Limited Buying?
It improves the environment, and phases out tobacco smoking in easy to handle steps that both smokers and the economy can bear.
The 1st step would be to have the government up the age restriction for buying tobacco (say, to 21). That way, you only piss off the people between 18-21… which means there’s a limited portion of the public who is angered by the limit. The general population agrees to the limitation, and it will go over okay.
2nd step: You need to return an empty cigarette pack for each pack you want to purchase. The biggest improvement from this limitation is that underage smokers will find it’s much harder to get their hands on cigarettes from older friends or parents. This is also an awesome limitation since it will lead to less littering. From personal experience, I estimate that nearly half of all paper or plastic litter in our streets is smoking related.
We’d recycle the packs and/or cartons, and only people who have ACCESS to empty cigarette packs (AKA current smokers) could purchase cigarettes from a retailer.
3rd step: Limiting buying… now you can’t bring in 10 empty packs and buy 10 packs, you can only bring in 3 empties and get 3 new packs. Again, the limitation will affect only people who smoke very heavily, or live a long way from a cigarette retailer. The general public is unlikely to care about the limitation, yet it will discourage production of tobacco by decreasing the rate at which it is consumed. Retailers may like the limitation too, as it would mean smokers come to the store more often to refill, which results in more impulse purchasing.
It’s a plan that the government should consider, if it’s looking to improve the health of the general public. It’s indisputable that smoking causes harm to both the smoker and bystanders inhaling the same smoke, so it’s time to find realistic ways to wean society off of a dangerous yet accepted drug.
There are some issues that can be addressed as they come up. One that comes to mind is what happens if a smoker loses or tears their empty package?
Answer: How many smokers only have 1 package? Most likely have one at work, one in their purse/pocket, and 2 at home. If they lose a package, they should have been more careful. But what if it’s been stolen? Since it seems harsh to punish a victim of crime, a potential solution is to require a smoker to get a prescription from their doctor authorizing the sale of nicotine cigarettes to the victim of the theft.
In order to use Ashley’s idea of Limited Buying on my blog, I’m required to announce the following publicly:
“My girlfriend is a human intelligence expert, and i am her humble subservient.” And she really is a human behaviour expert.
My inspiration to discuss the problem of smoking came from the blog Crocodile Morsels.
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Ross | 19-Apr-06 at 11:18 pm | Permalink
that is an incredible idea. what grabbed my attention to this post though was when you said most smokers probably have a pack at work, one in their car, and a couple at home. that is so true, i smoke socially, i have only had four cigarettes since about february 25th, and i never crave them it just depends on who i am hanging around with and what is going on and right now i have one opened pack in the console of my car, two unopened pack on my coffee table in front of me right now, and last time i checked a partial carton in my liquor cabinet at my house in saskatoon.
Saskboy | 19-Apr-06 at 11:34 pm | Permalink
Hi Ross, I can’t take credit for the insight into how many packs a smoker has sitting around, that’s all Ashley’s view. I didn’t realize that, but it makes sense, since someone who’s addicted wouldn’t want to be caught in a craving without a fix nearby.
Please post the idea of Limited Buying on your blog too, spread the link and even write your MLA if you feel inspired to help limit society’s smoking addiction.
Ashley | 20-Apr-06 at 11:24 am | Permalink
LOL! you made the announcement! woo! but u put the concept in (i think) the exact words i said it in….i thought u’d smooth over the language a bit. oh well.
Saskboy | 20-Apr-06 at 6:59 pm | Permalink
I did make the announcement as per the agreement to getting your idea posted. I wasn’t aware that I could reword it ;-)
Ashley | 20-Apr-06 at 7:05 pm | Permalink
you couldnt reword the announcement, just the actual wording within the idea
Saskboy | 20-Apr-06 at 7:16 pm | Permalink
Why reword it? It was excellent as it was.
Bob Frapples | 02-May-06 at 5:48 pm | Permalink
Uhm, in the US, smokers bear quite a tax burden. eliminating that income will just mean that INSERT_YOUR_PET_VICE will become more expensive.
Saskboy | 02-May-06 at 6:27 pm | Permalink
Bob, in the US smokers also bear a heavy health burden. It’s estimated that about 450,000 people die annually in the States from smoking related ailments. That doesn’t even count the toll on the economy for days people are away from work sick due to weakend circulatory and respiratory systems which impacts the immune system too of course.
