Cigarette Taxes (U.S.)

[NeptuneUK]

I can see how they justify taxes if they have to provide extra healthcare because it will likely make you ill. However, as you have no national healthcare system then it does seem retarded.

As it is in the UK, the taxes from tobacco already pay for smoking related healthcare more than 3 times over.

 

[repiV]

You can't possibly be serious that not having a helmet on would have prevented you from having an accident. Come on dude, let's try to stick to logical arguments. If you think that the reason you can ride unsafely on a bike is the helmet you are waring maybe you shouldn't be riding at all?

It's a very logical argument. The more protected you are, the more invincible you feel and the more risks you take. That's why it's generally people in Volvos and SUVs that pull out on bikes at junctions, and not the other way around.

It's an especially bad thing to suffer from on a bike because the quality of the protection offered is so minimal and almost any accident can be catastrophic.

And lets say I buy your argument that the helmet didn't do anything to save your life. But lets say that it helped from giving you some kind of disfigurement for the rest of your life. Worth it, no?

Well, it didn't, because I didn't hit my head at all. Whether or not it's worth it is not the point, it's not a matter for the law, but an issue of personal choice.

Finally, if you would have been wearing the helmet anyway then why do you even care about this law?

Because it's a matter of personal choice. The government has no business making that choice for me.

You would agree that there are people that do wear it only because the law says they have to, right?

Yes.

So if that law saves lives, without costing the government anything why shouldn't it be on the books?

Because saving lives at any cost is not a laudable aim. If people want to risk their own lives, that's their own choice. And I don't see that the argument for a helmet law is fundamentally any different from a law banning motorcycles altogether. Where does that leave us?

One of the responsibilities of government is to protect it's citizens, this law does that by protecting stupid people from themselves.

The government has no business protecting people from themselves. Adults can make their own choices. People aren't stupid just because they don't wear a helmet, they no doubt just enjoy the sensation of the wind in their hair, because that is a truly wonderful feeling.

The law aside, the main reason I wear a helmet is for the practical reasons. The eye and face protection from flying debris is an utter necessity, and our climate is far too cold and wet to get away without one for nine months of the year. And I can't imagine how you're supposed to ride a motorbike at 100mph without having a full-face helmet on anyway, my eyes stream above 30mph, blinding me with the visor up on all but the warmest of days. And those flying stone chips would just be downright dangerous.

The only protection it actually offers in an accident is the equivalent of if you fell off your bike and smacked your head on the ground. Headbutt a car and you're going to die, helmet or no helmet. The sheer forces involved in an impact at speed mean that if you have a fatal accident, the chances are it was fatal several times over already and no amount of protection would save you. The only solution to motorbike safety on the road is NOT TO CRASH. It's simply not an option.

We don't have a law on the books here that requires you to wear a helmet, only some form of eye protection. I wonder how many lives would be saved if we did have one.

Eye protection is bound to save more lives than helmets.

 

[CptStern]

Then what is this, if you are not condoning the practice?

I'm stating a fact. whether I agree with it or not is not at issue

You clearly are suggesting that the government has every justification to tax smokers excessively in order to fund their healthcare.

nope that's you putting words in my mouth. I didnt "clearly" anything. yes government has every right to regulate and tax as they see fit. it's the same for the sale of firearms, flame throwers and anything that is harmful to it's citizens

Yes. I shouldn't have to wear a helmet at any time, because it doesn't affect anyone else.

is that why there's warning labels on household cleaners? I mean it's only there to prevent people from harming themselves ..I means kids cant read warning labels. Also we should be allowed to own any number of things because "it doesnt affect anyone else" ...like flame throwers or radioactive rods

What on earth does the wearing of helmets have to do with anyone other than the people who are or are not wearing them?

who cares, really what does personal opinion have to do with anything? go drive on your own road buttnaked with a plunger up your ass, I couldnt care less. ..however once you take your bike on the road you either abide by the rules or gtfo

driving a motorcycle isnt a right

Back to square one. The sole reason we have laws applicable to the public roads is to stop the actions of one person putting another at risk.

a pebble could slam into your forehead and knock you off your bike, causing me to run you over (several times; I had to throw it into reverse to make sure). a bee could fly into your ear casuing you to go spastic and ram your bike into my puppy. lots of things can be justified with "ifs". again the law is the law, either abide by it or take public transport, you have no problem with licensing or the certification process or not driving on the sidewalk or obeying traffic signals.. no you'll only complain when it suits you even though fundamentally it's all the same issue.

That's it. Helmet laws are an infringement of personal liberty, they do not protect anyone from the actions of another, they mandate what someone should wear for their own personal protection.

ya so, so does gun laws and other laws made to protect us from ourselves and those around us.

Which is completely irrelevant to the purpose of road traffic law, and a fine example of "feature creep" where the law crosses the line between protecting the innocent into nannying people.

yes things like forcing you to abide by a speed limit is in nanny territory. the government is just trying to control your life. well you can whatever the hell you want on your own property, as soon as you leave your property you abide by the rules or gtfo

Running a red light puts other people at risk, that's why it's illegal.

right so if I run a red light at 4am with no one around is it still putting someone in danger?

Exceeding the speed limit *supposedly* puts other people at risk (that this is not necessarily the case is irrelevant), that's why it's illegal. Wearing a helmet or a seatbelt, on the other hand, is a matter of personal preference that has nothing to do with anyone else.

yes it does. why would the government force car makers to have a minimum feature set to protect drivers and passengers if it's no one's business but the driver? if there's no regulations people will do whatever the **** they want to do ..are you proposing a system like that in chna where there's no regulations?

from the internets, on driving in china:

ok first of all I am pretty sure there is no law enforcement whatsoever of traffic laws in china.
people drive as many lanes as will physically fit, and cut each other off mercilessly. They will literally drive the wrong direction on the highway so that they can go the wrong way up on ONRAMP for that highway and pull a u turn because it saves them a few minutes versus driving the conventional way. They will drive the wrong way on a one-way street because they feel like it.

There is no concept of pedestrians having the right of way. Pedestrians get the **** out of the way.

There are bicycles on the highway and btw the posted speed limit was 80km/h and my ride was doing 150

for a person who seems to embody conservative ideology you really do sound like an anarchist.

 

[repiV]

I'm stating a fact. whether I agree with it or not is not at issue

So do you agree with it? If not, then what are you arguing about?

is that why there's warning labels on household cleaners? I mean it's only there to prevent people from harming themselves ..I means kids cant read warning labels. Also we should be allowed to own any number of things because "it doesnt affect anyone else" ...like flame throwers or radioactive rods

A warning label isn't stopping you from making your own choices, is it?

who cares, really what does personal opinion have to do with anything? go drive on your own road buttnaked with a plunger up your ass, I couldnt care less. ..however once you take your bike on the road you either abide by the rules or gtfo

driving a motorcycle isnt a right

a pebble could slam into your forehead and knock you off your bike, causing me to run you over (several times; I had to throw it into reverse to make sure). a bee could fly into your ear casuing you to go spastic and ram your bike into my puppy. lots of things can be justified with "ifs". again the law is the law, either abide by it or take public transport, you have no problem with licensing or the certification process or not driving on the sidewalk or obeying traffic signals.. no you'll only complain when it suits you even though fundamentally it's all the same issue.

You're totally incapable of separating the two issues of personal protection and public safety. Until you can see the difference between taking precautions against personal injury, and taking precautions against injuring others, and the fact that the role of law should differ vastly in both cases - indeed, it does so in nearly every other aspect of life, except where government has got too big for its boots - then there is no point continuing this conversation.

If personal safety was the role of law, then the law would require you to wear a helmet for skiing, and racetracks would have speed limits. But they don't - because, as I said before, road traffic law exists to protect innocent third parties. Helmet laws are merely a corruption of that purpose.

right so if I run a red light at 4am with no one around is it still putting someone in danger?

