Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[lenin_117]

SNIPITY SNIP SNIP
My mind's made up: Equal healthcare for all!(except the idiots who "slipped" and violated themselves with a silly object)

Yeah! Its time they slipped onto something more sensible!

 

[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?

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.

I wouldn't deny anyone health care, I stated that earlier. I don't agree that smokers, heavy drinkers and the like should recieve equal priority, but I don't think they should be denied it outright. You wanna smoke till your arteries clot and your weezing from emphysema, drink until your liver fails etc that's your choice, priority should be given to those who didn't voluntarily help the process along. I don't want to find out that I've donated an organ, just to have it abused by the same chemicals that killed the recievers first organ. It's not an opinion everyone is going to like or accept and that means little to me, but it would be kinda contraditory for me to say that healthcare should be outright denied considering I'm an ex-smoker myself.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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

I LOL'd

 

[Sven und EIN HUND]

If they get some respiratory illness it IS pretty much their fault but fuck, you can't just say, "tut tut now mister, we'll just keep you in the naughty corner until you've learnt your lesson now, that's a good boy."

 

[Aardvark Soup]

Everyone should receive the same form of health care, with absolutely no exceptions. When someone decides to be a smoker that might be stupid, but no reason to deny that person his/her right to medical treatment.

 

[Kurokami]

Please note, I do not smoke and I am no fan of smoking, I find it disgusting by my views on this subject are based on the fact that a lot of my family smokes.

So, in my free period today at college, I was talking to a friend about the healthcare over here in glorious England, when my friend spews out: "Well smokers don't deserve the same standard of healthcare as us, or should at least be made to pay for it."

His argument wasn't structured very well; his main argument was that smokers cause damage to themselves and, if ill, should be made to wait longer for healthcare than other emergencies.

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.

The whole point of this is the question: Just because smokers bring on their problems themselves, does this mean that they should not be entitled to the same standard of healthcare as us non-smokers?

My mind's made up: Equal healthcare for all!(except the idiots who "slipped" and violated themselves with a silly object)

In a doner situation they should not receive an organ as easily as a nonsmoker if at all, my view on this is simply to make the most of a limited resource.

As far as other shit goes, sure, they deserve the same health care and blahblah as the rest of us i guess, though I must say its one hell of an incentive to quit don't you think?

(My background if anyone's keeping score is an asthmatic, my mom smokes a hell of a lot, but shes a considerate smoker, never smokes inside and avoids non-smokers when smoking.(wow, lets max out that one word! at least its relevant to the topic, =]))

As for the 'they're doing it to themselves' argument, maybe jocks, or whoever exorcises regularly should receive better treatment than people who aren't keeping in shape, maybe fat people should be less obliged to medical care, or obese people fend for themselves. (though the weight argument still goes into my doner condition) Admittedly I'm exaggerating it a bit but makes sense doesn't it? Life style choice = life style choice.

 

[Racistman3d]

My views are smokers should get equal rights for healthcare, but the position on smoking in pubs, I would really like it to remain banned simply cause I'm asthmatic and I have had asthma attacks caused simply from breathing in other peoples smoke, as well as just irritating me.

 

[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.

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?

lol sorry mate my original post was sarcastic. I really didn't mean to make a big thing out of it. Sorry for leading you along.
But yes, if smokers should then so should drivers/drinkers/rock climbers/football players and any other thing witch could lead you to end up in hospital

 

[Hikikomori Ookami]

Equal for all! Add people who have too much sodium and cholesterol in their diets and have heart problems to the list of people that brought problems on their selves and expect and receive equal treatment.

 

[Good morning blues]

I agree that smokers are manufacturing their own diseases and should therefore be forced to pay a greater amount into a public health-care system. I also agree that smokers deserve the same standard of health care as anyone else. The solution, therefore, is to tax cigarettes highly and send the proceeds to the health-care system (which, you may notice, is exactly what happens).

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

That's like saying that self harmers shouldn't get help, or we should leave all people attempting suicide to die.

It's bullshit

Wait! What?

You can't compare a smoker with someone going emo-cutting-wrists, or tries to kill themselves. THAT'S bullshit!

A suicidal person is actively out to die, and for the wrist cutting emos, well, they're just nuts. Smokers don't have to be either of them just because they smoke. They smoke because of the nicotine and some of the social aspects of smoking, not because they want to die.

This of course pay no respect to the fact that smoking CAN be really bad for your health, but that shouldn't really matter about how entitled to healthcare you are. Everyone has their vices which contributes to bad health...

 

[JanatUrlich]

Wait! What?

You can't compare a smoker with someone going emo-cutting-wrists, or tries to kill themselves. THAT'S bullshit!

I was simply making the point that everyone who harms themselves intentionally should be allowed to have the same healthcare as anyone else

You can't say that smokers aren't harming themselves, because everyone knows of the dangers of smoking. They're not deliberately harming themselves the way self harmers are per se, but smokers know that they are not doing themselves any favours.

And yes I am a smoker myself.

 

[ActualOvaltine]

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

BAHAHAAHAHA. +1 Internets to you!

 

[cartzo]

in my opinion the ban on smoking in public places was justified, however i do think that the ban on smoking in pubs should not be enforced, pubs were origionally thought up as a place were men could go and drink and smoke and see their mates.

 

[minignu]

Wasn't there an idea going around recently for limited amounts of smoking licences to be made available? I believe the plan was that pubs could apply for a smoking licence, which would mean they'd have to clearly advertise that they allow smoking and would prohibit younger persons from even entering. The numbers of these licences would be small to prevent over saturation and enable non smokers to go out without getting their lungs blackened by evil callous smokers like me. Seems like a perfectly good idea to me, any one know what happened to it?

 

[Jharry5]

Smokers deserve the same health care as anyone - this coming from someone who does not smoke himself. I'm the first in my family who hasn't started smoking, and I think it's frankly a bit disturbing to think that if a member of my family needed health care, they'd have to pay for it instead of getting it on the NHS whilst someone who didn't smoke would get the same treatment for free. It looks like an attempt by those who don't understand to supress something they themselves don't like, but what others want to. Sounds rather Orwellian to me. What happened to people being able to make their own choices, and being treated equally?

Everyone should have the right for free health care.

 

[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.

How democratic of you. Well, I hate video games, so I think anyone who plays them should pay 50% more taxes than other people. See how you can't just take your own feelings into account?

That'd be exactly why I stated my prejudice, because I am aware that my ideas would be highly impractical if ever put into effect.