Clown Car VI: Hello, Goodbye. On to 2024.

[hobbsyoyo]

Am I crazy that this new line of reasoning feels like telling black people they don't know what's good for them, or that they just can't resist menthols and so it must be banned?

@Kyriakos they are banning flavorings for vapes too and have been trying to outright ban it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Why wouldn't the reasoning be patently crazy-insulting and 100% asswad?

These are the people that argue with a straight face that you not buckling your seat belt harms them enough to compel you. Because of a mandatory social safety net. That you still have to pay for yourself, largely. Let alone things like when and how you're allowed to say, end your own life. So yeah, these **** stains are just registering for you now? They're never done. Ever. It's their game. Of course they know what to force black people to do for their own good.

Edit: I mean come on. I've seen that cigarettes warrant warning labels argued as tantamount to cigarette manufacturers creating mandatory speech on behalf of the body politic, an unreasonable aggress that should see them banned. They're not dumb, they're just awful.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The less obvious question about smoking is that as they age, their health care costs go up and everyone else pays for that. The high price for cigarettes is a pretty good deterrent as is the current social bias against smoking around others. Those costs fall on the smokers. The healthcare costs of smoking though, shouldn't be my problem.

Maybe we need a law that allows smoking only by those under 35 so they get to have the experience of its addictive pleasures, but then have time for their bodies to heal.

 

[Farm Boy]

And there they are.

 

[Samson]

The less obvious question about smoking is that as they age, their health care costs go up and everyone else pays for that. The high price for cigarettes is a pretty good deterrent as is the current social bias against smoking around others. Those costs fall on the smokers. The healthcare costs of smoking though, shouldn't be my problem.

It is also one of the most regressive taxes.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It is also one of the most regressive taxes.

And on top of that nicotine addiction is very hard to quit. At the same time the manufacture and sales of cigarettes is one of the most profitable businesses you can get into.

A number of years ago I was involved in an Indian tribe looking into small scale manufacturing of cigarettes to sell on tribal land. On a small scale the cost to manufacture a pack of 20 cigarettes was less than $0.25 including packaging.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And on top of that nicotine addiction is very hard to quit. At the same time the manufacture and sales of cigarettes is one of the most profitable businesses you can get into.

A number of years ago I was involved in an Indian tribe looking into small scale manufacturing of cigarettes to sell on tribal land. On a small scale the cost to manufacture a pack of 20 cigarettes was less than $0.25 including packaging.

I get my cigarettes from a reservation. $30 a carton vs. $130 per carton that the stores charge.

 

[Farm Boy]

Correct. And marijuana is hella cheap to grow yourself, if you want to mix it around. But now that IL taxes it at 20 - 30% and sells applications to grow at $100,000, you better believe the men with guns will continued to be dispatched on people who aren't in the right strata to play without paying the rent/tax on their substance intake.

<shrugs> It is a person type that likes this, that demands it. It's not a party allegiance, for once.

 

[Samson]

And on top of that nicotine addiction is very hard to quit. At the same time the manufacture and sales of cigarettes is one of the most profitable businesses you can get into.

A number of years ago I was involved in an Indian tribe looking into small scale manufacturing of cigarettes to sell on tribal land. On a small scale the cost to manufacture a pack of 20 cigarettes was less than $0.25 including packaging.

Do you know what cigarette packets look like in the UK? They are military brown with horrible pictures on them. I approve of that, anti-advertising.

Spoiler Cigarette packets, state mandated shocking. Some are nasty. :

 

[Broken_Erika]

Do you know what cigarette packets look like in the UK? They are military brown with horrible pictures on them. I approve of that, anti-advertising.

Spoiler Cigarette packets, state mandated shocking. Some are nasty. :

Canada does something similar.

 

[El_Machinae]

The less obvious question about smoking is that as they age, their health care costs go up and everyone else pays for that. The high price for cigarettes is a pretty good deterrent as is the current social bias against smoking around others. Those costs fall on the smokers. The healthcare costs of smoking though, shouldn't be my problem.

This is a common 'slippery slope' argument against public healthcare, and (honestly) it's a real one. My evidence that it's a legit worry is that you just made it, and you're not regressive or authoritarian. You merely feel like you pay taxes that should be respected and used efficiently. The idea is that we implicitly gain authority over people's health choices because we're helping fund their healthcare. And, so, the people who're worried about that loss of sovereignty then have to push back against public healthcare.


