View Poll Results: Do you smoke?
Yes.
42
23.60%
No.
115
64.61%
Sometimes.
15
8.43%
Doesn't matter to me.
6
3.37%
Voters: 178. You may not vote on this poll
Smoking!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Originally posted by Odin's Wrath
There are different orders of rights. Those mentioned in the Constitution as inalienable, and those provided by legislation. It says nowhere in the Constitution that I do not have the right to run around naked in the streets. Somebody had to say, "Hey, that's just not right." and have a law passed.
The same thing applies to cigarette smoke in public. If enough people say, "Hey, that's just not right." and pass a law, then smoking will become illegal. Smokers have themselves to blame really. Years of being inconsiderate to non-smokers have led up to this. Is it silly? Hell yes. It's silly that legislation is required to wring a little common courtesy out of a fellow human being.
There are different orders of rights. Those mentioned in the Constitution as inalienable, and those provided by legislation. It says nowhere in the Constitution that I do not have the right to run around naked in the streets. Somebody had to say, "Hey, that's just not right." and have a law passed.
The same thing applies to cigarette smoke in public. If enough people say, "Hey, that's just not right." and pass a law, then smoking will become illegal. Smokers have themselves to blame really. Years of being inconsiderate to non-smokers have led up to this. Is it silly? Hell yes. It's silly that legislation is required to wring a little common courtesy out of a fellow human being.
What I am pointing out are the few people that seem to whine from time to time and “claim” they have some kind of right. That may be the “right” to smoke or the “right” to not be around smokers and their smoke. The ONLY reason laws have passed to ban smoking is because smoking is done by a small minority of people and therefore was EASY to pass such laws.
Is second hand smoke bad or unhealthy for others? I would think so but it has yet to be proven, at least in my opinion, that it is more dangerous to society at large as say compared to alcohol. You have many deaths every year due to drunk drivers. You have many other social problems related to drinking that cost society much more money then does smoking or second hand smoke.
What you will not find, or at least anytime in the near future is many people out trying to outlaw alcohol. The reason being is the vast majority of society partakes in drinking in one fashion or another. The same argument can be made against drinkers being inconsiderate to non-drinkers or those that drink within their limits.
Smokers are NOT to blame for laws being passed against smokers for being inconsiderate. There are some smokers that are inconsiderate but that does not make them all inconsiderate. The smoking laws ONLY came about because they were VERY EASY to achieve and made many lawyers VERY rich in the process. If one looks at it from a logical stand point then smoking should have been one of the last things to look at as far as public safety and health concern because it rates extremely low compared to many other things going on in society today.
People who have accomplished passing laws banning smoking have very little to be proud of and they really accomplished very little. They took on something very easy to do and did it. When the vast majority of society does not smoke (I believe it is somewhere around 60% or more do not smoke) then they really didn’t accomplish anything major. It was very minor and very selfish to waste resources on something that has such a little effect on society’s safety and health.
You mentioned that no where in the Constitution gives you the right to run around naked on the streets but there are laws against it. You are correct, there is not a right to not run around naked as there is no right to run around naked. Laws are not rights, laws tell society what privileges they may or may not have and how they will conduct themselves in society. Just like no one has the “right” to drive automobiles, it is a privilege that can be taken away at any time by the “right” of citizens to vote to do so.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
Hey Burt. I know you mean well; but, the next time you take the privilege vs right tact, keep this in mind. Who decides what is privilege and what is a right?
________________________
Anyone who follows the NMA NEWS knows there is a running debate on whether or not driving is a right or a privilege. It's never been settled and probably never will be.
Various court decisions have come down on both sides of the issue. More recently the courts, regulatory bodies and legislators have favored the "privilege" status. This is no accident.
For several decades, motor vehicle and enforcement agencies have recognized that privileges are more easily controlled and regulated than rights. Furthermore, if they are the dispenser of a privilege, their powers and influence are enhanced.
Consequently, these public and private entities have spent several decades describing and referring to driving as a "privilege." Through repetition, usage and public policy, what was not necessarily so, has more or less become accepted fact. The purpose of this discussion is not to argue that driving is a right or privilege. It's to discuss how individual freedoms evolve from potentially being rights to privileges subject to government dispensation. A recent news item exemplified this process in action.
A local person confronted two auto thieves who were in the process of trying to steal his car for the second time in one week. He shot one of them.
The local District Attorney in discussing whether or not to bring charges against the car owner, explained that there were certain criteria that had to be met before a citizen could exercise the privilege of self-defense. Now self-defense is a privilege! Defending one's property or person is a privilege!
If pressed, the D.A. would probably say that what he meant was that using lethal force is a privilege.
Of course, if you can't use lethal force, your options for self-defence are pretty limited. Just as if you can't drive, your personal mobility is pretty limited.
The D.A.'s objective, and that of a sizable proportion of officialdom is to have the ownership, possession and use of lethal force (primarily firearms) classified as a "privilege."
Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away "Rights" present greater obstacles to confiscation.
The moral of the story is: If you have an activity, hobby, possession or lifestyle that the government types and the media start describing as a "privilege", you better man the ramparts!
________________________
Anyone who follows the NMA NEWS knows there is a running debate on whether or not driving is a right or a privilege. It's never been settled and probably never will be.
Various court decisions have come down on both sides of the issue. More recently the courts, regulatory bodies and legislators have favored the "privilege" status. This is no accident.
For several decades, motor vehicle and enforcement agencies have recognized that privileges are more easily controlled and regulated than rights. Furthermore, if they are the dispenser of a privilege, their powers and influence are enhanced.
Consequently, these public and private entities have spent several decades describing and referring to driving as a "privilege." Through repetition, usage and public policy, what was not necessarily so, has more or less become accepted fact. The purpose of this discussion is not to argue that driving is a right or privilege. It's to discuss how individual freedoms evolve from potentially being rights to privileges subject to government dispensation. A recent news item exemplified this process in action.
A local person confronted two auto thieves who were in the process of trying to steal his car for the second time in one week. He shot one of them.
The local District Attorney in discussing whether or not to bring charges against the car owner, explained that there were certain criteria that had to be met before a citizen could exercise the privilege of self-defense. Now self-defense is a privilege! Defending one's property or person is a privilege!
If pressed, the D.A. would probably say that what he meant was that using lethal force is a privilege.
Of course, if you can't use lethal force, your options for self-defence are pretty limited. Just as if you can't drive, your personal mobility is pretty limited.
The D.A.'s objective, and that of a sizable proportion of officialdom is to have the ownership, possession and use of lethal force (primarily firearms) classified as a "privilege."
Privileges can be tightly regulated and, with little justification, taken away "Rights" present greater obstacles to confiscation.
The moral of the story is: If you have an activity, hobby, possession or lifestyle that the government types and the media start describing as a "privilege", you better man the ramparts!
Last edited by Odin's Wrath; Sep 6, 2003 at 06:24 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 3
From: Eastern TN
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
You will get no argument from me as far as the rights for people to vote and pass laws. You will also get no argument from me about how few people actually have personal responsibility which includes “common courtesy” toward their fellow citizens.
What I am pointing out are the few people that seem to whine from time to time and “claim” they have some kind of right. That may be the “right” to smoke or the “right” to not be around smokers and their smoke. The ONLY reason laws have passed to ban smoking is because smoking is done by a small minority of people and therefore was EASY to pass such laws.
You will get no argument from me as far as the rights for people to vote and pass laws. You will also get no argument from me about how few people actually have personal responsibility which includes “common courtesy” toward their fellow citizens.
What I am pointing out are the few people that seem to whine from time to time and “claim” they have some kind of right. That may be the “right” to smoke or the “right” to not be around smokers and their smoke. The ONLY reason laws have passed to ban smoking is because smoking is done by a small minority of people and therefore was EASY to pass such laws.
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
Is second hand smoke bad or unhealthy for others? I would think so but it has yet to be proven, at least in my opinion, that it is more dangerous to society at large as say compared to alcohol. You have many deaths every year due to drunk drivers. You have many other social problems related to drinking that cost society much more money then does smoking or second hand smoke.
Is second hand smoke bad or unhealthy for others? I would think so but it has yet to be proven, at least in my opinion, that it is more dangerous to society at large as say compared to alcohol. You have many deaths every year due to drunk drivers. You have many other social problems related to drinking that cost society much more money then does smoking or second hand smoke.
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
What you will not find, or at least anytime in the near future is many people out trying to outlaw alcohol. The reason being is the vast majority of society partakes in drinking in one fashion or another. The same argument can be made against drinkers being inconsiderate to non-drinkers or those that drink within their limits.
