Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[ablac]

i believe if the problem is not directly connected to smoking then smokers should be treated equally though if it is connected to smoking they must pay for the service simply because they chose to do the damage to themselves
i also think smoking should be banned except in private areas and cars with children so that the only people who are having their health damaged through passive smoking chose to be there except for kids they have no choice though this would be impossible to enforce

 

[Taneer]

They should definitely get proper healthcare, given their ailment is no one caused by smoking.

We don't give new livers to alcoholics though, so some resources shouldn't be exhausted on people who just destroy them again and again.

 

[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.

But that's just it. THEY ARE HURTING OTHERS. Second-Hand smoke kills. If anything, it should be illegal to smoke.

Have you ever met anybody who had cancer because of secondhand smoke? All I ever hear about secondhand smoke I hear in anti-smoking commercials and propaganda. I have to wonder if it isn't some media thing. So I guess my response would be: Prove it.

Besides, what about secondhand drinking? Like drunk drivers, drunk muggers, drunk molesters, rapists, etc... Should we take that and say "Oh, drinking should be outlawed because people can get hurt." Or what about driving? That's a choice you make every day that can kill somebody.

Would you want medical care denied to you because you drive a car? Or drink? Non-smokers don't have to stand there and breath the smoke (especially with all the smoking bans in effect in my area). Non-drinkers can steer clear of drunks. People can learn to drive well. They should all be entitled to the medical coverage they are paying for.

 

[johnman]

What if someone crashed a car becuase they were not paying attention to the road, they dont desevere medical attention as they bought it upon themselves.

In the UK they will get medical attention, but their insurance company will pay for it if it's proven it is their fault.

I am well aware of that as a Uk resident myself, and my post was largely sarcastic. I dont actaully belive that car drivers should be denied care if they crash

 

[Aitruis]

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.

Another interesting issue, smoking in public places. It should be solely the decision of the proprietor. The good old British pub was practically invented for smoking. If families complain about the smoke and their children's health, they can easily go to a proper restaurant instead of taking their children to an establishment made to get people drunk.

I agree with this. Remember, as a consumer, you vote with your money. If an establishment decides that they would allow smokers, if you don't like it, leave. If the establishment starts losing so much business because all the non-smokers are leaving, then the owner may decide to make it a non-smoking venue.

Point is, I believe it should be the owners choice. Customers do not own the establishment, and neither does the local government. Customers are not being forced to stay in whatever store/restaurant/bar. Don't like it, take your business elsewhere.

This comes in direct regard to bars. First of all, the smoke/children issue is irrelevant here. Secondly, the whole point of a bar is for people of the age of majority to have an establishment where they can consume substances that are regulated to said age of majority. Namely, alcohol. Tobacco is another such regulated substance, i.e., the concept of the two go hand in hand. Again, if you won't stand smoke, find another pub.

Having said that, I don't think complete deregulation is a good idea. That would end up with everyone being able to smoke anywhere, anytime. Putting in legislation that would require the owner to declare the venue as either smoking or non-smoking is the best option, I believe. And I don't mean just "smoking sections" because indoors smoke drifts, the whole venue should be is/is not.

Compromise is the key here. I am not a smoker, but I believe in people's right to imbibe what they feel like. More to the tune of the original topic, selecting people out of healthcare like that is an extremely slippery slope, and is never a good idea. That kind of thing would have everyone that isn't in constant peak bodybuilder condition excluded from public healthcare in 20 years.

 

[Aitruis]

Another point I forgot to mention, second-hand smoke in an open-air environment. If you are outside, and pass by someone smoking, you're not getting much smoke. It dissipates quite quickly.

Unless you pass directly next to the smoker and inhale the cloud, I wouldn't worry about it. Especially at a range of 6-7 feet or more, the PPM(parts per million, measurement of airborne particulates) gets so low, effects aren't noticeable, even long-term. If you are worried about secondhand smoke coming from a guy 10 feet away, I suggest you never go near a car or roadway ever again, because at that range, car exhaust is worse.

 

[Angerwing]

I think that, should they fall ill from their "condition", we should help them. But I lack any sympathy.

Same way I would talk down a man on the edge of a skyscraper, and take my time to watch him afterwards and make sure he's okay, but I'd still think him as pathetic for his cowardice

snip

Back on topic: Increase the already enormous taxes on cigarettes; it deters even more smokers, and it provides more money for health care (effectively having the smokers take care of themselves).

...True, but I'm talking about suicide. The guy who lost his job/girlfriend/trust fund. I understand why people jumped from burning buildings, but I mean suicide, not mindless fear

You miss the point. Suicide IS mindless fear, it IS jumping from 'a burning building'. But now we're just off topic.

 

[Calatar]

Smokers are humans too, and deserve healthcare just like the rest of us. We wouldn't deny healthcare to somebody who didn't wear their seatbelt and got in a collision. Just because their selective stupidity puts their life at risk doesn't mean that they no longer deserve to live.
I still can't understand why people start smoking in the first place after knowing the cost and health risks. Nobody has ever said that poor decision making isn't human though, and we can't choose who we decide to take care of based on how intelligent they are.

Oh yeah:

FACT: More people die from alcohol-related deaths than from tobacco-related deaths.

FACT: More health problems are cause by drinking than by smoking.

FACT: Drinking and driving kills people every day, smoking and driving doesn't.

I guess the point here is that alcohol is even more dangerous and if we deny healthcare to smokers, we might as well deny it to drinkers. Valid point, I agree.
However, there is no source for your facts.
Problem with Fact 1, percentage is a better approximation of riskiness and unhealthiness than pure numbers. Crude example (numbers clearly made up): 100 people drink, 2 die from alcohol poisoning. 2 people take heroin, 1 dies of an overdose. Heroin 50% death rate, but only 1 death. Alcohol kills twice as many people as heroin, though it has only a 2% death rate. I bet that more people drink than smoke, so number of people who die isn't enough data to judge the relative risk.
Problem with Fact 2: Number of health problems =/= severity of health problems. Again, not enough data to judge relative risk.
Problem with Fact 3: a bad implied argument, analogous to "Drinking doesn't give you skin cancer. The sun does. (Therefore the sun is more unhealthy than drinking)"

Fact 1: No problem as that is fact. Alchohal has lead to more accidental deaths (Falling down a balcony, hitting someone with your car, etc) as well as killed more people then smoking. And there have been many tests also that have proven that, while cigarettes CAN harm your lungs, it won't neccesarily kill you nor change the quality of your life (Example, my grandma has smoked like a chimney since 14. She doesn't hack, gag, cough, and the doctors have pointed out her lungs are somewhat tarred, but nowhere near dangerously so) While alchohal causes kidney failure, liver failure, far more heart conditions then cigarettes, more chances of brain damage, and more neurological and muscle based damage. Smoking causes little to none of these problems. So fact 1 still stands strong. (And might I add, if 1 person takes heroine and dies, and 2 people take alchohal and die, more people have still died from alchohal because there is MORE OF THEM!)

Fact 2: Stands strong from reasons above
Fact 3: Alchohal is more dangerous to drive under the influence of then Marijuana (This has been proven time and time again) which goes to tell you something about how the Government works. "This is okay because we can tax this, this is not okay because we can't tax it so lets make up bullshit reasons not to legalize it" And might I mention... When Alchohal was banned... how many deaths resulted from that outrage? When marijuana was banned... how many deaths related from that.. well I can't say outrage because I haven't actually met a stoner yet who is outraged, let alone able to become even angry while high XD So yeah, fact 3 stands strong.

Risking quoting too much at this point, but your post fail to serve as a rebuttal on several levels.
a. No sources at all, apart from your anecdotal evidence, and claims of "several studies show." You're on the internet now. If a lot of studies show something, then you can probably find and link one of them.
b. You seem to have failed to understand the logic of sheer numbers vs percentages, as I explained, since the first thing you talk about is alcohol killing more people than cigarettes, not to mention your mindblowing statement: "(And might I add, if 1 person takes heroine and dies, and 2 people take alchohal and die, more people have still died from alchohal because there is MORE OF THEM!)"
c. You again pull the problem I explained with fact 3 in your rebuttal to fact 1: Different things have different effects, and looking specifically at certain effects is not a valid way of interpreting the relative safety of the two. You explain all the problems that alcohol can cause, and then claim cigarettes don't cause those specific problems, concluding that they are therefore safer.
d. Your rebuttal to my issues with Fact 3.... you ramble about marijuana. Then conclude that you're right. Perhaps this is stoner reasoning. Anyways, my point was, if you read it, you CANNOT validly compare the safety of two completely different drugs on a specific criteria and claim that it establishes the relative safety of one over the other. Here is a different example: People who take sleeping pills and drive get in car accidents, people who smoke and drive do not, therefore sleeping pills are worse for your health than smoking. Do you see now?

All I need is a study of at least moderate quality to show me that alcohol is indeed more dangerous than smoking. Again, percentages are far more important than the sheer number of people who die for determining the risk. Some rare cancers are deadlier than common cancers, but it is the common cancers which kill more people.

Personally, I find both drinking and smoking deplorable, if it matters.
OT: Regardless, I don't think that there should be a stupidity quotient re: smoking, drinking, diet, exercise etc. in determining whether people get health care.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Smokers are humans too, and deserve healthcare just like the rest of us. We wouldn't deny healthcare to somebody who didn't wear their seatbelt and got in a collision. Just because their selective stupidity puts their life at risk doesn't mean that they no longer deserve to live.
I still can't understand why people start smoking in the first place after knowing the cost and health risks. Nobody has ever said that poor decision making isn't human though, and we can't choose who we decide to take care of based on how intelligent they are.

Oh yeah:

FACT: More people die from alcohol-related deaths than from tobacco-related deaths.

FACT: More health problems are cause by drinking than by smoking.

FACT: Drinking and driving kills people every day, smoking and driving doesn't.

I guess the point here is that alcohol is even more dangerous and if we deny healthcare to smokers, we might as well deny it to drinkers. Valid point, I agree.
However, there is no source for your facts.
Problem with Fact 1, percentage is a better approximation of riskiness and unhealthiness than pure numbers. Crude example (numbers clearly made up): 100 people drink, 2 die from alcohol poisoning. 2 people take heroin, 1 dies of an overdose. Heroin 50% death rate, but only 1 death. Alcohol kills twice as many people as heroin, though it has only a 2% death rate. I bet that more people drink than smoke, so number of people who die isn't enough data to judge the relative risk.
Problem with Fact 2: Number of health problems =/= severity of health problems. Again, not enough data to judge relative risk.
Problem with Fact 3: a bad implied argument, analogous to "Drinking doesn't give you skin cancer. The sun does. (Therefore the sun is more unhealthy than drinking)"

Fact 1: No problem as that is fact. Alchohal has lead to more accidental deaths (Falling down a balcony, hitting someone with your car, etc) as well as killed more people then smoking. And there have been many tests also that have proven that, while cigarettes CAN harm your lungs, it won't neccesarily kill you nor change the quality of your life (Example, my grandma has smoked like a chimney since 14. She doesn't hack, gag, cough, and the doctors have pointed out her lungs are somewhat tarred, but nowhere near dangerously so) While alchohal causes kidney failure, liver failure, far more heart conditions then cigarettes, more chances of brain damage, and more neurological and muscle based damage. Smoking causes little to none of these problems. So fact 1 still stands strong. (And might I add, if 1 person takes heroine and dies, and 2 people take alchohal and die, more people have still died from alchohal because there is MORE OF THEM!)

Fact 2: Stands strong from reasons above
Fact 3: Alchohal is more dangerous to drive under the influence of then Marijuana (This has been proven time and time again) which goes to tell you something about how the Government works. "This is okay because we can tax this, this is not okay because we can't tax it so lets make up bullshit reasons not to legalize it" And might I mention... When Alchohal was banned... how many deaths resulted from that outrage? When marijuana was banned... how many deaths related from that.. well I can't say outrage because I haven't actually met a stoner yet who is outraged, let alone able to become even angry while high XD So yeah, fact 3 stands strong.

Risking quoting too much at this point, but your post fail to serve as a rebuttal on several levels.
a. No sources at all, apart from your anecdotal evidence, and claims of "several studies show." You're on the internet now. If a lot of studies show something, then you can probably find and link one of them.
b. You seem to have failed to understand the logic of sheer numbers vs percentages, as I explained, since the first thing you talk about is alcohol killing more people than cigarettes, not to mention your mindblowing statement: "(And might I add, if 1 person takes heroine and dies, and 2 people take alchohal and die, more people have still died from alchohal because there is MORE OF THEM!)"
c. You again pull the problem I explained with fact 3 in your rebuttal to fact 1: Different things have different effects, and looking specifically at certain effects is not a valid way of interpreting the relative safety of the two. You explain all the problems that alcohol can cause, and then claim cigarettes don't cause those specific problems, concluding that they are therefore safer.
d. Your rebuttal to my issues with Fact 3.... you ramble about marijuana. Then conclude that you're right. Perhaps this is stoner reasoning. Anyways, my point was, if you read it, you CANNOT validly compare the safety of two completely different drugs on a specific criteria and claim that it establishes the relative safety of one over the other. Here is a different example: People who take sleeping pills and drive get in car accidents, people who smoke and drive do not, therefore sleeping pills are worse for your health than smoking. Do you see now?

All I need is a study of at least moderate quality to show me that alcohol is indeed more dangerous than smoking. Again, percentages are far more important than the sheer number of people who die for determining the risk. Some rare cancers are deadlier than common cancers, but it is the common cancers which kill more people.

Personally, I find both drinking and smoking deplorable, if it matters.
OT: Regardless, I don't think that there should be a stupidity quotient re: smoking, drinking, diet, exercise etc. in determining whether people get health care.

Okay since you are going to play small boy and jump on the LAMEST debate train ever of "Lul no link" I will point out you showed no links to favor your "Facts" Come on. Show me 10 sources that are widely accepted by scientific communities throughout the US and UK that favor your argument as you started it ^.^

 

[Terramax]

I am well aware of that as a Uk resident myself, and my post was largely sarcastic. I dont actaully belive that car drivers should be denied care if they crash

Sorry. Without question marks or anything it was hard to understand whether you were being sarcastic or not. Sadly, there are some people out there who don't know this.

The person who told you that is lying.

1. They're not legally allowed to tell someone to kill themselves.

I don't know whether it's illegal or not but I'm telling you these people were not lying to me. They're close friends who've worked in the ambulance service, child support and psychological wards (as well as them having experienced child abuse and suicidal attempts also) and wouldn't lie about such things.

If that doesn't convince you why they will never ban smoking outright, please consider that Phillip Morris etc. are selling a product that, if used in the manner in which it was intended, will poison the user. This is then massively taxed by the Government and the profits are also taxed to pay for the Health Service and provides literally hundreds of thousands of jobs that all rely on the tobacco industry.

It could still be banned, but probably implimented gradually over a long period of time. The end result though would be that lots of other products in the UK will be taxed up the bum. As for the loss of jobs, that comes with the territory. Jobs come and go. It's happened to plenty of other industries over the decades.

Against all that evidence, you believe smokers deserve to be given less healthcare when they're paying 7 to 8 times more for it and using less of it?

Whoa! I will remind you that I never said I thought smokers deserved a lower standard of healthcare. I never stated I thought smoking should be banned. I simply asked for evidence and agreed with another poster by the name of Woodsey that I too was divided on the subject.

Especially when the pharmaceutical industry, the retail sector, the alcohol licensing, the motor vehicle industry all cause equal amount of deaths per year, are equally subsidised for doing so and are still allowed to openly broadcast advertisements in direct contradiction to the effects of their products?

Seriously, even as a non-smoker, that sounds like intolerance of the highest order. There is no other group of people (or animals) in the land who you would tolerate being treated as parasites for all they have to go through.

So you're assuming I wish to ban smoking but have no problems with any of the industries you named above? Seriously, are you confusing me with someone else?

Especially as they aren't committing any crime.

Hey, our soldiers are being sent to bomb other countries, with the use of our taxes. We don't consider it a crime but it's damn well wrong. But I'm guessing your opinion on such immoral situations are "hey, as long as it's good for the economy and gives jobs to the boys then it's A-okay."

My opinion is just because a social ill pays money to society, and gives jobs, it doesn't make it any less socially ill. I don't think smoking should be banned but I will say I've the right not to inhale other people's poisonous fumes. That goes for cigarettes, vehicles and anything else that pollutes.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It could still be banned, but probably implimented gradually over a long period of time. The end result though would be that lots of other products in the UK will be taxed up the bum. As for the loss of jobs, that comes with the territory. Jobs come and go. It's happened to plenty of other industries over the decades.

If you're willing to lose £10 billion a year, then yes.

Whoa! I will remind you that I never said I thought smokers deserved a lower standard of healthcare.

And I didn't accuse you of doing so. I asked if you (meaning the entire "you" posting) believed it.

So you're assuming I wish to ban smoking

Nope

but have no problems with any of the industries you named above?

Nope.

But I'm guessing your opinion on such immoral situations are "hey, as long as it's good for the economy and gives jobs to the boys then it's A-okay."

And that's where guessing leads you right into the trap. I never gave my opinion on such things and it's wrong to assume so much.
I reckon that as it's our taxes, we should at least have a say in what they should be used for.

I don't think smoking should be banned but I will say I've the right not to inhale other people's poisonous fumes. That goes for cigarettes, vehicles and anything else that pollutes.

The problem with 99% of these arguments is that people believe they have the right to many things.
Last time I checked, humanity had the "right" to jack-smeg. They do have privileges granted to them, but they were never "rights" unless they're prepared to put up with the loss of liberties that these "rights" grant.

I think the first "right", if we ever get them, is that people are given the "right" to make up their own minds on something.

 

[Calatar]

Okay since you are going to play small boy and jump on the LAMEST debate train ever of "Lul no link" I will point out you showed no links to favor your "Facts" Come on. Show me 10 sources that are widely accepted by scientific communities throughout the US and UK that favor your argument as you started it ^.^

1. If you are going to state something as an undeniable fact, be able to BACK IT UP (studies, logic, etc)
2. My entire argument which you have repeatedly failed to read and understand is: even if those facts were true, it would not actually tell us how risky alcohol is vs smoking. I don't need to cite scientific studies to disprove a fallacious argument, so I didn't.
3. The burden of proof is on those who make the claims. You claimed those facts were true, and used them in a fallacious argument which isn't valid even if the premises were true. You also failed to demonstrate your premises.
I made a valid argument that would demonstrate the conclusion you were trying to show: that alcohol is more dangerous than smoking. Then I just asked you to demonstrate the premise that alcohol kills/diseases a larger percentage of its users than does smoking, with any study. Your response: LAME.

Pretty mature.

4. Since you have consistently demonstrated that you cannot either read or understand the points that I've made, and now jumped to insults and a false call of hypocrisy, I think I'm done talking with you past this point.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Okay since you are going to play small boy and jump on the LAMEST debate train ever of "Lul no link" I will point out you showed no links to favor your "Facts" Come on. Show me 10 sources that are widely accepted by scientific communities throughout the US and UK that favor your argument as you started it ^.^

1. If you are going to state something as an undeniable fact, be able to BACK IT UP (studies, logic, etc)
2. My entire argument which you have repeatedly failed to read and understand is: even if those facts were true, it would not actually tell us how risky alcohol is vs smoking. I don't need to cite scientific studies to disprove a fallacious argument, so I didn't.
3. The burden of proof is on those who make the claims. You claimed those facts were true, and used them in a fallacious argument which isn't valid even if the premises were true. You also failed to demonstrate your premises.
I made a valid argument that would demonstrate the conclusion you were trying to show: that alcohol is more dangerous than smoking. Then I just asked you to demonstrate the premise that alcohol kills/diseases a larger percentage of its users than does smoking, with any study. Your response: LAME.

Pretty mature.

4. Since you have consistently demonstrated that you cannot either read or understand the points that I've made, and now jumped to insults and a false call of hypocrisy, I think I'm done talking with you past this point.

1. Wrong. You stated "Undeniable" facts on the dangers of smoking, risk to others, etc without actual "Facts" to back it up so therefore since you were first to state these "Facts" without credible evidence the burden of proof falls on you first.
And you want a link? Here, first one found
http://health.howstuffworks.com/health-illness/treatment/medicine/medications/drug-ranking.htm
2. Yes because testing degenerating effects on organ tissue through scientific methods which match results found in victims of either product is not at all in existence.
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/health/Health_Effects_of_Alcohol.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/

Whats this!? A Test finds tabacco (Done by the people) to be less damaging then alchohal in the sense that smokers rarely, if ever kill anyone but themselves, but the GOVERNMENT (The ones who gain far more profit from cigarettes) is still claiming that smoking is far more of a health risk self wise instead of defending it? WOW! This same government orginization is also claiming MANY harmful effects from alcohol... yet their studies on things like marijuana prove marijuana is less dibiletating the alcohol (As well as less harmful and addicting by far) And EXTREMELY less dibiletating AND Extremely less harmful AND extremely less addictive then cigarettes whose addiction level has been ranked up with the most dangerous of drugs.. weird... I mean I could have sword marijuana would take 1st seeing how scared the government is to legalize it... So then why are smokers denied many health care benefits when heavy drinkers can get most, if not all their benefits despite the high risk for self injury and organ failure/destruction... hmmm...

3. Russels Teapot theory. The burden of proof is just as much on the skeptic as it is on the claimer.

 

[rees263]

Will everyone who's said " I have a right to clean air" get over themselves. You'd think that smoke was non-existant before cigarettes. All fire produces smoke, and it's all going into the atmosphere. Things a lot worse than tobacco are getting burned around the world, why aren't you complaining about them. Even burning toast produces smoke for christ's sake!

Does this mean I infringe on human rights if I burn toast when someone else is in the room? Of course not. I'm as free to smoke in my own home as I am to drink or do whatever other legal activity there - and the owner of a bar or whatever should be free to decide whether he or she would like people to smoke in there or not. Why various governments disagree with this is beyond me. (okay, I sort of understand but it doesn't mean I agree)


What's more, people who do smoke are forced to go outside to do it. Anyone (including children) could be walking along a public pathway crowded with people smoking outside a bar. Yet people inside who probably don't mind the smoke (at least if they frequented pubs before the ban) are the ones with the clean air.

And no, I'm not a smoker. I have friends who are smokers, and I also happened to prefer clubs when they smelled of smoke. Now they just smell of sweat and piss.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Another interesting issue, smoking in public places. It should be solely the decision of the proprietor. The good old British pub was practically invented for smoking. If families complain about the smoke and their children's health, they can easily go to a proper restaurant instead of taking their children to an establishment made to get people drunk.

This I agree with. It is private property and smoking is not illegal. So let it be up to the owner of that property and not some ruling on a completely legal activity. It is even more ironic seeing the places in question are designed to cater to the ideal of putting poisonous drugs into your system. This drug is alright but this one isn't? Plllease.

Like you said, people who don't want that environment will and should seek other venues. Many business owners recognise this and will, gladly, cater to non-smokers by providing non-smoking environments. Those that didn't where punished by having less customers and profits. There didn't need to be a law over this matter.

Doesn't beat the one Holland is pulling: It is illegal to smoke tobacco in a 'coffee shop.' You can smoke cannabis, but not tobacco. Crazy, no?

 

[lizards]

yes we dont give alcholics liver transplant because other people who DIDNT drink themselves into oblivion need them same with smokers why should people who arent destorying themselves wait and pay for people who are

 

[lizards]

The amount of people that have voted "no" is disgusting.

So if one of you had a few drinks, fell down some stairs, and cracked your head open, you'd want a lower quality of health care because it's your fault?

What is wrong with you people? Thankfully the majority are good people, but it's a very slim margin.

yes why should a person who broke there leg at football wait when we have a retard that was drunk and fell down the stairs

and having a few drinks is not the same as what you get from smoking for years

 

[lizards]

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.

But that's just it. THEY ARE HURTING OTHERS. Second-Hand smoke kills. If anything, it should be illegal to smoke.

Have you ever met anybody who had cancer because of secondhand smoke? All I ever hear about secondhand smoke I hear in anti-smoking commercials and propaganda. I have to wonder if it isn't some media thing. So I guess my response would be: Prove it.

Besides, what about secondhand drinking? Like drunk drivers, drunk muggers, drunk molesters, rapists, etc... Should we take that and say "Oh, drinking should be outlawed because people can get hurt." Or what about driving? That's a choice you make every day that can kill somebody.

Would you want medical care denied to you because you drive a car? Or drink? Non-smokers don't have to stand there and breath the smoke (especially with all the smoking bans in effect in my area). Non-drinkers can steer clear of drunks. People can learn to drive well. They should all be entitled to the medical coverage they are paying for.

well just use some common sense here your burning harmful chemicals and releasing them into the air that is bound to be breathed in by somebody else

hm you know im looking at this and i think there is a law preventing all of those things
1 yes intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle
2 does it really matter whether the muggers are drunk?
3 again molester would not be any different than a drunk molester
so yes there are laws saying you cant do those things so im confused as to why you think that saying you cant smoke in public areas should be above drinking and doing those things

im confused as to what the car part has to do with anything but yes people are denied liver transplants for drinking and i personally think should be lowered on waiting list as well

your arguement consists of somebody being against alcholal restrictions and that is not going to work

 

[chronobreak]

and having a few drinks is not the same as what you get from smoking for years

Equating fail. What you meant to say, to make a proper analogy, would be to say "having a few drinks every day for years is not the same as what you get for smoking for years", which is absolutely true. Of course there is a difference between lung cancer and liver disease! I'll be here all week!