And what of cigars? Et tu, OJ?

Enjoyment, stress reduction and stolen moments of contemplation are all social goods. Subsidize it. (Oh, wait...)

John -- The shades are up on the Connecticut Valley tobacco fields.

Have a beer.

Talk about a false dichotomy.

THIS Indian weed now wither'd quite,
Tho' green at noon, cut down at night,
Shows thy decay;
All flesh is hay.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

The pipe, so lily-like and weak,
Does thus thy mortal state bespeak
Thou art ev'n such,
Gone with a touch.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the smoke ascends on high,
Then thou behold'st the vanity
Of worldy stuff,
Gone with a puff.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And when the pipe grows foul within,
Think on thy soul defil'd with sin;
For then the fire,
It does require.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

And seest the ashes cast away;
Then to thyself thou mayest say,
That to the dust
Return thou must.
Thus think, and smoke tobacco.

OJ: "Have *A* beer"? Right, as if.

David: What a view. On the golf course and around the fire at hunting camp, a good cigar is just icing on the cake.

Tax away if you must. But, at less than 6/year, neither the taxes nor the cigars will kill me.

Talk about dependency though, smokers' addiction in Oregon pales in comparison to the legislatures insatiable jones for the tax revenue. The state's education system would be wiped out if 10% kicked the habit tomorrow.

I didn't know that it was a requirement that the state eradicate any activity that it has decided isn't socially useful. Is a ban on kite flying next? And what about people who aren't socially useful, should punitive taxes be levied on the handicapped? But smokers do serve society, as Auberon Waugh remarked "Those who don't smoke should welcome the fact that those who do die earlier and are less of a burden on the welfare state. Smokers should be seen as heroes in our society".

Carter:

Kite flying causes early death?

Or have a glass of wine. We have it on no less an authority than the Good Book that a drop of the creature every now and then is actually good for you, as St. Paul once memorably advised one of his correspondents to "drink a little wine for your stomach's sake".

Joe:

And science bears that out.

OJ:

I think Carter's point is that smoking is an important contribution to keeping the Social Security system solvent.

BTW, "... and an even greater amount is sacrificed in lost productivity." is of nearly bottomless stupidity.

Jeff:

I'm guessing that the point there is that many workplaces, having not only banned smoking but also having contemptuously refused to provide smoking facilities,now must grit their teeth as the smokers go down the hall, wait for the elevator, go down and then blight the landscape before making the return journey counts as "lost productivity".

It makes one see Marx in a whole new light.

Orrin:

Even so. While I don't think science has gone quite so far just yet, I suspect that the human organism may require a modicum of ethyl alcohol in the same way that your car requires a modicum of glycol. (Warms you up in the winter, cools you down in the summer...)

Jeff:

Life is preferable to Ponzi.

Jeff:

The concept that, since smokers die sooner, it's a net gain for social insurance programmes, is false.
(Or, too shallow an analysis, if you prefer).

It would be true, IF said smokers were normally healthy throughout their lives, and didn't use so many health care resources, and then just dropped dead 10% sooner than non-smokers, instead of lingering on in invalid conditions.

However, they don't do either.

Michael:

Unlike the non-smokers, of course, who all die in perfect health.

Peter, what do you think the effect on productivity would be if instead of smokers walking outside 4 times a day, if they allowed people to smoke at their desks and the nonsmokers had to walk ouside 4 times a day for a fresh air break?

I have no problem with smokers generally, as long as they keep their smoke to themselves. Whether secondhand smoke is actually unhealthy or not, it is certain that for nonsmokers it is unpleasant and noxious. On that basis I think that non-smokers have every right to ban smoking in public places.

Think of it this way. Say you are in a restaurant, trying to enjoy a meal and a social gathering with friends and family. A man is seated in a table next to you, and he starts playing loud heavy-metal rock and rap music on his boombox. Is the music damaging your health? Is listening to loud music a vice? On what grounds would you feel that you have the right to ask the manager to have the man turn off the music or be removed from the restaurant?

OJ asked: "Kite flying causes early death?"

Sadly, all too often it does:

"Lahore, February 15
Banned metal strings, falls from rooftops, scuffles and road accidents at a traditional kite flying festival in Lahore killed four people and injured 80 others, the police said today.

Among the dead was a six-year-old girl whose throat was slit by a metal kite string stretching across a street where she was walking with her mother last night, said Athar Khan, a police spokesman in the city.

Two men were killed when they were hit by cars while trying to catch stray kites in two separate accidents late yesterday, Khan said. A teenage boy fell to his death from the roof of his home while flying a kite."

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2004/20040216/world.htm#2

I thought we already taxed the heck out of it.

I paid 16 cents for my first pack, Home Runs, in N.C., a no-tax state. The price where I live now is close to $6.

For perspective, 16 cents represented at that time 10 minutes labor jerking sodas for Shoney's Big Boy. I don't smoke now, but $6 represents pretty close to an hour's pay (pretax) for the typical smoker where I live.

So much for sumptuary taxes.

Otherwise, Robert's views are mine.

Carter:

So would it be your position that nothing shjould be done about that?

Robert:

You are behind the times, my friend. The objective is no longer to restrain smoke as a nuisance, but to ban smoking as an evil.

The many jurisdictions that have banned smoking in public places have : a) made the rules mandatory and universal and have prohibited any exceptions, whether on consent or driven by the market or whatever. In my city, it would be illegal for a bar owner to open an establishment restricted to smokers, as many of them would like to do; and b) removed any role for the market by ordering owners to comply whatever their wishes, customer preference. Your desire to be protected from smoke is old hat. That isn't the game anymore, and it hasn't been for a decade.

If you want to get all prissy about your delicate health or smelly sweaters, fine, but at least admit that is what you are doing. The argument against exposing non-smokers to smoke is virtually unanswerable even though it is scientifically obvious the extent of the objection is absurd. (The same people who recoil from even a whiff of tobacco will gladly spend an evening in front of a campfire inhaling deeply and getting high on nature.)

You may think you have the right to walk into a public place on terms that are the state's, not the owner's, but, if you do, please admit you are a Victorian moralist and stop hiding behind junk science, and please also admit that you have taken it upon yourself to decide what is and is not good for everyone else and are demanding that your rules prevail. Also, as smoking is now very much a working class indulgence, please also admit that you have appropriated the right to tell the plebs what they must and must not do because your higher class sensibilities have been offended.

Now, let's talk obesity. By the way, did you know smoking is an appetite supressant?