Do smokers deserve healthcare from the province?

[August1991]

Smokers already pay more for healthcare

Not by enough.

The last time I checked, using data from Ontario, smokers through cigarette taxes paid more than all the additional costs cigarettes impose on the public health system.

Smokers pay their way.

BTW, I didn't include in the calculation the fact that smokers generally don't receive pensions into their 90s. To be crude about this, cigarettes allow people to live during their productive years and then cigarettes kill people when they are no longer useful to society. The anti-smoking campaigns will affect actuarial tables, and will increase the burden on working Canadians.

[incidentally, I used to smoke but quit several years ago.]

But you see, cars are popular, cigarettes are not. Thus, there is laws against smoking and public subsidies for car driving!

It is hard not to see cigarette smokers as a victimized minority. They represent about 25% of the population. In a government budget in a democracy, it is always a winning idea to impose taxes on 25% to the benefit of the other 75% . It's called the tyranny of the majority.

Since the majority drives cars, carbon taxes will be a hard political sell.

I am for making smoking in public hard enough that people learn that it's an antisocial habit that should be given up.

According to some people, walking around naked in public is anti-social behaviour. Does this mean we should make nudist beaches illegal?

The Supreme Court has decided that people can go to a public swingers club, pay money and have sex orgies if they want. But they are not allowed to light up a cigarette afterwards.

I agree with Geoffrey that a club owner should decide whether to allow smoking or not. The government should not legislate morality.

[geoffrey]

I agree with Geoffrey that a club owner should decide whether to allow smoking or not. The government should not legislate morality.

In an ideal world. Public health care complicates things though August. If smokers pay their way, then ok. But I don't want to fund anyone else's person choices (and I don't expect others to fund mine).

What about second hand exposure? Should we tax all people that enter a smokey bar because they will eventually be a higher risk? How about bar employees that don't smoke, should there be a payroll tax for their increased risk to the system?

[Mad_Michael]

You still can't get a seat in most bars late on a Friday or Saturday, obviously they aren't losing their realistic business.

One apparently can get into most Toronto Nightclubs at midnight on a Friday or Saturday these days. Five years ago, if you weren't on the VIP list, don't bother to show up after midnight because you wouldn't be let in at all. Now the Club-zone neighborhood is teeming with people outside all night while the Clubs themselves are half-empty.

Bars and nightclubs laying off staff and are closing in and around Toronto. These used to be a big form of tourism draw for Toronto and tourism used to be one of the most important industries in Toronto. And the bars and hotels are all suffering a slump here going on five years now. And the City officals act like the cause is some mystery that can be wished away by yet another tourism advertising campaign.

[BornAlbertan]

And as so long as gambling and smoking are legal...who are we to say people shouldn't be doing it or at least when they shouldn't. Continue to throw your health away...you are paying for that right. Continue to throw your home away...I will sleep well in mine.

My main issue is with VLT's in particular, not gambling. The government designs machines that are intentionally addictive and puts them in places where people are most vunerable. That's unreasonable.

If it was a private inititive, I wouldn't care. But since the government is actively attempting to get people addicted in order to fill their overflowing coffers... I oppose it.

The government does no such thing.

[geoffrey]

My main issue is with VLT's in particular, not gambling. The government designs machines that are intentionally addictive and puts them in places where people are most vunerable. That's unreasonable.

If it was a private inititive, I wouldn't care. But since the government is actively attempting to get people addicted in order to fill their overflowing coffers... I oppose it.

The government does no such thing.

Oh, I'm sorry. The hundreds of studies that have found VLT's to be the absolute most addicting form of gambling and the government putting them into bars (instead of just casinos) is a plan to get people to live more fiscally responsible lives.

Common sense.

[BornAlbertan]

The government designs machines that are intentionally addictive and puts them in places where people are most vunerable.

The government does not design the machines. It does not build them. Nor does it place them.

Private companies design them. Private companies build them. Private companies apply to place them in their establishments. They have a set of guidelines which are to be met for placement and if the guidelines are met, they are allowed to place the amount that guidelines permit.

