themselves all the time so a skate board that costs $50 should be taxed until it costs $400. We'll tax Twinkies, $8 a pack of four, Michelin Radials are twice as expensive as Hankook tires but much safer so we are going to tax Hankook tires and they will cost three times as much as the Michelin radials. The bio-degradable flyswatter is $2.75 but the old $1.25 plastic one has been taxed until it costs you $6.75. Now let's talk about your favorite aftershave.

And the money from those taxes, how is any of it tied to some government function? I'm sure we can make something up, but it's hard to budget that way isn't it. If I decide that taxes levied against tires and automotive related products should go to the Dept of Transportation, how do I budget for that? Every year that department submits their budget request, we need $3.5 Billion for FY 2019. We estimate that the new "Less than the safest tire tax" will provide $.7 million towards this funding ...... but it's really just a wild assed guess cause were thinking everyone is going to buy Michelin this year.

So over the last few years it was the evil tobacco companies and their employees who were attacked by this tax scheme, who's next?

Who knows, cause there really is no end to this bullshit once it really gets rolling.

It's wrong. It got passed cause it was all about smoking but it was wrong. It was "the ends justify the means" and it was and is wrong.

My favorite is when the FTC fines a company for deceptive marketing, bad product, etc... Then they keep all the monies instead of dividing it out to the people who where actually fucked over by said practices.