Like Tree6Likes

pro and anti smoking

Closed Thread
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by fth:
    OK - Lets take this step by step.

    "Wow so you think that arguments should be fair and honest." Yes I do when it comes to crafting legislation. "Like how the smoking companies, buried studies and memos for years, increased nicotine content in their product to make them more addictive and even add flavors to hook the kiddies." The smoking studies being buried issue led to huge fines and lawsuits in the US and elsewhere, in fact many US states secutized their master settlement agreements so they could spend the money ahead of time. Nicotine and tar content is regulated in many places, so they can't do that as much and there are bans on minors smoking. Enforce existing regulation.

    "yes obviously the anti smoking lobby is obviously way out there compared to the smoking lobby..." By your argument should we give way to all vocal lobby groups armed with partial facts? Why not give PETA full control of all animal welfare issues? I hope you like being vegan.

    "Smoking is dangerous, has absolutely no useful purpose and costs society." Agreed on the danger but remember tobacco is big cash crop in developing nations where thanks to huge farm subsidies in the US and EU they struggle to grow food and earn a decent living. There are lots of other harmful activities out there as well, eg drinking. "Trying to defend a lost cause on a few commas, dots and decimals just sounds like frustration and over what's been lost and will never be regained."Actually I was challenging your assertion on the costs and getting nothing back, society gets back a huge amount from taxes and smokers are by and large paying their way. It wasn't a justification. Beer and wine has zero tax here in hong kong yet we all pay for the medical damage and clear up of puke left scattered in Wan Chai and LKF.

    "You can't stop a tidal wave with an umbrella." Actually some countries refuse to go the whole hog because of fears of erosion on liberty and excessive state intervention, others because they believe in a fair compromise which you do not. Perhaps making smokers wear "uncool" pink jumpers might fit your agenda but the connotations there don't bear thinking about.
    You can't possibly be serious with that last paragraph... I guess you must believe that Bush went to Iraq to liberate the people then!

    As to smokers paying their way, that is pure drivel as I pointed out very clearly. You take creative accounting and use all the possible taxes that EVERYONE has to pay to get your numbers.

    The fact of the matter is that smokers pay at the most an extra 1000USD per year in taxes and that doesn't even begin to cover the cost.

    And trying to make an argument by using alcohol is feeble. That's like someone being stopped for speeding pointing out that others are speeding too. Another point to be made is that alcohol in moderation has shown some health benefits and that in again in moderation, it doesn't impact on other people's health. There has also always been more severe restrictions on the consumption of alcohol than with smoking which is only catching up so again very weak argument.

    Taxes collected on companies or individuals profit are a smokescreen since it can easily be argued that the money being spent on tobacco would simply be spent somewhere else and a similar amount would be collected in the end without having all the negative side effects related to the use of tobacco. Jobs lost in one area will be regained in another and the world keeps rolling as it always has...

    Anyway, I fail to see what you are trying to achieve by throwing questionable assertions around. That ship has sailed and the train has left the station. Your only choice is to accept it or move to those fabulous countries that "fear the erosion of liberties and excessive government intervention" Wow, that's a really good one! Would that be like China or Turkey maybe?

    Interestingly enough, one of the last US state to implement serious legislation was Virginia. Think they were preserving the erosion of liberties or was it a coincidence that it's it was the state's top cash crop until 2004?

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by surf231:
    I also disagree with the comment above about cleaning up other areas of air pollution first. I think second hand smoke is a serious problem and have much greater affects than what is proven with the industrial pollution from vehicles and marine engines in HK. I could be wrong and either way they are both a problem IMHO.
    Why is it that one thing has to be done first before another is tackled? One has nothing to do with the other? Ban cars in downtown, ban smoking indoors... If we had to fix a problem before tackling another one, we'd never get anything done.

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gulf Region, ex Mid-Levels
    Posts
    1,933
    I also disagree with the comment above about cleaning up other areas of air pollution first. I think second hand smoke is a serious problem and have much greater affects than what is proven with the industrial pollution from vehicles and marine engines in HK
    Looking at PM2.5 levels (a measure of particulate matter) a couple of links may help.