Government establishes the guidelines, sure.

Government does legislate the minimum payouts.

But government does not do what you say by a long shot.

A vast majority of people are able to play those machines without issue...as a means of entertainment. Not to make money. So long as there are programs like AADAC (which btw is directly funded by things like gambling revenues) out there to help people who won't help themselves, it is hard to find fault with anyone but the people who put themselves in those positions in the first place.

[Moxie]

I agree with Geoffrey that a club owner should decide whether to allow smoking or not. The government should not legislate morality.

In an ideal world. Public health care complicates things though August. If smokers pay their way, then ok. But I don't want to fund anyone else's person choices (and I don't expect others to fund mine).

What about second hand exposure? Should we tax all people that enter a smokey bar because they will eventually be a higher risk? How about bar employees that don't smoke, should there be a payroll tax for their increased risk to the system?

I hate to tell you this Geoffrey but that is what health care is about, you do not have the right to dictate free will. If you are willing to subject smokers to a socialist tax then would you be okay with a "Fat Tax", being fat is a choice. Would you be okay with a drinking tax and who decideds how much alcohol is enough? What about inherited deseases would we punish a family for giving birth knowing their is a chance the child might get heart desease in fifty years. This topic is utter nonsense, how far are you willing to go Geoffrey for your socialist utopia.

Oh and Geoffrey Canada has already banned smoking in public so you might want to catch up on your reading.

[guyser]

Oh and Geoffrey Canada has already banned smoking in public so you might want to catch up on your reading.

You sure about that?

[gc1765]

how far are you willing to go Geoffrey for your socialist utopia.

Geoffrey is a socialist?? I think that comment belongs in This Thread

Good one...I'll be laughing for days...

[geoffrey]

I hate to tell you this Geoffrey but that is what health care is about, you do not have the right to dictate free will.

Sure I do. When you cost me money, I have ever right to bitch about your lifestyle. Don't cost me money and I could care less what you do.

If you are willing to subject smokers to a socialist tax then would you be okay with a "Fat Tax", being fat is a choice. Would you be okay with a drinking tax and who decideds how much alcohol is enough?

There already are huge taxes on liquor. A fat tax is something I've advocated for a long time. People should pay their own way.

Your the one arguing for a socialist utopia, where we accept everyone's reckless habits and subsidize them. Do you want to pay for someone's smoking? For their fat ass? For their beers? Nahh. I'd rather people bare the total cost of their own choices. That's very far from socialism.

Oh and Geoffrey Canada has already banned smoking in public so you might want to catch up on your reading.

Show me the law where the Federal government banned smoking and I'll give you $20 cash right now. Firstly, it would be unconstitutional since it's an area of provincial jurisdiction (delegated to the provinces). Second, your wrong. There are many municipalities where smoking is ok. Even in Calgary you can smoke inside a Casino or a bingo hall until the end of the year.

[August1991]

What about second hand exposure? Should we tax all people that enter a smokey bar because they will eventually be a higher risk? How about bar employees that don't smoke, should there be a payroll tax for their increased risk to the system?

If you don't like a smoky bar, don't go there as an employee or a customer. Go to the smoke-free bar across the street.

The best defence against stupidity is to be able to go elsewhere. It means to have a choice.

I'll go further with that idea. A synonym for "rich" is the ability to choose. Wealthy people have more choices. If we want to raise people's standard of living and make them better off, we should give them more choices. Then they'll be rich. Governments rarely give people more choices and I wonder whether governments are even capable of this. IOW, governments cannot make people rich.

I hate to tell you this Geoffrey but that is what health care is about, you do not have the right to dictate free will. If you are willing to subject smokers to a socialist tax then would you be okay with a "Fat Tax", being fat is a choice. Would you be okay with a drinking tax and who decideds how much alcohol is enough?

We tax alcohol. And I suspect that the only reason we don't tax fat is that a majority of Canadians are fat. A tax on fat would not be politically popular - unless it was presented as a diet scheme.

