johnieheel Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Besides, if our governments would totally ban the sale of tobacco products from the market, the loss of revenue from the Tax that is collected, at all levels, would be disastrous for Federal, State and local governments. Not if they grew food. real men wear heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yozz Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Besides, if our governments would totally ban the sale of tobacco products from the market, the loss of revenue from the Tax that is collected, at all levels, would be disastrous for Federal, State and local governments. If that argument were to hold, you should condone the growing of poppies in Afghanistan and the growing of coca plants in Colombia. The local economy depends of it. It is of course totally unethical if you make your government finances dependent on the taxing of drugs (tobacco is very addictive, hence a drug). It means that you need people to be addicted and show bad behaviour. Things like this make politics very dirty business. Next we need a special tax for criminals and become dependent of it? In my eyes the money gained by the taxes on tobacco should be used for helping people who would like to quit. Quitting is by no means easy. The day before yesterday I heard a program on TV in which somebody from a consultancy agency for people who like to quit was explaining that on average people need 8 (or 12, I forget which of the two numbers she said) attempts to stop. Cannot we do something about that? Put more research into it? Have better support? Y. Raise your voice. Put on some heels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Not if they grew food. ?????..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 If that argument were to hold, you should condone the growing of poppies in Afghanistan and the growing of coca plants in Colombia. The local economy depends of it. It is of course totally unethical if you make your government finances dependent on the taxing of drugs (tobacco is very addictive, hence a drug). It means that you need people to be addicted and show bad behaviour. Things like this make politics very dirty business. Next we need a special tax for criminals and become dependent of it? In my eyes the money gained by the taxes on tobacco should be used for helping people who would like to quit. Quitting is by no means easy. The day before yesterday I heard a program on TV in which somebody from a consultancy agency for people who like to quit was explaining that on average people need 8 (or 12, I forget which of the two numbers she said) attempts to stop. Cannot we do something about that? Put more research into it? Have better support? Y. First of all, I totally agree with you, yozz. Secondly, I find your rationalization really quite juvenile. Where I live, tax collected from our state's sales tax on tobacco products is already "earmarked" for "smokers" health programs and programs to help people stop smoking. Thirdly however, within the past 5 or 6 years, our state supreme court has already decided that all monies collected by the state from all sources must be deposited into the "General Revenue Fund" regardless of whether or not it was collected for a specific purpose or from a specific taxing source. Every since our states highest court presented that opinion, while specific taxing sources -- like the tobacco tax, for instance -- are established, the General Assembly has never appropriated the entire amount collected for a specific purpose to that purpose. They always find other places for most of the money to go. I am a non-smoker. I really enjoy the smoke-free atmosphere that most restaurants and bars have these days. And, as far as I can tell, once customers become acclamated to the idea of frequenting a smoke-free establishment, dining and socializing is much more enjoyable for all. And finely, if you search back through threads posted over the past 6 or 8 months, you will find where this subject has been thoroughly discussed. It might serve you well to return to "yesteryear" and see what has been said by members before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnieheel Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 Besides, if our governments would totally ban the sale of tobacco products from the market, the loss of revenue from the Tax that is collected, at all levels, would be disastrous for Federal, State and local governments. OK, But what if they harvested food, like wheat , corn, beef, pork, etc etc. instead? Would not that compensate for the revenue they collect on tobacco and be a little healthier and practical for the whole world? real men wear heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted January 13, 2008 Share Posted January 13, 2008 What in this world does farmers switching crops have to do with loss of revenue from the sales of tobacco products? You are correct to assume that tobacco farmers would be harmed by the banning of selling tobacco products. And, I recognize that they can grow other crops instead. However, I am talking strictly about the loss of revenue to state and federal coffers that would result if the sale of tobacco (sales tax on the finished products) is banned. (That, my friend, is one (only one of the) huge reason(s) the government doesn't outlaw the sale of tobacco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 Now, here's a good one. Honestly, you people in the UK have to put up with so much ******* from your leaders. What next, a tax on walking along the sidewalk? (Why not just outlaw the Tobacco and get it over with?) The next thing the government will be banning is Fish and Chips because it's unhealthy and makes people fat. ************************************** BBC NEWS '£10 licence to smoke' proposed Smokers could be forced to pay £10 for a permit to buy tobacco if a government health advisory body gets its way. No one would be able to buy cigarettes without the permit, under the idea proposed by Health England. Its chairman, Professor Julian Le Grand, told BBC Radio 5 Live the scheme would make a big difference to the number of people giving up smoking. But smokers' rights group Forest described the idea as "outrageous", given how much tax smokers already pay. Professor Le Grand, a former adviser to ex-PM Tony Blair, said cash raised by the proposed scheme would go to the NHS. He said it was the inconvenience of getting a permit - as much as the cost - that would deter people from persisting with the smoking habit. "You've got to get a form, a complex form - the government's good at complex forms; you have got to get a photograph. "It's a little bit of a problem to actually do it, so you have got to make a conscious decision every year to opt in to being a smoker." 