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.

 

Smokers 'should not get NHS care'

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:32 PM
link   
So non-smokers should have no rights? If I choose to not smoke to protect my health and you choose to smoke around me what should I do? Leave so that you can enjoy your rights? By the way Bleys - your quote didn't include the kicker as to the price that non-smokers pay for your choice - we pay with our health and secondly with our convenience, do you think we enjoy the smoke that blows in our faces, or coughing when you avoid blowing it into the faces of your friends , but directly into passersby? A considerate smoker is one who chooses to smoke where he/she will not affect others which would preclude public areas. Whenever I go to Time Square I feel like I am working inside a coal mine, and by the way I do not have lung problems. As for over eating etc I think we addressed that earlier, over eaters injure themselves, smokers frequently affect others.

Yes isn't it terrible those cancer patients and elderly, equally as inconvenient as smokers.




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Whenever I go to Time Square I feel like I am working inside a coal mine, and by the way I do not have lung problems.


Could that be because the smoker has been kicked to the curbside? May be you should avoid Times Square?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
By the way Bleys - your quote didn't include the kicker as to the price that non-smokers pay for your choice - we pay with our health and secondly with our convenience, do you think we enjoy the smoke that blows in our faces, or coughing when you avoid blowing it into the faces of your friends , but directly into passersby?


How the hell am I infringing on your rights? I can't smoke in a restaurant, I can't smoke in bars, I can't smoke at work. The only place I can smoke is outside - where there is no risk to you. If someone is blowing smoke in your face it's probably because of some nasty comment you had just made about smokers. Could be wrong - but, hey, you drew first blood here.


As for over eating etc I think we addressed that earlier, over eaters injure themselves, smokers frequently affect others.


If I remember correctly the whole point of your post was to address that NHS didn't want to have to treat smokers because of the cost involved. Now that it has been established that there is no "extra costs" involved - you want to change it to the remote chance that there may be a possibility of an increased risk resulting from the possibility that you may encounter second hand smoke while walking down the street in a city of X million number of people?



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Go ahead Bleys, Kick his a$$, he deservses it.



posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Go ahead Bleys, Kick his a$$, he deservses it.


All ATS-smokers, unite...


When were at it, we should really tax marijuana hard...
...Hey, wait a minute..., we dont tax it at all..., nada..., ... zilch...

We have to legalize it first, and then we can tax it.




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AceOfBase
OK, here's the site I was looking for earlier:


Action on Smoking and Health:
Clive Bates, Director, Action on Smoking and Health, London:

It is true that NHS costs are lower than tobacco tax revenues. Tobacco taxation amounts to 10.5 billion per year whereas a figure for NHS spending on tobacco related disease is 1.7 billion.




Based on this evidence maybe you guys should make non-smokers hot-bunk when they go in for treatment. You know like in the submarines; 110 guys go down 55 couples come up. And what you should be concerned about is the non-smoking, non-drinking, judgmental butt-heads who will linger on for years and really drive up the health care costs..


[edit on 6-9-2004 by keholmes]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleys
How the hell am I infringing on your rights? I can't smoke in a restaurant, I can't smoke in bars, I can't smoke at work. The only place I can smoke is outside - where there is no risk to you. If someone is blowing smoke in your face it's probably because of some nasty comment you had just made about smokers. Could be wrong - but, hey, you drew first blood here.


I guess smokers on the street believe the smoke just dissipates after they breathe it out. As for your response its a typical inconsiderate smokers response. I state a fact you have to justify the behavior. I have the right not to smoke, and I definitely have the right not to inhale your second hand smoke. You want to smoke, smoke where others won't be affected. Form a smoking club that way you can increase your smoke inhalation.


If I remember correctly the whole point of your post was to address that NHS didn't want to have to treat smokers because of the cost involved. Now that it has been established that there is no "extra costs" involved - you want to change it to the remote chance that there may be a possibility of an increased risk resulting from the possibility that you may encounter second hand smoke while walking down the street in a city of X million number of people?



The post was about smokers and the drain that their behavior has on National Health/Health insurance. By the way I think smoking hasn't really been a cool thing to do since the mid 90s, its been known to affect your health since the 50s. From this posting I have established that not only are smokers selfish they are also short sighted. If you can give me a thought through response as to what happens to the smoke you exhale in the street?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:13 AM
link   
oh, yes....let's keep the smokers from having healthcare....then we can go after people like clinton who ate himself to death, and then those who just sat around and didn't excercise enough. then we can go after the machinists, the printers, the shipbuilders, and the like since they should have known when they went into those fields that they were much more dangerous than any cigarette smoke could be!! and gee, by the time we are done, the only ones deserving of healthcare will be those rich enough to throw a few hundred thousand at the doctor to vouch that he has lived his life eating only healthy fruits and nuts, excersisaing at the nearby health spa 5 times a week, and had kepts a low stress job in an uncontaminated environment.
Where the heck do you get off butting your nose into my habits anyways? Oh, ya....some of your money is going to pay for some elses care. Keep griping, you'll probably be paying for their membership in the healthspa too! But, of course, since you have so much of your money going into the system, we'll that gives you at least some say as to who should be deemed worthy of that system......

Dependency has always and will always lead to enslavement and oppression!!! That is why socializing anything is frowned upon by americans.

Get the taxpayer money out of the system, or at least make it so everyone can have access to it....but don't go trying to control me using the ruse that you will have to pay for my healthcare when my habits kill me!! Your taxmoney; couldn't help me when a problem with my foot kept me from being a productive member of society. Why the heck should it help me die?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:17 AM
link   
I agree with Mynaeris on this one. If someone intentionally harms themselves, they need to be able to pay for the healthcare like the rest of us. Thats why I came out in favor of the Georgia's ban of gentalia mutilation(peircing) in that thread a while back. My point there was, if it takes an OBGYN with education and experience to handle medical issues relating to the female genitals and the law requires this level of education to practice, why the hell should it be legal for someone without such qualifications to punch a hole in that area? My angle relating to health care was this.... from this proceedure, infection is almost a given..and most females who'd think of having this done aren't our most upstanding and likely would have to use medicaid to treat it.


The same with smoking. I know its an addiction but treating its effects are draining the national healthcare funds. There has to be a cut-off point where we say;"ya know what?, we've known smoking causes health problems for long enough now. Its time to drop free treatment for self-inflicted desease." Now, I don't think we have reached that time yet but its coming. Maybe another decade to give those who were addicted before the real findings were released a chance for help. We have to remain on some compromise.

My question is, if you're a person who just picked up smoking the last year or two, what the hell were you thinking? You know there's a reason firefighters wear respirators. Smoke is not good for the lungs.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
I agree with Mynaeris on this one. If someone intentionally harms themselves, they need to be able to pay for the healthcare like the rest of us. Thats why I came out in favor of the Georgia's ban of gentalia mutilation(peircing) in that thread a while back. My point there was, if it takes an OBGYN with education and experience to handle medical issues relating to the female genitals and the law requires this level of education to practice, why the hell should it be legal for someone without such qualifications to punch a hole in that area? My angle relating to health care was this.... from this proceedure, infection is almost a given..and most females who'd think of having this done aren't our most upstanding and likely would have to use medicaid to treat it.


The same with smoking. I know its an addiction but treating its effects are draining the national healthcare funds. There has to be a cut-off point where we say;"ya know what?, we've known smoking causes health problems for long enough now. Its time to drop free treatment for self-inflicted desease." Now, I don't think we have reached that time yet but its coming. Maybe another decade to give those who were addicted before the real findings were released a chance for help. We have to remain on some compromise.

My question is, if you're a person who just picked up smoking the last year or two, what the hell were you thinking? You know there's a reason firefighters wear respirators. Smoke is not good for the lungs.


If smoking is so dangerous, why don't they take it off the market, like they did ephedra? Oh, ya that's right, the gov't is dependent on the taxes!!!



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:20 AM
link   
I believe kids smoke to be cool, thats how most adults started, I don't think adults actually smoke to look cool.

As for standing outside and smoking, I can only assume you live on a Planet I've yet to find out about, do you not have cars, roads, power stations, diesel trains, air conditioning, heating...etc, on your planet?

Who do you think has contributed to killing more people, me, a smoking non-driver or the SUV driving anti-smoker (for this example anyway)????

There isn't a debate.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I am anti-smoking. I am not anti-people. I think we need to look at how long the writing has been on the wall and say lets stop making both the government and the tobacco corporations wealthy whilst we kill ourselves. We also have to say that kids should not be influenced into smoking, and as we all know the" smoking is cool" syndrome is still alive and well and promoted by Phillip Morris et al.

