Hawaii considers ban on cigarette sales

[Unidentified 2,930]

The problem with smoking is that it doesn't just affect the smoker. Other people are exposed to it and risk getting lung cancer from smoking. Studies suggest you don't even have to be exposed to it over a longer period of time. So, on one hand, I can see how we shouldn't tell adults to live... But the truth is they are endangering people around them. Their children, spouses, and people they pass on the street. When something is affecting other negatively I am okay with just getting rid of it or somehow make stricter regulations about where you can smoke and how you shouldn't be around other people while doing it. 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, NikLR said:

Strangely "Canadian Bacon" in the USA is just ham, mostly because ya'll smoke it, but in Canada it's something different, called Back bacon and is more like a delicious bacon type part of the tenderloin. 

https://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-difference-between-canadian-bacon-or-irish-or-english-and-american-bacon-ingredient-intelligence-166956

 

on the subject of cigarettes, in Canada, when I smoked about 17 years ago, a pack cost $5.60.  A year or two after I stopped smoking it went up to about $15-$20 a pack.  Why? Taxes.  Why not tax the ####### out of cigarettes?  Honestly that money can go into health care.  Colorado taxes pot and that money goes to schools.   Sure you're gonna complain about the cost if ya smoke either one, but in reality you're the one killing lungs so who cares.  And yes alcohol is more taxed in Canada as well than it is here.  Crown Royal costs me more in Canada and never comes in a fancy box or with the cute baggy, unless I want to pay $40.   it's also more damaging than pot to your brain so there's that.  Each province figures out their own tax rates, just like each state would figure out theirs. 

 

    I am good with increasing taxes if those taxes go to the right place (ie. health care). I spend a lot of time in Canada and I am OK with how they assess taxes on a lot of those products and where it ends up. I did forget about back bacon though. I do know if you say Canadian bacon in Canada, you just get regular bacon and a funny look. Like of course it's Canadian.

 

[NikLR 13,220]

7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I am good with increasing taxes if those taxes go to the right place (ie. health care). I spend a lot of time in Canada and I am OK with how they assess taxes on a lot of those products and where it ends up. I did forget about back bacon though. I do know if you say Canadian bacon in Canada, you just get regular bacon and a funny look. Like of course it's Canadian.

 

We have back bacon and side bacon.  So side bacon is like normal American bacon, and back bacon is like Canadian bacon only not smoked and cured better.  Then there's peameal bacon which is even better. 

[millefleur 5,035]

I'm surprised there has been a loud public campaign yet that smoking is bad for the environment/contributes to climate change. Definitely is from both a monocropping and CO2 being released into the air perspective, plus the waste of the packaging and everything else. I guess nobody wants to risk losing possible votes from smokers? Plus the tobacco industries connection to slavery and its dark exploitative and corrupt history, one would think the woke crowd would be vehemently anti-smoking.

 

I work at a very liberal place (local state-based non-profit) and I'm appalled how many people at my office are smokers considering the majority of them are extremely politically left and vocal about it. It just seems a tad hypocritical.

 

https://medium.com/@ASH_LDN/the-environmental-harm-of-the-tobacco-lifecycle-4a5f528ba4da

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

2 hours ago, millefleur said:

I'm surprised there has been a loud public campaign yet that smoking is bad for the environment/contributes to climate change. Definitely is from both a monocropping and CO2 being released into the air perspective, plus the waste of the packaging and everything else. I guess nobody wants to risk losing possible votes from smokers? Plus the tobacco industries connection to slavery and its dark exploitative and corrupt history, one would think the woke crowd would be vehemently anti-smoking.

 

I work at a very liberal place (local state-based non-profit) and I'm appalled how many people at my office are smokers considering the majority of them are extremely politically left and vocal about it. It just seems a tad hypocritical.

 

https://medium.com/@ASH_LDN/the-environmental-harm-of-the-tobacco-lifecycle-4a5f528ba4da

Dude you tied it to slavery, racism. Global warming, and being woke all in one post. You should apply as a screech wtiter for the DNC. You would rock at it.

[millefleur 5,035]

26 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Dude you tied it to slavery, racism. Global warming, and being woke all in one post. You should apply as a screech wtiter for the DNC. You would rock at it.

Lol, do they actually use the phrase "woke" out in the real world?? I thought it was just an internet thing.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

 

   Dang. I'm on a diet and my wife is baking cinnamon rolls.

