This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

DIY smokes - Page 2 — Brooklynian

DIY smokes

24

Comments

  • ringrunner
    ringrunner
    brooklynpotter wrote: do you actually believe that pubmed, or the crohns and colitis organizations worked with phillip morris. .
    Wouldn't be surprised, they spend millions to get people to smoke. But I bet most smokers wished they never started.

    Here is a study that shows that higher taxes stop kids from starting.

    http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/reports/prices/
  • ringrunner
    ringrunner
    sandcastler wrote: Conversely, if the idea is to create a "pay-go" system, perhaps healthy foods and other healthy behaviors ought to be taxed, insofar as they correlate with long life, which means greater payouts from Social Security.

    Just saying.
    But health insurance companies promote healthy lifestyle activities. Perhaps a healthy old person (with a long life) is cheaper to insure (in the long run) than a sick person with a short life.
  • rtraindweller
    rtraindweller
    philmc wrote: does anyone want to not smoke? you've probably all heard of it, but it's a great, sympathetic, helpful book: -How to Stop Smoking- by Allen Carr. i know this is annoying, especially on this thread, but it's worth it.
    I tried to order that book once actually because a friend used it and surprisingly worked well, she hasnt had a cigarette since. But I accidentally ordered his other book "The Easy Way To Stop Drinking". Which I promptly returned (ain't no one takin away muh beeuhs) and then just forgot about the entire thing.

    And just hand rolling (no machines) is the cheapest way. $5.50 or so for a bag that'll last a week-2 weeks? Yes please.
  • meredithb
    meredithb
    rtraindweller wrote: And just hand rolling (no machines) is the cheapest way. $5.50 or so for a bag that'll last a week-2 weeks? Yes please.
    Dang! Topp is only $2 in my hood!
  • sandcastler
    sandcastler
    sandcastler: Conversely, if the idea is to create a "pay-go" system, perhaps healthy foods and other healthy behaviors ought to be taxed, insofar as they correlate with long life, which means greater payouts from Social Security.
    * * * * *
    ringrunner: But health insurance companies promote healthy lifestyle activities. Perhaps a healthy old person (with a long life) is cheaper to insure (in the long run) than a sick person with a short life.
    * * * * *
    * * * * *

    My (Swiftian) proposal was about Social Security payments, which are of course disbursed by the SSA, a government agency. The SSA is quite distinct from health insurance companies, which have no financial stake in it.

    But yes, you're right, in the United States, health insurance companies do have a profit motive to promote the health of their customers.

    To be honest, I was just pushing back against the antismoking crusade.
  • rtraindweller
    rtraindweller
    MeredithB wrote: [quote=rtraindweller]And just hand rolling (no machines) is the cheapest way. $5.50 or so for a bag that'll last a week-2 weeks? Yes please.
    Dang! Topp is only $2 in my hood!

    Haven't tried Topp yet, guess it's time! I usually stick with the Bali Shag Light. I wish I could find Golden Virginia in this country, unless anyone knows a spot that might have it?
  • sandcastler
    sandcastler
    Golden Virginia, yes. The most delicious!
  • sandcastler
    sandcastler
    Three Castles
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Let me preface this by saying I am not advocating smoking at all. However the argument about societal health costs due to smokers doesn't really hold water. As a society, we save money on smokers who die prematurely. If a smoker lives a productive life, paying taxes and paying into social security, in most cases, the extra health costs associated with their illness and death is more than made up by the social security and health care payments they don't get because of their premature demise. Everyone ultimately dies of something, and in our society, that ultimately winds up being expensive. In smokers, that mostly just occurs earlier.
  • brooklynpotter
    brooklynpotter
    deleted
  • ringrunner
    ringrunner
    brooklynpotter wrote: i have had at least three doctors tell me, on the QT, to go buy a pack of cigarettes.
    Do you think they would tell you that if you never smoked?
  • brooklynpotter
    brooklynpotter
    deleted
  • ringrunner
    ringrunner
    No Potter, it is a real question.

    I could not imagine my doctor telling me to start smoking.
  • brooklynpotter
    brooklynpotter
    deleted
  • sandcastler
    sandcastler
    In a world where no one knew the dangers of cigarette smoking, one individual fought the mighty media barons and evil corporations to carry the truth to the people, one poor smoker at a time. As word of her exploits spread, she became a folk legend. Ringrunner! Now for the first time acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh brings her story to the screen. In theatres Fall 2009.
  • ringrunner
    ringrunner
    sandcastler wrote: In a world where no one knew the dangers of cigarette smoking, one individual fought the mighty media barons and evil corporations to carry the truth to the people, one poor smoker at a time. As word of her exploits spread, she became a folk legend. Ringrunner! Now for the first time acclaimed director Steven Soderbergh brings her story to the screen. In theatres Fall 2009.
    Children need to know.

    and I am male
  • sandcastler
    sandcastler
    Sorry, bro. All pandas look the same to me.
  • ringrunner
    ringrunner
    brooklynpotter wrote: you're not in a situation where the question is warranted
    If your are saying it is none of my (and the rest of the worlds) business, fine.

    Then just ask yourself: Do you really think your doctor would have advised you to smoke if you had never smoked before.

