Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Are you a smoker?

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Are you a smoker? (Page 7)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Author

Topic: Are you a smoker?

Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug

Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 04-13-2010 06:03 PM

Gordie's pipe pic reminded me of when I was a college freshman. My buds and I decided to be "Joe College", be super-cool, and start smoking a pipe...ya know for THAT college image thingie.

So we went out and bought pipes and "Cherry Blend" tobacco... I was NEVER soooo f*cking dizzy and sick in my life! YIKES! [puke]

| IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 04-13-2010 06:28 PM

Just the idea of 'Cherry Blend' tobacco makes me ill...let alone actually trying the stuff.

[puke]

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-13-2010 07:01 PM

quote: Chris Hipp
One thing that I have always found interesting is how smoking has never been a major target of the environmentalists.

More than a few so-called "tree huggers" smoke cigarettes and pot. However, I have seen some environmentalists bash cigarette smoking for its role in causing wild fires.

quote: Chris Hipp
Cigarettes are a major major contributor of greenhouses gases, methane mostly which is way worse than C02.

The total amount of cigarette smoke exhaled by people is insignificant compared to exhaust from automobiles and exhaust from industrial activity. The farts from livestock (pigs, cows, etc.) probably put more methane in the air than cigarettes.

Chlorofluorocarbons are the biggest enemy to ozone in the upper atmosphere. CFC molecules come apart in the upper atmosphere. The stray carbon atoms combine with ozone molecules to form carbon dioxide. Stray fluorine atoms can combine with oxygen to form oxygen difluoride.

We have too little ozone in the upper atmosphere, but get way too much of it at ground level. Car exhaust is the primary contributor there. People can debate "climate change" and the "greenhouse effect" all they like. Ozone alerts are real. Ozone is bad for anyone to breathe and especially bad for people with asthma or other breathing problems.

quote: Chris Hipp
And vegans are pansies, that is just something one must accept when choosing to be vegan, tough titty.

Some vegans are very obnoxious. At least I don't have to worry about them helping drive up my taxes, health insurance premiums and workers comp premiums due to an unhealthy lifestyle choice. Most of the smokers in my town don't have health insurance. Considering our jails are already at or past capacity good luck to the government on forcing those uninsured (and often low income) people to pony up and buy health insurance. They'll have better luck getting blood out of a stone.

Women certainly aren't attracted to bony guys, although most vegetarians and vegans I've met didn't have the appearance of concentration camp victims. Likewise, women aren't very attracted to obese men either. And there's a LOT MORE people who are obese. Women also don't like men whose dicks don't work anymore due to the effects of obesity, heart disease, adult onset of diabetes, etc. Skinny guy with a working pecker is going to win that contest.

quote: Ian Parfrey
If humans were designed to be vegans, then why are cows made of meat?

If humans were really carnivores why don't we have long meat-tearing teeth like lions, tigers or bears? Why are our teeth more like that of horses? Shit, we don't have fangs like that of other primates.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 04-13-2010 08:42 PM

quote:
Let me try to get this straight;

Well it's impossible to get it straight within the confines of this board, because you'd have to get into politics. Opponents of smoking would love to see it banned completely, but most of them realize that banning tobacco would cost millions of jobs in farming, manufacturing and retailing, and exclude billions and billions of dollars from state and federal treasuries. It would also create a gigantic black market that would make the marijuana industry looking like a puny little kitty in comparison.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-13-2010 11:19 PM

quote: Ian Parfrey
If humans were designed

Who said humans were designed?

quote: Bobby Henderson
If humans were really carnivores blah blah...

Humans are omnivores, meaning we eat any and every god damned thing there is. We can eat anything. There is probably a TV show on some random cable channel about some person or people wandering around eating anything they find... wouldn't surprise me.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-13-2010 11:44 PM

The Travel Channel has one of those shows. It's kind of disgusting to see some tourist dude chew on a barbecued tarantula.

quote: Mike Blakesley
Opponents of smoking would love to see it banned completely, but most of them realize that banning tobacco would cost millions of jobs in farming, manufacturing and retailing, and exclude billions and billions of dollars from state and federal treasuries.

It doesn't stop there. Without smokers a pretty significant portion of the customer base of our nation's health care system would disappear. We wouldn't need as many oncologists, heart surgeons and other medical specialists that get a lot of their business from smokers suffering from serious, life threatening illnesses. The ripple effect would extend out to fewer McMansions being built and fewer Mercerdes Benz sedans being sold. There's a lot more money to be made off treating serious illness than preventing it.