 

   If only there was a wife tax. I could have been saved from myself!

[OriZ 3,157]

3 hours ago, millefleur said:

I'm surprised there has been a loud public campaign yet that smoking is bad for the environment/contributes to climate change. Definitely is from both a monocropping and CO2 being released into the air perspective, plus the waste of the packaging and everything else. I guess nobody wants to risk losing possible votes from smokers? Plus the tobacco industries connection to slavery and its dark exploitative and corrupt history, one would think the woke crowd would be vehemently anti-smoking.

 

I work at a very liberal place (local state-based non-profit) and I'm appalled how many people at my office are smokers considering the majority of them are extremely politically left and vocal about it. It just seems a tad hypocritical.

 

https://medium.com/@ASH_LDN/the-environmental-harm-of-the-tobacco-lifecycle-4a5f528ba4da

Not to generalize but I get exactly where you're coming from. I live in an extremely liberal state and some of the hypocrisy here is just mind boggling. People claiming they are for local businesses but ordering online or shopping at Wal Mart, claiming to be "green" but having the most ridiculous traffic patterns which cause nothing but wear, tear and idle. Then they go and pass a law that you can't idle longer than 3 minutes to which I say screw you.

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, missileman said:

Do you favor banning alcohol, too? https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/addiction/news/20050203/study-alcohol-kills-as-many-as-tobacco#1

You keep making comparisons that don't belong. If people want to drink themselves to death, that's their choice. It's not hurting me, smoking does. And don't tell me about drunk driving because 95% of people don't know how to drive whether sober or not. As even your article states, in moderation alcohol is actually good for you. Weed, can actually be good for you. I see no reason to ban those. On the other hand, I don't know that there's anything more vile in this life in every possible way(dirty, smelly, health and pollution hazard, addictive, etc) than cigarettes. There's no place for it in any society that wants to be mentally and physically healthy.

[OriZ 3,157]

4 hours ago, yuna628 said:

The libertarian argument (an area I break with disagreement) is that for many factions of libertarians they are pro legalizing everything because of the push for liberty. Drugs? Yes but controlled. Alcohol sure. Smoking sure, but controlled. Porn and sex-work, sure but controlled. In some cases this also extends to things like immigration too, where they have a wide range of ideas to no control at all to some limited control.

 

My argument with them is: is this substance harmful to the body in every way? Is it harmful to others even when they are not partaking of that substance? Can it cause genetic change that may pass to offspring in the future? Does it create a public health crisis and burden in cost that we all bear? The answer to all of this is yes.

 

We know that alcohol has many health benefits in limited and specific cautious consumption amounts. It is the overconsumption of alcohol that increases health risk. We therefore control who has access to alcohol by age, and have laws on the books where the consumption of alcohol interferes with the life, liberty, and happiness of others (drunk driving eg;). Libertarians will argue (rightly) that we once had Prohibition and we still have resulting dry laws in states. Prohibition did not work because it led to a thriving black market and was launched for the wrong reasons. Likewise, we see that when the government restricts access to something, humans will create a quasi black market economy for that product - especially when it comes to drugs (which imo is what tobacco is). With smoking, you get what you get. There is no way to avoid the effects the smoker and those around the smoker (including animals) will suffer eventually. There is no way to avoid addictive effects. There is no way to avoid damage passed through DNA (those who are alcoholics may pass a similar gene to their offspring). And we now have to market even more dangerous drugs to help people get off of smoking for $s.

 

For years cigarette manufacturers told the public and specifically paid others to promote that smoking was healthy, fun, and cool - despite knowing what it would  - all in the name of $s. There are still countries today that manufacturers market it to children. Not too different with the maker of Oxy being investigated for pushing the drug as non-addictive, again all in the name of $s. Generations of people now have potential genetic changes in their DNA, which may put them at an increased risk of addiction, and may have greater risk of cancer and other diseases. And we wonder why society is getting sicker, why addiction is spiraling out of control, and why health costs are rising.

 

To me though I find it laughable that dangerous drugs are prohibited but no one ever thought to prohibit smoking which is just as dangerous in it's own way. Like you I feel the world would be a better place if there were no more tobacco. However, this is unrealistic. We know what would happen. IMO smoking should be taxed as much and controlled as much as possible. Taxes on the product are not nearly enough and do not often go to fund what we think it does.

