Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[MelziGurl]

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.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-4-secondhand/4-5-lung-cancer-and-secondhand-smoke

I could find more websites that probably share the exact same information like these three. You don't need to know someone who has had cancer due to secondhand smoke to prove anything. My grandfather did in fact die of cancer, my grandmother was a damn heavy smoker whereever she was. We were told that his cancer wasn't just the cause of his own smoking 40 friggin years before he died, but because he was in constant contact with ETS. His body never had the chance to fully recover from his own habit so yes, secondhand smoke does cause cancer. And I'm sorry if I'm a little edgy on the matter, it's still a sensitive issue.

As for the argument on drinking vs smoking, it can work both ways. It shouldn't just be the non-smoker who should move on and steer clear. For example: If I were already sitting at a bus stop waiting for a bus to pick me up and a smoking decides to sit next to me, deliberately sparking without any consideration for me then I think I have a right to tell that person to push off and respect my health. Vice versa, I would the same if the situation was reversed. Consideration from both sides depending on the situation should be given right?

 

[ezeroast]

People who drive cars should have to pay more as they are increasing their risk of injury.

 

[Ninja_X]

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

Ok I have to agree with this.

Someone who destroyed their own lung thru smoking should have to wait in line behind everyone else with a legitimate problem before getting a transplant.

Same with drinking because either way, its your own fault.

 

[VicunaBlue]

don't, just don't try to pull that.

OT, I think that if it is a problem associated with smoking, they should be further down the list.

 

[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.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp
http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-4-secondhand/4-5-lung-cancer-and-secondhand-smoke

I could find more websites that probably share the exact same information like these three. You don't need to know someone who has had cancer due to secondhand smoke to prove anything. My grandfather did in fact die of cancer, my grandmother was a damn heavy smoker whereever she was. We were told that his cancer wasn't just the cause of his own smoking 40 friggin years before he died, but because he was in constant contact with ETS. His body never had the chance to fully recover from his own habit so yes, secondhand smoke does cause cancer. And I'm sorry if I'm a little edgy on the matter, it's still a sensitive issue.

As for the argument on drinking vs smoking, it can work both ways. It shouldn't just be the non-smoker who should move on and steer clear. For example: If I were already sitting at a bus stop waiting for a bus to pick me up and a smoking decides to sit next to me, deliberately sparking without any consideration for me then I think I have a right to tell that person to push off and respect my health. Vice versa, I would the same if the situation was reversed. Consideration from both sides depending on the situation should be given right?

I agree, but can you see the difference between asking a smoking person at a bus stop to step over a ways away so you can breath and denying someone health benefits because they smoke? Would you want health benefits denied you because you choose to drink or drive a car? They're all three dangerous CHOICES people make.

I understand secondhand smoke CONTRIBUTES to lung cancer, but does it cause it by itself? I heard the increase in risk is like 20-30% at most. I imagine one of your links has that info-I'll check them out in a bit.

 

[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.

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

I don't see any laws denying drinkers health care. Or drivers. You seem to be rather misinterpreting my point. And if people are more likely to rape/mug/drive badly because of an excess of beer, then it causes a health risk to others when somebody drinks. Or drives. Either one causes harm to others through one person's choice, so I see no reason to punish smokers specifically and not other people who's choices are harmful.

Now if the smoker is seeing a doctor for lung cancer they gave themselves, they should get anything. But there are lots of smokers who have illnesses that aren't related to smoking that they need treatment for.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

It's fairly simple, really. Saying that someone who smokes shouldn't be given healthcare because they smoke is like saying someone who fell down a well shouldn't be helped because they shouldn't have fallen down the well in the first place.

Although I'm no fan of the desire to allowing smoking in what's currently non-smoking areas. Smoke fucks royally with my asthma, and I'd rather not keel over and die because you couldn't be arsed to step outside.

 

[cobra_ky]

People who drive cars should have to pay more as they are increasing their risk of injury.

they do. it's called auto insurance.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

People who drive cars should have to pay more as they are increasing their risk of injury.

they do. it's called auto insurance.