I can live with other vices becoming more expensive, especially if it means fewer people are smoking. I think your premise that net government revenue will always be down from a loss of sin-tax, is faulty because it doesn’t take into account gains in other areas from a healthier society.
Bob Frapples | 02-May-06 at 7:53 pm | Permalink
My father died of lung cancer, he’s considered a smoking casualty.
He also worked as a roofer, for awhile, as well as used a soldering iron every day for a number of years as well as worked in machine shops. Some jobs are high risk for the same diseases as smoking. coincidentally, those same jobs tend to have a high percentage of smokers. Metalworking, firefighting, roofing, soldering are all high risk activities. Do you think your figures take any of that into account?
It’s been known that tobacco isn’t so healthy for a long time. Tobacco companies lied about that for a long time, and that ain’t right. but neither is vilifying smokers and getting them to quit for “their own good”. The fact is, in moderation very little will cause you long term health problems. smoking just happens to be the witch du jour, once upon a time it was alcohol, or weed, or beef, or fast food.
I didn’t say that net revenue would be down because of making cigarettes illegal, I said the difference would come from some other sin. which could be alcohol, unhealthy foods(candy/ fast food comes to mind), fuel, maybe it’ll be caffiene, at the high end, cigarette smokers pay upwards of $50 per carton of cigarettes in taxes. I know I wouldn’t want to pay $20 for a 6 back of beer because somebody decided alcohol was evil.
Ashley | 02-May-06 at 8:05 pm | Permalink
I agree with you Bob, and I’m the one who developed this plan. I just got really sick of people saying “we should make smoking illegal” and “we should make sure they can only smoke in their own homes”. None of that is viable, and I’d rather see people only able to buy a bit at a time then being banned from public. The plan is more to discourage very heavy smoking and new smokers, than to discourage and outcast the current ones. Besides, it makes the non-smokers feel better in some odd way.
Saskboy | 02-May-06 at 8:14 pm | Permalink
“Do you think your figures take any of that into account?”
Perhaps not, but it also doesn’t take into account deaths from fires or poisonings involving children and cigarettes. The point that there are other things people do every day that harms their health doesn’t make smoking excusable. As you say, smokers have known for decades the harm they are doing by smoking.
The point isn’t to vilify smokers, who are generally victims of a very morally corrupt tobacco industry. The point is to find a way to discourage people from smoking, since simply telling them that they’ll likely face numerous avoidable or deferrable health problems by spending a fortune on a drug they will become dependent upon, isn’t stopping them in large enough numbers.
There’s no guarantee that a worse addiction will be taxed to make up for the lost cigarette taxes.
Lord Kano | 08-May-06 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
Talk about asinine ideas. As long as cigarette smoking is legal, it’s not the government’s place to coerce people to quit.
People have to be responsible for their own lives. If you smoke, you will not live as long.(barring fast moving trucks)
For the people who died in the 1960s and before, had a legitimate claim about not knowing the dangers of smoking. Everyone who smokes now knows that it is a health hazard. People have been calling cigarettes cancer sticks and coffin nails since before my parents were born.
If you drink too much, you will not live as long.(once again, barring fast moving trucks)
Should we require that people return empty beer cans in order to be able to purchase new six packs? Limit beer purchases to two six packs at a time?
If you eat too much fast food, you will not live as long either.
Do you propose that we mandate that people bring back empty chicken buckets before they’re allowed to purchase new ones? If it’ll save lives, it’s worth the inconvienence to a few lard asses right?
If someone is a new smoker, how do they get the initial pack in order to be allowed to purchase new packs? Do they have to steal one? Do they have to raid the possessions of a dead smoker?
Your “solution” would actually encourage some people to buy and smoke more cigarettes. I know many people who have 1 pack at a time. If it becomes inconvienent to buy one pack, they’ll adjust their buying habits. Instead of picking up one pack every few days, they’ll stock up for the entire week. Having a greater reserve will encourage them to smoke more.
Let’s not forget that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate against legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21.
How about this, we keep doing what we’re doing. Limit advertising, punish companies who market to children, continue to educate children about the dangers of smoking & provide people with information about quitting.
Zaphod2016 | 08-May-06 at 6:03 pm | Permalink
Many non-smokers have a hard time understanding why a sane person would choose to spend hard-earned money in order to kill themselves. I can understand this position 100%.
However, I will argue that in 2006, there is not a smoker alive who is unaware that smoking is unhealthy. I am sure that each individual holds a unique view on specifics, but on the basics we all agree: smoking = bad for health.
