Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The true cost of smoking

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Daniem
 


Smoking has a HIGH risk of causing cancer, as opposed to "maybe."
Plus, it's cool if you like to smoke and want to get sick.
Do not get me sick.

Maybe I'll start getting the phone numbers and information for every person that smokes near me and doesn't stop. Or when I start coughing and can't catch my breath and they don't stop. That way, if I get sick, they can pay for medical expenses from their own pockets. Probably will be cheaper than fueling their habit.




posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The research has been done for smoking and it's quite apparent what the costs are.

There may be research for other things like exhaust but I'm not talking about that.


I did see research once about laws regarding helmets on motorcyclists. Once again a lot of riders were complaining that it's their right to not ware a helmet.
But the research had been done, and when you compare accidents between groups of people wearing helmet and those not wearing helmets, there was a cost to society for people who chose not to ware helmets. That was for the occasional accident victim who wasn't wearing a helmet and ended up brain damaged and a cost on society for the rest of his/her life.

My state passed a helmet law partially due to this research. That was the solution.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Some smokers are in their 80s and 90s. But, it's been proven that smokers have a higher risk of getting lung cancer and emphysema.
quitsmoking.about.com...
quitsmoking.about.com...

These following facts are from the CDC.
www.cdc.gov...



Eliminating smoking in indoor spaces is the only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.





Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in adults who have never smoked themselves.1
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing lung cancer by 20–30%.1
Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.1
Cancer is the second most common cause of death in the United States.
Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death among both men and women.2
Every year more U.S. women die from lung cancer than die from breast cancer.2
More than 160,000 lung cancer deaths are expected in 2006.2
Most cases of lung cancer are caused by active smoking, but exposure to secondhand smoke is an important cause among nonsmokers.




Secondhand smoke contains more than 50 cancer-causing chemicals. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers.1
Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can damage cells in ways that set the cancer process in motion.1
Some damage is reversible, but some is not.1
As with active smoking, there is a dose-response relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer—the longer the duration and the higher the level of exposure, the greater the risk of developing lung cancer.1
There is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.1





Secondhand smoke is estimated to cause from 22,700 to 69,600 premature deaths from heart disease each year in the United States among nonsmokers.2
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or at work increase their risk of developing heart disease by 25–30%.1




Breathing secondhand smoke interferes with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of a heart attack.
For some of these negative effects, the immediate impact of even short exposures to secondhand smoke appears to be almost as large as that observed in active smokers.
Even a short time in a smoky room can cause your blood platelets to become stickier.
Even brief secondhand smoke exposure can damage the lining of blood vessels.
Short exposures to secondhand smoke can decrease coronary flow velocity reserves to levels observed in smokers and reduce heart rate variability.




The risk of dying from lung cancer is more than 22 times higher among men who smoke cigarettes and about 12 times higher among women who smoke cigarettes compared with never smokers.
Cigarette smoking increases the risk for many types of cancer, including cancers of the lip, oral cavity, pharynx, esophagus, pancreas, larynx (voice box), lung, uterine cervix, urinary bladder, and kidney.





Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States.1 Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 438,000 deaths, or about 1 of every 5 deaths, each year.2,3 This estimate includes approximately 38,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure.2
Cigarette smoking kills an estimated 259,500 men and 178,000 women in the United States each year.2
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
On average, adults who smoke cigarettes die 14 years earlier than nonsmokers.5
Based on current cigarette smoking patterns, an estimated 25 million Americans who are alive today will die prematurely from smoking-related illnesses, including 5 million people younger than 18.




Nine previous published studies have reported that laws making indoor workplaces and public places smoke-free were associated with rapid, sizeable reductions in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), or heart attacks. However, most studies examined admissions for 1 year or less after the laws were implemented; thus, it was unknown whether the observed effect was sustained over time.


Straight facts from the CDC, guys. They have an entire database of information on the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke.
That's "Center for Disease Control," by the way.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:01 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.


You pay for more teen pregancies and DUI classes for career drunks and higher insurances because of those DUI's subsidizing your insurance and pay higher costs at the hospital because of all the illegals taking up freebie medical care than you ever will be for smokers.

If you declare you pay for my habit, where the hell are you when I go to the counter and get my smokes then?????

Get off the mind control MSM bandwagon and get the facts first.



Cheers!!!!

(lights up and blows smoke in the appropriate direction)

[edit on 29-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


The research has been done for smoking and it's quite apparent what the costs are.

There may be research for other things like exhaust but I'm not talking about that.


I did see research once about laws regarding helmets on motorcyclists. Once again a lot of riders were complaining that it's their right to not ware a helmet.
But the research had been done, and when you compare accidents between groups of people wearing helmet and those not wearing helmets, there was a cost to society for people who chose not to ware helmets. That was for the occasional accident victim who wasn't wearing a helmet and ended up brain damaged and a cost on society for the rest of his/her life.

