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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 09:28 AM
link   
I believe Mynaeris has a very valid point and argument.

I smoke around 5 or 6 fags a day, but "Iron Lung" my pet Beagle is on sixty a day, which is bad enough, you should see my place when he invites his mates round for poker night....!!!!


[edit on 7-9-2004 by Koka]




posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Smoking *IS* something that is infringes upon the rights on non-smokers. I am terribly allergic to cigarette smoke--until the smoking ban in NYC was enforeced, I couldn't go to bars or clubs because I would become asthmatic. Going to restaurants in places that dont have a smoking ban is virtually impossible because I wind up sneezing and tearing up. I used to suffer at work before smoking was banned from the workplace when I had meetings in offices where people smoked. Even today when people come back in from their smoking breaks, I still sneeze because they reek of cigarette smoke. I lived in a beautiful midtown apartment on the 30th floor with a terrace, but I could not enjoy it after a smoker moved in downstairs and took up smoking on the terrace nightly. And for the guy who said that I should just avoid Times Square because of the smoke, well my firm relocated to 42nd & 7th in 2000 & I worked in there up until two months ago. Every time I walked out of my building, I had to wade through a wall of smoke. I couldn't just up and quit my job--and yeah, I felt that the smokers should go somewhere else.

I realize that not everyone is as sensitive to smoke as I am, but smokers seem to forget that their habit does have an impact on other people. It has been proven to make people who don't smoke sick, and deny it as much as you will, but that is a fact. And although many smokers try to be considerate, many smokers are not. It just takes one inconsiderate smoker to ruin a walk in the park or lying on the beach. Smoking is your right, but don't I have a right to breathe without sneezing and tearing up? Don't I have a right to go to the beach without having to constantly move my blanket around because someone sits down next to me and lights up a cigarette? I find it amazing that smokers feel that it is their right to not only inconvenience people, but to potentially make them sick. I would be EMBARRASSED if a habit of mine was so intrusive that it effective people yards and yards away from me. We shame people who smell of body odor and wear too much cologne--I don't think that I am in the minority when I put smoking in the category of foul odors. I would feel awful if there were actually air fresheners designed to obliterate something that I was causing.

Sure you can smoke--go give yourself cancer, but you should only do it in a place where it will not have an impact on anyone else. The reasons why the laws that ban smoking need to exist are because smokers seem oblivious to the fact that they are infringing upon everyone else's right to breathe.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
as usual to avoid the issue at hand..

Look, I don't care if you all smoke until you drop. I think you should have that freedom. I think today's modern exhaust systems is most public places is adequate to remove second hand smoke. I have a son with Asthma so he cannot be around smoke. I haven't found it too awefully difficult to go out to eat or shopping or recreation with him because of second hand smoke. As long as you all leave a part of thr restaurant for people with his problems, I'm okay with having a section for smokers provided the establishment properly exhauste and replinish the air supplly (basic air conditioning). Not a bad compromise huh? I guess you could say I'm against banning smoking at this stage because so many will be affected but I hope we can see a point down the road where this won't be an issue.

The topic is whether or not healthcare should foot the bill when people decide to knowingly and willfully injure themselves. Its nice to try to get the topic skewed to another issue but the two are quite separate.

So, to all you who have speant the last two pages arguing for your right to smoke, the real question is, do you also think you have the right to free healthcare because of what your indulgence has done to you?

Ah, yes, I know you're getting ready to argue the same with obesity but the way food matabolises in a person's body is really more of a biological issue and is far and away different from someone who inhales smoke into their lungs. You can make the argument about tanning and skin cancer, I can see the similarity there. The question is, where do we draw the line between rights and responsibility?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by lmgnyc
Smoking *IS* something that is infringes upon the rights on non-smokers. I am terribly allergic to cigarette smoke--until the smoking ban in NYC was enforeced, I couldn't go to bars or clubs because I would become asthmatic. Going to restaurants in places that dont have a smoking ban is virtually impossible because I wind up sneezing and tearing up. I used to suffer at work before smoking was banned from the workplace when I had meetings in offices where people smoked. Even today when people come back in from their smoking breaks, I still sneeze because they reek of cigarette smoke. I lived in a beautiful midtown apartment on the 30th floor with a terrace, but I could not enjoy it after a smoker moved in downstairs and took up smoking on the terrace nightly. And for the guy who said that I should just avoid Times Square because of the smoke, well my firm relocated to 42nd & 7th in 2000 & I worked in there up until two months ago. Every time I walked out of my building, I had to wade through a wall of smoke. I couldn't just up and quit my job--and yeah, I felt that the smokers should go somewhere else.