It might be argued that existing smokers continue to smoke due to addiction, however, that fails to account for why a non-smoker would choose to begin.
It might be argued that the media glamorizes smoking, but does this glamour outweigh the common understanding that smoking = unhealthy? Again, I say no.
Clearly, for whatever our irrational reasons may be, some of us choose to smoke. I believe that I am the master of my destiny, and I hold myself personally responsible for all health costs related to my eventual horrible death. I do not smoke in public (outside of my own car) because it is absolutley rude in this day and age. I do not advocate smoking, nor will I defend anything smoker-related.
However, I will suggest that non-smokers focus on reducing the effect of smoking in THEIR lives, not the smoker’s life. In other words: don’t outlaw cigarettes (those tax revenues keep many schools alive in poorer areas) outlaw their public use.
I see this as the best of all worlds:
1. Smokers retain the freedom to be stupid.
2. Non-smokers retain the freedom to be left alone by smokers.
3. The public may benefit from revenues.
And, in case I came across as rational, I suggest the same for marijuana too (gasp!).
Saskboy | 08-May-06 at 7:41 pm | Permalink
Lord Kano, “If you drink too much”
We’re talking about smoking, and any smoking is too much. Studies are conflicting, but it’s possible for people to drink at a level that causes no noticible harm to them or others unless the drinker is pregnant, or about to drive. Food and other examples you mention can all be consumed safely, and as you say it’s not the government’s place to tell people they can’t have a safe substance. Tobacco is not a safe substance; not any safer than heroin, or asbestos.
“If someone is a new smoker, how do they get the initial pack in order to be allowed to purchase new packs? Do they have to steal one?”
The point is that they’d have trouble obtaining their first cigarettes, and subsequent supply to keep them hooked. Since most smokers are getting hooked while they are in their early teens, obviously peer presure plays a very significant role in addicting the smoker while rational thought is cast aside to “fit in”. Zaphod2016, would that characterize your choice to take up smoking, I’m curious?
As packs start to dwindle in supply as they are either discarded or shared/sold to a friend, then the people taking up smoking decreases because it becomes more of a hassle. This happens over several years, giving people time to adjust to the restriction, and explore the idea of not being a slave to nicotine cravings.
“Let’s not forget that it’s unconstitutional to discriminate against legal adults between the ages of 18 and 21.”
Actually in either Canada or the USA, people under 21 are subject to a variety of restrictions. In fact people under 25 are discriminated against by car rental agencies, charging young people more, despite their driving record. I think it’s normal to limit young people in some things, if the best interest of society and the young individual is served by the restriction. Would you really want 18 year olds purchasing alcohol?
“How about this, we keep doing what we’re doing. Limit advertising, punish companies who market to children, continue to educate children about the dangers of smoking & provide people with information about quitting.”
The way we’re doing it, isn’t working well enough. Still about one in five people are smoking. If you conceed that smoking is dangerous and should be reduced through education, surely you agree that rational choices can’t lead someone to start smoking. If you take away the opportunity for people to begin smoking, they won’t have the oportunity to make the wrong choice. We’re not talking about stopping an adult from going to the store and buying a pack, we’re talking about reducing the likelyhood that a child is going to have cigarettes of their own to share with friends.
Also Lord Kano, do you have a plan that also addresses the litter problem smoking creates?
Lord Kano | 09-May-06 at 2:25 am | Permalink
“We’re talking about smoking, and any smoking is too much.”
We’re talking about people having the right to do something stupid. Even if you don’t like it.
” and as you say it’s not the government’s place to tell people they can’t have a safe substance.”
No, I said that it’s not the government’s place to coerce people to not do something that is legal.
“The point is that they’d have trouble obtaining their first cigarettes, and subsequent supply to keep them hooked.”
Why pussyfoot around then? If they’re so awful, why not lobby for outright prohibition? Or is it that you have some sadistic power fantasy? You don’t like smoking and want to punish smokers.
“In fact people under 25 are discriminated against by car rental agencies, charging young people more, despite their driving record.”
The conduct of a private business is not the same as government mandated discrimination.
“I think it’s normal to limit young people in some things, if the best interest of society and the young individual is served by the restriction.”
It’s normal to limit children because they have not had the time to acquire the knowledge or frame of reference to make informed decisions. When one reaches the age of majority, one is entitled to all the rights and benefits of adulthood in their society. Including the right to do something stupid.
