Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Smokers' Rights?  
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1347 times:

Louisiana is proposing yet another "sin" tax, which would see the price of cigarettes rise $1/carton for the sake of teachers' pay raises. Many groups are planning to sue if such legislation is passed, which it very well could (heavy precedent).




"Smokers' Rights" is the mantra.... but tell me this, does such a thing exist? In your opinion, if not constitutionally?

If so, what sorta can o' worms could this open up to places like NYC et al where smokers have been (rightfully, I'd say) sidelined in relation to nearly all indoor activities?


.....and before some moron brings it up: yes, smokers choose to buy the carton, light the stick, and puff on it-- but what if it could be proven that some are much more naturally inclinded to nicotine-addiction than others? Then were are we all?



Heavier topic than it may appear superficially.

What say you?
(Please identify whether you smoke or not, in your responses. Thanks)


47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSLC1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1344 times:

It's your right to choose to smoke and when someone eventually becomes addicted has made a choice which should not conflict with my right to breathe clean air in public places. Period.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1349 times:

I'm fine with taxes on my entertainment to pay for the education of children.

I mean, I don't smoke, and I find it disgusting, but I'd even pay more tax on booze to pay for the education of chirrens.

N


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1340 times:

Quoting SLC1 (Reply 1):
It's your right to choose to smoke and when someone eventually becomes addicted has made a choice which should not conflict with my right to breathe clean air in public places. Period.

Couldn't possibly agree more!


User currently offlineAloges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8702 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1339 times:

I don't smoke.

And I think the only right smokers should be granted is the right to go outside or in a smoking area and smoke - except for bars.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1332 times:

I don't smoke, have no desire to, and have no desire to be around it.

That said, I think it is hypocritical of the government to, on one hand, sponsor various ad campaigns spreading the message of how bad smoking is for you, then to use the addiction those who do not pay attention to create tax revenue. If the tax goes to anything, it should go to defray cost associated with smoking related diseases and treatments to stop smoking. That, at least, would be consistent and ethical.



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineSLC1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 1326 times:

As for the tax thing, yeah, it's the price you pay for becoming a slave to a substance. If you have a problem with it, quit. Everybody who is addicted to nicotine CAN quit, I'm sorry. It may be very difficult but all smokers CAN quit if they wanted to enough. The tax pays for necessary services, and I don't mind if a select few foot the bill.

User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1299 times:

Some people have an addictive personality – but I’m not going to directly relate that to smoking.

I have recently returned to the unhealthy and disgusting habit of nicotine ingestion.

I live in Las Vegas, NV where one can virtually smoke and drink at anytime, anywhere unlike the neocon state identified in my username.

I normally buy cartons in Mexico for personal consumption. I saw that recent tax in Louisiana. Now they’re getting Canada-esque. I refuse to purchase cigarettes in Mother Maple Leaf where my parents live, instead bring them across. Same goes for NY and Chicago, just so damn expensive.

People have a right to breathe clean air. Smokers do not have a right to light up wherever their nicotine cravings please.

The same politicos bashing smokers are regularly seen lighting up cigars.

Pardon me while I step outside and consult Peter Jennings.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1293 times:

Anchorage cigarette taxes are outrageous . . . over $3 a pack and climbing, a pack - single 20 cigarette pack - is not about $7US each.

Now, I quit smoking a while back, and cost was not the factor. . . although I do see a difference.

It is ridiculous to think taxing smokers will solve anything. Just another "Tax" to toss out there, and all the frickin' politicians trying to be PC will say, ohh, sure . . . tax the drinkers and smokers.

 redflag  Guess what time it is . . . bullshit flag time.


User currently offlineMattRB From Canada, joined Apr 2005, 1624 posts, RR: 9
Reply 9, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1279 times:

They have the right to kill themselves in the comfort of their own homes as far as I am concerned. When out in public, I should not be made to suffer because of their habit.


Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible.
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12096 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1263 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

No I don't smoke. Smokers help kill millions of people throu second hand smoke, even help kill their own family members

User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 1250 times:

I don't smoke.

I see no problem with adding additional cig taxes. Why?

1. It is a tax that can be avoided. You don't want to pay? Don't smoke.
2. It will probably cause some to finally stop their death-dealing habit.
3. It can generate money for things such as education.

I used to work at a gas station where cigs were one of the biggest sellers. It was amazing. They barely had the cash to put $2 in their car to get to work, but dropped $3 or more for a pack of smokes. I had a number of kids come in on the day they turned 18 to by cigarettes. Stupid.