No, but now you're just being pedantic. The intent of that law, regardless of the reality, is to protect other people from you running the red light. It isn't there to protect you from yourself. No such parallel can be drawn with a helmet or seatbelt law.

yes it does. why would the government force car makers to have a minimum feature set to protect drivers and passengers if it's no one's business but the driver? if there's no regulations people will do whatever the **** they want to do ..are you proposing a system like that in chna where there's no regulations?

from the internets, on driving in china:

Obviously, that has everything to do with regulations and nothing to do with a very different culture, very different attitudes to risk and the fact that, at any one time, 50% of the drivers on Chinese roads have less than a year's experience of driving.

for a person who seems to embody conservative ideology you really do sound like an anarchist.

Whatever gave you the impression I embody conservative ideology? My ideology is the Western, democratic ideology before it got corrupted - that people should be free to do as they please, so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. It's not hard to understand.

 

[jondy]

NC just more than doubled the cigarette tax here... a few weeks ago I was spending about $4 for a pack of camels and now I spend $5. As if I wasn't poor enough already.

Poor as you are, have you ever considered not smoking?

 

[CptStern]

So do you agree with it? If not, then what are you arguing about?

yes I agree taxes from the sale of tobacco helps fund healthcare as well as other programs. what are you arguing?

A warning label isn't stopping you from making your own choices, is it?

no, so isnt a $50 fine. you're still able to choose not to wear one ..well until they eventually take your license away

You're totally incapable of separating the two issues of personal protection and public safety. Until you can see the difference between taking precautions against personal injury, and taking precautions against injuring others, and the fact that the role of law should differ vastly in both cases - indeed, it does so in nearly every other aspect of life, except where government has got too big for its boots - then there is no point continuing this conversation.

there is no ****ing distinction. why else would the government mandate warning signs on dangerous chemicals or whatever. it's not exclusive to helmet and seatbelt laws

No, but now you're just being pedantic. The intent of that law, regardless of the reality, is to protect other people from you running the red light. It isn't there to protect you from yourself. No such parallel can be drawn with a helmet or seatbelt law.

it doesnt matter, it's just as much there to protect you as it is to protect others

Obviously, that has everything to do with regulations and nothing to do with a very different culture, very different attitudes to risk and the fact that, at any one time, 50% of the drivers on Chinese roads have less than a year's experience of driving.

this is not possible:

There were 163,887,372 drivers of motor vehicles and riders of motorcycles, including 107,087,137 car drivers.

so roughly 80 million people have less than one year experience? if so there would be a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles sold in a single year which isnt the case:

Private motor vehicles across the country numbered 121,571,500 last year, an increase of 11,965,532 units, or 10.92%, over 2006.

http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/04/08/how-many-drivers-in-china/

Whatever gave you the impression I embody conservative ideology? My ideology is the Western, democratic ideology before it got corrupted - that people should be free to do as they please, so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's right to do the same. It's not hard to understand.

this is naive and completely unrealistic

 

[repiV]

yes I agree taxes from the sale of tobacco helps fund healthcare as well as other programs. what are you arguing?

Oh for god's sake. Stop being awkward. Do you agree that cigarettes should be taxed punitively in order to make up for the increased healthcare costs?

no, so isnt a $50 fine. you're still able to choose not to wear one ..well until they eventually take your license away

WTF? What a nonsense comparison. Warning labels are advisory, they aren't proscriptive and they don't mandate that you take any particular course of action.

there is no ****ing distinction. why else would the government mandate warning signs on dangerous chemicals or whatever. it's not exclusive to helmet and seatbelt laws

There's a massive distinction. Drugs aside, where else does the law require that you don't do certain things because they may be harmful to your own health?

it doesnt matter, it's just as much there to protect you as it is to protect others

