Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[batuea]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

No, don't. Non-smoker's right to clean air supersedes smoker's rights to slowly kill themselves wherever they please.

In New York there is a 70 year old bartender / owner who has worked everyday in the bar for 40 years, his bar was smoking/cigar bar up until new york claimed that HE could NOT have smoking in HIS business, does he have cancer....well no he runs marathons at 70 7 freaking 0 he runs marathons and usually does good, never had respiratory problems.

PS:I know some re-re is going to post that one major study that said second hand smoke will kill people, but just to let you know it was proven that the testers accepted brides from some senators and lobbyist, the scientist admitted to it, and had their licenses revoked.

 

[Berethond]

That is possibly one the worst structured arguments I've ever heard.

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Jazz clubs just aren't the same when they're not smokey.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Think of it as a cheap anti-smoking tactic for when you have to go outside in the snow for a quick fag).

Isn't that an anti-flaming tactic? After all, who wants to get naked in the snow?

(yes, it's a joke, yes, I know what 'fag' means).

 

[Dys]

The ugly truth is that, as more and more sickness are found to be related to smoking and as the average lifespan increases, smoking related illness is taxing more and more from society and any health care plan that is in place.

It simply isn't fair to drain money from other areas (that are equally dire and in no way related to lifestyle choices) to properly support the huge proportion of expensive smoker related illness, we are going to have to choose who to save and I'd have to say save those who've not indulged a habit that will ultimately kill them (regardless of what treatment they are given). If you can't afford to treat your own lung cancer, don't smoke, because people like me are going to be pushing for greater investment into other areas of medical research (AIDS, various other cancers etc). Not to forget as well that I am, of course, hypocrical, more money should be set aside for drinking related illness (I want this because, surprise, I'm a heavy drinker).

 

[velcthulhu]

If they can pay for it themselves, sure. I'm not terribly keen on my tax dollars going to support someone else's stupidity.

But it's okay for their tax dollars to support hypocondriacs and terminally ill patients?

Didn't say that, don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't support tax-funded healthcare at all. That said, I don't mind paying for the healthcare of people who are sick, through no fault of their own. Smoking is their own fault, and their own choice, and they were warned (by the same government that would be paying them, no less).

But in that case you would also deny coverage of hypocondriacs, alchohal drinkers, attempted suicide victims, victims of a crash while going over the speed limit, people who don't obey warning signs and slip and break a bone in their body, etc. So go on, justifyingly deny ALL of them illness. Especially to Aids victims who got it from fucking someone without getting them checked first.. go on

Oooo I just realized! You also have to deny coverage to people who get lime disease for being out late at night without bug spray! The list goes on ! Not to mention dangerous occupations should be denied health care because they stupidly decided to take a dangerous job and put their lives at risk in order to make money!

Those people should not be denied health care, they should be denied "free" health care, i.e. health care paid for by people who didn't do those things. This is why I don't support state health care; it makes one person's behavior everyone else's problem. And yes, I don't think I should have to pay for treatment for any of those people, and I wouldn't expect them to pay for my health care should something happen to me as a result of my own actions. Just because Aids is a horrible disease doesn't make it my fault they were boning people without getting them checked.

 

[newuseforvintage]

Respond how? By giving us smokers an angry look then walking the hell away.
\

Why should i have to walk away. If you come around me blowing poison all over the place you are going to be told to GTFO.

Its not like Smokers go out of our way to ash in your drinks and blow smoke in your children's faces. We generally like to smoke in peace. \

Smokers smoke in the car with their kids, they smoke in their houses with their kids, that is child abuse and far from "smoking in peace".

Back in the days Restraunts had Smoking and non-Smoking area's whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with having A smoking bar, and a non smoking bar?
\

3 feet and a potted plant isn't going to keep a cloud of filth out of the "nonsmoking section". And the people who work in these places have the right to earn a living and not die of cancer because of the human smoke stacks sitting around stinking up the place.

Where i live it is illegal to smoke indoors and 20 feet from doors and open windows. So I tend to have to smoke in the sun in the middle of no where, and im fine with that. But then you Non-smokers come along and give me that stupid look as if im a baby killer, and that crosses the line. You came by me, and act like i should move and feel ashamed.\

sounds good.
you could always just quit if it bothers you so bad.

[/quote]

Got to love uninformed hatred.
1) Why should you have to walk away? You don't, if they start smoking near you. But when you walk up to someone who is smoking and then start complaining then you're in the wrong.

2)SMOKERS don't smoke in their cars with their children with the windows rolled up. IDIOTS do that. He was saying that as a smoker he doesn't come and harrass your children, highlighting the ridiculous assumption that all smokers are "killing everyone". Read first, then flame.

3) Three feet and a potted plant? Honestly, that's just poor architecture. Hmm, i wonder what would seperate the smokers and the non-smokers effectively?
How about a door? A closed door obviously.

4)If you apply for a job in, say, a cigar lounge, it is fairly reasonable to expect a certain amount of smoke will be around you. If you don't want to run that risk then don't apply for the job!
That's like joining the army then saying you wont shoot someone because you're against violence.

5) ONCE AGAIN: If they start smoking around you then you're all good to (again) POLITELY ask them to move. But if someone is smoking and you don't want to deal with that then DON'T GO NEAR THEM!

 

[THAC0]

Got to love uninformed hatred.
1) Why should you have to walk away? You don't, if they start smoking near you. But when you walk up to someone who is smoking and then start complaining then you're in the wrong.

2)SMOKERS don't smoke in their cars with their children with the windows rolled up. IDIOTS do that. He was saying that as a smoker he doesn't come and harrass your children, highlighting the ridiculous assumption that all smokers are "killing everyone". Read first, then flame.

3) Three feet and a potted plant? Honestly, that's just poor architecture. Hmm, i wonder what would seperate the smokers and the non-smokers effectively?
How about a door? A closed door obviously.

4)If you apply for a job in, say, a cigar lounge, it is fairly reasonable to expect a certain amount of smoke will be around you. If you don't want to run that risk then don't apply for the job!
That's like joining the army then saying you wont shoot someone because you're against violence.

5) ONCE AGAIN: If they start smoking around you then you're all good to (again) POLITELY ask them to move. But if someone is smoking and you don't want to deal with that then DON'T GO NEAR THEM!

1: i don't make it a habit to go around smokers, so no reason there. I assure you, if there is conflict, they are the ones in the wrong.

2: Nice use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, good to see that the classics never die.

3: Doors are fine. i like the ones that keep the smokers outside, and the problem is solved.

4: I didn't say a job in a cigar lounge, i said a job in a restaurant that allowed smoking, which is some places is about the only jobs that are available to people. People shouldn't be forced to work around toxins and that includes smoker breath.

5: (see 1)

 

[Scumpernickle]

Well of course they need the same healthcare. Were all human beings. I have to admit though, I hate smoking and the smell of cigaretts, I don't understand how people are able to stand the smell of themselves after they smoke.

But they are human beings, no matter how disgusting.

 

[C_Topher]

I've always been confused when it comes to smoking. We know it kills, and yet people still do it. While I believe no one should be refused medical treatment for any reason, I have to wonder what could be done if so many resources weren`t tied up it treating what could have been prevented.

 

[Mcface]

Proving the flaws of universal.

Anyway, A smoker does it to himself, true. Not only that, but he can harm others with second hand smoke.

In America, if you pay for your health care, then it should be covered. Which I think it is.
If you cant afford health care..well, maybe you should stop buying ciggs at 8 bucks a pop.

 

[Standby]

That is possibly one the worst structured arguments I've ever heard.

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Just a bit. Clubs just smell of farts now, not what i'd call an improvement.

 

[shotgunbob]

In a way its their fault but many seniors didnt know about the risk. As for the new anti smoking ads saying that the companies advertise to kids is total BS. I have never once even seen a smoking ad any where other than North American Hunter

 

[strangemoose]

they should still get equal health care

 

[DrunkWithPower]

In my mind yes, but if you want to bicker, owners and users of drugs, guns, cats, dogs, living quarters, land, lungs hearts, bones, and eyes should also be penalized....

 

[Drakmorg]

of course they deserve the same standards.
Not giving the same standard to smokers would be like refusing to give an obese man bypass surgery because he constantly eats foods loaded with cholesterol.

 

[Borrowed Time]

I never have smoked. I think the smell is gross, and if it smells gross it almost always tastes gross. BUT, I don't mind smokers. I have no problem with second-hand smoke, I am smart enough to know that it really doesn't affect you unless you breath it in for hours out of the day, and I think this trend of banning smoking in ANY public place (bars count as a public place? I thought it was a place to poison myself and have anonymous random sex with anyone I can pick up.) is stupid and it just infinges on civil rights, because if you removed the word smoking and replaced it with "Colored, hispanic, jewish, women...etc" and start legally banning them from public places, well....people would be in an uproar about it.


All that said, Fuck no. Unless they pay for it all, they do not deserve any extra care for what they chose to do to their own bodies. It's a choice, if you don't like it, quit. And yes, you CAN quit. It is nowhere near as addictive as it's portrayed, it's just a matter of willpower and if you can't quit then shut the fuck up and go breath from a hole in the throat for the rest of your life.

Erm, you just talked about removing the word smoking and replacing it with "Colored, hispanic, jewish, women..,etc" yet stated that smoking is a choice they make. Do people make a choice to be their ethnicity or gender? Sorry but that argument holds absolutely no water.

I don't go to bars at all so don't even try the "fermented poison" argument on me. =P As much as I don't want them to nanny everything, I also don't want people standing around the doorway to my workplace every day where I have to smell/breath that filth. I have fairly severe asthma which is triggered by irritants such as smoke. I've walked into a restaurant before and had to run out because I literally could not breath at all. Yes I have a choice to go to a different restaurant, and I can assure you I will, but I should not be forced to go through that at my workplace.

What I don't understand is why it's such a big deal to be considerate to those around you and go outside when you want to take a drag on your cancer stick? If you want the social interaction with all your "smoking buddies" then you can all go outside. Sure, I can see where letting each individual establishment choose if they want to allow smoking or not, but if I have to drive for 30 minutes to find a place (be it grocery, restaurant or the like) to find a non-smoking place, I'm going to start bitching and whining.

OT - Of course they deserve the same healthcare, they already pay an increased amount with the taxes they pay, or premiums if you're in a non-socialist system country.

 

[CrafterMan]

Yes it is a very simple answer isn't it.

If they pay for it, they deserve health care.

-Joe

 

[Samurai Goomba]

You know, it's conceivable that smokers could need medical help for conditions not at all related to their smoking.

That taken into account, there's no reason to treat them differently based on a life choice they're making which doesn't hurt anyone.

 

[Mechanical Cat Fish]

That is possibly one the worst structured arguments I've ever heard.

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Out of hand? Think objectively about this; it's an addictive habit which causes heart and lung disease. Not only that it harms people in close proximity and it's just disgusting. If a person who'd never heard of it before was told about it they'd say it was the height of stupidity, and if that same person were to build a society from scratch the chances are they wouldn't even allow it withing that society.
As for your first point I agree the argument isn't well put across but I still think people who give themselves major diseases by smoking have it coming somewhat. Is it not, once again objectively, fairer that people with the same diseases who got them through no fault of their own would be treated first?