And as for smoker's rights? What about nonsmoker's rights? Don't I have a right to breath clean air? Smoker's rights end when they infringe on nonsmoker's rights. Plus, the giant burden on public health. I wonder how much medicare money is spent yearly on cancer & emphysema treatments for smokers?



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 75
Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 1222 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
Louisiana is proposing yet another "sin" tax, which would see the price of cigarettes rise $1/carton for the sake of teachers' pay raises.

Good thread Freddie. Given the crap wages teachers are paid in Louisiana and the consequent drop in the number and quality of people who will teach in the state, this is a great thing. As is, cigarettes are cheap in Louisiana as compares to other states and a $1 tax per carton will not add much to that

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Thread starter):
Many groups are planning to sue if such legislation is passed, which it very well could (heavy precedent).

And guess what, they will lose

Quoting Aloges (Reply 4):
And I think the only right smokers should be granted is the right to go outside or in a smoking area and smoke - except for bars.

It is the same with bars. There are plenty of non-smokers in bars getting poisoned by second hand smoke, both patrons and workers. In fact, spending 8 hours in a smoke filled bar puts the toxins in your body of more than a 20 pack of cigs. California was the first place to completely ban smoking in indoor public accomidation and the affect on workers was one of the main reasons

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 7):
I saw that recent tax in Louisiana. Now they’re getting Canada-esque.

Canada-esque? Because someone may have to spend $3.99 a pack instead of $3.49 (remember, it is $1 per carton, not per pack)? Even if it was $1 a pack, it would still be cheaper than many places in the U.S.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineBananaBoY From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 1577 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1145 times:

I don't smoke and see no problem with taxing the crap out of smokers.. particularly when I live in a country where my tax goes to pay for the healthcare of those chose to smoke. (If we could demonstrate that their healthcare is more than funded by their own purchases, I would be even happier.)


Smokers paying for teachers payrises seems a tenuous link, though not an undeserving one.

I can foresee a time soon when the bars and restaurants of Louisiana will be a more pleasant place to be.

Smokers rights? Geez. I agree with GoCOgo.. this is one easily avoided tax, and you don't need to be a brainiac to work out how to.

Mark



All my life, I've been kissing, your top lip 'cause your bottom one's missing
User currently offlineDL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11447 posts, RR: 75
Reply 14, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1134 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

OK...without reading beyond Cboys first post...so my opinion is not impacted by others.

Non-smoker here saying that people should have the right to smoke all they want.....someplace where their smoking does not infringe upon my right to breathe non-smoke-adulterated air.

As far as sin taxes to pay for more education.....well, hell. I do believe that there is one additional fee I would not really have a problem with paying, since I won't ever pay it.

I'll go a step further......smokers should probably be less eligible for public health (medicaid/medicare) assistance than non-smokers. I don't see why my tax dollar should support the cancer and emphysema treatments for people who insist on poisoning their bodies with a toxin that has been known to cause cancer since 1964 to the extent that there are mandatory labels on the product saying that only an idiot is going to smoke these things regularly.

I would postulate that a cigarette every once in a while, or a cigar or pipe, is not any worse than a number of other habits one could have. But smokers not only smoke way more than can possibly be good for you, but they also seem to think that its ok to toss their butts on the ground and litter. That makes me want to instill some Singaporean solutions to the issue.

My thoughts.



Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1124 times:

The only right of a smoker is not to torture the others with their pollution. I think at least 10 € for a pack would be good, then perhaps most people would at least try to stop. Unfortunately I live in a country where protection of the non smokers almost doesn't exist. I find smoking cigarettes is most disgusting.

User currently offlineSaintsman From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2002, 2065 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1121 times:

I'm a non smoker.

Targeting a particular product to pay for something else is wrong and prone to problems. If you want to tax something heavily, then fine. But to say that you are only going to spend it on one thing is only going to upset other deserving causes. Why not on healthcare for the needy or some other public service?

If they want to tax cigarettes heavily to bring in extra revenue they will. But the revenue should just be added to the pot and allocated appropriately, not just for one thing.


User currently offlineMisbeehavin From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 914 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1107 times:

I smoke and I have a quote from Rosie di Mannio of the Toronto Star against the "Smoking Stalinists": "I, for one, will not go gently into totalitarianism, will not be cowed by nico-bullies or bamboozled by health charlatans. Smoke more, smoke lots, smoke everywhere."

User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 18, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1106 times:

How about this? Let's put higher taxes on cigarettes, and then some of these taxes can come my way, to help pay for the nebulizer machine I just had to buy on Friday. My asthma is getting to the point where an ordinary albuterol puffer just doesn't do the trick in some cases, and on Friday I got into one of those cases. (A nebulizer delivers the albuterol in a mist instead of in an aerosol, and more slowly, making it a much more effective method of delivery.) Luckily my insurance covered the nebulizer for me or else I'd be out some money. How about those who don't have insurance?

