MNGunTalk.com

nyffman wrote:

Aceq2jot wrote:And secondly i dont really see it affecting ,many on this board apart from a certian few of us who are entitled to care under the N.H.S so what are you all pissing and moaning about ?

Is that a personal attack? This is a place to discuss any topic of interest that we find in the news. This is what we are doing. I do not think it is out of bounds. Government policies in this global economy are of interest to some of us.
Regarding

pissing and moaning

see above.

Jeff Bergquist wrote:

Aceq2jot wrote:Prehaps as the money for health care disapeers they should stop treating anyone who has heart problem that goes into the emergency room who is obese or a smoker.

If you read my post on the previous page or the link contained in it you'd know that longer lived healthy people cost the system more than either the obese or smokers. That's not a suggestion, those are the actual numbers. Therefore by your logic maybe they should just cut off service to those selfish folks who have the nerve to live past oh, 80 say.

In the U.k the medical system is socialised so you dont have to pay for it up front contary to here.

Behavior modification via taxes, what a horrible world we live in

nyffman wrote:

Behavior modification via taxes, what a horrible world we live in

Maybe yes, maybe no. One aspect of this that may be encouraging is the process of making folks responsible for their own choices. If smoking truly does lead to the myriad of health problems that are attributed to it, smokers should somehow pay that cost. People who are overweight also seem prone to a plethora of health issues. The problems begins when the politics of self interest takes over. Take, for an example the issue of second hand smoke. I still have a hard time believing that it is as bad as the anti smoking zealots want us to think it is. Also, consider the amount of "scientific" studies that contradict each other. Remember when margarine was better for you than butter? That was until trans fat was discovered. I don't know how we'll ever come to definitive answers for some of these questions. At least, answers that don't change every few years.

David Slam wrote:I don't know that anyone is really debating whether smoking is bad for you. I, for one, am saying that this policy won't make EVEN ONE PERSON stop smoking (directly). Seriously. How much do people spend on cigarettes in a year's time? The fee might go toward education or cessation programs, but it's a very indirect way to approach the problem. A tax per pack would seem to be more appropriate, although it's still indirect because that doesn't seem to make people stop over here. It would be a lot harder and more expensive to administer than a per-pack tax, as well.

I hate smoking. I can't stand the smell, the health risks, and, especially, the litter. Someone who wouldn't even think of throwing a pop can out the window or in your yard doesn't think twice about tossing his butt in there. I'm not a huge fan of smoking legislation, but if you're going to do something to reduce it, then do something that at least pretends to address the problem, like additional taxes per pack, or more public places banned for smoking.
As long as smoking is "cool," youngsters will take it up. When youngsters stop taking it up, then the problem will fade over time. Not that that is ever going to happen. It amazes me that anyone would start these days.