Originally posted by smyleegrl
Originally posted by Domo1
I think we should. Insurance companies shouldn't havemto cover a car that you track unless you pay more for the risky behavior. Same with smoking and the obese.
What do you find immoral about universal health care?
What about people who have medically induced obesity? In other words, the side effect of certain medications and/or mental issues.
And what about the mentally impaired?
Maybe a better solution would be to sterilize all non-productive, genetically inferior people. And while we're waiting for them to die off, maybe we can use them as cheap labor in some camps....
....that slippery slope slids straight to hell, my friend.
Originally posted by SGTSECRET
Originally posted by Rubicant13
Should people who willingly put toxins in their body have to pay more to make up for health issues that will arise later? Yes, it just makes sense. Why should someone who poisons their body pay the same amount as someone who lives a completely healthy life? Yes, it is all about CHOICE, which has been pointed out many times here in this thread. This includes the CHOICE you make when you smoke, drink, etc. If making those choices mean you have to pay more and you are upset about that, than you can CHOOSE to live a more healthy life AND have more money in the bank. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the population willingly eat foods containing Phosphoric acid, Acesulfame-K, Bisphenol-A, Sodium Nitrite, Polybrominated Diphenylether, Methylnaphthalene, Aspartame, partially hydrogenated oils, food coloring (Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 1 & 2), high-fructose corn syrup, etc. etc. etc.
Or willingly use illegal drugs, misuse legal drugs, drink alcohol, have unprotected sex or even drink tap water (fluoride, chlorine etc.).
My point is that we ALL willingly consume, inhale and expose ourselves to unhealthy and dangerous substances on a daily basis.
Because the affects of cigarette smoke is the most easily tested in a lab, with the (alleged) results strewn across the land, cigarettes and those who use them have been made into the whipping-boys of our overall extremely unhealthy society.
Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by Superhans
Bottom line: Second hand smoke does cause damage in young children
This is a post that will get some debate. One of the biggest cards that the anti tobacco crowd play is the “but I have asthma” gambit. I have done some research and it may literally be all in the mind. Please feel free to disagree with me, but please provide some papers that back up your hypothesis. Firstly nicotine suppresses asthma, see study on Norwegian rats. Secondly there are numerous studies that show that smokers and children of smokers have substantially less asthma, please see Swedish study. Thirdly there is a condition called psychosomaticism. It is where the mind believes something is going to happen and the body mimics the physical effects even though there is no exposure. Scientists believe that asthma itself has a psychosomatic facet in its adoption. They found that many asthmatics had and overbearing and controlling parent. See link. Fourthly the amount breathed in by non smokers is minimal, 0.1%-1% at the very most. So in conclusion it is quite possible that asthma attacks brought on by smoking are literally in the mind of the athmatic. “To ascertain the effects of nicotine on allergy/asthma, Brown Norway rats were treated with nicotine and sensitized and challenged with allergens. The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE.” www.jimmunol.org... “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...…pubmed/ 11422156 “The most common psychosomatic respiratory illness is asthma. Marked by recurrent bronchial constriction, edema, and excessive secretion, the clinical picture is manifested by recurrent attacks of dyspnea and prolonged expirations with wheezing and coughing. During the attack, the patient usually is tense, anxious, and frightened in the face of experiencing a lack of availability of vital air.” www.triroc.com... “The most highly exposed workers, both living and working with smokers, would potentially inhale over 20 cigarette equivalents (CE) per annum as based on the upper decile levels. Housewives living with smokers could inhale up to 11 CE per annum as based on the upper decile levels. Locations outside the workplace, including the home, contribute most to overall RSP and ETS particle exposure. Consideration should be given to extending the personal monitoring period in cities where levels appear to be quite low.” daveatherton.wordpress.com...
Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by lambros56
I've made no remarks about impact on health or lungs or cancer or anything of that nature. What I've said numerous times, and once more here for your benefit is this: I (me, not you, not anybody else, ME) believe that smokers should keep it to themselves because many non smokers are offended by the very noxious odor, first off, and second that your cigarette litter should not be strewn over the streets. I haven't lectured anybody on their health. I also haven't mentioned the c word once previous to this post, and don't plan to, either. But I will say this, since I know it will inflame you overly sensitive frazzle nerved cigarette smokers - anybody that can't make it a half hour without suppressing the urge to have a fag is no different or better than a crackhead. At least nobody can legally force you to breathe crack smoke, or reasonably expect you to want to.edit on 20-9-2012 by jeantherapy because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by lambros56
So you are offended by the smell of tobacco smoke. Now explain to me......so damn what?
What gives you the right to support policies and laws to dehumanize, harass, finanacially rape and deny the right to peacefully assemble in public to a sizable minority of the public - so as to accomplish what? not have your delicate sensibilities insulted?
And why would I be happy about it? What has anti-smoking accomplished exactly.
1. The first claim is that the rate of smoking in the population is going down.
Well lets look at the numbers shall we? When smoking was at its peak in the 1960s - about 65 percent of the population smoked. Now about 20 to 25 % of the population smokes. Real decrease - well not really - the population of both United States and Canada increased during the same time period. In fact, there is very little change in the number of smokers.
2. Save lives? Who exactly was saved? Every smoking-related disease is also a non-smoking related disease. There is no way of identifying what caused a particular case of lung cancer or a particular case of heart disease (other than identifying HPV-related cancers). There is absolutely no way of knowing if a particular person would have died of that disease whether he smoked or not.
There is now an undisputed rise in lung cancer among woman and never-smokers. These are people who, in the past would have smoked and whose cancer would have been blamed on smoking.
3. Save health care costs. Smoking bans have been in place since the early 2000s. Health cares costs in both the United States and Canada have increased at a rate, greater than the rate of inflation in that period of time. Its not smokers or drinkers or eaters or people who fail to exercise who cost the health cares system - its the profit margins of pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers and a whole schlock of hangers on who are increasing health care cost exponentially.
4. People like you are the worst of the anti-smokers. Your motivations revolves solely around you and your preferences and you believe that you are the most important person in society. You feel as though you have the right to impose your will on other people. And you get this little frisson of delight up and down your spine, whenever a new law is imposed to dehumanize smokers. It is such a thrill to see your will made manifest by law isn't it.
We are now at the point where anti-smoker laws are being passed for the sole purpose that the very sight of a smoker offends somebody.
To all of you - I say "up yours'
Tired of Control Freaks
Originally posted by camaro68ss
since Im forced into healthcare now, yes! Smokers should pay more, Fat people should pay more, Sick people should pay more and old people should pay more. Why should i cover for those that dont take care of themselfs?
I run 2 miles a day and lift weights every other day to stay healthy. Why sould i pay more for a fatty that sits on there butt all day eatting twinkys when i do the hard work to keep myself out of the hospital?