Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It brings very little happiness to those that do it

I take it you've never smoked.

If you do, and you're not some helpless 60+ a day 40 year habitkindo' fool, it does. A nice pint and a fa..wordfilter.. ciggie is wonderful. Post meal smoke ? Ace-- and an aid to digestion.

And as for that post coitial one..... that, arm in arm with the lady/fella of your choice is truly wonderous.

Seriously, people don't just smoke due to peer pressure or addiction. When you do it, it is really fething lush. Especially when you roll it round in your fingers or get that cool exhale out through your nose and back into mouth like in 80s rock videos.

It's not like orgasm good but it is a very sublime pleasure that if you've never smoked you just won't get.

OK how about this, say your company failed or the big mill in your town closed, as has happened in states like Ohio. Do you not think the Government they have been taxed by over the years not give them a helping hand. Or should they say "your company failed because you were lazy, now starve!" Have you seen what an angry starving horde of poor out of work people can do to a government.

reds8n wrote:

It brings very little happiness to those that do it

I take it you've never smoked.

If you do, and you're not some helpless 60+ a day 40 year habitkindo' fool, it does. A nice pint and a fa..wordfilter.. ciggie is wonderful. Post meal smoke ? Ace-- and an aid to digestion.

And as for that post coitial one..... that, arm in arm with the lady/fella of your choice is truly wonderous.

Seriously, people don't just smoke due to peer pressure or addiction. When you do it, it is really fething lush. Especially when you roll it round in your fingers or get that cool exhale out through your nose and back into mouth like in 80s rock videos.

It's not like orgasm good but it is a very sublime pleasure that if you've never smoked you just won't get.

Exactly. "Cigarettes don't bring happiness" reveals a pretty inexperienced viewpoint. I did smoke at one time, and when I did I loved it. I quit because I didn't want to anymore, that simple. I have willpower.

Shuma try a cig every kid should before their 16th birthday. Just like a beer. It will make a man of you

I've smoked. Try meth for a real high.


There are reasons I have the beliefs I do, smoking is nothing. You get the same psychological impact from working out. Cigarettes don't bring much happiness compared to what that same money and time could do elsewhere, and certainly aren't a net positive compared to the withdrawals it brings with it.

I quit because I didn't want to anymore, that simple.

Why didn't you want to any more exactly? You sure did seem to love it.

Yeah, lots of things bring a high, success, cardio, sweet lovin with a smokin broad.

Cigs are one of the easier sources for a lot of people. No commitment, no time, you can do it on the toilet FFS. Just $5 and you get a pack of 20 surges of good feeling. It has health drawbacks but if thats what you wanna do more power to you.

I quit because I got tired of stopping at the gas station of all reasons. Im an efficient person and I hated losing the time.

Cigarettes don't bring much happiness compared to what that same money and time could do elsewhere, and certainly aren't a net positive compared to the withdrawals it brings with it.

I fully agree they aren't a net positive compared with not smoking or stopping. And they are really a terrible waste of money.

But..time... hmm... I think a large part of the pleasure of smoking in a way is the wasting of time. And it is a quick and easy fix.

But it is a high that does get much less enjoyable generally over time.

Ahtman wrote:I know it must be your new favorite toy, but it fails here for a couple of reasons. This isn't the first "small thing". I'm not looking at snow on top of a hill and saying that it will become a snowball and roll down the kill and become a giant snowball that will crush the town. I am looking at eh snowball as it is already part way down the hill. This is a part of a sequence of events that has been ongoing. I'm also not saying the snowball is going to kill us all, but it will deposit snow in our streets. We have seen this before and it always always, always leads to even greater restrictions, never less.

It's nonsense to say that all taxes inevitably increase and beget more taxes. They don't.

Do you remember the Window Tax, or the Beard Tax?

Taxes and excises of all kinds have gone up and down during history, they also differ greatly from country to country.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

namegoeshere wrote:I think it's very dakkadakka how flamey this is.

Hey guys, I just destroyed a Land Raider with a deffrolla, but my friend says it doesn't work with ramming. Who's right?

AAAARGH! *Track down Orkeosaurus, gets on a plane, goes to his front door, and takes a massive dump on his welcome mat* ;P

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3026/3387085109_57b1610c09_o.png (solution to economic crisis)

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ak053_FN6F3Jj89.JFSj.SgjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20081011134106AAlnBst (another vital question answered)

That mat really tied the room together.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I know it must be your new favorite toy, but it fails here for a couple of reasons. This isn't the first "small thing". I'm not looking at snow on top of a hill and saying that it will become a snowball and roll down the kill and become a giant snowball that will crush the town. I am looking at eh snowball as it is already part way down the hill. This is a part of a sequence of events that has been ongoing. I'm also not saying the snowball is going to kill us all, but it will deposit snow in our streets. We have seen this before and it always always, always leads to even greater restrictions, never less.

It's nonsense to say that all taxes inevitably increase and beget more taxes. They don't.