I was reading the most ridiculous article once from this libertarian guy who was claiming restricting smokers from smoking in say, restaurants or pubs infringes on their rights lol. I find it funny smokers actually believe their rights should be equal to or trump the rights of those that keeping "their rights" would hurt. The level of delusion caused by this addiction is insane.

 

I agree it should just be taxed as much as possible, and restricted to the point they feel like lepers.

Edited February 5, 2019 by OriZ

[millefleur 5,035]

Just now, OriZ said:

I was reading the most ridiculous article once from this libertarian guy who was claiming restricting smokers from smoking in say, restaurants or clubs infringes on their rights lol. I find it funny smokers actually believe their rights should be equal to or trump the rights of those that keeping "their rights" would hurt. The level of delusion caused by this addiction is insane. 

Ayn Rand was a proud smoker. The libertarian pro-smoker argument probably stems from her glorifying smoking in her books.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, OriZ said:

You keep making comparisons that don't belong. If people want to drink themselves to death, that's their choice. It's not hurting me, smoking does. And don't tell me about drunk driving because 95% of people don't know how to drive whether sober or not. As even your article states, in moderation alcohol is actually good for you. Weed, can actually be good for you. I see no reason to ban those. On the other hand, I don't know that there's anything more vile in this life in every possible way(dirty, smelly, health and pollution hazard, addictive, etc) than cigarettes. There's no place for it in any society that wants to be mentally and physically healthy.

 

    I certainly agree with that, and I see where you are coming from. For some of us who are older, I think to a certain extent it's just so much better now than it used to be that I don't react that much. I feel like they have done a lot already. I remember as a kid, having asthma and you couldn't go to a store, to a movie, restaurant or even walk down the street without going through a haze of smoke. Which for me often meant coughing uncontrollably.

 

    I don't have asthma anymore, and I rarely have to deal with second hand smoke. I see smokers going off into a secluded area to avoid human interaction and criticism. For me it's so much different. As I said, I still get annoyed when someone smokes around me, and it's one of the few things I won't hesitate to get in peoples face about IRL. 

 

   My employer, a hospital system actually changed last year or so that they won't hire anyone who smokes. They say it keeps health premiums down and there is a $50 surcharge biweekly for current employees who smoke. I do see we may be heading towards a day when very few people will smoke. I don't see a sales ban as part of that though.

 

  

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

39 minutes ago, millefleur said:

Lol, do they actually use the phrase "woke" out in the real world?? I thought it was just an internet thing.

It was the battle cry of the constantly offended here at one time

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,315]

31 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Dang. I'm on a diet and my wife is baking cinnamon rolls.

 

   If only there was a wife tax. I could have been saved from myself!

I feel your pain.  Hun you want Ice cream. Me- you know i am diabetic are you trying to kill me

[yuna628 9,527]

3 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

    I certainly agree with that, and I see where you are coming from. For some of us who are older, I think to a certain extent it's just so much better now than it used to be that I don't react that much. I feel like they have done a lot already. I remember as a kid, having asthma and you couldn't go to a store, to a movie, restaurant or even walk down the street without going through a haze of smoke. Which for me often meant coughing uncontrollably.

 

    I don't have asthma anymore, and I rarely have to deal with second hand smoke. I see smokers going off into a secluded area to avoid human interaction and criticism. For me it's so much different. As I said, I still get annoyed when someone smokes around me, and it's one of the few things I won't hesitate to get in peoples face about IRL. 

 

   My employer, a hospital system actually changed last year or so that they won't hire anyone who smokes. They say it keeps health premiums down and there is a $50 surcharge biweekly for current employees who smoke. I do see we may be heading towards a day when very few people will smoke. I don't see a sales ban as part of that though.

 

  

It all depends on the state. MD and DE are pretty aggressive at separating smokers from the public. And yet? On any given day you can go outside the front doors of a restaurant or store with a clearly marked "no smoking'' sign and see someone right there doing it. I especially loathe it at the beach! In Virginia, tobacco is still very much a thing. Go to some of their largest amusement parks and ''smoking areas'' are often right there mixed close to everyone, it's not secluded and it's terrible. I've never seen anyone even bother to enforce people from wandering out of those areas to just go smoke wherever they feel like either. If you tell someone to stop they will just get violently belligerent.