http://www.washingtontimes.com/...r-wants-prescription-onl/

I give him points for creativity, but not much else. Even as a non-smoker and a strong supporter of banning smoking in publically accessible buildings, I just can't support this.

Why not? The only argument in favour of cigarettes that I agree with is the fact that forcing millions of people to quit cold turkey by banning them outright would cause so much harm to those individuals. This bill would ban cigarettes while grandfathering in current smokers. Once those smokers die cigarettes die with them. Worried about loss of tax revenue? Replace them with marijuana.

gives me the urge to buy a gun so I'm better able to defend myself from those idiots.

doctors should go back to finding ways to treat people instead of spending their time and effort on "Don't do this. Don't do that."

Doctor: oh noes, you've lived your life the wrong way and now you come to me to clean up a mess that i can't do anything about.
Dibs: Shut the fluff up you whiny bass turd. you damn well get paid enough to deal with it. oh, btw, Doc, what's this form that you wanting me to acknowledge that you might accidentally kill me during treatment? do you have Butterfingers?

What good has making substances illegal done to society?

Some people when confronted with something they don't like just want to ban it and then think it's gone. That's as far as they get in their thought process. I don't mind them being dumb people, but they shouldn't start telling other people what to do.

Agree completely with Magellaan. The US has been "at war" with drugs for decades.. the only result is more people in prison. We tried prohibition of alcohol too. Would anyone call that a roaring success? Why would we expect tobacco to be any different?

Besides that, the government has no business telling people what risks they can take with their own lives/health. We also shouldn't be forcing people to wear seat belts, carry insurance, save for retirement (heh.. yeah, like that's really where social security is going) or a myriad of other things we currently force them to do.

It's an admirable goal, but it would be unethical for a doctor to prescribe cigarettes and frankly for a pharmacist to dispense them as a prescribed medication. Furthermore, it would only lead to people having cigarettes without a prescription. More people in jail for an idea that ultimately fails the test on viability grounds. This bill would fail as a law.

"and a strong supporter of banning smoking in publically accessible buildings"

where do you live, where i can currently smoke in publicly accessible buildings?

" Once those smokers die cigarettes die with them. Worried about loss of tax revenue? Replace them with marijuana."

although i don't disagree with the cigarettes, per se, as both a pot and cigarette smoker, replacing tobacco with marijuana is a horrible idea. further, legalizing pot or the government selling pot is a horrible idea as it outright tells thirteen year old children that there is no problem with it, when i can assure you there is.

in canada the majority of my cost of cigarettes is excise tax. i believe, but very well may be proven wrong, that the vast majority of this tax is funneled directly into canadian health care system. without the tax, how badly does our health care suffer, hawkeye? (legitimate question, we are people too)

we're not just a symptom of a disease that needs to be treated? dang. i was just starting to get used to my nonperson status.

is "tobacco addiction" a "preexisting condition" under your "socialist kenyan health care"?

eh? watch your dang language.

It does have the possibility of succeeding. If there's a chance for a lawyer to make some money off it, the law will pass. After all, lawyers are way over represented in our government. Since almost every, or perhaps even every member of the various legislative bodies is a lawyer. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how this works.

bonus

that way mary jane will be ok

So long as the government offers health care to those who smoke it certainly does have a business telling people what risks they can take. Or at least cut them off and not provide them any services. I don't want my taxes paying for your lung cancer treatment because you chose to take a risk.

How is it unethical for a doctor to prescribe cigarettes? Any medication prescribed has certain negative effects. The reason it's prescribed is because those negative effects are lower than what would happen if the medication were not prescribed. If the symptoms of withdrawal caused by quitting cigarettes cold turkey were more harmful than smoking itself there's nothing unethical about prescribing cigarettes. Also, doctors could prescribe different strengths, different amounts, different sizes etc. based on each individual and they could develop a system to slowly wean individuals off of cigarettes by slowly reducing the amount of nicotine etc. that is prescribed.

doubtful that i would let them treat me for lung cancer. once it got diagnosed I'll probably just tell them fine. get my coffin ready. have a nice day quack a doodle doo. from what i've read the treatment is expensive, full of suffering and doesn't really work all that well anyway.

probably more likely that I'll get drunk one night and it'll trigger a heart attack or stroke and I'll lie here incapacitated until i die and then it'll take a few days or weeks for somebody to notice that I'm stinking up the place.

It's a very common belief that smokers make more healthcare costs than non-smokers.

However there's been research showing that because of the shorter lifespans of smokers the total healthcare costs over their entire life is lower than of non-smokers.