Do you remember the Window Tax, or the Beard Tax?

Taxes and excises of all kinds have gone up and down during history, they also differ greatly from country to country.

I wasn't referring to the taxes, but government overreaching in deciding what is best for us and what is fashionable and what isn't. Fried foods aren't great for you but I don't think the government should ban country fried steak. Having fried chicken every now and then is ok, but eating it all the time is not healthy, but the government shouldn't be deciding what each persons level of moderation should be. The more we allow a government to take power, the more it will keep trying to take. If they don't want people doing it and it is in the best interest of all, just make it illegal and stop pussyfooting around. Barring that don't try to demonize the users and make them pay an unfair share, especially the less economically empowered. Then tying the sale of these godforsaken, evil, terrible things to help pay for childrens health care is just deplorable.

As for taxes, well they are inevitable and accepted...to a point. There always comes a breaking point to anything. I've never said there should be no tax on cigarettes, alcohol, or other items, but that we are getting to the point of overtaxing them unfairly.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

That mat really tied the room together.

That's like, just your opinion man.

ShumaGorath wrote:Yeah, that makes about as much sense as concluding that smoking is better for national healthcare because its kills people earlier (in which case "national healthcare" becomes kind of an odd name). Productivity and tax payout are just as important as costs. If the overall net effect is increased national healcare costs, but increased revenue by taxes and GDP growth by capable individuals living longer then the net effect is still positive. Not only that but its positive and people are living longer and in better health, which is a goal of any good society.

Nobody is suggesting that smoking is 'good' because it kills people. That's a wilful misinterpretation on your part, and you need to stop doing rubbish like that.

I will say it again. You're obviously struggling to keep up so I will type it slowly.

No-one is suggesting smoking is good. It is, however, the choice of individual, and government does not stop adults smoking. But it does say the smokers have to pay a little extra, and among justifications it says this is because smokers cost more, because they get sick and die of cancer. However, multiple studies have shown smokers do not cost more money, they cost less. Therefore it is a bad justification.

Not saying anyone should smoke. Not saying smoking is good. Am saying taxing smoking due to increased healthcare is bad, because there isn't an increase in healthcare costs.

Post better studies.

No, you need to follow the discussion. Now, can you just concede the point so we can all move on. I really don't like being on the same side as PanamaG.

PanamaG wrote:Im an efficient person and I hated losing the time.

Then why are you posting on the internet?

Nobody is suggesting that smoking is 'good' because it kills people. That's a wilful misinterpretation on your part, and you need to stop doing rubbish like that.

I'll do that as soon as you stop implying I think that the dutch are somehow nonhuman crab people, rather than the obvious intent of my comments being the comparison between different health systems.

I will say it again. You're obviously struggling to keep up so I will type it slowly.

Clearly, which is obviously why you seem so willing to shout the exact same point that I refuted three posts ago.

No-one is suggesting smoking is good. It is, however, the choice of individual, and government does not stop adults smoking. But it does say the smokers have to pay a little extra, and among justifications it says this is because smokers cost more, because they get sick and die of cancer. However, multiple studies have shown smokers do not cost more money, they cost less. Therefore it is a bad justification.

Except those same studies are incomplete and provide a null answer to the issue. All they show is that it costs the healthcare system less because they live half as long. Direct costs are not the only factor. Someone with AIDS costs the system less too. Should we rescind the laws about syringe safety? Maybe drop the blood screening for donors? Both would "save money" according to the same studies you keep posting.

Not saying anyone should smoke. Not saying smoking is good. Am saying taxing smoking due to increased healthcare is bad, because there isn't an increase in healthcare costs.

And I'm saying that a net increase in total cost can be easily offset by a net increase in tax gain and per capita personal expenditure by an able bodied individual paying into the system over several decades. This is the important part. If half of the U.S. population died suddenly by your logic our healtcare woes would dissapear, except healthcare is based on the taxes payed by citizens. You can't pay taxes when you're dead.

No, you need to follow the discussion. Now, can you just concede the point so we can all move on. I really don't like being on the same side as PanamaG.

Then you should probably read what I actually post. Or just start quoting yourself so that I can see that you're not posting anything new or pertinent.

sebster wrote:

PanamaG wrote:Im an efficient person and I hated losing the time.

Then why are you posting on the internet?

Because I am so efficient I finished what I was supposed to do today early.

148 to 1517 buddy

Couple of slightly OT points here.

The definition of 'liberal' used in this thread a few times is frankly baffling. As a (literally) card carrying liberal, let me break it down. Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms. It is a liberal viewpoint to say someone should have the right to make their own mistakes. Liberal and Left wing are not interchangable. Also, left wing and authoritarian are not antonyms. Liberal and authoritarian are. Left wing and right wing are. It is entirely possible to be left wing authoritarian, and far left ideologies often are.