What you will not find, or at least anytime in the near future is many people out trying to outlaw alcohol. The reason being is the vast majority of society partakes in drinking in one fashion or another. The same argument can be made against drinkers being inconsiderate to non-drinkers or those that drink within their limits.
Thats the difference. If you drink in the lounge, I can choose not to and no harm, no foul. If you smoke in the lounge, I have 2 choices: stay and breathe it or leave. How can you say it is not invasive on other people?
As far as outlawing alcohol, it has already been done in many places. Ever hear of "Dry Counties"? We have several here in Florida. Again, if enough of the local, voting populace sees a need, there is a vehicle for that need to be fulfilled.
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
Smokers are NOT to blame for laws being passed against smokers for being inconsiderate. There are some smokers that are inconsiderate but that does not make them all inconsiderate.
Smokers are NOT to blame for laws being passed against smokers for being inconsiderate. There are some smokers that are inconsiderate but that does not make them all inconsiderate.
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
The smoking laws ONLY came about because they were VERY EASY to achieve and made many lawyers VERY rich in the process. If one looks at it from a logical stand point then smoking should have been one of the last things to look at as far as public safety and health concern because it rates extremely low compared to many other things going on in society today.
The smoking laws ONLY came about because they were VERY EASY to achieve and made many lawyers VERY rich in the process. If one looks at it from a logical stand point then smoking should have been one of the last things to look at as far as public safety and health concern because it rates extremely low compared to many other things going on in society today.
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
People who have accomplished passing laws banning smoking have very little to be proud of and they really accomplished very little. They took on something very easy to do and did it. When the vast majority of society does not smoke (I believe it is somewhere around 60% or more do not smoke) then they really didn’t accomplish anything major. It was very minor and very selfish to waste resources on something that has such a little effect on society’s safety and health.
People who have accomplished passing laws banning smoking have very little to be proud of and they really accomplished very little. They took on something very easy to do and did it. When the vast majority of society does not smoke (I believe it is somewhere around 60% or more do not smoke) then they really didn’t accomplish anything major. It was very minor and very selfish to waste resources on something that has such a little effect on society’s safety and health.
Just because you do not agree with the law does not make it wrong or stupid. It was put to a vote for the public to decide. Isn't that part of what makes this country great?
I question your agenda or thought process on that one...
Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
You mentioned that no where in the Constitution gives you the right to run around naked on the streets but there are laws against it. You are correct, there is not a right to not run around naked as there is no right to run around naked. Laws are not rights, laws tell society what privileges they may or may not have and how they will conduct themselves in society. Just like no one has the “right” to drive automobiles, it is a privilege that can be taken away at any time by the “right” of citizens to vote to do so.
You mentioned that no where in the Constitution gives you the right to run around naked on the streets but there are laws against it. You are correct, there is not a right to not run around naked as there is no right to run around naked. Laws are not rights, laws tell society what privileges they may or may not have and how they will conduct themselves in society. Just like no one has the “right” to drive automobiles, it is a privilege that can be taken away at any time by the “right” of citizens to vote to do so.
BTW, as far as your earlier post regarding how "stupid" the people are who feel it is a right to smoke or not smoke, the semantics are irrelevant. It is a basic question that was being debated. I am not a "whiner" just because I would like to go out to eat or go to a bar and not be subjected to some inconsiderate smoker's whim. Call it what you want, but I do have a "right" to breathe or not breathe smoke, and I voted to defend my right to make that choice.
Before the law, I had no choice: If you smoked, I had to breathe it (or leave). Now, at last, I have a choice...
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
Let me first say I am only posting some of your original post so that I can address some of it. There was a lot and I wanted to comment on these below, at least to begin with.
The main reason any ballots have come up due to smoking in public places is “directly” related to the stated health effects. That may not be on the ballot itself but it is a major reason to get it on the ballot to begin with. To ignore that fact is illogical.
I agree with your statement above but it is a very limited statement. I am talking reality and the entire picture. First when you state ” Smokers, on the other hand, just keep on puffing, forcing EVERYONE to smoke too.” no one forces anyone to do anything. It is your choice, your “right” to choose to stay and “smoke” or to leave to cleaner air elsewhere. As you stated above most establishments will stop serving a drunk drinks and may force them to leave. That is where it becomes VERY dangerous because when they leave, do they get in a car and drive off?
