Cigarettes: Which brand do you smoke?

Kui, I read your previous posts, and you have repeated that. My point was, it is all well and good to be opinionated and passionate about something, but truthfully if you are not willing to stand behind it, to actively stand up for what you feel....then does your opinion really hold any weight or are they simply words. My question was not what our governments are doing, it was what are you doing about it ? It appears your answer was.... vote ? The way to get through to the masses is not by way of government as we already know, not many of us stand behind our elected, even though we elect them. I think our government is doing what they can do for now. They don't want to ruffle too many feathers. But isn't the more active role put upon us, to projects or thoughts and concerns onto our peers. The way we should be approaching this is through social awareness. Who are you more apt to listen to, a concerned friend or the government ?

Sorry for skirting the issue. That is not what I meant to do. I am not advocating anything wheter for or against smoking. I am just telling you the "mos maiorum" of political and economical reality of this problem.
As you said the govt doesnt want to ruffle feathers. Yet people with addictions dont listen to friends either. The best that has been done is not have it in resturants! When you say us... who is us??? I know the answer to this but when you use the word "us" you need some legal represntative or entity to have legitamacy in challenging the smoking problem no??? I mean me or you could do something about it by ourselves like grab the thing out of his/her mouth, but we'd get into trouble taking it into our own hands. SO who do we turn to???? The govt and again til I turn blue, such entity is not going to do anything about it. It takes more than an individual to stop this. It is a lifestyle choice that these smokes are paying a lot for. Money and even their lives. But the cold reality is that the economics of this wrong or not are outweighing anything else. If you cant get a friend that smokes to quit... that is much credit to you cause it is damn close to impossible.

Unfortunately many people have'nt seen the title of thread, no pun intended.

By "us" I think I was obviously referring to the general public, and if I need legal representation to be one of the public then I guess I will have to call on Billy. I think it is up to "us" whether it is on a one to one basis or in a group of hundreds. You say it takes more than an individual to stop this.... How do you think ideas originally come about ? By one person Kui. Everything begins with one.... My point is, if you are not willing to be part of the solution then don't be part of the problem. Your acceptance of what is, may be looked upon in that way.....

the solution is to live a healthy lifestyle and live and let live and khris, your thread has been officially hijacked bwahahaha.

Originally Posted by Nadir

the solution is to live a healthy lifestyle and live and let live and khris, your thread has been officially hijacked bwahahaha.

it's not my thread halfwit.

i substitute reality with my own version of it. it is now your thread and it has been hijacked

....I must have missed something...but am too lazy to check back and see what happened:

Originally Posted by Staci

By "us" I think I was obviously referring to the general public, and if I need legal representation to be one of the public then I guess I will have to call on Billy. I think it is up to "us" whether it is on a one to one basis or in a group of hundreds. You say it takes more than an individual to stop this.... How do you think ideas originally come about ? By one person Kui. Everything begins with one.... My point is, if you are not willing to be part of the solution then don't be part of the problem. Your acceptance of what is, may be looked upon in that way.....

