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: 5
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Dawnstar : I read your diatribe about all kinds of other problems with the world in general and upstate New York in particular, however how does it really address the situation of smoking and second hand smoking? I remember years ago speaking to the Ambassador of a South American country and when he was asked about the destruction of the rain forest he responded why are you asking me about this, why not ask the Scandinavian countries about Whaling, or America about Yellowstone. Discussing another wrong doesn't improve the first. I truly feel your plight regarding the printer shop and the Kodak and car exhaust fumes and if you want we can discuss that in other threads - in fact I think they would be great threads to start - I think ATS is a great place to make people understand the way the world really works. But ignoring or trying to downplay the issue of smoking and its conseuences is really not an answer.




posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 08:28 AM
link   
How about we lay a heftier health tax burden on the companies which pollute. I would imagine the wondrous chemicals released into our skies are responsible for quite a number of the problems credited to smokers.
It always is the standard conspiracy to blend health risks into popular 'politically incorrect' bugbears in order to sway public discontent away from cash producing industries such as coal fired power generation.

As to inconsiderate smokers who constantly subject young children to those noxious fumes, (imo) they deserve criminal prosecution.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
I can't believe that there are people who who doubt that secondhand smoke is bad for people to breathe in. Yes, there are other things that are worse and yes, these things should be regulated also, but that still doesn't negate the fact that second-hand smoke is a toxin and there are chemicals in it that can cause others to become sick.

While the smoke from one--or even 25 cigarettes isn't going to kill you as fast as sucking on a tailpipe, repeated exposure to cigarette smoke, even outdoors, over the course of 10 to 30 years can cause lung cancer, increase your risk of heart attack and other illnesses. According to the American Cancer Society (www.cancer.org), secondhand smoke kills up to 65,000 people in the U.S. a year--do more people have to die to this to be considered a more serious issue? Do you people seriously believe that this a big lie just to trick you into being more responsible about your smoking habit?

And for those of you that believe that second hand smoke isn't "that bad", go look up the studies that show how smoking affects your pets. There are two studies done at CSU that showed a direct link between canine nasal and lung cancers in dogs that lived with smokers (the operative word here is "lived"). Not only is your pet getting a snoutful of smoke when then are in your home, but most smokers I know smoke when they take their dog for a walk.

And people should have the right to smoke, but they should do it in places where it doesn't affect anyone else. If you live in an apartment that shares a ventilation system with another apartment or if the windows aren't sealed, your smoke seeps into your neighbors apartment, and it is like living with a smoker. That is why your smoke needs to be sealed into your apartment. If you go into a crowded park and light up, you are forcing people around you to breathe in toxic chemicals. Sure you are annoyed that you can no longer conveniently smoke your cigarette, but look at the facts. The EPA has classified cigarette smoke as a cancer-causing carcinogen--the same as asbestos and radon, and you don't have the right to make other people breathe this stuff in.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Yeh spot on lmgnyc,

Those smokers have no right to inflict their smoke and toxins on others, and they go to great lengths to involve car fumes and suchlike into the argument, but I guess denial and muddying the issues is completely usual with any addiction (e.g. alcolholics denying they've got a problem)

Yup, admit it smoker-people; you are addicts.



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:01 PM
link   
So, how do you decide that the toxins of one particular item, habits, ect, is unacceptable within society, unless of course, you compare it to the toxins associated with other items, habits ect that society feels are acceptable.??? I mean gee, NY has decided that the 30% increase in the risk of getting lung cancer is far too dangerous for the workers of this state.....so, can I assume that the xylenes and styrenes that I might come into contact with at work if just as safe....DIDN'T THINK SO!!

So, later on down the road, when it is found that that xylene increased my chances of lung cancer by, let's say 200% or so, can I sue NY State for lying to me, since the government did clearly state that they would not allow anything as dangerous as shs into the workplace again? DIDN'T THINK SO.....but, I bet sooner or later, some judge willl find such a case on his docket!!
And, while they are worrying about the health effects of that one particular item occuring 10, 20, or 30 years down the road.....they shun off the effects that other things are causing in people in the NOW.....peanuts can kill someone within hours of coming in contact with them and parents go through heck trying to figure out just what food is safe to feed their allergic kids because peanut oil is used in so many different products on the market. Perfumes, colognes, ect have been proven in studies to have much the same effects as shs does in the long term, and cause people problems immediately afterward exposure also. I have a nephew who is allergic to cigarette smoke, when he was younger, he'd end up in the emergency room very quickly after exposure. .....but....well, why didn't his Doctor have enough sense to warn my sister about the chlorine in the pool in the back yard? It would have saved them alot of backbreaking work in the long run since the doctor's advice was to not let him play in the dirt outside, wipe down your entire house from top to bottom once a week....anything and everything....but keep silent about any of those common substances that are far more dangerous than the dust in her house!!