OTOH, taxpayers would save tens of billions (if not hundreds of billions) of dollars not having to help fund treatment for most cases of lung cancer and a good portion of heart disease cases. That might actually help the economy if the government passed the savings along to the taxpayers.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-13-2010 11:52 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
There's a lot more money to be made off treating serious illness than preventing it.

Truer words could not be said. But there is always some whack job trying to cure profitable diseases, stand in the way of capitalism and destroy America.

| IP: Logged

Gracia L. Babbidge
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 709
From: Bowdoin, Maine
Registered: Aug 2000

posted 04-17-2010 12:53 PM

quote: Joe Redifer

quote: Bobby Henderson
There's a lot more money to be made off treating serious illness than preventing it.
Truer words could not be said. But there is always some whack job trying to cure profitable diseases, stand in the way of capitalism and destroy America.

Way to hit all the nails on their respective heads!

| IP: Logged

Jonathan Smith
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 201
From: Youngstown, OH
Registered: Jan 2010

posted 04-17-2010 02:26 PM

My smoke-easy got popped I guess a few weeks back. When I went there last night someone had also since tried to drunkenly drive his new car through the front door with a car and kill everyone (not a joke) but I digress. . .

Apparantly, one of the guys there said this girl had come in one night (they think she is the one that called the health department) and said "Gee, you shouldn't be allowed to smoke in here." and left.

Now everyone (since 99.9% of the bar's patrons smoke) are forced to go out in the freezing cold to smoke.

They ought to make that bitch go and have her own special outdoor section.

For purposes of health insurance, if you smoke, you should be 100% responsible for carrying your own extra coverage for smoking-related disease, and there should be a reasonable amount of ventilation in indoor areas that let you smoke, but to delegate to a group of people who all smoke despite the dangers, is ridiculous.

I am going to join a private club myself, need to dig up my relative's discharge paper and try and get into a VFW post.

| IP: Logged

Sean McKinnon
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1712
From: Peabody Massachusetts
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 04-17-2010 03:34 PM

A lor of the smoking bans were never voted on by the public. They were policies put in place by local health departments who said if you want to keep your license to sell food and beverage you cannot allow smoking. The local law (that was voted on by the city council) in the community where I was employed as a taxi driver before said the driver was not allowed to smoke WITH A CUSTOMER IN THE CAR. The local health department came down and slapped stickers all over the cars saying "No smoking" and posted a notice saying drivers who allowed thier passengers to smoke or were caught smoking with or without a passenger in the car would be fined $300.00. Even though I am a smoker I agree that Taxi's should be non smoking at all times because the smell does not go away but if the health department wanted to do this they should have went to the city council and petitioned them to change the law. Instead they make up thier own rules without any taxpayer oversight. Local health boards in Mass are appointed not elected. So what if the taxi company decided that the health board did not have the authority to enact this policy and refused to follow it? The health department would come down and close thier office for "Health Code Violations".

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-17-2010 09:48 PM

quote: Sean McKinnon
A lor of the smoking bans were never voted on by the public.

Are smokers so sure they want the issue of smoking bans put forth to the general public to vote on it? Smokers are a dwindling minority. Even here in Oklahoma, a state with one of the highest percentages of smokers, 1 out of every 4 residents is a smoker. How many of the 75% who don't smoke will see things the smoker's way?

I'm sure some will see the issue of personal freedom being more important. However, more than a few people share my feelings that tax dollars spent treating uninsured smokers suffering from a variety of smoking related illnesses is a type of welfare and generally a big waste of money. Anyone suffering from lung cancer needs to be treated, but future cases need to be prevented to ease the burden on taxpayers. Discouraging smoking by prohibiting it in many places (as well as placing heavy taxes on the product) can help do just that. Many of my coworkers have quit smoking because of those steps. Fewer insurance claims may help lower our insurance rates.

This is why alcoholics aren't put on liver transplant lists. My next door neighbor died last year of liver failure relating to her alcoholism. I certainly didn't wish for her to die, but I think it would have a big mistake if she had been given a liver for her self-inflicted disease while someone else needing a liver for another reason did without and died. Mickey Mantle got a liver transplant thanks to being a celebrity and died a year later. Pretty outrageous stuff. That high profile case is part of what toughened the rules.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 04-18-2010 01:00 AM

If I controlled the government, I'd tax the living hell out of cigarettes. Maybe 2,000 to 5,000%. What are smokers going to do? Complain? Or quit? Nah, they'll complain. They can't quit. Suckers. Except for the ones who do quit, of course. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Louis Bornwasser
Film God

Posts: 4441
From: prospect ky usa
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 04-18-2010 07:19 AM

Back on topic: Nope, I'm not even on fire. Louis

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 04-18-2010 07:47 AM

quote: Joe Redifer
If I controlled the government, I'd tax the living hell out of cigarettes. Maybe 2,000 to 5,000%. What are smokers going to do? Complain? Or quit? Nah, they'll complain. They can't quit. Suckers. Except for the ones who do quit, of course

The problem is that if you tax cigarettes too much then the smokers will just get them tax free at indian reservations and/or a HUGE black market for untaxed cigarettes will be created for the drug gangs and organized crime to serve.