I realize that not everyone is as sensitive to smoke as I am, but smokers seem to forget that their habit does have an impact on other people. It has been proven to make people who don't smoke sick, and deny it as much as you will, but that is a fact. And although many smokers try to be considerate, many smokers are not. It just takes one inconsiderate smoker to ruin a walk in the park or lying on the beach. Smoking is your right, but don't I have a right to breathe without sneezing and tearing up? Don't I have a right to go to the beach without having to constantly move my blanket around because someone sits down next to me and lights up a cigarette? I find it amazing that smokers feel that it is their right to not only inconvenience people, but to potentially make them sick. I would be EMBARRASSED if a habit of mine was so intrusive that it effective people yards and yards away from me. We shame people who smell of body odor and wear too much cologne--I don't think that I am in the minority when I put smoking in the category of foul odors. I would feel awful if there were actually air fresheners designed to obliterate something that I was causing.

Sure you can smoke--go give yourself cancer, but you should only do it in a place where it will not have an impact on anyone else. The reasons why the laws that ban smoking need to exist are because smokers seem oblivious to the fact that they are infringing upon everyone else's right to breathe.




The same could be said of insense and air fresheners, purfumes, peanuts and yes, chlorinated pools!!! They are all known to give people with sensitivities some pretty bad reactions and they have little control over weather or not they should be exposed to it. And, let's not even get into the work environment, shall we?
So why single out one or two things to use as scapegoats?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
I guess smokers on the street believe the smoke just dissipates after they breathe it out.


Are you saying it does not? Please elaborate by all means.


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.


How is smoking outside not good enough for you?


If you can give me a thought through response as to what happens to the smoke you exhale in the street?


It floats away, dissipating as it rises.

You know when I made the comment that the reason you got smoke blown in your face was most likely due to you making a rude comment to the smoker about their habit - I was attempting to have you evaluate your own prejudice and perceptions to begin with. Did you say something to the person first? If you didn't is it really that hard to acknowledge that you simply had an isolated encounter with a jerk. Most smokers I know are very sensitive to non-smokers for the reasons noted by Imgnyc in his post. Don't judge everyone by the actions of a few.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Astrocreep, I think you have missed the fact that smokers more than pay enough tax on ciggies towards healthcare.

Without smokers there would be ALOT less money for healthcare.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
The same could be said of insense and air fresheners, purfumes, peanuts and yes, chlorinated pools!!! They are all known to give people with sensitivities some pretty bad reactions and they have little control over weather or not they should be exposed to it. And, let's not even get into the work environment, shall we?
So why single out one or two things to use as scapegoats?


There is a difference with cigarette smokers because it isn't about allergies--it is about a minority of people giving cancer and lung disease to a majority of people. You can even go to the Phillip Morris web site and read about passive smoking disease--it isn't a myth. Breathing perfume and eating peanuts are severe allergens for a minority, and in that case the burden is on those with the allergy to make sure that they protect themselves. I think that many companies feel that it is their moral duty to identify products that may be harmful (hence the peanuts warnings on chocolate bars without peanuts in them.) Many department stores have also voluntarily stopped their demonstrator models from spraying perfume directly on skin because of allergies also. Some hotels have started using hypoallergenic detergents to clean their linens. However, this is all done voluntarily--most people don't have these allergies, but companies want to reduce their liabilities.

In the case of cigarette smoke, smokers are the minority and the burden is on them to ensure that they do not give the rest of the world cancer with their habit. Because they don't do this willingly, laws are necessary to limit potentially dangerous exposure.

As far as providing public healthcare goes, I certainly don't think that it is fair that my taxes should pay for treatment for someone who smoked, knowing that it would make them sick, however, I don't think it's fair that my taxes should pay healthcare expenses for those who crack their skull driving drunk, or break their leg scaling Mt. Everest, or an overeater's stomach-stapling. In private insurance, premiums are determined using actuary tables and risk. If you smoke (or rock-climb, drink, or are overweight), your premiums are higher than if you don't smoke (or rock-climb, drink, etc.). I'm not sure how this translates into a public system, but it is somewhat fairer.

