Quoted Text

Public Health Proposal Considers Mandatory ‘Smokers License’By Benjamin Fearnow
November 15, 2012 6:07 AM


(CBS DC) – A public health proposal suggests that tobacco smokers should be required to apply and pay for a “smoker’s license” in order to continue buying cigarettes.

In this week’s PLOS Medicine medical journal, two leading tobacco control advocates debate the merits of the smoker’s license. Simon Chapman, a professor at the University of Sydney, proposes that users would have to apply and pay for a mandatory license in the form of a smartcard that would be shown when buying cigarettes............................................>>>>................................>>>>..........................http://washington.cbslocal.com.....ory-smokers-license/

[quote=1][/quote]

Why not just a federal tax on cigarettes of say $10 per pack that would reimburse Federal and State
taxpayers for  smoking health costs.
Smoke if you want to but don't ask me to pay for your addiction and don't expect to poison my air with
your carcinogens.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Smoke if you want to but don't ask me to pay for your addiction and don't expect to poison my air with your carcinogens.

It's not your air Stalin.  Your are a liberal collectivist - it's OUR air.  

Next the EPA will bill everyone a carbon tax because we breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2 so we must pay for our pollution of the earth.

Quoted from CICERO

It's not your air Stalin.  Your are a liberal collectivist - it's OUR air.  

Yes I agree... and the smokers can pollute THEIR air, but they don't have the right to pollute MY air.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Yes I agree... and the smokers can pollute THEIR air, but they don't have the right to pollute MY air.

But I'm sure you have the right to pollute my air with your car, because you drive.  So since you drive and the majority drives, polluting people's air that don't drive doesn't matter since you are in the majority.  It's tyranny by the majority accross the board for ole box.

I believe cars should vent their exhaust back into the passenger area of the car so it doesn't pollute non drivers air, and only pollutes their own air.

Quoted from CICERO

But I'm sure you have the right to pollute my air with your car, because you drive.  So since you drive and the majority drives, polluting people's air that don't drive doesn't matter since you are in the majority.  It's tyranny by the majority accross the board for ole box.

I believe cars should vent their exhaust back into the passenger area of the car so it doesn't pollute non drivers air, and only pollutes their own air.

Cars actually serve a useful purpose in the USA.  Hopefully they will soon be pollution free.  I would agree
that those who use cars pay for the technology to clean up their pollution product.

The same with tobacco.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cars actually serve a useful purpose in the USA.  Hopefully they will soon be pollution free.  I would agree
that those who use cars pay for the technology to clean up their pollution product.

The same with tobacco.

They won't be pollution free in my or your lifetime... The battery technology is plain not there yet.
Most of these cars can only go, at the most, 100 miles before a recharge..which takes a lot longer than a fillup. Can you imagine trying to drive to Florida with an electric car? You'd spend a week just getting there.

As far as smoking, the government has NO real interest in getting rid of cigarettes... if they did, they could ban then...period...end of the story. They NEED taxes from big tobacco and smokers to pay for their programs.. it's Hypocrisy on a fairly large level.
Even if they did ban tobacco, it would just drive it underground, then they would receive no money at all.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Cars actually serve a useful purpose in the USA.

Useful purpose must be defined.  Any recreational use of cars should be regulated.  NASCAR should be outlawed.  Family vacations should be highly regulated - like limiting the miles you can travel away from your home.  

I mean, I don't care that people use their cars for necessities.  But don't pollute my air by using the car for recreational purposes.  

Quoted from 55tbird

As far as smoking, the government has NO real interest in getting rid of cigarettes... if they did, they could ban then...period...end of the story. They NEED taxes from big tobacco and smokers to pay for their programs.. it's Hypocrisy on a fairly large level.
Even if they did ban tobacco, it would just drive it underground, then they would receive no money at all.

The subject of the thread is 'smoking' and it's costs.

One absolute FACT, smoking costs state and federal dollars... it IS NOT A MONEY MAKER FOR GOVT.

Consider:

~A study published in the Journal of Health Economics, found a mortality cost as high as
$222 per pack for men in 2006 dollars.

~Meanwhile, in "The Price of Smoking" (The MIT Press, December 2004), Duke University researchers
put the private and social costs – secondhand smoke, Medicare, etc. – of a lifetime of smoking at
$40 per pack

~Pennsylvania State Researchers calculated the cost of a pack to state governments, as part of a
series of cost-benefit analyses to determine the potential savings created by programs to help people quit.
The study found that, overall, for every dollar spent on smoking cessation programs, states could save
$0.86 to $2.52.

~On average, a pack of cigarettes in the U.S. costs a smoker $5.51, while the combined medical
costs and productivity losses attributable to each pack are approximately $18.05,


http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/28/true-cost-smoking-pack/

Quoted from Box A Rox

The subject of the thread is 'smoking' and it's costs.