What I meant by legal representation, I mean as a society we have that in the form of our govt. We already made clear what there attitude is about it.
I am compelled to discuss this in political context because the big problem is that our govts are the main culprits in this fiasco. This is a case classic of taxation without representation. Here we have addicts being taxed with full knowledge of the effects of smoking, yet no means of rehabilitating them to quit. We have services for other addicts and of course prison. So do we provide these services for smokers or do we criminalize smoking like other narcotics. With the history of the prohibition of liquor that happen in the US we know that criminalizing an age old culture of smoking will not work. Likewise rehab services cost money which I could understand people opposed to this notion especially those who do not smoke. Why pay for a service for those of a lifestyle that you do not participate in???
Back to the govt again. We as a society are perpetually dependent on govt services and programs from education to maintaining roads, national defense, health, communication etc. etc. etc. even for the most privatized capitalist type of govts. We all have some sort of social program that we are very much dependent on. The more "socialist" a govt is, the more dependent a society is on this trusteeship. As a practice, govts favorite taxes are of course the income, Liqour and Tobacco. This is the problem! The govt and it's society has become dependent on such revenues because they have taken trusteeship of programs that may be best suited for the private sector to handle. So where does it go from here. Because society represented by their govts is stuck between a rock and a hard place.
The moment things went "social" (meaning in the control or responsibility of the govt) in context with tobacco the society with all its complaining on smoking is really turning a blind eye and or being indifferent to this problem or is not recognizing the root of the problem.
I'm an advocate of privatization and independence from socialism because of things like this. The govts need to get the hell out of the business of Tobacco and some other things. But we are talking smoking here so ignore the "other things" part. I just needed to let you know in fairness where I stand on the political spectrum. Leave this business of tobacco, and the taxation of it if you are not going to use such money to cure this disease. And while they're doing that, get the heck out of this "free" healthcare scam and put both these problems in the realm of the private sector.
Example...
By giving the open market a responsibilty to people and the cost of healthcare, they will set the policies in the business place as a right by private entity. You know the such rights.... "We reserve the rights of our business to deny anyone with due cause etc. etc. etc." You smoke... you probably wont get employed at such and such a business place. You turn up positive for nicotine in the same manner you test positive to any drug, termination of employment. As the employer with the responsiblity to an employee's healthcare plan and as a private entity you have every right to protect that business. When you leave it in the realm of govt and the tax, you perpetuate the problem and equal representation for smokers and non smokers becomes a dilema.
It is actually working with companies that are following this policy. But itinvolves govt and their citizens to be willing to cede the cost of healthcare to the private sector. The govt should still be given the rights to regulate and protect its people from harm, but this "state" run hospital crap has got to go because the smokers problem become your problem. Why make someones private ills your problem??? Let the "private" sector handle people's private problems.
Before I say more I will allow you my collegues some time to ponder this and happily have your say and or input to this.

Seriously Kui ...I'm not reading all of that ...lol

Originally Posted by Staci

Seriously Kui ...I'm not reading all of that ...lol

LOL.

hmmm.... I've never smoked a tobacco cigarette, and I doubt I ever will.

However, I have smoked MaryJane with my friend twice, and this was like a year ago. I did it because I felt I had enough self control to prevent any addiction that would come, and voila! Here I am: non-smoker (although some may beg to differ) Also, I smoked the weed because I was super curious what it felt like, all most of my friends had done it and I was like the only one who hadn't, so I wanted to know what it felt like (it felt REALLY good)

From what I hear, Marijuana is WAY healthier than Tobacco cigarettes, so that's cool. US Government doesn't control Marijuana production, so they decide to ban it (At least this is what I've learned from Chris Rock: If it ain't White; It ain't right)

Then I smoked what my friend calls a "HOOKA". It's like a flavored vapor, our Hooka was apricot and it just smelled really delicious, and it gave you a slight buzz. I think it's that thing 'Dida' showed in his pic. That was kinda delicious

I normally hate to get into these damn ciggie smoking discussions, I've been smoking for a long time now and one thing I've learnt is that convincing a smoker or non smoker to change lanes is damn near impossible but I did find this article interesting




By Investigative Reporter Mike Owens

Over the last four years, Missouri has recieved over one billion dollars from what's called the MSA, or master settlement agreement. That's money from the big tobacco companies, paid out to settle claims from the states for injuries caused by tobacco use.

The money is designed to pay the states back for past losses caused by caring for the sick, made ill by tobacco use. The money is also to be used to pay for anti-smoking campaigns, like advertising and hot lines for those who want to quit.

At least, that's the way it's supposed to work, but in Missouri, not one dime of the tobacco money has been spent on its intended purpose.

Missouri ranks last among the states in tobacco prevention spending, but third in the number of smokers per capita.

