Surgeon chap says secondhand smoke bad

[Arrian]

Nevermind, your math isn't as wrong as I thought, at least for CT. The current tax is apparently $1.51/pack. My bad. The rest is markup. Hows about that, eh?

How is that freakin' possible, btw? I thought the tax was way higher... (goes back to google).

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Cigarette Tax Increases 2000 - 2006

Increase New Rate/ Effective
Per Pack Pack of 20 Date
Alabama $0.26 $0.425 5/18/2004
Arizona $0.58 $1.18 11/25/2002
Alaska $0.60 $1.60 1/1/2005
Arkansas $0.04 $0.34 7/1/2001
Arkansas $0.25 $0.59 6/1/2003
Colorado $0.64 $0.84 1/1/2005
Connecticut $0.61 $1.11 4/3/2002
Connecticut $0.40 $1.51 3/15/2003
Delaware $0.31 $0.55 8/1/2003
District of Columbia $0.35 $1.00 1/1/2003
Georgia $0.25 $0.37 7/1/2003
Hawaii
$0.20 $1.20 10/1/2002
Hawaii $0.10 $1.30 7/1/2003
Hawaii $0.10 $1.40 7/1/2004
Idaho $0.29 $0.57 6/1/2003
Illinois $0.40 $0.98 7/1/2002
Indiana $0.40 $0.555 7/1/2002
Kansas $0.46 $0.70 7/1/2002
Kansas $0.09 $0.79 7/1/2003
Kentucky $0.27 $0.30 6/1/2005
Louisiana $0.04 $0.24 8/1/2000
Louisiana $0.12 $0.36 8/1/2002
Maine $0.26 $1.00 6/1/2001
Maine $1.00 $2.00 9/19/2005
Maryland $0.34 $1.00 7/1/2002
Massachusetts $0.75 $1.51 7/25/2002
Michigan $0.50 $1.25 8/1/2002
Michigan $0.75 $2.00 7/1/2004
Minnesota $0.75 $1.23 8/1/2005
Minnesota (sales tax) $0.255 $1.485 8/1/2005
Montana $0.52 $0.70 5/1/2003
Montana $1.00 $1.70 1/1/2005
Nebraska $0.30 $0.64 10/1/2002
Nevada $0.45 $0.80 7/22/2003
New Hampshire $0.28 $0.80 7/1/2005
New Jersey $0.70 $1.50 7/1/2002
New Jersey $0.55 $2.05 7/1/2003
New Jersey $0.35 $2.40 7/1/2004
New Mexico $0.70 $0.91 7/1/2003
New York City $1.42 $1.50 7/2/2002
New York State $0.55 $1.11 3/1/2000
New York State $0.39 $1.50 4/3/2002
North Carolina $0.25 $0.30 7/1/2005
North Carolina $0.05 $0.35 7/1/2006
Ohio $0.31 $0.55 7/1/2002
Ohio $0.70 $1.25 1/1/2005
Oklahoma $0.80 $1.03 7/1/2004
Oregon $0.60 $1.28 11/1/2002
Oregon -$0.10 $1.18 1/1/2004
Pennsylvania $0.69 $1.00 7/15/2002
Pennsylvania $0.35 $1.35 7/1/2004
Rhode Island $0.32 $1.32 5/1/2002
Rhode Island $0.39 $1.71 7/15/2003
Rhode Island $0.75 $2.46 7/1/2004
South Dakota $0.20 $0.53 3/18/2003
Tennessee $0.07 $0.20 7/15/2002
Utah $0.18 $0.695 5/6/2002
Vermont $0.49 $0.93 7/1/2002
Vermont $0.26 $1.19 7/1/2003
Virginia $0.175 $0.20 7/1/2004
Virginia $0.10 $0.30 7/1/2005
Washington $0.60 $1.425 1/1/2002
Washington $0.60 $2.025 7/1/2005
West Virginia $0.38 $0.55 5/1/2003
Wisconsin $0.18 $0.77 10/1/2001
Wyoming $0.48 $0.60 7/1/2003

U.S. Median* $0.79 1/1/2006

A pack of smokes here in CT is not $8 - those are NYC prices (and as you can see, NY State + NYC tax = $3, double CT's tax). Still, it will run you about $5/pack. Pre-tax, that's $3.50/pack. As opposed to about $1.50 if you buy online. Uh-huh.

There's a reason Phillip Morris & friends are still raking it in.

-Arrian

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Ming


By the way... it's not the nicotine that causes health problems... it's all the crap that comes in the smoke

And no, not all people who smoke will have health problems related to their smoking. Not all smokers die from causes due to their smoking... And what about social smokers... those people that have occasional smokes when they are out partying... walking down the streets of Chicago on a regular basis and inhaling fumes from buses and cars is more likely to cause you health problems than smoking an occasional cig...

Actually... there is no real proof that smoking causes cancer. I'm not denying that it does or doesn't... but you are implying that there is proof that if you smoke you will have health related problems... ignoring that some smokers (mostly the light users) may never have a smoke related medical problem.

There is just as much proof that fast food is bad for you... that riding a motorcyle without a helmet is bad for you... the drinking is bad for you...

If you want to ban one for health reasons... you have to ban them all.

Sorry to be so blatant in disagreeing with you, but you are wrong.

Nicotine causes the platlets in your blood to become "sticky" and causes arterial blockage. While some people have a higher tolerence to this than others, there is anecdotal evidence that eventually you will have a blockage as the result of nicotine alone.

Secondly, It is FACT that smoking will cause COPD given enough time.

There is a difference between a corelation that a behavior is unhealthy and the fact that a behavior WILL cause a disease. Your points are well taken, but they avoid the central point here. You are talking about "at risk" behaviors and I am talking about medical certainty.

If it was just cancer or just heart disease, then you would have an argument. The evidence is overwhelming but not absolutely difinitive. In the case of COPD, it is definitive. That alone is reason enough to ban smoking, while allowing the other behaviors you descibe to continue.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Arrian

There's a reason Phillip Morris & friends are still raking it in.

-Arrian

And thus the single reason that smoking is still legal.

[Arrian]

No, for that you will have to review the cigarette tax revenue, PLATO. It's a cash cow for the government (or at least they see it that way). It's a tax they can all vote for and claim they're doing good twice over: see, we're closing that budget gap AND we're discouraging smoking! Hurray for us! Let's give ourselves raises, woohoo!

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by PLATO
Sorry to be so blatant in disagreeing with you, but you are wrong.

Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it true

Nicotine causes the platlets in your blood to become "sticky" and causes arterial blockage. While some people have a higher tolerence to this than others, there is anecdotal evidence that eventually you will have a blockage as the result of nicotine alone.

I'm glad you included the word "anecodotal"... because that's all the "evidence" there is. Many things cause arterial blockage... but you are just picking on nicotine

Secondly, It is FACT that smoking will cause COPD given enough time.

Now... is that "FACT" based on somebody who smokes 3 packs a day... or a person who may smoke 5 cigs a month or in a year???? There is no FACT that smoking a cig will certainly cause COPD. It depends on your body, and how much and how long you smoke...

There is a difference between a corelation that a behavior is unhealthy and the fact that a behavior WILL cause a disease. Your points are well taken, but they avoid the central point here. You are talking about "at risk" behaviors and I am talking about medical certainty.

As I've said... it's NOT the medical certainty that you seem to be implying...

If it was just cancer or just heart disease, then you would have an argument. The evidence is overwhelming but not absolutely difinitive.

It is highly "directional" but by no means overwhelming.
Those diseases usually appear in heavy smokers, and not as much in light or social smokers...

In the case of COPD, it is definitive. That alone is reason enough to ban smoking, while allowing the other behaviors you descibe to continue.

Again... COPD is not definitive in light and social smokers... Just as people who eat fast/fatty food occasionaly aren't at much risk... but those that do so all the time and don't exercise are at great risk.

There are statistics that PROVE you are more likely to hurt yourself if you drive a motorcyle without a helmet.

There are statistics that PROVE married men live longer than unmarried men (I guess you are advocating that all men MUST get married )

There are statistics that PROVE people who eat fatty foods and don't exercise are more likely to have heart problems...

Again... if you are going to use health as a reason... do it across the board.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Arrian
Jesus H. Christ. That argument could apply to ANY RISKY BEHAVIOR, which is why most sane people stop short of it. We spread the risk. Yes, ultimately this means the person who eats right, excercises, doesn't drink, smoke, or use drugs, gets enough sleep, doesn't play high-impact sports, etc. will pay more because of fat, drunk smokers.

But there are very few such people who live in glassless houses.

-Arrian

Ditto.

And I see your point about the "recently converted".

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Arrian

edit: I dunno if the full 6.50 is tax, though. Some of it could just be markup.

-Arrian

Not in my case. I buy from a retail establishment that doesn't collect/pay tax. They still get their markup.

[dannubis]

I am converting right now... 5 weeks already...

Ban smoking !!!! (from my mind)

[Theseus]

Back on point:

It seems to me that the new SG report is basically a review and "meta-analysis" of past reports.

And, having done some admittedly quick investigation, it seems that the primary research upon which the case rests are the 1986 SG report, the 1993 EPA study, and latter of the major WHO studies... all of which have been seriously called into question or even discredited.

Am I missing something here?

[Arrian]

Immediate thought: "called into question" by whom, T? Tobacco company paid consultants?

Look, breathing in smoke (cigarette or not!) is bad for you. Duh. Second hand smoke is smoke you inhale w/o your consent.

It's simple: we are free to do was we wish until our freedom harms someone else (how loosely we define "harm" of course is an issue). Thus, reasonable restrictions to reduce exposure to 2nd hand smoke are really a no-brainer.

What people do to themselves, however, is different.

-Arrian

[Theseus]

Originally posted by Arrian
Immediate thought: "called into question" by whom, T? Tobacco company paid consultants?

Um, not sure about the first SG report, but if I understand correctly the EPA report was slammed by a federal judge (and not questioned by anyone above him), and the WHO report was in contradiction to their own previous work, as pointed out by the BBC and others.

Look, breathing in smoke (cigarette or not!) is bad for you. Duh. Second hand smoke is smoke you inhale w/o your consent.

It's simple: we are free to do was we wish until our freedom harms someone else (how loosely we define "harm" of course is an issue). Thus, reasonable restrictions to reduce exposure to 2nd hand smoke are really a no-brainer.

Agreed, that's the core of the issue. BUT, define "harm" and "reasonable".

I am not seeing where the evidence for harm from second hand smoke has been apolitically and scientifically validated. In the absence of that, it is pretty hard to discuss reasonable measures for public safety.

[Kuciwalker]

We ban public nudity. Smoking is just as disgusting. (And yes, public nudity would be pretty disgusting for most people to practice.)

[Ming]

I have no problem with "no smoking" zones in public or government owned places, and I respect the right of others not to be bothered by second hand smoke.

However, I do have a problem with the government telling privately owned bars and clubs that they can't allow smoking... People who don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke don't have to enter if they don't want to. They aren't being forced to being exposed to second hand smoke. This doesn't infringe on their freedoms... they can choose to enter or not. However, the owners of these clubs and bars are having their freedom infringed. Smoking is not illegal (at least not yet)...

[Kuciwalker]

However, I do have a problem with the government telling privately owned bars and clubs that they can't allow smoking...

... or restaraunts?

There's virtually no other way to guarantee that we can stay smoke-free if we want; there's little incentive for a restaraunt to ban smoking on its own initiative.