Also, shuma, how are people who die at 84 going to contribute more tax than those who die at 77 (going off average death ages of non-smokers and smokers from one of the studies posted)? Don't Americans retire?!

Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms.

Do you support right of individual citizens to bear arms, with no taxation greater than that of other products?

Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?

Do you support the right of individuals to associate with who they want to free from interference?

Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?

Define "harm others".

Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

That's why we have unions.

Do you support the soverign rights of otehr nations not to be invaded and occupied for little mroe than political showboating ?

Do you support people always being given a criminal trial, even if it is claimed they are "terrorists" ?

This is a fun new game.

Frazzled wrote:

Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms.

Do you support right of individual citizens to bear arms, with no taxation greater than that of other products?

Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?

Do you support the right of individuals to associate with who they want to free from interference?

Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

Yes to all bar number one. And it's the 'harm others' bit that makes me wary of the first, but that's a different argument, and one that's entirely different for me, being a Brit.

reds8n wrote:

Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?

Define "harm others".

Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

That's why we have unions.

Do you support the soverign rights of otehr nations not to be invaded and occupied for little mroe than political showboating ?

Do you support people always being given a criminal trial, even if it is claimed they are "terrorists" ?

This is a fun new game.

And back atcha reddy

Do you support

*The right to arm bears?
*The right to a man cave in any marriage
*The right of every male to a big screen TV?
*the right to be free from sock puppet harassment?

*The right to arm bears?
*The right to a man cave in any marriage
*The right of every male to a big screen TV?
*the right to be free from sock puppet harassment?

1. Except Pandas. Evil fethers.
2. Only if accessed by a pole/s that you have to slide down.
3. This is a federal issue, this should be mandatory.
4. Impossible. You're talking madness. This cannot be done.

reds8n wrote:

*The right to arm bears?
*The right to a man cave in any marriage
*The right of every male to a big screen TV?
*the right to be free from sock puppet harassment?

1. Except Pandas. Evil fethers.
2. Only if accessed by a pole/s that you have to slide down.
3. This is a federal issue, this should be mandatory.
4. Impossible. You're talking madness. This cannot be done.

1. Except Pandas. Evil fethers.
****True that. I remember back in 38 when they tried to take voer the world.
2. Only if accessed by a pole/s that you have to slide down.
****Well, yea. I thought that was a given
3. This is a federal issue, this should be mandatory.
****You know it.
4. Impossible. You're talking madness. This cannot be done.[/
**** Hey a man can dream. One day a hero will come to free us from sock puppet oppression.

Greebynog wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms.

Do you support right of individual citizens to bear arms, with no taxation greater than that of other products?

Do you support the right of individuals eat/drink/do what they want without additional levies, so long as it doesn't harm others?

Do you support the right of individuals to associate with who they want to free from interference?

Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

Yes to all bar number one. And it's the 'harm others' bit that makes me wary of the first, but that's a different argument, and one that's entirely different for me, being a Brit.

So you're not a liberal then...

I'm a liberal who qualifies his beliefs. I think that's better than being blindly following ideology regardless of circumstance. Call me a pragmatic left-leaning liberal then. Bit more of a mouthful though.

The stories I hear of the 1738 Bamboo wars... .. so much violence for so little nutritional worth.


Worst thing is... we fancied another one 10 minutes after finishing it.

Greebynog wrote:I'm a liberal who qualifies his beliefs. I think that's better than being blindly following ideology regardless of circumstance. Call me a pragmatic left-leaning liberal then. Bit more of a mouthful though.

Betcha can't say that with a mouthfull of marbles (or like Grotsnik)

"fwawmwawiw wewv wee'in wi'eral"

Greebynog wrote:Couple of slightly OT points here.

The definition of 'liberal' used in this thread a few times is frankly baffling. As a (literally) card carrying liberal, let me break it down. Being a liberal means you support personal freedoms. It is a liberal viewpoint to say someone should have the right to make their own mistakes. Liberal and Left wing are not interchangable. Also, left wing and authoritarian are not antonyms. Liberal and authoritarian are. Left wing and right wing are. It is entirely possible to be left wing authoritarian, and far left ideologies often are.

Hmm... sounds like one of those things. In America, at least, liberal definitely means "left-wing," or relating to the Democrats, although that's obviously not the original definition. What you describe would be more likely called being a "classical liberal" or a libertarian (or just "civil-libertarian", depending on your economic views).

Of course, they still say they "support personal freedoms," but that's like conservatives supporting "less government," which is to say it's more rhetoric than substance much of the time.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Of course, they still say they "support personal freedoms," but that's like conservatives supporting "less government," which is to say it's more rhetoric than substance much of the time.

A true libertarian actually is not "more rhetoric than substance."

Oops, no, that was in reference to liberals.

(And liberals mostly meaning the Democratic Party.)

Gotcha.

reds8n wrote:Do you support the right of individuals to work where they want, free of coercion?

That's why we have unions.

That's odd because here, in the US, unions mean just as much if not more coercion.