Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
hardcore_gamer

How long until people stop hating smokers and drinkers?

Recommended Posts

hardcore_gamer said:

Sugar is also bad for you. So is fat.

So is water.

The difference is that water, sugar, and fat are fundamental parts of the human body and, despite what some fad diets might claim, the latter two are required nutrients. Nicotine isn't.

hardcore_gamer said:

And yet there is no special fat tax, and the sugar tax in my country was actually abolished recently on the bases that it's other peoples concern what you eat. THIS WAS SAID BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE ALCOHOL AND SMOKES TAX!!!

Unless you're literally shitting in other people's mouths, that would be because the aftereffects of consuming sugar and fat have absolutely no impact on the people around you.

hardcore_gamer said:

If you tax something so much that people buy less of it then you just make less money of it. This means that even if the state may not end up spending as much money on healthcare costs it won't matter because they will also make less money of booze/smokes.

With less people buying cigarettes and alchohol comes less drunk driving accidents and less cases of lung and throat cancer. So while they might get less money for healthcare, they also have to spend less money on healthcare. And property damage, since less people would drive into buildings.

hardcore_gamer said:

A bar is not a vital public service.

I take it you've never been to Britland, then?

hardcore_gamer said:

If you can tell a bar owner to not allow smoking just because you don't want to be around it, then why not also tell people they can't smoke in their own homes in case you are visiting?

To be honest, especially if you have health issues if a friend won't stop doing it when you're around then it's a pretty big sign they don't have enough concern for you as a human being.

hardcore_gamer said:

But using this argument when you are located on another individual's property just makes you sound like self-entitled pieces of shit.

I would think arguing for being able to release lethal toxins that can trigger immediate lethal breathing problems in someone else's property is more self-entitled.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

Sugar is also bad for you. So is fat.

Both sugar and fat are vital nutrients that all of our bodies need. They can be unhealthy only if the person eats either too little or too much of them. This is clearly not the exact same case like with alcohol and cigarettes, so your comparison is strange.

EDIT: ninjaed.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

1. Sugar is also bad for you. So is fat. And yet there is no special fat tax, and the sugar tax in my country was actually abolished recently on the bases that it's other peoples concern what you eat. THIS WAS SAID BY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT THE ALCOHOL AND SMOKES TAX!!!

Sorry, I should also be complaining about the cancer-causing fumes that people who eat excessive sugar put off too. How inconsistent of me.

In addition, the nanny leftists who defend super high taxes on these things also fail at economics. If you tax something so much that people buy less of it then you just make less money of it. This means that even if the state may not end up spending as much money on healthcare costs it won't matter because they will also make less money of booze/smokes. Nanny leftists know this even if they pretend they don't, so their main goal is merely to tell others what to do.

I think you're the one who needs an economics lesson. People are addicted to smoking. That means they'll pay a fuckload of money for it pretty much no matter what the price is, because they need their fix. That's something called an inelastic good. And even if they did buy less of the product, we'd still be making more money in taxes than if we didn't tax them at all, and it would keep healthcare costs down for anybody who IS deterred, so this is an idiotic argument.

Share this post


Link to post

Just stop providing state-funded healthcare. Problem solved. Whoever wants to fuck his body up, is free to do it. As he is completely free to pay for his own health expenses, if he can afford them. No? Well, then drink & smoke to forget and dull your pain, duh! It worked just fine up to the 20th century, and nations thrived just fine.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

In addition, the nanny leftists who defend super high taxes on these things also fail at economics. If you tax something so much that people buy less of it then you just make less money of it. This means that even if the state may not end up spending as much money on healthcare costs it won't matter because they will also make less money of booze/smokes. Nanny leftists know this even if they pretend they don't, so their main goal is merely to tell others what to do.

I really hope you had a victory laugh after delivering this mercilessly logical checkmate to us.

Share this post


Link to post
dew said:

I really hope you had a victory laugh after delivering this mercilessly logical checkmate to us.


Actually, a few years ago I had read about a similar argument to hardcore_gamer's (overtaxing tobacco would reduce overall profits) being used in the Hungarian parliament. In addition, it was claimed that improved health would mean a heavier toll on the country's pension funds, as people would live longer.