“Would you really want 18 year olds purchasing alcohol?”
Yes. At 18 (in the US) one is a legal adult.
“The way we’re doing it, isn’t working well enough.”
Do fewer people smoke now than 40 years ago? It isn’t working as well as you want it to, that’s a subjective thing. Fewer people smoke now. It obviously IS working. According to the CDC in 1965 42.4% of Americans smoked. In 1992 that number had fallen to 26.5%
“If you conceed that smoking is dangerous and should be reduced through education, surely you agree that rational choices can’t lead someone to start smoking.”
Since when are people required to be rational?
“If you take away the opportunity for people to begin smoking, they won’t have the oportunity to make the wrong choice.”
Why not mandate chemical castration for children too and mandate that all young women take depo provera shots? If they are unable to produce unwanted children, they will have a higher quality of life.
It’s the price we pay for freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean freedom to do things that you agree with.
“Also Lord Kano, do you have a plan that also addresses the litter problem smoking creates?”
I don’t concede that there is a “litter problem”. Cigarettes are dried plant leaves, wrapped up in paper with a cellulose acetate filter on the end.
Saskboy | 09-May-06 at 9:24 am | Permalink
“No, I said that it’s not the government’s place to coerce people to not do something that is legal.”
Part of what government does is to see where common sense isn’t prevailing, and enact a law to outlaw or restrict an action.
“Why pussyfoot around then? If they’re so awful, why not lobby for outright prohibition? … You don’t like smoking and want to punish smokers. … Why not mandate chemical castration for children too and mandate that all young women take depo provera shots?”
The point of the restriction is to ease smokers into the fact that smoking is controlled, and is also controlling their life. Smokers punish themselves; slowly taking away their punishment may let them readjust their priorities. Listen to your argument - you’re comparing the loss of reproductive ability with the loss of convenient use of a deadly recreational drug. If a drinker had that kind of disproportionate defense for their daily use of booze, wouldn’t you think they sounded like an alcoholic? And how many people really want to be alcoholics?
“Freedom doesn’t mean freedom to do things that you agree with.”
Freedom is waking up in the morning and not *needing* to pay Phillip Morris $8 to get through the day without feeling like you’re going to die. Also more than 3/4 of free people want nothing to do with smoking, and in our free countries the majority rules. It also means you’re free to voice your complaint, and if it’s valid you have legal means to convince lawmakers to let you and everyone have easy access to a deadly recreational drug.
“I don’t concede that there is a “litter problem”.”
There is one whether you’ve noticed it before or not. Those paper and leaf wrappings have tar and toxic substances in them. They have soot, ash, and leave burn marks [sometimes causing milions of dollars in damage in the wrong spots]. They are wrapped in celophane plastic, and cardboard packages, and some have plastic butts and disposable lighters and matches. If you walk down just about any city street or along a highway about 40% [in my estimation] of the litter is smoking related.
Lord Kano | 09-May-06 at 10:58 am | Permalink
Since you avoided answering any of my questions, I’ll repeat my previous post.
“We’re talking about smoking, and any smoking is too much.”
We’re talking about people having the right to do something stupid. Even if you don’t like it.
” and as you say it’s not the government’s place to tell people they can’t have a safe substance.”
No, I said that it’s not the government’s place to coerce people to not do something that is legal.
“The point is that they’d have trouble obtaining their first cigarettes, and subsequent supply to keep them hooked.”
Why pussyfoot around then? If they’re so awful, why not lobby for outright prohibition? Or is it that you have some sadistic power fantasy? You don’t like smoking and want to punish smokers.
“In fact people under 25 are discriminated against by car rental agencies, charging young people more, despite their driving record.”
The conduct of a private business is not the same as government mandated discrimination.
“I think it’s normal to limit young people in some things, if the best interest of society and the young individual is served by the restriction.”
It’s normal to limit children because they have not had the time to acquire the knowledge or frame of reference to make informed decisions. When one reaches the age of majority, one is entitled to all the rights and benefits of adulthood in their society. Including the right to do something stupid.
“Would you really want 18 year olds purchasing alcohol?”
Yes. At 18 (in the US) one is a legal adult.
“The way we’re doing it, isn’t working well enough.”
