Where are you at (or what brand are you buying) that cigs are $8 a pack? Camels and Marlboros are dirt cheap everywhere and Newports, which are the most expensive commonly smoked cigarettes as far as I know, are $7 or less in most places. Prices have been going down recently (it seems like at least by $0.50 in the last 6 months), not up.
March 31, 2009 – Starting tomorrow, New York City smokers will have to pay $9 or more for a pack of cigarettes. The 62-cent federal excise tax increase that takes effect on April 1st will push the cost of cigarettes to more than $250 a month for people smoking a pack a day
I love how people who claim to be smart are justifying smoking. Ha ha.
I'm reading an earlier book by the same guy who wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel, and he basically posits that many smokers do so out of some misplaced genetic need to display their badassedness for potential mates, much in the same way that many animal species will engage in self-destructive behavior to prove that they are genetically superior.
Of course, most smokers are just addicted to a low-class commercialized chemical.
You can see the difference plain as day. Older man smoking his pipe on his stoop a few times a week? Man enjoys smoking. The five or so guys who get off the train in Beacon and light one up to furiously suck before they're even off the platform? Addicted losers. (These same "gentlemen" smoke in the morning on the way in, too. They light up, and as soon as the train is coming, they suck them down as fast as possible before they enter the hour period where they'll be unable to smoke. They run off the train at GCT, cigarettes-in-mouth, and light them the second they're outside. It's pathetic.) Bonus points that everyone smoking on the platform throws their butts into the grass.
Older man smoking his pipe on his stoop a few times a week? Man enjoys smoking.
When I was still actually smoking, I would smoke a pipe while playing video games, and that would happen about three or four times a week. However, that was when we had a basement. The enjoyment really came from smoking while doing something else, like reading or playing video games. For me, it was kind of like the enjoyment a person gets who drinks wine with a meal, but wouldn't want to drink wine just by itself. I don't enjoy smoking enough by itself to go outside for the sole purpose of smoking, so I haven't smoked at all since 2005.
@ Rym - The worst ones are the guys who start lighting up ON the train right before they arrive at their stop. It's only a few seconds in which they can't bear to be without their butts, but it's enough time to stink up the whole area around them and leave us stuck with it for a while.
Our friend Brooke also had a story about a time her DC Metro train shut down due to an electric problem/possible gas leak. A guy started lighting up. He took out a lighter when there was a possible gas leak in the train tunnel. People started demanding that he put it out and he fought them, screaming that he needed it. He had to be subdued physically. That is super pathetic.
It seems like, in the American mind, hookah bars cater to the younger, shitty hipster generation. I find that mindboggling. My view of hookah bars is that they represent the best of old-school arabic/persian classiness.
I'm reading an earlier book by the same guy who wrote Guns, Germs, and Steel, and he basically posits that many smokers do so out of some misplaced genetic need to display their badassedness for potential mates, much in the same way that many animal species will engage in self-destructive behavior to prove that they are genetically superior.
That's a smart guy. He could be partially correct. I particularly enjoyed the book Smoking is Sublime, a history of tobacco that a man wrote as he was trying to quit. It delves pretty deep into the social and aesthetic ideas of smoking.
Also, Joe, you are 100% correct. Smoking a pipe and reading an improving book outside the cafe is how I spend my afternoons when the weather is clement.
I didn't notice until yesterday, but the expanded New York public smoking ban passed with massive popular support, banning smoking in all city-owned parks. ^_^
Privately-owned parks, even if they're open to the public (there are many, mostly attached to buildings in Manhattan), do not appear to be affected.
I didn't notice until yesterday, but the expanded New York public smoking ban passed with massive popular support, banning smoking in all city-owned parks. ^_^
Really? That's good. Unless it's a huge park and people are respectful, people smoking in huge parks is pretty unpleasant for other people. While it sucks that the government has to force people do to something they should be doing out of politeness, at least something is happening.
Unless it's a huge park and people are respectful, people smoking in huge parks is pretty unpleasant for other people.
The biggest problem was the pollution. Despite smokers being a tiny minority of the people in the parks (they're pretty rare in Bryant park where I often hang out, to the point that the few there really stand out and usually have bubbles of empty tables around them), cigarette butts were the vast majority of the litter.
There's no law, but a large number of construction sites now ban any smoking on the property (even outside), due almost entirely to pollution (lingering smell on building components and cigarette butts left behind in quantity).
The physical pollution is more of a concern to most people than the annoyance of the smell.
The biggest problem was the pollution. Despite smokers being a tiny minority of the people in the parks (they're pretty rare in Bryant park where I often hang out, to the point that the few there really stand out and usually have bubbles of empty tables around them), cigarette butts were the vast majority of the litter.
As I've said before, Disposing of your Tab ends in a proper manner is part of being respectful when you smoke. I even carry an old tin that I drop my tab ends in, just in case I'm nowhere near a bin.
I mentioned it on FNPL, but smoking is banned on most government property here, and in my city, failing to dispose of tab ends correctly - particularly in the CBD - will get you hit with a $150 fine. The exceptions to the rule are large properties like national parks and government owned bushland - but you still better clean up after yourself, because if you drop a tab end and it starts a bushfire, you're criminally liable. People have been caught and given extremely hefty fines before.
As I've said before, Disposing of your Tab ends in a proper manner is part of being respectful when you smoke. I even carry an old tin that I drop my tab ends in, just in case I'm nowhere near a bin.
Aye. I would actually have been pretty opposed to the outdoor smoking bans here had most smokers been as considerate as you are.
Aye. I would actually have been pretty opposed to the outdoor smoking bans here had most smokers been as considerate as you are.
So too would I be, but I recognize that the overwhelming majority of smokers do not display a fraction of what I'd reasonably consider decent behavior regarding their habit, even disregarding my own policy of going above and beyond. Essentially, I'm an exception, and while I'm against broader bans (Like Pasadena's for example, or the Labor government's current mad attempts), I recognize that measures like this might be necessary in many places, within reason - and this policy is entirely within reason.
I've said it before in one form or another, but it bears repeating - as much as I have the right to indulge my habit and abuse my body as I please, others have an equal right to not have those habits cause them displeasure(within reason, naturally) or be inflicted upon them. It's about balance.
Actually, here's a tangentially related question - Would you be for or against modifying the laws to allow for the construction of smoking rooms, in the same sort of manner as China and some European countries - usually with doubled up doors in a sort of an airlock configuration, slight negative air pressure(to keep air flowing in rather than smoke flowing out), big air-filters, and so on? Providing, of course, the law laid out a minimum standard for these rooms, so that people couldn't just take a disused supply closet and stick a sign on that says "Smoking room."
Aye. I would actually have been pretty opposed to the outdoor smoking bans here had most smokers been as considerate as you are.
So too would I be, but I recognize that the overwhelming majority of smokers do not display a fraction of what I'd reasonably consider decent behavior regarding their habit, even disregarding my own policy of going above and beyond. Essentially, I'm an exception, and while I'm against broader bans (Like Pasadena's for example, or the Labor government's current mad attempts), I recognize that measures like this might be necessary in many places, within reason - and this policy is entirely within reason.
I've said it before in one form or another, but it bears repeating - as much as I have the right to indulge my habit and abuse my body as I please, others have an equal right to not have those habits cause them displeasure(within reason, naturally) or be inflicted upon them. It's about balance.
Actually, here's a tangentially related question - Would you be for or against modifying the laws to allow for the construction of smoking rooms, in the same sort of manner as China and some European countries - usually with doubled up doors in a sort of an airlock configuration, slight negative air pressure(to keep air flowing in rather than smoke flowing out), big air-filters, and so on? Providing, of course, the law laid out a minimum standard for these rooms, so that people couldn't just take a disused supply closet and stick a sign on that says "Smoking room."
Smokers would have to pay for that shit, not my taxes.
Smokers would have to pay for that shit, not my taxes.
I never said government funded, I simply said change the law to allow it. Naturally, the cost would be on the person or business installing the room. Of course, if they were government funded, you could simply use part of the tax revenue from tobacco sales for it, which would tidily solve your objection - I assume you're a non-smoker, so therefore, that's not your tax dollars.
Smokers wanting awesome smoking rooms? Fine and awesome, but I don't think the US government should or would want to be involved in funding them (with the exception of those built on government land, of course). With the way the health care system is set up to absorb costs; non-smokers still pay quite a bit out of pocket for the care of smokers, on the order of $70 billion a year in taxes. Revenue from tobacco sales should cover that, not building awesome clubhouses. Also, the US government will never touch anything that comes close to encouraging smoking. They banned any flavoring in cigarettes and menthol is probably on it's way out as well, just because they could appeal to kids. Handing out space age boxes for people to get cancer in might send a mixed message.
As for being courteous as a smoker, I don't smoke, aside from the occasional fancy cigar, pipe, or hookah, but most of my friends do. They actually developed a rather clever solution to the problem of litter around the smoking spots on campus. Since there is almost always a large crowd of students gathered around the tree talking and smoking, and since they are poor college students and are always running out of smokes, my friend made a decree one day that anyone that wants to bum a smoke must first repay their debt by picking up 10 cigarette butts and throwing them away. So far, it has made a dramatic impact. But, this system only works because smoking is banned on our campus aside from the handful of spots outside.
Smokers wanting awesome smoking rooms? Fine and awesome, but I don't think the US government should or would want to be involved in funding them (with the exception of those built on government land, of course). With the way the health care system is set up to absorb costs; non-smokers still pay quite a bit out of pocket for the care of smokers, on the order of $70 billion a year in taxes. Revenue from tobacco sales should cover that, not building awesome clubhouses. Also, the US government will never touch anything that comes close to encouraging smoking. They banned any flavoring in cigarettes and menthol is probably on it's way out as well, just because they could appeal to kids. Handing out space age boxes for people to get cancer in might send a mixed message.
Awesome? That's not awesome, that's minimum - big Air filters, doubled doors, and a slight negative pressure to prevent outward airflow. Note, I'm not including anything like chairs, TVs, or anything other than the minimum standard seen in China and some European countries.
Non smokers pay for smokers? Yeah, nah. Non smokers have to pay out of pocket for the care of smokers? guess what - Smokers have to pay for non-smokers too, in a greater proportion than non-smokers have to pay for smokers. For example, smokers pay just as much tax as non-smokers - what, you think you have a box on the tax forms that says "are you a smoker? Forget about income tax then, boss!" ? - and also pay two separate taxes on every pack of smokes, pouch of tobacco, or whatever else that they buy - standard Sales tax and the tax on tobacco products. Part of which, since 1997, goes to State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has been expanding over the years to the current rate from 2009, which means that (IIRC) a dollar and five cents from every pack goes to the federal government for that program, as well as their tobacco tax - According to the IRS,
The tax on tobacco products is now the second largest revenue generated for the U.S. Treasury, exceeded only by the excise tax collections from gasoline. Tobacco is the most heavily taxed of any consumer product by percent of retail price.
On top of that, Let's not forget State tobacco taxes, which go towards, well, pretty much everything the state government wants it to, roads, education and health care, prisons, whatever.
So, Y'know, maybe smokers should complain about paying for Non-smokers, rather than the other way around. Because it seems that when smokers are paying extra taxes to indulge their habit, and tobacco tax revenue is second only to Petrol tax revenue, that smokers are really contributing more to the government, and maybe deserve a little more consideration from non-smokers.
Also, Awesome clubhouse? Fucked if I'm going to any clubhouses with you, considering I described the bare minimum that would reasonable allow such a law to pass, you must have really, really low standards for an "Awesome Clubhouse".
Smokers have to pay for non-smokers too, in a greater proportion than non-smokers have to pay for smokers.
While we're getting into the indirect effects that non-smokers have to pay for, it's fair to say the same thing applies to non-obese people and obese people, good drivers and bad drivers, and ANY OTHER lifestyle choice that can negatively affect your health, either cumulatively or by heightening risk.
"We have to pay for their medical care" is kind of a stupid reason to want to support banning something if you're not going to equally apply that same reasoning to other choices.
Comments
Edit: Man, these clove cigarettes are strong.
Sure, such a person may be smart about some things, but at a fundamental level, there is a lack of intelligence.
Of course, most smokers are just addicted to a low-class commercialized chemical.
