It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The true cost of smoking

page: 12
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


Believe it or not, I do appreciate your courtesy.

So, thank you for not smoking near me.

Enjoy your life. Enjoy your smokes.

Bob




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
is it me, or when anti-smokers try to sound polite, they just end up sounding patronizing??



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I've seen several posts lately about smoking and/or laws that affect smokers.

Smokers all claim that they have the right to use this highly addictive drug and that no one else should have any say in what they choose to do.


Let me start by saying that I hate cigarette smoke and I really hate being exposed to it. Many smokers simply do not take others into consideration before lighting up.


But the actions of smokers do affect others. Everyone, by now, is aware that second had smoke can cause disease that can lead to death. But smokers have rights, don't they?

They have the right to smoke but do not have the right to expose others to their smoke.


Who pays for the poor person who gets lung cancer and wastes slowly away while their family watches? Some people have insurance that covers this cost but of course, all those who have insurance help to defray this cost.

If the person doesn't have insurance the the health care is covered by the government. So, the cost is shared by the taxpayers.

You must be very careful with this argument because you could also say that people who eat poorly, drink, don't exercise, etc.. create a strain on the health care system.


OK, why not make smokers pay for their own health care by paying extra for their insurance?

Then you would need to make people who eat poorly, drink, don't exercise, etc.. pay more also.


If you're not insured and you choose to smoke then you don't get any free health care.... You just get to die. That's not so nice but it's your choice to smoke , isn't it?

The problem again is that we all have vices and many of them negatively affect our health to a certain extent. To apply this fairly, we must let people with who have heart disease due to diet or adult onset diabetes, etc...

Look, I agree that smoking is very bad for those who do it and smokers should not expose others to their bad habit but they should be able to smoke if they wish just like we should be able to have a big mac or drink.

Smokers have the idea that if we tell them they can't smoke in public places, their rights are being infringed upon. The reality is that rights are not absolute. For example, although the 1st amendment guarantees freedom of speech among other things, you still cannot exercise that free speech by yelling fire in a crowded theatre. The reason is that your rights cannot infringe upon the safety of others around you.

Although restricting cigarette smoke does technically violate the smokers rights, the smoker is violating non-smokers rights by forcing them to either inhale the smoke or force them to leave the location. So how do we figure out who's rights win? Well the same way we figure out how to apply the 1st amendment with restrictions.

Breaking it down very simply:
If a smoker does not smoke, the smoker is not physically damaged.
If a non-smoker inhales cigarette smoke, they can be physically damaged.
Safety over convenience.
Safety wins.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Trolloks
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


ive tried saying exactly what you just pointed out, believe me, its impossible for them to listen


Ya they wont listen but expect us smokers to be obligated to listen to them.

As TRN pointed out, its a two way street but they want it all their way.

Well it will be a cold day in hell when they do get it all their way.

(Joins TRN for a smoke)



Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Look, I agree that smoking is very bad for those who do it and smokers should not expose others to their bad habit but they should be able to smoke if they wish just like we should be able to have a big mac or drink.


OK first you non smokers preach that we have a right to smoke but you also attempt to shove us off the planet becuase going outside, smoking in the designated areas..hell even in our own cars and homes, that erks you all so much its not funny. So...wherer do you propose we excersise our right that you non smokers so elegantly tout we have eh?



Originally posted by jfj123
Smokers have the idea that if we tell them they can't smoke in public places, their rights are being infringed upon. The reality is that rights are not absolute.


And what makes your rights above anyone elses, especially those that smoke? Reality is...rights are not absolute. Works both ways.


Originally posted by jfj123
Although restricting cigarette smoke does technically violate the smokers rights, the smoker is violating non-smokers rights by forcing them to either inhale the smoke or force them to leave the location. So how do we figure out who's rights win? Well the same way we figure out how to apply the 1st amendment with restrictions.

Breaking it down very simply:
If a smoker does not smoke, the smoker is not physically damaged.
If a non-smoker inhales cigarette smoke, they can be physically damaged.
Safety over convenience.
Safety wins.




Then quite hanging around smokers, their designated smoking areas, and go stand in your "clean air" zone, then you and all the other non-smokers wont breath in my cig smoke..you will just breath in all the other far more toxic elements in the air.

But you all will still blame it on us smokers. Nothing will satisfy you.




Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
Originally posted by jfj123
Look, I agree that smoking is very bad for those who do it and smokers should not expose others to their bad habit but they should be able to smoke if they wish just like we should be able to have a big mac or drink.



OK first you non smokers preach that we have a right to smoke but you also attempt to shove us off the planet becuase going outside, smoking in the designated areas..hell even in our own cars and homes, that erks you all so much its not funny. So...wherer do you propose we excersise our right that you non smokers so elegantly tout we have eh?

Ok first, get out of my @ss.
This is part of the smokers problem. I, a non-smoker defend you and you attack me.

Where do I personally propose you smoke? I'll tell you.
Your home
Your car
I think resturaunts should decide whether to be smoke free or an advertised smoking establishment. If I see a sign out front that says, "This establishment for smokers" , I know up front that I don't want to go in. No harm, no foul.


Originally posted by jfj123
Smokers have the idea that if we tell them they can't smoke in public places, their rights are being infringed upon. The reality is that rights are not absolute.



And what makes your rights above anyone elses, especially those that smoke? Reality is...rights are not absolute. Works both ways.

You're obviously more interested in MIS directing your hatred at me, then reading my post. I answer this question in my post. Maybe the smoke is obscuring your vision?


Originally posted by jfj123
Although restricting cigarette smoke does technically violate the smokers rights, the smoker is violating non-smokers rights by forcing them to either inhale the smoke or force them to leave the location. So how do we figure out who's rights win? Well the same way we figure out how to apply the 1st amendment with restrictions.

Breaking it down very simply:
If a smoker does not smoke, the smoker is not physically damaged.
If a non-smoker inhales cigarette smoke, they can be physically damaged.
Safety over convenience.
Safety wins.



Then quite hanging around smokers, their designated smoking areas, and go stand in your "clean air" zone, then you and all the other non-smokers wont breath in my cig smoke..you will just breath in all the other far more toxic elements in the air.


You need to have a cigarette and calm yourself down. I don't care if you smoke in designated smoking zones. My only point is that not every place is appropriate to smoke. THAT IS ALL. GET IT???


But you all will still blame it on us smokers. Nothing will satisfy you.

Cheers!!!!

What are you talking about? Blame you for what?

I don't care if you smoke, my only request is that you don't do it around me. Smoke yourself silly, I don't care.



[edit on 30-1-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by theendisnear69
If someone dies because I was smoking next to them for 5 minutes, then their family can come tell me and I will pay for all the medical expenses.


Seriously I don't know anyone whos died because a guy was smoking at a bus stop.


Better yet if someone dies from cancer from sitting next to me for five minutes, I will pay for 5 minutes of their medical care even though they chose to stay and breath my smoke. See? I care.


[edit on 1/30/2009 by Draves]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Draves

Originally posted by theendisnear69
If someone dies because I was smoking next to them for 5 minutes, then their family can come tell me and I will pay for all the medical expenses.


Seriously I don't know anyone whos died because a guy was smoking at a bus stop.


Better yet if someone dies from cancer from sitting next to me for five minutes, I will pay for 5 minutes of their medical care even though they chose to stay and breath my smoke. See? I care.


[edit on 1/30/2009 by Draves]


These attitudes are EXACTLY why smoking bans are going into effect.

Since you can't act in a reasonable way and police yourselves, you forcing someone else to do it for you.

Good job !



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
I don't really care if you smoke or not.

It's your right.

But I shouldn't have to pay for your health care.

Let's be fair. It's your choice to smoke. It should be my choice to not have to pay for your habit.


by that theory

do you realize you bought bombs that blew up little children in iraq

wow,, you dirty murderer
how could you do that to innocent children

when i die i'm gonna sue you for your cars exhaust i breathed and ruined my lungs

and for the gas you use to heat your home

----you say i'm being stupid,,, but it's no different than yours or the OP's stance



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by shortywarn
 


I am both the OP and me.

Are you going to sue me for commuting by bicycle?
Are you going to sue me for eating healthy?
Are you going to sue me for getting lots of exercise?
Are you going to sue me for choosing not to live in a city?

As for killing innocents in war, you don't know my stance on that either.

You sound somewhat upset that I think that smokers should pay the total cost of their habit. So sue me because you're less then perfectly happy.
'
'



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Why do people who hate smokers attack the smokers and not the real cause of their problems....the tobacco companies and the governments who make millions out of it?

Is it because they know they can't p*ss off a company as much as an individual.

Ban perfume
Ban deodorant
Ban barbecues
Ban campfires
Ban oil refining
Ban cars
Ban motorbikes
Ban buses etc
Ban burping
Ban f@rting
Ban cooking
Ban aerosols
Ban heating systems
Ban paint
Ban welding
Ban glue
Ban candles
Ban everything else that has toxic fumes aswell or stop being so politically correct!

This THREAD stinks too.....I need a ciggy.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
You sound somewhat upset that I think that smokers should pay the total cost of their habit.


Actually, the point has been made in this thread - more than once - that smokers DO pay the total cost of their habit, and then some. But you've ignored that.

