[sdoody]

So if we put this in place today, and somebody who starts smoking tomorrow gets lung cancer in ten years, we tell them "sorry, you started smoking one day too late, so we're going to let you die"? Also there's the fact that you can't prove the cancer came from ciggarettes...non-smokers have been known to get lung cancer too.

Smokers pay far more in taxes than it costs the health care system to treat them, so I have nothing against treating them from a cost point of view. From a prevention point of view, make it inconvenient (while at the same time saving the health of others) by banning smoking in public places, spend some money on education, and raise taxes...what else can they do?

 

[Canuck 36]

So if we put this in place today, and somebody who starts smoking tomorrow gets lung cancer in ten years, we tell them "sorry, you started smoking one day too late, so we're going to let you die"?

Yes.

Ok maybe that's a bit too hardcore, but the way I see it no government has the balls to make cancer sticks illegal, therefore the only way to rid the world of them is through a grandfather clause.

I would like to see some sort of 'smokers card'... (something the federal Liberals can spend $1 billion creating a registry for), where by every time you buy some smokes you present your card, and get your reward. No hassle, no extra fees for the card, no denial of cig, no nothing. Just a card that one has to present to buy. Someone want to start smoking the day after this is introduced? Well you're an idiot. Because what you'll need to do is bum smokes off your friends/parents for the rest of your life because you'll never be entitled to one of those little pieces of plastic. This system also eases and delayes the burden on small business variety store who rely on cig revenue to stay afloat.

 

[boiler2000]

How about if I don't smoke and I get lung cancer from smog? Do I get to kill a driver?

 

[nicetommy2002]

I read a couple years ago that a 20 minute jog during rush hour in downtown NYC causes the same damage to the body as smoking 2 cartons of cigarettes. So you have a point.

Btw, Only 10% of heavy smokers actually develop lung cancer ["Up to 90 percent of all lung cancer patients are smokers, but only 10 percent of heavy smokers develop lung cancer"]. The biggest problem facing smokers is heart disease and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.... oh yes, and death by taxes.

 

[sk8rboiiii]

spend some money on education

Since you brought this up Id like to ask, why? Does anyone clearly not know that smoking is bad for them? I have never heard anyone gasp and say "Smoking is bad? Oh my God why havent they told me?"

I think too much has and is being spent on "education". Thirty years ago people didnt know smoking was bad for them, but today? I dont care how old you are, if someone is so ignorant as not to know that smoking is bad (from teachers, parents, the grape vine, etc.) by now then I doubt wasting further taxpayer money is going to help.


One thing that should be looked at is the "cool" factor that gets so many kids addicted. As long as you dont have an answer to that, you wont put out smoking.

 

[Canuck 36]

Education is never a bad idea. People may know what the harmful effects are, but they may have misconceptions regarding their ability to quit, and women especially need to see that having a cig instead of a snack is not the way for a younger, skinner, more beautiful you.

 

[sdoody]

Exactly...education doesn't always mean more 'smoking is bad for you' type lectures; a lot of the ads you see (for example the anti-pot ads) focus on the social hazards (ie smoking pot, driving, and killing a kid, or smoking pot and becoming an ambitionless loser)...they specifically focus on the harm these things can do to your life, as opposed to just your health.

 

[sk8rboiiii]

Exactly...education doesn't always mean more 'smoking is bad for you' type lectures; a lot of the ads you see (for example the anti-pot ads) focus on the social hazards (ie smoking pot, driving, and killing a kid, or smoking pot and becoming an ambitionless loser)...they specifically focus on the harm these things can do to your life, as opposed to just your health.

So the government should promote stereotypes to get people to stop smoking (most of which are not true)?

 

[sdoody]

The fact that smoking pot impairs your ability to drive a car isn't a stereotype, it's documented fact. And those were just examples I happened to remember off the top of my head from what I've seen...if the government ran ads about smoking they have plenty of negative things to talk about without resorting to 'stereotypes'.

 

[sk8rboiiii]

but you also said smoking pot and becoming an ambitionless loser, thats a stereotype. I wouldnt want my tax money going to promote stereotypes.

 

[SD2]

Pot and cigarette smoking are very different issues...most anti-cigarette commercials I've seen by the government are pretty good. Bottom line, it's a deadly habit and even more harmful to the people you do it around. Tax away!