Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[PedroSteckecilo]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Sure, when I'm granted the legal right to spit on any smoker who comes within 15 feet of me. It's essentially the same thing really, if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit, you should have to put up with the same type of treatment from non-smokers.

 

[DemonI81]

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.

 

[Ninja_X]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Sure, when I'm granted the legal right to spit on any smoker who comes within 15 feet of me. It's essentially the same thing really, if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit, you should have to put up with the same type of treatment from non-smokers.

Keep your smoke away from me basically.

The fact that smoking is banned in public places is a great thing.

 

[Ninja_X]

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.

You choose to get drunk, you choose to get into a situation where you are in danger.

No one here is saying that alcohol is any better.

The difference is you can't get secondhand drunk.

 

[ZeroMachine]

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

It's bullshit

Smokers do pay for the healthcare that they may or may not need.

Have you seen how much tax is on cigarettes and tobacco?

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

No, don't. Non-smoker's right to clean air supersedes smoker's rights to slowly kill themselves wherever they please.

These three comments basically sum up my view on smoker's rights.

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.

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.

I agree that it was VERY stupid to get rid of the smoking/non smoking sections of a place, but there are two many issues with the "just don't go if they allow smoking" argument of things. What if a family absolutely loves the food in a specific restaraunt, but because they have children they don't want to bring them in because of the smoking? Should they have to miss out on amazing food because of that? Not only that, but the restaraunt itself would lose out on a lot of pontential customers. Smokers can go a meal without smoking. They can smoke when they leave. Non-smokers can't exactly go without breathing for a meal, so othey wouldn't go.

More people will avoid restaraunts because they allow smoking then will avoid it because they don't. Business-wise, it just doesn't make sense.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

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.

You choose to get drunk, you choose to get into a situation where you are in danger.

No one here is saying that alcohol is any better.

The difference is you can't get secondhand drunk.

I think the point he's making is that denying people healthcare because they smoke is the same as denying people healthcare because they drink, because they're fat, because they like extreme sports, because they take any risks at all... hell, why not deny people healthcare because they drive to work instead of taking public transit thus damaging the air, getting fatter and taking the very real risk of getting in an accident! *GASP* LIFE IS DANGEROUS! OH MY GOD! WHO KNEW!

 

[DemonI81]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Sure, when I'm granted the legal right to spit on any smoker who comes within 15 feet of me. It's essentially the same thing really, if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit, you should have to put up with the same type of treatment from non-smokers.

Here's a great example. You are unable to see that the problem is the ban, not the smoking or non-smoking and you illustrate that with such... I don't even know.
Banning smoking in places, other than places where it can be very bad like around oxygen tanks, is really the government taking away rights. These clubs, bars, restaurants, etc... should have the choice to allow it or not. I'm sure many, if given the option right now, would not start allowing smoking in their establishment. Some would though. Then, as a human that can make his/her own decisions, you can choose not to go to the places that allow smoking.
Why does everyone want to destroy/ban everything they don't like? Why can't you just stay away from it? Why does anyone, smoker or non-smoker, deserve to have their life interfered with due to someone else's wants? Why do so many non-smokers act so superior?

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.

You choose to get drunk, you choose to get into a situation where you are in danger.

No one here is saying that alcohol is any better.

The difference is you can't get secondhand drunk.

I didn't know you were forced to be around smokers and get second hand smoke. This does not happen to most people, most of us can choose to be around someone smoking or not. I am sorry for your plight.

 

[Xanadu84]

Devils Advocate time!

The argument that they don't deserve as good care is silly: Of course they deserve it. However, there is an argument for not providing smokers with the same health care options as non smokers: Incentive. If it was harder to get some aspects of health care as a smoker, then that would discourage smoking. And however unfair it is to smokers, you could argue that it is compensated for by the people who quit or don't start to begin with, and then proceed to not die of cancer. I'm not saying that I'm for this plan, I'm just saying that the logic behind it is to, in the long run, net a number of people not dying in agony. The theory at least has merit. I support doing this in a different way, but I'm not going to discount an idea as ludicrous if there's a possibility of being unfair, yet saving lives.

Also, you can't compare a risky activity like rock climbing to smoking. Rock Climbing might cause some routine injuries like broken bones every now and again, but it is also a physical activity which might keep that same person out of the hospital later in life because there more physically fit. It's a calculated risk. From the perspective of health care, smoking is not a calculated risk, its 100% negative.