I am not understating the effects of smoking has a the person who is smoking them....but, well, I am when it comes to the effects it has on other people, since these people are chosing to expose themselves to much more dangerous things than that shs on a daily basis and forcing me to be exposed to them also. they need to do alot of studies, find out just what the heck is going on, since hey, the asthma rate is increasing even though the amount of shs has been decreasing...so, something tells me that it is much more than just shs that is the problem here. Then they need to come up with a more complete list of the culprits involved and take action on all of them, not just one or two... When they do that, I take them seriously, as for now, well, what can I say, that stranger on the street might not have any effect from any shs the might encounter, but then again he might be like my nephew and quickly running to the hospital after contact.......so I will use that same discretion with cigarettes as I do with perfumes, collonges, peanuts, ect.....



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 01:08 PM
link   
smokers should get access to NHS care, they pay their taxes and deserve NHS treatment

i do think smoking should be banned in public, i don't want to breath in somebody elses smoke, let them smoke at home

note: i think cigerettes should be renamed 'suicide sticks'


[edit on 8-9-2004 by UK Wizard]



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Can't we just get along...

For Devil's Advocate only, If we smokers are infringing upon your rights, it is you who hath struck the first blow.

You banned us from smoking in the office so we stopped, You banned us from smoking in pubs, clubs, and restaurants so we stopped, We now only smoke outside for your convenience, but now we will be banned for that too?

Your suggestion is smoking clubs, Why don't you take more of our freedoms away, and put us all in a Native American Styled Reservation, or better yet dare I say a Concentration Camp.

I feel discriminated against. I feel like a leper, I feel like any person or group of people, who has been descriminated agaist for their aims, credo, skin color, or belief.

Yes it does go that far...

In Fact, what next will you deny us next, the right to exist?

Our rights were infringed first, and we aquiesced, when will it ever be good enough for you militant non-smokers?

Devil's Advocate Ended, we now resume our normal programming...

How about those local sports teams?

-ADHDsux4me



posted on Sep, 8 2004 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Smoking banned in restaurants and such, fine, people who are rude with smoking, they are bad, but ban outdoor smoking, how about we ban people from walking on the street if they are so mentally and physically delicate that the possibility of smelling cigarette smoke sends them into hysterics.

If these types applied their hypochondriacal obsession with cigarette smoke to sunlight, they would tell you one second of sunlight hitting human skin is enough to cause melanoma.

As someone said, politically correct bugbears are used to divert public attention from greater concerns onto scapegoats.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Mynaeris, I was wondering, how would the NHS decide who has a smoking related illness?

And what about those who have given up, but then contract a smoking related illness?

Maybe the tremendous taxes that are paid on tobacco products could go to a charity that only treats smokers, not sure the government would approve that one.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
Mynaeris, I was wondering, how would the NHS decide who has a smoking related illness?

And what about those who have given up, but then contract a smoking related illness?

Maybe the tremendous taxes that are paid on tobacco products could go to a charity that only treats smokers, not sure the government would approve that one.


Interesting ideas Koka. In fact I would personally favor all those taxes going to smoke related ailments - but not just of smokers but also their families and all the non-smokers that were affected by contact with smokers. Unlike AIDS you can actually get sick from being in contact with smokers. In 1965, 42 percent of adults aged 18 and over smoked, compared with 28 percent today. So 28% of the population want to tell the 72% of the population what they should be accepting - sounds like democracy to me.

The list for treatment by this smoke related facilties/charity would include the following:

"Cancer

At least 80% of lung cancer cases are associated with smoking.

The risk of lung cancer is twenty times more likely among those who smoke 20 or more cigarettes a day for many years than for non-smokers.

Smoking has also been linked to cancer of the lung, mouth, pharynx, larynx, and oesophagus, bladder, pancreas and kidney, and associated with cancer of the cervix.

Cardiovascular disease

Smoking kills about twice as many people from other diseases as it kills from lung cancer.

Up to 18% of coronary heart disease deaths are estimated to be associated with smoking.

Smoking is an important risk factor for stroke, being linked with approximately 11% of stroke deaths. This is particularly the case when it occurs in association with other risk factors, such as high blood pressure.

Smoking is also known to contribute to cerebral, aortic and peripheral vascular disease.

Respiratory diseases

At least 80% of chronic bronchitis and emphysema is associated with smoking.

Sexual health

Smoking can affect fertility, in that smokers may take longer to conceive than non-smokers. Female smokers are also more likely to have an earlier menopause than non-smokers.

Women smokers who take oral contraceptives have approximately ten times the risk of a heart attack, stroke or other cardiovascular diseases compared to non-smokers.

Effects of smoking on the foetus during pregnancy

Babies born to mothers who smoke are lighter than babies born to mothers who do not smoke by an average of 200 grammes/8 ounces. Paternal smoking may also have a similar effect.


Smoking during pregnancy is also associated with increased fetal and perinatal mortality, low birth weight, and delayed physical and mental development of infants.

For women who continue to smoke during their pregnancy there is an increased chance of miscarriage of the foetus.

Premature labour is twice as common for women who smoke and perinatal mortality is increased by almost a third.

Research has suggested that the effects of smoking during pregnancy may extend beyond infancy. Some studies have suggested a reduction in growth and educational achievement in children of women who smoke."



