Tobacco companies have been ordered by a federal judge to publicly admit, through advertisements and package warnings, that they deceived American consumers for decades about the dangers of smoking.

It is shameful how American corporations insured their profits by lying to the public and government.

Greeks smoke more cigarettes than anyone else. Why? What does it mean? Corrolate with? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita

If you do smoke, please enjoy the brands that don't stink up your clothes, they usually cost more...

And these days it is being demonstrated that second hand smoke is much worse for heart than imagined in the past.

Strong stuff...

11 minutes ago, Proton2 wrote

@JohnAskew: Aren't most people that were "deceived" dead by now?

Exactly. Dangers of smoking were well known when I went through elementary school in the 80s. Anyone who starts smoking today is well aware of the risks.

12 minutes ago, Proton2 wrote

@JohnAskew: Aren't most people that were "deceived" dead by now?

Yep. And people who are alive and smoking now (and in their right mind) aren't defending their smoking by saying "nobody has proved that it's harmful" or "but the health benefits of smoking are disputed!"

All in all a fairly bland ruling. People who want to smoke will continue to smoke, and those that don't will continue to not smoke. And 16-year olds deciding to take up smoking won't be put off by the fact that cigarette companies lied to their grandparents about how bad it was for them.

21 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Yep. And people who are alive and smoking now (and in their right mind) aren't defending their smoking by saying "nobody has proved that it's harmful" or "but the health benefits of smoking are disputed!"

All in all a fairly bland ruling. People who want to smoke will continue to smoke, and those that don't will continue to not smoke. And 16-year olds deciding to take up smoking won't be put off by the fact that cigarette companies lied to their grandparents about how bad it was for them.

While true I think it puts an unfair burden on society to have to care for these people as they get sick. The same as those who eat fast food, ding-dongs, etc. and then blame the obesity "disease". People who make these obviously poor choices that cost the rest of us should be required to pay extra in health insurance premiums, sign "do not resuscitate" waivers, etc. so they can exercise their "rights". If not that then we need to put a healthcare tax on every one of these types of debilitating products. The same goes for alcohol and marijuana. If people are so dead set on being stupid then let them but let them also pay for their own coffin.

It remains the 'moral responsibility' of each country's governments to state health concerns and restrict advertising only because the tobacco companies only care for profits and continue to attempt to sell their product without warning of health issues. It's reprehensible.

...of the 1.22 billion smokers, 1 billion of them live in developing or transitional economies.

In Indonesia, the lowest income group spends 15% of its total expenditures on tobacco. In Egypt, more than 10% of households expenditure in low-income homes is on tobacco. The poorest 20% of households in Mexico spend 11% of their income on tobacco.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco#Advertising

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30092491/

Also, negative campaign ads on packages have been proven to be less effective then putting messages on the packages that help smokers quit.

Herbie

2 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio: These people die an average ten years younger then non smokers. So they don't need pensions and hip replacements. Smokers are cheaper for society then non smokers.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30092491/

You should see who is making that claim, and you're not relaying this part of the article with your statement at all:

Dr. Terry Pechacek, the CDC associate director for science in the office on smoking and health, said that data seeking to quantify economic benefits of smoking couldn't capture all the benefits associated with longevity, like a grandparent's contribution to a family. Because of such uncertainties the CDC won't put a price tag on savings from smoking.

Child care savings with non-smoking grandparents may more than offset the health expense (of long-lived non-smokers).

Besides, who's in favor of controlling health care costs through promoting activities which shorten lifespan?

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

A Dutch study published last year in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal said that health care costs for smokers were about $326,000 from age 20 on, compared to about $417,000 for thin and healthy people.

Who would be so crass as to state that non-smokers are a bigger drain on health care? Are tobacco companies funding these studies?

More recently, in 2006 the Heartland Institute partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets (NATO) in "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco." The campaign will utilize press releases, letters to editors and an effort to win coverage in magazines and journals, according to an article about the partnership on the NPN Market Pulse web site, a news and information site for petroleum and convenience store marketers. Tom Briant, NATO's Executive Director, said, vowed to work to prevent public health smoking restrictions from being enacted in any more states. "We will certainly work to try and prevent similar statewide smoking bans from being adopted in other states," Briant said, "because we believe the owners of bars and restaurants should have the right to determine how they accommodate their customers and not have government dictate those kinds of regulations."^[

In February 2009 Heartland lists 5 of its personnel as being "Tobacco Policy Experts".^[21] These were Joseph Bast, Ralph Connor, the Local Legislation Manager; John Nothdurft, Heartland's Legislative Specialist; Brad Rodu, from the University of Louisville and W. Kip Viscusi, a Professor of Law at Vanderbilt University Law School.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute_and_tobacco

36 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Smokers are cheaper for society then non smokers.

