"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:

But is not right for the government to decide to control some behaviors
via
taxation while favoring others.

Why? Smokers take a huge amount of money from the government when they
get sick and cancerous because many many smokers can not afford
healthcare.



Skin cancer is by far the most common cancer.

The National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention claims that 70 percent of adults take no protective measures to
prevent skin cancer.

So, should people be fined for going outside without a hat? Should we pay
extra taxes for sunny days?


Eisboch

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
. ..

A funny thing happened when the owners of the Beach House Restaurant in
Milford went looking for the best steaks they could find: they wound up
going pretty much all natural and, to a large degree, organic for the
entire menu.


The Beach House has a standard line of steaks - an 18-ounce Kansas City
strip, a 24-ounce porterhouse, a 10-ounce filet mignon or New York strip -
but they're from Brandts Beef in California, which does them all-natural,
hormone-free, all-American blood lines, fed no meat by-products.



I have a distant relative ... Aunt, I think, who married a cattle raiser.
The have a small farm in northwest Florida. His specialty is raising cattle
that are fed all organic feed, no chemicals, etc. I visited them on my way
to Florida last fall and they grilled up one of the steaks from a recent
slaughter.

It was horrible tasting. He was beaming with pride and kept asking me, "Did
you ever have a steak that tasted like that?"

I answered honestly ... no I never had.

Yuk.

Eisboch

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
news
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

On 10/28/2006 10:35 AM, JimH wrote:

When our kids were young and we went out to eat we would hire a
babysitter. It was a nice escape from the kids for us and we did not
subject the folks in the restaurant to a screaming baby or toddler.



My father expected me to behave properly in a restaurant, so I did.

When you were 2?

Eisboch


What's so odd about that? My son caused no problems in restaurants at
that age. He yacked a lot, but he was rarely loud. No tantrums, no
crying and screaming. But, his nap vs fun schedule was easy to work
around. We knew when he normally got tired & cranky, and tried to avoid
taking him out at those times. Some parents are too dumb to spot the
pattern.


Maybe you just did not notice it. When I am in an upscale restaurant
for a later evening meal that is costing me in the range of a $100 I do
not want someone's child inflicted on me. I paid for babysitters when
they were young and there are appropriate places to take you child to
for dinner, but not at 9 pm and the Carnelian room.


If the kid's sounds are no louder than that of the adults, what is the
issue? You don't want to see babies?


Babies are nice, but their sounds can be much louder and annoying than
adults. Since my kids were not perfect like yours, they got tired and
cranky.

Mine got tired and cranky, but it was like clockwork. If you have all day
Saturday to go grocery shopping, and you KNOW your kid gets nasty at four in
the afternoon, don't take him shopping at that time. Duh.

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
.net...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:02:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

If you going to smoke, smoke an Altria brand. Filthy habit, but I
enjoy the dividends.

Filthy habits are drinking to excess and endangering innocent lives.

I'd be willing to bet that drinking alcohol kills a hell of a lot more
people than cigars do.
Tom,
As a former smoker I always thought smoking was an enjoyable, filthy,
unhealthy habit. I understood non smokers who did not want to smell or
inhale 2nd hand smoke. Since the mid 80's I only smoked outside and
tried to make sure it was not blowing towards non smokers.

Even if 2nd hand smoke was not proven to unhealthy, the smell alone is
offensive to non cigar smokers, even cigarette smokers.


Even if smoking is deadly, it is a free choice item. I can and do enjoy
it being banned from the workplace and bars and dining establishments
here in California. But this is supposed to be a free country. If you
want to smoke in your house, or car, you should be able to. Ballot
measure this election to put a $2.60 tax per pack of ciggies. F'n do
gooders. They say it will cut smoking, and 80% will go to hospitals for
payment of healthcare costs. It is still some fanatic group enforcing
their mores on another group. Short Wave is a health care basket case
from what I understand, but it is his choice to smoke. I used to race
cars, also can be unhealthy, but it is still an action of free (well
expensive) choice.


Here (NY), when the tax jumped in a big way, the two major manufacturers
apparently had enough room in their margins to whack the price. They're
still about five bucks a pack. Predictions were around seven. Never
happened.


But is not right for the government to decide to control some behaviors
via taxation while favoring others. Where the hell is the freedom of
choice? Some extremist group (like PETA?) gets the majority of congress
people bought and passes a $50 a fish caught tax. You still happy with
that? You are in the grocery business, Carbs are bad for you, so a tax of
$0.03 an ounce is placed on carbs. You going to cut your prices. And why
should the private company have to cut prices to offset a tax?


I didn't say I was happy with the tax idea. I simply said that in some
cases, it may have no final effect on the price.

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 17:23:09 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:




And lots of smokers are fully employed. And have insurance, which factors
in smoking in rates. Lots of poor, uninsured, unemployed are morbidly obese
(only in America) should we tax fat?

I think I paid about 25% more for life insurance as a smoker, but
nothing extra for the health.
I agree with you about coca-cola, carbs and fat causing obesity
and its attendant health care costs.
But cigarettes cause forest fires. It was Smoky the Bear that really
started the anti-smoking crusade.

--Vic

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:

But is not right for the government to decide to control some behaviors
via
taxation while favoring others.

Why? Smokers take a huge amount of money from the government when they
get sick and cancerous because many many smokers can not afford
healthcare.



Skin cancer is by far the most common cancer.

The National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention claims that 70 percent of adults take no protective measures to
prevent skin cancer.

So, should people be fined for going outside without a hat? Should we pay
extra taxes for sunny days?


Eisboch

I guess us full time Floridians should kick in a little extra when we do our
1040s. 80

"Sunny" and 72* by me today....

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in message
...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:02:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

If you going to smoke, smoke an Altria brand. Filthy habit, but I
enjoy the dividends.

Filthy habits are drinking to excess and endangering innocent lives.

I'd be willing to bet that drinking alcohol kills a hell of a lot
more
people than cigars do.
Tom,
As a former smoker I always thought smoking was an enjoyable, filthy,
unhealthy habit. I understood non smokers who did not want to smell
or
inhale 2nd hand smoke. Since the mid 80's I only smoked outside and
tried to make sure it was not blowing towards non smokers.

Even if 2nd hand smoke was not proven to unhealthy, the smell alone
is
offensive to non cigar smokers, even cigarette smokers.


Even if smoking is deadly, it is a free choice item. I can and do
enjoy
it being banned from the workplace and bars and dining establishments
here in California. But this is supposed to be a free country. If
you
want to smoke in your house, or car, you should be able to. Ballot
measure this election to put a $2.60 tax per pack of ciggies. F'n do
gooders. They say it will cut smoking, and 80% will go to hospitals
for
payment of healthcare costs. It is still some fanatic group enforcing
their mores on another group. Short Wave is a health care basket case
from what I understand, but it is his choice to smoke. I used to race
cars, also can be unhealthy, but it is still an action of free (well
expensive) choice.


Here (NY), when the tax jumped in a big way, the two major
manufacturers
apparently had enough room in their margins to whack the price. They're
still about five bucks a pack. Predictions were around seven. Never
happened.


But is not right for the government to decide to control some behaviors
via
taxation while favoring others.

Why? Smokers take a huge amount of money from the government when they
get sick and cancerous because many many smokers can not afford
healthcare.


And lots of smokers are fully employed. And have insurance, which factors
in smoking in rates. Lots of poor, uninsured, unemployed are morbidly obese
(only in America) should we tax fat?

"Only in America"?????? That's just stupid! But yes, we should tax fat
in that case. Unless you want to pay for it alone.

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Calif Bill wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:02:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

If you going to smoke, smoke an Altria brand. Filthy habit, but I
enjoy
the
dividends.

Filthy habits are drinking to excess and endangering innocent lives.

I'd be willing to bet that drinking alcohol kills a hell of a lot more
people than cigars do.
--
I'll bet you're wrong.

By the way, you can't partition off just cigars, unless you do the same
with alcohol, like compare cigar related deaths to, say, gin related
deaths.

http://tiki.oneworld.net/pollution/smoking.html

says that 434,000 people die each year from smoking in the U.S and
60,000 die each year from second hand smoke.

Then this site puts alcohol deaths at 100,000:

http://www.bookmark-manager.com/permalink-41


And I think they are full of it, to claim 60k deaths from second hand
smoke.
If that was true, you would have a heck of a lot more than 434k dead from
direct injection. I one of those numbers that activitists can throw out
and
feel good, and hard to prove otherwise.

No those figures are pretty accurate. They don't just dream them up, as
you think. Statistics is an interesting field, and if you think that
they just come up with numbers off the top of their head, you are sadly
mistaken.


There is so much controversy on 2nd hand illnesses. My buddy smoked, he is
healthy but his wife got breast cancer. Is that a 2nd hand effect?

Could be.

Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 04:02:38 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

If you going to smoke, smoke an Altria brand. Filthy habit, but I
enjoy the dividends.


Filthy habits are drinking to excess and endangering innocent lives.

I'd be willing to bet that drinking alcohol kills a hell of a lot more
people than cigars do.

Tom,
As a former smoker I always thought smoking was an enjoyable, filthy,
unhealthy habit. I understood non smokers who did not want to smell or
inhale 2nd hand smoke. Since the mid 80's I only smoked outside and
tried to make sure it was not blowing towards non smokers.

Even if 2nd hand smoke was not proven to unhealthy, the smell alone is
offensive to non cigar smokers, even cigarette smokers.

The thing I could never understand are those cigar clubs.
Can you imagine being in a room with a couple dozen people smoking all
different brands of stinky cigars? I'd probably puke on their shoes.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

I'll admit it straight up - I don't like babies.

One of the major disagreements we had concerning adoption was babies
or older children.

I won. :)

And, being totally frank, I am not a very patient man and I don't have
the instincts to determine exactly what or why a baby does what it
does. I admit it, I understand it and I avoid it. It's part of who I
am.

On the other hand, older children were much easier to deal with, talk
to, discipline and be consistent with.

It's all a matter of perspective.


I don't think that's unusual at all. Babies are something mothers were
designed to care for. Of course in this day and age that kind of thinking
is considered archaic.

But, it's true.

Eisboch