BF2S Forums do you smoke?

nlsme1 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

So, the money that goes to smoking cessation comes from where then. I guess that cancer research center is just "popping up" in Buffalo. And as far as I am aware, the wages of nurses are not paid for by the state.

I'm guessing everywhere.

I wouldn't mind the taxes if they went to, say, subsidizing Chantix or copies of "the Easy Way to Quit Smoking."

That is what smoking cessation is. Wich is where the money is going. Among other things, like a cancer research center.

And you believe politicians? tsk tsk.

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Except he's wrong. The taxes go directly into New York State's general fund. The increases he is talking about come out of the general fund to pay for the increase in union nurses wages. Care won't improve, only wages in a time when millions of people are out of work.

New York State is entirely beholden to the teachers and nurses unions. It is why we are so deep in debt and why they will never cut spending here. This state is fucked up beyond repair and I can't wait to ditch it and take my future earnings (and tax receipts) elsewhere.

So, the money that goes to smoking cessation comes from where then. I guess that cancer research center is just "popping up" in Buffalo. And as far as I am aware, the wages of nurses are not paid for by the state.

I'm guessing everywhere.

I wouldn't mind the taxes if they went to, say, subsidizing Chantix or copies of "the Easy Way to Quit Smoking."

http://www.roswellpark.org/media/news/d … -marketing

That is probably where at least some of the money is going.  I don't know of any other huge cancer research institutes in Buffalo.

SenorToenails wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

So, the money that goes to smoking cessation comes from where then. I guess that cancer research center is just "popping up" in Buffalo. And as far as I am aware, the wages of nurses are not paid for by the state.

I'm guessing everywhere.

I wouldn't mind the taxes if they went to, say, subsidizing Chantix or copies of "the Easy Way to Quit Smoking."

http://www.roswellpark.org/media/news/d … -marketing

That is probably where at least some of the money is going.  I don't know of any other huge cancer research institutes in Buffalo.

lol what a fucking farce

if you're stupid enough to think "oh it's light, it won't give me cancer"...

Cybargs wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

I'm guessing everywhere.

I wouldn't mind the taxes if they went to, say, subsidizing Chantix or copies of "the Easy Way to Quit Smoking."

That is what smoking cessation is. Wich is where the money is going. Among other things, like a cancer research center.

And you believe politicians? tsk tsk.

I beleive the fact that smoking cessation programs are heavily funded by the state. I beleive that hospitals get grants all the time from the government. I beleive a state cancer center is heavily funded by the state. I also beleive that if the state did not recieve taxes, they would not be able to fund these things. It does not matter if the revenue goes into a "general" fund. The money for these things comes right back out of that same "general" fund.

nlsme1 wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

That is what smoking cessation is. Wich is where the money is going. Among other things, like a cancer research center.

And you believe politicians? tsk tsk.

I beleive the fact that smoking cessation programs are heavily funded by the state. I beleive that hospitals get grants all the time from the government. I beleive a state cancer center is heavily funded by the state. I also beleive that if the state did not recieve taxes, they would not be able to fund these things. It does not matter if the revenue goes into a "general" fund. The money for these things comes right back out of that same "general" fund.

Well, the pitfall of having it go into a general fund is that the money isn't always used for what it was intended for after awhile.  (As I understand it) NY changed its bottle deposit laws to not only increase the variety of bottles that deposit is collected on, but also to put the funds into the state general fund instead of into an environmental fund, which is how it was before.  Since the bottle deposit was a litter prevention mechanism anyway, it made sense to dedicate the funds from unclaimed deposit to cleaning up the environment.  Now that it's changed, maybe not all the funds are being allocated as they ought to be.  Yes, it could possibly be fine going into the general fund and then going back out how it's supposed to be used...but in NY, that is highly unlikely.

nlsme1 wrote:

Hurricane2k9 wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

So, the money that goes to smoking cessation comes from where then. I guess that cancer research center is just "popping up" in Buffalo. And as far as I am aware, the wages of nurses are not paid for by the state.

I'm guessing everywhere.

I wouldn't mind the taxes if they went to, say, subsidizing Chantix or copies of "the Easy Way to Quit Smoking."

That is what smoking cessation is. Wich is where the money is going. Among other things, like a cancer research center.

