Poll: Equal Rights for Smokers

[teisjm]

Free healthcare for everyone.
Smokers (for the record, i'm trying to quit atm) "do it to themselves" but they sure as hell pay a lot of extra taxes for doing so (at least in Denmark)

People who doesn't excercise and/or doesn't eat right are harming themselves as well (whether they're overweight or not)

People who practize extreme sports are hurting themselves too sometimes (did you honestly think you could make that double backflip at the top of the ramp without hurting yourself? you must've thought so since you didn't wear a fucking helmet)

People who drink too much, either durring one nigth, or over longer periods (alcoholics)

People who does drugs.

People who drives too fast, doesn't sue seat belts, doesn't wear helmets etc.

fake sun tans can cause cancer

etc.

I'll guess that almost everyone does one of these things or something else thats harmful to them in some way, it's just become fashionable to hate smokers these days. But i honestly don't care. If people are willing to launch hate-campaigns against smokers they must really lack joy and a purpose in life. (talking about the real haters, not people who just get upset (fair) when someone smokes right up in their face or something)

 

[Chrissyluky]

anti smoking groups and laws to prevent them from smoking in public areas was disobeying eqaul rights to begin with discriminating healthcare would make us only a step off of work camps for smokers(figure of speech)

 

[silicon avatar]

When it comes to a country with national healthcare,I believe the taxes of tobacco should reflect the cost of treatment in hospitals so the nonsmokers don't actually pay for the smokers choices.

 

[Fritzvalt]

I, for one, am at about a pack a day, and I have been noticing more and more how smokers are treated like second class citizens. North Carolina will be inacting a public smoking ban come January, and I can't be more confused. We're THE tobacco state. There are cities called Tobaccoville and Winston-Salem. Having already reached a recession and the new Gov wants to limit one of our biggest sources of state (And federal) income. It doesn't make any sense.

There's also a lot of incongruencies in most smoking laws. The government has stated that people smoke for one reason alone, that reason being addiction. They classify addiction as a disability. So, not allowing people to smoke some places is like not having a wheelchair ramp.

I need a smoke.

Dude, you ARE second-class citizens, or at least should be. It's entirely your fault and you're endangering and annoying other people with your stupid, stupid habit. Although, a place called 'THE tobacco state' should be like a haven for you guys.

Whoa whoa, there guy. First off second hand smoke is hardly dangerous unless you're is a heavily smokey environment for multiple hours on end. Furthermore, I have no problems with places having a smoking section so we smokers can enjoy our cigarettes without disturbing non-smokers. These areas are usually located at a bar, as the consensus is "Well, they're there to drink, and drinking is more dangerous than smoking ever can be. So, they're already putting themselves in 'Danger.'" Just because you don't like it (And, looking at your age, can't legally) doesn't mean it's as horrible as you make it sound.

Finally, I'm a war veteran, so I really don't think that a smoke really needs to give me any sort of second class citizen status.

 

[similar.squirrel]

I'd be inclined to agree with your friend. I'm a smoker myself, and I certainly wouldn't want to waste precious resources that could go to somebody who didn't get ill by doing something so illogical.
Insofar as smoking is a choice, you accept the responsibility that you're putting yourself in danger. You shouldn't have to endanger others.
Same goes for the morbidly obese and alcoholics.

 

[gentleben]

I was at a party last night, sitting with a group of people I work with. When one of my workmates got up to get a drink, a girl I work with took his cigarette packet, ripped up the last two cigarettes, and said, "I'm saving him from emphysaema and lung cancer". I called her a ***** for fucking with his shit.

I feel I was justified for doing so.

Non-smokers are quite often self-righteous arseholes that I am ashamed to be associated with.

I don't smoke.

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

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

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

Don't feel that I'm bickering but apparently 80% of failed suicide 'victims' have an epiphany & realise what they have worth living for.... never tried it myself(my figures are probably innacurate)

As for smokers... hmmmm. Yeah they do just like all people. matey boys friend had a pretty weak argument. you start going down that road then you could deny a lot of different people Health care for many different reasons

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

BTW, your poll is incredibly biased.

A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed and not colored people's opinion on the matter. Anyone who thinks about this issue for more than five seconds would realize that it's patently ridiculous to restrict health care for smokers. You cannot discriminate when determining who receives health care based on the habits of the patient for the same reason you can't turn away a gang member who is bleeding to death in a hospital for being a gang member.