Perhaps cigarette makers should contribute funds to the public healthcare system for smokers and those suffering from passive smoking illnesses--the cigarette makers assist in getting smokers addicted in the first place. Some of the taxes paid on cigarettes should also go towards this as well, but from what I hear, much of these taxes go toward administering the smoking bans. I certainly don't think that smokers should be left without healthcare as they will certainly need it when they become ill, but it does seem unfair that the rest of the world has to pick up the tab when it happens.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
There's a little thing called the hippocratic oath to be taken into account here; some people may say you shouldn't treat a patient who's a child killer that's just taken a bullet or whatever, but that's not their call; as a doctor/nurse/surgeon, you treat anyone who's ill, regardless of what their position is in life.

And I'm a smoker, so I've got a pretty big vested interest here. What about obese people, let the fat b*stards die as well?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Bleys in short: The smoke doesn't dissipate immediately, the people walking behind or past you will get a whiff of your smoke. As for smokers on the street in New York City its more of the rule that you will get a face full of smoke than the exception. An ex-bf used to smoke and when we would walk down the street he would be very considerate to me and blow the smoke away from me and I am sure it blew into the faces of others. Its not intentional but its the end result. Another brief story I want to tell you is about 7 years ago I used to work in a company where we had daily meetings and at all meetings the majority of the members would chain smoke. I have never smoked in my life but after a week of these meetings I would spend the weekend thinking about having a smoke, I was suffering from withdrawal.

As for the others on this thread its not about just leaving smokers to die, its more about the fact that smokers are more likely to suffer from chronic diseases such as lung cancer, emphysema, heart attacks etc etc. Which costs health Insurances large amounts and non-smokers land up paying high premiums. Do I believe everybody has the right to health care? Sure. Do I believe that cigarette smoking should be promoted knowing the health risks? NO.

I would like to read some of the reasons why people smoke from smokers, and what solutions they think might facilitate this problem? I for one do not want to smoke, and I would appreciate not ever having to come in contact with smoke. If I am somewhere in Central Park and ten minutes later someone comes and sits about 5 feet away from me and lights up, should I be the one to leave, or should he or she consider me and say do you mind?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Okay. Fine. But where does it all stop? Can't there be a few places for smokers to go? I saw a case in the news a few years back where a smoker was legally barred from smoking IN THEIR OWN HOME. Not an apt. or a condo. All because their non-smoking neigbor was offended and sued. that's B.S. I avoid smoking around anyone, because I know that it causes a problem. But where does it *bleeping* stop.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   
After putting on my flame proof tuxedo, I'll just say this.

If you are living in a major metropolitan area, you have a LOT bigger air quality issues than walking down the street and passing a smoker! I wonder what the health differences are between urban and rural residents. Anyone have a link? I'll try to find one.

I would be very surprised if there wasn't a higher incidence of pollution related illness in the urban setting. Should rural residents have to pay the cost of health care for urban residents? They have just as much control over where they live as a smoker does over their habit.

Should urban residents be required to pay a metro-tax to help cover these costs?

I guess what I am trying to get across is that we all engage in destructive actions, and we all pay for them in one way or another. Personally, I find it more offensive to drive behind some idiot in a diesel fueled suv than I do sitting in a bar with smokers. Diesel smoke has been proven to be carcinogenic. Who will join me in bashing diesel owners as fervently as they bash smokers?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Montana I will definitely join you in your quest for justice against diesel fueled suvs, BUT I can noit agree that because there is this pollution that I should still have smoke thrown at me in the streets. It takes a number of years for the nicotine to leave your lungs. Smoking is not a social thing, its inherently anti-social like someone passing wind in public.

I think that cigarette companies make enough money to start organising smokers clubs for their addicts, don't you? I am amazed at what bitter enders smokers are, how many people have to die from smoking related illnesses before you quit?



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:07 PM
link   
People can have their insurance pay for medical programs to help with weight control/eating disorders. Insurance does not accept anything for the cessation of smoking. How fair is that? That's because they would probably make more off my cancer ridden body than they would in the control or cessation of my smoking. That's crap.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Bleys in short: The smoke doesn't dissipate immediately, the people walking behind or past you will get a whiff of your smoke. As for smokers on the street in New York City its more of the rule that you will get a face full of smoke than the exception.


If you cannot demonstrate a health risk to others from second hand smoke out of doors then this has become a personal objection and not a medical one. And with any personal objection - it is our own to deal with. There is one place and one place only that I can legally smoke and that is outside. There is certainly more than enough room for both of us to accomodate each other. You keep a civil tongue and I'll blow my smoke up and not out.


Which costs health Insurances large amounts and non-smokers land up paying high premiums.


