cigarette butts

[GPSGuided]

Better be those tin canisters. Now, that's antique.

[neil_fahey]

Eclipse mint containers are my go-to portable ashtray these days.

[puredingo]

I know my gut can do little about cellulite!

[Gadgetgeek]

maybe other people know better than me since the last smoking habit I had was a pipe. I was under the impression that cig filters were fiberglass. maybe thats a canadian thing? I wouldn't want to be eating that....

Now, not to paint all smokers with a wide brush, but it only takes one careless person to start a fire. and one stomped butt on the track just means people are less likely to care about their other litter. You have to make the rules for the lowest common denominator, and the sad truth is that most smokers really can't be stuffed to think about future consequences. Doesn't matter much if the rule is good, bad, or stupid, putting the rule in gives the park a legislative stick for when they need it later.

On a side note, anyone see the research on birds using butts in their nest materials? they use it to kill mites and ticks. Kinda neat.

[GPSGuided]

On a side note, anyone see the research on birds using butts in their nest materials? they use it to kill mites and ticks. Kinda neat.

That's adaptation!

BTW. Does a Total Fire Ban covers the lighting and smoking of cigarettes/pipes? Never thought of this before.

[icefest]

Gadgetgeek: Cig filters used to be made of asbestos, but now are make of cellulose acetate. Fibreglass isn't too good as it makes bad things happen to the lungs if inhaled. That's why filters will slowly decompose.

GPSG: Last time I looked it was the dropping of a lit cigarette that was disallowed under a TFB.

[Strider]

I once went to the speedway at Grant on during a TFB and they actually banned smoking!

[vicrev]

I once went to the speedway at Grant on during a TFB and they actually banned smoking!

Good,should be banned in all public meeting places,petrol heads do enough damage to the environment,without burning those disgusting tobacco tubes,& being subsidised by people like me,being a non smoker, to be operated on & having bits of their lungs cut out & thrown in a bucket...............

[maddog]

Struggle.jpg (62.81 KiB) Viewed 25449 times

You do not subsidise smokers vicrev. No cars, pets, drinking, smoking, gardens, sugar, fatty food, sport, sex. No fun. We only want social evils remedied.

Wowsers.

[vicrev]

[quote ="maddog"]You do not subsidise smokers[/url] vicrev. No cars, pets, drinking, smoking, gardens, sugar, fatty food, sport, sex. No fun. We only want social evils remedied.

Wowsers.[/quote]
Please explain.......

[maddog]

G'day vicrev,

Smokers more than pay their way. The taxes they pay are more than sufficient to pay their medical bills and they (often) die earlier so do not become a drain on the public purse in old age.

On wowsers (a term that describes a person who seeks to deprive others of behaviour deemed to be immoral or "sinful" or alternatively a ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warden), there is plenty of material out there. Before he got silly, Padraic McGunniess had a few interesting ideas to contribute, including this piece. Also worth a read is The Rise of the Green Wowser.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[vicrev]

G'day maddog, I do not understand what you are implying here,are you saying I am a "wowser ?"If a wowser means someone who does not like being near inconsiderate smokers,who seem to think it is their God given right, to blow their filthy cancer infested smoke over me,I suppose I am one.....I am not trying to spoil peoples, as you put it "Fun",just do not blow the crap over me !........Smokers pay their way,you must be joking ! What obscure publication did that come from ?.......Smoke on,It's only your life ........Vicrev

[GPSGuided]

Smokers more than pay their way. The taxes they pay are more than sufficient to pay their medical bills and they (often) die earlier so do not become a drain on the public purse in old age.

You think so?

[Bubbalouie]

Smokers more than pay their way. The taxes they pay are more than sufficient to pay their medical bills and they (often) die earlier so do not become a drain on the public purse in old age.

You think so?

Tobacco tax accounts for about 5+ billion a year.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Australian+tobacco+tax+revenue

I hate smoking, but I suspect maddog is right. I can't say for sure without knowing how much the extra their health care costs but I'd be surprised if things didn't balance out.

[maddog]

G'day vicrev,

Outside, you are free to move away if another's habits cause you such distress.

On the revenue vs cost side the facts are very clear. This is particularly so in Australia, but is also true of lower taxing nations like the USA. Smokers pay more in taxes than they cost.

BTW - I am not a smoker.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[GPSGuided]

Tobacco tax accounts for about 5+ billion a year.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Australian+tobacco+tax+revenue

In the meantime, tangible cost from smoking in Australia from a decade back amounted to $12B

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17 ... of-smoking

[vicrev]

We will never know the true cost,all i can say is,go into a smoke related , cancer clinic,heart trauma,liver disease,etc,etc ward & work it out for yourself,the running costs are enormous,the meter would be ticking over,wouldn't take long to chew up 5 billion nationally........Anyhow,have a Winfield Oops.........Enjoy yourself,smoke on........

[vicrev]

Why should I move away ?????.....

[vicrev]

Like to see these "clear" facts, maddog,what is your source for these "facts"??

[vicrev]

Tobacco tax accounts for about 5+ billion a year.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Australian+tobacco+tax+revenue

In the meantime, tangible cost from smoking in Australia from a decade back amounted to $12B

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17 ... of-smoking

5 Billion V 12 Billion ......Mmmm

[Bubbalouie]

In the meantime, tangible cost from smoking in Australia from a decade back amounted to $12B

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17 ... of-smoking

Hmmm, TIL.

The tangible costs included lost productivity due to a death (for one yaer), about 9 billion for that. So it is not limited to the cost of health care or ongoing disability payments.

If I died tomorrow I don't see how I've cost other tax payers one year of my income (That doesn't make sense at all) which is part of these tangible costs.