By the by, some of you (smokers) may enjoy this post of mine in the other current anti-smoking thread:



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by shortywarn
 


I am both the OP and me.

Are you going to sue me for commuting by bicycle?
Are you going to sue me for eating healthy?
Are you going to sue me for getting lots of exercise?
Are you going to sue me for choosing not to live in a city?

As for killing innocents in war, you don't know my stance on that either.

You sound somewhat upset that I think that smokers should pay the total cost of their habit. So sue me because you're less then perfectly happy.
'
'



first off i doubt that's true

and secondly,,,your the unhappy one,,, seeing as your the one who felt the need to start this thread

i was puffing away searching ats and figured i'd see the hypocrisy in this thread and sure enuff

did i start a thread on how dare people breath stealing oxygen i might want

or that there's a huge smoke stack being built down the street,,nope



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
in the same breath,,, maybe people on welfare should be "neutered" or banned from having sex

i don't want to pay for the healthcare of a welfare child

however, i will because i believe in free will just as well as you can hate smoking,,,there are many sides to all arguments



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


I"m sure your not including flavored pipe tobacco, and flavored cigars in that are you?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123

Where do I personally propose you smoke? I'll tell you.
Your home
Your car
I think resturaunts should decide whether to be smoke free or an advertised smoking establishment. If I see a sign out front that says, "This establishment for smokers" , I know up front that I don't want to go in. No harm, no foul.

That's all I ask. Allow businesses to determine for themselves whether or not people can light up inside. The other smokers and I will use our combined purchasing power to make places that cater to us profitable. And I can see common-sense measures like, say, no smoking in a fireworks store. I actually owned and ran one many years ago, and I never complained about not being able to smoke surrounded by a few hundred pounds of black powder. I can always do that at home.


But that's not what we have. Companies are now trying to enforce a no smoking ban on their employees on their own time. Some are complaining about the smoke breaks taken by employees who really would rather smoke indoors at work anyway (ever heard of smokeless ashtrays? They work, you know). Make a problem and then complain about it.


I just had it out with a friend who appears to be hooked on pain pills for a back injury, yet he kept ragging me about my smoking. I finally just informed him he was standing on my land, it's my lungs, and I'll smoke as long as I want to smoke. I then started pulling his own crap focusing on the pain pills. He shut up finally. Now he even allows me to smoke in his truck (of course I open the window to minimize his discomfort, and try to smoke as little as I reasonably can without going into nicotine fits). We get along great now.

It's not hard to make a reasonable compromise on this. But it does take both sides willing to listen to the other side and try to work out a compromise.

Compromise: a system of negotiation where neither side gets everything they want, but both sides get what they need.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


Nah, probably not. Pipe tobacco and cigars in general don't have as many of the "bad" chemicals added to them as cigarettes do (although they may still be sugar-cured tobacco). In any case, flavorings are not the primary problem and aren't any worse than flavorings in food and drink.

Personally, I think we'd see a drop in cancer rates if they just switched to air-dried tobacco. Refined sucrose isn't good for you when you EAT it, let alone when you burn it and inhale the fumes.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:51 PM
link   
I think there are always going to be people who engage in this disgusting, filthy habit.

If the research is truly conclusive that prolonged second hand smoke can give you cancer, then smokers should keep their poison in a confined area. I do think that if you are a smoker then I shouldn't have to subsidize your inevitable health problems when they arise.

I think it's great that it's banned in restaurants, bars and public buildings. I like being in a smoke free environment. Just the smell of it makes me want to throw up. This is coming from someone who grew up with it around them for 18 years (my mom died from it too.). It wasn't until I was out of the environment that I realized my clothes and body stank of it. Other people actually thought I smoked although I have never even tried it. God knows how much I inhaled indirectly over the years.

To the smokers who are all "I can do whatever the hell I want", I say go a.. Less people on the planet to take up space. Just keep it away from me and please don't smoke in doorways so I have to breath that crap in when I enter/exit buildings.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Heike
 


AFAIK, any additional flavorings, or additives are bad. The class of tobacco is also a factor. Manufactured cigarettes with a filter use class c tobacco (floor sweepings, for example), but they can call it a 'class A' cigarette because of the filter.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
reply to post by SpacePunk
 


I find all of the tricks they can play with labeling to be quite amazing, so I'm not surprised. I do clearly remember reading a book of my mother's way back in the 60's or maybe early 70's that said that studies using people who smoked cigarettes made with clean air-dried tobacco and plain papers showed no statistically significant correlation between smoking and cancer. It's the additives that are the problem, not the tobacco.

Trust me, you don't want to know what's in your "processed cheese product," aka Kraft Singles and the like, either.




top topics



 
9
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join