If nothing else, I'd tax them for that BS. It's the shopping cart test, at least 90% of smokers are like this, unable to do function in society unless their incentivized not to cause harm, and I disdain them for it.
Still should just throw the damn things away, but changing human behaviour is difficult.
Smoke-free buildings[0][1] are becoming more common. Perhaps you might consider moving to such a building?
[0] https://no-smoke.org/frequently-asked-questions-housing-prov...
[1] https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/smoking-s...
Please provide a source of data for this assertion. Thanks!
In this case it seems unlikely that >10% of smokers consistently transport their butts as long as it takes to find a receptacle. Outside of Scouting or military facilities, it's so rare that it commands attention.
Your assertion is a reasonable one, especially as it doesn't claim that specific numbers of people participate in a particular behavior.
However, GP stated unequivocally that "at least 90% of smokers are like this"
That assertion can't be supported by facts/data AFAIK.
I suppose you could argue that GP was being hyperbolic, but as the old saw goes, "claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Take from that what you will.
This seems like a technical gotcha that has little to do with his overall point. Not all low-hanging fruit is worth picking.
That's as may be. But as a smoker, I took offense to their characterization of me.
Call it whatever you like, but I don't appreciate being berated -- especially when such insults aren't valid.
As I said, take from that what you will.
I hate people who do that.
I wonder if there are any studies about the deterrent effect for adopting smoking / drinking.
If someone is considering taking up smoking and cigarettes cost $1 / pack vs $10 / pack, I would imagine that there would be people that would see the $10 / pack and think, "too expensive a habit, better not start."
Just stayed at a hotel this past weekend. You had to sign a release saying you won't smoke in the room. There was a sign in the room saying if you did, you would be charged an additional $250.
So yeah, its been verboten for a while, but apparently this specific hotel chain had to institute paperwork and additional in-room warnings in order to stop people from smoking in their rooms.
I'm not sure that those outcomes are really related anymore.
Smoking indoors is verboten pretty much everywhere, and has been for quite some time. IMHO, raising or lowering taxes on cigarettes won't change that, nor will it change if more people start smoking.
What makes you think that adjusting cigarette taxes would have an impact on such laws/regulations? I'm not being snarky, I just don't see the connection here.
Anecdotally, as a cigarette smoker myself, I'm glad that smoking indoors (including on transport vehicles like planes, trains and buses) isn't allowed.