Obama Struggles With Smoking 'Addiction' as He Praises Congress for New Tobacco Regulations

Status
Not open for further replies.

RandallFlagg

Super Member
ECF Veteran
May 14, 2009
583
28
Denver, Co, USA
Screwing the government might be enough to make me totally quit smoking:)

It was enough for me.
Plus, I'll get the chance to watch the tobaccophobes faces who VOTED for all of the tax hikes on cigarettes in the past because, "I don't smoke, so it won't bother me," when something that THEY enjoy starts to go the same routes, because Washington isn't making the revenue from the tobacco taxes.
 

SCD

Full Member
Apr 14, 2009
6
0
Kansas
Yup, McDonalds is next.

The McTax. Gotta love it.

Oh sorry. "I'm Luvin it" :D

Sorry if I missed it on another thread:
"Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system."
Soda Tax Weighed to Pay for Health Care - WSJ. com
Sorry, I can't post the link.
We are not alone...
 

fresca

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 11, 2009
198
4
Sure, but you're savvy enough to know that they'd just shift that revenue stream to some other vice. The setup is already in place. Trans-fats anyone?

I see your point (and agree), but I think there is still untapped revenue for the government in alcohol.

If flavored tobacco products have their drawers in a bunch, just think how much fun they'll have adding more "control$" to flavored liquers, wine coolers, mixers, schnapps, etc.

Come to think of it, where is all the "Think of the children!" outrage over that stuff?
 

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,300
Sesame Street
Come to think of it, where is all the "Think of the children!" outrage over that stuff?


1) Too many people drink for the government to go after it very hard.

2) The draconian laws around drinking appear more on the driving side than the drinking side.

3) They already tried stiff regulation of alcohol and it didn't work out so well.

Your point is good though. If you look around, you can find all sorts of anti-drinking sites that go on and on about how liqueur is targeted at children due to the various flavors.
 

Bones

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 3, 2009
1,906
120,209
Austin, Texas
Our wise members of political brains realize that 80% of voters don't smoke, and that's all that matters to them. As long as they can keep non-smokers from understanding or even caring, who cares what happens to smokers. This legislation gets favorable numbers from four out of five come the next election and the center finger is solely reserved for us.

Ah yes true - But let us 20% remember that those 80% are our loved ones - Don't know about your loved ones - But - Mine have been VERY SUPPORTIVE of my starting on E-Cigs and getting off Tobacco -And call me crazy - but I think those 80% all have loved ones who they want to see stop smoking -

Fingers crossed that the logic and voting power of our loved ones will prevail - :)

I have yet to see any smoker OR non-smoker not immediately grasp the benefits of vaping over smoking - Unless they are ones with a pony in the race - It's a very easy lesson to grasp - So like Surf Monkey says - Let's get busy teaching it -
 

Bones

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 3, 2009
1,906
120,209
Austin, Texas
I see your point (and agree), but I think there is still untapped revenue for the government in alcohol.

If flavored tobacco products have their drawers in a bunch, just think how much fun they'll have adding more "control$" to flavored liquers, wine coolers, mixers, schnapps, etc.

Come to think of it, where is all the "Think of the children!" outrage over that stuff?


Uhhhhh - They got taps all over that - Alcohol is already heavily taxed -
 

RandallFlagg

Super Member
ECF Veteran
May 14, 2009
583
28
Denver, Co, USA

Oh, yeah. That myth is laughable.
Someone at my job tried using that against me a couple of years ago. I was very happy to remind him about the time he had to take five weeks off because he broke his leg snowboarding. And the only time I had to take time off was for my Sons being sick for a day or two PER YEAR.
He didn't like to be shown that light that day. Especially when I made the suggestion that health costs should be increased for people who willingly choose to place their health in danger -as a smoker does.
Snowboarding.
Skiing.
Riding a motorcycle.
Hunting.
Attending a Lakers game.....8-o
 
Last edited:

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,300
Sesame Street
It seems to me that you can prove anything with statistics. If you're against smoking, you can prove that it's a huge cost to society at large. If you're for smoking, you can prove that it has little effect.

But it does seem to me that smoking makes people sick and contributes to their deaths. My mother died from emphysema. There's no doubt in my mind that she got the disease from her smoking habit. I personally believe that smoking takes a relatively heavy toll on the population, both in terms of health issues and in terms of increased health care costs for everyone. Obviously a lot of people here disagree, and that's fine.

Ultimately, the bottom line is this: if e-cigarettes pose a decreased risk, why not promote them, even if the risk of traditional smoking is far less than what's generally believed? Reduced risk is good. E-smoking is good. Win win.
 

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,300
Sesame Street
Well, to be fair, lots of people reach an advanced age without having to have intensive medical care. My grandfather is 91 (smoked from the time he was 16 until he quit at the age of 55) and he was completely self sufficient until about two years ago.

Besides, wouldn't it be better if we paid more to keep people living healthy lives longer than pay to take care of them for years and years while they slowly die from smoking related illnesses?
 
Last edited:

Bones

Ultra Member
ECF Veteran
Jun 3, 2009
1,906
120,209
Austin, Texas
No - I am sure of it - I'd post it if I could remember where I saw it (been reading a lot this past week) It's not my theory. It was an actual study. Doesn't need to be bed ridden type of care - It's all based on that 400,000/year dead from smoking number that keeps getting tossed around - Logic dictates that if they were not dead they would be continuing to incur health care costs until they died later from something else -

That nurse wiping your a** part was just me being colorful - Older people need more meds and go to the doctor more often as a rule - :)
 

Minimike

Senior Member
ECF Veteran
Apr 26, 2009
146
2
Indiana, USA
The vast majority of people pay for their own healthcare. Society doesn't pay for it, nor does the federal government. Medicare is paid by 'the people' and then the Federal government doles it out to the States for disbursement, after taking a hefty chunk of it for administrative costs. But the money paid into Medicare is taken from our income at gun point anyway.

BTW, there is NO proof that tobacco use causes health problems. Someone would have to take a large, random sample of newborns and force half to start smoking at age 16 and lock up the other half to prevent smoking for their lifetimes. Perhaps The Messiah could arrange that study.
 

Surf Monkey

Cartel Boss
ECF Veteran
May 28, 2009
3,958
104,300
Sesame Street
Medicare is taken from our income at gun point anyway.

No one takes Medicare money out of my pocket at gunpoint. I'm a small business man and I pay into the system very willingly.

BTW, there is NO proof that tobacco use causes health problems.

I guess we're all free to believe whatever we want to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread