US Cigarette Tax Increases

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Punarbhava, you moan about the nanny state and how it's wrong because it implies you can't take care of yourself, yet...the fact that one smokes or eats himself into obesity is pretty much evidence of just that. If you were responsible and could handle the freedom allowed to you, you wouldn't be in this predicament. Clearly, you need help, much like children who want to ignore their vegetables and eat only candy because it tastes better.

To get like that, you're lacking self-control and competent decision-making in that area, or at least have some serious problems that prevent you from taking effective care of yourself.

So really, if you as an adult act like an irresponsible myopic child, why shouldn't you be treated like one?

I don't find it a convincing argument that you attack the nanny state as being unnecessary, while you then go on to defend things that are actually evidence that you DO need a nanny. That you can't take care of yourself isn't bullshit at all, actually. If that WERE true, then we wouldn't have an obesity epidemic and smokers, now would we? Or do you believe all these people are taking care of themselves and are informed in their poor decisions?

[General Zod]

Everyone (in the US) has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This tax is about infringing the latter two in the name of upholding the former.

Seriously; yeah, cigarettes are addictive as hell. Yes, they pose health risks to others. You know what? So does just damn near just about everything in the world in some way. It's the responsibility of the individual to regulate his/her own internal/external environment (ie, if you don't like second hand smoke, move out of its way; if you don't like certain tv programming, change the fucking channel)-- not of the government to do it for them. You can't go around regulating the non-directly-harmful activities of others just because they bother you; unless you're a baptist, that is. Almost no one on this board would advocate heavily taxing porn to reduce incidences of aggression towards women, despite an apparent correlation. Or how about regulating food intake and exercise to reduce obesity and the associated disease? But with smokers, it's okay, it's encouraged.

IMO, this is just another wedge issue to keep us distracted from all the things that really matter. Or maybe it's a symptom of a government that doesn't know when to stop growing.

Bah. It doesn't matter anyway; people will grow their own if the taxes become too punitive and they still want tobacco. Else they'll quit. Whether cigarettes are heavily taxed itself is not that important to me. What bothers me here is this exponentially-expanding nanny state mentality, this notion that we have no idea how to control ourselves and we need Big Brother to tell us. It's bullshit.

Oh goody, another lolbertarian. For the clueless, the point in regulation is not to eliminate harm entirely. It's to reduce it to sane, manageable levels that do not place undue burdens on society. Also, I suggest learning how to make proper analogies. What kind of fucking moron believe porn with consenting adults increases aggression towards women, or is in any way harmful? Comparing something that's actually harmful might get people to take your post seriously.

[Spyder]

Everyone (in the US) has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This tax is about infringing the latter two in the name of upholding the former.

"I'm less free and happy because the price of cigarettes went up by $1."

In an age where countries are invaded on groundless accusations, gay people can't enter into state recognised relationships and millions of Americans go without medical care due to the lack of any proper health system, this is what you would turn into a civil liberties issue?

[Darth Wong]

Everyone (in the US) has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This tax is about infringing the latter two in the name of upholding the former.

Seriously; yeah, cigarettes are addictive as hell. Yes, they pose health risks to others. You know what? So does just damn near just about everything in the world in some way. It's the responsibility of the individual to regulate his/her own internal/external environment (ie, if you don't like second hand smoke, move out of its way; if you don't like certain tv programming, change the fucking channel)-- not of the government to do it for them.

Oh great; one of those stupid assholes who thinks that the solution to second-hand smoke is to tell non-smokers to get the fuck out, and who thinks that unfettered pollution of other peoples' breathing air is a "right", just like freedom of speech.

The biggest problem with "rights" in America is that certain types of people (namely, assholes) think they're an open license to shit on everyone else.

[Darth Wong]

And guess what? Government revenues from cigarette taxes will not increase. I've personally tapered back my smoking a bit, and also started purchasing less expensive cigarettes. So, from my perspective, this new tax is a lose-lose proposition for Philip Morris (oops I mean Altria) and the federal government. The cig makers will get less of my money and the feds will get the same or fewer tax revenues, then profess shock - shock! that their kiddie health care funding fell short and they'll have to find more money from somewhere else.

Unintended consequences are a bitch.

Are you honestly this stupid? People raise cigarette taxes in order to discourage smoking and you laugh at their stupidity because of the "unintended consequence" that you might smoke less?

I shouldn't bother asking. You're a smoker and you're not trying to quit outright: you must be stupid.

[Darth Tanner]

You know what? So does just damn near just about everything in the world in some way.

I look forward to you providing evidence that 'just damm near everything' contains carciogenic chemicals and a chemically additicive substance.

if you don't like second hand smoke, move out of its way

oh wait your not joking are you. 'If people don't want to be shot, they should move out of the way of the bullets'

IMO, this is just another wedge issue to keep us distracted from all the things that really matter

Like lung cancer? Or maybe the black UN helicopters are the real killers.

A fast food tax or something similar is a chuckle-worthy joke of a solution, when the only thing that could really help is food rationing per individual or required daily exercise.

A 'fast food tax' has been suggested in the UK several times. Obviously its rather unworkable and would have little impact on obesity levels the fact that low quality food that contains so much fat and salt is usually cheaper than the healthy options is a real issue that needs to be addressed.

[Darth Wong]

There are certain things the government could do, like regulating restaurants more strictly. Restaurants currently are not required to provide calorie estimates for their menu offerings, for example. A lot of people don't realize that restaurants get you to eat their food by cooking with shitloads of butter, among other things. And even if junk-food taxes don't necessarily end obesity, they can help pay for the health-care costs resulting from it. They could also help balance the scales between unhealthy but cheap low-quality food and healthier food.

[Darth Wong]

I find it ironic that some members of SDN jump smokers' shit at every opportunity, while not saying one fucking word about members who are overweight.

Generally speaking, you don't run into an obese person who says that he has no intention of trying to lose weight. Usually, they say they are trying to lose weight but they're having trouble doing so. However, you do routinely run into smokers who are not trying to quit.

If a morbidly obese person says he has no intention of losing weight, I would consider him just as much of an idiot as a smoker who's not trying to quit. Does that make you happy?

I take it you missed the huge drama fest between Poe and Havokeff a few months back?

In fairness to Chocula, Poe had developed a habit by that point of seizing upon any flimsy excuse to hijack a thread into a discussion of obesity and our eeeeeevil attitudes toward it. It's something of an understatement to say he obviously had serious (and most likely rather painful) personal issues about the subject. It's one of the reasons I cut him as much slack as I did; he'd become nothing more than a single-issue troll by the end and if it was anyone else acting like that, he would have been banned long before then.

We didn't talk about obesity much on the board (hence Poe's need to hijack unrelated threads to bring up the subject), but Chocula misses an important distinction: almost all obese people want to lose weight, and usually they keep trying and failing. It's like smokers who keep trying and failing to quit. I'm more sympathetic to them than I am to the morons who make no effort to quit.

[Punarbhava]

Bad troll is bad. Or perhaps not, 5 replies in less than an hour. I really am a social libertarian, but I'm not about to seriously try to defend that mess above.

I won't do it again gais. Promise.

If I weren't so drunk I probably would have had something a little more cognizant to say.

What kind of fucking moron believe porn with consenting adults increases aggression towards women, or is in any way harmful?

Google scholar says at least a few dozen. That's not my argument to defend though.

Everyone (in the US) has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This tax is about infringing the latter two in the name of upholding the former.

"I'm less free and happy because the price of cigarettes went up by $1."

In an age where countries are invaded on groundless accusations, gay people can't enter into state recognised relationships and millions of Americans go without medical care due to the lack of any proper health system, this is what you would turn into a civil liberties issue?

It's more the spirit of the tax (in its attempt to curb usage) than the tax itself. And I never said those other problems aren't serious and need dealing with. But then, I'm starting to defend something I'm aware, even inebreiated, isn't truly defensible.

i wouldn't have said a goddamn thing if I didn't know the general board attitude towards libertarians and smokers here >.>

[Darth Wong]

What kind of fucking moron believe porn with consenting adults increases aggression towards women, or is in any way harmful?

Google scholar says at least a few dozen. That's not my argument to defend though.

"Research" is not the same as "counting hits on Google scholar". Could you even describe any of these studies in any detail?

[Questor]

There are certain things the government could do, like regulating restaurants more strictly. Restaurants currently are not required to provide calorie estimates for their menu offerings, for example. A lot of people don't realize that restaurants get you to eat their food by cooking with shitloads of butter, among other things. And even if junk-food taxes don't necessarily end obesity, they can help pay for the health-care costs resulting from it. They could also help balance the scales between unhealthy but cheap low-quality food and healthier food.

I've got to say, as a person who consumes far to much junk food and fast food, I would have no problem with a special tax on those items. This would, hopefully, allow more healthy restaurants to move into the niche occupied by fast food.

[Punarbhava]

What kind of fucking moron believe porn with consenting adults increases aggression towards women, or is in any way harmful?

Google scholar says at least a few dozen. That's not my argument to defend though.

"Research" is not the same as "counting hits on Google scholar". Could you even describe any of these studies in any detail?

Pick your battles, Emperor Greenman. My initial post is insignificant and only marginally relevant as long as we don't keep talking about it. I'm much more interested in that drug thread from the other day, but I haven't gotten up theheart yet to retype out all I tried to post before my browser decided to gobble it.

At least it has a spellcheck, or this wouldn't even be possible

addendum: I love the post review thing when someone posts while you're typing a reply; is that a standard feature of phpBB?

[Darth Wong]

I'd actually like to see them subsidize costs of fresh produce and fish with these hypothetical junk food taxes. If you use junk food taxes to subsidize healthier food, you kill two birds with one stone: discourage one and encourage the other.

Of course, that won't do much for the imbecile who hates vegetables and doesn't want to eat any, but it might make a difference for others.

[Questor]

I'd actually like to see them subsidize costs of fresh produce and fish with these hypothetical junk food taxes. If you use junk food taxes to subsidize healthier food, you kill two birds with one stone: discourage one and encourage the other.

This would be a great thing. I find that the difference between tolerating fruits and vegetables and loving them is getting good, fresh produce. I'm really sensitive to fish (not produce, I know, but illustrative) in this regard; fresh, good quality fish is something that I love. If you remove one quality, it becomes much less appetizing, and remove both, and I can't eat it.

Of course, that won't do much for the imbecile who hates vegetables and doesn't want to eat any, but it might make a difference for others.

Which puts them, at least in my mind, with the people who refuse to quit smoking. There's such a huge variety of produce out there that if you keep looking, you'll eventually find something you like. Sometimes as little as changing the recipe will make something taste a lot better.

[Broomstick]

And back to my earlier statement, it's none of your business if I smoke or not.

As I sit here with red, watering eyes, and a nasty cough brought on by visiting my dad's smoke-filled abode this weekend I have to disagree. Because there is this thing called second-hand smoke it certainly IS my business if you smoke - because smoking causes me physical distress and, if there's enough to prompt an asthma attack, physical pain and possible real and immediate health risks to myself. So, unless you are one of the vary rare smokers who really never impinges upon the rights of others to breathe freely yes, your habit does affect other people and to the extent it affects me it is my business.

(Dad was actually down to a quarter-pack a day, but then mom died and, well, let's just say he's back to buying them by the carton and not the pack. We're all hoping he cuts back again and soon.)

Everyone (in the US) has the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This tax is about infringing the latter two in the name of upholding the former.

Ah, the old "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" meme - you know, those rights are NOT in the Constitution but the Declaration of Independence. The former is the framework of the US government whereas the latter is not, and the latter does not have the force of law.

of you don't like second hand smoke, move out of its way

While that may be possible outdoors it is not a very practical approach indoors, which is exactly why smoking indoors is now largely prohibited across the US. Smoke all you want outside in the breeze, smoke all you want in YOUR home or car or whatever, but don't fucking expect me to tolerate a situation where I am forced to inhale smoke.

[Count Chocula]

So, unless you are one of the vary rare smokers who really never impinges upon the rights of others to breathe freely yes, your habit does affect other people and to the extent it affects me it is my business.

I don't now, and never have, smoked indoors at home; I smoke either in the garage or the pool deck. When out, I smoke in the smoking section of those restaurants that have them or at the bar; otherwise, I'll go outside. I never smoke in the car when I'm with my son or wife, either; I can refrain from lighting up a butt for an hour or so. I would hope that makes me someone with common courtesy and not a rara avis.

And back to the OT, I'll reprise the BBC quote from the Obama administration:

The Obama administration plans to use the money to pay for health care for uninsured children.

The other quotes approving of the tax because they think it will reduce smoking came from "Health campaigners," not the people who will be allocating the additional tax revenues. Is current cigarette tax revenue allocated to health care for uninsured children? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. Again, seen through a cloud of cigarette smoke, it looks like another tax hike on a specific group wrapped up in "for the children" language. Look for an alcohol tax increase later this year, again for some highfalutin' purpose.

[Broomstick]

I would hope that makes me someone with common courtesy and not a rara avis.

It would seem you are an exception, but as I said, most smokers I've encountered don't seem to give a fuck.

And back to the OT, I'll reprise the BBC quote from the Obama administration:

The Obama administration plans to use the money to pay for health care for uninsured children.

The other quotes approving of the tax because they think it will reduce smoking came from "Health campaigners," not the people who will be allocating the additional tax revenues. Is current cigarette tax revenue allocated to health care for uninsured children? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't know for sure.

There's more than just Federal taxes on cigarettes. I know in my state revenues from state cigarette taxes go to smoking cessation activities and some healthcare funding. So it's certainly possible the Fed cigaratte taxes go to some healthcare though I haven't researched it.

Again, seen through a cloud of cigarette smoke, it looks like another tax hike on a specific group wrapped up in "for the children" language. Look for an alcohol tax increase later this year, again for some highfalutin' purpose.

No different than state lottery revenue going to education. And while I wouldn't be thrilled with a higher alcohol tax the fact is alcohol is a luxury good. If I can't afford I just won't buy it. But then, I am addicted to neither lotteries nor alcohol so it's no big deal for me to walk away from either.

[Darth Wong]

I don't now, and never have, smoked indoors at home; I smoke either in the garage or the pool deck. When out, I smoke in the smoking section of those restaurants that have them or at the bar; otherwise, I'll go outside. I never smoke in the car when I'm with my son or wife, either; I can refrain from lighting up a butt for an hour or so. I would hope that makes me someone with common courtesy and not a rara avis.

What does this self-justifying statement have to do with your idiotic earlier comment that the government should stop regulating second-hand smoke? Let me recap this evasive little dance of yours:

1) You say the government should stop regulating second-hand smoke.
2) Broomstick points out that people are harmed by second-hand smoke, so it's harmful and irresponsible to expose others to it.
3) You say that you never personally expose anyone to second-hand smoke anyway because you agree, thus begging the question of why you think the government should stop regulating it.

Are you always this evasive? And where the fuck do you get off saying "I smoke in the smoking section of those restaurants that have them or at the bar; otherwise, I'll go outside" when your whole point is that smokers should not be singled out and forced to go outside? You're quite the backpedaler, aren't you?

And back to the OT, I'll reprise the BBC quote from the Obama administration:

The Obama administration plans to use the money to pay for health care for uninsured children.

The other quotes approving of the tax because they think it will reduce smoking came from "Health campaigners," not the people who will be allocating the additional tax revenues. Is current cigarette tax revenue allocated to health care for uninsured children? Somehow I doubt it, but I don't know for sure. Again, seen through a cloud of cigarette smoke, it looks like another tax hike on a specific group wrapped up in "for the children" language. Look for an alcohol tax increase later this year, again for some highfalutin' purpose.

What the fuck is wrong with looking out for the children, if their parents won't? For example, you say that you won't smoke in the car with your kids, yet you have a problem with the government passing laws against smokers smoking in the car with their kids! Why the fuck should you have a problem with laws of that nature, then?

And as long as you're turning this into a discussion of your personal habits rather than a general discussion of the wisdom of these laws, does it not bother you that you are doubling the chance that your kids will pick up the habit themselves later in life by being a smoker? Should you not want to quit for that reason alone, even if you're such a moron that you won't quit for your own health?

[Edi]

does it not bother you that you are doubling the chance that your kids will pick up the habit themselves later in life by being a smoker?

This may be a nitpick, but yesterday on the news here on this subject, the results of newer research conducted here were discussed and the statistic was that the children of smokers were eight times more likely than the children of non-smokers to pick up the habit. TV news, so I don't have any references handy, unfortunately.

[Sute]

It would seem you are an exception, but as I said, most smokers I've encountered don't seem to give a fuck.

I'm sorry if this is dragging the subject off course, but I have to point out that this could very well be a result of an observational bias. If courteous smokers only smoke where it isn't likely to bother you, then of course you aren't going to notice them as much as you notice the smokers who don't care where they are/who else is around. Just something to keep in mind.

[Broomstick]

I base it on a lifetime of my parents and other smoking members of my family telling me they were considerate and courteous and blah blah blah who nonetheless continued to smoke around people with asthma, who didn't give a fuck how the house smelled or their kids smelled (mom could never figure out why school counselors kept calling her, concerned her kids were smoking. It was because we smelled like goddamned ashtrays), refused to hear people who said things stank, broke rules and smoked in hospitals and other areas it wasn't allowed, smoked in my house although that's always been forbidden, and just basically did not walk the walk.

Please note again - school counselors thought we kids smoked, although NONE of us EVER did, because we reeked of cigarette smoke. You think that didn't have an effect? I grew up with certain adults lumping me in with the druggies because it was "obvious" I "must" have a nicotine habit of my own because I smelled so goddamed awful! It was fucking embarrassing and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it before I was old enough to move out on my own.

Oh, yes, my parents are very polite and polished, but for 60+ years they've had a filthy addiction. That's what I mean, even when smokers don't think they're affecting others they are. You can't notice it because you have become so numb to the smell yourself. Do you understand that even when you're not actually smoking the smell of it - which inevitably clings to you - is disgusting and offensive to many people? Are people with bad body odor who refuse to bathe "courteous"? Smokers stink. Even after a shower, anyone with a regular habit smells bad.

You're also probably too young to remember when there were NO "no smoking areas" anywhere. People smoked constantly, everywhere and anywhere, unless there was an imminent danger of explosion or fire (and sometimes even then). There's no way in hell I want to go back to that.

[Sute]

I base it on a lifetime of my parents and other smoking members of my family telling me they were considerate and courteous and blah blah blah who nonetheless continued to smoke around people with asthma, who didn't give a fuck how the house smelled or their kids smelled (mom could never figure out why school counselors kept calling her, concerned her kids were smoking. It was because we smelled like goddamned ashtrays), refused to hear people who said things stank, broke rules and smoked in hospitals and other areas it wasn't allowed, smoked in my house although that's always been forbidden, and just basically did not walk the walk.

So, members of your family spoke untruthfully about being courteous smokers. I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through that. What does that have to do with the possibility that you simply aren't noticing the people who do walk the walk?

Please note again - school counselors thought we kids smoked, although NONE of us EVER did, because we reeked of cigarette smoke. You think that didn't have an effect? I grew up with certain adults lumping me in with the druggies because it was "obvious" I "must" have a nicotine habit of my own because I smelled so goddamed awful! It was fucking embarrassing and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it before I was old enough to move out on my own.

Again, I'm sorry to hear that you had to go through that, but I didn't say anything about it not having an effect; I merely pointed out that you may be failing to notice people who are courteous enough to not smoke around non-smokers.

Oh, yes, my parents are very polite and polished, but for 60+ years they've had a filthy addiction. That's what I mean, even when smokers don't think they're affecting others they are. You can't notice it because you have become so numb to the smell yourself. Do you understand that even when you're not actually smoking the smell of it - which inevitably clings to you - is disgusting and offensive to many people? Are people with bad body odor who refuse to bathe "courteous"? Smokers stink. Even after a shower, anyone with a regular habit smells bad.

I understand that the smell lingers; I had the (much lesser) misfortune to spend a few weeks with some smokers last year. When I spoke with them after they finished, the smell did bother me. It didn't linger for as long as you say, though. You said that your family smoked inside, but are you specifically referring to people who smoke inside or outside in this part? That might make a difference.

You're also probably too young to remember when there were NO "no smoking areas" anywhere. People smoked constantly, everywhere and anywhere, unless there was an imminent danger of explosion or fire (and sometimes even then). There's no way in hell I want to go back to that.

True, I am too young to remember that. I don't know where the talk about going back to that came from, however. I was just questioning the methods by which you came to your conclusion.

[Broomstick]

Your denial is typical addictive bullshit.

Look, there are some alcoholics that never drink and drive. That in no way invalidates the observation that alcoholics are far more likely to drink and drive than non-alcoholics. Not all people with a gambling problem lose the rent money at casinos, but it is far more likely for those with a gambling problem than those who don't have one.

If you smoke regularly you ARE a nicotine addict. Note the word addict. You are just as addicted as someone on heroin, the major difference being that nicotine is legal and there's no such thing as second-hand heroin.

It is a characteristic of ALL addictions that addicts have a strong tendency to be inconsiderate asshats. Though enormous self-discipline a few manage to minimize this, but the vast majority are and will continue to be asshats.

You may THINK you're being considerate but that doesn't mean you are. Objectionable body odor is objectionably regardless of origin. People who "go outside" to smoke frequently hang around entrances where noticably and irritating levels of smoke can build up - which is why many buildings now go so far as to designate where outside you can smoke.

It doesn't fucking matter if you smoke inside or outside. If your smoke affects someone with breathing problems you're being an asshat addict. If you're blocking a pathway, smoking, that non-smokers want to use you're being an asshat addict.

Where can you smoke where it's not offensive?

1) Your own home (and even then, you're probably still being an asshat addict to non-smokers forced to live in your stench)
2) Your own car (but see above about non-smokers in a confined space with your disgusting and harmful habit)
3) Designated smoking areas such as bars which are separated by a barrier from non-smoking areas. Merely setting aside a few rows of seats in a room where there is no barrier to smoke drifting is STILL imposing your nauseating shit on other people, some of whom you may be causing actual physical distress. For someone with breathing problems it is NOT enough to simply get up and go elsewhere. Once the smoke is in their lungs the damage is done and simply going elsewhere will NOT miraculously reverse and asthma attack or bronchial spasm from some other condition. This also applies to smoking outside. If you wave that cancer stick, even unintentionally, in front of someone with respiratory problems the damage is done and you have hurt them. Again, simply moving elsewhere (you or them) will not undo this.

Unless you adhere to this all the time without exception YOU are in the same asshat addict bucket as every other jackass with a nicotine habit.

And spare me your "I'm sorry you had to go through with that" hypocrisy. If you were truly remorseful at harming your fellow humans you'd quit, or at least switch to a form of nicotine delivery that doesn't impinge on the air supply of others.

[Sute]

Way to jump to conclusions. See, the thing about your argument is that I don't smoke. I'm not defending the practice. You are responding to arguments I did not make. I was simply questioning your methodology. I'm the type of person who does that. People are less likely to notice things if they aren't directly impacted by them, so I found your statement questionable. That is the only reason I responded.

And for the record, those smokers I mentioned having to spend a few weeks with, did follow your little set of how-not-to-be-an-asshat rules. There, now I have an (admittedly smaller) piece of anecdotal evidence as well.

[FSTargetDrone]

3) Designated smoking areas such as bars which are separated by a barrier from non-smoking areas. Merely setting aside a few rows of seats in a room where there is no barrier to smoke drifting is STILL imposing your nauseating shit on other people, some of whom you may be causing actual physical distress. For someone with breathing problems it is NOT enough to simply get up and go elsewhere. Once the smoke is in their lungs the damage is done and simply going elsewhere will NOT miraculously reverse and asthma attack or bronchial spasm from some other condition. This also applies to smoking outside. If you wave that cancer stick, even unintentionally, in front of someone with respiratory problems the damage is done and you have hurt them. Again, simply moving elsewhere (you or them) will not undo this.

I'm old enough to remember when family restaurants such as Denny's and the like had smoking sections. All that meant was that you didn't actually see the smoking, but you could still smell it. And in small independently-owned restaurants, this was an even bigger issue.

Smokers may not like it, but their habit is filthy and is an imposition on most of the rest of us who don't smoke. It's not just the air pollution, either. Ever look out your car window at a busy traffic light? Chances are, you will see a mess of used butts next to the discarded coffee cups and chip bags.

Smoking is becoming more and more socially unacceptable. In the US at least, they are a minority of the population. And a minority deserving of all the scorn we can heap upon them. Yes, food intake can be abused, but it's a question of quantity. Even alcohol use may have some slight health benefits (though this is debatable and most doctors would probably tell you that if you aren't drinking, starting now for health reasons isn't a particulalry good idea). But there are no health benefits for smoking. There is no safe amount.