What needs to be created is a smoking disease health insurance fund and everybody that purchases cigarettes needs to sign up and get some kind of card. Then everytime they purchase a pack they turn in their card and a certain amount of money gets charged (like a tax) and goes directly to their smoking insurance premium. Doing it this way solves the issue that such a high percentage of smokers are low income and aren't going to get health insurance no matter what the law says.

Although I don't subscribe to Bobby's "conspiracy theory" that smoking isn't banned in order to create more medical patients, it is very true that a majority of young people (under 50 years old lets say) that have major medical issues are smokers. Since it is an indisputable fact that smokers are much more likely to need expensive medical care, a system like the one I suggested should be implemented so that those that choose to smoke pay their own medical costs.

As a non-smoker that can't stand the smell of smoke I don't support smoking bans in restaurants/bars. There should be a regulation that if you allow smoking there needs to be a specification for proper ventilation and air filtration but the market should decide if smoking should be allowed. I know down here (south florida) there were many non-smoking restaurants before it was banned. The problem with the smoking bans is there is a slippery slope where the same arguments about public health can be made to ban something else (like that proposed salt ban in NY).

I hope I was successful in keeping politics out of this thread. I think my comments are OK since smoking is not a typical party line type of issue. If I accidentally veered into political territory I'll be happy to edit.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-18-2010 11:25 AM

quote: Lyle Romer
The problem is that if you tax cigarettes too much then the smokers will just get them tax free at indian reservations and/or a HUGE black market for untaxed cigarettes will be created for the drug gangs and organized crime to serve.

Smokers don't get cigarettes enitrely tax free at tribe operated smoke shops. The customers do avoid certain state taxes, but most federal related taxes still apply and are collected from the distributor rather than the cash register. That can push the price of a pack of cigarettes past the $6 per pack level. I know this because we have plenty of tribe run smoke shops around here and know people who still go to those places for their cigarettes. It's pretty bad if you have a 2 pack a day habit, sort of like having a car payment and no car to show for it. Even a 1 pack a day habit really adds up in cost. This is exactly why many of my coworkers have quit smoking.

I don't see gangs and organized crime being able to do much with selling cigarettes. There's not enough money in it for them. And cigarettes don't get the user high either. Anyone who is willing to venture out finding a dealer will probably get something with a little more kick to it.

quote: Lyle Romer
What needs to be created is a smoking disease health insurance fund and everybody that purchases cigarettes needs to sign up and get some kind of card. Then everytime they purchase a pack they turn in their card and a certain amount of money gets charged (like a tax) and goes directly to their smoking insurance premium. Doing it this way solves the issue that such a high percentage of smokers are low income and aren't going to get health insurance no matter what the law says.

I don't think such a system would work. Such a system would be heavily dependent on keeping as many smokers in the program as possible when odds are more likely a growing number of people would drop out of it.

The medical costs of cigarette smoking are so high such a tax/insurance program would make a pack of smokes cost $20 per pack or more. The current taxes collected don't come anywhere near offsetting those costs. Let's also not forget the costs for health care are rising far faster than the rate of inflation and income growth in America.

quote: Lyle Romer
Although I don't subscribe to Bobby's "conspiracy theory" that smoking isn't banned in order to create more medical patients, it is very true that a majority of young people (under 50 years old lets say) that have major medical issues are smokers.

Our health care system and the general public's vices are not so much a deliberate conspiracy as it is a very complex business plan that evolved into its current state. The fact does remain that the United States' health care system is grossly deficient in terms of preventative care and far more geared to the highly profitable reaction to disaster model of treatment. The general public helps out in this by living irresponsibly and only going to the doctor when something serious finally happens.

quote: Lyle Romer
As a non-smoker that can't stand the smell of smoke I don't support smoking bans in restaurants/bars. There should be a regulation that if you allow smoking there needs to be a specification for proper ventilation and air filtration but the market should decide if smoking should be allowed.

I have yet to see a smoking ventilation system that actually worked on eliminating the smell of cigarette smoke, much less eliminating the smoke itself. The smoke still drifts around, getting into the eyes, noses, hair and clothes of everyone nearby before it finally gets sucked out of the ventilation systems in the ceiling. And the smokers puff out a constant supply of new smoke making the "ventilated" environment smoky anyway.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.