• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Smoking Ban Good or Bad?

What of the New Ban.

  • Good

    Votes: 19 27.1%
  • Too far

    Votes: 49 70.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 2.9%

  • Total voters
    70
Everything that NY state has said they were raising cigarette taxes to pay for was a bunch of crap. The money always went into the general fund and got used to buy off the power players -- just like always.

2/3 - 3/4 of the price of a pack is tax. Smokers already pay full freight and more.

Do smokers pay for their own lung transplants?
 
Do smokers pay for their own lung transplants?

Talk about hyperbole :roll:

This is a stupid law. Glad I don't live in state governed by idiots. My state is governed by criminals instead. :)
 
Too far i say.

I support smoking bans for public buildings, but outside, come on now...

I agree with this. I'm a former smoker (I do on rare occasions, I admit.. but very rare) and I could care less what someone does out in the open air.
 
I can see smoking banned in public buildings and in the workplace and restaurants, shared enclosed places where others are affected. Banning smoking outdoors is draconean, and seriously invasive to the rights of individuals who use a perfectly legal product. Yes, it's harmful to their bodies. So is alcohol and red meat and jelly beans. This is an example of government legislating morality on people who are not infringing on the rights of others.

Now if anyone should be against smoking, it's me... and I am, because I grew up in an era where everyone I knew smoked... my family, my friends, all the neighbors... so I did too. Now I'm hooked up to oxygen, unwilling to go on the transplant list (face it, I'm old... not gonna take a transplant some 40 yr old with a family needs). I shrugged off the risks, and I'm paying for it. Personal choice, personal consequence. I'm still dead set against governmental prohibitions (which this basically is; sure, technically smoking will still be legal, only there isn't any place left to legally smoke), because they don't work and end up creating crimes that wouldn't exist without said prohibition.

It's the damned principle of the thing. This law goes too far.
 
Last edited:
Just another way to hate on smokers and try to take away rights! Nobody "really" owns the outside and cannot tell me I cannot smoke on a public beach, outside parks, etc.
 
Too far i say.

I support smoking bans for public buildings, but outside, come on now...

Yup, I agree. I would say public/government buildings we should ban smoking in. But private business or outside, nope.
 
Yup, I agree. I would say public/government buildings we should ban smoking in. But private business or outside, nope.

Any private business that allows smoking in their establishment are either pants on head retarded, or just really pissed off with the world, cause they gonna close down.

No one wants to do business or sit down and have a meal in a smoky, smelly hell hole.

I wouldn't.
 
Any private business that allows smoking in their establishment are either pants on head retarded, or just really pissed off with the world, cause they gonna close down.

No one wants to do business or sit down and have a meal in a smoky, smelly hell hole.

I wouldn't.

And that's how it's done. You do it through consumer pressure; not government law.
 
Talk about hyperbole :roll:

This is a stupid law. Glad I don't live in state governed by idiots. My state is governed by criminals instead. :)

Simple question. Do they? Smokers cost society a lot of money. It's fact, not hyperbole.
As for the law, the smokers brought it on themselves and I couldn't care less about it.
 
Simple question. Do they? Smokers cost society a lot of money. It's fact, not hyperbole.
As for the law, the smokers brought it on themselves and I couldn't care less about it.

No, they do not. Smokers pay a lot more than everyone else. Over half the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to the government. The reason they instituted the taxes was to offset the additional cost smokers cause the health care system. So that's already taken care of. But let's talk about the double charging. Not only the continual increases on taxes of tobacco products, almost always being described as necessary tax for smoker health care (it's not used for that, but that's the official excuse for them), but they are then charged more for insurance, and a plethora of other things because of smoking. They've paid. Not only that, but the largest costs to the health care industry come from trying to keep the 96 year old woman alive for another 6 months. These sorts of health care necessities cost well more than a smoker getting cancer and dying early. Not only that, but by dying early they actually subsidize pension plans for government and various companies.

So no, the do not cost society a lot of money. The ones costing us are the namby pamby SOBs who can't keep their god damned noses out of other people's business.
 
No, they do not. Smokers pay a lot more than everyone else. Over half the cost of a pack of cigarettes goes to the government. The reason they instituted the taxes was to offset the additional cost smokers cause the health care system. So that's already taken care of. But let's talk about the double charging. Not only the continual increases on taxes of tobacco products, almost always being described as necessary tax for smoker health care (it's not used for that, but that's the official excuse for them), but they are then charged more for insurance, and a plethora of other things because of smoking. They've paid. Not only that, but the largest costs to the health care industry come from trying to keep the 96 year old woman alive for another 6 months. These sorts of health care necessities cost well more than a smoker getting cancer and dying early. Not only that, but by dying early they actually subsidize pension plans for government and various companies.

So no, the do not cost society a lot of money. The ones costing us are the namby pamby SOBs who can't keep their god damned noses out of other people's business.

Smoking costs to society are enormous. Sometimes smokers may die younger and sometimes they hang on a long time, but the costs to treat them before they die are enormous. Heart and lung transplants and cancer treatments are the most expensive heathcare there is. Taxes paid by smokers do not come anywhere close to covering the costs of their destructive habits. The rest of us pay through higher insurance premiums and taxes.
Not to mention, smokers loss of productivity and more time off work add a great deal to cost business must absorb. Smoking costs us all.
 
Smoking costs to society are enormous. Sometimes smokers may die younger and sometimes they hang on a long time, but the costs to treat them before they die are enormous. Heart and lung transplants and cancer treatments are the most expensive heathcare there is. Taxes paid by smokers do not come anywhere close to covering the costs of their destructive habits. The rest of us pay through higher insurance premiums and taxes.
Not to mention, smokers loss of productivity and more time off work add a great deal to cost business must absorb. Smoking costs us all.

Not as much as they end up paying into the system though. It ends up netting out. Besides, loss of productivity? Have you seen the average worker these days. They sit around all day arguing on politicial forums instead of doing work.

Wait....****.
 
I think it's great! This is exactly the type of thing that local government are supposed to be doing if their local society feels it's necessary. If this were a national mandate, then we'd have issues. But apparently the majority of the society within NYC feels that it should be banned in such places and so it has been.
 
I think it's great! This is exactly the type of thing that local government are supposed to be doing if their local society feels it's necessary. If this were a national mandate, then we'd have issues. But apparently the majority of the society within NYC feels that it should be banned in such places and so it has been.

How do you know that Majority of New Yorkers wanted this?
 
How do you know that Majority of New Yorkers wanted this?

I suppose it's not necessarily true. But what I do know is that a majority of their elected representatives in their local government wanted it. And so if a majority of New Yorkers do not want it and it is a priority to them, they will elect representatives in the future who will lift the ban. But regardless, in time, the end result is what the majority in the society want the end result to be.
 
How do you know that Majority of New Yorkers wanted this?

Also, as a caveat, I personally wouldn't be happy about this ban. But I think it's great that it is up to the local governments as it should be. If that society feels it necessary to have the ban, then there will be a ban. Just another reason not to move to NY, but that's fine. That's my decision and that's all I want to be able to make: my own decisions.
 
Not as much as they end up paying into the system though. It ends up netting out. Besides, loss of productivity? Have you seen the average worker these days. They sit around all day arguing on politicial forums instead of doing work.

Wait....****.
You must be kidding,. The few hundred dollars paid in cigarette taxes don't come close to paying for a smokers 300K heart and lung transpant or 200K cancer treatment.
 
I think it's great! This is exactly the type of thing that local government are supposed to be doing if their local society feels it's necessary. If this were a national mandate, then we'd have issues. But apparently the majority of the society within NYC feels that it should be banned in such places and so it has been.

You are right. This is local government at it's best. If the majority don't want the law they can vote out their local politicians and repeal it. It's not written in stone.
 
You must be kidding,. The few hundred dollars paid in cigarette taxes don't come close to paying for a smokers 300K heart and lung transpant or 200K cancer treatment.

A few hundred dollars aggregated over the whole of the smoking community. And the whole of the smoking community does not have to have heart and lung transplants or get cancer. It's a dramatic increase in probability and more smokers than non-smokers will be affected by these diseases; but not all of them get it. Maybe we can stop with the hyperbole and deal only with reality? Maybe? In addition, they pay larger heath insurance premiums (which you don't seem to be adding in) and subsidize pensions (which you don't seem to be adding in).
 
A few hundred dollars aggregated over the whole of the smoking community. And the whole of the smoking community does not have to have heart and lung transplants or get cancer. It's a dramatic increase in probability and more smokers than non-smokers will be affected by these diseases; but not all of them get it. Maybe we can stop with the hyperbole and deal only with reality? Maybe? In addition, they pay larger heath insurance premiums (which you don't seem to be adding in) and subsidize pensions (which you don't seem to be adding in).

Do you honestly believe that smokers cost to society are made up in taxes and insurance premiums?

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that smokers cost the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity.
 
Last edited:
Now subtract out the nominal direct heath care costs of non-smokers and the amount of lost productivity incurred each year out of non-smokers (less you're going to say that non-smokers never get sick or take vacation). Then calculate all the money made per year off of cigarettes to the State, the money saved through pension subsidization, and the additional money paid in insurance premiums from the average smoker. Then you'll have a more realistic number.
 
Now subtract out the nominal direct heath care costs of non-smokers and the amount of lost productivity incurred each year out of non-smokers (less you're going to say that non-smokers never get sick or take vacation). Then calculate all the money made per year off of cigarettes to the State, the money saved through pension subsidization, and the additional money paid in insurance premiums from the average smoker. Then you'll have a more realistic number.

What did you come up with?
 
It's still going to be a cost on the system, but the number is maybe 2/3's of what you posted. You still have to subtract out the nominal level of health care burden produced by the average person which I do not have and the additional money generated by higher premiums. I don't know how one would estimate the pension subsidization since those people die earlier. We'd also have to look at end of life care in which it costs well more to keep a 96 year old person alive for 6 more months than a smoker can generate. If one could accurately compile all those numbers we'd have a real indication of the additional net costs smokers have on the system; but those numbers seem hard to find.
 
It's still going to be a cost on the system, but the number is maybe 2/3's of what you posted. You still have to subtract out the nominal level of health care burden produced by the average person which I do not have and the additional money generated by higher premiums. I don't know how one would estimate the pension subsidization since those people die earlier. We'd also have to look at end of life care in which it costs well more to keep a 96 year old person alive for 6 more months than a smoker can generate. If one could accurately compile all those numbers we'd have a real indication of the additional net costs smokers have on the system; but those numbers seem hard to find.

I don't know where you live but in my world 96 year olds are just made as comfortable as possible in their last few months. Expensive surgery, treatments or live saving measures are not performed on 96 year olds.
 
Back
Top Bottom