    Is it the tobacco or the stress relief it provides?
  • brooklynpotter
    brooklynpotter
    and you don't think these are baiting questions?

    you made blanket statements, i debunked them. to do so, i shared far too much personal information just to make that point. that was my mistake. i won't make it again.
  • ringrunner
    ringrunner
    Potter

    I am truly sorry if I opened any wounds (literally or figuratively).

    My only intent was that nobody should use your medical examples as an excuse to start or continue to smoke.
  • username
    username
    Hey, what's everyone's take on motorcycles?
  • withachaser
    withachaser
    i smoke. and have for 20+ years, give or take a couple of years here and there during which i had quit. i run 5 miles every morning and have for almost as many years as i've smoked. i also have a g.i. condition similiar to those mentioned in previous posts that seems to be soothed by smoking. and, a hereditary blood-lipid prob, despite the fact that i don't eat beef nor bird. my consumption of public health resources related to my athleticism and the genetic issues far eclipses that related to my smoking (e.g, multiple injuries requring expensive radiology; expensive meds and testing for the abnormal bloodwork).

    truth is, i would love to quit smoking and hope i can soon. truly! i'm gettin too old for this shit :-). BUT, if we are using the economic argument to justify exploitative taxation...

    the only way this could be equitable is to create some sort of credit/debit system based on one's personal habits/genetic predispositions and the ultimate economic and/or health impact of said. of course, this is just ridiculous. which is really my point.
  • meredithb
    meredithb
    Chantix rules.
  • flo
    flo
    http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/01/cigarette.tax/

    I didn't fact check this article, but it does make me think the we-tax-smokers-to-pay-for-their-healthcare argument is not a valid one. We may be smokers, which we all know isn't a wise thing to do, but it doesn't follow that this makes us idiots.

    "Federal taxes also are going up Wednesday on other tobacco products, including cigars. Federal per-cigar taxes, which vary based on weight and price, used to be capped at 4.9 cents but now are capped at 40.26 cents.

    The tobacco tax hikes, which President Obama signed into law in February, will be used to finance an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. The expansion, which will cost $35 million over five years, is expected to secure federally funded health care for an additional 4 million children."
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Smokers save the government money by dying sooner and not collecting as much Social Security.
    However, no one NEEDS to smoke. And raising the price of a pack does limit kids' smoking even more effectively than forbidding it for them. And many people will cut down on smoking as the price goes up even if they don't quit completely. If you hold the non-cynical belief that the government is interested in the health of its citizens even if it doesn't lead to money in its coffers, then this is a good thing.
  • danny hellman
    danny hellman
    Carnivore wrote: Let me preface this by saying I am not advocating smoking at all. However the argument about societal health costs due to smokers doesn't really hold water. As a society, we save money on smokers who die prematurely. If a smoker lives a productive life, paying taxes and paying into social security, in most cases, the extra health costs associated with their illness and death is more than made up by the social security and health care payments they don't get because of their premature demise. Everyone ultimately dies of something, and in our society, that ultimately winds up being expensive. In smokers, that mostly just occurs earlier.
    You might also say this about folks who enjoy red meat.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081113181428.htm

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99293.php

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/green/Eating_Red_Meat_Shown_to_Increase_Cancer_Risk.html

    http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071211/high-meat-consumption-linked-to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4088824.stm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111300824.html

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-24-red-meat-mortality-study_N.htm
  • flo
    flo
    Carni-
    I do believe that the gov't is interested in the health of its citizens, at least some of the time. I'm not sure how many people will actually quit over the price increase, (and it's not clear to me that this is the intent of the tax) but I imagine I can find some good info out on how true that might be. Longterm, I'm not sure how great an idea it is to tax a behavior that by all reports is on the decline to support healthcare initiatives, but I imagine that's something that will be dealt with somewhere down the line and probably in the future you will see soda drinkers paying a similar tax, as Paterson suggested recently.

    I'm not under any delusions that taxes on cigarettes will go down in the future, that I need to smoke, or that public policy on smoking will be reversed though.
  • scarlett
    scarlett
    I just can't quit you Virginia Slim!
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Danny Hellman wrote: [quote=Carnivore]Let me preface this by saying I am not advocating smoking at all. However the argument about societal health costs due to smokers doesn't really hold water. As a society, we save money on smokers who die prematurely. If a smoker lives a productive life, paying taxes and paying into social security, in most cases, the extra health costs associated with their illness and death is more than made up by the social security and health care payments they don't get because of their premature demise. Everyone ultimately dies of something, and in our society, that ultimately winds up being expensive. In smokers, that mostly just occurs earlier.
    You might also say this about folks who enjoy red meat.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081113181428.htm

    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/99293.php

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/green/Eating_Red_Meat_Shown_to_Increase_Cancer_Risk.html

    http://health.usnews.com/usnews/health/healthday/071211/high-meat-consumption-linked-to-heightened-cancer-risk.htm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4088824.stm

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/13/AR2006111300824.html

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-03-24-red-meat-mortality-study_N.htm

    That's fine. They can tax meat.


    I think they should also institute a "self-righteous twat" tax.
  • flo
    flo
    scarlett wrote: I just can't quit you Virginia Slim!
    Hey Scarlett- You could change it to "I just can't quit you Virginia SlimJim" and now you got a meat product jangle. But the ad has a lady with an old school cigarette holder holding beef jerky instead of a smoke. :)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories