Quote: Original post by phantom

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
You tell me where the moral obligation is between the guy who takes cigarette breaks between shifts at a restaurant

This raises another good point; want to guess how many millions are lost per year in productive work due to people in offices nipping out for a 'quick fag'?

If anything those who smoke are hurting the economy themselves as they work less than their non-smoking counterparts.

Bingo.

Quote: Original post by phantom
If anything those who smoke are hurting the economy themselves as they work less than their non-smoking counterparts.

At our company, we count the time an employee goes out to smoke (by tracking door badges). His monthly pay is decreased accordingly.

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Bars less so, but if you really cared, you could find a place to have your drink without smoke as well. The thing is: most people that bitch about smoking are the people that wouldnt go to a bar under any circumstances. And most non-smokers prove by their actions that they do not nearly care as much as they say they do. Smokers however are the ones willing to put their money where their mouth is: since the recent smoking ban here in the netherlands, bars have been closing down in droves.

I don't know... bars aren't a very elastic commodity. It takes the right amount of pleasant ambience and attractive people to make a place worth hanging out in. People will put up with smoke because there's no equivalent alternative. I haven't been paying attention to the economic impact of the smoking ban but even the smokers I know prefer it because they don't smell as bad when they get home (even smokers don't like stinking up their bed -- Americans have a nasty habit of climbing into bed without showering.) I also spoke to some Parisians in Tokyo (smokers, of course), who said although at first they didn't like having to go outside the bar to smoke, they've grown to rather like it, firstly because it smells nicer and secondly because of the comraderie it fosters between filthy smokers ;)

It doesn't take many smokers to stink up a bar, either.

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by phantom
If anything those who smoke are hurting the economy themselves as they work less than their non-smoking counterparts.

At our company, we count the time an employee goes out to smoke (by tracking door badges). His monthly pay is decreased accordingly.

I hope you're monitoring everyone's web usage as well, Massa...

Quote: Original post by trzy

Quote: Original post by Eelco
Bars less so, but if you really cared, you could find a place to have your drink without smoke as well. The thing is: most people that bitch about smoking are the people that wouldnt go to a bar under any circumstances. And most non-smokers prove by their actions that they do not nearly care as much as they say they do. Smokers however are the ones willing to put their money where their mouth is: since the recent smoking ban here in the netherlands, bars have been closing down in droves.

I don't know... bars aren't a very elastic commodity. It takes the right amount of pleasant ambience and attractive people to make a place worth hanging out in. People will put up with smoke because there's no equivalent alternative. I haven't been paying attention to the economic impact of the smoking ban but even the smokers I know prefer it because they don't smell as bad when they get home (even smokers don't like stinking up their bed -- Americans have a nasty habit of climbing into bed without showering.) I also spoke to some Parisians in Tokyo (smokers, of course), who said although at first they didn't like having to go outside the bar to smoke, they've grown to rather like it, firstly because it smells nicer and secondly because of the comraderie it fosters between filthy smokers ;)

It doesn't take many smokers to stink up a bar, either.

Actions speak louder than words.

Such-and-such tax change discussions always remind of such-and-such causes cancer announcements. Just like it seems that literally everything causes cancer under certain conditions, so it can also be argued one way or another that any change to the tax code hurts the poor, either directly, or indirectly via job loss or long-term loss of revenue for health / safety / infrastructure / education / whatever.

Is there some reason that tobacco growers can't switch to other crops to offset (presumed) losses in demand? I know virtually nothing about farming.

In general I'm usually ok with this sort of tax.

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Use your brain.

I do. That's why I don't smoke.

Hey wait, I smoke and I use my brains also, you may even die before me from some other of the millons toxic substances we suck up every day. I do anyway agree that smokers shouldn't fuck up nonsmokers lifes smoking near them.

I'm going to concede the OP point that middle class is always the first target for tax rising, no matter to what product it is applied or what pourpose the tax is meant for.

Now, if I had to fuck some smokers to give kids healtcare I wouldn't hesitate about it.

Quote: Original post by trzy
I hope you're monitoring everyone's web usage as well,

Yes we are. As a defense contractor, we are legally bound to.

Quote: Original post by owl

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by Chris Reynolds
Use your brain.

I do. That's why I don't smoke.

Hey wait, I smoke and I use my brains also, you may even die before me from some other of the millons toxic substances we suck up every day. I do anyway agree that smokers shouldn't fuck up nonsmokers lifes smoking near them.

Heh ;) Well, that was probably a bit too harsh, agreed. But still, I have a hard time understanding how anyone can voluntarily smoke nowadays. I understand that fighting the addiction can probably be very hard, but still, a lot of people succeed.

Yes Minister puts forwards the economic argument for the continuation of smoking, as the extra costs of medical care are dwarfed by the savings from social security. As Sir Humphery says, we should thank all those smokers for selflessly giving up their lives for the good of the state coffers. [rolleyes]

I never worry about the economic arguments, thinking the intangiable costs to public health cost more in terms of social well-being. If I were in charge I'd probably be raising cigarette taxes sky high too, although I'd funnel the extra money into subsidising Quit programs.

I'd probably be in favour of legalising cannabis as well, because once a substance is legal then it can be controlled.

Quote: Original post by Yann L

Quote: Original post by phantom
If anything those who smoke are hurting the economy themselves as they work less than their non-smoking counterparts.

At our company, we count the time an employee goes out to smoke (by tracking door badges). His monthly pay is decreased accordingly.

Does your company ding people for using the toilet also?

I really dislike that sort of petty bean-counting.