Oregon legislature is considering a bill making it illegal to smoke in a car with children

E-cigs : any opinions?

That's hypocritical if you ask me. Why not then just make smoking illegal?
The state wants people to think they are doing what's best for them, but they also don't want to lose the tax revenue.

I've recently tried the Blu Cig and Njoy. Blu tasted like vanilla air freshener, even though it was labled as classic tobacco. Seems to last about as long as a pack of smokes did for me, which was a little over two days. Njoy was closer to the real thing and looked and felt real. But it's just not the same. I find chewing gum to be more effective.

They shouldnt have to... ...but sadly Ive seen this. Pisses me off to no end.

At first they are just another poor substitute. I have one now, feels like cheating lol. Hardly use it at all because it really hurts my throat. Still using the lozenges but fewer every day.

Not really, the adults have a choice, the kids trapped in the car with these people dont.

How can the state think it's bad for kids and not bad for adults. If they are truly worried about helping the kids, they should make it illegal. If they want the tax revenue, they should stay out of the argument. That's where the hypocracy lies.

It's not up to the government to protect people from everything that could cause them harm. It's none of their damn business, just like it's none of my damn business if you choose to smoke. They should probably consider simple things like passing a balanced budget before telling Americans how to live their lives.

I smoked 1-2 packs per day as a teen, I quit (with a few relapses) when I met my now wife as she is allergic. It's been about 13 years and I would never go back. I still have plenty of friends that smoke, in my opinion it's 100% up to the individual. People do a multitude of things that could cause them harm, pick your poison.

That sound really wonderful. I sort of think if they ever make that illegal, then color me an outlaw.

Even though I gag whenever I get a whiff of that toxic fume known as second-hand smoke....let 'em smoke! We should repeal the seat belt laws too while we're at it.

Anything that thins out the stupid gene pool is not necessarily a bad thing.

They passed a law here a few years ago outlawing smoking in a car when kids are present. In Canada, because health care is paid for by the government, there's a huge incentive to cut down smoking. Health care expenditures on tobacco-related illness far outweighs tax revenue, and tobacco taxes are unbelievably high here - last I heard $10 for a pack of 25.

comes from playing in bars.
my friend was telling about his PA amp that was installed in a bar. it was ruined/died from all the smoke. imagine your lungs if it can kill electronics.

is not the cigggs, its more when smokers are inconsiderate about it.

This was apparently never out of his home. Scary.

I was wondering who would repeat this myth first.

In college I did a term paper on this subject and based all research on studies funded by the US surgeon general's office. Got an A.


FACT: smoking reduces heathcare costs and saves society money in the long run.
Yes, it's true.
If someone does not smoke and lives to a ripe old age, they will accumulate significantly larger health care costs than someone who smokes and dies at a younger age. That is a fact.
If someone does not smoke and lives longer, the cost to society goes way up compared to someone who smokes and dies younger and doesn't collect anywhere near as much social services and gubmint cheese.


Also of interest were two separate studies that dispelled the 2nd hand smoke hype.
But two years later both of those studies disappeared and were replaced with nearly identical studies that came to the opposite conclusion.
Your tax dollars at work supporting a political agenda.

Did you folks know that in the people's republik of kalifornia, 50 cents from the sale of every pack of cigs goes directly to fund a propaganda campaign designed only to brainwash people into thinking they'll die if they get a whiff of smoke.
Apparently it's working well.

It's biggest supporter is a huge disgusting tub of lard who can barely stop stuffing his face with food long enough to tell us all how we should live our lives as if it's up to him.
Ironically odds are he'll keel over from obesity faster than if he were a thinner heavy smoker.
It must be those darn big gulps!

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1363968456.jpg

While I don't doubt the findings in Sammy's paper, it's not what drives gov't. policy. Gov't. is totally dependent on sin taxes. They do not want you to stop smoking at all. If the number of smokers doesn't decrease fast enough, that just means the folks who spend money to brainwash you will say they need more money to make the message more effective. Gee, a gov't. bureaucracy claiming they need more budget and authority - who could have guessed that?

This goes to the old argument that gov't. always targets groups or demographics no one will want to defend. If the state wants to raise the cigarette tax, who will oppose that? The small minority of informed voters who also smoke? Everyone else, if they even know about it, will be fine with it, thinking it doesn't affect them. Meanwhile, the money forecast from sin tax increase will never be realized, but the state will spend it anyway, issue bonds and then all taxpayers will be on the hook for it. Pretty clever, eh?

Cost of healthcare treating smoking-related illness when you were in college, guessing that's late 60s vs. cost of healthcare today. Additionally, what illnesses were not attributed to smoking in the 60s that are today.

Show your math.

Sounds like a solid argument for legalizing suicide and euthanasia.

By #1 beef with smokers isn't their health issues, it's because they and everything they come in contact with f*ckin' stinks

^^^THIS^^^. And, they know it stinks but normally don't care that it bothers others.


I'm an ex-smoker and loath the smell of second hand smoke. I simply stay away from people and situations where I'm exposed to it.