TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- A good point raised on the stupid.ca site

A good point raised on the stupid.ca site

quote:

I was back in Canada this past weekend in order to visit some people, and made an interesting observation. In all the rhetoric and anti-advertising, there is never any mention of snuff or chewing tobacco. Obviously, being a person with inquisitive nature, I sat down and pondered this observation, and realized how this is a perfect example (and potentially proof) that the movement is, in essence, a crusade. As I pointed out, nowhere is there mention made of snuff or chewing tobacco, two killers in the family of tobacco products. An argument could be made that these two products are more hazardous than smoking to those that use them, but it really is irrelevant, as they are still tobacco products intended for human consumption, and are therefore, by their very nature, dangerous. But nowhere in Canada, amongst the slew of anti-smoker rhetoric could I find ANYTHING about snuff or chewing tobacco. But what does this mean? Well, I would assert that this is more than it seems at first. To me, after hours of careful pondering, it means that the movement is not for the health and well-being of people, or even for the prevention of tobacco use. It means that someone seemingly arbitrarily picked smokers as a group that is easy to discriminate against, and decided they would take up a crusade against it. This crusade isn't even well thought out. It doesn't include all types of tobacco, just cigarettes, and leaves out other killers in our society. If the group of people who are so concerned with our health as a whole that they tax smokers, practically to death, for partaking in an enjoyable activity, actually cared for the health and well-being of those people, they would have long ago taken up a campaign against it. My proof? Read On. Perhaps the best example of a government who can at least appear to care is the United Kingdom government. Why, you ask? They have BANNED tobacco products intended for oral and nasal consumption. Granted, their tax rates on cigarettes are ridiculous, but at least they have taken the measures to ban these products, and look as though they care about the health of their citizens. This crusade isn't even about tobacco, its about society's disdain for smokers. A product that is perfectly legal, and from which the government recieves an astounding amout of tax money, is simply being trashed as being evil, manupulative, and essentially any other negative adjective you can think of, because some MP decided they would compile a bunch of stats against it. They say the industry is so evil, and don't even include all of the harmful products produced by the industry. But I will even go further in saying that this whole thing might not have anything to do with what we think its about. This might be some sort of sick psychological experiment into how far people will go in condemning one another based on their lifestyles. It seems there is some sort of Freudian complex at work in the subconscious minds of those in power. They have discluded certain deadly products, related to cigarettes, perhaps intentionally, perhaps unintentionally. But all this rhetoric, all these stats, this site, everything, is just the government pretending to care, sending countless people on crusades in the process, in order to tax you smokers to death. SO, in summary, this is not for the well-being of the citizens, it is merely a ploy for the tax revenue, and the government does not care about your health, smoker or non-smoker. __________________

i'll smoke to that.

quote:

Originally posted by {b.s.e.} i'll smoke to that.

Cigarettes are far more harmful to public health than chewing tobacco because a/ they are the most frequently used form of tobacco and b/ they affect the health of non smokers as well as smokers.

If you need to question why the government has waged a war on cigarettes and not on chewing tobacco, you need to give your head a shake.

The reason for targetting ciggerattes instead of all tobacco products is quite simple. Only with ciggerettes (and i guess cigars as well) do you endanger the lives of other people around you. Unless you are chewing tobacco and then spitting it down someone elses throat you are only risking your own health.


Not really a well thought out point - and as far as rhetoric. I think it's ironic that the guy is talking about rhetoric when most of the stuff he says is pure bullshit.

PS. On a selfish note, Day 18 of having quit for me -- and it feels great to be outside and not have to light up. Might as well start quitting, it doesn't seem smokers are going to win -- at least not in Canada.

quote:

Originally posted by Kytracid PS. On a selfish note, Day 18 of having quit for me -- and it feels great to be outside and not have to light up. Might as well start quitting, it doesn't seem smokers are going to win -- at least not in Canada.

Congrats, Dude! Keep up the good work! When you're ready to quit it's easy. I quit July 8 in Calgary 3 years ago when I paid $10.10 for a pack. As of the past few months I've been having a smoke here and there (which I guess means I'm not really a quitter?). But I don't buy my own smokes, and can go for days without. I quit back in my early 20's and started again after 2 years, but wasn't able to keep it under control like I can now. My sister only wishes she could say the same thing.

Cigarettes don't kill people... people kill people

Except that the main arguement for banning smoking in smoking rooms and patios is that they are trying to force people to quit for their own health and that it costs the health care system X amount of dollars.

The real reason is because our current whiney society is less tolerent of anyone's behaviour which doesn't suit their own lifestyle.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Except that the main arguement for banning smoking in smoking rooms and patios is that they are trying to force people to quit for their own health and that it costs the health care system X amount of dollars. The real reason is because our current whiney society is less tolerent of anyone's behaviour which doesn't suit their own lifestyle.

No, the main reason is to protect the workers in that industry. Just like smoking was banned in offices and other workplaces, bars and restaurants are workplaces as well.

It has been an extremely costly campaign for the Canadian government. Don't try to say that it was all because people were "whining."