Now the Club-zone neighborhood is teeming with people outside all night while the Clubs themselves are half-empty.

Bars and nightclubs laying off staff and are closing in and around Toronto. These used to be a big form of tourism draw for Toronto and tourism used to be one of the most important industries in Toronto. And the bars and hotels are all suffering a slump here going on five years now. And the City officals act like the cause is some mystery that can be wished away by yet another tourism advertising campaign.

In Montreal in the summer, they have "sidewalk" tables and people smoke there.

A waitress in Northern Ontario told me that if a customer was caught smoking a cigarette, she would be fined $1000 and the bar would lose its liquor license. But if a customer lit up a marijuana joint, the bar and waitress would lose nothing and the customer would get a $100 fine.

I happen to think that with same-sex marriage and the cigarette laws, the politically correct modern puritans have reached too far.

[geoffrey]

What about second hand exposure? Should we tax all people that enter a smokey bar because they will eventually be a higher risk? How about bar employees that don't smoke, should there be a payroll tax for their increased risk to the system?

If you don't like a smoky bar, don't go there as an employee or a customer. Go to the smoke-free bar across the street.

The best defence against stupidity is to be able to go elsewhere. It means to have a choice.

I think you misunderstood. I agree anyone has the choice not to be there.

If I choose to go into a smoky bar though, should I pay a health premium now that I'm engaging in risky behavoir (inhaling second hand smoke).

[gc1765]

If I choose to go into a smoky bar though, should I pay a health premium now that I'm engaging in risky behavoir (inhaling second hand smoke).

Shouldn't the smoker pay the extra health premium? Or are you talking about private health care now?

[geoffrey]

Shouldn't the smoker pay the extra health premium? Or are you talking about private health care now?

Nope public. Because I willingly inhale smoke I should pay for that. I have the option to take my business elsewhere. This would be in a situation with a public smoking ban, but allowing any private owned business to set it's own rules.

[gc1765]

Nope public. Because I willingly inhale smoke I should pay for that. I have the option to take my business elsewhere. This would be in a situation with a public smoking ban, but allowing any private owned business to set it's own rules.

But the smoker willingly smokes.

Why are you Ok with not only putting your own health in jeopardy because of someone else's actions, but also Ok with paying for it? If it's a private business, then I guess they can decide for themselves how they want to pay this tax...but if I were a bar owner that allowed smoking, I'd charge the smokers, not the non-smokers. Otherwise, no non-smokers would go to a smoking bar (at least I wouldn't) if it is going to cost them more money.

[Bonam]

The worst is people that smoke at bus stops and other locations where you have to stand around waiting for something in a small outside area. Even walking down the street in a city, you are forced to inhale second hand smoke. Smoking should just be banned in all locations except specially designated seperately ventilated facilities and one's personal residence.

[geoffrey]

But the smoker willingly smokes.

And the non-smoker at the smoking bar willingly subjects themself to the same health risk. What's the difference?

[gc1765]

And the non-smoker at the smoking bar willingly subjects themself to the same health risk. What's the difference?

Like I said, if it's private property then the bar owner can decide how they want to charge/tax people. But I can tell you I'd never pay extra money to put my health at risk to go to a smoking bar.

If we are talking about public property though, if we are not going to outright ban it, then the smokers should at least be the one paying. Look at the example above...why should I have to pay more money and put my health at risk just to wait for a bus, for example?

[Drea]

The worst is people that smoke at bus stops and other locations where you have to stand around waiting for something in a small outside area. Even walking down the street in a city, you are forced to inhale second hand smoke. Smoking should just be banned in all locations except specially designated seperately ventilated facilities and one's personal residence.

I dunno... I was in the Timmy's drive through line-up this morning and damn near got gassed to death by an old vehicle. I had to drive with all 4 windows open all the way to work to get the fumes out of my car.

Yesterday the guy in front of me had a cigarette going -- not only that but HE WAS HANGING IT OUTSIDE THE WINDOW OF HIS TRUCK!

