Bhutan monk faces jail for anti-smoking law violation

[Mykislt]

Well it is an acceptable practice among many non smokers, even though that fact is steadily changing, I would believe that the general public, at the moment would refuse a ban on tobacco, and it is only (well mostly) banned in places where it can affect others, so the laws are justifiable, and in fact I agree with most of them (of course I have an issue with the employment one). And it's not that you said anything, you implied that the future will be like present Bhutan. And heroin in whahahahay more risky than getting contraband cigarettes.

[lxskllr]

From the PACT act...

Imposes a fine and/or prison term of up to three years for violations of this Act. Increases civil penalties for violations to the greater of $5,000 for a first violation or $10,000 for any other violation, or 2% of the gross sales of cigarettes or smokeless tobacco for the year before the violation.

Doesn't look so different from Bhutan, does it?

Edit:
That's actually a seller penalty. I need to find something regarding individuals.

[Jwalker]

Any product where you can make at least a 1,000 percent profit margin isn't going to disappear. If the country next to you doesn't outlaw tobacco it's basically impossible to stop it coming in. I think a lot of guys my age smoke but started after they were 18 so it doesn't show up immediately and are anti tobacco only as long as it effects them, some are insanely anti-smoking and then pro marijuana particularly in the peoples republic of california which is funny since every pot smoker I know dips or smokes. It's funny there's always new statistics first it was ninety percent of smokers start before age 18, now I remember one I saw was 80 percent start at or before age 19, um duh if you've been legally able to smoke for two years and haven't why would you start.

[Mykislt]

From the PACT act...

Doesn't look so different from Bhutan, does it?

Edit:
That's actually a seller penalty. I need to find something regarding individuals.

I was going to say...

But anyways, the Pact act is no where near the Bhutan tobacco ban. All it does is make you pay your local state taxes, which you should be doing anyways, and prevents people that are underage from ordering tobacco.

defying this law is akin to tax evasion I would say

[lxskllr]

I was going to say...

But anyways, the Pact act is no where near the Bhutan tobacco ban. All it does is make you pay your local state taxes, which you should be doing anyways, and prevents people that are underage from ordering tobacco.

defying this law is akin to tax evasion I would say

Like I said in the other thread, we'll see. Five years ago, no one would have believed me if I said flavored cigarettes would be outlawed, and you couldn't smoke OUTSIDE in a park, or your own apartment, yet here we are. I don't see anything that shows the oppression will stabilize, much less get better.

[CoderGuy]

Don't think it will ever get that extreme here as there is too much money to be made on tobacco sales. We may end up buying extremely expensive government brand tobacco in the future, but there is so much money to be made (500 million in 2009 in WA alone, and that was before PACT).

This is pretty extreme though!

An earlier law passed in 2005 gives police sweeping powers to enter homes and search for tobacco products.

[sgreger1]

Tobacco won't be banned in the united states. People will take severe regulation, but the south ain't giving up their baccy for a few generations yet. I expect it to get more nazi around here, but I expect tobacco will still be legal through the whole thing.


I do expect that in the future smoking will have lots of consequences. Like if you smoke you will likely have to pay more for health insurance and you may find it harder to get employed etc etc. We already see it a little bit today.

[Mykislt]

Like I said in the other thread, we'll see. Five years ago, no one would have believed me if I said flavored cigarettes would be outlawed, and you couldn't smoke OUTSIDE in a park, or your own apartment, yet here we are. I don't see anything that shows the oppression will stabilize, much less get better.

Well the candy flavored smokes were banned, and that's a travesty, but I see a good reason - they were clearly marketed to youngins, and you cannot have that, they banned four lokos, you think they're banning alcohol again? You can not smoke in places where there are children running around, even if that is outside, I see the justification. You can't smoke in an apartment, that you rent, because you damage it, by leaving the smell, same reason why some landlords, or managers ban cats.

These laws, and the smoking in public laws should have come out before, but for a long time we did not know how harmful tobacco was, and since we've found out, the tobacco lobby was so strong, that they muscled the laws away for a long time, and now it's weakened, so the change that should have come, from the knowledge of the harmfulness of smoking, has finally come. It is not oppression (well maybe a little bit), it's protecting the rights of the non smoker. It is not getting worse or better, smokers had license for a long time, and this need to be corrected for the safety of everyone.

[sgreger1]

An earlier law passed in 2005 gives police sweeping powers to enter homes and search for tobacco products.

/Pick up that can citizen...

[Mykislt]

Tobacco won't be banned in the united states. People will take severe regulation, but the south ain't giving up their baccy for a few generations yet. I expect it to get more nazi around here, but I expect tobacco will still be legal through the whole thing.


I do expect that in the future smoking will have lots of consequences. Like if you smoke you will likely have to pay more for health insurance and you may find it harder to get employed etc etc. We already see it a little bit today.

Actually, I think that smokers, or just tobacco users who pay the great tobacco tax should have special treatment in regards to health care, but who cares what I think.

[AtreyuKun]

I remember talking to somebody once who said a smoking ban in bars is a good idea, and I replied so would a ban against intoxication. Why not just close the bars and save people's lives from drunk drivers?

Didn't we sort of already try that once?

[lxskllr]

Well the candy flavored smokes were banned, and that's a travesty, but I see a good reason - they were clearly marketed to youngins, and you cannot have that, they banned four lokos, you think they're banning alcohol again? You can not smoke in places where there are children running around, even if that is outside, I see the justification. You can't smoke in an apartment, that you rent, because you damage it, by leaving the smell, same reason why some landlords, or managers ban cats.

These laws, and the smoking in public laws should have come out before, but for a long time we did not know how harmful tobacco was, and since we've found out, the tobacco lobby was so strong, that they muscled the laws away for a long time, and now it's weakened, so the change that should have come, from the knowledge of the harmfulness of smoking, has finally come. It is not oppression (well maybe a little bit), it's protecting the rights of the non smoker. It is not getting worse or better, smokers had license for a long time, and this need to be corrected for the safety of everyone.

You don't really believe all that, do you? As far as the apartment stuff goes, what about Vietnamese food, incense, and scented candles. Those certainly should be banned for the greater good of public. Diesel engines are very bad. The ground level pollutants are much worse than gasoline engines, so those should be banned. Rumplemintz? Obviously marketed towards kids since kids like mint. That should be gone too. Where is it going to stop?

[Mykislt]

You don't really believe all that, do you? As far as the apartment stuff goes, what about Vietnamese food, incense, and scented candles. Those certainly should be banned for the greater good of public. Diesel engines are very bad. The ground level pollutants are much worse than gasoline engines, so those should be banned. Rumplemintz? Obviously marketed towards kids since kids like mint. That should be gone too. Where is it going to stop?

Umm food, and incense go away, constant streams of tobacco smoke leave layers upon layers of smell, I left my cat to be looked after, at my aunts, who smokes, and after one day of staying with her, the cat reeked of menthol cigarettes for a week. Did I come off as wanting to BAN things? No, you misread, I am defending these new laws, as they are just in protecting the health of the greater community.

[lxskllr]

I see you've never smelled Vietnamese food, or bought something from a head shop. The smells certainly do linger; just as much as tobacco. What it comes down to is selfish twats wanting the world to bend to their every wish, and strong arming people through the government to get their way.

[CoderGuy]

I see you've never smelled Vietnamese food, or bought something from a head shop. The smells certainly do linger; just as much as tobacco. What it comes down to is selfish twats wanting the world to bend to their every wish, and strong arming people through the government to get their way.

Or ate a ripe durian in your apartment after a nice meal of belachan