39 minutes ago, Dr Herbie wrote

I would prefer to see a tax on 'unhealthy' products at point of sale (which in fact we have in the UK on cigarettes and alcohol), but the problem is that the tax raised is not ring-fenced for health costs.

++

6 hours ago, JohnAskew wrote

...

Greeks smoke more cigarettes than anyone else. Why? What does it mean? Corrolate with? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_cigarette_consumption_per_capita

One of the mandated messages states that "Here's the truth: smoking kills 1200 Americans. Everyday".

Maybe the Greeks just hate Americans.

4 hours ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

While true I think it puts an unfair burden on society to have to care for these people as they get sick. The same as those who eat fast food, ding-dongs, etc. and then blame the obesity "disease". People who make these obviously poor choices that cost the rest of us should be required to pay extra in health insurance premiums, sign "do not resuscitate" waivers, etc. so they can exercise their "rights". If not that then we need to put a healthcare tax on every one of these types of debilitating products. The same goes for alcohol and marijuana. If people are so dead set on being stupid then let them but let them also pay for their own coffin.

Wow.

Do you realize where this "righteous reasoning" is going to lead?

What about HIV positives, unwanted pregnancies, bikers (darned bikers, paramedics should also check if they are wearing the mandated protective gear and, if not, leave them there to bake like roadkills), those who engage in extreme sports, couch potatoes, people who believe in homeopathy or other unsanctioned medical procedure... Oh, and why cure inmates, while we are at it? That bunch of murderers, rapists and serial double parkers made all the bad choices that led them there; they are already "an unfair burden on society", don't let them ruin healthcare too.

I was afraid this would turn into a reductio ad hitlerum, turns out it's more of a reductio ad inquisitionem. That's creepy.

I would hope that the only thing we can all agree on about taxes is that they discourage the taxed behaviour.  If we could tax bad behaviour, why wouldn't we?

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

@Blue Ink:I know you were trying to play the game where you take things to illogical extremes and we see the error of our ideals, but I'm not finding the downside to anything you describe.

I would hope that the only thing we can all agree on about taxes is that they discourage the taxed behaviour.  If we could tax bad behaviour, why wouldn't we?

That was obviously an hyperbole, but the issue is quite serious.

If you accept the concept that it's right to sanction people not just for the consequences of their risky behaviors (as some of my preposterous examples suggested), but for engaging in a risky behavior in the first place, you would set a dangerous precedent, not to mention a basic social inequality. If you don't see what's wrong with that, we can stop our discussion right here.

Taxation is a milder version of the same; milder, but still equally wrong. So no, I don't agree with that at all.

Aside from my moral objections, there are a few more practical problems, among which the fact that it's not always easy to distinguish between use and abuse (alcohol and other dietary products can be used safely in moderation, for instance), then the notion that price can be a cure or a deterrent for addictions and compulsions is just weird. Finally there's the fact that substance abuse and unhealthy lifestyles are frequent (if not more frequent) among the least affluent population groups, so a flat tax would not be appropriate at all.

If you really want to tax, use progressive taxation, and use the extra revenue to finance better education (the more educated population groups are those with the lowest levels of tobacco consumption, and it's also the one that's declining the fastest), promote awareness of the risks and consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, provide accessible counsel for the early treatment of addictions, subsidize healthier food. Your pick.

People should be free to make up their own mind, as long as it doesnt hurt others.

So, no smoking indoors, totally agree. Putting a ban on it? No, the owner of the establishment can make up his own mind what he does with his property.

16 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@Blue Ink: Totally agree.

People should be free to make up their own mind, as long as it doesnt hurt others.

Well, that's the problem: it does hurt others. When I see a car with two people in the front smoking   with their children in the back, I think, "Why did you bother having kids if you don't even like them enough to quit smoking."

I agree with you, that type of behavior is irresponsible and despicable.