You DO NOT pay higher health care or life insurance premiums as the result of my smoking. If you are - you need to get a new insurance guy. I pay higher premiums for my choice to smoke. Non-smokers get discounts for their lifestyle. Not only that I pay significant taxes on the cigarettes themselves. Which is how it should be. It is my vice and I am more than willing to pay extra for it.

Just keep this in mind - smokers are paying far more into the system than they are taking out.


I would like to read some of the reasons why people smoke from smokers, and what solutions they think might facilitate this problem? I for one do not want to smoke, and I would appreciate not ever having to come in contact with smoke. If I am somewhere in Central Park and ten minutes later someone comes and sits about 5 feet away from me and lights up, should I be the one to leave, or should he or she consider me and say do you mind?


If you do not want to come into contact with anyone who smokes - stay indoors. Just a thought though, if someone who smokes sits down next to you and lights up - get a can of hairspray out of your purse and pretend to spray your hair. They'll move away. Gotta ask is this just a New York thing? I have never had anyone get on me about my smoking. If anything people have gone out of there way to acknowledge my courtesy.





[edit on 9/7/04 by Bleys]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:13 PM
link   
And how many must die due to smog related asthma? Or in automobile crashes and hit and runs? Or how many need to die from toxic waste from chemical plants and power plants? Come on, tobacco smoke is no better or worse than any of these other pollutants and I don't agree to seperate it from the rest. They are all caused by human actions, and they are all controllable by human actions. Pick your poison and fight it I suppose, but to castigate one type of polluter over another is lame in my view.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Der Kapitan
People can have their insurance pay for medical programs to help with weight control/eating disorders. Insurance does not accept anything for the cessation of smoking. How fair is that? That's because they would probably make more off my cancer ridden body than they would in the control or cessation of my smoking. That's crap.

[edit on 7-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]


You make a very good point there, perhaps they should cover quitting as this is as positive a step towards health as eating control disorders. I think its something that both smokers and non-smokers should support as the final results would be of benefit to all.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   
So long as cigarettes are still legal, there should be places in public areas where people can smoke.

......................


[edit on 7/9/2004 by earthtone]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
Bleys: you still believe its a right to blow smoke into someone's face because they are not civil to you? Blowing smoke into someone's face is an assault of there person. If they are rude to you about your smoking respond verbally. I think that attitude might require some rethinking. Unfortunately I don't use hairspray would Mace work?

Although I believe that people should have the right to do drugs or smoke or drink alcohol, I have to draw the line when myor the health of others is compromised. The smoke or its effects won't leave my lungs the minute you leave the room, it will be with me for days potentially years.



[edit on 7-9-2004 by Mynaeris]



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
To further two points previously made, we should be more concerned with breathing in exhaust while we walk along the city streets, or find ourselves bumper to bumper in traffic. Ask a non-smoking driver to give up his or her 1 person car trip to and from work, and they would ask you if you're crazy. Tell them that they place their children at risk of health when in their cars, or taking them out for strolls on a street in a busy neighbouhood, they will tell you to mind your own business..

There is no excuse for rude smokers. Smokers do pay higher health care costs and exhorbitant taxes to support the habit, but that is where it should stop. Insurance is a pooling of funds, and higher risk insureds pay a an excess of premium based on actuarial calculations assuming their higher vulnerability to incidence. The base pooling of funds is spread across the board for all insureds, so in essence even the smoker is subsidizing the health hazards associated with the men, women or children whose regular diet consists of pizza, burgers, french fries and coke, or the persons who by genetic inheritance is apt to develop heart disease or cervical or prostate cancer. If you want to remove the smokers from national health care, then so too must you remove the drinkers, the sun worshippers, the fast food lover, for they all willingly contribute to an unhealthy lifestyle.

The typical non-smokers' mindset is to claim their rights are being infringed upon or their health threatened by others, and rather than consistently complain to the tobacco addict, they should be demanding the government make the product illegal. Then again, they would better serve themselves if they applied the same amount of effort to confront the government about the unhealthy additives in their food, or the filth that sat in their water prior to it reaching their taps.



posted on Sep, 7 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
Bleys: you still believe its a right to blow smoke into someone's face because they are not civil to you?


Care to show me when I said I did this or was a proponent of this?


Although I believe that people should have the right to do drugs or smoke or drink alcohol, I have to draw the line when myor the health of others is compromised. The smoke or its effects won't leave my lungs the minute you leave the room, it will be with me for days potentially years.


Show me a study that confirms there is a health risk to you if I smoke outside and I'll reconsider my position. Until then stay inside or wear a sign that say "no smoking within 100 ft."


[edit on 9/7/04 by Bleys]




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join