Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[joystickjunki3]

I see no reason why they shouldn't be, simply because they're forced to pay into healthcare like everyone else. It would be one thing if they weren't forced to pay into it and they demanded care anyway (should they not be able to afford it themselves), but that's another discussion.

 

[plus2]

I see afew fundemental flaws with a number of arguments here. one is just in the word of the question. It makes smokers look like victoms or scum with no middle ground. Second it assumes that smoking is not volentary. We who have choosen to take up this vice know full well what we are doing to ourselves.

On the not that we should ban smoking outdoors then where are those who live in apartments supposted to smoke? Its been bannedpretty much everywhere indoors exept for ones peronal House, and i feel inclinced to put emphasis on HOUSE, not home, since as stated many live in apartments and are not allowed to smoke there either.

As to the question, Raises the tax on cigs, and perhaps maybe charge a nonimal fee for healthcare if its universal.

 

[lizards]

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!

im not sure you smoke because i seem to know their habits greater than you do

smokers dont just have a few cigerattes a week generally more like 2 a day you know what we call people who have 2 drinks of liquor a day? ALCHOLICS do we bump them up transplant lists? of course not

and yes im a prime example of this ill drink maybe 4 times a month very casually and im sure as fuck that nobody goes around smoking 4 cigerattes a month

 

[chronobreak]

im sure as fuck that nobody goes around smoking 4 cigerattes a month

Well, it must be fun to know everything. What about those of us who only smoke when we drink? I don't ever buy packs anymore, I scaled back enough to have one, maybe two a week. Alternatively, sometimes I don't have any, and I could give a shit less. It's called responsibility. Just like how not every drinker is an alcoholic. It can be a nice social thing rather than a crippling addiction, you know.

And, it isn't just me, I know plenty of people that smoke only on special occasions, or when they are just that wasted. My wife is a prime example: she is a nurse, full time, yet enjoys a few puffs when out at a bar. It's simple, really.

 

[IronDuke]

im not sure you smoke because i seem to know their habits greater than you do

smokers dont just have a few cigerattes a week generally more like 2 a day you know what we call people who have 2 drinks of liquor a day? ALCHOLICS do we bump them up transplant lists? of course not

and yes im a prime example of this ill drink maybe 4 times a month very casually and im sure as fuck that nobody goes around smoking 4 cigerattes a month

Your posts are disgusting to read, try some grammar.

Anyhow, plenty of my friends have only a couple of cigarettes a month, they will have one of mine sometimes while we are out drinking. 2 drinks a day isn't alcoholism. I average that because when I do go drinking, I'll normally drink atleast 10 standard drinks. That doesn't make me an alcoholic, I don't need it to function and I will only drink once a week normally. Hell 2 drinks a day is pretty much having a large glass of red wine after work, which a lot of healthy people do. You sound like a child.

Everyone is killing themselves slowly with something, be it cigarettes, alcohol, fast food, lack of exercise, anorexia, bulimia, other drugs (inc. prescription). You have too much of anything, and a researcher somewhere will tell you that you have a greater chance of cancer. Even seemingly beneficial activities such as sports eventually cost atheletes money in reconstructions, joint problems, broken bones - are these too not risky activities that should prevent them from recieving health care?

Every choice you make has the potential to harm you in some way, often seemly benign decisions like going for a drive put you in harms way. The nature of life is risky, segmenting off a group because they are easily identifiable and denying them what should be universally provided is sick. Lets bring back racial segregation, and take away womens voting while we are at it.

Any argument against health care for everyone seems to go against the very fundamental principles of equality and freedom. Smokers pay taxes, smokers pay more taxes, they deserve to see equal benefit from that money. What if they get sick, but not through smoking, do they get their health care back then?

What's the f**king difference, we are all going to die, everyone eventually gets sick, everyone gets old, you will all end up costing the health care system money regardless of your lifestyle, only smokers might die a bit earlier and a bit quicker.

Get off our backs with all your hypocritical bulls**t and your self-righteous crap. Go live your own life and stop wishing harm to smokers for doing something that really isn't any of your business. Blarrrrrrg!

 

[BlueMage]

You three, please see my point about having a right to not be interfered with by the actions of another. You have had NOTHING UNDESERVED restricted - you are still free to smoke in your own home.

And what about the rights of a proprietor being interfered with in the name of your choices and views? Don't try and get on the moral high horse here, you're restricting people's freedoms (not only to smoke, but also how people can choose to use their property) based on your personal opinion.

Utterly irrelevant compared to not being interfered with - physically - by the actions of another. If your actions affect the health of another, then your RIGHT to engage in that action doesn't mean shit.

Clearly, you'd be surprised how the exercise of "freedom" tends to infringe on another.

 

[mad benji89]

am a smoker and i enjoy it and i dont think i should be classed as a second class citizen for doing so, if anything obesity is more of a drain on the healthcare and people who smoke, people having gastric bypass or becoming so overwieght that they cant work because of there legs or so they claim mobility, like i dont have any problems with overwieght people but they brought there health problems onto themselves just as i have with my smoking.

 

[ZeoAssassin]

should smokers have the right to the same quality of health care that non-smokers do? yes, of course

however...smokers, along with people who shovel big macs in down their throats on a daily basis and people that do drugs (while they should all get the same quality of care) should need to pay a little extra compared to a reasonably healthy person. it just makes sense

 

[Desert Warrior]

I don't mean to sound Cruel but i say we put Smokers in a Cage wearing a Picture of what their Lungs look like in the future..
That actually happens some where i cant remember where though

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

they deserve the same standards... you just charge more

 

[Aitruis]

Reposting my original post, because the topic kinda died for a bit and popped up again.

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.

---------
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.

 

[Captain_Caveman]

10 pages. so nobody's even going to read this post.

they deserve healthcare if they can pay for it. they will have higher premiums because they smoke. they should always be given an option for healthcare. but yes, they should have to wait longer if they can't afford to pay extra. why are they paying extra? because they've made a decision to put extra stress on the system. That is fair.

 

[michael_ab]

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.

people who like clubs and pubs need some non-smoking places too, i think it should be left up to the propriters

 

[Dys]

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!

im not sure you smoke because i seem to know their habits greater than you do

smokers dont just have a few cigerattes a week generally more like 2 a day you know what we call people who have 2 drinks of liquor a day? ALCHOLICS do we bump them up transplant lists? of course not

and yes im a prime example of this ill drink maybe 4 times a month very casually and im sure as fuck that nobody goes around smoking 4 cigerattes a month

Umm, much as I am support this "no smoking in pubs" and "smoking related illness not covered by public healthcare" movement, I would have to say that you, sir, are grossly misinformed.

To be an alcoholic one must have a drinking problem. Maybe this trend is different overseas, but it has been actively encouraged to have a glass or two of red wine daily as it is supposedly good for the heart. Do you honestly think someone who has a beer with lunch and a wine with dinner most days has an alcohol problem? I'd call it pretty normal. Would you also assume that every smoker goes through a deck or two of cigarettes a week? That's stupid, what about the abundance of 'casual' smokers (y'know, the majority of the smoking public, for whom 4 cigarettes a month is a completely reasonable expectation, who only smoke with friends? I'd put money on them being less likely to have lung cancer later in their lives than me developing some form of liver cancer, I probably have between 6 and 14 drinks in an average week. I too might only drink 4 times per month (it varies greatly, on average it's probably less frequent), but when I drink I don't have one beer (which is less than a bottle, because a stubbie has more than one standard drink in it) and then call it a night, how many people do you know that do?

Alcohol related liver damage is no rarer than smoking related lung damage, don't delude yourself by thinking alcohol is better for you because it's more socially acceptable. You're unbeleivably naive when it comes to drinking and smoking culture (I'm guessing you're well and truly underage and don't have any older brothers/sisters involved in smoking or drinking culture your profile says your 22, I guess you just need to get out more). It's disheartening that such clueless people have such strong opinions (in everything, not just smoking/drinking).

