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: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


Im not attacking you. I am attacking the point you made, about the rights of us smokers, and then saying our rights are not absolute. You didnt mention about the non-smoker's rights also being not absolute.

That is what I was attacking.

The majority of smokers do go out of our way to keep our smoke away from non smokers. But we are not magicians or in control of which way the wind blows. If we could do that then there would definately be nothing to complain about because we would make sure our smoke funnels up and away from anyone who doesnt smoke.

The non smokers asked for us to go outside..we did that. The non smokers asked for smoke free buildings and bars and resturants. We accepted that. The non smokers asked for smoke free flights and bus rides, we accpeted that. The non smokers asked to keep all smoker rooms in hotels on one side of the property and the non smoking rooms on the other..we accepted that.

Now you non smokers want to take away my right to light up on my own property, in my own air zone, even outside my own home and even in those designated areas you non smokers demanded for?

And your saying that us smoker's rights are not absolute?

Who apparently is setting aside their rights for the other?

Well there is a line friend.. a line that is around my own property, a line that surrounds my vehicle and a line that surrounds my person when standing out in the middle of open airspace..and I refuse to give in and allow you or government or anyone else to cross that line.

I thank you for your "support" of us smoker's rights, but frankly I, nor any of the other smokers need to be patronized and patted on the back with one hand while using the other to take away even more of our "not absolute" rights by the non smokers.


Cheers!!!!

(lights up)




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
This will be my only post on this thread, because you can only read so many posts by smokers insisting it's their right to smoke, and it's actually your car that is causing cancer, and that they are so polite when they smoke, and that you should be the one standing in the cold so they can smoke indoors, and they can smoke around their kids because they pay for the cigarettes and it's their kids, did I miss any of these rather telling reasons for smoking?

And they will keep going in circles about the smell of your perfume and the car you don't have and how it's your whining thats the problem, because if you would just sit there and let them smoke all over you things would be fab!

Peace out!



[edit on 29-1-2009 by Mynaeris]



- since no one in this thread suggested that children should get out of the way of someone smoking or that "their my kids" etc...what's the matter with you? someone spit in your wheaties? hypocrisy is simply that - hypocrisy - and the folk who promote insane laws to protect themselves from "second hand smoke" tend to go overboard and want to invade the privacy of people's homes - well sorry...that won't go down without a comment and a fight - and I won't bother giving you the passive aggressive "peace out" so common to folk who have anger issues but can't fess up...



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by RFBurns
reply to post by jfj123
 


Im not attacking you. I am attacking the point you made, about the rights of us smokers, and then saying our rights are not absolute. You didnt mention about the non-smoker's rights also being not absolute.

And I addressed this point in my post which you must have missed.


That is what I was attacking.

If you say so.


The majority of smokers do go out of our way to keep our smoke away from non smokers.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe that happens where you live but I've ALMOST never seen this wherever I have gone.


But we are not magicians or in control of which way the wind blows.

But you are in control of when and where you light your cigarette.


If we could do that then there would definately be nothing to complain about because we would make sure our smoke funnels up and away from anyone who doesnt smoke.

There are smokeless cigarettes.


The non smokers asked for us to go outside..we did that. The non smokers asked for smoke free buildings and bars and resturants. We accepted that. The non smokers asked for smoke free flights and bus rides, we accpeted that. The non smokers asked to keep all smoker rooms in hotels on one side of the property and the non smoking rooms on the other..we accepted that.

Go you !


Now you non smokers want to take away my right to light up on my own property,

You seem to be dragging me into this and I've stated from the beginning that smokers should have this right without question. my mouth seems to be full of words that are not my own



in my own air zone, even outside my own home and even in those designated areas you non smokers demanded for?

Never said you couldn't smoke.


And your saying that us smoker's rights are not absolute?

Correct and I even gave a shiny new example to go with my statement



Who apparently is setting aside their rights for the other?

Already explained this with examples
Reading is fundamental



Well there is a line friend.. a line that is around my own property,

When you draw your line, use a sharpy, it'll last longer. Seriously, please read these following words very carefully....Get real close to the screen...concentrate....ready?
I NEVER SAID YOU COULDN'T SMOKE ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY !!!!!


a line that surrounds my vehicle and a line that surrounds my person when standing out in the middle of open airspace..and I refuse to give in and allow you or government or anyone else to cross that line.

And my line is the same and I refuse to allow your smoke to penetrate that line. 2 sides. Get it?


I thank you for your "support" of us smoker's rights, but frankly I, nor any of the other smokers need to be patronized and patted on the back with one hand while using the other to take away even more of our "not absolute" rights by the non smokers.

Well glad to hear that you like making things harder on yourself. I'm sorry I tried to give smokers the benefit of the doubt and try to protect their rights without endangering the health of non-smokers. My bad.
This is EXACTLY the kind of attitude that will create smoking bans. You're too busy talking to listen to someone who's trying to be reasonable.

Apparently smoking also causes bitterness and misdirected anger


[edit on 30-1-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
i forgot that cancer was a nutrient deficiency and that only domestic animals and humans who live in a modern society get cancer, smoking, trigger not cause just remember wild tribes and wild animals never get reported cancer cases - one way = one perspective, please remember any wild animals that live near to a industrialised civilization are obviously going to feels the effects of not living in a normal habitat.

oh yeah lets have smoking bans in multi story car parks filled with thousands of cars pouring out toxic smoke yet we'll make it illegal to smoke a cig there because thats so much more damaging, yeah good point to those who've made this comment.

a couple of hundered years ago scurvy the scientific establishment ignored the fact it was a vitamin deficiency for a long long time then realised they were wrong because nobody likes to be wrong with our programmed mind to lose all they have to supposedly gained NO. think of the massive money based in cancer research, doctors, drugs. Do they want to give up there money when it can be cured so easily? do they want to have on there minds they've killed millions of people when it could have been prevented. Just have a little think.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:22 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.


it is your choice not to pay, stop paying for your insurance, its that simple........ you DO have a choice.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by realshanti
- since no one in this thread suggested that children should get out of the way of someone smoking or that "their my kids" etc...what's the matter with you? someone spit in your wheaties? hypocrisy is simply that - hypocrisy - and the folk who promote insane laws to protect themselves from "second hand smoke" tend to go overboard and want to invade the privacy of people's homes - well sorry...that won't go down without a comment and a fight - and I won't bother giving you the passive aggressive "peace out" so common to folk who have anger issues but can't fess up...


I agree completely! On top of all the hypocrisy and flat out fanaticism in obsessing over new ways to take away the rights of smokers based on junk and/or monetarily biased science and wildly exaggerated anecdotal "evidence" of how they are on the verge of keeling over dead every time they even get so much as a hint of a whiff of smoke, they are excruciatingly patronizing to boot.

I don't know about anyone else, but for me personally, it just makes me that much more not interested in even listening to any perspective they might have to offer. If someone has something that they want me to know, being a patronizing hypocrite is the fastest way to get me to tune you out and light up another for a nice puff so that I can irritate you as much as you irritated me.

If the anti-smokers really cared about our health and wanted us to "think about the children", as they claim, they ought to think about losing the patronizing hypocrisy first.

Take care,
Cindi



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
you do realize that as a smoker i *already* pay more for my health insurance than you do as a non smoker, right?
even though i'll probably die sooner and require less overall payout for my medical coverage.. hmm.. i wonder if the insurance companies already figured out an answer..

# off and move upwind if it bothers you that much.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Some of these people remind me of the lady at work that goes outside, sits at the outside smoking table, takes a few bites of her food, and throws up her hands and screams that she can't breathe with all this smoke invading her. Everyone watches her every day run back inside swatting over her . like she is being attacked by a swarm of bees.

The smoking area is a picnic table outside behind the company under a shed and well away from the building. There are plenty of outside tables outside in front of the building that is non-smoker but, she has to sit out back and rant like a lunatic.

I smoked for a while but, quit. I still go outside and talk with some of the people there. I will smell smoke though because smoking is going on.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


No everyone gets cancer from smoking cigarettes, it's often caused by other pollutants.

The smoking scare scam is a very successful money maker for the boffins and universities.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
Eating at McDonalds to my knowledge is not an addictive habit.

It is true that the obese have additional health care issues.

Perhaps you should have to pay more for health insurance if your BMI exceeds a certain number.



Meh I have to disagree. It's fast, cheap, easy, and we have to agree tastes wicked good. Easily addictive, maybe not the same as cigarettes, but still.

More on topic, if you're asking why should we pay for smokers healthcare because of "poor" choices, think about this: Why should we pay for drivers healthcare? Automobile related deaths and injuries are happening every single day and will not stop unless cars become taxed through the roof or we put warning labels on them or what not.

Honestly, people blow this whole issue out of proportion.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 7H3Y 4R3 C0M1N6
 


I saw a weight loss camp program on television. I would say food can be highly addictive. There was a lady that ate three loaves of bread at one sitting because she was craving it! If that is not addiction there is no such thing.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by theendisnear69
 


It isn't and neither is tobacco! There is absolutely NO link between cancer and tobacco. Scientists have tried to find a link, but still come up with nothing. The concerns over tobacco were started by people that hate smokers. It's a huge monopoly and smokers are already taxed for smoking. Real tobacco without chemical additives are healthy for people in moderation. If a person really tried to find the link between cancer and tobacco, they would not find one scientific source. What do they base their claims on? Really, try to find the evidence and then look to see how many people have died from lung cancer that never smoked in their life.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:02 AM
link   
Hmmm. I love it when I read stupid postings like the True cost of smoking.
all I can say is please do some homework, and research, not the disinformation these Do Not Smoke campaigns put out. Seriously google SV40. It's shocking but the epidemic of cancer world wide is not a result of cigarette smoking. And please do not suggest cigarette smokers pay for their own insurance. Cigarette smokers are taxed good and plenty. The government makes plenty off of smokers, hell cigarette smokers should be given a private room, and the best care possible for the taxes they are paying.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by reaverto
 



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.



okay, let me ask you this....
I ration out my healthcare, don't matter how sick I am, if I owe the people money, I don't partake of the service. Some stupid bill collector had called about the bill from the ankle and well, said something to the effect that if I couldn't afford the bill, why did I make it....the fact that if I didn't pay the bill, I wouldn't be able to walk, let alone work, and would be draining more money from society seemed to fly over her .. So, well, since so many in society are so callous that they feel this way...if I can't pay the bill, I just don't go! Now, take note, there's many out there, who like me, can't afford to pay the bills!! The federal government is about to pass a nice hike in the cigarette tax to help some of them get their services for free, or at reduced rates...they are singling out a group that includes me...another one who can't afford the services either, based on the fact that I might smoke, the other person who will be the beneficiary of this money might be doing the same thing, only, they will be getting far more in value than they are paying!
first.... I don't believe the constitution gives the government the authority to take money from me to enable a small group of their "pets" to enjoy something that is rapidly becoming more of a luxury item for alot of taxpayers in this country. I think the whole thing defies fairness and justice!
second, the government shouldn't have the right to pick out one or two groups of people to share alot more of this burden than the rest, simply because the means that they are getting their daily supply of toxins isn't on the government's approved list of methods.
Like someone said above, if you take out all those additves that are in the cigarettes, not to mention a whole slew of other consumer products, well, they ain't nearly as toxic! and if you took them out of all those other consumer products, well, they wouldn't be so toxic either! they don't want to take them out! that would cost their precious businesses too much money, not to mention, would make the masses more healthy! they would rather you be like I almost was, sick, hurt, unable to work, living on their dime, draining money from society, not indepentant!! because dependancy=servitude!
Guess I might as well start digging thru my boxes for my cigarette roller, because well, I ain't paying the extra tax, to help my coworker have her third child, of course by a father not shared by her other two. I wouldn't mind doing this, if I wasn't so danged worried about paying for my own medical bills!

Enjoy your freedoms while you have them, because well, pretty soon, I am afriad, there's gonna be a government mandated rationing of salt, government mandated exercise routine at work, government mandated junk food patrol coming around for regular inspections of your house....but I assure you, you will still be getting your gov't mandates supply of toxins coming at you from the four corners of the earth!