'Extra bureaucracy' He added: "70% of smokers actually want to stop smoking. "So if you just make it that little bit more difficult for them to actually re-start or even to start in the first place, yes I think it will make a big difference." But Forest said it would be "an extra form of taxation, while tobacco taxation is already at record levels". Forest spokesman Simon Clark said that when the cost of administration, extra bureaucracy and enforcement are taken into account, "the mind boggles". He added that the people most affected by the proposals would be "the elderly and people on low incomes". Mr Clark added: "The senior government advisor putting this idea forward is not only adding to the red tape and bureaucracy we already have in this country. "He is openly bragging that he wants to make the form as complex as possible to fill in." A department of health spokeswoman did not rule out such a scheme as part of the next wave of tobacco regulation. She said: "We will be consulting later this year on the next steps on tobacco control. "Ministers are seeking input from a whole range of stakeholders." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7247470.stm Published: 2008/02/15 17:16:44 GMT © BBC MMVIII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puma Posted February 16, 2008 Share Posted February 16, 2008 £10 is far too cheap. It should be the same as applying for a Passport.....£72, or even a driving licence, which now costs £45 for the Provisional licence, and then another £45 for a full licence once you've passed the driving test. Even a gun, which arguably can also be harmful to someone's health, requires a gun licence to facilitate a purchase, cost £50. In all seriousness, in any of the above examples I don't think the costs involved are a deterrent, but revenue builders and help to keep some people in jobs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy N. Heels Posted February 17, 2008 Share Posted February 17, 2008 What in this world does farmers switching crops have to do with loss of revenue from the sales of tobacco products? You are correct to assume that tobacco farmers would be harmed by the banning of selling tobacco products. And, I recognize that they can grow other crops instead. However, I am talking strictly about the loss of revenue to state and federal coffers that would result if the sale of tobacco (sales tax on the finished products) is banned. (That, my friend, is one (only one of the) huge reason(s) the government doesn't outlaw the sale of tobacco. Have you ever noticed how the more things change the more they seem to stay the same? 3 centuries ago America had exactly one cash crop. Everything else Americans grew was considered necessary for local support, but it was not for sale as a cash crop. Today, 3 centuries later, tobacco is no longer the only cash crop in America, but it's never gone away either. What's more, if the politicians have their way - it won't either. Keep on stepping, Guy N. Heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedesigner Posted February 19, 2008 Share Posted February 19, 2008 well i still say, excessive drinking causes more harm than smoking. Let's make it harder for the young to get booze - just look at the news any day !! Doubt that this will take place, the drinks lobby is too much in the government's pocket viz extending opening hours, ease of buying booze in supermarkets, etc. Anyhow, we enjoyed nipping out for a fag at the Miller...!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnieheel Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 well i still say, excessive drinking causes more harm than smoking. Let's make it harder for the young to get booze - just look at the news any day !! Doubt that this will take place, the drinks lobby is too much in the government's pocket viz extending opening hours, ease of buying booze in supermarkets, etc. Anyhow, we enjoyed nipping out for a fag at the Miller...!! You would blow your mind if they posted how many people die every day do to tobacco realaited diseases in the news paper every day. real men wear heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JNR Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 Ah, to smoke or not to smoke. Is that really the question? Or, is it: “whether it is nobler to allow freedom of individuals to choose their paths to self-destruction or more nobel to allow powerful government to limit these choices, the real questions? Logic tells you that with all of the warnings printed on the packaging, articles printed in newspapers, and publicity broadcast on television and radio, as well as advice from the medical community, there is no longer any question of tobacco users "not knowing" or not being aware of the health dangers and complications occurring from using these products. Should the users be allowed to continue to use these harmful substances even though they are totally aware of the possibility of their being denied medical treatment for tobacco related maladies? As of this moment, continued use of these products is perfectly legal and a “personal (or individual) choice. And until these products are banned and placed on a list of illegal substances -- like most narcotics and harmful drugs are -- in my opinion, they should be. That being said, however, it never bodes well for a free society to allow their government to intervene into the "what's good for you" business. The broader implications of allowing governments to do this is that governments will become more and more dictatorial about what choices you can and can't make on your own -- the “taking away” of personal choice and preference. People in the UK already are experiencing bureaucrats making decisions on which health conditions will be treated and who should get treatment. I believe I read a thread on this forum where people discussed their preferences for Scotch whiskey that is sold around the world. Some liked a specific brand and blends ...some divide their tastes into single and double malt types. What are people going to do when your government decides that any and all alcohol is bad for your health and that continued treatment of alcohol related illnesses is draining National Health Care system of funds badly needed for treating other conditions, and decides to ban all alcoholic products, making them legal to make, consume or sell? Don’t laugh! The “food police” are already making concentrated attacks on the food industry here in the USA. The plan is to follow the same successful strategy used to ruin the tobacco industry. And, unless people step up and say “enough is enough” … society as we know it is doomed by "do-gooders " that will transform our lives into that of a flock of sheep. Bleating like hell but not doing anything about it. Never forget, while you might be in favor of limiting my access to products (I am not a smoker or a drinker, buy the way) because you see them as being "unhealthy, undesirable and/or anti-social" practices that you believe should not be permitted, what are you going to do when your government disallows some things you do or things believe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnieheel Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 In other words, to put it simple. There are already way to many laws! real men wear heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thedesigner Posted February 20, 2008 Share Posted February 20, 2008 if and when i'm ready, don't need the government to tell me how to 'behave' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba136 Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 While perusing the news websites this evening, I ran across an article that was attributed to a newspaper published in Ft. Myers, Florida. This article, in the February 12, 2008 edition of The News-Press, entitled “How best to battle tobacco companies, ”highlights one point in JNR’s comments he wrote on government intervention into undesirable and unhealthy social practices. That, being his comment dealing with a (any) smoker using the excuse in this day and age of not being aware that using tobacco products was harmful to their health. "The News-Press, Fort Myers, Flaa., on how best to battle tobacco companies, Feb 12. We sympathize with John Maloney and millions of others who have lost loved ones to cancer caused by cigarettes. But it’s harder to sympathize with the idea that they should be awarded damages by juries in part because the smoker was unaware of the risks. .. That’s the case with Maloney and more than 100 other Lee County residents among thousands of plaintiffs, whose $145, billion damage award was thrown out. The 700,000 parties to the class-action suit were directed to file individual suites. Among the issues will be whether smoking probably caused the victims’ diseases and whether they were aware of the dangers. We believe tobacco is addictive and a deadly danger. And tobacco companies have over the years concealed evidence of its harm. But U.S, surgeon general’s warning about the dangers of smoking have been required on tobacco packaging for more than 40 years. Tobacco advertising has long been banned on TV and radio, and the dangers of smoking have been continuous topic of public debate. People who smoked through those years cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the serious risk. They made a bad choice. It’s better for society to concentrate on helping people make better choices….. Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnieheel Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I agree 100%! As much as I am against tobacco, people have absolutely no reason at all to sue the tobacco industry for their ignorant loss. A blind man can tell you smoking kills. I am so sick of hearing "gotta die some how, could get hit by a buss". K, #1, I aint gonna get hit by a buss. They are very big and noisy and you can hear them coming for a mile. #2. I will not sympathise with a person dyeing from a tobacco retaliated disease who was fully aware of the risks involved. They do not have the right to sue! real men wear heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puma Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Absolutely! That is the social culture we live in today - blame someone else and screw 'em for some money! There very well maybe too many laws already, but some people will live outside of reasonable behaviour which usually means affecting innocent people, if not 'guided' by some law or other. It is a shame, but that is another reflection of society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy N. Heels Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Absolutely! That is the social culture we live in today - blame someone else and screw 'em for some money! There very well maybe too many laws already, but some people will live outside of reasonable behaviour which usually means affecting innocent people, if not 'guided' by some law or other. It is a shame, but that is another reflection of society. Trouble is, those who insist on living outside of reasonable behaviour probably aren't paying too much attention to the laws on the books either. Therefore, that's just so much extra ink on paper. More importantly, the more that people's rights and choices are restricted, the more totalitarian the government becomes. There is no such thing as restricting one person's rights in one area without restricting everyone's rights everywhere. Keep on stepping, Guy N. Heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yozz Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 Trouble is, those who insist on living outside of reasonable behaviour probably aren't paying too much attention to the laws on the books either. Therefore, that's just so much extra ink on paper. More importantly, the more that people's rights and choices are restricted, the more totalitarian the government becomes. There is no such thing as restricting one person's rights in one area without restricting everyone's rights everywhere. One of the reasons we have so many laws is that our lawmakers are in the bussines of making new laws. Not adapting old ones. Whenever they perceive a wrong (or more often the press does), they want to correct that with a law and say: look how well we do our job. They might just have looked at what exists already and then apply that. Now we have so many laws, and many not in agreement with each other, that no normal citizen can ever be sure he/she is obeying all laws. A good example is the excitement about women wearing burkas. Should there be a law to forbid that? It exists already for many years. You are only allowed to disguise yourself or wear a mask at carnaval. But nobody thinks of applying an old law..... In the past it used to be in the Netherlands that all citizens were supposed to know the law. This has been changed a number of years ago into ".... to a reasonable extent". As long as this means lots of money for lawyers and they are the ones who are in charge we are just stuck with this system. Don't expect it to change. Back to the topic: we will just get more and more laws about when and where who is allowed to smoke what. Raise your voice. Put on some heels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy N. Heels Posted March 5, 2008 Share Posted March 5, 2008 One of the reasons we have so many laws is that our lawmakers are in the bussines of making new laws. Not adapting old ones. Whenever they perceive a wrong (or more often the press does), they want to correct that with a law and say: look how well we do our job. They might just have looked at what exists already and then apply that. Now we have so many laws, and many not in agreement with each other, that no normal citizen can ever be sure he/she is obeying all laws. A good example is the excitement about women wearing burkas. I assume you mean the Hajib? Should there be a law to forbid that? It exists already for many years. You are only allowed to disguise yourself or wear a mask at carnaval. But nobody thinks of applying an old law... In the past it used to be in the Netherlands that all citizens were supposed to know the law. This has been changed a number of years ago into "... to a reasonable extent"... Unfortunately, I must agree. God save us from all the lawyers. Keep on stepping, Guy N. Heels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts