Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan
Fact is, gvt doesn't want you quitting smoking ~ they'd lose too much money.... This is the same BS model that is the carbon scheme
Actually, they figured out a long time ago that the cost
of smoking, once you figure in medical costs, lost employment time, even related fire losses, far outweighed the tax revenue. The problem was that it is legal to smoke and to simply outlaw it would mean restitution for everyone involved in production and distribution, plus dealing with the smokers themselves crying about their civil rights. Their strategy was the long game, education, taxation, restrictions of freedom to practice their habit. In 1965, when tobacco companies were hiring "scientists" to say that smoking didn't cause cancer, fully half the adult population in Canada smoked. Today that number hovers around 16%.
Now, the fear of dying of cancer was driven home by people watching their friends and relatives waste away in hospital beds. We don't have anything like that for atmospheric pollution just yet, and the warning signs we do have are still being poo-pooed by scientists who more often than not, have connections to big oil.
Fact is Nick, you got it backwards; people just don't care about this the way you think they do. Sure, they'll pay lip service but that's about it.
You may be correct to a point. I agree that there are a lot of people that are more talk than action when it comes to what changes they can make, but I also think that this is on people's minds at election time and that will light a fire under the politicians. I also think the "experts" that are denying the effects of GHGs are more and more taking on the appearance of hired guns and charlatans, and that this perception is spreading. That's just me, but I have a vote too.