Do fewer people smoke now than 40 years ago? It isn’t working as well as you want it to, that’s a subjective thing. Fewer people smoke now. It obviously IS working. According to the CDC in 1965 42.4% of Americans smoked. In 1992 that number had fallen to 26.5%
“If you conceed that smoking is dangerous and should be reduced through education, surely you agree that rational choices can’t lead someone to start smoking.”
Since when are people required to be rational?
“If you take away the opportunity for people to begin smoking, they won’t have the oportunity to make the wrong choice.”
Why not mandate chemical castration for children too and mandate that all young women take depo provera shots? If they are unable to produce unwanted children, they will have a higher quality of life.
It’s the price we pay for freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean freedom to do things that you agree with.
“Also Lord Kano, do you have a plan that also addresses the litter problem smoking creates?”
I don’t concede that there is a “litter problem”. Cigarettes are dried plant leaves, wrapped up in paper with a cellulose acetate filter on the end.
Saskboy | 09-May-06 at 1:32 pm | Permalink
Repeating yourself after I’ve answered won’t accomplish anything. I certainly addressed your comments about rights, freedom, and litter. For the sake of brevity I combined the answers to several of your points into fewer paragraphs. If you don’t feel a point of mine is valid, please explain how, or leave your opinion to stand once.
The only point I see I didn’t cover was rationality. People are for the most part allowed to make irrational choices, but one point of parenting is to show your child how a choice to take up drugs is wrong because of consequences that will come from it later. There are too many parents who are incapable, or unwilling to show their children this, and that’s why we need restrictions on substances that children have too much access to. An 18 year old might legally be an adult, but they can still be in high school. The fewer kids with access to things like cigarettes and alcohol in high shool, the healthier our society will be.
Scott | 10-May-06 at 8:24 pm | Permalink
WOW!!! You guys really have whipped out the shit firing devices!!! I am a smoker, and I will speak for myself here… If you think telling me to quit, or telling me I HAVE to quit is going to make me quit, you need to pull your head out!!! I don’t think anyone but a smoker can decide when it is time to quit, and it that is the day you farging die, so be it, it is a decision, a choice, a right, just as non-smokers have rights, so do smokers.
Do you think that just because you don’t like me to smoke, that you should have the right to tell me I can’t ?!? Anyone who thinks so can blow me!!!
Saskboy | 10-May-06 at 11:29 pm | Permalink
Scott says on his blog:
“Now….Call me silly, but Tobacco has never been linked directly to Cancer. There is no denying that it may attribute to people getting cancer, by exacerbating a condition they may have already had, or were developing anyway, however, there is AGAIN, NO DIRECT EVIDENCE that smoking causes cancer.”
OK, you’ve gone past silly into the realm of denial. When you come to terms with reality, you’d realize that it’s within my right to restrict smoking more than it is in yours to light up whereever you please.
themusicgod1 | 19-May-06 at 8:18 pm | Permalink
Actually by raising the smoking age from 18 to 21 you’ll also piss people like me off, who think the government shouldn’t have any say in the matter of what we chose put in our bodies. Pot is never going to be legalized if this sort of thing keeps up. I think the age limit for smoking should be completely taken out as practically unenforcable, and ageist.
Does this mean I think you should smoke? Of course not. We have to make decisions, though, and if you’re stupid enough to start smoking you’re stupid enough to die a horrible death, and live working your ass off to pay for my healthcare.
btw this is coming from a non-smoker.
zaphod2016: “Many non-smokers have a hard time understanding why a sane person would choose to spend hard-earned money in order to kill themselves”
Why would any sane person choose to spend hard-earned money in *not* killing themselves? This is I think where the arguments break down; you’re assuming that the right thing to do is to keep yourself a healthy, fit induvidual who lives a long life. Why is this the case? While I would like to be more healthy, I have my own reasons for this and by and large those are personal reasons, and do not apply to the rest of the population.
Whether or not you have the right to, if a free citizen chooses death, why would you stop them? And on top of what moral principle or highground do you do so?
Saskboy: if the best interest of society and the young individual is served by the restriction. Would you really want 18 year olds purchasing alcohol?
Your making choices that assume that you know what the best interest of every single 18 year old out there. Now you might very well know the best interest of society and I’m not sure if I want to dispute that, but thinking you know what’s in the best interest of the rest of us is a load of crap. Unless you know a hell of a lot more than I do, which is possible, but unlikely.
Saskboy: Part of what government does is to see where common sense isn’t prevailing, and enact a law to outlaw or restrict an action.
Says you. Hell I don’t even believe in common sense.
