Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers
- Thread starter effilctar
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Well...I don't think that smokers should recieve the same healthcare as us because it is a leisure activity that they know causes health problems and yet they continue to do it and it is possible to quit, they just lack the willpower or don't want to.JanatUrlich said:
Suicidals on the other hand should have the same healthcare because some people just get overwhelmed and do drastic things, they should also recieve some sort of therapy. However, repeat suicidals (3-4 attempts) should have their health insurance cancelled, they're wasting money that could be used on people who want to live. I have no sympathy for people who refuse help.
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.
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)"
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.
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.JaredXE said:
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)"
I don't think they should be denied care outright, but in the case of needing a lung transplant due to cancer they should be placed lower in the line than someone who needs a transplant due to no fault of their own. I don't like being around people who smoke even if they're not smoking at the time. They always seem to have this nasty cigarette odor about them that's very annoying.
Respond how? By giving us smokers an angry look then walking the hell away.THAC0 said:
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.
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?
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.
Anyway id rather get cancer then be fat. Smoking aint the #1 killer in america.
So people who rockclimb shouldn't receive the same healthcare either because it's a risky leisure activity that they don't want to quit?wouldyoukindly99 said:
It was your anti-suicide yet pro-euthanasia stance that was throwing me off, but you seem to have cleared that up nicely. And yes we have really flown the topic, so I'll back peddle some.JanatUrlich said:
It's a bit of a hard stance to take for me. I believe that everyone should be entitle to the same basic health care. It's the advanced health care that puzzles me, stuff like organ transplants. Though sad, giving a smoker a replacement lung does not seem like a wise course of action.
I'm against smoking though I confuse myself since I think marijuana is a wonderful thing that should be legalized everywhere (and I myself would rather have a bag of weed since everything is better with a bag of weed)
OT: they should get healthcare but if they were to get free healthcare (as they do in some countries) they should be forced to go into rehab so no more money would be spent on them. I came up with this after seeing that a lot of people thought that, those who have attempted suicide get healthcare so why shouldn't smokers? so I thought those who Attempt suicide get psychiatric help so why shouldn't smokers be forced to stop smoking or otherwise sign something that will make them pay for their own treatment (if they have developing lung cancer or something like it and live in a country with free healthcare)
OT: they should get healthcare but if they were to get free healthcare (as they do in some countries) they should be forced to go into rehab so no more money would be spent on them. I came up with this after seeing that a lot of people thought that, those who have attempted suicide get healthcare so why shouldn't smokers? so I thought those who Attempt suicide get psychiatric help so why shouldn't smokers be forced to stop smoking or otherwise sign something that will make them pay for their own treatment (if they have developing lung cancer or something like it and live in a country with free healthcare)
If they can pay for it themselves, sure. I'm not terribly keen on my tax dollars going to support someone else's stupidity.
JanatUrlich said:
Jamash said:
These three comments basically sum up my view on smoker's rights.Nimbus said:
They deserve the same help as everyone else, especially since they are already paying out the ass for their addiction, but they shouldn't be allowed to smoke around non smokers in a public place (such as a restaraunt/bar), or at the very least these places should have a designated and seperated smoking area.
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!)Calatar said:
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.
People who are addicted deserve help, not shunning.
Of course they should get the same services... and an addiction-therapy on top of that.
9 out of 10 people with lung cancer are smokers. Not all smokers get cancer, sure. But most people that do get cancer are smokers. And that's not even counting all the other shit that can (but, sure, is not predetermined to) happen to you because of it, like COPD, tracheal cancer and whatnot.
Of course they should get the same services... and an addiction-therapy on top of that.
The same is true for any harmful influence, though, including alcohol. In fact, alcohol protects the circulatory system to a certain degree. So that's not really an argument either way.WhiteTiger225 said:
9 out of 10 people with lung cancer are smokers. Not all smokers get cancer, sure. But most people that do get cancer are smokers. And that's not even counting all the other shit that can (but, sure, is not predetermined to) happen to you because of it, like COPD, tracheal cancer and whatnot.
They did, but this wasn't good enough for the whining soccer moms. Not to mention is a club/pub/resturant allows smoking.... don't go? No ones forcing you to eat at that resturant.ZeroMachine said:
But it's okay for their tax dollars to support hypocondriacs and terminally ill patients?velcthulhu said:
No. When rockclimbers know what they are doing they can avoid injury, there is no way to smoke 'Safely' all cigarettes have the deadly chemicals and smokers know that.JanatUrlich said:
Plus, rockclimbers are living dangerously not killing themselves slowly. There is a difference between extreme sports and intentionally ingesting deadly chemicals.