No it isn't. Otherwise you could be prosecuted for a risky overtake on the racetrack, or playing sports without the appropriate safety gear. The roads are a public place which potentially involve great danger, the purpose of road traffic law is to manage that risk to make it a safe place for people to be. Road traffic law has nothing to do with protecting people from themselves, and to protect people from themselves is the action of an authoritarian, if not totalitarian, government. There is no place for it in a free country.

this is not possible:



so roughly 80 million people have less than one year experience? if so there would be a dramatic increase in the number of vehicles sold in a single year which isnt the case:



http://www.chinacartimes.com/2008/04/08/how-many-drivers-in-china/

It was certainly the case not so long ago.

this is naive and completely unrealistic

No it isn't. It's the founding principle of all free nations.

 

[CptStern]

Oh for god's sake. Stop being awkward. Do you agree that cigarettes should be taxed punitively in order to make up for the increased healthcare costs?

I never said this, and how does that make sense when taxes collected go in a pot. taxes on say the sale of firearms dont go towards the cost of removing bullets from people. this is ludicrous

WTF? What a nonsense comparison. Warning labels are advisory, they aren't proscriptive and they don't mandate that you take any particular course of action.

yes it does: "do not ingest" is a pretty straight forward command. the comparison was made to illustrate that the government already has it's proverbial fingers in the "do not do for your own sake"cookie jar.

There's a massive distinction. Where else does the law require that you don't do certain things because they may be harmful to your own health?

bust out a line of coke at the nearest police station and see what happens

No it isn't. Otherwise you could be prosecuted for a risky overtake on the racetrack, or playing sports without the appropriate safety gear.

prosecuted for breaking laws in a private setting? not going to happen ..same reason why it's not a crime for you to ride a motorcycle on your drive way without a helmet

The roads are a public place which potentially involve great danger, the purpose of road traffic law is to manage that risk to make it a safe place for people to be. Road traffic law has nothing to do with protecting people from themselves, and to protect people from themselves is the action of an authoritarian, if not totalitarian, government. There is no place for it in a free country.

so you'll be fighting against laws that prevent you from owning a flame thrower or laws that prevent you from legally purchasing cocaine? right seatbelt and helemt laws should take more precendent ..because without them we dont know what will happen!!!!

It was certainly the case not so long ago.

ya well not so long ago they thought autism was simply a case of "frigid" mothers

No it isn't. It's the founding principle of all free nations.

yes if you were to only look at something literally. the law is an every moving mass, changing to reflect societies norms. but you would have it curtailed over abstract and unrealistic ideas of what it means to be free.

 

[repiV]

I never said this, and how does that make sense when taxes collected go in a pot. taxes on say the sale of firearms dont go towards the cost of removing bullets from people. this is ludicrous

I asked if you agree that this should be the case. So far, you haven't answered the question.

yes it does: "do not ingest" is a pretty straight forward command. the comparison was made to illustrate that the government already has it's proverbial fingers in the "do not do for your own sake"cookie jar.

It's not a law. You can still ingest it if you wish to. The presence of the warning label doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom in any meaningful way.

bust out a line of coke at the nearest police station and see what happens

Aside from drugs. Which is also an unjust area of the law, but pretty much the only other aspect of life where you are prevented from taking your own chances.

prosecuted for breaking laws in a private setting? not going to happen ..same reason why it's not a crime for you to ride a motorcycle on your drive way without a helmet

There are plenty of things that are illegal to do in a private setting, because they harm other people. So why does it make any difference whether I ride a motorcycle without a helmet in a private or a public space?

so you'll be fighting against laws that prevent you from owning a flame thrower or laws that prevent you from legally purchasing cocaine? right seatbelt and helemt laws should take more precendent ..because without them we dont know what will happen!!!!

There's certainly no reason why I shouldn't be able to legally purchase cocaine if I choose to.

ya well not so long ago they thought autism was simply a case of "frigid" mothers

And that has what to do with the topic at hand?

yes if you were to only look at something literally. the law is an every moving mass, changing to reflect societies norms. but you would have it curtailed over abstract and unrealistic ideas of what it means to be free.