But I don't think it's up to us to put a ban on smoking near your own children. We can better help them become aware of their behavior and help them quit, then putting a ban or tax on smoking.

35 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

But I don't think it's up to us to put a ban on smoking near your own children. We can better help them become aware of their behavior and help them quit, then putting a ban or tax on smoking.

I'm not sure there is any adult in America who smokes who isn't aware that it's bad for them and the people around them.

The problem is that people do it anyway - and some of the people around them (e.g. their children) have to live with the consequences of someone else's selfish and reckless behaviour.

However bad it is,.. You have to respect their wishes,..

You can try to talk sense to them, give them dirty looks, but you cannot force them.

Otherwise, you end up in a system with no freedom to raise your own children as you see fit.

33 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: That's their decision,.. Not yours,.. 

However bad it is,.. You have to respect their wishes,..

You can try to talk sense to them, give them dirty looks, but you cannot force them.

Otherwise, you end up in a system with no freedom to raise your own children as you see fit.

There are lots of parents who are not fit to raise their own children.

That's why there are so many cases of child abuse of other forms (e.g. forcing drugs, as well as physical, mental and sexual assault), and one of the reasons why the state can take your children away to adoptive or foster care.

State care isn't great. But for some children it's better than living with their parents.

There's a debate as to whether smoking is serious enough to warrant such action. But there is no debate that parents should be able to do what they want to their children - or that we can never do anything more than raise an eyebrow and whisper as they go past.

And any adult in America who smokes whilst their children are in their car are wilfully and negligently committing abuse on that child, because no adult in America is under any illusions that smoking is not bad for them or their children.

Killing yourself for a nicotine fix is stupid, but ultimately your right to choose. But killing your children for a nicotine fix is selfish and cruel, and you are taking away your children's right to choose to live a healthy life by doing it.

Surely as someone who believes that laws should be there to protect your rights against those who would take them away can see that?

2 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

There are lots of parents who are not fit to raise their own children.

No argument from me there. We should help them become better parents, not limit their freedom of choice.

That's why there are so many cases of child abuse of other forms (e.g. forcing drugs, as well as physical, mental and sexual assault), and one of the reasons why the state can take your children away to adoptive or foster care.

State care isn't great. But for some children it's better than living with their parents.

So don't say "we have to respect the wishes of the parents". Because we don't.

That some children are abused is not a valid reason to treat all parents as bad parents.

Think about it. You will subject every parent to the same scruteny as the few bad ones.

You should never make rules based on excemptions.

And what makes you think state care is free of abuse? It's made up of the same people!

No argument from me there. We should help them become better parents, not limit their freedom of choice.

Some parents have no intention of changing. A father who is on meth and who sells his daughter to his drugs supplier should not be "helped to become a better parent". He should be punished and his daughter taken away from him to somewhere where her rights will be better protected.

No amount of liberal "but she'll regret not having her father around", or "but he should be given the chance to redeem himself", or "but her foster parents might abuse her too" is fair to her. People who do bad things to other people should suffer the consequences, and their victims should be given the opportunity to have their rights respected elsewhere.

And people who smoke in the car with their children are abusing them, because they are selling their children's future health for a nicotine fix.

19 seconds ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

That some children are abused is not a valid reason to treat all parents as bad parents.

Think about it. You will subject every parent to the same scruteny as the few bad ones.

You should never make rules based on excemptions.

That's a very strange view of the law you've got going on there.

Very few people murder other people. But that doesn't mean we don't have laws to prevent it. And it doesn't mean that we're treating everyone as a murder suspect.

9 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Some parents have no intention of changing. A father who is on meth and who sells his daughter to his drugs supplier should not be "helped to become a better parent". He should be punished and his daughter taken away from him to somewhere where her rights will be better protected.

No amount of liberal "but she'll regret not having her father around", or "but he should be given the chance to redeem himself", or "but her foster parents might abuse her too" is fair to her. People who do bad things to other people should suffer the consequences, and their victims should be given the opportunity to have their rights respected elsewhere.

Again, don't create laws for all parents because there are excemptions. For the law we are all the same, so if you create laws to monitor parental decisions everyone is subject to them. Her individual rights should be protected, but the parent has rights also. It's a thin line you are walking on here.

As for the second paragraph, I totally agree with you. I hate that bullcrap also.

