CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 28334
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:36 pm
 


Title: Hawaii may increase legal smoking age to 100
Category: Business
Posted By: llama66
Date: 2019-02-06 09:21:58
Canadian


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13014
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:36 pm
 


Quote:
Hawaii could raise the legal smoking age to 100, effectively banning cigarettes for the vast majority of people in the state.


Vast majority? You've got to be kidding. How many fekin centenarians do hey have in Hawaii? 8O

This is ridiculous. Just ban the things and then sit back and watch as your tourism dollars fall because there's a shitload of people from all over the world not just America who still smoke and travel to the islands for holidays who, suddenly won't.


Last edited by Freakinoldguy on Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 62942
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:48 pm
 


But smoking pot should be legal. Hmph.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13014
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 5:54 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
But smoking pot should be legal. Hmph.


Notice how the doctor's own personal opinion came into the equation.

Quote:
E-cigarettes and cigars are left out of the bill because Dr Creagan believes they are significantly safer for smokers than regular cigarettes - although the National Cancer Institute warns that "all tobacco products are harmful and cause cancer".


Given that idiotic stance this sounds more like a personal vendetta against big tobacco than him having any concern about the health of his constituents or, maybe it's because he owns shares in a vape company. :lol:


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
Profile
Posts: 1952
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 7:06 pm
 


This is a bunch of horseshit. No one despises smoking cigarettes more than me. My dad died from lung cancer from smoking. My mom has had a couple of heart attacks and a stroke from smoking. She is dying from cancer, and still smokes cigarettes. She will go to her grave smoking. It will probably be the last thing she ever does. I want to do every thing possible to discourage smoking, however all this is going to do is create another huge black market to supply the demand. Pretty soon innocent people will get caught up in the crossfire and get killed or maimed over this bullshit. Smoking sucks. No good comes from it, its all bad. That said it is a free country.You should be free to ruin your health and die from your bad habits if you so choose. I would much rather see people die from their own poor choices than see innocent people die by getting caught in the crossfire of another failed attempt at forced morality. Lets learn from our mistakes. We do not need another go at prohibition.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 8675
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:46 pm
 


You couldn't possibly do something like require tobacco companies to subsidize patches or Zyban prescriptions. That would be communist.
FFS they HIDE the anti-smoking aids and don't cover the prescription ones under most pharmacare plans.
Can't even fix that or the fact every advisory committee is run by bible thumping temperance leaguers who've never smoked in their lives yet claim to know everything.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30966
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:18 am
 


I find it interesting that if you substitute the words 'cigarettes' for 'asbestos' in that article, everyone would agree. Even though both substances do exactly the same thing, but at different rates. :idea:


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7497
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:21 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
I find it interesting that if you substitute the words 'cigarettes' for 'asbestos' in that article, everyone would agree. Even though both substances do exactly the same thing, but at different rates. :idea:

Difference being everyone got asbestos whether they wanted it or not. This anti-smoking militancy is getting out of hand. There are links between Alcohol and Cancer (and a fuck-tonne of other societal "blights"), yet we continue to allow people to drink.... I guess they have a better lobby.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30966
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:43 am
 


llama66 wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
I find it interesting that if you substitute the words 'cigarettes' for 'asbestos' in that article, everyone would agree. Even though both substances do exactly the same thing, but at different rates. :idea:

Difference being everyone got asbestos whether they wanted it or not. This anti-smoking militancy is getting out of hand. There are links between Alcohol and Cancer (and a fuck-tonne of other societal "blights"), yet we continue to allow people to drink.... I guess they have a better lobby.


Politicians don't have the will to actually do what science tells us what we should do. And I can see why they wouldn't. Not a lot of people are calling for a ban on alcohol.

Same reason they don't outright ban cigarettes, because they've been legal in the past and that makes it tough to ban them. And we tried prohibition, and the results were worse than doing nothing. Hence, legalizing cannabis too.

Might as well control the product and the message, and get taxes in the mean time.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 62942
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:33 am
 


DrCaleb wrote:
Politicians don't have the will to actually do what science tells us what we should do.


That's an inadvertent act of restraint on their part.

I consider it a feature and not a flaw.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30966
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:43 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
Politicians don't have the will to actually do what science tells us what we should do.


That's an inadvertent act of restraint on their part.

I consider it a feature and not a flaw.


I don't. When the common ration pack for WWI soldiers contained cigarettes, and after the war a lot of former solders started dying of lung related diseases, the connection was known. It's been almost 100 years since, and a lot of needless deaths.

I blame politicians, and lobbyists for those deaths. Funny too, because they are the same lobbyists that have shaped your views on what you feel is not a current problem for society.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13014
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:48 pm
 


DrCaleb wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
Politicians don't have the will to actually do what science tells us what we should do.


That's an inadvertent act of restraint on their part.

I consider it a feature and not a flaw.


I don't. When the common ration pack for WWI soldiers contained cigarettes, and after the war a lot of former solders started dying of lung related diseases, the connection was known. It's been almost 100 years since, and a lot of needless deaths.

I blame politicians, and lobbyists for those deaths. Funny too, because they are the same lobbyists that have shaped your views on what you feel is not a current problem for society.


Yes there were alot of needless deaths in the last 100 years despite the facts of the hazards of smoking being known. But, unlike some I don't blame politicians or the tobacco companies. I blame the people who smoked and ignored all the anecdotal, factual and ever present information that showed smoking caused a myriad of health problems up to and including death.

Once again people are trying to put the blame on anyone else but themselves despite the fact that they're the ones who ignored the warning signs and were the architects of their own demise or injuries.

So it's time for people to man up and accept responsibility for their own actions because this, "it's everyone else's fault but mine" mentality is getting more than a little tiring and is actually giving the gov't even more reason to insinuate itself further into our private lives.

Some people seem to be happy having the gov't think for them and dictate every facet of their life. But I personally don't want any gov't telling me what I can eat, when I can sleep and what I can drink. I still want to retain the right to make my own decisions about what I do with my life because my life is still mine, and so long as I'm not harming others the "let the gov't think for you" people can go fuck themselves on a south bound train.

And yes I smoked for 40 years despite the knowledge it was slowly killing me. So please don't tell me that the gov't should have made me stop smoking or any of the other myriad of harmful behaviour I engaged in because the decision to carry on was all mine not theirs.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 30966
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:06 pm
 


Freakinoldguy wrote:
Yes there were alot of needless deaths in the last 100 years despite the facts of the hazards of smoking being known. But, unlike some I don't blame politicians or the tobacco companies. I blame the people who smoked and ignored all the anecdotal, factual and ever present information that showed smoking caused a myriad of health problems up to and including death.

Once again people are trying to put the blame on anyone else but themselves despite the fact that they're the ones who ignored the warning signs and were the architects of their own demise or injuries.

So it's time for people to man up and accept responsibility for their own actions because this, "it's everyone else's fault but mine" mentality is getting more than a little tiring and is actually giving the gov't even more reason to insinuate itself further into our private lives.


So, despite the lobbyists who hired Medical Doctors and researchers to lie, and tell the people that smoking is harmless - you don't hold them to account? The companies that did research into how addictive cigarettes were, and formulated new ways to make them more addictive - blameless? The advertising companies who found more ways to sell poison - not at fault?

The same companies, lobbyists and retailers who are now peddling vaping to children, we are supposed to blame the children?

Freakinoldguy wrote:
Some people seem to be happy having the gov't think for them and dictate every facet of their life. But I personally don't want any gov't telling me what I can eat, when I can sleep and what I can drink. I still want to retain the right to make my own decisions about what I do with my life because my life is still mine, and so long as I'm not harming others the "let the gov't think for you" people can go fuck themselves on a south bound train.


It's the job of the government to protect the citizens. That's why we don't have lead in paint or gasoline; food is inspected, drugs and consumer items tested and then approved, our homes don't burn down when we plug in a toaster, and car crashes are more survivable than ever.

But cigarettes are still for sale.

Freakinoldguy wrote:
And yes I smoked for 40 years despite the knowledge it was slowly killing me. So please don't tell me that the gov't should have made me stop smoking or any of the other myriad of harmful behaviour I engaged in because the decision to carry on was all mine not theirs.


So did I. I even smoked long before I chose to smoke, because both my parents smoked. I started when I moved out of the house, because I didn't know I was addicted to the second hand smoke. As the saying goes, 'you aren't the only one smoking that'.

And every cigarette I put to my lips I swore would be my last. And when I finally quit because I had a stroke and my head wanted to burst with every drag, I threw the pack away right then and there. I didn't die from the withdrawal. There is no biological need for people to smoke, therefore there is no reason for cigarettes to be sold.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23046
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:03 pm
 


llama66 wrote:
Difference being everyone got asbestos whether they wanted it or not.
Second-hand smoke, while not as big of a problem it once was, is still a thing.

Why not just tax the shit out of it? Even more than it is now.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7497
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 2:05 pm
 


Tricks wrote:
llama66 wrote:
Difference being everyone got asbestos whether they wanted it or not.
Second-hand smoke, while not as big of a problem it once was, is still a thing.

Why not just tax the shit out of it? Even more than it is now.

Well thats the plan...

Quote:
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.