DIY smokes

pretty much everyone I know hand rolls their cigs. Those American Spirit packs.

i however do not smoke enough to figure out how to do it.

go to your local native reservation today . cost about the same.

or a local bootlegger . any thing but support unfair government taxes!

[quote=ringrunner]Not unfair government taxes. Every time a smoker chooses to smoke they are putting themselves at a higher risk of getting a very costly disease. Their hospitalization is either paid for by health insurance (our rates go up) or our taxes.

I don't benefit your cigarette use, why should I have to pay for it.



they should tax driving causes alot of untimely deaths, food consumption all forms causes cancer, hell tax life too living life causes alot of problems.

point is nobody should be paying it! drink eat smoke etc.. at your own risk. but people shouldn't be tax according to their habits, if they are going to tax habits it all should be treated in the same rate.

taxing people who smoke is basically a new form of censorship/banned, make it so expensive make folks quit. i'm sure same folks going to go after porn/strippers, fat foods, and other "sins" soon. too many drinkers to be defeated.

ringrunner wrote: No, this is just an economic issue. Tobacco use causes hospital expenses.

But it would be a good idea to tax porn due to the blindness caused by masturbation.

you leave the blind nerds alone!!!!!

bkpotter you say it much more elegant than i ever could. Damn i wish i paid attention how to do correct grammar and other forms of english hehe. .

deleted

sandcastler wrote: Conversely, if the idea is to create a "pay-go" system, perhaps healthy foods and other healthy behaviors ought to be taxed, insofar as they correlate with long life, which means greater payouts from Social Security.

Just saying.

wow never look it at that way before. damn I think its time to tax the hell out of healthy stuff. don't want them old farts to live too long on the tax payers dime!!!

response deleted

one thing to throw into the mix is that smoking -- unlike the consumption of food and alcohol -- raises health care costs for non-smokers, too. high asthma rates among children of smokers, cancer rates in non-smoking spouses, etc., to say nothing of developmental delays in children just coming into contact with residue of cigarette smoke on clothes...and so on.

deleted

flynn wrote: [quote=sweet tea]one thing to throw into the mix is that smoking -- unlike the consumption of food and alcohol -- raises health care costs for non-smokers, too.

wait. the consumption of food and alcohol does not raise other's health care costs? what about diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, kidneys failing?

i wasn't very clear.

what i meant is that while my high cholesterol (say) might raise the total price of health benefits to those in my insurance plan, it doesn't put the health of anyone but me at risk. the cost of your health care does not change (though the price may).

sweet tea wrote: [quote=flynn][quote=sweet tea]one thing to throw into the mix is that smoking -- unlike the consumption of food and alcohol -- raises health care costs for non-smokers, too.

wait. the consumption of food and alcohol does not raise other's health care costs? what about diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, kidneys failing?

i wasn't very clear.

what i meant is that while my high cholesterol (say) might raise the total price of health benefits to those in my insurance plan, it doesn't put the health of anyone but me at risk. the cost of your health care does not change (though the price may).

i am afraid you still aren't making much sense. you begin by talking about general health care costs increasing because of smokers, but now say you meant that smokers cause damage to those around them (secondhand smoke?). what exactly are you trying to say?

your last sentence is even more of a conumdrum (maybe only to me?) "the cost of your health care does not change (though the price may)." cost stays the same while the price may change? huh?

flynn wrote: [quote=sweet tea][quote=flynn][quote=sweet tea]one thing to throw into the mix is that smoking -- unlike the consumption of food and alcohol -- raises health care costs for non-smokers, too.

wait. the consumption of food and alcohol does not raise other's health care costs? what about diabetes, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, kidneys failing?

i wasn't very clear.

what i meant is that while my high cholesterol (say) might raise the total price of health benefits to those in my insurance plan, it doesn't put the health of anyone but me at risk. the cost of your health care does not change (though the price may).

i am afraid you still aren't making much sense. you begin by talking about general health care costs increasing because of smokers, but now say you meant that smokers cause damage to those around them (secondhand smoke?). what exactly are you trying to say?

your last sentence is even more of a conumdrum (maybe only to me?) "the cost of your health care does not change (though the price may)." cost stays the same while the price may change? huh?

i was attempting, with price/cost, to draw a distinction between how much you pay for health care (its price) versus how much that health care costs whoever provides it. like this (numbers totally fake):

let's say you have really good insurance. you pay $6000/yr for it. one year, nothing bad happens to you at all. you go get a physical anyway. your insurance company pays for all of it, let's say $300 -- enough for the doctor's and nurse's time, rent on the space, a blood test, maintenece on the blood pressure cuff, and one of those little gowns. in that year, the cost of your health care was $300, but the price to you was $6000.

another year, with the same awesome insurance, you get in a fight with a pitbull and are hospitalized. your hospitalization costs the insurance co $25,000. that year, the cost of your care was $25,000, but the price was still $6000.

if i eat like a maniac, the cost of my health care may well rise, and the price of yours might rise to help cover the cost to the insurer. but the cost of _your_ healthcare doesn't change.

if i smoke like a maniac around your kid, not only does the cost of my health care likely increase, but so does the cost of your kid's health care. (and everybody's prices go up, probably even more than they do when i just get fat.)

that's my point. if it doesn't make sense this time, perhaps there is no sense to make.

brooklynpotter wrote: not to be too graphic, but tell this to my colon:

http://ibdcrohns.about.com/cs/ibdfaqs/a/smokingguts.htm

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1444645

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/330/12/856


and here is why that is extra bad, in the long term:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548877

so do doctors actually recommend patients take up smoking to relieve colitis? i would think that even though cigarettes may have some palliative properties they are a net negative on the patient.