BULL FUCKING SHIT IT IS! You think giving out the patch to the 20,000 or so people that will quit when taxes are increased costs $450 million!?!?? Are you a total moron or do you just believe whatever comes out of Albany as justification for their rape? Jesus fucking christ man, I've never met anyone anywhere in the world, whether on the internet or in person, as dense as you are.

JohnG@lt wrote:

lowing wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

It gets very very very old, especially when I get singled out for a tax increase and all the anti-smoking nazis cream their pants.

you are not singled out for a tax increase, ANYONE that buys tobacco products pays a high tax for them.

Individual decisions should not be influenced by government taxation.

It isn't, it is the price you pay for being an obnoxious inconsiderate asshole to all those around you that do not want to breathe YOUR cigarette smoke. You pay a higher tax for them, and you are relegated to a red square in the back lot of a building, and I applaud it.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Objective: To measure the relation between environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, and long term mortality from tobacco related disease.

Design: Prospective cohort study covering 39 years.

Conclusions: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

Beating up a person every day for 20 years may have nothing to do how long he lives.

Seriously though, that is a nice study and all but why it's so concerned about heart and lungs? What about skin, veins, stomach, liver, colon (whole digestive system generally), brains, sperm, etc.? It's not worthy of a comment if your body is going to get filled with average 2000 - 4000 chemical compounds making it weaker in basically every possible way?

Reading some random articles and following some random news stories about lethality of tobacco makes me laugh every so often. Because we don't all get a hear disease or die of lung cancer doesn't mean second hand smoking isn't as bad as it seems. Second hand smoking is simply very, very bad for your body, especially for kids.

I find it funny that we're not allowed to use some of the toxics that tobacco contains anywhere in the world but it's all OK when you smoke and blow it everywhere so we can all enjoy of it. I would like to have some more of that hydrogen cyanide on my face, please...

nlsme1 wrote:

I already pointed out your hypocrisy, and you dismissed it.

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Individual decisions should not be influenced by government taxation.

Being one that loves oil so much, how can you say this, while knowing the GOVERNMENT is the main reason our gas is half the cost as the rest of the world?

I dismissed it because it is completely irrelevant and false. The price of gas in places like Europe is much higher because they tax it to death in order to get people to ride mass transit systems. European governments limit the options of their populace via taxation in order to get them to choose the option that the government wants them to take. Instead of outright saying 'No, you can't own a car, you must take the bus' they use coercion instead. The end result is a populace with options limited not by the market, but by its government.

In this country, thankfully, we don't have that problem. Gasoline is cheap and plentiful yet millions of people still choose to take mass transportation on a daily basis. I am grateful that I live in a country that trusts me to make the decision that is best for me on my own.

American liberals need to dump their Euro envy or move overseas.

The oil industry in America is heavily subsidized. They receive BILLIONS in tax breaks, they also receive BILLIONS more worth of protection. There is a hidden cost to our cheap gas. It is hidden because our government likes us to have cheap oil. So yeah, you are coerced into buying oil, just as they are trying to coerce you to quit smoking. Like I said earlier, it just so happens they want opposite results. Thanks for pointing out how Europe does it. This is America though. Still shows you are a hypocrite.

nlsme1 wrote:

The oil industry in America is heavily subsidized. They receive BILLIONS in tax breaks, they also receive BILLIONS more worth of protection. There is a hidden cost to our cheap gas. It is hidden because our government likes us to have cheap oil. So yeah, you are coerced into buying oil, just as they are trying to coerce you to quit smoking. Like I said earlier, it just so happens they want opposite results. Thanks for pointing out how Europe does it. This is America though. Still shows you are a hypocrite.

Same goes for green energy companies. But oh wait coz they're "green" it's ok.

Read energy bill of 2005. The tax breaks are for companies in ALL energy sectors. Lower the taxes, you lower the prices of gas which was what EVERYONE was bitching about.

As galt said, any tax breaks for any industry just shifts the market in a very very bad way.

steelie34 wrote:

lowing wrote:

The designated smoking areas are not discriminatory toward smokers, they are considerate toward non-smokers, allowing smokers to kill them selves at their leisure without dragging anyone else down with them.

not necessarily... what about sporting events like baseball games, where smokers have to leave their seats they paid for like everyone else, and go to a special little area out of the view of the game to smoke?  you don't think that's discriminatory?  why not have smoking seating sections at ballparks? 

(i'm not really against it, i'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion)

If it is private property, it is the owner's decision whether they feel smoking should be allowed or not. I believe smokers would still feel singled out if they had to sit in a smoking only section.