I dont agree that the sate should take care of them, their community (family, friends) should first. State should come stone dead last.

And people who smoke in the car with their children are abusing them, because they are selling their children's future health for a nicotine fix.

If you want to talk about risks, consider this; more people die on the road then from smoking. So by that notion, anyone driving their kids anywhere is abusing their children. Should we lock them up in their room? How about when I take my kids skeeing? Ice skating? To the MacDonalds?

Where do you draw the line? And what makes you think that line is just?

That's a very strange view of the law you've got going on there.

Very few people murder other people. But that doesn't mean we don't have laws to prevent it. And it doesn't mean that we're treating everyone as a murder suspect.

You can have laws making it illegal to inflict physical harm upon other persons, you can't have laws forcing people to become better parents. You will end up in a system of total control and zero freedoms.

16 hours ago, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

One of the mandated messages states that "Here's the truth: smoking kills 1200 Americans. Everyday".

Maybe the Greeks just hate Americans.

LOL. Spit my coffeee

What makes me sick is that this huge industry and all the corporations in it lied for profit for decades, poisoning me and my parents with disinformation. They're still at it, only now they include a warning on the label, and soon, a confession.

Why can't these companies figure out which of their additives are killing everyone? Nicotine is not the worst of what's in a cigarette.

2 hours ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Again, don't create laws for all parents because there are excemptions. For the law we are all the same, so if you create laws to monitor parental decisions everyone is subject to them. Her individual rights should be protected, but the parent has rights also. It's a thin line you are walking on here.

I'm not saying parents should be monitored to ensure that they aren't smoking in front of their children, any more than the state currently monitors its citizens to make sure that their citizens aren't currently murdering someone.

I'm simply stating that the state could make it illegal to smoke in the car with your children also in the car. If you drove past a police officer who saw you doing it, he could pull them over. He can already pull you over if he sees you smoking a joint. Why not a cigarette?

I dont agree that the sate should take care of them, their community (family, friends) should first. State should come stone dead last.

That already happens in cases of child abuse.

If you want to talk about risks, consider this; more people die on the road then from smoking.

 

That's because there are vastly more drivers than smokers. Smokers are more likely to die from lung cancer than from car accidents. Smokers on average die 10 years younger.

Where do you draw the line? And what makes you think that line is just?

That is for society to decide through reasoned debate. Clearly both extremes are unacceptable. We cannot have it legal for you to do whatever you like to your children (e.g. child slavery, child abuse, throwing your child down a well etc) and we cannot have it illegal for you to expose your children to risk - particularly since many risks that children are exposed to expand their life view and are actively good for them. Thats why we allow school trips.

But smoking massively harms children and provides no benefit to them. So I propose that we make it illegal to smoke in cars when your children are in the car. What you do in your house is up to you (because the intrusiveness of monitoring it outweighs the benefit) and what you do in your car when your children aren't in it is up to you.

You can have laws making it illegal to inflict physical harm upon other persons, you can't have laws forcing people to become better parents.

I'm not suggesting a law to make you a good parent. I'm suggesting one to stop you maliciously or negligently filling your children's lungs with smoke and reducing their life expectancy by 10 years when they are in your car in public.

So how to deal with this? I could have asked if the driver was a smoker and smoked in the car before they left but that's not in my short list of things to remember to do...

2 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

I'm not saying parents should be monitored to ensure that they aren't smoking in front of their children, any more than the state currently monitors its citizens to make sure that their citizens aren't currently murdering someone.

I'm simply stating that the state could make it illegal to smoke in the car with your children also in the car. If you drove past a police officer who saw you doing it, he could pull them over. He can already pull you over if he sees you smoking a joint. Why not a cigarette?

State does not monitor you, they act reactively when you murder someone. This is not minority report.

Because drugs impair your ability to drive, smoking does not.

That's because there are vastly more drivers than smokers. Smokers are more likely to die from lung cancer than from car accidents. Smokers on average die 10 years younger.

That's not the point. The point is that the risk of dieing from the effects of second hand smoking in the car, in the years that you are a child, is substantial less then the risk of being hit by another car and dieing 80 years to early. You note it yourself, far more people drive then smoke in the car. So why prohibit smoking in the car and not driving children somewhere? If you really care about children that is.