    EPA safe level is 15micrograms/cubic meter
    Fine Particles (PM 2.5) Questions and Answers

    Level measured in smoking permitted casinos in USA 63 micrograms
    Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology - Abstract of article: Measurement of fine particles and smoking activity in a statewide survey of 36 California Indian casinos

    Urban Roadside in Hong Kong 69 micrograms (+/- 12)
    Chemically-speciated on-road PM(2.5) motor vehicle... [Sci Total Environ. 2010] - PubMed result

    At least with a bar with people smoking in it you don't have to go in.
    surf231 likes this.

  4. #34

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gulf Region, ex Mid-Levels
    Posts
    1,933

    Customs duty on tobacco only was $2,833.05m in 2007 and $3,069.35m in 2008 on page 29 of the annual report of the Customs & Excise department. Non smokers don't pay that unless they like hoarding the packs or something.

    http://www.customs.gov.hk/pdf/pdf_pu...07-2008_EN.pdf

    Smoking prevalence is 11.8% in Hong Kong according to the tobacco control office.

    TCO - Tobacco use in Hong Kong

    Population of Hong Kong is just under 7 million

    Google - public data

    Using basic maths and not some conspiracy theory. Lets go

    3000m / (7m x 12%) = HK$ 3,571 per person per annum.

    The costs were taken from an anti-smoking institution. They did not say who paid for what.

    Early death - there's life insurance, people pay their own
    Private health - smokers pay for that themselves
    Public Health - HK$2,521m paid out of central government who just received HK$3bn from smokers.
    Lost work days - HK$420m (HK$ 500 per smoker per annum)

    Please get some accurate numbers like I did or shut up.

    Last edited by fth; 02-03-2010 at 04:07 PM.

  5. #35

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gulf Region, ex Mid-Levels
    Posts
    1,933
    Anyway, I fail to see what you are trying to achieve by throwing questionable assertions around. That ship has sailed and the train has left the station. Your only choice is to accept it or move to those fabulous countries that "fear the erosion of liberties and excessive government intervention" Wow, that's a really good one! Would that be like China or Turkey maybe?
    Actually I was looking at Europe

    Look at the map and the text in the article below, those with the laxer bans happen to be the one which were either under some form of dictatorship after WWII or Germany itself where the bans have been constitutionally challenged.

    Czech smokers: pubs welcome Europe’s last indoor puffs

  6. #36

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by fth:
    Customs duty on tobacco only was $2,833.05m in 2007 and $3,069.35m in 2008 on page 29 of the annual report of the Customs & Excise department. Non smokers don't pay that unless they like hoarding the packs or something.

    http://www.customs.gov.hk/pdf/pdf_pu...07-2008_EN.pdf

    Smoking prevalence is 11.8% in Hong Kong according to the tobacco control office.

    TCO - Tobacco use in Hong Kong

    Population of Hong Kong is just under 7 million

    Google - public data

    Using basic maths and not some conspiracy theory. Lets go

    3000m / (7m x 12%) = HK$ 3,571 per person per annum.

    The costs were taken from an anti-smoking institution. They did not say who paid for what.

    Early death - there's life insurance, people pay their own
    Private health - smokers pay for that themselves
    Public Health - HK$2,521m paid out of central government who just received HK$3bn from smokers.
    Lost work days - HK$420m (HK$ 500 per smoker per annum)

    Please get some accurate numbers like I did or shut up.
    Sounding a little testy...need a fix? You seriously think that 3500HKD per person begins to cover the costs associated with smoking? I guess your head is in a cloud of smoke...

    Even if you were right...who cares? The bigger question remains: Is society better with tobacco?
    Does it bring anything positive to society?
    Is it in the interest of the majority to curb or eradicate smoking? Should serious measures be taken so that children don't start smoking?
    Are smokers liberties any more important than non smokers? Smokers should have the right to smoke anywhere it doesn't impact on non smokers. It's that simple...

    Look at how the attitudes have changed. Now very few people would light up in someone else's home without permission whereas before it wouldn't even have crossed smoker's mind. In order to change attitude, legislation was and is still needed.

    Plenty of smokers still light up in their cars with children inside...Their right to smoke! How do you get through to people like this without government intervention i.e. fines... Frankly, personally, i couldn't care less whether bars allow smoking or not but I see it as a good step promoting no smoking indoors and it protects the rights of the workers. Yes these people also have rights just like smokers.

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gulf Region, ex Mid-Levels
    Posts
    1,933
    Interestingly enough, one of the last US state to implement serious legislation was Virginia. Think they were preserving the erosion of liberties or was it a coincidence that it's it was the state's top cash crop until 2004?
    So Texas has a serious ban?

    Texas
    No statewide smoking ban. Instead, since 1997 Texas's statewide smoking law only prohibits smoking in activities of public schools on or off school property,[269] elevators, theatres, libraries, museums, hospitals, buses, airplanes, and trains, as long as these areas are open to the general public, unless the proprietor designates the place for smoking and posts appropriate warning signs. Violation of this law is a class C misdemeanor. Texas law is silent as to whether local governments may regulate smoking more stringently than the state. As of April 2009, 49 cities in Texas have enacted local smoking bans to varying degrees.
    Attempts to ban smoking statewide have failed twice before the Texas Legislature, first in May 2007 when a bill to ban smoking statewide in all enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants passed the Texas House of Representatives by a vote of 91-48 after being amended to allow any business owner to opt out of the ban by posting signs saying smoking is permitted, and then did not receive a vote in the Texas Senate, and then again in May 2009, when a similar bill was passed by a Senate committee but did not receive the 21 votes necessary to reach the Senate floor.

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Gulf Region, ex Mid-Levels
    Posts
    1,933
    Sounding a little testy...need a fix? You seriously think that 3500HKD per person begins to cover the costs associated with smoking? I guess your head is in a cloud of smoke...
    Got any proof? I am quoting a study from University of Hong Kong
    The University of Hong Kong Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine. Tax revenue > Taxpayer costs of healthcare

    I also pointed out some of the other costs (early death and private health) are met through the smokers buying their own insurance which discriminates against smokers.
    Last edited by fth; 02-03-2010 at 05:12 PM.

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,905
    Quote Originally Posted by fth:
    Got any proof? I am quoting a study from University of Hong Kong
    The University of Hong Kong Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine. Tax revenue > Taxpayer costs of healthcare

    I also pointed out some of the other costs (early death and private health) are met through the smokers buying their own insurance which discriminates against smokers.
    Insurers don't discriminate, they are simply number crunchers that rarely lose money. If they charge smokers more, it's because they cost more. Simple as that...

    There are plenty of studies worldwide that outlines the cost of smoking. Some support your point of view others don't. It's pointless to play that game...My study is better than yours nah nah nah nah...child stuff

    You just sound like a frustrated apologist and frankly, that's a bit sad. This is the world we live in now...I endured my years of torture at the hands of smokers now you either live with it or move somewhere else and wait for the times to catch up to wherever you are... The clock will never roll back. Deal with it...

    There's one from the CDC that outlines the costs at 167 billion annually another puts it at around 100 billion(US). With these kinds of discrepancies, it's much simpler to use common sense and it's obvious that 3500HKD/year/smoker doesn't even begin to cover it...

    Tobacco tax revenues in the US in 2007 were around 15 billions

    Health Canada recommends that these programs all continue, since all have enjoyed a level of success, but the government wants to go further.
    It wants to increase taxes on cigarettes so that they are closer to covering the social costs incurred from smoking.

    They estimate that, in Canada, the societal costs attributable to smoking for 1993 were approximately $11 billion, of which $3 billion was spent on direct health care costs such as hospitalization and physician time. The remaining $8 billion was due to lost productivity. In comparison, it is estimated that in 1993/94, revenue from taxes on cigarettes totalled $2.6 billion.

    Here's something you can get fired up on. This is where the world is going.

    After announcing it would no longer employ smokers, Weyco, a medical-benefits administrator in Michigan, fired four employees who refused to submit to a breath test. It began testing the spouses of its employees, too, levying an $80-per-month surcharge on those who don't test clean.
    Overall, 5% of employers prefer to hire nonsmokers, according to the most recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, and 1% do not hire smokers. A few examples:
    Kalamazoo Valley Community College in Michigan stopped hiring smokers for full-time positions at both its Michigan campuses.
    Alaska Airlines, based in Washington state, requires a nicotine test before hiring people.
    The Tacoma-Pierce County (Wash.) Health Department has applicants sign an "affidavit of nontobacco use."
    Union Pacific won't hire smokers.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    ...Wanchai, HK.
    Posts
    471

    ...mmm...Marlboro country...