With the general disfunction within society (at least Australia society) it is unreasonable to put such huge, avoidable financial strain on the health system. It is in no way reducing the rights of smokers (or, if I had my way, drinkers), it is merely giving them less free health cover for them knowingly (don't argue with me about suicide related injury being covered because psychological illness impairs your judgement beyond reason) taking action that will inevitably make them ill. As for the smoking in pubs, a lot of bartenders/staff (here in Australia) were complaining very loudly about the conditions being unsafe (due to smoking), perhaps it is unfair to straight out ban smoking in all pubs without the owners consent, but in most cases the owner doesn't work the long shifts or suffer the repercussions of the smoky workplace. It was more about protecting the workers (who are often unable to find other employment arrangements)than the patrons.

 

[nondescript]

Like any debate on people's rights, you really need to look at both sides. I'm not gonna go hunt down smokers or non-smokers and beat them over the head with stupid propaganda. It's their choice to smoke or not, and if they exercise it, good.
But in public areas, a smoker is naturally at a disadvantage. They can't control where the smoke goes, and some are to egocentric that they wouldn't even if they could. So the only safe thing (and yes, it's safer) is to not smoke in public areas. I know relatives who can't breathe, literally, in a room full of tobacco smoke. I'm not going to drag them to a place where smoking is allowed, because it will harm them. But I don't think a smoker should get any special consideration for their chosen habit. It's pointless to punish them more than a smoker can punish himself. (I speak from experience, I've seen the scars.)

 

[Woem]

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

It's bullshit

The big difference is that smoking is recreational while self-harming itself should be treated. It's the same with taking life insurance: if you have certain medical conditions then it is more expensive to take life insurance because the chance of getting into an accident and/or dying are higher. I think the same applies here. Especially with smoking since people know it absolutely wrecks their health.

I'm saying this as a man who lost his father-in-law to cancer because he was a die-hard smoker (see what I did there? yeah...)

 

[scotth266]

I'm gonna get this one out of the way fast:

I hate smoking, for several reasons, the main one of which is that I'm allergic to the stuff. We found this out when we went to live at my grandmother's house for about a half-year (and she smoked, constantly.) It's not serious enough to lock up my lungs, but it makes me literally sick. I cough a lot, I have snot dribbling from my nose, and it gets harder to breathe.

There's also the issue of smell. I can't even walk through a trail someone's left behind without gagging.

But in spite of all that, you can't deny people service because they have bad habits. Next up you'll want to deny sexaholics coverage, or drinkers coverage, or so on. Denying people care is a slippery slope.

 

[Zand88]

A very nice, divisive poll. It really accurately sums up lumped opinions.
Because every issue should have no room for middle-ground, and an extremely simple yes/no set up.

 

[LockHeart]

You three, please see my point about having a right to not be interfered with by the actions of another. You have had NOTHING UNDESERVED restricted - you are still free to smoke in your own home.

And what about the rights of a proprietor being interfered with in the name of your choices and views? Don't try and get on the moral high horse here, you're restricting people's freedoms (not only to smoke, but also how people can choose to use their property) based on your personal opinion.

Utterly irrelevant compared to not being interfered with - physically - by the actions of another. If your actions affect the health of another, then your RIGHT to engage in that action doesn't mean shit.

Clearly, you'd be surprised how the exercise of "freedom" tends to infringe on another.

Erm not really, seeing as you're on private property without being compelled in any way. Let me spell it out for you - you are not being forced into a smoky environment, therefore if you go into a pub and inhale smoke, you do so knowing full well that a pub is private property and you have license to enter at the discretion of the publican. It's like walking into a brothel and complaining that prostitutes work there - if you don't like it, don't go. To use your example, how about global warming? If you driving a car or using electricity gained from fossil fuels is contributing to climate change and thus affecting my standard of living, should I be able to force you to stop? From what people seem to insist, climate change is going to kill us all with floods, famines and countless other Biblical plagues...

It seems that you'd be surprised in that there is no 'right' to clean air mentioned in any legal system that I know of - you have no 'right' to force smokers to stop around you, let alone on private property.

 

[Acaroid]

Well this is interesting, as where do you draw the line for health care and helping people?

If smokers get less, if you speed in your car, use a phone, drink driver etc and get in a car crash, should you not get healthcare???

If you over eat, eat crap food and not excersise should you get less health care?

Im really not sure what to vote to be honest... part of me wants to say yeah "screw them stupid smokers should have to pay more" but the other part of me is saying "but if you do it to smokers, who next? where should the line be drawn"
so im voting no they shouldnt pay more.