A couple links:
http://www.forbes.com/...ealth-care-systems-money/
http://weakonomics.com/...ty-with-healthcare-costs/
http://www.nejm.org/....1056/NEJM199710093371506

"So long as the government offers health care to those who smoke it certainly does have a business telling people what risks they can take" - hawkeye

as a smoker, i pay a fluff tonne of your medical bills, welcome to excise tax in canada. now that we've established i'm a smoker and i pay *your* health care bills, what exactly am i allowed to tell you to do, regardless of you not wanting to do it?

i tell you to start smoking, to lessen the cost on me? surely you aren't going to sit there and tell me to stop smoking to lessen the costs on anybody else?

i pay your way, you should listen to me? you do not pay my way, at fluffing all. (no argument, despite poor language :P)

magellan: fit your stats there into smokers PAYING for non smokets health care costs.

without smokers, in canada, our socialized medicine is fluffED. we can not pay for it. oh, wait, even with smokers we can;t pay for it... :(

If you want to bring costing into this, consider this. The actual cost of a pack of cigarettes for a manufacturer and related distributors, retailers, etc. is .35 cents. The rest of the cost between that and what you actually have to pay which is generally upwards of 6 bucks is all tax. So, I think I should be able to get some of that money back since it's not really fair. Beer doesn't have that sort of tax rate, nor does booze, or rich fatty foods, yet they aren't all that great for your health either.

not sure where you live, cerb, but in toronto the cost of a pack of cigarettes is well north of six dollars. 69.1% of the cost of cigarettes is excise tax, which i am entirely convinced goes immediately into ohip (if i lived in alberta, i suppose it would go directly into ahip? legitimate question, again, to anybody who might know?)

i bought a pack of twenty five cigarettes this evening for 9.37$

the 69.1% of that price goes into paying for teachers? smokers teach your children. pay for the health care of your children? smokers pay for your children to be healthy. the 70% tax went into national defense? smokers defend your property.

at what point in time are we fluffing people, too?

(ohip, for anybody not in canada is the ontario health and insurance plan (maybe program?)

I'm in Florida, Braden. The cost for name brand cigs here is like 6.75 a pack. I roll my own, it's much cheaper since I can just buy the tobacco by the bulk lot bag, and it's good practice to roll for other stuff too. :)

And that.. right there.. is EXACTLY why I have such a major problem with Obamacare. (Well, it's one of the reasons)

The government is not OFFERING me health care. The government is FORCING me to participate in its scheme. Not only am I forced to give my money to a private company whether I want to or not, I'm forced to purchase a product that the Federal Government approves, whether or not I need it. I don't need coverage for contraception, or pregnancy, or drug addiction, or whatever other excuse they find to suck more money out of us next week.

It is really hard for me to believe that more people were not absolutely incensed by this onerous intrusion into our personal lives and decisions. I can't believe that the majority of Americans couldn't see the next logical step: If the government is subsidizing (or outright providing) your health care, then they have the foundation to rule you completely. EVERY choice you make has impacts on your health. From your diet, to your hobbies, to your "bad" habits, to your sex life, even your chosen occupation.

I like to hunt. I love to just go hiking even when I'm not hunting. These activities put me at greater risk of personal injury than people who do not participate in them. Since my activities carry a greater risk of costing the collective money, should I be banned from doing them?

I like steak. MMMM STEAK! Surely eating too much steak can't be good for someone, and carries a higher risk of heart disease, high cholesterol, mad cow disease, you name it. Will Nanny Sam now give me a limit on how many times per month I can fire up my BBQ?

I'm not particularly fond of spinach. Not only am I costing the borg money by not eating enough spinach, I'm also hurting the spinach farmer by not buying his product! Commerce clause to the rescue! But dont worry. The Bureau of Diet And Food Tasting (DAFT) won't need to kick down my door and force me to eat spinach at gunpoint. They can just have the IRS "tax" me for failing to consume my mandated portion.

Cyclists have a higher risk of being seriously injured than motorists. Is it time to ban bicycles? Or perhaps we should mandate that everybody buy one, because they'll get more excercise. Oh hey, I know! Forced gym membership! And every gym must have a designated cycling track, so that we can all ride our mandated bicycles around in nice, safe circles. Don't forget your government approved helmet!

Oh wait.. I just realized I may have completely misinterpreted your post. Were you suggesting that smokers should get an exemption from government tyranny? If so, I may just have to start smoking again.

/end rant

Nice Rant, SuperTodd. I'm 100% in agreement, although the stage was set for government intrusion into private life a lot longer ago than that, when the government decided that it knows how to raise our children better than we do, and can take them away and bill us for their services.

Big Brother is right around the corner, thus, I will NEVER give up the right to keep and bear arms. EVER!