That is for society to decide through reasoned debate. Clearly both extremes are unacceptable. We cannot have it legal for you to do whatever you like to your children (e.g. child slavery, child abuse, throwing your child down a well etc) and we cannot have it illegal for you to expose your children to risk - particularly since many risks that children are exposed to expand their life view and are actively good for them. Thats why we allow school trips.

Children have the same rights as parents, those allready adiquately cover the abuses you mention. No need for additional laws.

I do agree that you need to run calculated risks, but to avoid them at all costs,.. no,.. I dont agree.

But smoking massively harms children and provides no benefit to them. So I propose that we make it illegal to smoke in cars when your children are in the car. What you do in your house is up to you (because the intrusiveness of monitoring it outweighs the benefit) and what you do in your car when your children aren't in it is up to you.

What is the difference between a house and a car? Why not have the police regularly visit, to check wether you have a child proof home? Friction pads in the bathtub, because most accidents happen at home,..?

I'm not suggesting a law to make you a good parent. I'm suggesting one to stop you maliciously or negligently filling your children's lungs with smoke and reducing their life expectancy by 10 years when they are in your car in public.

Only very heavy smokers get their life expectancy reduced by 10 years. The few cigarettes you consume while you are a child hardly justify the surrendering of personal liberties you advocate.

If your parents do crystal meth and smoke in the car, the smoking is the least of your worries.

The whole point is, at what cost are you willing to minimize such a very small risk?

Let's just state for the record; that I despise smoking in the car with children in the back. But what I despise even more is the state telling me what I can and can't do.

21 minutes ago, JohnAskew wrote

Now some other parent smoking in the car when my teenaged daughter is on vacation with them, 8 hours of driving per day, that makes me angry.

So how to deal with this? I could have asked if the driver was a smoker and smoked in the car before they left but that's not in my short list of things to remember to do...

You could sue, or learn from the experience.

22 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

You could sue, or learn from the experience.

How can he sue? Smoking in a car with a teenager isn't illegal.

You can argue before the courts that she full well knew that is was harmfull to all occupants.

2 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

@evildictaitor: But inflicting physical damage onto your teenager is.

You can argue before the courts that she full well knew that is was harmfull to all occupants.

Hang on - are you for or against smoking in cars where children are inside being illegal? Just a second ago you were quite clearly stating that it shouldn't be illegal. But now you are saying that since smoking in a car clearly causes harm you should be able to take him/her to court.

Which is it?

56 minutes ago, evildictait​or wrote

Hang on - are you for or against smoking in cars where children are inside being illegal? Just a second ago you were quite clearly stating that it shouldn't be illegal. But now you are saying that since smoking in a car clearly causes harm you should be able to take him/her to court.

Which is it?

Against. But you can sue for damages non the less.

13 minutes ago, Maddus Mattus wrote

Against. But you can sue for damages non the less.

What damages? It's too hard to prove that when she gets lung cancer 50 years later that it was because of that car journey. Smoking doesn't cause cancer in the same way that falling off a ladder causes a broken wrist. It skews the probabilities against you in your future life.

When you sue you need to prove damages, so you won't be able to successfully sue.

And you can point to prior cases to make your argument, hard but not impossible.

I would never sue for that, good lord.

16 hours ago, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

That was obviously an hyperbole, but the issue is quite serious.

If you accept the concept that it's right to sanction people not just for the consequences of their risky behaviors (as some of my preposterous examples suggested), but for engaging in a risky behavior in the first place, you would set a dangerous precedent, not to mention a basic social inequality. If you don't see what's wrong with that, we can stop our discussion right here.

I point you to the drunk driving laws found throughout the world.  We quite often sanction people for their risky behaviour.

Taxation is a milder version of the same; milder, but still equally wrong. So no, I don't agree with that at all.

Aside from my moral objections, there are a few more practical problems, among which the fact that it's not always easy to distinguish between use and abuse (alcohol and other dietary products can be used safely in moderation, for instance), then the notion that price can be a cure or a deterrent for addictions and compulsions is just weird. Finally there's the fact that substance abuse and unhealthy lifestyles are frequent (if not more frequent) among the least affluent population groups, so a flat tax would not be appropriate at all.

Anyone who knows my shtick knows that I'm about as big of a bleeding heart liberal as possible, but I'm never going to say "lets keep bad behaviours cheap so the poor can afford to do them".  Taxes are a tool, we should use them. 