Saskboy: Also more than 3/4 of free people want nothing to do with smoking, and in our free countries the majority rules.
Absolutely meaningless. In our “free country” I’m also sure that 3/4 people would exterminate the first nations peoples (and possibly the french), given the chance.
btw soot and ash are easily absorbed into pretty much any ecosystem, on the orders of magnitude we’re dealing with from cigarrettes. The plastic on the other hand isn’t quite as harmless.
Saskboy | 19-May-06 at 8:29 pm | Permalink
themusicgod1 anarchy isn’t a system of government most people are ever going to want. We’ve given smokers decades to quit on their own and it just doesn’t work because there are people with too much to gain by taking advantage of the next generation and turning them into drug addicts. We can’t go back to letting 12 year olds buy cigarettes, because even though they are people with rights, it’s more important to protect people from predators like tobacco companies. Upping the age limit will criminalize people who are assisting in perpetuating the too common use of yet another drug.
And it’s sane and right to keep yourself healthy, because no one but a crazy person would ever say [and mean it], “I’m feeling so sick this week, and I love it.” In theory it’s possible that the ideal age to live to is 53, but you’re not going to find anyone serious to agree with you. When that happens, it’s best to regroup and find some evidence, or otherwise change your theory.
themusicgod1 | 19-May-06 at 9:18 pm | Permalink
Whether or not anyone agrees with me has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not I am correct. I have a long history of holding opinions that no one else holds.
Just as anarchy “just doesn’t work” I’ll resort to using the age old argument that the state-run society “just doesn’t work” either. That gets us nowhere.
“it’s more important to protect people from predators like tobacco companies.”
You’re protecting people from themselves, and their own stupidity; and even so, you’re giving up their freedom(and others freedom; I don’t smoke yet this would in turn turn into precedent for banning things that I do partake in, like say, looking at a CRT for more than 8 hours a day) for something you perceive to be in their best interest; a sure sign of disaster.
When you choose to live instead of, say, committing suicide, there’s a good chance that sometime in the next year or two that you’ll find yourself sick. Would a sane person say “I’m going to get sick, and I still think its ok”?
Saskboy | 19-May-06 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
“Would a sane person say “I’m going to get sick, and I still think its ok”?”
Yes, because in most cases, that person will realize the sickness is temporary. Death isn’t temporary; it’s pretty hard to recover from it and have a good time on earth after. Anarchy is about having a good time, and I think it’s obvious that weaker people will not have a good time in an anarchist society, while only powerful people will. To some extent we have that now, but at least there are means for weak people to be powerful or become that way. In an anarchy, much less so.
I think government protecting people is a good thing for that reason. For people who want to live like animals without government there are plenty of non-populated spaces where they can run free.
themusicgod1 | 20-May-06 at 8:44 pm | Permalink
You’re assuming that you can have a good time, or that the good time weighs out the bad. I would dispute this.
Second; if since getting sick is temporary and not that big of a deal, why not put up with it and smoke?
Third; There are a lot of flavours of anarchy, and I don’t think all of them are about ‘having a good time.’ I think you’re strawman-ning me here, so I’ll stop on this tangeant.
And I would question the fact that there is more than a few square metres of open space without government influence left outside of mabye venus on this area of the solar system
Saskboy | 20-May-06 at 8:56 pm | Permalink
Although it’s wayyy off topic, if you set up a society in Antarctica, I’m fairly certain you’d be left alone.
“Second; if since getting sick is temporary and not that big of a deal, why not put up with it and smoke?”
Because smoking not only hastens sickness, it also hastens death, remember?
Zaphod2016 | 12-Jun-06 at 7:29 am | Permalink
Saskboy:
Sorry for a later reply, but to answer your question (above):
No, peer preasure has nothing to do with my decision to start smoking. In fact, I got through high school and 2 years of college before I lit up for the first time. Most of my friends bust my chops endlessly, because a few short years ago I was the most rabid anti-smoker out there.
And then one day I realized that even a cheseburger can kill you. The trick to life is moderation.
Smoking 20 cigarettes (a pack) each day is excessive. Enjoying a cig at the end of my day; this is my own little “guilty pleasure”. Just like someone else might eat a chocolate bar or watch TV (also self-destructive).
