Replies

Oh, so now the point isn't the cost to the taxpayers for personal choices, it is the fact that it is a "nasty habit". Now, what department of the government will we allow to determine what is "nasty" and what is appropriate behaviours? The cost to the taxpayer to supplement families for their costs is immense. However, it's for the children so that makes it OK.

It's completely unhealthy to smoke and smoking causes more medical costs than any other act - it's demonstratable and obvious. Families may cost more than the single person, but they are not placing a similar burden when compared with smokers. Families are the fundamental basic unit of society - this has been true in Christian as well as Pagan societies. Families raise children to become responsible contributing adults. Smoking . . . what does it do for society again? Nothing.

You are only going to look silly chasing this rabbit any further.

Yes, a restriction of liberty is clear in the $1Billion the state of california collected 2002. Behavior control through taxation is a restriction of liberty. The same government reaping the rewards for this revenue collection is now stating that the people paying the tax are not eligible for employment. In other words, the individuals that pay for that $1Billion are not allowed to benefit from that money. That is a restriction in Liberty.

Currently behavior is NOT controlled - you merely have to "pay to play". As far as benefits from taxation for the unemployed, while I'm not certain it's germane to this discussion, you're right these folks were disenfranchised.

I already stated that they pay for the costs over the non smoker premium. If your statement is that the compensation package should be different for a person that choses to participate in a legal activity, then your behaviour control nanny statist side is showing. If not, then I already addressed it.

Ok, we seem to keep coming back to this. One last time: smokers may pay higher premiums than non-smokers, BUT their premiums cannot keep up with the increased cost of smoking related illness in this country. So, when the sherriff's dept.'s insurance carrier has to start chipping in money above and beyound the deductable, it's costs them (isurance co.) - even with the higher premiums - markedly more than those who do not smoke. In this case it's all business. Smokers and their illnesses cost too damn much!. You want to smoke - pay the entirety of your insurance. Smokers who do this have no beef with me.

I say the same thing about having children.

IMhO making you pay for the schools or other people's children is wrong. However, the choice to have chidlren and the choice to smoke are not ethical nor moral equivalents.

Yes, now that the issue is in the spotlight, the conservatives are stepping up to the plate. However, this has been coming for YEARS and for YEARS conservatives have been sitting on their hands.

Personal attack aside, maybe in Kali you're right . . . where I'm from not so.

"It's completely unhealthy to smoke and smoking causes more medical costs than any other act - it's demonstratable and obvious."

Provide this demonstratable and obvious information. Correlation does not equal causation. If your statement is fact, why does the highest per capita smoking population in the world have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease rates in the world? (Japan)

The single biggest determinant for health problems is genetics, followed by diet. Should we restrict persons of certain genetics from applying for a job with this sheriffs office?

"Families may cost more than the single person, but they are not placing a similar burden when compared with smokers."

Yeah, right. The $11K per student education cost, the $4K in lesser taxes are nothing.

"Families are the fundamental basic unit of society - this has been true in Christian as well as Pagan societies."

So in some cases people should be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices, but in others they don't need to be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices. It is very clear now.

"Smoking . . . what does it do for society again? Nothing."

Ah, the foundation of socialism. We give up the individual for the good of society. Our name is Equality 25-5439, it is unlawful for us to be writing.........

"You are only going to look silly chasing this rabbit any further."

Why? Fact: Smokers pay higher health coverage premiums out of their pockets. Fact: Smokers pay a little over $1 Billion in California. Fact: Smokers pay higher product costs as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.

That MSA was supposed to be payback to the states for these additional costs you seem to think exist. How is the money being used? Let me tell you it is not being used to offset any medical costs. Instead, it was put in the general fund. If the costs really existed, it would be used accordingly. On the other hand, since the costs are fictitious the money can be used in the general funds.

"As far as benefits from taxation for the unemployed, while I'm not certain it's germane to this discussion, you're right these folks were disenfranchised."

OK, I'll try to be more clear. The smokers generate $1 Billion in revenues to the state of CA. The smoker is not eligible for employment in this governmental department. I say that if this restriction is put into place, then the revenues should not be allowed.

"Ok, we seem to keep coming back to this. One last time: smokers may pay higher premiums than non-smokers, BUT their premiums cannot keep up with the increased cost of smoking related illness in this country."

Funny thing is, that while the population of smokers has continually declined, health care costs have continued to climb. So, I ask again, provide specific data to support your claim.

"So, when the sherriff's dept.'s insurance carrier has to start chipping in money above and beyound the deductable, it's costs them (isurance co.) - even with the higher premiums - markedly more than those who do not smoke."

Right, the insurance company just absorbs additional costs. The carriers just "chip in" money. Let me be more clear for you. The standard premium is $500, a smokers premium is $750. The way employers handle this is to pay the $500 for both employees and the smokers pay an extra $250 out of their paycheck. The way I interpret your statement is that you propose the employer pay the $500 for the non smoker and make the smoker pay their total $750. In essence you are advocating lower compensation for smokers.

So, you advocate higher taxes on smokers and lower compensation for smokers. Hmmmmm, do you advocate government mandated diets? Obesity is causing 400K deaths a year, ya know. The health costs for obesity is outpacing tobacco, ya know. It's for the children, lets tax any food that might lead to obesity related health care costs.

"Personal attack aside, maybe in Kali you're right . . . where I'm from not so."

I suppose in your area you don't get prime time TV programs. I suppose you don't get magazines. I suppose you don't get any of the media that has been pushing the gay agenda onto the rest of the nation.