The law is supposed to be bound and constricted by a constitution, so that it cannot outgrow its mandate. Furthermore, there is nothing abstract or unrealistic about preventing the law from dictating to people how to live their own lives.

The law (criminal law, that is) should not be a reflection of society's norms, either. It should serve to prevent one person bringing measurable harm to another, nothing else. That is an unchanging constant regardless of the state of society.

 

[Eejit]

Wearing a helmet or a seatbelt, on the other hand, is a matter of personal preference that has nothing to do with anyone else.

Unless you don't just die and instead receive medical care and/or disability benefits for the rest of your life, paid for by taxes.

In a state with a national health service it is perfectly reasonable for the government to enforce some general safety laws.

 

[Absinthe]

Im sorry but it IS my business when you bring that shit within smelling distance of me. As far as im concerned, if I can smell your smoke, im telling you to ***k off away from me. That is MY right. ANd now I finally have the law on my side.

'Oh they're addictive', yeah and they kill you, so ban them please. Or raise Taxes atleast.

I smoke outside on my ****ing balcony nowhere near you, you cock.

 

[Dynasty]

It doesnt matter if im outside, I still tell people to bugger off. Why should I have to be part of your 'addiction' or whatever in any way?

And dont say 'wll you should walk away instead then, why should I move?' Youre the one causing the problem surely.

 

[repiV]

Unless you don't just die and instead receive medical care and/or disability benefits for the rest of your life, paid for by taxes.

In a state with a national health service it is perfectly reasonable for the government to enforce some general safety laws.

So where does it end? Why do you have to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but not gloves, boots, leathers or a back protector? Why are motorcycles allowed at all when, in Devon for example, they make up 1% of the traffic but 33% of fatalities on the roads?

Why pick on motorcyclists and not couch potatoes? Why smokers and not skydivers?

It's a very slippery slope. If the price of the national health service is our freedom, then it's not worth paying.

From another angle, motorcyclists as a rule pay a lot more tax than the majority of the population, since most are used purely as (very expensive) toys, wealthy people tend to own them. So they have more than covered their liability, certainly compared to lifelong scroungers who eat McDonalds every day.

It's not a route worth going down. The NHS exists, it exists equally for everyone, and people should be able to continue to make their own lifestyle choices.

 

[CptStern]

I asked if you agree that this should be the case. So far, you haven't answered the question.

the question is irrelevent because it's not the case. specific taxes do not pay for specific programs

IIt's not a law. You can still ingest it if you wish to. The presence of the warning label doesn't infringe on anyone's freedom in any meaningful way.

the law prevents you from purchasing marijuana even though you are harming no one ..it's infringing on their rights however to you bike helmet laws are of more importance

IAside from drugs. Which is also an unjust area of the law, but pretty much the only other aspect of life where you are prevented from taking your own chances.

swimming in areas deemed to be high risk, flying your own airplane, owning a flame thrower ...anyways you cant discount drugs just because it doesnt suit your pov ..it's the same issue

IThere are plenty of things that are illegal to do in a private setting, because they harm other people.

like marijuana

I So why does it make any difference whether I ride a motorcycle without a helmet in a private or a public space?

they have no jurisdiction ...I thought that was pretty obvious

IThere's certainly no reason why I shouldn't be able to legally purchase cocaine if I choose to.

right, as well as flamethrower (it's for weeding) or a dozens of other things that could be dangerous. Look what you personally think is ok or not doesnt matter one bit. I'm sure I can point out people who think cocaine should indeed be illegal ...does that somehow validate their point in any way shape or form? the same goes for you. simply stating your opposition does nothing

IAnd that has what to do with the topic at hand?

you said "It was certainly the case not so long ago." and I pointed out that things change. why do you have a problem understanding this?

The law is supposed to be bound and constricted by a constitution, so that it cannot outgrow its mandate.

have you heard of america perchance? that document pretty much changes from day to day

Furthermore, there is nothing abstract or unrealistic about preventing the law from dictating to people how to live their own lives.