Saskboy | 13-Jun-06 at 12:00 am | Permalink
Zaphod, I dare say your case is the exception to the peer pressure rule. A cheeseburger can kill you, but it’s less likely to do so in moderation than a cigarette. It also costs less, is less addicting, and you can survive a day on it in a food emergency. Watching TV, you can also do non-destructive things like pedal an excercise bike, walk on a treadmill, skip rope, juggle, or do yoga.
Zaphod2016 | 20-Jun-06 at 7:25 am | Permalink
Saskboy:
I think you overestimate the “peer presure” angle. For example, most woman I know who smoke claim it is a “weight loss” measure.
I agree 100% that the activities you describe are far better than smoking. That is why I balance my life with many jogs, bike rides and trips to the beach. I also occasionally smoke, eat and McDonalds and visit the city- all of which can, and probably will, kill me.
For the sake of argument, let us pretend that you enjoyed banging the cymbols on your own head- self-destructive and very annoying to those around you. I am sure we will agree that this activity is not acceptable in public, and that you should be ashamed for pushing such terrible behavior on the rest of society.
But, if in the privacy of your home, surrounded by like-minded individuals, willing to take the consequences of your decisions- I say bang away. Who am I to tell you what to do? I am not your father, heck, I’ve never even met you.
I agree with you on smoking; we disagree on the definition of freedom.
Zaphod2016 | 20-Jun-06 at 7:32 am | Permalink
Oh, and a I disagree that a cheseburger is “safer” than smoking.
Heart disease is enemy #1.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/03/whart03.xml
Saskboy | 22-Jun-06 at 1:01 pm | Permalink
This isn’t a debate as to the deadliness of various foods. But your input is welcome none the less. Your website has a great About Me page too :-)
Unless you choke on a burger there is no direct way it damages your respiratory system, and few people indeed would claim that the smell of cheeseburgers is a carcinogen. Circulatory system disease is serious and is caused by excessive cheeseburger use, but it is also confirmed beyond any competent doubt that any cigarette smoke harms circulation too. Since cheeseburgers are food, and there are known safe levels of consumption, they really aren’t in the same class as cigarettes. The only people who’d consider that similarity, are people looking to justify their smoking indulgence as something no worse than food of questionable value.
Stop Smoking | 30-Aug-06 at 1:01 am | Permalink
True that the ash from cigarettes is not harmful to the environment but the other debris is! Tobacco growing uses more pesticides and fertilisers than any other crop in the world.
Tobacco is the most widely grown non- food crop in the world. It is grown in over 100 countries. Tobacco does not grow on salt lands, clay lands, or deserts. It grows on land that was previously given over to food production and rain forests. The tobacco plant belongs to the Nicotiana genus, so named after a Frenchman, Jean Nicot who was passionate about the plant. There are three types of tobacco, Virginia, Oriental, and Burley.
Tobacco is a very labour intensive crop, needing many chemicals and fertilisers to produce a good yield. The seedlings are grown in beds and need at least 16 applications of pesticides are recommended to ensure healthy growth. So potent are these chemicals that the areas carry a warning that no one should smoke near the beds. Nearby local water supplies are affected from the over usage of chemicals. Because tobacco growing is labour intensive, women and children work long hours, and child labour is frequent. Tobacco crops harbour some potentially destructive plant viruses and moulds, which can damage surrounding plant life.
Deforestation is one of the world’s most pressing problems. Forests act as giant sponges, absorbing water then releasing it to the surrounding land. Remove the forests and the result is flooding and drought. Deforestation also contributes to global warming by changing climates. To manufacture tobacco the leaves of the plant have to be dried, this is called curing. Leaves are laid on racks under which fires are lit. For every 1 kg of tobacco produced, 7.8 kg of wood is used in the curing of the leaves. 1 in 8 trees in the world are cut down for the tobacco industry. This equates to 9 million acres of forests each year.
The cigarette and everything associated with it is damaging to the environment. The use of paper, the filters, the smoke, and the litter problem as millions of butts line our streets and parks. Tobacco is one of the world’s most controversial crops, by stopping smoking you are helping to clean up the environment.
Stop Smoking | 05-Sep-06 at 8:43 am | Permalink
I love the idea that empty cigarette packets would have to be returned before they could purchase another one. It would certainly help towards the litter problem that smokers create.
Tanya | 01-Oct-06 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
Just what we need is another black market. These ideas are not well-thought out. Trying to forcibly keep people from smoking is simply not going to work. All it is going to do is create people that will profit from this situation. Go to Alberta and buy your smokes unhindered and sell them in Saskatchewan.
