Hmmm… Tax the CHURCH?
Yes, by removing their tax exempt status. That applies to each and every church, especially the Scientologists.
You know what’s missing from this argument so far? If the OPs idea would even work.
It’s obvious there hits a point where the law is so onerous that many just won’t follow it. Once it hits that point, then great amounts of effort would be needed to police the law. Extreme examples are the prohibition and war on drug. However there are less extreme examples. For example, if policing is only done haphazardly, it ends up that everyone ignores the law and just pays the fine the few times they’re caught. Congrats, you’ve just made a law as effective as the 65 MPH speed limit.
Currently there’s a trade off. Smokers are allowed to smoke, outside. For most that’s not too much of an issue. They’re only in a restaurant for an hour or so. They know they can light up once they leave. People don’t want to be eating their dinner with smoke floating around. Fair enough. However, expecting them to not smoke from the moment they leave their house until they get home? Not so reasonable. Many will start ignoring the law. And once you’ve gone so far that many start ignoring the law, they’ll ignore it everywhere.
The current concessions smokers give will disappear. Step outside to light up? Fuck that, just sneak off to the bathroom. No ashtrays because I’m not supposed to smoke here? Fuck that, just toss it to the ground (which, incidentally, explains why cigarette butts around buildings are a lot more common than they used to be). Respect someone who asks me to not smoke by them? Fuck that, by endorsing a prohibition they’ve shown they don’t respect me so I ain’t respecting them.
This is strictly anecdotal evidence, but one campus of my college has a smoking area that is literally a quarter mile away. That campus also has a shit ton of cigarette butts and a semi-permanent smoke haze around every single door that isn’t in prominent view. Another campus of the same college has a smoking area about 20 feet from the door. Oddly, that campus doesn’t have the same litter problem. Strange how that works out, isn’t it?
Basically, if you want to be a sanctimonious prick who pushes laws that won’t work and may actually make things worse, then ban smoking outdoors. If you want to actually limit smoking in non-smoking areas, endorse reasonable limits that still allow a smoker to smoke without so much hassle they’ll just go ‘fuck that’.
Every country? That is really sad. Sin taxes are an abomination; legislation of subjective morality, a cowardly half-step when something is too popular to outlaw. They have no place in modern society.
I would suggest that modern society doesn’t need smokers, drinkers and drug users.
At least not the ones who cause problems for others. You can take that to mean everything from personal annoyance to the drain on the healthcare system, the courts, police, boozed-up wife battering and everything in between.
The lack of respect is nothing new. It’s a smokers’ fable that they were a wonderfully polite breed in the past, all you had to do if bothered by smoke was ask them to put out their cigarettes, etc. Similarly it’s a myth that cigarette butt litter is something new; it’s been a problem for a long, long time. I constantly see smokers tapping their cigarettes out their car windows (the cigarette butt inevitably follows), and there is no prohibition on smoking in cars that “forces” them to do this. Many (or most) just don’t give a damn, and never did. They haven’t suddenly become antisocial because of laws against indoor smoking.
One good thing about piles of butts outside a building is that it’s more concentrated litter and easier to clean up than scattered crap all over the place.
By the way, my state (Ohio) passed an anti-indoor smoking law a couple of years ago, amid the usual warnings from pro-smoking forces and business lobbyists about mass closings of restaurants and bars that were sure to ensue.
Funny, the collapse has not occurred. The businesses (and smokers) have adapted and there’s been no wave of closings despite the down economy.
Smokers need not worry about passage of laws against smoking “on the street”. If anything, there might be a few more ordinances against smoking in venues like stadiums where air circulation is poor, and more hoopla in isolated cases where parents puff away at home, their kids suffer from asthma or other lung complications, and there are moves to sanction Mom and Dad as a result.
The real worry for smokers should be that they’re paying a ton (as a result of a dubious taxation policy, I agree) for a habit that screws up one’s heart and lungs (among other organs) and causes cancer. I just signed off on another small cell carcinoma of the lung today (a type of malignancy heavily linked to smoking). The cure rate for small cell carcinoma is extremely low.
Actually, I would submit that the trend is exactly the opposite of what you suppose.
As the number of smokers continues to decrease, I fully expect the laws restricting smoking to get increasingly strict.
When I was a child, many more people smoked. Smoking was very common in office buildings, in restaurants, even on airplanes. As the number of smokers decreased, there has been a corresponding political willingness to further restrict smoking. There have even been some laws passed restricting smoking in private homes and automobiles if children are present.
The penalties for smoking in prohibited areas has gotten increasingly strict as well. Try sneaking a smoke in an airplane lavatory sometime if you don’t believe me.
I fully expect smoking restrictions to get increasingly restrictive as time goes on. I would not be at all surprised if outdoor smoking in certain areas (such as public streets) was ultimately prohibited. It could easily end up being something allowed only in the privacy of one’s own home (assuming no children are present) or on one’s own private property, or in certain designated public areas.
Outdoor smoking is already restricted in some places, like amusement parks for example. Even though you are outside, you have restrict your smoking to certain designated areas.
And if the majority of the public doesn’t smoke, they really don’t care how onerous the smokers find these restrictions to be. It’s very easy to police even very restrictive laws if there are only a few people breaking the law.
While smokers may feel that their right to smoke in public is being infringed, I see these laws as protecting my right not to breathe in their second-hand smoke.
As an ex smoker, I agree fully. If the awful stench of life is too much for the Smoke Na#is, they can stay at home. In short, deal with it.
Like the tagline on this page (it’s taking longer than we thought) it’s taking longer for the smoker poulation to subside than we thought.
I suppose that’s largely because like Ron White says: “You can’t fix stupid.”
What is stupid are people getting after other people for doing unhealthy things.
How well will you stand up to scrutiny if I deem various things you do as unhealthy? Had any fast food lately? Any alcoholic drinks? Coffee? Live in a city where there is higher pollution? Participate in any sports that could injure you? Sexually active?
The list could be a long one.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Says the person who crosshatches “Nazi”.
False comparison since none of those other things injures other people. Smoking is more like shooting a gun into the air in a city in celebration; something that is illegal, since you can’t tell where the bullets will come down.
You noted that smoking killed your family members suggesting an impact upon you. If a family member of mine does something that causes them harm then one could say it affects me. It matters little if they died skydiving or smoking. Dead is dead.
And please cite that second-hand smoke while walking down the street is a health hazard to you. I live in Chicago and have had city buses belch great gouts of exhaust right next to me. Yeah, the buses serve a purpose but I am willing to bet just one bus belch is worth a year of having a puff of smoke a day from a smoker waft your way outside.
So, pony up the cite for how cigarette smoke outside is a major source of health problems or quit it with that bogus comparison.
And like being an “ex-smoker” lends credence to an opinion that the now very large majority of the population should just “deal with it.”
“Deal with” with a plague perpetrated on an unwitting public solely for the sake of corporate profits? “Deal with” a scourge responsible for thousands of deaths every year while simultaneously draining precious health care resources?
Oh we’re dealing with it alright. Rest assured on that.
Concerning Whack a mole’s comparison to other potentially unhealthy activites, sorry, apples to oranges going that route, bud. Moderate consumption of alcohol and caffeine arguably offer health benefits. Fast food mabey, but if you’re starving it’ll keep you alive. I don’t eat it, but that’s a personal choice not directly affecting any other individual one way or the other whether I eat it or not.
One puff on a cigarette however cannot be shown to be anything but rigorously stupid from a personal health perspective and pisses off other people if you do it in their proximity.
Pretty indefensible, IMHO.
As far as I am concerned, the far bigger plague is the malcontents and control freaks who have some deranged idea that just because they (and I include both you and Der Trihs in this) don’t like something, they have the right to demand that all others be required by law, to stop doing it. How about you and “your type” learn to mind your own business. Plenty of people piss me off. I keep my mouth shut about it.
And again, I don’t think it is practical to discover the actual statistics for that either way
Of course I haven’t actually done any such thing, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out. But go on, keep arguing with the Der Trihs who exists only in your head.
Why not discover the actual statistics, if it is such a lynch pin of the “anti” argument? I’d say because it’s a crap argument. As far as who I argue with, you want to pass a law or two governning that too? Give me a break. We have the anti smokers, we have the anti fat fooders, the anti meat, the anti alcohol, the anti every damn thing.
People just can’t mind their own damn business anymore, they have to get up everyone else’s ass about everything.
We have smoke nazis, food nazis, beer nazis, vegan nazis, type of music you can listen to nazis, someone somewhere who is against and wants to control anything you can imagine. Just everyone shut up about what the rest of us should be allowed to do. It’s none of your damn business.
You make it sound like “smoking” is a recent thing that evil corporations have perpetrated on us. Smoking goes back throughout recorded history. It is not a new thing.
As for those health resources it is not as bad a boogeyman as people like to believe it is.
Now, consider how much smokers pay in added taxes. In Chicago a pack of cigarettes costs $8.50-11.00 each. The vast majority of that is taxes.
Then consider that smokers tend to die sooner. Yes, you can say a smoker costs X-thousands of dollars when they die. Thing is you will die too someday and your death will cost X-thousands of dollars most likely. To say the smoker cost “more” is not fair. How much does any person “cost” when they are dying be it from lung cancer at age 40 or old age care from 80-85?
Further, since smokers die sooner they do not collect as much Social Security and stuff like that.
I forget where I saw someone add all that stuff up but in the end smoking is about a wash when it comes to their cost to society.
So, the costs smokers impose upon the health care system count but the McDonald’s you eat that makes you obese doesn’t count towards the burden on our health care system? Nice picking and choosing. Either both count or neither should and obesity is a genuine and serious health care issue in the US. Thing is obese people have not paid “sin” taxes on their food so their healthcare is not mitigated by paying for their unhealthy behavior up front.
Ya know automobile racing cannot be shown to be anything but rigorously stupid from a personal health perspective and it pisses me off when done in my proximity.
Pretty indefensible, IMHO.
Fine.
Then stop tossing out the argument that smokers outside are a hazard to you personally and retract the statement, “False comparison since none of those other things injures other people. Smoking is more like shooting a gun into the air in a city in celebration; something that is illegal, since you can’t tell where the bullets will come down.”
Then revisit my post since not being a hazard to you the comparison stands again.
And we of course also have people using generalizations in support of vauge ideas comparing unrelated issues when their asses have been gotten up into about specific facts regarding the subject at hand.
I will fight to my last breath to defend the right of anyone to eat meat on the street, yea, to do whatever they want with meat in public.
Short of smoking it, that is. 