My state passed a helmet law partially due to this research. That was the solution.


I'm curious... What is your definition of "freedom?"

Sure, don't pay others' health care costs (why should it matter whether it's smoking or taking prescription chemicals or drinking alcohol or breathing fumes or eating Mickey D's - or any other unhealthy behavior?).

I guess you should not be responsible for any of that. No need for compassion for those suffering because of their choices and addictions.

Heck. Let's not help out anyone. Get rid of compassion altogether...

Seriously, you want "freedom" within a narrowly defined "proper" set of behaviors. And that is no freedom at all.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

Straight facts from the CDC, guys. They have an entire database of information on the risks of smoking and secondhand smoke.
That's "Center for Disease Control," by the way.


Are you one of those partial government lies and the rest does not types?

CDC...Center for Dumbing Control....Trust everything and anything your government says!!! NWO, Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Bailouts, Patriot Act.......



Where is the CFC??? Center for Fumes Control...you know, those "we take care of our people" government guys who have that extensive database on fossil fuel burning toxic smog and smells we all endure in slow traffic and at stop lights and fumes from chemical plants and factories.




Cheers!!!!

[edit on 29-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by theendisnear69
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Ok post a link where it says smokers are less educated please.

I just assume second hand smoke is not that harmful because my parents and grandparents are still alive. Alot of people smoked, and it was indoors about 20 years ago.

Were all still here. Second hand smoke can't be that harmful.


Okay I'll show you mine, now you show me yours? If you have difficulty understanding the statistics please send me a U2U and I will gladly explain them to you. But in brief if you are earning less and less educated you are more likely to smoke, ergo more likely not to see the inherent dangers nor the social inconvenience to non-smokers.

"current smoking prevalence was highest among adults who had earned a General Educational Development (GED) diploma (39.6%) and among those with a 9th--11th grade education (34.0%) and generally decreased with increasing years of education. "

"Current smoking prevalence was higher among adults living below the poverty level (29.1%) than among those at or above the poverty level (20.6%)."

Research

"And who bears this tax burden? Statistically, those least able to afford it. Unlike most, non-sinful commodities, lower-income families tend to consume a larger amount of tobacco than higher-income families. Individuals who earn less than $30,000 a year pay only one percent in the total amount of income taxes, but 47 percent of the total cigarette taxes. And smoking is least prevalent among those with 16 or more years of education, confirming what intuition suggests — that those most likely to indulge in quick-fix, deadly-in-the-long-term behavior are those whose long-term prospects are least promising. "

uneducated smokers



[edit on 29-1-2009 by Mynaeris]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


The article that I gave a link to at the very beginning of this thread says that the true cost of smoking is $40 per pack. The additional costs that you are not paying are the health care costs.

A lot of smokers are poor. They end up being treated at the local county hospitals and those costs are born by the taxpayers.

So read the article then you can complain.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I think smoking is more prolific than teen pregnancy.
Pretty sure.



1/3 of girls in the United States got pregnant before age 20, and more than 435,000 babies were born to teens between 15 and 19 years in 2006, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
www.cnn.com...


VS.




An estimated, 20.8% of all adults (45.3 million people) smoke cigarettes in the United States.
Cigarette smoking estimates by age are as follows: 18–24 years (23.9%), 25–44 years (23.5%), 45–64 years (21.8%), and 65 years or older (10.2%).
www.cdc.gov...


I'd also like to add...



Cigarette smoking remains the leading preventable cause of death in the United States, accounting for approximately 1 of every 5 deaths (438,000 people) each year.
www.cdc.gov...


So actually, about as many babies are born to teen mothers per year as the amount of people who -die- from cigarette smoking per year, not including people who are being treated for diseases currently, which is up in the millions.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Those so called "research" are so heavily biased its unreal. Care to show us who funded those studies?

Bet anything its the anti-smoking bunch.

BTW, I smoke and come from a very well off family who all smoked and each one of us have our degrees. Bet there are millions of others just like that out there who light up too.




Cheers!!!!

(lights up another..fills the room with smoke)



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ravenshadow13
 


Dont forget to factor in those teens who smoke as well, then your numbers might mean something.

Break down those numbers on whos being treated in the millions too. You will find that only a fraction of them are being treated for cigarette smoking related health issues.


Cheers!!!!

(PUFF PUFF)

[edit on 29-1-2009 by RFBurns]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


How about, rather than accusing me of lacking compassion you instead focus on the issue of the true cost of smoking.

If you are insured then I don't care that you smoke.

If you don't have insurance, then give up the habit so the taxpayers don't have to pay for your "choice".

Don't try to lay your smokers quilt on my doorstep. Just take responsibility for you actions.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Well, I personally know a lot of people who have smoked and who have lung cancer, and I have family members who have smoked and been sick with emphysema, gum disease, and heart disease. So, the statistics seem right to me. Maybe they will to you, if you end up sick like millions of Americans are from smoking on tar and chemical death sticks.

There are so many healthier alternatives. I just don't understand why you would do that to yourself, knowing what is in those things. You honestly can't say it's good for you.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I don't understand what you're getting at. I have statistics for the number of teens who smoke.



According to a 2005 study, 23% of high school students reported smoking cigarettes in the last month. This is compared with a previous study of high school students that showed 21.9% in 2003. While this data is somewhat discouraging it is far better than the 1997 level of the same survey at 36.4%
www.familyfirstaid.org...



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Well, I personally know a lot of people who have smoked and who have lung cancer, and I have family members who have smoked and been sick with emphysema, gum disease, and heart disease. So, the statistics seem right to me. Maybe they will to you, if you end up sick like millions of Americans are from smoking on tar and chemical death sticks.

There are so many healthier alternatives. I just don't understand why you would do that to yourself, knowing what is in those things. You honestly can't say it's good for you.


No one says its good for us..nor have I ever said it was good for me. I smoke because I CHOOSE to smoke, and I pay for my cigs, pay for my health insurance, which btw I pay cheaper rates on my insurance that a friend of mine who doesnt smoke but also has a pre-exsisting condition that is not related to smoking or 2nd hand smoke, and I dont expect anyone to pay for my funeral either.

There isnt a single smoker out there who goes around demanding others pay for their habit. And there certianly isnt any smoker out there who demands that you or anyone else pay for their health insurance. If you think that is true, show the proof that there is smokers demanding others pay for their habit.

Your programed to believe that by the MSM and your government agency which is part of the government that never lies to anyone...right?!

No there isnt any lobbying going on with that part of govenrment at all.

Ya right.

Maybe government isnt lying about all that NWO and martial law stuff too.




Cheers!!!!

(PUFF PUFF)



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by RFBurns
 


I don't understand what you're getting at. I have statistics for the number of teens who smoke.



According to a 2005 study, 23% of high school students reported smoking cigarettes in the last month. This is compared with a previous study of high school students that showed 21.9% in 2003. While this data is somewhat discouraging it is far better than the 1997 level of the same survey at 36.4%
www.familyfirstaid.org...



What I am getting at is that no matter where you turn, there are people who smoke and its their right to do so. Looks like the teen smoking statistics are going up again. 23 percent is quite a huge number if you think about it. How many HS students are there in the country?

They say a 3 percent unemployment rate out of the entire country population is a huge number...so what does that make your 23 percent say????

That 23 percent does not speak about the HS down the street in your town only.


Cheers!!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


You seem to lack the ability to read and comprehend.

It's the cost for the uninsured who smoke that ends up being the taxpayers burden. Is that clear?

If you have insurance, as I written before, great go smoke yourself to death.

When you include the health care costs in the true price of smokes it comes up to $40 per pack. Is that what you're paying?

If not someone is subsidizing your habit.

Also, you smoke because your addicted, not because you choose to. If you're not addicted then try to quit.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Blah Blah Blah,
Second hand smoke,
3rd hand smoke.

The truth is, the surgeon general uses data that is a farce.

check it out..I would, but I'm too busy smoking...

edit to add:
I only use organic tobacco

[edit on 29-1-2009 by imd12c4funn]



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


There is no convincing R F Burns - he is debating for the sake of debating. Very little actual content, lots of conjecture and a sense of entitlement. I think they call it a bachelor's degree.



posted on Jan, 29 2009 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by RFBurns
 


Well, you should have put it that way ^_^
Here's an interesting article.
articles.moneycentral.msn.com...
I didn't know that stuff about the drapery and wallpaper, either.

I think that the OP was alluding to cases where the person smoking does not have insurance, which, sadly, is a pretty high percentage these days. If someone, say, has a heart attack due to smoking but they have no insurance, if they go to a government funded hospital they have the right to receive treatment, even if they cannot pay for it. In that case, taxpayers do end up paying for some cases of ill smokers without insurance.

I'm going to assume that similar things happen if someone has lung cancer. Either that, or they won't be able to get cancer treatment and will die. In my opinion, and I think the OP, that uninsured smokers should not be treated for their conditions if they can be proven to have been brought on by smoking, and if the money to fund their healthcare comes from the government or taxpayers.

I was going to say, RF, we're arguing? We almost never argue ^_^





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join