What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
See the new YouTube feature trailer for Dragon Age: Origins view!
youtube.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
542 Comments
- darkskinfan87, on 10/11/2007, -76/+177"He also argued that smoking 'harms nobody but the smoker,' proceeding to light up a cigarette on-air to prove his point."
Ever heard of second-hand smoke you douche? What an idiot. - radicaldementia, on 10/11/2007, -37/+104I can't believe he had the audacity to claim that "discrimination" against smokers is similar to that against blacks or Christians.
- ArnoldTPants, on 10/11/2007, -12/+70The last thing we need is more taxes and more government spending. Get the government out of my pocket and out of my life!
/non-smoker - Rosamilia, on 10/11/2007, -16/+73"After making this claim, the sprinkler system went off in the studio electrocuting four"
- CobaltScribe, on 10/11/2007, -4/+57I wonder how many Digg readers would have cheered had it been a report on marijuana and the person being interviewed lit a joint.
- bradreaume, on 10/11/2007, -9/+54As obnoxious as the guy is, cant fault him for being correct. The amount of taxes on cigarettes is ridiculous. All of you non-smokers should be kissing your smoking friends' asses, because the taxes they pay are balancing the state budgets.
A good policy analysis, the name of which escapes me currently, showed that even counting the cost of every single health effect caused by smokers to themselves and others, and any other external cost of smoking, the taxes collected on cigarettes exceed this amount by 500-600%.
it is indisputably unjust, and yet the chances of anyone caring or changing it are 0. - donatj, on 10/11/2007, -42/+81Hats off to this guy. I'm all for tobacco. Freedom man. Freedom!
- clark1001, on 10/11/2007, -5/+39Well, you have to admit that taxing tobacco to benefit children's health care is a tenuous connection at best. Maybe to benefit lung cancer patients, but all children? It's a little ludicrous.
Edit: The guest was a total douchebag about it, though. - sonicskat1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+38I've actually done a fair amount of research on the economics of cigarettes. I've read a lot of articles concerning epidemiology, genetic research, and economic research. You can find research that claims either side of the battle as far as passive smoking and the mortality rates associated with smoking.
Here are some general conclusions. Researchers found that passive smoking causes cancer...in lab rats when exposed to equivalent smoke of a human being enclosed in a tobacco smoke filled room constantly for about 60 years. This is not plausible for humans. There has also been signficant research that dismisses the common dose-response theory, that states that the more you smoke, the less you live (or increased chances of cancer). The most modern experiments have begun to isolate genotypes that make individuals carrying them more susceptible to cancer and illnesses from tobacco than others. So in fact, passive smoke to one person might be much more harmful than another.
Folks, these are not falsified opinions, but scientific facts. Don't bury this comment because your opinion disagrees with these facts, you will only be attempting censorship. I suggest anybody interested look into the work of Kip Viscusi, who has had a study funded by Big tobacco and the massachuessets surgeon general at the same time. - lukas88, on 10/11/2007, -3/+32I am not a smoker, but I hope everyone realizes that the only reason this seems good is because you are taking money from a generally disliked group of people and giving it to a group that most people have affection and sympathy for. For no other reason than that. It is sort of the same principle that makes it easy to eat cows but horrible and wrong to eat a koala bear (taken as a random example, fill in your own cute/cuddly animal if you don't like it). Population and endangerment issues aside, there is nothing realistic about koala bears that make them hard to kill except people like them.
Of course I want to see money available for poor children who need it. But is it right to make it the smoker's responsibility just because we find the habit dislikable? Go ahead and do it but don't pretend your country is free anymore. - n8f8, on 10/11/2007, -2/+28Another example of the problem with Democracy. As a minority you are more likely be have your rights trampled. Especially if you have no real advocacy. Marijuana smoking, tobacco smoking, immigration, etc.
