Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[MrSnugglesworth]

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.

Smoking in Clubs and Pubs is fine. Just keep it the fuck out of Restaurants.

 

[DemonI81]

Inevitable answer, national helthcare won't work in the United States.


I'm up for arguments to let it rip.

Europeans have a lot of smokers (especially France) and NHS works anyway.

Yes, but this is just one issue of many, it will be a long drawn out battle over several years, and in the end no one will be happy, therefore I said a NHS wouldn't work in the United States.


BTW, OT and not @ Skeleon. Did ya'll see that the FDA banned flavored cigarettes in the United States?

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/FlavoredTobacco/default.htm

Wow... that's ridiculous. They have all those flavors of alcohol. What about kids drinking?
This is obviously about a witch hunt on tobacco and smokers.
Why don't they ban the harmful, government-mandated chemicals?

 

[Airbear101]

This is actually a very good thiught...

 

[MelziGurl]

I don't know about most countries, but here I believe smoking can effect certain entitlments at work like their health insurance I thnk. Smoking laws don't bother me, as an ex-smoker I couldn't have cared less about the restrictions. The way I see it, non-smokers shouldn't have your habits forced upon them however, areas that were specifically placed for smokers within Clubs/Pubs I think are good ideas. I remember those as a child, most non-smokers used their brains and avoided the smokers corners (which where usually some kind of outdoor setting.) Smokers shouldn't absolutely NEED to smoke within a confined space. I don't care if cigarettes have gone up in price and tax, that's a problem for the people who smoke but before the costs rose it was costing me more than $50 a week going through packs of 30 all the time. That's too much money for me to be wasting on cancer sticks, much prefer that in my savings. But healthcare should be for everyone regardless, you can't single out smokers for 'self harming' purposes, too many people already self harm every day.

 

[Federalist92]

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.

I used to hate going to my pub. i could barly see a foot infront of me for all the smoke and the smell was simply fowl!
The first day i walked into my pub after the ban i could actually SEE THE CARPET!
Amazing i said to my friend.
I thought it was blue. (its actually red but it was a very small pub and with all the smoke and people i couldnt see it)

I dont think they should cancel the smoking ban at all. just alter it.
here me out here.
why not do what they used to do in restraunts.
have a smoking area.
that way people who want to have the pleasure of longer life can have it.
and people who want the thrill and good feeling of a cigarette can have it.
win win

 

[Mr Wednesday]

Just round all smokers up and put them in Burgers.

Hmmm, smokey Bacon.

 

[chronobreak]

If I put a gun to my foot and pull the trigger, do you say 'Oh, that poor guy!' or do you say 'What a fucking moron!'? My guess is the latter.

What kind of terribe person would you be if you witnessed someone bleeding and yelling out in pain and stood there mocking him? Is that really what you would do? I can't imagine anyone wouldn't try to get the person proper help.

 

[DrDeath3191]

If I put a gun to my foot and pull the trigger, do you say 'Oh, that poor guy!' or do you say 'What a fucking moron!'? My guess is the latter.

What kind of terribe person would you be if you witnessed someone bleeding and yelling out in pain and stood there mocking him? Is that really what you would do? I can't imagine anyone wouldn't try to get the person proper help.

I'm not saying point and laugh at the guy. He needs help, yes, but he should pay for it himself if he's going to do something stupid like that.

 

[cobra_ky]

Inevitable answer, national helthcare won't work in the United States.


I'm up for arguments to let it rip.

Europeans have a lot of smokers (especially France) and NHS works anyway.

Yes, but this is just one issue of many, it will be a long drawn out battle over several years, and in the end no one will be happy, therefore I said a NHS wouldn't work in the United States.


BTW, OT and not @ Skeleon. Did ya'll see that the FDA banned flavored cigarettes in the United States?

http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/FlavoredTobacco/default.htm

Wow... that's ridiculous. They have all those flavors of alcohol. What about kids drinking?
This is obviously about a witch hunt on tobacco and smokers.
Why don't they ban the harmful, government-mandated chemicals?

<a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.145224?page=1>i see where you're coming from on this.

 

[Someperson307]

Exactly. The people of each side think that their side is justified and that the other side is terribly wrong. Cigarettes and alcohol should have never been invented, then we wouldn't have these problems. Instead of smoking, BREATHE. Breathing is more fun. Instead of drinking alcohol, drink WATER or SODA or TEA or any of the awesome drinks people have invented. They cause too many problems to be worth it.

Smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol has been going on for thousands of years, it's nothing new.
"Western" cigarettes contain many government mandated added chemicals that are responsible for many of the health problems. Japanese smokers have something like a 70% lower cancer rate, because their cigarettes don't contain these chemicals.
Soda contains sugar or harmful artificial sweeteners, not making it all that healthy.
Tea, I just found out, supposedly causes kidney stones. (I'm screwed if this really is true, I drink so much iced tea).
Water is really the best choice, although it's flavorless and unsatisfying, to me at least.

Tea causes kidney stones? I find that hard to believe. Anyways, soda isn't as bad as alcohol. It is also not addictive. Do you know anyone who has died from soda consumption? How about alcohol consumption? You probably do, I know 2 people who died from alcohol. Unfortunately, getting rid of cigarettes and alcohol is impossible. Those goddamn unhealthy chemicals should be removed from cigarettes. Japan is AWESOME.