 

[MiodekPL]

They pay for health care like everyone else. So they deserve it like everyone else.

 

[Terramax]

Wait... if they're committing suicide, don't they generally want to be left to die?

Imagine you'd just walked in on your best friend trying to kill him/herself. I think you'd be pretty pissed off if the doctors were just like "Nah he obviously wants to die, just let him"

Actually, I've spoken to people who deal with suicidals and that's the exact attitude they give. Most of the time people standing on the edge of a cliff/ building just want someone to talk to, so usually when that happens, a paramedic, doctor or whoever will just walk up to them and say "well jump! What are you waiting for?. Get it over with and stop wasting my damn time!".

The suicidal gets pissed off that he/ she isn't having the attention they were wanting and will, most times than not, climb back down. Although they do have the few that will jump.

I don't know why but I had the urge to share that with you guys.

Anyway, back on topic...

I'm divided on this. On the one hand they're human beings so obviously they deserve the health care they pay into like the rest of us.

Having said that, if they get ill from lung cancer or whatever then it's their fault unlike someone who doesn't smoke and is perfectly healthy but still gets cancer.

And if they keep making themselves ill, why should they then get treatment over someone else who tries to look after themselves (which can sometimes be the case)?

Also on a side note, smokers whining about having to go outside for a fag need to shut up whining. Smoking inside makes it unpleasant for the non-smokers, even when you're smoking in a "designated area" like they used to have.

My Dad used to smoke indoors and the entire room would stink out and I'd also smell of fags. You want to kill yourselves then that's your choice, but why should you get more rights over someone who chooses to keep healthier by not smoking?

THIS OWNS.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

SNIP/

Here's a great example. You are unable to see that the problem is the ban, not the smoking or non-smoking and you illustrate that with such... I don't even know.
Banning smoking in places, other than places where it can be very bad like around oxygen tanks, is really the government taking away rights. These clubs, bars, restaurants, etc... should have the choice to allow it or not. I'm sure many, if given the option right now, would not start allowing smoking in their establishment. Some would though. Then, as a human that can make his/her own decisions, you can choose not to go to the places that allow smoking.
Why does everyone want to destroy/ban everything they don't like? Why can't you just stay away from it? Why does anyone, smoker or non-smoker, deserve to have their life interfered with due to someone else's wants? Why do so many non-smokers act so superior?

For me personally it comes down to a concept I call "choice theft." When you light up a cigarette you have just decided for yourself, and anyone within 5 to 10 feet of you. You have chosen to fill their lungs with smoke, make their clothes smell awful and to (in my case) aggitate a chronic health problem. You didn't ASK them if you could smoke, or if they wanted to smoke did you? Smoking is one of the only things that does this, because unlike drinking alchahol it creates a "radius" around it. For me it feels very similar to someone walking up to me without a word, spitting on me, and then punching me in the throat.

Though yes, smoking "clubs" "bars" and "restaurants" should be allowed as long as they are designated as such. Hell, if a place wants to have a glassed off smoking section, let them! No reason not to! But if all clubs, pubs and restaurants were smoking like they used to be you'd be taking my choice away from me, hence your choice to engage in an optional activity has stolen my right to clean air.

 

[Sparrow]

Smoking ruined a good part of my life, and I've never smoked. It's a horrible, horrible, evil habit.

That said, I'm not sure. They DO do it to themselves, but then again, so do drinkers and self harmers. I'm really, really not sure. However, I am swaying more toward the no option.

 

[velcthulhu]

If they can pay for it themselves, sure. I'm not terribly keen on my tax dollars going to support someone else's stupidity.

But it's okay for their tax dollars to support hypocondriacs and terminally ill patients?

Didn't say that, don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't support tax-funded healthcare at all. That said, I don't mind paying for the healthcare of people who are sick, through no fault of their own. Smoking is their own fault, and their own choice, and they were warned (by the same government that would be paying them, no less).

 

[WhiteTiger225]

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

It's bullshit

Smokers do pay for the healthcare that they may or may not need.

Have you seen how much tax is on cigarettes and tobacco?

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

No, don't. Non-smoker's right to clean air supersedes smoker's rights to slowly kill themselves wherever they please.

These three comments basically sum up my view on smoker's rights.

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.

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.