I think that qualifies as a 'pwn'.

 

[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.

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.

"Wrong"
Uh what? You shouldn't be able to back up your claims, then? Or are you just trying to be contrary?
"You stated "Undeniable" facts on the dangers of smoking, risk to others, etc"
Er, no, I didn't. I actually said nothing of the sort. I should know, I said it.

And again you failed to understand logic, and posed a non-sequitor response to #2.

"[studies found tobacco] to be less damaging then alchohal in the sense that smokers rarely, if ever kill anyone but themselves" Now this one is a whopper, as shown below.

"since you were first to state these "Facts" without credible evidence the burden of proof falls on you first"
then
"The burden of proof is just as much on the skeptic as it is on the claimer."
Pretty cool what you did there. See you said something, and then said the opposite in the same post.

Also, I don't think you understand Russel's Teapot theory, since you basically said the opposite of what Russel's Teapot establishes, not to mention the entirely different context of unfalsifiable religious claims, vs your VERY falsifiable claim that alcohol is deadlier than tobacco.

Now on to the real meat, something which I am actually glad to look at: the stats.

Finally some studies and even legit sources. Okay, lets take a look at the statistics here:
From the CDC link:
19.8% of people in the US smoke. 443,000 people die of smoking related health problems in the US each year, so that's >.6% of the entire smoking population dies every year, not to mention the estimated 50,000 nonsmokers included in that who die from secondhand smoke.

Okay, so your alcohol study from the CDC: binge drinking, the deadliest kind of drinking you can possibly do. 15% of americans do it. If you include the 5% of people who do heavy drinking, we now have a sample size of 20% of americans, pretty similar to the figures for tobacco smokers. (61% of all adult americans drink at all) However, there are only 79,000 deaths attributably to excessive alcohol use each year. Less than one FIFTH as many people as die from tobacco use each year: roughly a .1% mortality rate for heavy drinkers. Also note that that includes the 15,000 annual deaths from drunk driving.

So with the evidence you provided, tobacco is at least 5 times deadlier than alcohol. Not to mention that secondhand smoke kills many more non-smokers than alcohol kills non-drinkers.

The Clear Conclusion: Tobacco is a far more dangerous drug than alcohol, AND causes more collateral deaths each year than alcohol, when measured by the mortality rate.
(rather than factoring personal beliefs as to how each drug affects society, like that UK study)

Clearly the health risks of alcohol and tobacco are both large, but tobacco is still far deadlier for both the smoker and those around them. Can't get around that.

Now to get back on topic at last, now that that's settled: The way the current insurance system in the US is set up, if you have a greater health risk, you DO pay more for your insurance in your premiums. Within reasonable price limitations, I think that this is fair. However, if somebody wishes to quit smoking:
a. they should be able to get some sort of health funding for some sort of smoker's "rehab" program, since quitting is a serious health benefit
b. their premiums should go down if they quit

 

[lslines]

Healthcare, yes. I don't know how there could ever be an argument against it, really. Everybody, everybody has the right to equal healthcare. Just because they've "done it to themselves" does not mean they shouldn't be treated for it. They have their right to it same as you, me, or the dumb guy who decides that, hey, I will totally take you up on your bet that I can't drink this whole bottle of bleach. Stupidity is no reason not to have access to treatment.

On the whole banning smoking in public place thing, I agree that it should be up to the owner of the establishment whether or not to allow smoking in their business place. Then you've got places for stubborn smokers, and places for people who choose not to be subjected to second-hand smoke. That's fair enough, I wouldn't have any objections if that was implemented.

I don't have any particular problems with smokers, but for goodness sakes, it isn't hard to step outside for five minutes to do it. Nobody is trying to get you to stop smoking altogether, I mean seriously you "un-American" guys. Nobody is taking any rights away from you. However, subjecting people to something they shouldn't have to put up with IS removing their right to fresh air. I have to breathe. I cannot physically stop, and I need to do it wherever I am. You, on the other hand, may be incapable of not smoking for extended periods of time, but you are not so incapable that you can't go stand somewhere that isn't enclosed to do it.

Say, I need to pee. Do you mind if I do it in your cup? I mean, you won't stand outside for five minutes to smoke, so why should I walk all the way over the bathroom to do my business when I can do it right here?

Just accept it, pubs and such were created to drink and smoke, banning smoking in such places is ridiculous. If you don't like, just go away.

Sorry, but no. Pubs predate smoking by many-a-year. Pubs were created to drink and be social in. Your argument is just a little invalid there. So, anyone who wants to have a drink without having to breathe in toxic chemicals should do it at home and miss the whole point of a night out at the pub? Resorting to the argument of "oh but they've evolved to be such a place" also won't help you, it's still an incorrect statement. The banning of smoking in pubs here has done absolutely nothing to the business they receive because the patrons don't go there for the purpose of smoking. It's just a by-product of the social atmosphere. It is not an integral, unavoidable part of the location.

 

[l33tabix]

Wait a minute! My friend here is suggesting that because some of the problems these smokers have that are connected to smoking are in need of less urgent attention than someone going to see the doctor over a sniffle and a sore throat, or someone in the emergency room on a Saturday night who's drank themselves into paralysis and need their stomachs pumping.

haven't been able to pump stomachs in the UK for over a year now, killed 2 people, keep up to date mate.

I don't smoke "cigarettes" if you catch my drift but then again, it's cigarette's themseles that do all the damage.
Suicide is still a crime
Self-Harming is a crime against your brain and only worthless shells of human beings do it, if you want to dispute my claim you clearly haven't had enough time with them.

 

[ezeroast]

People who drive cars should have to pay more as they are increasing their risk of injury.

they do. it's called auto insurance.

Different thing

 

[cobra_ky]

People who drive cars should have to pay more as they are increasing their risk of injury.

they do. it's called auto insurance.

Different thing

how so? most auto insurance policies i know of cover personal injury as a result of an accident.

 

[ezeroast]

People who drive cars should have to pay more as they are increasing their risk of injury.

they do. it's called auto insurance.

Different thing

how so? most auto insurance policies i know of cover personal injury as a result of an accident.

Auto insurance/health insurance different policy's from different companies
Yea people who drive cars do pay more but not their health insurance. Well not the plan I'm on anyway. I guess others may vary.

 

[cobra_ky]

People who drive cars should have to pay more as they are increasing their risk of injury.

they do. it's called auto insurance.

Different thing

how so? most auto insurance policies i know of cover personal injury as a result of an accident.

Auto insurance/health insurance different policy's from different companies
Yea people who drive cars do pay more but not their health insurance. Well not the plan I'm on anyway. I guess others may vary.

alright then, should drivers really have to pay more for health insurance, given that they already pay for any injuries they may cause through their auto insurance?

 

[PezNic]

I fail to see why smokers should not have the same access to health care that hunters and boomers receive.....

 

[stone0042]

I'm incredibly anti-smoking, so if I had my way, I'd give no health care to smokers other than at exorbitant prices. That'd cause a HUGE decrease in the number of smokers.

 

[minignu]

"The end result is that tobacco taxation, the amount levied in various ways by the government on every packet of cigarettes, cigars or smoking tobacco, comes to £12 billion per year, six times more than any NHS bills run up by nicotine addicts. "

-Everyone is aware of this right? That smokers more than pay for themselves? Skimming this thread, it seems some were ill informed of how these things work in the UK. As for smoking in public places - as a smoker myself, I respect people's rights not to have to breath my smoke. I would now like those very same people to shut up and leave me alone when I want to have a cigarrette and act less like condescending gits. Seriously, anyone who thinks we don't deserve the same standard of healthcare because of a lifestyle choice, they are a complete idiot.

"I'm incredibly anti-smoking, so if I had my way, I'd give no health care to smokers other than at exorbitant prices. That'd cause a HUGE decrease in the number of smokers."

Luckily, you don't have your way. As I say, I'm already paying more for my healthcare, and if you're living in the UK, I'm paying for yours too.