Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I regret not making it clear in my initial post that the thread was not to become a politcal thread.

I will say this: the woman who leaves the butts burning is actually in violation of the fire code here in southern California, the home of summer brush fires (source of ignition left unattended and not extinguished).

She is no doubt unaware her smoke travels uphill.

She might also be unaware the smoke can trouble others. Smokers sometimes do not even feel it smells, having got used to it.

What amazes me about this smoking/non-smoking issue is . . . if it is so bad for everybody, why don't they just stop producing cigarettes? Too simple, I guess. We all know it's a money game.

Vice taxes.

That wouldn't work, Carole, i'm afraid. An "anti-alcohol" campaign in USSR in mid 80s only lead to the production of "DIY" alcohol, including methanol as one of the ingredients, which is even less healthy than the "original" product...

Ken has part of the picture. Here's the other part, albeit in a somewhat dated quote:

... big tobacco is still looking out for you and taking care of its Texans in Washington. In the 1996 election cycle, tobacco industry soft money and PAC contributions totaled just under $10 billion, almost the amount for the '92 and '94 election cycles combined. [Texas] State senators Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Phil Gramm ranked 9 and 12 respectively in the Senate's Hot 100 recipients of contributions from tobacco industry PACs ...

Reference:http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol17/issue23/music.smokingban.html

There isn't a PAC for those who want to breath only clean air. When that much money is thrown about, guess who winds up the loser?

>>Anyone else find it hilariously ironic that the anti-establishment generation has become the most restrictive and willing to tell everyone else how to live?! <<

>>vice taxes<<

How about government that fines tobacco companies (and taxes smokers) yet doesn't give smokers a break on their social security taxes (i.e. the government keeps millions and millions of their dollars when it knows, like insurance companies, that smokers on average collect far fewer years worth of SSI benefits, creating a huge windfall for the feds every year.)

They banned TV ads 35 years ago but continue to let them manufacture branded smokes so they can collect the money any and every way they can. (Love politicos who dennouce taxes right and left except in cases of cigs and alcholol. The king of that is our Mayor here in NYC, one who belongs to the taxes are evil party but has helped push the cost of a pack to over $7.)

I've never smoked. But I find the anti-smoking Nazis to be, well, Nazis. More young women now are smoking than ever here in the states. So I'm not sure what it is these people think they're accomplishing.

Glenn, I'm too cheap to smoke. When I quit, they were 23 cents a pack. Two pennies were returned as change inside the cellophane and a book of matches was included from the machine. No way I'm going to pay $4 for a pack of cigarettes. I'd rather kill myself with a hot fudge sundae.

$4? I wish Carole. We pay $7 to $8 here in NYC.

Here it's $0.25 to $2.
Right you are, Glenn - sometimes i have a feeling today there are more female smokers than male smokers.

Is that USD, Sheena?!

Yep, John. But that's Russia.

Actually, now that I think of it, I was buying Marlboros for $2 a pack on my trip to Mexico last summer. I guess they're cheap everywhere but the US?

I guess it depends on the overall level of prices (and salaries, too). Local "versions" of Marlboro are about $1 a pack here. If the cigs were more expensive in Russia, i guess we would have faced another revolution! (no political associations)

$7-$8 for a pack of cigarettes in NYC! Do people still bum a cigarette successfully? How's the crime rate?