I agree that it was VERY stupid to get rid of the smoking/non smoking sections of a place, but there are two many issues with the "just don't go if they allow smoking" argument of things. What if a family absolutely loves the food in a specific restaraunt, but because they have children they don't want to bring them in because of the smoking? Should they have to miss out on amazing food because of that? Not only that, but the restaraunt itself would lose out on a lot of pontential customers. Smokers can go a meal without smoking. They can smoke when they leave. Non-smokers can't exactly go without breathing for a meal, so othey wouldn't go.

More people will avoid restaraunts because they allow smoking then will avoid it because they don't. Business-wise, it just doesn't make sense.

Back when people allowed smoking in resturants, the resturants were still packed, so that argument holds no ground. Also, what if said parents want to go to a bar where they love the music and people but they allow drinking? Oh dear god! Wait.. couldn't they just.. leave their kids with a baby sitter and go if they are worried about the kids? Or maybe they could not go to a bar and find somewhere that doesn't serve alchohal in such large quantities? The fact is, the "Well what if they like the food?" argument is a load of BS. What if someones allergic to seafood and this steakhouse is serving shrimp and salmon? Should we bann shrimp and salmon because some people might not be comfortable with it being around them AND that it could pose a potential health hazard if some of that food touches them? Infact, we should bann kids from resturants that are under a certain age because that ear piercing crying they can do is damaging to your ear drums (Proven) in such a close, and closed up enviroment. Or.. if you walk into a resturant and there is a loud brat crying, you can find ANOTHER resturant. Or if theres the potential that you might get accidentally served fried scallop bits rather then fried chicken bits then you might choose another resturant rather then bann seafood and children. I could even go into regular soda being banned because it might accidentally be served to a diabetic, but I won't, instead I will leave you with this....

Honestly, if a Company wants to deny service to a specific group in a non racial, religious, or sexist sense, it should. But the government should not force them to deny customers who have certain wishes of things to do at a resturant. It should be the resturant, pub, bars choice on wether or not it wants to bann smokers, NOT the governments.

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Sure, when I'm granted the legal right to spit on any smoker who comes within 15 feet of me. It's essentially the same thing really, if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit, you should have to put up with the same type of treatment from non-smokers.

Hey, calm down there tiger, no need to start using that foul language. I just think that it should be left up to the patrons whether or not they want people to smoke in their establishment, not the government. And second-hand smoke is bullshit, it doesn't affect you in any way unless someone's smoking in your face for several hours a day everyday. Do you also get mad at cars that pass you by while you're walking on the sidewalk?

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.

 

[WhiteTiger225]

If they can pay for it themselves, sure. I'm not terribly keen on my tax dollars going to support someone else's stupidity.

But it's okay for their tax dollars to support hypocondriacs and terminally ill patients?

Didn't say that, don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't support tax-funded healthcare at all. That said, I don't mind paying for the healthcare of people who are sick, through no fault of their own. Smoking is their own fault, and their own choice, and they were warned (by the same government that would be paying them, no less).

But in that case you would also deny coverage of hypocondriacs, alchohal drinkers, attempted suicide victims, victims of a crash while going over the speed limit, people who don't obey warning signs and slip and break a bone in their body, etc. So go on, justifyingly deny ALL of them illness. Especially to Aids victims who got it from fucking someone without getting them checked first.. go on

Oooo I just realized! You also have to deny coverage to people who get lime disease for being out late at night without bug spray! The list goes on ! Not to mention dangerous occupations should be denied health care because they stupidly decided to take a dangerous job and put their lives at risk in order to make money!

 

[WhiteTiger225]

Also, bring back smoking in clubs/pubs ands such. This whole anti-smoking thing is getting out of hand.

Sure, when I'm granted the legal right to spit on any smoker who comes within 15 feet of me. It's essentially the same thing really, if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit, you should have to put up with the same type of treatment from non-smokers.

Hey, calm down there tiger, no need to start using that foul language. I just think that it should be left up to the patrons whether or not they want people to smoke in their establishment, not the government. And second-hand smoke is bullshit, it doesn't affect you in any way unless someone's smoking in your face for several hours a day everyday. Do you also get mad at cars that pass you by while you're walking on the sidewalk?

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.

^ this

And not only that... but "if I have to put up with your disgusting, invasive, choice stealing habit" really? You don't have a choice to LEAVE said bar/pub/resturant that allows smoking? So WHO lobotomized you now to where you lack the ability to make grownup decisions and leave a situation you do not like? What next? You are going to bann kinky leather outfits and foot worship from clubs because you went to a BDSM club and was disgusted by such things? Lol