[edit on 9-9-2004 by Mynaeris]



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
So what you're saying is you'll take the tax money from cig's and to hell with the smokers. You just have to intrude further into peoples lives. You don't mind putting your hand in their pocket but you won't give them the space to breathe. You don't like it go somewhere else. Don't like this? Kiss my "butt."


No kidding. In NC, well there'd pretty much be no NC if not for tobacco taxes. No incredible school system, no roads, no healthcare network. Who funded all the Duke Medical Cancer Research the world relies on? Taxes from Twinkie sales?

If we don't deny healthcare coverage for illegal drug overdoses, I really don't see how it can be denied for correctly using a legal product... but whateva.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Mynaeris

This reminds of a famous poem by MARTIN NIEMLLER

First they came for the Meat Eaters, but I was not a Meat Eater, so I said nothing.
Then they came for the Tories, no big deal there, so I did nothing.
Then came the trade unionists, they've been causing more problems than solving, so I did nothing.
Then they came for the smokers, and I new that smokers made up at least a quarter of the population, and they had already got rid of everyone else they didn't like.'

Actually, I've changed a couple of the phrases (all of them) but you may get the idea.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
The most damaging form of pollution caused by the average person is car pollution.So myself,as a smoker,Would be very grateful if all you anti-smokers stop driving cars as you are affecting my enviroment and health by doing so.

Of course the easiest thing to do would just be to refuse these people health treatment and tax them beyond belief in some form



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sariel
The most damaging form of pollution caused by the average person is car pollution.So myself,as a smoker,Would be very grateful if all you anti-smokers stop driving cars as you are affecting my enviroment and health by doing so.

Of course the easiest thing to do would just be to refuse these people health treatment and tax them beyond belief in some form


I believe those points have already been made, now go back and read the entire thread 3 times.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Koka
I believe those points have already been made, now go back and read the entire thread 3 times.


Well I thought I'd already killed the topic by the second thread, oh well...



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I wonder if all this concentrating on keeping smokers from smoking outdoors is the reason the US is the fattest nation in the world, and I mean W-I-D-E. By the time we eliminate smoking we'll all be blimps. Let's deny healthcare for people who are obese, because it's completely a person's choice to be obese. It has everything to do with choice and lifestyle.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:28 AM
link   
There seems to be an assumption that only thin people smoke? And that all non-smokers are grossly overweight and snacking on twinkies. Whenever I see someone who is obese and struggling to breathe as they walk down the road they also have a cigarette dangling from their lip. However I have also seen some really scrawny looking smokers. I try not to stereotype how about the smokers try the same?



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Koka
I believe those points have already been made, now go back and read the entire thread 3 times.


Well I thought I'd already killed the topic by the second thread, oh well...


I don't need to bother reading any of it to be honest.It's just the usual drivel spouted off by people who have got a big chip on their shoulder as far as i'm concerned.I always tend to picture the people who have a problem with issues such as these chaining themselves to trees at the weekend then handing out greenpeace leaflets in midweek.

In response to the question of the original poster of 'Should smokers get NHS care',my answer would be 'Of course they should'.As you can start asking many questions that are equally as pointless as 'Should people involved in hunting accidents get NHS care?' and 'Do illegal immigrants deserve NHS care'

As far as i'm concerned any individual has a right to being treated as much as the next person regardless of the circumstances that brought about their need for medical attention.



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
There seems to be an assumption that only thin people smoke? And that all non-smokers are grossly overweight and snacking on twinkies. Whenever I see someone who is obese and struggling to breathe as they walk down the road they also have a cigarette dangling from their lip. However I have also seen some really scrawny looking smokers. I try not to stereotype how about the smokers try the same?


Oh and let me guess,everyone finds you so pleasing on the eye



posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by taibunsuu
I wonder if all this concentrating on keeping smokers from smoking outdoors is the reason the US is the fattest nation in the world, and I mean W-I-D-E. By the time we eliminate smoking we'll all be blimps. Let's deny healthcare for people who are obese, because it's completely a person's choice to be obese. It has everything to do with choice and lifestyle.


Obesity is a hell of a lot more complex than choice and lifestyle. For some it may be more simple, but for many its a lifelong struggle with weight beyond what they eat. Sure anyone can lose weight by diet and exercise, but how much? Its very easy for some people to lose weight, and extremely difficult for others. Once one has crossed over the line to obesity, it becomes even harder to take the pounds off. Diabetes makes things more complecated too. BTW, I know plenty of people who have gained weight while smoking. There are plenty of both thin and obese smokers and vice versa.

Both smoking and obesity are killing us, and both should be supported by healthcare. Preventative may go farther than reactive health care in both cases. Both are a result of a general trend away from healthy living and fit nicely into the sedentary lifestyle people live. It may be as difficult for someone not to eat certain foods as it is for someone not to smoke. Both are hard habits to change, and weight loss and smoking cessation are extremely difficult.

Perhaps if we as a nation quit smoking AND look to drop pounds, we will all be a lot better for it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join