Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Different Smokes for Different Folks

1

exactly. tax smokers to the hilt, use the money to fund anti smoking and smoking health costs, and the problem then becomes a smaller and smaller one.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | October 22, 2007 3:53 PM
2

OR we could just ban their use EVERYWHERE!!!

Posted by monkey | October 22, 2007 4:17 PM
3

Or we could get rid of the agricultural and export subsidies for tobacco instead.

But that would probably work.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 22, 2007 4:28 PM
4

Isn't your suggestion what we're already doing?

Posted by lorax | October 22, 2007 4:35 PM
5

All the cancer-causing tar with none of the buzz-inducing nicotine!

Yeah, that'll work. We could have non-bars where kids can drink non-alcohol beer and smoke nicotine-free cigarettes, while trying to pick up members of the opposite sex with chemically-depressed libidos.

Posted by safe everything | October 22, 2007 4:35 PM
6

Is anybody else put off by Slog writer's constant, unecessary overuse of bold type? Any other designers/typographers cringing? Come on, you guys win design awards, clean up your HTML!

Posted by gillsans | October 22, 2007 4:49 PM
7

Pretty much, lorax, though I think we should tax cigarettes more.

gillsans, I usually don't bold very much text, but I did in this post. I'll strive for more design awards. Just for you.

Posted by Dominic Holden | October 22, 2007 4:55 PM
8

That's all I ask.

Posted by gillsans | October 22, 2007 4:58 PM
9

You know, when Canada doubled the tobacco tax, the number of young smokers was cut more than fourfold.

I have no sympathy for the remaining smokers.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 22, 2007 5:50 PM
10

bellevue, monkey and will are just haterz-of-logic-and-freedom and are against everything about america and her freedomz...they should be ignored...so it is written

Posted by haterz-of-logic-and-freedom, hack hack wheeze wheeze... | October 22, 2007 5:58 PM
11

Yeah, that's a dumb idea.

Hoooowever, it would be great to provide reduced-nicotine cigs for people trying to quit, with multiple decreasing doses. Wean themselves off of the nicotine first, deal with the tactile part of the habit later.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | October 22, 2007 5:59 PM
12

@10

Although I'm against the constant additions to smoking bans, I do not believe it is a 'freedom' to smoke wherever you want.

In your own house? Yes. In your own car? Yes.

Outside on the sidewalk? Yes.

Outside standing in front of a door? If it's raining I'll understand, but you don't need to be at the door if you don't have to be.

Your home? Depends on if you own your home. Condos: yes. Houses: yes. Townhouses: are you renting? No. Do you own? Yes. Community complex? What are the rules?

Inside restaurants? I never saw anything wrong with smoking sections, but that should be the restaurants decision. Not the states decision. Don't like it? Go somewhere else, bitch.

Inside a bar? See above.

Calling for a full ban on smoking in bars and restaurants is absurd. The only way you could possibly side with that is if you're a closed-minded and selfish non-smoker. Yeah, we know you don't like smoking. That isn't our problem if the bar/restaurant allows it. That's your problem. Don't like it? Deal. You're an adult. So act like it and make your own fucking decisions.

Saying that smoking should be banned from all public places, especially indoor, because you don't like smoking because it kills (and stinks) is no different than the saying homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry because you think it's an abomination in the name of God and that it's harming your kids and your family (and the world, of course). It really isn't. You have feet. If you don't like what you see or what's around you, walk the fuck away you lazy ass whiny bitch of a fascist.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 22, 2007 6:17 PM
13

Blah. People are ADDICTED to cigarettes, that's the point. Poor people are the ones who can't afford to try the newest drugs and support groups and expensive nicotine lozenges over and over. Cigarette taxes are the worst kind of regressive tax.

People vary in their addiction to nicotine GREATLY. Even when cigarettes were cheap as dirt and smoking was consider HEALTHY and medicinal (which is was for most of human history), no more than about 70% of the population smoked. Why? Because for some people, smoking is aversive, for some it's relatively neutral, for some it's very addictive, and for some it's incredibly addictive. Almost everyone but that last group quits smoking by the time they reach early adulthood.

Please stop punishing the victims. Just ban cigarettes or help people try to quit, and focus on punishing people with bad behavior that is controllable (car drivers, date rapists, etc).

Posted by jamier | October 22, 2007 6:18 PM
14

No @ #10, I'm just a former smoker who misses the act of smoking but would rather not feel like shit all the time, smell, and die of lung cancer.

Posted by monkey | October 22, 2007 7:52 PM
15

"I'm just a former smoker who misses the act of smoking but would rather not feel like shit all the time, smell, and die of lung cancer."

great for you, brownie points duly awarded...

meanwhile you said:

"OR we could just ban their use EVERYWHERE!!"

sure gotta love freedom like that...

Posted by haterz-of-logic-and-freedom, hack hack wheeze wheeze... | October 22, 2007 8:25 PM
16

Dominic Holden writes: "I’m all for regulating the cigarette market, but when drug regulation becomes so restrictive that the black market is more lucrative for the dealer and more available to the buyer, society incurs the repercussions of prohibition."

Substitute the word marijuana for cigarette in the beginning of the sentence and reread. Just a thought.

Posted by david | October 22, 2007 9:35 PM
17

@ 16

You're right. This is almost the same issue. We could minimize the harm of marijuana and its prohibition if the government regulated and taxed it like tobacco (or, better yet, like alcohol).

However, there is one big difference--tobacco is used by a larger segment of the population and is far more addictive than marijuana. So its prohibition would create a greater black market and the lengths people would go to get it would be more depraved than the most desperate of stoners.

Posted by Dominic Holden | October 22, 2007 10:29 PM
18

Actually Will, when Canada did its huge tax increase on tobacco the grey and black market exploded. There is little evidence that actual smoking declined, but legal purchases of cigarettes sure did.

Thus underscoring one of Dominic's main points: "when drug regulation becomes so restrictive that the black market is more lucrative for the dealer and more available to the buyer, society incurs the repercussions of prohibition."

Thus the key here is to raise taxes just enough that you bring in added revenue, but not enough to drive people underground.

This will be important to remember when we finally regulate marijuana.

Posted by gnossos | October 22, 2007 11:07 PM
19

#15, I didn't say mine wasn't a selfish request. There's a good reason I'm not in charge.

Posted by monkey | October 23, 2007 7:11 AM
20

Mr. Poe @12… a friend and I were debating the smoking ban thing the other day and your post gets at the heart of what our disagreement was. You say that if non-smokers don’t like smoky bars, they should just leave or not go there. Essentially, that the smoker has a right to impact the life of a non-smoker in a public space.

Individuals frequently impact the lives of other individuals in undesirable ways – people talking loudly and annoyingly on their cell phones, neighbors play loud music, Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door and try to convert me, etc. But, there is a spectrum of these negative behaviors in terms of the degree of their impact on others – the more negative the impact, the more likely it is to be considered impolite or illegal. Somewhere on that spectrum, everyone draws a line as to what they think is acceptable behavior (i.e., polite), and a second line regarding what they think should be legal behavior.

Obviously, I don’t have the legal right to punch someone in the face, since the impact on the other person is clearly unacceptable. But, I do have a right to talk on my phone in public because the impact on others is far less – some people consider talking on cell phones totally acceptable, while others consider it impolite (see the whole “Dan hates woman in airport on cell phone” discussion); it only becomes illegal (in many places) when you’re driving and the potential impact on others becomes more dangerous/negative. Neighbors playing loud music is sort of an interesting one, since we do have noise ordinances prohibiting it, but one could just as easily argue “it doesn’t impact you that much, just close your windows, wear earplugs, etc.”

So, the question my friend and I were debating was, where does smoking in bars/restaurants fall on that spectrum? Should it be considered totally acceptable, no different from having a drink in front of others? Impolite, but not illegal? Illegal? Everyone has an opinion as to where the impact smokers have on non-smokers falls on the spectrum. I think the negative impact is sufficient to warrant a ban, my friend does not. But, the heart of our disagreement was about the degree to which one person has the right to negatively impact the life of another person.

Posted by Julie | October 23, 2007 8:22 AM
21

Like I said, it should be the owners decision. Not the states.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 23, 2007 8:47 AM
22

If the government believes that smoking does not have a significant impact on others, then sure, it should be up to the owner. But, if the government believes that smoking has enough of a negative impact (either to employees or patrons), then the owner should not get to decide to allow it.

The problem arises because it is not exactly clear cut the impact that smoking has, so judgement has to be applied (by the state, in this case).

Posted by Julie | October 23, 2007 10:02 AM
23

WTF @21? You were just protesting against the right-of-center candidate Sen Clinton just the other day?

Take your states rights and go enlist.

Coward.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 23, 2007 10:02 AM
24

I'm all for applying the tobacco model to cannabis, but I'm still having trouble understanding the details. For example: How can we effectively tax the product, the way we do with cigarettes, when bootlegging is both simple and highly profitable? Should we discourage individuals from growing their own? Things like that.

Posted by Greg | October 23, 2007 10:46 AM
25

@23

Will in Seattle, you make absolutely no sense. You are a fucking idiot.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 23, 2007 10:57 AM
26

Mr. Poe @25... we agree on that at least.

Posted by Julie | October 23, 2007 11:40 AM
27

Word.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 23, 2007 3:47 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).