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper No, the main reason is to protect the workers in that industry. Just like smoking was banned in offices and other workplaces, bars and restaurants are workplaces as well. It has been an extremely costly campaign for the Canadian government. Don't try to say that it was all because people were "whining."

Teh funny thing is how they failed to ask employees how they felt. No one ever asked me. Oh and not allowing smoking on patios and in smoking rooms is supposed to protect employees? I thought that was the reason that you arent allowed to serve in those rooms. No no no, this new law is all about big brotherism.

YAWN!!!!! Get over it already. The VAST majority of Canadians applaude the smoking measures...far from Big Brother...in fact it's democracy to a fault if anything. Do I really need to explain this?

This guy whines about how duplicitous the gov is, but what I want to know is whether the revenue the Canadian government gets from taxing that shit is BIGGER than the money it sinks into leathcare, treating, for free mind you, all those people with lung cancer and other diseases that tobacco causes, in Canada.

If it isn't, he should shut the fuck up.

quote:

Originally posted by Form&Funktion YAWN!!!!! Get over it already. The VAST majority of Canadians applaude the smoking measures...far from Big Brother...in fact it's democracy to a fault if anything. Do I really need to explain this?

I agree.
Considering it's a minority of the population that effects the majority when they are smoking; what's the real loss - Smokers don't unwillingly or unwantingly harm people they didn't necessarily want to harm by submitting to their own carnal pleasures.
Besides, AFAIK snuff and that crap you can still buy at smoke shops...

Am I an unwilling product of some black-ops government underground crusade?
Doubtful. We're all adults and have the capacity to make our own decisions.
I believe it's more a common sense crusade...

Re: A good point raised on the stupid.ca site

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1

This is moronic. That whole argument is easily taken apart with three simple facts:

1. It's the nicotine in cigarettes that is addictive, not the tobacco. Chewing tobacco does not have anywhere close to the addiction potential of cigarettes.

2. There's no such thing as second-hand snuff (unless you step in it).

3. Chewing tobacco is associated with only a handful of health problems, mostly related to the mouth. Cigarettes are responsible for over 20.

Christ Jay, enough with your crusade already. This isn't about freedom anymore, it's about petty rebellion and sheer ignorance.

the rebuttals have already been provided...the author's post does belong on stupid.ca though...BECAUSE IT'S STUPID!

why is the concept of second hand cigarette smoke HARMING OTHERS so freakin' hard for people to understand???

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Teh funny thing is how they failed to ask employees how they felt.

I'm curious - how do you know this? Just because they didn't ask YOU personally? I hear about all kinds of surveys and polls that neither I nor any of my friends or family members were included in.

Maybe they DID canvas a number of employees and you just weren't one of them.

I think that they should BAN smoke machines in clubs

quote:

Originally posted by Cal This guy whines about how duplicitous the gov is, but what I want to know is whether the revenue the Canadian government gets from taxing that shit is BIGGER than the money it sinks into leathcare, treating, for free mind you, all those people with lung cancer and other diseases that tobacco causes, in Canada. If it isn't, he should shut the fuck up.

quote:

At least 5% of Ontario's health care costs are directly related to harm caused by smoking. That's 5% of around $30 billion!

Translation = roughly $1.5 billion per year
From a speach given by George Smitherman (Health Minister)

www.health.gov.on.ca

quote:

Tobacco Tax Revenue 2004 $1,59 Billion

http://www.gov.on.ca/FIN/english/enghome.htm


So by my estimates and your greedy theory you owe smokers $90 million. Oh yes and if you drink, do drugs, have sex, break your leg skiing or engage in any other potentially harmful activities that are non essential then you better pay up for that as well.

quote:

At least 5% of Ontario's health care costs are directly related to harm caused by smoking. That's 5% of around $30 billion!

Nice try with the fuzzy math jay...doesn't quite add up when you count the indirect costs which easily total more then $90 million that you feel the govt owes smokers. I agree the taxation of smokers is ridiculous, but to say the damage caused over the years is entitles smokers to compensation is simply ludicrious.

If anything, more people and govts should be sueing big tabacco which has made a killing at the expense of people for generations now. BTW: I know it's hard for you to realize what is clear to most people, especially given that dogmatic attitude you bring to any discussion, but you really have beaten this topic to death time and again, just let it go already...

fuzzy math is right. Numbers for indirect costs is fuzzy at best. How can one even calculate this and where do you draw the line? Even direct causes is questionable because not all lung cancer is cause by smoking. How can you prove that someone "died from smoking"? Im not saying it doesnt happen but how can you single it out and then tally it up into a number like this?

I have real issues with people who use socialized medicine as a soapbox from which they feel they can tell other's how to live.

My favorite cigarette is the one I enjoy after a jolly good rogering. Ahhhhhhhhh, complete. Then I roll over into the wet spot and fall asleep.

quote:

Originally posted by jennypie My favorite cigarette is the one I enjoy after a jolly good rogering. Ahhhhhhhhh, complete. Then I roll over into the wet spot and fall asleep.

You mean a jolly good randy rogering with a good peter?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.