I'm sorry but the injustice of you having to pay my smoking related health bills falls on deaf ears as long as society is leaving people in the lurch with broken limbs because of the lack of health insurance!
Fix the danged healthcare system so everyone can have easy access to it, then it might have more meaning. Till then, don't expect me to pay more cigarette tax, to help offset the cost of my habit......IT'S NOT COSTING YOU A DANGED CENT....it's all going untreated because....I CAN'T AFFORD IT, JUST LIKE THOSE WHO WILL BE RECIEVING THIS MONEY. I JUST DON'T FALL INTO THEIR CATEGORIES OF WHAT TO LOOK FOR WHEN IT COMES TO POTENTIAL "PETS"!

god, in our business the smoking room is way down in the basement, where no one needs to be anyways. the stuff we are coming into contact with while doing our job is far more dangerous, and is floating in the air, and yet....the anti-smokers demand that it be taken away!!!

Technically, the way our budget is now, we could survive without me working if it wasn't for that one little aspect in the budget called health insurance.....so, basically, I am working for my health insurance.....still can't afford the regular visits that I really need, but well, if something major happens, at least I won't find myself being denied services bacause of that.
I AM KNOWINGLY EXPOSING MYSELF TO MANY OF THOSE CHEMICALS...JUST SO I CAN HAVE THE HEALTH INSURANCE! Then you want to take that insurance away, or make it more costly, because I am exposing myself to them in a more enjoyable way?
GET A GRIP!!!
BEFORE I LOSE MINE, and well, walk away from the whole danged mess, find a nice unwanted cabin up in those mountains, and just well....say goodbye to your stupid society with it's stupid (obviously not working) values, and all the stupid unsubstainiated rhetoric that is spewed on a daily basis, all designed to take more money out of one or another little group of people, so their little pet groups can have more!

God, I hate the budget season.....I could spend probably not more than ten minutes reviewing their budgets and could probably find more than enough funding to pay for everyone's medical care in the country being spent for stupid projects that 99.9999% of the people probably don't even know exists, let alone care about...but well, every budget season, ohh...there's this massive shortfall, we've got to make up the different, oh...we got to tax more...ohhh...but the people are already being way overtaxes, and they are struggling to barely get by...oh....well, I guess we can nail the smokers again! no one minds that one, or at least not enough of them do to.

unless someone can point me to the spot in the constitution that says they have the right to take money from a homeless man, with the intention of providing a home for another....
or the money from a sick person who isn't being treated...with the intention of providing healthcare to another....
or money from a hungry person...to provide food for another...
well, I don't acknowledge thier right to increase the tax on cigarettes, with the susposed intention of providing healthcare to the smokers when they get sick. which, the money isn't going towards that...it's going into provide healthcare for children....

I won't be paying it, I still will be smoking, but I won't be paying your stupid tax, thank you.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
I like lighting up near people who are offended....I get grossed out watching people eat fast food yet I have to put up with it and deal with it.
So do you.
What makes people so self-entitled that they think they can tell someone what to do??
Rights??
Last I checked you don't really have the rights you think you do...especially when big money is involved like when dealing with a tobacco company or a macdonalds.
Don't hate the player,hate the game!!


Wow, thats got to be the most unintelligent thing I have ever read.
So, looking at the guy eating makes you fatally ill? No, it doesnt.
Not one bit. I shouldnt have to say this, you and many others comparing things to smoking should know that those other things DONT effect you while standing near someone doing them, smoking does. I feel like im the only sane person on the planet when I hear people comparing silly harmless things to smoking.


You know, its funny how smokers get so mad, or so defensive over this topic. And I know why. Its because they know they are doing something harmful to them selves. They make excuses , but always with attitude because they are mad they cant stop and no matter what it is, those excuses are always just another distraction to take away from the real heart of the subject, themselves. Then, to make them selves feel better, they turn the anger towards nonsmokers when confronted with the notion of harming others with there bad habit. They do that instead of doing what they should be, just plain admitting they are addicted to a bad and harmful habit that does affect people near them when they do it.