If you really want to tax, use progressive taxation, and use the extra revenue to finance better education (the more educated population groups are those with the lowest levels of tobacco consumption, and it's also the one that's declining the fastest), promote awareness of the risks and consequences of unhealthy lifestyles, provide accessible counsel for the early treatment of addictions, subsidize healthier food. Your pick.

I'm confused.  Are you now saying that we _should_ tax bad behaviour?

46 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

I point you to the drunk driving laws found throughout the world.  We quite often sanction people for their risky behavior.

That's not even remotely the same thing: drunk driving is illegal, which means it's not just a risky behavior, it's a criminal one. It's not a matter of semantics: firstly, drunk drivers are not punished because they may hurt themselves, they are punished because they could end up killing someone else. Secondly, the law distinguishes between the bad behavior (DUI) and its ultimate consequences (manslaughter). Thirdly, the punishment is more socially fair (or should be, let's not get there just yet).

Not that I would support a law that made smoking and eating greasy cheeseburgers a criminal offence, for an unrelated set of objections. But that's not what we were discussing.

*snip*

Anyone who knows my shtick knows that I'm about as big of a bleeding heart liberal as possible, but I'm never going to say "lets keep bad behaviours cheap so the poor can afford to do them".  Taxes are a tool, we should use them. 

You are extrapolating it wrong. What I was saying before is that price is not a deterrent against bad behaviors (at least some of them). If you slap an excise tax, the poor will be worse off as they will keep buying - say - tobacco and alcohol, and end up with less money available for more healthy stuff.

I agree that taxes are a tool, and a tremendous one, but I think they should always be used to level the playing field, which is why I oppose non progressive taxation.

*snip*

I'm confused.  Are you now saying that we _should_ tax bad behaviour?

Again, no. I was saying that if you are dead set to eradicate bad behaviors, it would make more sense to tweak income taxes (which are progressive) and use them to fund initiatives that can reduce said behaviors without causing more harm. I don't know the numbers, so I won't speculate on the returns, but at the very least a part of those taxes should be offset by the benefits of a healthier and more educated community.

1 day ago, Blue Ink wrote

*snip*

That's not even remotely the same thing: drunk driving is illegal, which means it's not just a risky behavior, it's a criminal one. It's not a matter of semantics: firstly, drunk drivers are not punished because they may hurt themselves, they are punished because they could end up killing someone else. Secondly, the law distinguishes between the bad behavior (DUI) and its ultimate consequences (manslaughter). Thirdly, the punishment is more socially fair (or should be, let's not get there just yet).

How is that different to criminalizing smoking in a car with your children forced to inhale the smoke? Here, let me help - imagine for a second that smoking in a car with your children is illegal, and then we'll try your paragraph again with the nouns changed:

That's not even remotely the same thing: smoking in a car with your children is illegal, which means it's not just a risky behavior, it's a criminal one. It's not a matter of semantics: firstly, smokers who smoke in a car with their children are not punished because they may hurt themselves, they are punished because they could end up killing someone else. Secondly, the law distinguishes between the bad behavior (SIACWYC) and its ultimate consequences (manslaughter). Thirdly, the punishment is more socially fair (or should be, let's not get there just yet).

price is not a deterrent against ... behaviors

I don't see how that view is consistent with the fundamental lemma of Capitalism, i.e. that rewarding good behaviour with money encourages that good behaviour.

And it also doesn't seem to reflect reality. In the UK, for instance, we've been increasingly taxing the use of petrol more and more with really unpopular fuel taxes - making a litre of gas in the UK more than three times as expensive as an equivalent one in the US. And people drive their cars less because of it.

Taxes aren't popular, but claiming that they are ineffective at driving behaviour is another thing entirely.

