posted on Jan, 4 2008 @ 05:08 AM
I don't see how the smokers are more costly....They pay more taxes, they're shortening their lifespans (less strain on the social security system
later), and well, from my observations at work, those non-smokers seem to be running to the doctor far more than I am!! The non-smokers are getting
sick, just as much as the smoker.
Studies here in the states have shown that our kid's lungs are not developing properly. This isn't being attributed to smoking, it's being
attributed to the smog filled cities. And, I think this will be far more costly in the long run, than the smokers will be.
As far as the smoker getting a lung transplant before the non-smoker....
well, if you were in america, I would have to say, sorry, but I guess the smoker had more money?? But, I think it may give us a clue as to why some
might want the smokers carrying cards indentifying them as such.....so they can be descriminated against in socialized healthcare. opps, you're a
smoker, go to the back of the line, next.....oh, look at that, Mrs. Smith, you've dyed your hair blonde...
ya know, the hair dyes aren't good for ya either...but I bet Mrs. Smith will never have to carry a card letting everyone know that she dyes her hair,
the cost of the hair dyes will never increase outrageously because of tax.
As far as the smokers burning down their house, and yours...
well, do your neighbors have kids!! They seem to burn down alot too!! Maybe their should be a tax attached to kids, restrictions placed on
them...just to protect your house.
The same crap that has been put in the cigarettes that has made them far more dangerous than they used to be, has been put into everything else also!
That new house you just bought is more than likely seeping with formadahyde. that fresh apple that your are eating has about the same amount as
arsenic as your cigaretted does. That perfume you like to splash on you has chemicals in it that gives it it's aromic smell...well, those same
chemicals are gripped about when they are coming from a cigarette, but if you can smell the perfume, you are getting the chemicals...no fire is
needed!! they were designed to become airborne! The same thing goes for the air fresheners, pretty smelling laundry detergents, dryer sheets, ect.
It's in your shampoos, it's in your food, it's in your clothing!!!
So, how do you know that it was the cigarette smoke that killed anyone? There's many ways someone to be exposed to those chemicals! Is taking away
one source really gonna help?
The most costly people to the healthcare system are those that are running to the doctor for every ache and pain, allowing that doctor to put them
into lifelong dependency for yet another toxic cocktail, in pill form!
I'm 50 years old, have been to the doctor twice this year, and all the drugs I've taken probably has been less than a bottle of tylonol. and the
reason I went to the doctor has to do with a problem with my foot...which they were absolutely no help with...so, what can I say.
yes, I put up with alot of pain, but I'm putting way more money into the health insurance industry than I am taking out. I ain't running to the
drugstore once a month for those $100 or more perscriptions to be filled.
and yes, I smoke!!
the idea that the smokers are more costly is just another attempt to scapegoat part of the population so that the anger that will soon be generated as
things fall apart, not to mention bodies fall apart, will deflected from the main source for it all....the manufacturers and big business!
Tobacco isn't that hard to grow, by the way. Force people to carry a card, and well, watch how fast people learn to growing their own..
which wouldn't be a bad thing really, since well, they would be less likely to throw in all the crap that the manufacturers are throwing into them!