Second, you or I have the “right” to choose to stay in a smoke filled room or to leave that room. The “right” we don’t have because there is no real way to exercise it is to choose to drive on the streets with drunks. How could we have the “right” to decide that since we have no idea who is driving drunk to begin with?
Yes, a law can be wrong or stupid if I disagree with it, unless there is some new “right” in the Constitution that states I do not have the right to make an independent judgment. If I feel a law is wrong or stupid I also have the “right” to try and change it or have it taken off the books by legal means. Now, if it is a law and on the books and even if I think it is wrong or stupid I do and will follow the law. I do not have to like it, but I do have to follow the law until it is changed.
When I talk about whiners I am talking about those in society that “make-up” rights out of thin air. If there is something they don’t agree with they all of a sudden have a “right” to not have to put up with it. I made mention about the homeless being on public streets and areas. If that bothers me do I have a “right” to not have to look at it and make them all move out to the fields somewhere so no one has to look at them? No, I do not have a “right” to that. I may have a “right” to vote on a law that would outlaw them from being in public site, but it will still not be a “right” but rather a law. Big difference between a right and a law.
As I had stated before, you do NOT have a right to breathe or not breathe smoke. You only have the “right” to vote to ban that in public areas. Smokers do not have the “right” to smoke where they please either.
Before the law you DID have a choice but you either failed to exercise it, or just neglected to do so. You even mention your choice in the same sentence ”I had to breath it (or leave)” that is a choice.
Now for the record let me state that I agree and have no problem with any laws that make it illegal to smoke in public places. That is all it is though a law, not a right, it will never be a right, only a law. There is a big difference between the two…
Originally posted by B-Man
It makes absolutely no difference if second hand smoke is unhealthy, healthy, etc. That was not part of the voting parameters. It is also irrelevant as to which is more dangerous: smoking or alcohol. The vote was regarding smoking in public places. As far as your belief that alcohol costs society more than smoking, care to post the sources of that info? Sounds contrary to what I've read, but I'm willing to read more...
It makes absolutely no difference if second hand smoke is unhealthy, healthy, etc. That was not part of the voting parameters. It is also irrelevant as to which is more dangerous: smoking or alcohol. The vote was regarding smoking in public places. As far as your belief that alcohol costs society more than smoking, care to post the sources of that info? Sounds contrary to what I've read, but I'm willing to read more...
Originally posted by B-Man
While I will agree with you that being subjected to a drunk's behavior is not always pleasant, I don't have to worry about breathing in poisons or smelling like an ashtray just because I sit in the same room with them. Also, if they are really inebriated, most responsible establishments will stop serving them and may require them to leave. Smokers, on the other hand, just keep on puffing, forcing EVERYONE to smoke too.
Thats the difference. If you drink in the lounge, I can choose not to and no harm, no foul. If you smoke in the lounge, I have 2 choices: stay and breathe it or leave. How can you say it is not invasive on other people?
While I will agree with you that being subjected to a drunk's behavior is not always pleasant, I don't have to worry about breathing in poisons or smelling like an ashtray just because I sit in the same room with them. Also, if they are really inebriated, most responsible establishments will stop serving them and may require them to leave. Smokers, on the other hand, just keep on puffing, forcing EVERYONE to smoke too.
Thats the difference. If you drink in the lounge, I can choose not to and no harm, no foul. If you smoke in the lounge, I have 2 choices: stay and breathe it or leave. How can you say it is not invasive on other people?
Second, you or I have the “right” to choose to stay in a smoke filled room or to leave that room. The “right” we don’t have because there is no real way to exercise it is to choose to drive on the streets with drunks. How could we have the “right” to decide that since we have no idea who is driving drunk to begin with?
Originally posted by B-Man
Wow. A guy like you that stands up for America and all it means, would say that a law passed on public ballot was "very minor and very selfish to waste resources on something that has such a little effect on society’s safety and health"?
Just because you do not agree with the law does not make it wrong or stupid. It was put to a vote for the public to decide. Isn't that part of what makes this country great?
I question your agenda or thought process on that one...
Wow. A guy like you that stands up for America and all it means, would say that a law passed on public ballot was "very minor and very selfish to waste resources on something that has such a little effect on society’s safety and health"?
Just because you do not agree with the law does not make it wrong or stupid. It was put to a vote for the public to decide. Isn't that part of what makes this country great?