How does this relate to smoking? you may ask. 18 years of living with my heavily-smoking dad - in a cold, windows-closed environment - hm, wonder why I have asthma. Where were MY rights?



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1101 times:

I don't smoke, I don't like being around smokers. There is nothing worse than coming home after a long night out and smelling like an ashtray, but smokers are by far the most discriminated against group of people. Yeah, the losers in government can tax cigarettes all they want, but people are going to keep buying them. It doesn't matter if a pack is $26.79 or $.79. People are going to keep getting lung cancer and we should not have pay their medical bills.

I also believe that a lot of the second hand smoke argument is pure, unadulterated bullshit. It's one thing for ScarletHarlot to say that she was a victim of second-hand smoke because she was around it for 18 years, it's another for the anti-tobacco lobbyists to claim that a person is suffering irreversable damage by being a smoky bar or resturant for a couple of hours.



America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlineScarletHarlot From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 4673 posts, RR: 56
Reply 20, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1093 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 19):
it's another for the anti-tobacco lobbyists to claim that a person is suffering irreversable damage by being a smoky bar or resturant for a couple of hours.

I agree with you to some extent, but I really would like to just be able to go out to a bar or out dancing and not have to do a ton of research about whether or not the place allows smoking. I just can't be around smoke any more. It triggers my asthma.

"Irreversable damage"? For most healthy people, being exposed to secondhand smoke for a couple of hours isn't going to make any difference, and it cheapens the argument of people like me to suggest that that is the case.



But that was when I ruled the world
User currently offlineTom in NO From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 7194 posts, RR: 33
Reply 21, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1080 times:

If taxing cigarettes will help decrease the amount of second-hand smoke I have to breathe on a day-to-day basis, then I'm all for it. And if it benefits the under paid teachers in this state, and in the process help to improve our schools, so much the better. And if it motivates existing smokers to quit, better still.

I had to put up with our chain-smoking secretary for upwards of 8 years. No amount of complaining to the higher-up's ever did any good. No visitor/vendor/friend that I or my office colleagues had visit us failed to notice the second-hand smoke, and very few failed to comment to us on it. Only recently have I had a change in my job duties that has necessitated a move (thank God) into our main airport terminal and a much cleaner environment.

I'm with ScarlotHarlot, where were my rights for 8 years?

Tom at MSY



"The criminal ineptitude makes you furious"-Bruce Springsteen, after seeing firsthand the damage from Hurricane Katrina
User currently offlineZRH From Switzerland, joined Nov 1999, 5566 posts, RR: 36
Reply 22, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1077 times:

Quoting JCS17 (Reply 19):
I also believe that a lot of the second hand smoke argument is pure, unadulterated bullshit.

This is completely wrong. It is proven in different scientific studies that second hand smoking is almost as dangerous as smoking!

http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/st...3182,3172_13127__langId-en,00.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/secondhandsmoke.html

If I injured someone with a gun I would go to jail. But injuring other people with smoke is allowed. I don't mind if somebody wants to kill himself with smoking but stay away from me.


User currently offlineMxCtrlr From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 2485 posts, RR: 35
Reply 23, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 1024 times:

Quoting GoCOgo (Reply 11):
see no problem with adding additional cig taxes. Why?

1. It is a tax that can be avoided. You don't want to pay? Don't smoke.
2. It will probably cause some to finally stop their death-dealing habit.
3. It can generate money for things such as education.

I do smoke. I have tried to quit several times and I find it interesting when life-long non-smokers tell me how simple it is to quit or how, as SLC1 states, "anyone can do it". As a point of reference, nicotine addiction has been likened to heroin addiction - its that bad. Its damn tough and I commend anyone who has successfully quit. If you've never done it, don't purport to know how "easy" it is or how "anyone can do it" - You don't know what you're talking about.

Now, on to the subject of having no problems with additional taxes. The goal of the American Lung Association (and politicos with these sin tax increases) is to eliminate smoking altogether. A dubious goal but that is the overall goal nonetheless. Now, consider what will happen if that goal is reached or even close to being achieved - YOUR TAXES WILL SKYROCKET TO SUPPORT THE REVENUE LOSS! Think about that when you state you have absolutely no problem to these added taxes. Sooner or later, you'll be footing that tax burden you had no problem with. Bet then, you'll have a problem with it.