 

[Megatheist]

I feel that because they have yet to outlaw smoking then there should be a provided environment for smokers to consume said product. I also know quite a few smokers who know that I don't and are very considerate when I'm around. The least we could do is treat them like human beings and hold them to the same standard we would anyone else. No one gives an obese person the same kind of hard time despite the fact they can potentially be as big a danger to themselves and to others in a time of crisis. This naturally doesn't give smokers the right to be rude but I think there can be a common ground between the two. I don't condone smoking but I don't preach to people who do. Many of the smokers I know are aware of the health risks and future detriments so I see no point in doing so.

 

[Low Key]

Sitting in grid-locked rush hour traffic is equivilent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. I guess everyone with a job in a big city should have to pay more for health care.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Smokers "donate" 8 times more than they use on the NHS.

Case closed.

Where did you get that statistic from?

Same goes for the guy who said more people die from alcohol.

according to the Netherlands? National Institute for Public Health and Environment, which found that while "a person of normal weight costs on average £210,000 over their lifetime", a smoker clocks up just £165,000 and the obese run up an average £187,000 bill.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/05/healthy_tax_burden/

In the UK, the tobacco industry generated over £10bn in tax revenue in 1998, enough to pay for three quarters of the Education and Employment Budget.

The US government makes seven times more money from the sale of a pack of cigarettes than a cigarette maker does, R.J. Reynolds, the second biggest US tobacco company, is quick to point out.
Global benefits
Other countries enjoy similar economic benefits from cigarette production.
The US tax on cigarettes is actually quite low.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/459157.stm

Smoking kills, as we know. It costs the NHS a small fortune ? up to £1.7 billion annually - to treat smoking-related diseases such as cancer, bronchitis and other side-effects such as cardio-vascular disease.

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.
In fact, between 80% and 90% of the cost of a packet of fags is tax.

My apologies. Only six times. I'd say 8*1.7 was 13.6, so call it 7 times.

In addition, the three major UK tobacco companies ? Gallaher, Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco - themselves pay tax on their profits.
Bizarrely, finding out exactly how much is paid is almost impossible to discern from these three companies' own accounts. But industry sources suggest a figure of between £200 million and £250 million a year would not be unreasonable.
Plus, the industry directly employs 4,000 people and "supports" about 138,500 other jobs, mostly newsagents and supermarkets where there are separate tobacco counters, according to the UK's Tobacco Manufacturers Association, the industry trade body.
They also pay income tax and National Insurance, as well as council tax, while the money they earn goes into the local economy. The total tax paid by these individuals and the scores of small tobacco-related companies ? packaging, advertising and so on ? almost certainly comes to many hundreds of millions of pounds.

http://money.uk.msn.com/tax/articles/article.aspx?cp-documentID=4750489

If that doesn't convince you why they will never ban smoking outright, please consider that Phillip Morris etc. are selling a product that, if used in the manner in which it was intended, will poison the user. This is then massively taxed by the Government and the profits are also taxed to pay for the Health Service and provides literally hundreds of thousands of jobs that all rely on the tobacco industry.

Against all that evidence, you believe smokers deserve to be given less healthcare when they're paying 7 to 8 times more for it and using less of it?

Especially when the pharmaceutical industry, the retail sector, the alcohol licensing, the motor vehicle industry all cause equal amount of deaths per year, are equally subsidised for doing so and are still allowed to openly broadcast advertisements in direct contradiction to the effects of their products?

Seriously, even as a non-smoker, that sounds like intolerance of the highest order. There is no other group of people (or animals) in the land who you would tolerate being treated as parasites for all they have to go through.

Especially as they aren't committing any crime.

BTW
For the alcohol question, do you count passive alcohol deaths? As I'm reasonably sure that drink driver victims would count. And probably drunken stabbings. And drunken rapes.

 

[akwardwhistle]

I think your friend has a point. If someone goes in with something in their body acting funny they should go before a smoker. The smoker smoked and knew the risk of smoking, most likely the cause of their problems is because of their illogial reason to smoke. Heck smoking kills people who are just in the area.

 

[razer17]

Nope. Smokers, heavy drinkers and really fat people shoulnt be treated equally. They should pay more.

 

[JWAN]

Should we deny people with who got AIDS from having sex care? Everyone knows that if you have sex you have the possibility of getting AIDS.

 

[JWAN]

Nope. Smokers, heavy drinkers and really fat people shoulnt be treated equally. They should pay more.

Why should they pay more? They already have to if they want to have healthcare, why do they need to pay more on top of that?

 

[Imat]

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)

If they pay for it they should get it. Of course, if they knowingly, in their right mind, do something known to cause harm, they should pay more for it. Just like with insurance, it should be based on history and risk factors. Which is why insurance works, it's not equal.

 

[razer17]

Nope. Smokers, heavy drinkers and really fat people shoulnt be treated equally. They should pay more.

Why should they pay more? They already have to if they want to have healthcare, why do they need to pay more on top of that?

Because they are the prime three strains on the NHS. Easy enough to understand.

 

[Poyer]

I think there should be a distinction made between cigarette smokers and people who smoke cigars and pipes.

cigars and pipes are not harmful at all since you dont inhale, and even if you did, you dont get fucking tar in your lungs.

I for one only smoke cigarillos, its a major part of me and the fact that i cant smoke it in public really sucks. cigarettes are quite stupid. just mindless addiction i suppose.

just make everything legal i say. let people destroy themselves if they want, and offer help when they need it. in the end we will all be happier.