[edit on 31-1-2009 by Anubis3.14]

[edit on 31-1-2009 by Anubis3.14]



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Daniem
 


You have the freedom to do what you want.

I shouldn't have to pay for your choice to smoke.

That's my opinion.

If you want to smoke then pay the true cost, don't expect me to subsidize your habit.


I have a question for you. What are your hobbies? Rock Climbing, Mountain Biking, what? If you are hurt while engaged in your hobby does your insurance pay for it? If so, then it shouldn't because I don't want to pay for the dangers of your hobbies.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Yes allowing people to smoke does have an impact on public health and ye this does come with a cost to society.
And no this is not an excuse to ban smoking. There are many issues facing us today, security, the economy, public safety and health, but more important then all of these combine is liberty. Freedom is a god given right and it is what makes America great. I would not want to live in the safest healthiest richest country in the world if it meant I had to live there as a slave.
The leading cause of death in America is coronary heart disease, and the leading risk factor is poor diet. So why not ban pie? It will save society money and make people healthier, right? Well yes it will, but it also is a gross violation of our freedoms. This example makes the issue clear, the problem is that people and inundated with images from the media the vilify and demonize cigarette to such an extreme point that they lose the ability to have a rational conversation about the issue.

Reasonable people can disagree about how much the government should regulate us vs. how much they should leave us alone. But honestly most people you talk to today and especially around these forums will tell you that the government is way to invasive.

Think about the patriot act. Pretty much everyone, especially liberal control freaks that want to ban smoking, are against the patriot act. But really the patriot act is the same thing. Only instead of public health the 'excuse' for taking away our liberties is national security.

The bottom line is I would suggest everyone stops being so decisive and bickering over each partisan issue one by one. See the forest for the trees! The whole point is liberty and freedom and the big picture is we do not have it and should not be promoting loosing any more of it.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
As a smoker whos trying to give up i understand all the arguments.My thoughts are i agree with the non smoking policy i think that they should be on prescription from your doctor that way the youngsters will be less inclined to start the habbit but those who wish to continue will still have a supply.My dad died from smoking yet i smoke mad i know and the thought of my kids smoking is of big concern and the fact they are so openly on sale is a big issue.At some point in the future people will look back in amazment that they were available at all.
Having said that smoking has been part of rituals since man made fire and there is where a line has to be drawn.Cerimonial smoking and the 20 bensons at the local cornershop are a million miles apart.Everyone should have the choice but i think for our future we need to rethink the current policies.
Sorry if some of what i said has been previously mentioned.



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Here is a list of _TOXIC_ ingredients in cigarettes:

textfiles.com...

Do you know that cellphones can cause cancer ?

Do you know cordless phones are even more dangerous than
cellphones ? Here is a paper called "health" with more information:

textfiles.com...

For example:
"Do you know the experiment with the egg and the two mobile phones? If
not then let me tell it to you: you take a raw egg and you put it in an
eggcup, then you take two mobile phones - one you put on the left of the
egg and one you put on the right of the egg - and then you make a call
with both of the phones ( the left is calling the right phone ). And
guess what happens after one hour? The egg is done, it is cooked, it is
hard - you can strip off the peel of the egg and you could eat it. Yes,
that is what happens in this experiement, you can find this also as a
video on the internet. This is what happens also to your brain - it will
be cooked. Do you know this: your ear becomes hot when you phone
for a long while? This is due to the strong unhealthy radiation beam."



posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   
ban alcohol - drink driving kills innocents, bar fights etc..

ban fast food - obesity epidemic, hard to get around them in the mall

ban refined white sugar (drug) - very addictive (rats refer it over coc aine), can cause hyperactivity, obesity, diabetes + more

ban coffee - can causes anxiety, paranoia (sometimes psychosis), cardiovascular/cholesterol problems, dependency etc..

+ fluoride, aspartame, car/factory fumes, mobile phones (cancer), microwaves, deodorant, fragrances, known food carcinogens etc..

oh yeah AND tobacco products.
way to be conditioned by governments.

[edit on 31/1/09 by cheeser]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join