OMG -- I coulda friggin' died from it

[August1991]

The worst is people that smoke at bus stops and other locations where you have to stand around waiting for something in a small outside area. Even walking down the street in a city, you are forced to inhale second hand smoke. Smoking should just be banned in all locations except specially designated seperately ventilated facilities and one's personal residence.

You're kidding, right?

As Drea noted above, you stand at a bus stop with trucks, cars and indeed even buses driving by emitting exhaust, and you worry about a cigarette? Or how about the noise pollution all these vehicles inflict?

About 20% of the population smokes. They are a minority and it is easy for the majority of non-smokers to pick on them.

[geoffrey]

But I can tell you I'd never pay extra money to put my health at risk to go to a smoking bar.

Good, I wouldn't either. Now tell me why I should pay for your (based on probability) higher health care costs because you willingly decide to go to establishments that allow smoking.

[gc1765]

Good, I wouldn't either. Now tell me why I should pay for your (based on probability) higher health care costs because you willingly decide to go to establishments that allow smoking.

Well, personally I don't go to smoking bars. But even if I did, I wouldn't ask you to pay for the extra health costs, but someone would have to pay for them. It could be me, or it could be the person actually doing the smoking. It's up to the private business to decide which. If it were my business, the smoker would pay. That's basically what I've been trying to say all along.

[Bonam]

You're kidding, right?

As Drea noted above, you stand at a bus stop with trucks, cars and indeed even buses driving by emitting exhaust, and you worry about a cigarette?

Actually, no, I am not kidding. Firstly, studies have shown that cigarettes produce much more harmful fumes than car engines. I can't find the link to the study I read right now, but here's an article comparing cigarette fumes to diesel emissions:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=12481

In summary, 1 cigarette produces roughly 10 times as much harmful particulate matter over time as a turbo diesel engine .

Secondly, a smoker standing on the sidewalk beside you is generally much closer to you than the cars passing by on the road, meaning that you inhale a larger portion of the fumes that are generated.

About 20% of the population smokes. They are a minority and it is easy for the majority of non-smokers to pick on them.

What's that supposed to mean? You can't seriously be trying to cast critiscism of smoking as a form of unfair discrimination. Smoking needs to be picked on, for many good reasons.

[August1991]

Bonam, from your link above:

A turbo diesel 2 litre engine was started and left idling for 30 minutes in the garage, with the doors closed, after which the doors were left open for four hours. The car was fuelled with low sulphur fuel.

Three filter cigarettes were then lit up sequentially, and left smouldering for a further 30 minutes. The nicotine and tar content of each cigarette was 1 mg and 11.2 mg, respectively.

A portable analyser took readings every two minutes during the experiments.

Combined particulate levels in the first hour after the engine had been started measured 88 ug/m3. Those recorded in the first hour after the cigarettes had been lit measured 830 ug/m3: 10 times greater.

So, minute for minute (and based on this study that you found), 10 cars equal one smoker.

In a typical day, for how many minutes does a typical person drive their car? And for how many minutes does a typical smoker smoke cigarettes?

Bonam, you do the math.

About 20% of the population smokes. They are a minority and it is easy for the majority of non-smokers to pick on them.

What's that supposed to mean? You can't seriously be trying to cast critiscism of smoking as a form of unfair discrimination.

Absolutely. It is easy to pick on smokers, they are a minority.

To be more precise, there is a small group of "Nazi" anti-smoker activists who have decided to eliminate cigarette smoking from the face of the earth. Most people are not smokers so they are not concerned about anti-smoking laws. The laws don't affect them.

As a politician in a democracy, what do you do?

[gc1765]

About 20% of the population smokes. They are a minority and it is easy for the majority of non-smokers to pick on them.

Likewise, people who don't drive (or ride in) cars are also in the minority. Thus, it's easy for the minority to get stuck inhaling the toxic fumes from the majority. And being a minority, there's not much they can do about it. A carbon/pollution tax would not be politically popular.