Analysis of tobacco smoke and the anecdotes from those who have transitioned points to that there are substances in tobacco smoke that can cause strong withdrawal symptoms when you move from tobacco to pure nicotine. (To lessen the non-nic withdrawal symptoms some have tried lessening the real tobacco use over several weeks rather than immediate and complete switch but I didn't find enough data points to say how much this helps)

In many cases (youth in schools) also the pressure to smoke is more about being in some group where someone is setting a bad example. I think in that scenario it would be preferable to use plain e-cig with just the vapour producing substance (VG), though personally when I was in that situation I just hated the real tobacco smoke so much that I chose to spend time in the library where as everyone else were hanging with the smokers. (thus my Agenda is to atleast convert smokers to the non-smelly e-cig if I can't make them stop entirely)

Of course, there are also some people smoking due to liking the effects of the nicotine minus the addiction. I think e-cig is quite obviously better solution and there is no doubt if I had to stand near someone puffing VG+nicotine I'd any day pick that over the hundreds of substances in "analog" tobacco smoke.

edit:

As somewhat interesting side note, during the research I acquired some most typical substances used in e-cigs and found that the ones that are used to make e-cig "taste" like real tobacco also smell horrible and the smell sticks to even hard surfaces. If anyone tried these e-cigs I would caution against any additives unless you take the time to research them - the flavours typically come in a carrier/base fluid and the retail shops do not mention what that is and some of the substances used in the flavours could be just as bad or worse than smoking regular tobacco. << That's why I haven't pushed these e-cigs on any smokers beyond seeing if they'd be interested enough to research them thoroughly on their own - while plain VG+nic is probably relatively safe compared to regular tobacco smoke, there's a high temptation for e-cig smokers to experiment with additives and then there's risk of going from "known to unknown risk".

I support people living by the results of their own choices.  If we want to start printing "this product will kill you" on all tobacco products that will preclude people from buying them.  I would point out that life causes death after all.  There is nothing we can do about it.

No doubt the companies have had time and money to research how to make the first smoke addictive enough so that you're hooked immediately.

edit:

If e-cigs were to really take off (so tobacco companies would start selling them), no doubt we'd see these additives that truly make the addiction make their way into e-cigs as well.

wikipedia:

Technically, nicotine is not significantly addictive, as nicotine administered alone does not produce significant reinforcing properties.^[54] However, after coadministration with an MAOI, such as those found in tobacco, nicotine produces significant behavioral sensitization, a measure of addiction potential.

evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

How is that different to criminalizing smoking in a car with your children forced to inhale the smoke? Here, let me help - imagine for a second that smoking in a car with your children is illegal, and then we'll try your paragraph again with the nouns changed:

That's not even remotely the same thing: smoking in a car with your children is illegal, which means it's not just a risky behavior, it's a criminal one. It's not a matter of semantics: firstly, smokers who smoke in a car with their children are not punished because they may hurt themselves, they are punished because they could end up killing someone else. Secondly, the law distinguishes between the bad behavior (SIACWYC) and its ultimate consequences (manslaughter). Thirdly, the punishment is more socially fair (or should be, let's not get there just yet).

I don't know if that's a straw man or you just didn't read what I wrote.

I oppose preemptive taxation of bad behaviors on the ground that people might hurt themselves. I do not oppose outlawing behaviors that physically harm others, especially minors. If you want to ban smoking in cars altogether, be my guest: it would be consistent with other existing laws anyway.

*snip*

I don't see how that view is consistent with the fundamental lemma of Capitalism, i.e. that rewarding good behaviour with money encourages that good behaviour.

I'm all for rewarding good behavior. The problem is we are talking about punishing bad behavior which is an entirely different thing; it's the hairy cousin with social issues.

And it also doesn't seem to reflect reality. In the UK, for instance, we've been increasingly taxing the use of petrol more and more with really unpopular fuel taxes - making a litre of gas in the UK more than three times as expensive as an equivalent one in the US. And people drive their cars less because of it.

Taxes aren't popular, but claiming that they are ineffective at driving behaviour is another thing entirely.

My experience is that those prices are way off. As in way, way off, but let's move on.

Taxes are the crudest tool of social engineering there is: the fact that you obtain some average goal doesn't tell the whole story and might hide some unintended side effect. I cannot speculate on your example without further data, but I would be really surprised if it turned out to be the first case in history of a socially fair excise tax.

Point in case: tobacco is heavily taxed in most countries, and increasingly so. Yet, consumption data indicate that it is less prevalent, and declining more rapidly, in the more affluent groups. That's inconsistent with price being the driving factor.

That's not surprising: as I already said before, the notion that you can cure an addiction with taxes is preposterous. In general, trying to pressure people to change their ways without consideration for the underlying causes and conditions, is ineffective and misguided. It's the lesser evil when there's the health or freedom of others at stake, but unacceptable otherwise.