I question your agenda or thought process on that one...
Originally posted by B-Man
BTW, as far as your earlier post regarding how "stupid" the people are who feel it is a right to smoke or not smoke, the semantics are irrelevant. It is a basic question that was being debated. I am not a "whiner" just because I would like to go out to eat or go to a bar and not be subjected to some inconsiderate smoker's whim. Call it what you want, but I do have a "right" to breathe or not breathe smoke, and I voted to defend my right to make that choice.
BTW, as far as your earlier post regarding how "stupid" the people are who feel it is a right to smoke or not smoke, the semantics are irrelevant. It is a basic question that was being debated. I am not a "whiner" just because I would like to go out to eat or go to a bar and not be subjected to some inconsiderate smoker's whim. Call it what you want, but I do have a "right" to breathe or not breathe smoke, and I voted to defend my right to make that choice.
As I had stated before, you do NOT have a right to breathe or not breathe smoke. You only have the “right” to vote to ban that in public areas. Smokers do not have the “right” to smoke where they please either.
Originally posted by B-Man
Before the law, I had no choice: If you smoked, I had to breathe it (or leave). Now, at last, I have a choice...
Before the law, I had no choice: If you smoked, I had to breathe it (or leave). Now, at last, I have a choice...
Now for the record let me state that I agree and have no problem with any laws that make it illegal to smoke in public places. That is all it is though a law, not a right, it will never be a right, only a law. There is a big difference between the two…
Last edited by 01 XLT Sport; Sep 7, 2003 at 01:27 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
For every law, there is an implied right, or a clarification of the absence of a right. When a law is passed, it is an acknowledgement that a right exists.... Or a privilege I guess, depending on your point of view. To me, a privilege is a right with stipulations that must be met. So long as you hold up your end of the bargain, you have the right to exercise the privilege.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
From: I-95,I-78,I-81,I-83,I-695
i am not getting into this bull *****, so i will say this, i smoke, and i will NOT smoke around kids, but adults are fair game, if they dont like it they can get out of my face on the street, or in a bar. in a restaraunt, they have different sections, get yourself out of the smoking section, or the bar.
i know some will get mad, i understand, but the last time i checked, my money is still GREEN!!
i know some will get mad, i understand, but the last time i checked, my money is still GREEN!!
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
From: Hammer Lane
There's no law that says I can't be an a$$hole; but, there are laws that prevent you from doing anything about it. 
Wait a minute, you say they're passing a law against being an a$$hole? That's just not right!"
Wait a minute, you say they're passing a law against being an a$$hole? That's just not right!"
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 3
From: Eastern TN
Based on some of 01 XLT's posts, I decided to read some more about smoking and alcohol use in the US.
After reading quite a few articles on both subjects, it is apparent that smoking is a much larger issue than alcohol in the USA, as far as deaths and monetary costs are concerned.
Although there are many sources out there, all of which have varying numbers included in their stats, this is the 1 that showed up most often AND was published by a reliable source: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 1998, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
Here's what they say about smoking:
U.S. Smoking Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of death in the United States. More than 400,000 Americans die each year from tobacco-related disease.
Someone dies from smoking every 72 seconds.
Smoking causes more deaths than alcohol, AIDS, illegal drugs, car crashes, fires, murders, and suicides combined.
In the United States, an estimated 25.9 million men (27.1 percent) and 22.8 million women (22.2 percent) are smokers. These people are at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. About 4.1 million teenagers ages 12 through 17 are smokers. The latest estimates for persons age 18 and older show...
Among non-Hispanic whites, 26.5 percent of men and 23.6 percent of women smoke.
Among non-Hispanic blacks, 29.0 percent of men and 21.3 percent of women smoke.
Among Hispanics, 24.7 percent of men and 13.3 percent of women smoke.
Among Asians / Pacific Islanders, 17.9 percent of men and 9.9 percent of women smoke.
Among American Indians/Alaska Natives, 41.7 percent of men and 38.1 percent of women smoke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies show that smoking prevalence is higher among those with 9-11 years of education (37.4 percent) compared with those with more than 16 years of education (11.6 percent). It's highest among persons living below the poverty level (33.3 percent).