Also, if it isn't smoking, it's drinking, partying, obesity, snowboarding, recreational drugs, or even driving really fast on the freeway. Most people do things that are stupid and probably not good for their bodies or their health. Singling out smokers as being somehow worse than everyone else is really just the result of a large advertisement campaign against smoking and the hypocritical tendencies of people to scrutinize others for their flaws while not admitting to their own vices.

 

[BlueMage]

Smokers have the same rights everyone else does - the right to not be interfered with by the actions of another for one. Such a pity that some (most? Visible minority?) tend to routinely IGNORE this right of others (for crying out loud, smoke in your own damn home - I'm never going to say you have no right to light up there)

That said, health care - sure. But your smoking means that any conditions you develop (lung/throat cancer being the most obvious) will likely be construed as existing conditions.

 

[Vern]

As a smoker, I of course say no. Of course I realize it's harming my health, but I also pay every week for health care. If I'm paying for health care, I shouldn't get second class health care, I should be treated the same as anyone else. Now paying more for health care I can understand, since I'm a higher risk individual, but if I'm paying then I shouldn't get worse health care. Also keep in mind the exorbitant taxes on cigarettes that supposedly go to paying for health care. The price of a pack of cigarettes in the last 5 years where I live has gone from around $3 a pack to $6 dollars a pack, at least 75% of that increase is due to taxes. That's a metric assload of money, and I highly doubt the amount of smokers without healthcare have cost the state anywhere near as much money as they've generated. Then there's the study noone likes to talk about, but the average smoker dies earlier than the nonsmoker, which ends up costing the state less in medicare and social security, on the average tune of $70,000 per person. Makes sense, the general figure is that smokers die 7 years sooner than non smokers, most people collecting social security collect 10-20 thousand dollars per year in the US. So that's an additional 70-140,000 thousand dollars per non smoker. That's in addition to medicare costs for health care, pills, what have you. Yes no one thinks you should argue cost when it comes to Grandma's health, but if your entire argument, or even a portion of it, revolves around the additional costs that smokers generate then you can't ignore it.

The government could outlaw tobacco tomorrow, but they won't because it's a cash cow for them. Collect copious amounts of taxes on a product, ending paying less for their healthcare in the long row, and get some nice kickbacks from R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris in the process. I'm amazed they haven't stumbled on the same idea for marijuana.

 

[Niknaktom]

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 hate walking into a pub and it was full of smoke we don't want you horrible smoke ruining our nights outs and infecting us with second hand smoking. it smells horrible and not only are you killing your self but everyone around you.

 

[Vern]

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 hate walking into a pub and it was full of smoke we don't want you horrible smoke ruining our nights outs and infecting us with second hand smoking. it smells horrible and not only are you killing your self but everyone around you.

The pub allows smoking, if you don't like being around second hand smoke then find another pub. If the business owner is fine with it then stop complaining. No one is putting a gun to your head and forcing you into a smoke filled environment.

 

[jonnosferatu]

Yes, they deserve the same standard.

That said, I wholeheartedly believe that they should pay more. Smoking is a conscious choice not specifically connected to any mental disorder; people who smoke are approximately as rational in that choice as they ever can be about anything, so they have very little excuse for not footing a percentage of the bill.

 

[AxelMiller]

I found smoking disgusting too. But there is apparently nothing i can do. Smokers have done this to themself. But yet everyone deserves the same healthcare.

 

[BlueMage]

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.

Private premises, no one's forcing you into there to breathe the evil fumes of death.

OT: Yes, at least here in Britain - everyone is forced to pay for the NHS, therefore everyone deserves equal treatmenmt under it.

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.

Then go to a smokeless bar to poison yourself. You have no "Right" to clean air, there is no inherent law stating you should be free of toxins. Cigarettes are a LEGAL product, bought by AN ADULT, making an INFORMED choice. And you have the gall to deny him the ability to enjoy his purchased product?

It comes down to choice. You can choose to go to a bar that allows smoking, or you can choose to go to one that doesn't. But these laws have removed the right to choose, have restricted a portion of the populace.....but it's ok with you because then you can down your fermented poison in peace.

Surprises me how wen it comes to tobacco, most open minded people are all of a sudden like BAN IT ALL BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT FUCKKKKK
It's about CHOICE.
It's my CHOICE to fill my lungs with this shit, and as long as I'm not filling yours with it too, then what's the problem?

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.