Smokers can be seen outside offices all over downtown, taking smoking breaks. They are among some 26 percent of Missourians who smoke. Their lungs are important to cigarette makers and Missouri lawmakers. That's because the sale of cigarettes put more than one billion dollars into the Missouri treasury since 2002, with billions more to be paid out over the next 20 years. But instead of going for anti-smoking efforts, the money goes to run goverment. Last year, tobacco money made up about 1 point 2 percent of the state budget.

Pat Lindsey, of the Tobacco Prevention Center, sees the irony of keeping the number
of smokers at the current level. If the smoking level declines, so will the income from the master settlement agreement, she said. She added there's a formula, and it would be substantially less if there are fewer smokers.

Lindsey works at St. Louis University where she runs a prevention program, funded with federal dollars, not settlement money. She says with the tobacco settlement money, anti-smoking ads like these could reduce the number of Missouri smokers, like they have in other states.

One anti- smoking activist, also a lawmaker, says Missouri has surrendered to the cigarette peddlers:

"It would be helpful if we fought back. Missouri seems to have sort of ceded the ground to the tobacco industry. The tobacco companies spend 600 thousand dollars a day in Missouri advertising their product," said Jeanette Mott Oxford.

If that's the case, you'd think the cigarette industry would leap to be interviewed for this story. But that's not the case. RJ Reynolds declined outright. Phillip Morris offered telephone information, but nothing on camera about how Missouri spends its tobacco settlement.

Smoking opponents are wishing for an increased excise tax on cigarettes. Missouri has the third lowest tax in the nation, 17 cents a pack. The suggested increase to a dollar 17. That would raise about 270 million a year.

Mott Oxford said for every ten percent you raise the price of a pack of cigarettes, a certain number of folks quit. It's between four and seven percent. Mott Oxford said those hurt worst by cigarettes are children and teens. Any tax hike would need the support of the Governor, Matt Blunt. He said he would not back a hike in the tax.

"I would not," he said. "I think that states are becoming dependent on tobacco tax revenue. They are going to regret that. The public policy goal ought to be zero money from tobacco taxes."

Lindsey at the Tobacco Prevention Center said Blunt is being coy. He could, if he wanted to, spend just a little money to fight tobacco use.

"Why can't we have just a little bit?" she asked "A few million would help. We haven't been given a dime."

She said the reason is that the tobacco lobby is very strong in Missouri.

And, she believes, they have friends in Jefferson City.

One of those lobbyists is Andy Blunt, the governor's younger brother. But Governor Blunt says that means nothing.

"I do think it's a bad industry. I don't ever accept contributions from the tobacco industry. They make a product that can't be used in a healthy way," he said.

Governor Blunt has a second tie to tobacco money. His father, Congressman Roy Blunt, married a second time in October, 2003. His new wife is a Washington lobbyist for the parent cigarette maker Phillip Morris.

To learn more about anti-smoking efforts, click in the related links section to the right.


http://www.ksdk.com/news/cover_artic...?storyid=81535

Originally Posted by XZeRo3003

From what I hear, Marijuana is WAY healthier than Tobacco cigarettes, so that's cool.

That really depends on how you define "healthier"
MJ is normally smoked without a filter, which is allways worse for you. The toxins in MJ stays in your brain (eating away at it) for about 30 days, which means if you smoke it once a month you allways have degenerative toxins in your brain.

I am not preaching, just informing

Originally Posted by Henrik

That really depends on how you define "healthier"
MJ is normally smoked without a filter, which is allways worse for you. The toxins in MJ stays in your brain (eating away at it) for about 30 days, which means if you smoke it once a month you allways have degenerative toxins in your brain.

I am not preaching, just informing

oohh so That explains the 30 day repercussions....

anyways, I heard osme guy in here talk about the health issue, I'll go look for his post.

And I'm sure the absence of nicotine made it much easier for me to discontinue smoking. Well, you know what I mean.