- handsoffme, on 10/11/2007, -5/+31Whenever I hear of another tax on smokers to help out poor people, I cringe. It's a fact that the majority of people who smoke are lower class (probably because middle and upper class people are more educated about the negative effects, and have less of a need to use nicotine as a means to deal with their stressful ***** ass life). This is like putting a tax on ramen to help out poor college students, it just doesn't make sense.
If you are going to tax someone to help someone else, make sure its not the same person. - thrallie, on 10/11/2007, -11/+37It is 8 thousand a kid and thats way too much..government doesn't know how to spend money. Lets use charities such as children hospitals and other places to help our children. This way we give the money voluntarily and people that CARE receive the money, not bureaucrat's.
- sockpuppets, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27Everyone knows people are black because they choose to be. Come on.
- Eleo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+27It makes no sense that smokers should have to fund this. If smokers were somehow the sole reason for children needing health insurance, then it would make sense. But they are not. That means the entire program is hinging on the existence of smokers. If all smokers were to quit, the program would no longer have any funds, yet it would still be needed, even if it were needed by a lesser degree (how small or great that would be is up for debate). The tax should be proportional to the problems it causes. Bring up what you will about second hand smoke probably somehow increasing the necessity of health insurance, but kids need health insurance whether or not mommy and daddy's supposedly incessant, pervasive, indoor smoking is giving their children asthma or not. Smokers are simply an easy target.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -17/+40So wait. I must move away to accommodate YOUR habit.
Seems more like YOU should move away to accommodate YOUR habit. - Nick22, on 10/11/2007, -3/+24im pretty sure stuff like meth and crack are more dangerous...
- Speed, on 10/11/2007, -5/+22It's not willingly when they do it because they are forced too.
- dangshortasians, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17Car exhaust is extremely damaging to the environment but I'm sure that you diggers would be furious if Bush decided to double taxes on gasoline.
but... I gotta drive to work. they can't do that. - DustinR, on 10/11/2007, -2/+17Why doesnt the taxes raised from cigarettes go to smokers health care? Then we wont have to listen to people bitch about how "smoking raises their insurance rates". People do stupid unhealthy stuff all the time, I'm sick of all the fat people, skiiers, athletes, people who drive cars, any activity which you can be hurt at raise my insurance. In the end it is stupid to have someone trying to provide insurance to be trying to make a profit.
- drjekelmrhyde, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1775cent more they are already above 7 bucks here in Chicago
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -13/+28If I have to put up with other peoples screaming children then they can put up with my smoking,
- absolom, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15I say we tax all the money raised by political figures in election cycles and give it to the kids.
- capiCrimm, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Well there's your problem, you just applied logic to the law. Just bang your head on the desk until gooey stuff comes out your nose, then everything will make sense again.
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15It shocks me how people support the legalization of marijuana and the criminalization of tobacco!
- Wootery, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16New evidence was found after the making of that episode - Penn and Teller think they were wrong on that one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrub3dt7R5U - dangshortasians, on 10/11/2007, -3/+16Exactly. just because cigarettes are harmful to the smoker doesn't give us the right to tax it so highly.
- djvchris, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Is this a good time to plug one of the most ironically funny movies I've seen in a while? Thank You For Smoking.
- ArnoldTPants, on 10/11/2007, -3/+161. You're not a libertarian.
2. What does second hand smoke have to do with expanding Children’s Health Insurance Program?
3. What if the cigarettes are never used around anyone else?
4. You're not a libertarian. - catalysis, on 10/11/2007, -4/+16Everyone loves freedom unless it's the freedom to do something they don't like, then they turn into a bunch of ***** Nazis talking about assaulting you with Raid. Then the government comes in, plays off the intolerance, and finds a new way to make money.
- Axfire, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18Well, as bad a rap Fox News usually (and deservedly) gets, the other people there, including the host, gave him a hard time for lighting up that smoke.