I am also aware that there are many other pollutants in the air but does it justify your contribution to it? Oh well the street was dirty so it really didn't matter that I threw my bottle on the ground? Cleaning up requires everybody's participation. Start with you - I am working on me too.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Mynaeris]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
I am also aware that there are many other pollutants in the air but does it justify your contribution to it? Oh well the street was dirty so it really didn't matter that I threw my bottle on the ground? Cleaning up requires everybody's participation. Start with you - I am working on me too.


And pray tell, what bad habits do you have, that you haven't addressed as yet?......and why haven't you?

I'm sure they don't inflict on other people, otherwise you would not have initialised this thread.

Do you have a brochure you hand out on being perfect?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
And pray tell, what bad habits do you have, that you haven't addressed as yet?......and why haven't you?

I'm sure they don't inflict on other people, otherwise you would not have initialised this thread.

Do you have a brochure you hand out on being perfect?


Lets see - I wake up too late in the morning, I procrastinate, I put off working out for as long as I can each day, I am a chocoholic, I come to ATS too often.

In answer to your second question I am working on a book that might hrelp you become perfect too.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
I am also aware that there are many other pollutants in the air but does it justify your contribution to it? Oh well the street was dirty so it really didn't matter that I threw my bottle on the ground? Cleaning up requires everybody's participation. Start with you - I am working on me too.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Mynaeris]


Well, let's see......

They've found that clorinated pools inflict similar damage to the lungs as smoking.
And, the reason there's arsenic in cigarettes is the same reason it is in your food.....it's in the land our crops are gown in....it was used in the older pesticides....should I quite eating also?
And, well, many of those dangerous substances that are pointed at when talking about cigarettes, are also found in many other products, including shampoo, perfume, inscense and the like...for the same reason...they are added to the product to make it more appealing and economical for the consumer....maybe we should regulate the substances and eliminate it from all of the other products also instead of just singling out one or two products and making them the scapegoats?
And, maybe some people should take the time reading some of what the scientists are saying about global warming and the effects it is having on our environmnet and the danger it is presenting to the entire world.....before they begin butting into my life!!
Have you traded your car for a horse yet, if not, just leave me and my habits alone please. Thank you.


[edit on 7-9-2004 by dawnstar]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:36 AM
link   
The fact is, if smoking was illegal you would be paying a hell of a lot more for your healthcare.

As for damaging others, inside maybe, outside, nah.

I will stop smoking the day you stop driving your petrol guzzling car. Your exhaust fumes are doing more damage to me than my smoke is to you.

So, in your view that others are selfish by smoking and should not be allowed. Should cars and trucks also be illegal then?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Just to assist all of you, I don't drive a car. I choose not to pollute the world with a car. Try some other ad hominem attack.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
If I choose to not smoke to protect my health and you choose to smoke around me what should I do? Leave so that you can enjoy your rights?


Exactly.

Nobody forces you to stay around me when I'm smoking, if you do it, it is your business, not mine. Don't like Times Square? Don't go there. Nobody forces you to do so.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by k33l

Originally posted by Mynaeris
If I choose to not smoke to protect my health and you choose to smoke around me what should I do? Leave so that you can enjoy your rights?


Exactly.

Nobody forces you to stay around me when I'm smoking, if you do it, it is your business, not mine. Don't like Times Square? Don't go there. Nobody forces you to do so.


Its kind of simple I am not the one initiating the injurious action. So if you don't want to see your house being burgled you shouldn't be there? I am going about my business trying to harm as little of the world as possible. I am sorry if my healthy lifestyle offendspeople. But I work hard at it and you really have no right to inflict the consequnces of your choices on me.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Its kind of simple I am not the one initiating the injurious action. So if you don't want to see your house being burgled you shouldn't be there? I am going about my business trying to harm as little of the world as possible. I am sorry if my healthy lifestyle offendspeople. But I work hard at it and you really have no right to inflict the consequnces of your choices on me.


What I'm saying, is that I am NOT inflicting the consequencies of my choices upon you. Nobody is forcing you to stay around me when I smoke, so I don't see, where I am forcing consequences upon you? If you don't want second hand smoke, then stay away from me. It's really as simple as that. If I want to smoke a cigarette in a street, in a square or whatever, it is my business and it is not yours. If you don't like this you can just "dodge" me. I am a smoker, I believe smoking is BAD and have made quite a few people desist from even starting. As a smoker, I know what it means to have the habit, or better, the necessity of smoking cigarettes, and because of this I wouldn't want anybody to smoke. But still, denying the right to smoke to somebody is absolutely egoism. The same egoism you are accusing me of.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join