The other part is, how much EXTRA their care costs. If a smoker costs more than the average non-smoker then the additional cost (above a nong smoker's costs) is all that should be counted, not their total health care.

Table 17.2.2 from your link would suggest they do pay for their own health care with a bit of change.

This is not to say I endorse smoking. I had to take CEA test once (checking I was still clear) and got a false positive due to having been around smokers for a few evenings before. I spent 2 weeks sweating bullets before I got another set of results saying everything was clear (had PET scans and all). Thankfully rules have changed now for public places but I avoid being around smokers when they light up like they have the plague as a result. I also consider smoking unfair to family members, when you get sick your family suffers with you (sometimes more so) and it's unfair to put them through that pain.

But, misleading arguments don't help anyone.

[Bubbalouie]

We will never know the true cost,all i can say is,go into a smoke related , cancer clinic,heart trauma,liver disease,etc,etc ward & work it out for yourself,the running costs are enormous,the meter would be ticking over,wouldn't take long to chew up 5 billion nationally........Anyhow,have a Winfield Oops.........Enjoy yourself,smoke on........

I have been to these places, I had 9 months of chemo & radiation treatment and 4 surgeries. I have both seen and experienced first hand the costs of smoking (as has my family). The thing is, I've never smoked, I barely drink (less than once a week), I exercise regularly & eat well. I just had bad luck to have these things happen, it wasn't even a choice (smoking is a choice).

Ad hominem attacks are not constructive.

Last edited by Bubbalouie on Sun 30 Nov, 2014 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[maddog]

G'day GPS,

Very old figures you produced there, but the 'Total net health costs' were calculated at $318.4 million dollars whereas the revenue raised is so much higher (now around $10.2 billion). The big ticket item in the resource you provided is 'Premature death' at approximately $9.2 billion, but the cost an early death is incurred by the individual smoker and by its very nature is a private cost (it is their life and their choice to make). Neither the 'moral majority' nor the 'nanny state' have any right to determine how others will live their lives in regards to such matters. Otherwise where do we stop? Alcohol? Diet? Sport? Exercise?

Note that your study quotes an American paper that estimates the net cost of smoking at $0.15 per packet of cigarettes smoked.

G'day vicrev,

If the site or smell of others peacefully enjoying a moment causes you such distress it is easy enough to move away. I would suggest you do so as I'm sure that this course of action will result in you achieving a more stable state of mind, lower your blood pressure and stress levels.

I have already produced quite a few sources to better inform your opinion in regards to the economic situation.

Cheers,

Maddog.

[GPSGuided]

Cost is never an individual item in a society. Hermit out in the bush yes, not in a society.

[Eljimberino]

Stopping people from smoking is not the same as saying they shouldn't think for themselves, quite the opposite.


Ride On

[GPSGuided]

No one has forced anyone to stop smoking.

[north-north-west]

G'day vicrev,
Outside, you are free to move away if another's habits cause you such distress.

Actually being allergic to tobacco smoke, I've been doing that most of my life. But why should I? Why can't people - if they must indulge in a childish, dirty, unhealthy habit - do so somewhere they don't have any impact on people who choose not to indulge in it?
Their habit has a negative impact on the health of anyone in their vicinity. While they have the right to kill themselves any way they choose, they also have the responsibility to ensure their addiction does not harm others. So they should be the ones to move away. Or, better still, only indulge somewhere they will not affect anyone else.

[vicrev]

I will say it again.....last time!....I do not give a fat rats about people,who, knowingly want to kill themselves, by smoking....just have consideration for non-smokers........not much to ask,is it ??.......Vicrev

[Bubbalouie]

Actually being allergic to tobacco smoke, I've been doing that most of my life. But why should I? Why can't people - if they must indulge in a childish, dirty, unhealthy habit - do so somewhere they don't have any impact on people who choose not to indulge in it?
Their habit has a negative impact on the health of anyone in their vicinity. While they have the right to kill themselves any way they choose, they also have the responsibility to ensure their addiction does not harm others. So they should be the ones to move away. Or, better still, only indulge somewhere they will not affect anyone else.

This is a sentiment I can get behind.

[maddog]

The expectation that smokers should be shunted off to one side seems remarkably rude and does nothing to further pleasant conversation amongst friends. While extending sympathy to the hypersensitive, and those of poor health, it is surprising how selective such allergies can appear at times.

Most surprising is how few people seem to suffer from the same complaints when exposed to a campfire. I am yet to come across even a single individual who has confronted other campers, demanding they extinguish their fire on the grounds of public health, despite the fact that campfires are known to be far more dangerous than the somewhat ambiguous threat posed by second-hand smoke from a cigarette. I have though witnessed such bulling demands directed at smokers indulging in a quiet puff. But the evil of the campfire should not be understated. Families for Clean Air put the case against the campfire as follows:

People who would never dream of smoking a cigarette choose to burn wood. Yet wood smoke contains many of the same toxic and carcinogenic substances as cigarette smoke, including benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, and dibenz(a,h)anthracene.

And wood smoke produces far more particulate pollution than cigarette smoke does.

EPA researchers estimate the lifetime cancer risk from wood smoke to be 12 times greater than from a similar amount of cigarette smoke.

In a laboratory study at Louisiana State University, researchers found that hazardous free radicals in wood smoke are chemically active 40 times longer than those from cigarette smoke—so once inhaled, they will harm the body for far longer.

Other EPA estimates suggest that a single fireplace operating for an hour and burning 10 pounds of wood will generate 4,300 times more carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons than 30 cigarettes.

More information is available here and here. Perhaps it is time to crack down on the campfire too. After all we only want social evils remedied.

Cheers,

Maddog.