- usrlocalbin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14I'm a smoker and I do my best not to smoke in places where theres going to be lots of people. Especially children. If I walk by a child when I'm smoking. I do not smoke my cigarette, I put it on my side furthest away from the child. People shouldn't have to suffer because of my choices. Douche bags like that dude gives smokers a bad name. Not all smokers are douche bags like that guy. Don't hate a whole group of people because of one douche.
- restlessdesign, on 10/11/2007, -4/+15"Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig called the proposal 'discrimination,' analogizing it to 'all blacks' or 'all Christians' having 'to pay a surcharge for kids health care.'"
Because black people totally made the choice to be black. - KMye, on 10/11/2007, -9/+20It's always surprising how violently intolerant of smokers the majority of digg seems to be. I think it more than anything else genuinely confirms how truly antisocial a large part of this community is. Anyway, while calling equating this with racial discrimination was going a bit far, this is absolutely discrimination. It's about as honest a tax as putting one (for children's health care) on all macrobrewed beers or MMORPGs. How fair would you lonely anti-smoking zealots feel that was?
- biotch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+13They SHOULD do it willingly but they dont. So now they are forced to. Just like most people have the decency to leave a quiet place while they are on the phone.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11The same place it says you have a right to "clean" air.
- biotch, on 10/11/2007, -5/+15http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422
According to the Environmental Protection Agency
"Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually." - RomeyRome, on 10/11/2007, -6/+16I just buy mine from Switzerland. Pay for your own *****' children, or don't have any.
They should ban cigarettes along with alcohol. Then all you "non-sinners" will bitch because they want to add taxes to your cellphones, cable, rent, and internet service. - UGM2099, on 10/11/2007, -22/+32The anti-smoking folks are more often douchebags than the smokers are. Notice how smokers are willingly and peacefully stepping outside as cities and countries ban indoor smoking.
- seanmc303, on 10/11/2007, -20/+29How does second hand smoke hurt children? The only way it could hurt children is if the children are the children of a smoker who smokes inside around their own kids. Not all smokers smoke inside with their kids. Not all smokers have kids. Why should all smokers have to pay a tax for child health care? This is flagrant discrimination.
- NikoKun, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11I know... it's a complete shame... And to think... America was founded on the core beliefs that Minorities should be protected from the will of Majorities... That whole concept is lost these days... -_-
- ilovenicotine, on 10/11/2007, -13/+22@darky:
watch penn and teller ***** on second hand smoke. the no agenda michael mooore's - seanmc303, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10There are other groups out there that also increase health risk to themselves. What about people who do not exercise enough or people who have poor nutrition. These are controllable health factors just like smoking that also contribute to a public health problem. Why not put a tax on food that is not nutritious or a tax on people who do not exercise enough. Smokers should not be singled out just because it is in political fashion to discriminate against them.
- usrlocalbin, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Oh...and I feel I should mention that cigarettes are really ***** horrible things. They do nothing but kill you. Yeah sounds weird coming from a smoker. But why should we lie to ourselves? About anything? And quitting smoking..........hardest thing I've ever tried.
So if there's any smokers out there who are wanting/trying to quit. You've got my respect and the best of luck to you. - Fordi, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13"smoking is a proven killer of both the doer, and the person standing next to them."
Hate to tell you, but that assertion was made by the AHA, and was later found to be a politically motivated bit. Looking into the research they published along side the same assertion shows that second-hand smoke has negligible health effects to non-smokers.
"Whats wrong here is that smoking is still legal."
Mmm. Yummy fascist. Get over yourself, you self-righteous asshat. - heythisismyname, on 10/11/2007, -9/+17smoke 'em up Johnny
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+13you should move, because you're the one bitching about it.
- strangewill, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Your speeding is harmful on the freeway, people die from that, do I get to shoot you too?
- tech42er, on 10/11/2007, -6/+14It's just a cash cow for the government. And they'll put some of the money into children's healthcare so people will vote for it. God, do they think we're idiots wiling to give up our freedom and money just because they try to demonize smokers and play the pity card?
- kingfoot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8yeah, more appropriately would be, ***** welfare.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 543 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is