The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse shows that, during 1988-96 among persons 12-17 years old, first-time use increased by 30 percent and first daily use increased by 50 percent. More than 6,000 people under age 18 try a cigarette each day, and each day more than 3,000 persons under age 18 become daily smokers. If trends continue, about 5 million of these people will eventually die from a disease attributed to smoking.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em !!!
After reading quite a few articles on both subjects, it is apparent that smoking is a much larger issue than alcohol in the USA, as far as deaths and monetary costs are concerned.
Although there are many sources out there, all of which have varying numbers included in their stats, this is the 1 that showed up most often AND was published by a reliable source: National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), 1998, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics.
Here's what they say about smoking:
U.S. Smoking Statistics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of death in the United States. More than 400,000 Americans die each year from tobacco-related disease.
Someone dies from smoking every 72 seconds.
Smoking causes more deaths than alcohol, AIDS, illegal drugs, car crashes, fires, murders, and suicides combined.
In the United States, an estimated 25.9 million men (27.1 percent) and 22.8 million women (22.2 percent) are smokers. These people are at higher risk of heart attack and stroke. About 4.1 million teenagers ages 12 through 17 are smokers. The latest estimates for persons age 18 and older show...
Among non-Hispanic whites, 26.5 percent of men and 23.6 percent of women smoke.
Among non-Hispanic blacks, 29.0 percent of men and 21.3 percent of women smoke.
Among Hispanics, 24.7 percent of men and 13.3 percent of women smoke.
Among Asians / Pacific Islanders, 17.9 percent of men and 9.9 percent of women smoke.
Among American Indians/Alaska Natives, 41.7 percent of men and 38.1 percent of women smoke.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Studies show that smoking prevalence is higher among those with 9-11 years of education (37.4 percent) compared with those with more than 16 years of education (11.6 percent). It's highest among persons living below the poverty level (33.3 percent).
The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse shows that, during 1988-96 among persons 12-17 years old, first-time use increased by 30 percent and first daily use increased by 50 percent. More than 6,000 people under age 18 try a cigarette each day, and each day more than 3,000 persons under age 18 become daily smokers. If trends continue, about 5 million of these people will eventually die from a disease attributed to smoking.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em !!!
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
More than 14 million Americans are believed to suffer from alcohol abuse and dependence; the cost to society is estimated at $184 billion annually,
Found at this site below:
http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/0...02/story02.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco use is responsible for approximately 430,000 deaths each year--one of every five. Parallel to the health burden is the economic burden of tobacco use, which amounts to at least $50 billion in medical expenditures and $50 billion in indirect costs.
(Total of $100 billion)
Found at this site below:
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/...l/mm4843a2.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of traffic fatalities annually related to drugs and/or alcohol
• Alcohol related crashes kills someone in the U.S. every 22 minutes. At any minute, one of 50 drivers on the road is drunk and every weekend night, one out of 10 is drunk.
• According to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, there are 105,000 alcohol related deaths annually due to drunken drivers and alcohol related injuries and diseases. AFA journal - 6/90
• Alcohol related accidents are the leading cause of deaths among young people. Dallas Times - Sat., 6/9/90
• The damage caused by alcohol impaired drivers is the same as if a Boeing 747 with over 500 passengers crashed every eight days killing everyone.
• Drunk drivers are responsible for 1/2 of highway fatal injuries.
• 65 people each day die on our highways due to alcohol. California Capitol Report - 11/89
• In 1988, 25,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents involving alcohol. Over one half million were injured. AFA journal - 1/90
Number of handgun or violent crimes annually related to drugs and/or alcohol and Number of murders annually related to drugs and/or alcohol?
• One half of all traffic accidents are alcohol related. U.S.A. Today - 1/24/90
• An estimated 23,200 murdered in U.S. last year Newsweek - 3/25/91
• Of all murders, alcohol was involved in at least 34% of cases.
• Rape - More than 1/2 of rapists had been drinking.
• Child abuse - mothers convicted are 3 times more likely to be alcoholics - fathers 10 times more likely.
• Suicide - Up to 36% of victims were drinking just before. Prodigy Services Co. - 3/3/92
• Heavy drinking is involved in 60% of violent crimes, 30% of suicides, and 80% of fire and drowning accidents.
• The suicide rate of alcoholics is 30 times that of the general population. AFA journal - 1/90
• The percentage of households that were scenes of violent crime or of burglary or property crime in 1989 was 24.9%. LA Times - 9/3/90
• Among men arrested for serious crime in 12 major cities, 53% (in Phoenix) to 79% (New York) tested positive for illicit drugs in voluntary urine analysis at time of arrest. Insight - 2/29/89
• About 2/3 of people arrested in larger cities for felonies. . .test positive for illegal drugs. Economist - 1/21/89
Annual cost to health! insurance industry related to drugs and/or alcohol.
• More than half of all confirmed abuse reports and 75% of child deaths involve drug or alcohol abuse on the part of the parents. Time - 1/27/92
• The use of alcohol cost $15 billion (1983) for health care and treatment.
• The economic cost of alcohol abuse is projected to be $150 billion in 1995. Alcohol & Health - U.S. dept. of H.H.S. 1/90
• The economic cost of America’s drug habit is somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion a year. (Does not include alcohol) Economist - 1/21/89
Found at this site below:
http://crc.iugm.org/faq/impact.html
As you can see from this little amount of research on my behalf, Alcohol has a much higher cost on society as a whole then does cigarette smoking and second hand smoke (of which many people can openly see, smell and get the hell away from) Not so easy to openly see and know where a drunk in a car might be, or what he/she might be doing if not driving…
Smoking is bad, it is bad for peoples health but not as bad, at this time, as is drinking and what happens with those that can not control their alcohol. I can’t recall a time when I ever read or heard on TV a murder, rape or crime being committed by someone under the influence of cigarette smoke.
If you going to give figures and cost to society you have to show the complete picture…
Found at this site below:
http://www.nih.gov/news/NIH-Record/0...02/story02.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tobacco use is responsible for approximately 430,000 deaths each year--one of every five. Parallel to the health burden is the economic burden of tobacco use, which amounts to at least $50 billion in medical expenditures and $50 billion in indirect costs.
(Total of $100 billion)
Found at this site below:
http://www.cdc.gov/epo/mmwr/preview/...l/mm4843a2.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of traffic fatalities annually related to drugs and/or alcohol
• Alcohol related crashes kills someone in the U.S. every 22 minutes. At any minute, one of 50 drivers on the road is drunk and every weekend night, one out of 10 is drunk.
• According to the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta, there are 105,000 alcohol related deaths annually due to drunken drivers and alcohol related injuries and diseases. AFA journal - 6/90
• Alcohol related accidents are the leading cause of deaths among young people. Dallas Times - Sat., 6/9/90
• The damage caused by alcohol impaired drivers is the same as if a Boeing 747 with over 500 passengers crashed every eight days killing everyone.
• Drunk drivers are responsible for 1/2 of highway fatal injuries.
• 65 people each day die on our highways due to alcohol. California Capitol Report - 11/89
• In 1988, 25,000 Americans were killed in auto accidents involving alcohol. Over one half million were injured. AFA journal - 1/90
Number of handgun or violent crimes annually related to drugs and/or alcohol and Number of murders annually related to drugs and/or alcohol?
• One half of all traffic accidents are alcohol related. U.S.A. Today - 1/24/90
• An estimated 23,200 murdered in U.S. last year Newsweek - 3/25/91
• Of all murders, alcohol was involved in at least 34% of cases.
• Rape - More than 1/2 of rapists had been drinking.
• Child abuse - mothers convicted are 3 times more likely to be alcoholics - fathers 10 times more likely.
• Suicide - Up to 36% of victims were drinking just before. Prodigy Services Co. - 3/3/92
• Heavy drinking is involved in 60% of violent crimes, 30% of suicides, and 80% of fire and drowning accidents.
• The suicide rate of alcoholics is 30 times that of the general population. AFA journal - 1/90
• The percentage of households that were scenes of violent crime or of burglary or property crime in 1989 was 24.9%. LA Times - 9/3/90
• Among men arrested for serious crime in 12 major cities, 53% (in Phoenix) to 79% (New York) tested positive for illicit drugs in voluntary urine analysis at time of arrest. Insight - 2/29/89
• About 2/3 of people arrested in larger cities for felonies. . .test positive for illegal drugs. Economist - 1/21/89
Annual cost to health! insurance industry related to drugs and/or alcohol.
• More than half of all confirmed abuse reports and 75% of child deaths involve drug or alcohol abuse on the part of the parents. Time - 1/27/92
• The use of alcohol cost $15 billion (1983) for health care and treatment.
• The economic cost of alcohol abuse is projected to be $150 billion in 1995. Alcohol & Health - U.S. dept. of H.H.S. 1/90
• The economic cost of America’s drug habit is somewhere between $50 billion and $100 billion a year. (Does not include alcohol) Economist - 1/21/89
Found at this site below:
http://crc.iugm.org/faq/impact.html
As you can see from this little amount of research on my behalf, Alcohol has a much higher cost on society as a whole then does cigarette smoking and second hand smoke (of which many people can openly see, smell and get the hell away from) Not so easy to openly see and know where a drunk in a car might be, or what he/she might be doing if not driving…
Smoking is bad, it is bad for peoples health but not as bad, at this time, as is drinking and what happens with those that can not control their alcohol. I can’t recall a time when I ever read or heard on TV a murder, rape or crime being committed by someone under the influence of cigarette smoke.
If you going to give figures and cost to society you have to show the complete picture…
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 664
Likes: 1
From: Whitehorse, Yukon
I smoke, but I'm quitting as soon as I finish up my remaining carton.
I'm 37 yo, and I've been smoking since 11.
I quit twice, once for a year, and once for 2 years.
You guys who posted that you smoked for a long time and quit, I applaud you for it, I know how difficult it is.
It's too late for us older guys who have already damaged our selves, but even as a smoker I can say this.
Tobacco should be illegal.
Some of you might say "WTF is he talking about, has he lost his mind?
Well, cigarettes are bad news, and you guys mark my words, one day they will be illegal to use, buy, sell. They should be treated in the same regard as cocaine.
I'm not saying they should be illegal because I want to blame the gov't for my poor choices, no, I accept what I have done, they should be outlawed so future generations don't even start on them.
I know it sounds radical, but there's nothing about smoking that is good, not even in moderation.
If you look at health studies, they can show how a glass of wine in your diet can actually have benefits, but smoking is just plain bad news.
I smoke about 30 a day, and even as a smoker, all these recent laws about banning smoking in public places is a step in the right direction.
As far as I'm concerned, the rights of the non smoker should always come first.
Even if I have a guest / visitor in my house, I will ask them... "Mind if I smoke?"
If they say it bothers them, I'll go outside or in the garage.
I'll be out of smokes by mid week, and that's the day I make a BIG effort to pack it in for good. Reading about some of your guys success stories is really helping to motivate me.
Habibi
I'm 37 yo, and I've been smoking since 11.
I quit twice, once for a year, and once for 2 years.
You guys who posted that you smoked for a long time and quit, I applaud you for it, I know how difficult it is.
It's too late for us older guys who have already damaged our selves, but even as a smoker I can say this.
Tobacco should be illegal.
Some of you might say "WTF is he talking about, has he lost his mind?
Well, cigarettes are bad news, and you guys mark my words, one day they will be illegal to use, buy, sell. They should be treated in the same regard as cocaine.
I'm not saying they should be illegal because I want to blame the gov't for my poor choices, no, I accept what I have done, they should be outlawed so future generations don't even start on them.
I know it sounds radical, but there's nothing about smoking that is good, not even in moderation.
If you look at health studies, they can show how a glass of wine in your diet can actually have benefits, but smoking is just plain bad news.
I smoke about 30 a day, and even as a smoker, all these recent laws about banning smoking in public places is a step in the right direction.
As far as I'm concerned, the rights of the non smoker should always come first.
Even if I have a guest / visitor in my house, I will ask them... "Mind if I smoke?"
If they say it bothers them, I'll go outside or in the garage.
I'll be out of smokes by mid week, and that's the day I make a BIG effort to pack it in for good. Reading about some of your guys success stories is really helping to motivate me.
Habibi
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 3
From: Eastern TN
Good luck, Habibi. I hope you succeed !!
I agree, they should be illegal for the exact reasons you stated.
Go see your doctor about quitting. I have a friend who recently quit (after 25 years of smoking) and the doc was able to prescribe a couple of pills for 3-6 months that took the edge off and made it a little easier to stop and hold the often-reported weight gain in check.
I agree, they should be illegal for the exact reasons you stated.
Go see your doctor about quitting. I have a friend who recently quit (after 25 years of smoking) and the doc was able to prescribe a couple of pills for 3-6 months that took the edge off and made it a little easier to stop and hold the often-reported weight gain in check.