 

[Parallel Streaks]

God, anti-smoking fanboys annoy me. Okay, I have a bad habit, it's harmful to me, please stop calling me demon-spawn and flicking holy water at me.

And that's a bit of a stupid view on healthcare to take. I'm not going to point out the flaws of the argument, that's been done before and probably better than I could articulate.

I will say this though: please, people, stop treating people who smoke like second-class citizens, not all of us are arse holes who blow smoke in people's faces.

 

[Agema]

Sure, refuse smokers public healthcare because it's their own fault. In that case, let's also have the following people banned from public treatment (this not an exhaustive list):

People who drink alcohol for liver and heart treatments.
Just about anyone involved in a car crash unless they can prove it was someone else's fault.
People who don't exercise for obesity and diabetes treatment.
People who do sports and exercise for broken limbs, torn ligaments, and so on.
People who slip a disc in their back carrying heavy boxes whilst moving house.
People who rush into burning buildings to save people inside for having their burns treated.
People who have been beaten up because they tried to stop a fight or defend someone else.
Etc.

Come on, all these people deliberately done something, in their own time, to put themselves at risk of harm, which then demands our public money to treat. It's an outrage. All they had to do was not engage in these irresponsible activities, and it would save our healthcare system a fortune.

 

[effilctar]

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.

Private premises, no one's forcing you into there to breathe the evil fumes of death.

OT: Yes, at least here in Britain - everyone is forced to pay for the NHS, therefore everyone deserves equal treatmenmt under it.

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.

Then go to a smokeless bar to poison yourself. You have no "Right" to clean air, there is no inherent law stating you should be free of toxins. Cigarettes are a LEGAL product, bought by AN ADULT, making an INFORMED choice. And you have the gall to deny him the ability to enjoy his purchased product?

It comes down to choice. You can choose to go to a bar that allows smoking, or you can choose to go to one that doesn't. But these laws have removed the right to choose, have restricted a portion of the populace.....but it's ok with you because then you can down your fermented poison in peace.

Surprises me how wen it comes to tobacco, most open minded people are all of a sudden like BAN IT ALL BAN IT BAN IT BAN IT FUCKKKKK
It's about CHOICE.
It's my CHOICE to fill my lungs with this shit, and as long as I'm not filling yours with it too, then what's the problem?

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.

Their point is there are pubs that are practically meant for smoking in. Before the smoking ban in England, the only non-smokers there were not bothered by the smoke. Now smoking's banned in these buildings and people who were put off by smoking STILL don't visit these pubs. They have no right to say who can or cannot smoke in these places when they're not affected by it and the people who are affected really couldn't care less.
Fair enough, ban smoking in restaurants and bars where non-smokers visit regularly and are genuinely disgusted by the smoke, but not in places where it isn't considered a problem.

 

[curty129]

Sure, refuse smokers public healthcare because it's their own fault. In that case, let's also have the following people banned from public treatment (this not an exhaustive list):

People who drink alcohol for liver and heart treatments.
Just about anyone involved in a car crash unless they can prove it was someone else's fault.
People who don't exercise for obesity and diabetes treatment.
People who do sports and exercise for broken limbs, torn ligaments, and so on.
People who slip a disc in their back carrying heavy boxes whilst moving house.
People who rush into burning buildings to save people inside for having their burns treated.
People who have been beaten up because they tried to stop a fight or defend someone else.
Etc.

Come on, all these people deliberately done something, in their own time, to put themselves at risk of harm, which then demands our public money to treat. It's an outrage. All they had to do was not engage in these irresponsible activities, and it would save our healthcare system a fortune.

They can refuse healthcare to smokers? o_e!? I have to say that's a little overboard.. But I totally agree. (Unless you can pay the exact fee of all the medical treatment and hospitality and such.) People who drink alcohol, refused. Smokers, refused. Car crashes in some rare cases, refused.

All the others is fair enough. (Apart from the excersise. Some people/parents dont have the willpower or time to excersise on their daily routine. Fat teenagers (Now that they can understand the consequences) almost always have the time to excersise.)
Running into a burning building to save someone else? I don't see how smoking a cigarette is saving people's lives. Protecting someone? Yeah, i fail to see why you WOULDN'T treat a nice person like that. Sure, smokers may be nice, but they are purposely damaging themselves, knowing fully of the consequences. Same goes for people who drink alcohol however. So personally, i'd refuse to treat any cases that were (In/Directly) caused by alcohol or smoking.