MxCtrlr  bouncy 



DAMN! This SUCKS! I just had to go to the next higher age bracket in my profile! :-(
User currently offlineSeptember11 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 3623 posts, RR: 21
Reply 24, posted (9 years 2 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1008 times:

"My doctor told me I need more tar" LOL
Steve Martin

[Edited 2005-06-01 15:21:10]


Airliners.net of the Future
25 Mrniji : Then let's levy taxes on Junk Food, too.. I could argue that I am tired that my taxes are spend for the heathcare of people who permanently eat all t
26 Dvk : Neil, you're revealing your inner southern boy! I love it!
27 Post contains images LY7E7 : I used to smoke a lot, but now I smoke an occasional cigarette when I am in a pub. IMHO there is no such thing as "smokers rights". You want to poison
28 Post contains images ORFflyer : I smoke about a pack and a half a day. My dad worked for a tobacco company for over forty years, so it was around the house my whole life. Dad quit so
29 Pope : I don't smoke (other than 1 or 2 cigars a year on very special occassions). I'm a firm believer in the free market. I hate these regulations that forc
30 Singaporegirl : i used to smoke. actually i used to smoke A LOT (2 packs of marlboro red a day!) between the ages of 15 to 21. i had to quit when i was 21 because i s
31 MaverickM11 : I hate cigarettes/smokers/smoking but at the same time I can see the smoking bans/cigarette taxes as tools that could be used against other things tha
32 Banco : The trouble with the usual arguments about smokers costing a fortune in healthcare is that it isn't true. In most countries (I can't speak for the US,
33 MaverickM11 : "On top of that, smokers die younger, therefore reducing pension costs and other associated illnesses connected with the elderly." Very true, and many
34 4holer : Nonsmoker. As far as I'm concerned... Your "rights" as a smoker end as soon as your smoking negatively impacts me. That impact can be financial, in my
35 MaverickM11 : "Sooner or later, you'll be footing that tax burden you had no problem with. Bet then, you'll have a problem with it. " Also very true; it's not like
36 Superfly : TAX 'EM! Nuff said!
37 JGPH1A : Smokers have the right to die a slow painful death from emphyzema if they so choose, that's about it. If you want to smoke, go right ahead - just don'
38 ORFflyer : Absolutely.... see my post above, I'm one of those nasty smokers, and so is my wife. But we never smoke in the house, we're either outside, or in the
39 Post contains images Andreas : You do that to me and it WILL have health consequences...very grave ones, on your side, and IMMEDIATELY, I can promise you that
40 VirginFlyer : Frankly I think smoking should be illegal in any public place (indoor or outdoor). Really, it should be confined to private premises (or perhaps a lic
41 Kalakaua : I'll smoke a fag maybe at most, thrice a year. Only when I'm extremely stress. Other than that... I find smoking a cigarette in public just as annoyin
42 PA110 : You can quit. You just need to see it through. I smoked for almost 10 years. Gave it up overnight. For the first couple of weeks, I would bum just a
43 Post contains images Superfly : I've stated many times before, give the SUV drivers the attention they have been craving. Make them pay the same registrations and tolls that commerc
44 ScarletHarlot : Hee hee! Beautiful!
45 Post contains images 4holer : True perhaps! But if I last longer than 30 seconds or so, I'll take advantage of your coughing and wheezing fit to turn things around!
46 KLMA330 : I genuinely feel sorry for smokers, just like I feel for any addict, to anything. Do what you will to your health and your wallet, just keep it away f
47 Post contains images MxCtrlr : So, you are saying that since it is harmful to clean air, then it should be banned? Careful with that arguement as emissions from aircraft, rockets l
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Do Smokers Have Rights? posted Thu Feb 15 2001 16:25:11 by Rickster
Animal Rights: The Next Legal Frontier? posted Wed Oct 11 2006 16:30:37 by AerospaceFan
Question For All French Smokers? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 19:58:00 by 9V
Lawyers, Need Your Help, Public Domain Rights posted Sun Sep 3 2006 12:39:32 by LH526
Civil Rights Icon Makes Mel Gibson-Type Remarks posted Fri Aug 18 2006 13:00:48 by 767Lover
Report On Qatar's Human Rights Abuses posted Tue Jun 27 2006 13:42:34 by Dtwclipper
Human Rights Violations In Saudi Arabia. posted Thu Jun 8 2006 09:38:38 by Himmat01
Cuba, Saudi Arabia, China On UN On Rights Council posted Wed May 10 2006 08:02:43 by 11Bravo
Smokers Get More Breaks At Work Then Me (rant) posted Thu Apr 6 2006 01:27:34 by Cadet57
Inside Iran: Human Rights Records posted Wed Mar 29 2006 18:15:50 by Aleksandar