Here's my insight: I don't want that fight. I'd much rather public healthcare where people are allowed to smoke than private healthcare. If someone is resisting public healthcare because they're worried about what will happen to freedoms, I will happily become their ally in order to compromise.

I'm not against nudging. I'm not against some type of externality tax*. But I will warn against the idea that we get some say in how people ruin their health, because we're paying for it. Public healthcare is so worth it that I will accept that compromise Every Single Time.

* And I distinguish between these and Sin Taxes vehemently

 

[Samson]

Do you know what cigarette packets look like in the UK? They are military brown with horrible pictures on them. I approve of that, anti-advertising.

And it is worth noting they cost $18.45 for 20.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And it is worth noting they cost $18.45 for 20.

But is that a cheap brand or an expensive brand?

 

[Samson]

But is that a cheap brand or an expensive brand?

I should let someone who actually still smokes answer, but I THINK all the proper cigarettes at a major supermarket are either £13.35 or £13.30. There are some around £10 but are all called "Bright" and I do not know what is going one there.

 

[GenMarshall]

Do you know what cigarette packets look like in the UK? They are military brown with horrible pictures on them. I approve of that, anti-advertising.

And I thought the Anti-Drug Campaign of the 1980s were the pinacle of "scare you straight" PSAs.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Canadian Cigarette Packaging.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I get my cigarettes from a reservation. $30 a carton vs. $130 per carton that the stores charge.

IIRC in NM Marlboros sell for about $8 for 20 and unbranded or Indian branded sell for about $5

This is a common 'slippery slope' argument against public healthcare, and (honestly) it's a real one. My evidence that it's a legit worry is that you just made it, and you're not regressive or authoritarian. You merely feel like you pay taxes that should be respected and used efficiently. The idea is that we implicitly gain authority over people's health choices because we're helping fund their healthcare. And, so, the people who're worried about that loss of sovereignty then have to push back against public healthcare.

Here's my insight: I don't want that fight. I'd much rather public healthcare where people are allowed to smoke than private healthcare. If someone is resisting public healthcare because they're worried about what will happen to freedoms, I will happily become their ally in order to compromise.

I'm not against nudging. I'm not against some type of externality tax*. But I will warn against the idea that we get some say in how people ruin their health, because we're paying for it. Public healthcare is so worth it that I will accept that compromise Every Single Time.

* And I distinguish between these and Sin Taxes vehemently

In the US a very small percent (5%) of the population consume 50% of the health care costs. I do not know, but assume that elderly smokers are part of that 5%. It is within that small group of people where we should be paying attention as to who and why. Smoking related diseases are preventable and well known. I am not a fan of paying for health care that folks know is coming at great expense and refuse to do anything about. The long term cost of smoking are predictable and mostly ignored by smokers because paying those costs will likely be borne by others: insurance, government, etc.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I should let someone who actually still smokes answer, but I THINK all the proper cigarettes at a major supermarket are either £13.35 or £13.30. There are some around £10 but are all called "Bright" and I do not know what is going one there.

Last time I bought a packet (over a year ago) there were some cheap brands available for less than £10.
Almost all the brands, cheap or not, are made by a couple of companies.

 

[Arakhor]

And I thought the Anti-Drug Campaign of the 1980s were the pinacle of "scare you straight" PSAs.

You should see the scary ones released in Britain in the 70s!

 

[Farm Boy]

In the US a very small percent (5%) of the population consume 50% of the health care costs. I do not know, but assume that elderly smokers are part of that 5%. It is within that small group of people where we should be paying attention as to who and why. Smoking related diseases are preventable and well known. I am not a fan of paying for health care that folks know is coming at great expense and refuse to do anything about. The long term cost of smoking are predictable and mostly ignored by smokers because paying those costs will likely be borne by others: insurance, government, etc.

It's the sick and the old, simply in general. Smokers die earlier. That's the difference. You don't milk them as long before you pay the same ****. There's a really good argument they cost less, overall, since they tend to just gtfo for their "twilight years" rather than inconveniencing us all with our magnanimous healthcare. Even the logic is bs all the way down.