I know that it is now politically correct to rip on smokers and blame them for the downfall of society but I really think you should think it through before you jump on the latest bandwagon.
There is not a single person who posted in this thread who lives a completely guilt free lifestyle. Do you eat Big Macs? Hey I have an idea! Let’s make those dirty Big Mac-eaters hand in their old wrappers before they get a new Big Mac! It might prevent take out food wrappers from ending up on my front lawn. I get a lot more trash from fast food than cigarette packaging.
And I don’t know if you guys realize this, but we are all going to die from something. Jeez Louise!
Saskboy | 01-Oct-06 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
Tanya, the point of this plan is to remove smoking without creating a black market. The 3 Steps isn’t a bandwagon yet, but hopefully will be.
I agree fast food contributes about as much if not more litter than smoking does.
We certainly all will die, But we don’t have to die from drug use, and can spend our lives doing something other than drugs if we base our society around the principle that drugs are a waste of time, instead of a good and legit way to make money.
Tanya | 18-Dec-06 at 10:31 pm | Permalink
Not just drugs are a waste of time. Everything is a waste of time. Eating, sleeping, working, playing video games, Christmas shopping, weddings, Survivor pools, religion and drugs are just a few of the things that are a waste of time. We pretty much fill our lives with empty meaningless crap and then we die. Just because you don’t like the ways I choose to waste my time doesn’t mean you get to judge me for my choices. If it doesn’t effect you, who cares? Why bung everything up with unenforceable restrictions? And restrictions would create a black market. If people can get their smokes from the states or the province next door, they most certainly will do so. You are probably just trolling me anyway. Oh well, I don’t mind. :)
Saskboy | 18-Dec-06 at 10:42 pm | Permalink
I’ll probably die from blogging…
In any case, yes some things are a waste of time. But some wastes contribute good things to other people. Supporting the heroin trade (for instance) means that someone, somewhere has to grow it, when they could be growing food or a cash crop that isn’t run by mobsters and goons, and needs to be shipped to the other side of the world which isn’t an environmentally responsible way to do trade.
Saskboy | 01-Jan-07 at 11:16 am | Permalink
I hadn’t realized that California banned public building smoking 20 years ago.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/01/smoke.html
Steven Harold | 02-Feb-07 at 8:02 am | Permalink
Whatever you think about government intervention regarding smoking, they already do this with regard to other drugs. In Ireland they have already banned smoking in public places and in the UK the same sort of ban is coming in in July 2007. I am helping many people who have a new focus to stop smoking because of this impending ban. Maybe it is the extra incentive that some people need.
Saskboy | 02-Feb-07 at 8:08 am | Permalink
There’s a campaign on now in Canada, or at least Saskatchewan too, partly funded by Health Canada [government]. One ad describes the tobacco industry as the “people killing” the smokers to make money from it.
Herbert | 20-Feb-07 at 4:02 pm | Permalink
Great post. Though I support all of your ideas in theory and think that they would be effective, it is always a fine line between effective regulation and imposing too many restrictions on ordinary citizens.
I took the liberty of linking to you in my blog:
http://www.mojacity.com/blogs/torontoapartmentrental/2007/02/how-much-should-you-spend-on-rent.html
Keep up the great posts.
Steve Harold - London Hypnotherapy | 21-Jan-08 at 9:13 am | Permalink
Even big lobby groups like the tobacco industry fall from grace and power eventually. The UK government appears recently to be moving from cure to prevention and early detection.
Natalie | 11-Jun-08 at 11:48 am | Permalink
I don’t know if anyone has commented on this already because I don’t have time to read through all this bickering from two years back, but I just want to say that I really agree with the idea of bringing an old cigarette pack to the store in order to purchase a new one. For no reason other than that way it could be ensured that the pack would be recycled. Some smokers may care about the environment, a lot, but I have dug hundreds of cigarette packs out of the trash (at my very progressive small liberal arts college), removed the plastic, foil and excess tobacco and recycled the paper. There is a huge market for paper and similar to the bottle bill a deposit could even be placed for the returned packs.
I don’t care if you smoke. But can we all at least agree to recycle the packs? Anyone have any comments on this?
Saskboy | 11-Jun-08 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
Natalie, that’s a fair point. I think there are many smokers not recycling their cardboard packages, as you and I have noticed by the litter and garbage we’ve come across. If Limited Buying were to work, there would be a deposit of sorts on a package, just as there is on drink containers now to encourage recycling.