That's why I'm really looking forward to the day when compulsory/state pension and healthcare funds are dissolved, and everything turns 100% private and free-market. Whoever wants a pension fund, should be free to start saving IF and AS MUCH as he wants, without any compulsory levies on his salary. If someone wants healthcare for himself he should also be free to save without part of his paycheck being withheld for something that he may never have (or live) to use it/need it.

Of course, some fair solution would be required for the amounts of money already poured in such funds. If not immediately refundable, they should at least be tax-deductible or exchangeable with long-term bonds. But personally I'd prefer a refund in cold, hard cash that I can use how I please NOW.

Share this post


Link to post

hardcore_gamer's dumb ideas about politics, episode #431,531.

hardcore_gamer said:

If you tax something so much that people buy less of it then you just make less money of it.

You realise that's the point right?

Either people buy less of it and the public health cost goes down, or people continue to buy the same amount and you make the money from taxes you need to pay the burden on public health. It's a win-win.

Or another way of putting it is that it's about being fiscally responsible.

Share this post


Link to post
fraggle said:

or people continue to buy the same amount and you make the money from taxes you need to pay the burden on public health. It's a win-win.


What about jurisdictions which lack a publicly-funded health system though? At least in the minds of most Europeans, the USA is just that (at least pro-Obamacare). Many developing countries also have no public health and/or pension systems in place, or if they do, they are underfunded, and whoever can afford it turns to the private sector anyway.

I expect that with the economic crisis, more and more countries will eventually start turning (or reverting) to this model, while public-anything will eventually die out.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a thread to defend hipsters who think smoking and binge drinking is still ok to do. Grow up already.

Share this post


Link to post
VGames said:

This is a thread to defend hipsters who think smoking and binge drinking is still ok to do. Grow up already.

I fucking love smoking and drinking. I'm going to do more of it because it annoys moralist little pissants like yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

Stop buying cigarettes and do your part to save the dog fighting scene. Michael Vicks have special places in heavens for you. Hell is underrated, but at least it has tits.

Share this post


Link to post
Clonehunter said:

Stop buying cigarettes and do your part to save the dog fighting scene. Michael Vicks have special places in heavens for you. Hell is underrated, but at least it has tits.


Lol gggmork, is that you?

Share this post


Link to post
Phml said:

Smokers and drinkers cost tax money (cancer medical expenses), put other people at risk (road accidents, second-hand smoke). All for the sake of their personal pleasure. Let me grab my violin for you, might take a while because it's really tiny.

I can't speak fro Europe, but what about obesity? I think people stuffing shit in their mouths nonstop is putting just as big of a burden of socialized medical care. But how do you shame people into not being fat pieces of shit? Are you suggesting fat shaming?

Maes said:

Just stop providing state-funded healthcare. Problem solved. Whoever wants to fuck his body up, is free to do it. As he is completely free to pay for his own health expenses, if he can afford them. No? Well, then drink & smoke to forget and dull your pain, duh! It worked just fine up to the 20th century, and nations thrived just fine.

I guess it weeds out the weak but maybe someone from Grease would be slightly biased on anything socialized.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

...But using this argument when you are located on another individual's property just makes you sound like self-entitled pieces of shit. A bar is not a vital public service. Nobody owes you the right to go to a bar and not be around smoke.

What, so every smoker has the right to go anywhere they like and make it smell instead? If you want to go to a bar as a non-smoker you just have to suck it up (literally) because those places are guaranteed to smell of smoke because the minority that smoke feel their freedoms are infringed?

Of course a non-smoker should be able to go somewhere, a place open to the public, and not be forced to smell of the waste output of another person's habit (a potentially harmful waste product at that). Smoking is actually the weird, non-natural thing that imposes on others that is being done here. Just turning up, socialising and breathing non-smoky air is the more natural state of affairs.

I'd suggest that the self-entitlement is not with the non-smokers but with the people who say: "I have the right to smoke wherever I want and screw those guys who don't like it, they'll just have to smell my smoke or be somewhere else". That would be fine if smoking didn't have an impact on others, but it does.