One absolute FACT, smoking costs state and federal dollars... it IS NOT A MONEY MAKER FOR GOVT.

Consider:

~A study published in the Journal of Health Economics, found a mortality cost as high as
$222 per pack for men in 2006 dollars.

~Meanwhile, in "The Price of Smoking" (The MIT Press, December 2004), Duke University researchers
put the private and social costs – secondhand smoke, Medicare, etc. – of a lifetime of smoking at
$40 per pack

~Pennsylvania State Researchers calculated the cost of a pack to state governments, as part of a
series of cost-benefit analyses to determine the potential savings created by programs to help people quit.
The study found that, overall, for every dollar spent on smoking cessation programs, states could save
$0.86 to $2.52.

~On average, a pack of cigarettes in the U.S. costs a smoker $5.51, while the combined medical
costs and productivity losses attributable to each pack are approximately $18.05,


http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/28/true-cost-smoking-pack/

Did they do this study on alcohol?

Here's a hint...THERE IS A GROWING NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DO NOT GIVE A sh*t ABOUT THE IMPACT THEIR LIFE CHOICES HAVE ON THE "STATE".  I don't live my life wondering how my decisions impact the state.  Life's too fu(king short and too many other things to worry about than that.  

Only fascist like you box want people to moderate their behavior and take any joy they may get out of life for the holy state. That's what the fascist technocrats do; they look at human behavior like one big science project.  They pass more coercive laws to break your habits that they determine are a detriment to the collective state.

Box's HERO said this over 60 years ago!
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Quoted from CICERO

Did they do this study on alcohol?

Here's a hint...THERE IS A GROWING NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT DO NOT GIVE A sh*t ABOUT THE IMPACT THEIR LIFE CHOICES HAVE ON THE "STATE".  I don't live my life wondering how my decisions impact the state.  Life's too fu(king short and too many other things to worry about than that.  

Only fascist like you box want people to moderate their behavior and take any joy they may get out of life for the holy state. That's what the fascist technocrats do; they look at human behavior like one big science project.  They pass more coercive laws to break your habits that they determine are a detriment to the collective state.

Box's HERO said this over 60 years ago!
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.

Cicero gets it wrong once again... (You'd think he'd learn )
Cic keeps posting his political agenda on top of unrelated posts.
Pay attention Cic... maybe you'll finally 'get it'!

Cic writes:
"Only fascist like you box want people to moderate their behavior"
(It fits Cicero's political agenda but not the facts)
My original post:
"Smoke if you want to but don't ask me to pay for your addiction"

The only "moderation of behavior" that I seek is for the smokers to pay for their own addiction and
not ask the non smoking citizens to underwrite their poor behavior with our tax dollars.

If you're gonna smoke then smoke... but at least pay for it yourself and pay the added cost of
smoking.  

(See Cic?  Ya got it wrong yet again.)

Quoted from Box A Rox

The subject of the thread is 'smoking' and it's costs.

One absolute FACT, smoking costs state and federal dollars... it IS NOT A MONEY MAKER FOR GOVT.

Consider:

~A study published in the Journal of Health Economics, found a mortality cost as high as
$222 per pack for men in 2006 dollars.

~Meanwhile, in "The Price of Smoking" (The MIT Press, December 2004), Duke University researchers
put the private and social costs – secondhand smoke, Medicare, etc. – of a lifetime of smoking at
$40 per pack

~Pennsylvania State Researchers calculated the cost of a pack to state governments, as part of a
series of cost-benefit analyses to determine the potential savings created by programs to help people quit.
The study found that, overall, for every dollar spent on smoking cessation programs, states could save
$0.86 to $2.52.

~On average, a pack of cigarettes in the U.S. costs a smoker $5.51, while the combined medical
costs and productivity losses attributable to each pack are approximately $18.05,


http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/28/true-cost-smoking-pack/

That's rich Box, coming from you.. the King of thread hijackers!!!
The article you posted is flawed, because it does not include Government income derived by Income taxes from big tobacco, income taxes from employees of big tobacco, income taxes from companies and their employees that support big tobacco....

Quoted from 55tbird

The article you posted is flawed, because it does not include Government income derived by Income taxes from big tobacco, income taxes from employees of big tobacco, income taxes from companies and their employees that support big tobacco....

Tobacco Subsidies (to tobacco farmers) in the United States totaled $1.3 billion from 1995-2011.

In 2004, President Bush signed the Fair and Equitable Tobacco Reform Act that ended the price support
program for tobacco farmers and established the Tobacco Transition Payment Program
. The payments from the program began in 2005 and will continue through 2014 and will go out to
eligible tobacco quota holder and producers. The funds set aside for
this program are equivalent to 25 years’ worth of future payments that will equal approximately
$18.6 billion a year

Wrong box, you are the one that supports collective health care and forced servitude in the health industry.  

You get it WRONG AGAIN!