OMG SEATBELTS, TO ARMS EVERYONE!!! come on you're being overly dramatic ..and unrealistic I might add

The law (criminal law, that is) should not be a reflection of society's norms, either. It should serve to prevent one person bringing measurable harm to another, nothing else. That is an unchanging constant regardless of the state of society.

boiled down to it's absolutely most basic application yes however realistically this isnt how things get done. morality plays a big part in it, whether you like it or not is immaterial

 

[Absinthe]

It doesnt matter if im outside, I still tell people to bugger off. Why should I have to be part of your 'addiction' or whatever in any way?

And dont say 'wll you should walk away instead then, why should I move?' Youre the one causing the problem surely.

I smoke outside on my ****ing balcony nowhere near you

I keep a respectable distance in areas where people congregate, like bus stations and club entrances. But anybody who flips out when walking past a smoker on the street - a process that takes anywhere between one to three seconds - should get bent.

 

[Dynasty]

Oh come on, if I walk past someone smoking then I just keep walking because that IS pathetic. But if im sat somewhere, like at a train station, and someone sits next to me and lights one up, and the smoke drifts over me, im telling that guy to kindly move away.

 

[CyberPitz]

Oh come on, if I walk past someone smoking then I just keep walking because that IS pathetic. But if im sat somewhere, like at a train station, and someone sits next to me and lights one up, and the smoke drifts over me, im telling that guy to kindly move away.

Just bring some perfume that smells absolutely horrid and strong, and when they come and do that, just spray it at their general direction. I think they'll get the hint.

 

[Eejit]

Or keep a pet skunk.

 

[CptStern]

hold your nose and flap your hand rapidly in front of your face ..it needs to be all wrist action no using your arm ..also helps if you make a raspberry face and say "ewwww"



how about you say nothing so that I dont rearrange your face? :E

you really want to tell someone who's probably had to walk 4 flights of stairs, crossed 3 streets (AGAINST traffic) and backpedaled his way through 2 neighbourhoods and an entire county they shouldnt smoke cigarettes? I'LL RIP YOUR LUNGS OUT!!!

 

[PvtRyan]

you really want to tell someone who's probably had to walk 4 flights of stairs, crossed 3 streets (AGAINST traffic) and backpedaled his way through 2 neighbourhoods and an entire county they shouldnt smoke cigarettes?

Especially considering their rather limited lung capacity.

 

[Tagaziel]

I keep a respectable distance in areas where people congregate, like bus stations and club entrances. But anybody who flips out when walking past a smoker on the street - a process that takes anywhere between one to three seconds - should get bent.

What he said.

 

[Escaep]

This has to be the most irritating thread to read with all the quotes.

/gives up.

 

[NeptuneUK]

I don't fully understand how the arguement between Stern and Repiv occured.

Stern : Tobacco tax helps fund healthcare.
(The US doesn't have a public health service)
Unless we talk about the UK, where the cost of smoking related illness to the NHS is paid for 3 or 4 times over by the 8.2 billion pounds the government gets every year from the existing taxes on tobacco.

Repiv just seems to be vehemently defending his right to smoke without having to pay EVEN MORE unjustified tax on tobacco.


This has now escalated, and I don't think they remember what they are arguing about anymore.

 

[Eejit]

Really? We have a right not to have luxuries taxed?

I think we get representation at the same time as this taxation btw.

 

[Absinthe]

Really? We have a right not to have luxuries taxed?

He did say "even more".

 

[Solaris]

I support extra taxes on things that put a major strain on our healthcare system such as fatty foods and cigarettes and alcohol. However, I think the taxes on these things already compensates for that and I don't think they should be raised.

People should also be allowed to smoke wherever they want, provided others don't suffer from second hand smoke, so that would mean you can't smoke in houses with young children, offices, bars. But can smoke, in the streets etc.

Is there anybody who disagrees with this? I really don't understand what the quotes are about.

