Mrs. Unstable Joker
sadly I wish it would've..
at my work, people blow smoke at me, within 20 mintes I'm sick.
People don't understand I'm allergic to smoke, and insist on blowing smoke directly in my face after I ask them to PLEASE mind their smoke, so nicely.
That and I wish my family would stop smoking u_u;
at my work, people blow smoke at me, within 20 mintes I'm sick.
People don't understand I'm allergic to smoke, and insist on blowing smoke directly in my face after I ask them to PLEASE mind their smoke, so nicely.
That and I wish my family would stop smoking u_u;
Well, it's more that those people are insensitive than that people have access to cigarettes. When you're in public you have to expect that the rest of the public will do and say things you don't like; you can't avoid it. Whether it's smoking, racist comments or whatever, everyone gets offended by something; if you can't handle that don't leave your house, don't watch TV and stay off the computer. I don't mean to be insensitive myself, but it's true.
Anyways, the bad thing about the amendment is that it would channel the money into only two things: anti-smoking programs and health care.
Pumping more money into anti-smoking, anti-drug, anti-whatever campaigns won't do much besides waste money. Everyone's heard it already; everyone knows the hazards involved. Bludgeoning people over the head with it won't do anything more. It's a choice people make fully aware of its effects. People are going to smoke, and if you're poor like me it takes a much bigger chunck out of your monthly budget, which isn't much of an issue for people more financially secure. Sales tax only works if it's applied to everything and if the money goes towards everything.
Also, if the goal of the amendment was to coerce people to stop smoking then why make health care more dependant on tobacco tax revenue?
I missed some points, but meh... and I guess this should have gone in the soapbox thread. Nobody wants to read this in a forum about posting photos.
Fin.