What I've noticed in Scotland, comparing times both before and after the public smoking ban, is that most smokers don't mind it at all. Most people (smokers and non-smokers) speak positively of places smelling better* and being able to come home not stinking of smoke. We got the smoking ban in Scotland before they did in England and, after getting used to it in Scotland, it was amazing how much the English pubs stank when I visited them. It's also worth pointing out that, particularly in England, many pubs are quite child-friendly places. My kids were pretty young at the time and my daughter still talks about how much the English pubs smelled when we were there one year.

Many smokers I know actually enjoy the social groupings of the shared going outside for a cig. It's sometimes like a little shared smokers club outside the main venue. Although I'm not a smoker, a lot of my friends are and I often go outside with them too. We stand around, they smoke, we all have a laugh, we go back inside, the evening continues. When I get home I have a shower and I don't get that stale tobacco smell rising from my hair when I do and my clothes in the wash bin don't stink up the room either.

*heh, when I say "smelling better" I did notice as the ban came into effect and the lingering smell of smoke in pubs and clubs faded, a lot of those places didn't smell very nice. Stale beer in the carpet and sweaty bodies had been masked by the pungent smell of tobacco smoke. It's not as bad now though. Perhaps the smoking ban forced pub/club owners to clean up better and decorate more often?

Share this post


Link to post
Enjay said:

What, so every smoker has the right to go anywhere they like and make it smell instead? If you want to go to a bar as a non-smoker you just have to suck it up (literally) because those places are guaranteed to smell of smoke because the minority that smoke feel their freedoms are infringed?

Shouldn't it be up to the property owner? Or is second hand smoke in general considered a health violation in the same vein as unrefrigerated foods and slippery floors.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

I guess it weeds out the weak but maybe someone from Grease would be slightly biased on anything socialized.

I suspect Sandy. Bitch probably secretly votes Republican but plays cool among friends.

Share this post


Link to post

Man... ever since science discovered things like global warming, infectious disease, ozone depletion, and ecological footprint, the an-caps and voluntaryists have been bellyaching NON-STOP about losing their freedom to make the world a shittier place for the sake of their immediate gratification.

I wish they would just nut up already and start living out their fantasies of uncompromising autonomy on a deserted island somewhere. They want it. I want it FOR them. Let's make it happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Technician said:

Shouldn't it be up to the property owner? Or is second hand smoke in general considered a health violation in the same vein as unrefrigerated foods and slippery floors.

I think that was one of the major points made at the time of the legislation and it's one that I certainly have sympathy with. I can certainly understand a group of people saying "we have a private club, all the staff smoke, all the members smoke, we want to smoke in the club."

However, I think the "health violation" thing was certainly part of the counter argument and the fact that the underlying argument was all about health standards in general. Also, the ban was part of the legislation that included the workplace. Pubs/clubs etc are workplaces and tend to have employees. So the ban was argued for from that side as well.

I also saw an argument at the time that said the ban would quickly become ineffective if one pub welcomed smokers and so all the smokers went there and then other pubs would follow suit while the non smokers who'd always just put up with the situation would continue doing just that. Part of the point of the legislation was to try and change attitudes. I think it probably did and I have to say that I noticed smokers becoming far more considerate with their smoking. Beforehand, it was far from unknown for smokers to simply light up in someone else's house without even asking. Of course many people would be more polite and ask "do you mind if I smoke". I also know that a number of non-smokers would feel uncomfortable about telling their guests "actually, yes, I do". Nowadays, I'd suggest that the default is "I'm just nipping outside for a smoke". No one bats an eyelid and often the smoker doesn't go out alone: commonly another smoker says "I'll come with you" or even a non-smoker will.