 

[Escaep]

edit: oh what the hell why am i in this thread.

 

[jet_porkins]

Evidently, the House passed a bill that would allow the FDA to regulate tobacco products.

 

[Ennui]

Preach it Absinthe!

Im sorry but it IS my business when you bring that shit within smelling distance of me. As far as im concerned, if I can smell your smoke, im telling you to ***k off away from me. That is MY right. ANd now I finally have the law on my side.

'Oh they're addictive', yeah and they kill you, so ban them please. Or raise Taxes atleast.

This is the most idiotic line of reasoning ever. You could just as easily be arguing against driving cars because you can smell the exhaust when they drive past you on the street. Frankly as a smoker I couldn't give less of a shit when people give me evil/irritated looks or do that little half-cough shit when I walk past them. I'm a courteous smoker; I walk away from people when I want to stand and have a cigarette, not by doors or places where a bunch of people are standing around, I try my best given the wind to not blow smoke in people's faces when I'm walking past them, and if I'm passing a baby I won't puff on the cigarette until they're out of range. It's people who are asshats about it like you that make me wonder if I should even bother being courteous since you clearly don't notice at all.

I'd love to see you tell me to **** off while smoking though, I love an excuse to dress someone down for being an idiot.

Poor as you are, have you ever considered not smoking?

Oh yes. Actually, I want to quit because it's inconvenient (when raining etc) and unhealthy, not just because it's expensive. I love cigarettes but I've had a good long couple-year fling with them and soon it'll be time to pack it up. As soon as this semester ends and I move home for the summer, no more cigarettes but I have no desire to deal with finals and all the associated stress on top of the tense shittiness of quitting smoking.

 

[xcellerate]

Why not! I don't smoke! Let's increase their taxes by 100,000,000%!

If you reply "Just quit" or "It's only a dollar" or something similar, you really do not know what you're talking about. Don't post.

...yea because nobody knows what it's like when prices on things go up. Smoker's aren't special, don't act like you are.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I don't think I like some of you people anymore.
Parp.

 

[Ennui]

I don't think I like some of you people anymore.
Parp.

If you're referring to me you don't like sheepy anymore either :arms:

 

[The Monkey]

I think it's good to have high taxes both to discourage smoking and to make them pay for the expenses they cause the health care.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

If you're referring to me you don't like sheepy anymore either :arms:

Maybe I don't like him anyway, PUNK. HUH.
PUNK.

But no, I was referring to opposites of you.

 

[Ennui]

Fat black church people that vote Republican?

 

[CptStern]

Fat black church people that vote Republican?

"Latins for Republicans? it's like roaches for Raid" - John Leguizamo


these are the only types of people who support the republicans

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Goddamn, some non-smokers are ignorant hypocrites. It's none of you're business what I do with my own body, so **** off. I'm willing to bet that most of the people mouthing of at smokers also drink, eat fast food, etc.

Anyway, I got pissed off with the price of cigarettes here, so most of mine are foreign now, much cheaper.

I support extra taxes on things that put a major strain on our healthcare system such as fatty foods and cigarettes and alcohol.

I think it's good to have high taxes both to discourage smoking and to make them pay for the expenses they cause the health care.

The ****? I will be paying the NHS via taxes for the rest of my working life, so that by the time I need it, I will have long since paid for my treatment. Stop being such a baby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9ySCcnoo3c

 

[Lucid]

Cigarettes are for fags.

 

[jverne]

repi is an anarchist...yay :|




as for the helmets and seat belts stuff...if it wouldn't be law, there would probably be less manufacturers or even none, thus preventing (or limiting) the use to those who actually want them. (not main argument, but additional)

 

[gFrohman]

Granted smoking is bad for you, and second-hand smoke isn't the best for you, but car exhaust is about as bad. Shall we ban that as well? Just because somethings inconvenience you doesn't mean you have to make the world bend over backwards so that you're happy. Grow up.

You're not the center of the universe.