You can see the difference plain as day. Older man smoking his pipe on his stoop a few times a week? Man enjoys smoking. The five or so guys who get off the train in Beacon and light one up to furiously suck before they're even off the platform? Addicted losers. (These same "gentlemen" smoke in the morning on the way in, too. They light up, and as soon as the train is coming, they suck them down as fast as possible before they enter the hour period where they'll be unable to smoke. They run off the train at GCT, cigarettes-in-mouth, and light them the second they're outside. It's pathetic.) Bonus points that everyone smoking on the platform throws their butts into the grass.
Our friend Brooke also had a story about a time her DC Metro train shut down due to an electric problem/possible gas leak. A guy started lighting up. He took out a lighter when there was a possible gas leak in the train tunnel. People started demanding that he put it out and he fought them, screaming that he needed it. He had to be subdued physically. That is super pathetic.
Also, Joe, you are 100% correct. Smoking a pipe and reading an improving book outside the cafe is how I spend my afternoons when the weather is clement.
Privately-owned parks, even if they're open to the public (there are many, mostly attached to buildings in Manhattan), do not appear to be affected.
There's no law, but a large number of construction sites now ban any smoking on the property (even outside), due almost entirely to pollution (lingering smell on building components and cigarette butts left behind in quantity).
The physical pollution is more of a concern to most people than the annoyance of the smell.
I mentioned it on FNPL, but smoking is banned on most government property here, and in my city, failing to dispose of tab ends correctly - particularly in the CBD - will get you hit with a $150 fine. The exceptions to the rule are large properties like national parks and government owned bushland - but you still better clean up after yourself, because if you drop a tab end and it starts a bushfire, you're criminally liable. People have been caught and given extremely hefty fines before.
I've said it before in one form or another, but it bears repeating - as much as I have the right to indulge my habit and abuse my body as I please, others have an equal right to not have those habits cause them displeasure(within reason, naturally) or be inflicted upon them. It's about balance.
Actually, here's a tangentially related question - Would you be for or against modifying the laws to allow for the construction of smoking rooms, in the same sort of manner as China and some European countries - usually with doubled up doors in a sort of an airlock configuration, slight negative air pressure(to keep air flowing in rather than smoke flowing out), big air-filters, and so on? Providing, of course, the law laid out a minimum standard for these rooms, so that people couldn't just take a disused supply closet and stick a sign on that says "Smoking room."
As for being courteous as a smoker, I don't smoke, aside from the occasional fancy cigar, pipe, or hookah, but most of my friends do. They actually developed a rather clever solution to the problem of litter around the smoking spots on campus. Since there is almost always a large crowd of students gathered around the tree talking and smoking, and since they are poor college students and are always running out of smokes, my friend made a decree one day that anyone that wants to bum a smoke must first repay their debt by picking up 10 cigarette butts and throwing them away. So far, it has made a dramatic impact. But, this system only works because smoking is banned on our campus aside from the handful of spots outside.
Non smokers pay for smokers? Yeah, nah. Non smokers have to pay out of pocket for the care of smokers? guess what - Smokers have to pay for non-smokers too, in a greater proportion than non-smokers have to pay for smokers. For example, smokers pay just as much tax as non-smokers - what, you think you have a box on the tax forms that says "are you a smoker? Forget about income tax then, boss!" ? - and also pay two separate taxes on every pack of smokes, pouch of tobacco, or whatever else that they buy - standard Sales tax and the tax on tobacco products. Part of which, since 1997, goes to State Children's Health Insurance Program, which has been expanding over the years to the current rate from 2009, which means that (IIRC) a dollar and five cents from every pack goes to the federal government for that program, as well as their tobacco tax - According to the IRS, On top of that, Let's not forget State tobacco taxes, which go towards, well, pretty much everything the state government wants it to, roads, education and health care, prisons, whatever.
So, Y'know, maybe smokers should complain about paying for Non-smokers, rather than the other way around. Because it seems that when smokers are paying extra taxes to indulge their habit, and tobacco tax revenue is second only to Petrol tax revenue, that smokers are really contributing more to the government, and maybe deserve a little more consideration from non-smokers.
Also, Awesome clubhouse? Fucked if I'm going to any clubhouses with you, considering I described the bare minimum that would reasonable allow such a law to pass, you must have really, really low standards for an "Awesome Clubhouse".
"We have to pay for their medical care" is kind of a stupid reason to want to support banning something if you're not going to equally apply that same reasoning to other choices.