What was quite amusing to me is that Ireland - stereotypically a smoking, drinking culture - brought in a ban and, from what I saw, it seemed to be introduced relatively easily. Shortly afterwards, Scotland brought in its ban - again, another stereotypically smoking and drinking culture - and there wasn't massive amounts of resistance. Then, in England, with its family friendly pubs and (at least cursorily) better public health image, the debate seemed to rattle on and on and on with all sorts of odd and petty objections coming up despite the fact that two of its nearest neighbours had already brought in legislation in less likely environments and demonstrated that it could be done relatively painlessly. Of course, that could just be how it appeared through the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Bucket said:

Man... ever since science discovered things like global warming, infectious disease, ozone depletion, and ecological footprint, the an-caps and voluntaryists have been bellyaching NON-STOP about losing their freedom to make the world a shittier place for the sake of their immediate gratification.

I wish they would just nut up already and start living out their fantasies of uncompromising autonomy on a deserted island somewhere. They want it. I want it FOR them. Let's make it happen.


This is not entirely in tune with what you said but your comment reminded me of...

Share this post


Link to post

Are you suggesting fat shaming?


Shame the fatties, shame the drunks, shame the nicotine addicts. Shame us all for playing video games. A little bit of self-reflection never hurt anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

I fucking love smoking and drinking. I'm going to do more of it because it annoys moralist little pissants like yourself.


Yeah that'll show me. LOL

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

I fucking love smoking and drinking. I'm going to do more of it because it annoys moralist little pissants like yourself.


You dying faster doesn't concern me though. Again, have fun paying for my roads.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

I fucking love smoking and drinking. I'm going to do more of it because it annoys moralist little pissants like yourself.


Dude u killing yourself doesn't annoy me at all. It saddens me. Because u can't find anything better in your life to fill that empty space. Instead of finding something worthwhile in your life you turn to addiction. Everybody that I have ever met that acts and talks just like u about this subject are completely lost in their lives and haven't got a clue what real happiness is all about. They're usually divorced, never married, got child support to deal with, have no spiritual direction whatsoever, and have that ignorant mentality all together. Seriously this thread is for the justification of the clueless. Grow up. Simple as that. I don't have a problem with a drink here or there. I love The Silver Bullet. But anything in excess is wrong. U know it. Quit acting like a child about it. Look in the mirror and grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
VGames said:

Shakespeare.

such eloquence. I'm guessing your dad got drunk on cheap cider before creeping into your bedroom to fuck you.

It's truly an inspiring story. I will mend my wicked ways immediately. You have saved a life this day, my son; be proud of yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

such eloquence. I'm guessing your dad got drunk on cheap cider before creeping into your bedroom to fuck you.

It's truly an inspiring story. I will mend my wicked ways immediately. You have saved a life this day, my son; be proud of yourself.


Did that actually make u feel witty? Poorly executed.

Share this post


Link to post
hardcore_gamer said:

2. "Smokers don't have the right to make me smell or make me be around smoke."

I'll grant them the right, if in exchange they'll stop complaining when sprayed with stale urine.

Share this post


Link to post
darknation said:

I fucking love smoking and drinking. I'm going to do more of it because it annoys moralist little pissants like yourself.

It's not morality, just self-serving convenience. We all know that if you die of lung cancer or kidney disruption, we won't get any more darknation posts and we'll all be sadder and dumber Doomworld members.

hardcore_gamer said:

A bar is not a vital public service.

It's a public service. It doesn't need to be vital. It often involves necessity, though. Suppose you are summoned to a social meeting at a bar and the bar was chosen by the meeting organizers. If smoking is allowed, you'll be forced to bear it because you had to go to the meeting.

In the end, private establishments comply with anti-smoking laws and it's convenient for them. The more smoking is recognized as harmful, the more profitable it gets to tell the smokers to stop or leave than to let them smoke and drive away all the people who dislike smoking. Not to mention any space disruptions caused by having to split your establishment into smoker and nonsmoker areas. Eventually, the science of understanding health problems dooms and defeats your smoker demands, economically.

Nobody owes you the right to go to a bar and not be around smoke.

With laws that ban public smoking, that is exactly what the law, the authorities and the bar owner owe you.

If you can tell a bar owner to not allow smoking just because you don't want to be around it, then why not also tell people they can't smoke in their own homes in case you are visiting?

The more public an establishment, the less private it is. A bar open to the public and someone's private house evidently don't fall in the same category!

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×