Should Smokers Pay Extra Taxes For Universal Healthcare?

reply to post by SGTSECRET


Don't recall stating that I am proud of it. Being addicted to something and being proud of it are two completely different things.

Originally posted by Rubicant13
reply to post by SGTSECRET

 

Don't recall stating that I am proud of it. Being addicted to something and being proud of it are two completely different things.

"im smoking as i type this "

Guess I misunderstood the thumbs up about smoking while you typed your 'no' response.

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by Superhans

 

Don't be so naive man!

If the first hand smoke causes cancer then inevitably second hand smoke will cause some (maybe not as much) damage too. It's not exactly going to be good you?

Like I said, ZERO, that means NONE-there is NO proof that second hand smoke causes cancer. It is just propaganda that has been floating around forever now.

reply to post by SGTSECRET


Why should we have to pay extra taxes for universal healthcare? Do illegal drug addicts have to? The last I checked, the cigarette industry is regulated by the government. And they do take a lot of money from tobacco companies. I know people that have smoked 30 years with no adverse health effects whatsoever. Alcohol is much worse on the nervous system and the brain and people die everyday from it. Should they have to pay extra taxes for universal healthcare?

Originally posted by SGTSECRET


It is actually ignorant and disrespectful to force children to deal with second hand smoke.

How is that ignorant? To bring a child up with second hand smoke? Do you know what ignorant means? Appealing to the health of children is ignorant and a red herring as it has little to do with what we are talking about here.

You can bring up your whole 'no evidence' BS all day long, use your brain.

Yeah, USE YOUR BRIAN! If there is ZERO evidence to support something, chances are it is not true. That has to be one of THE MOST ignorant statements I have ever heard on ATS.

The whole idea of charging smokers extra is stupid and goes against the whole idea of universal health care. When you start picking and choosing who and what you want to cover then you just going back to paying full price for health care.
Where do you draw the line? People who don't meet their exercise quota pay more? People who eat too much fast food pay more?
Universal health care means health care for all, if you don't support that idea and think we should start charging certain groups more then you really don't support "universal health care" at all do you?

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Results in Australia show that over a lifetime of smoking and paying excise (tax) the average smoker will contribute far more to the economy than they will ever take out in medical expenses.

I am a non smoker.

My mate told me a packet of 25 cigarettes is now $16 (AUD) plus. They are paying massive tax on their smokes. He told me cigarettes in the USA are half the price of what he pays here.

Don't know if it is the same deal in your country with regard to tax collected on cigs

Originally posted by phatpackage
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

Don't know if it is the same deal in your country with regard to tax collected on cigs

It really ranges from state to state and from brand to brand. A pack of no-name crap sticks will cost more in California than a pack of brand name cigs in another state. The rule of thumb is the more liberal a state is the more costly it is to choose things that are bad for you if you can do them at all. The most liberal state in the US is NY and they are taxing the crap out of cigs, regulating soda and outlawing table salt. But you should be able to get an abortion because that is "your choice" lol. Im not for/against abortion I just find it funny that the party that makes its self out to be about freedom imposes more regulations on me than any other.

I just had a thought:

The security provided by the American society until now was military- the benefit we got from being part of this herd was the protection from outside threats, keeping them out of our territory. That is what we paid into and expected in return.

Did you consider it necessary to determine who was more worthy of that and who wasn't?
Who should be paying more for that, and who should be paying less?

studies have found that regular swimming sessions in indoor pools cause about the same kind of damage as smoking does.
studies have found that perfumes, inscense and air fresheners have similar consequences.
studies have found that the nice soft blankee you just bought is toxic...
do you perm your hair??? maybe you should pay more!!!
have you chosen printing, machinist, and a multitude of other occupations as your occupation, maybe you should pay more!!
life in a city, take long walks down busy highways...pay up!!!

the list is endless....where should we stop???

I'm sorry but this is just plain stupid.
Threads like this annoy me because of the lunacy surrounding the issues of cigarette smoke.
No offence but you could have up with something better than this issue.......surely ?

Originally posted by dawnstar
studies have found that regular swimming sessions in indoor pools cause about the same kind of damage as smoking does.
studies have found that perfumes, inscense and air fresheners have similar consequences.
studies have found that the nice soft blankee you just bought is toxic...
do you perm your hair??? maybe you should pay more!!!
have you chosen printing, machinist, and a multitude of other occupations as your occupation, maybe you should pay more!!
life in a city, take long walks down busy highways...pay up!!!

the list is endless....where should we stop???

I think any study would show that if you get enough lawyers together you can prove that anything causes cancer.
Trust me, nothing is super dangerous and cancer causing until you can find a company or organization to sue it over.

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by ModernAcademia

 

This is a good idea, I've just quit smoking (clean for 12 days now) and I was discussing with my brother just how dangerous second hand smoke really is for children and teenagers of the world. There is so much evidence supporting how much damage smoke does to young children!

edit on 19/9/2012 by Kluute because: (no reason given)

No there is not, there is ZERO evidence NONE to back up the claim that second hand smoke is dangerous to anyone. It is more propaganda for the ignorant.

It is actually ignorant and disrespectful to force children to deal with second hand smoke. You can bring up your whole 'no evidence' BS all day long, use your brain. Putting smoke into your lungs, smoke that comes from a product with a cancer warning label right on it, can NOT be good for you, and here is the hard part, you may have to use your brain...if it is bad for you, than it is ALSO bad for those in the house that are forced to breathe this all in.

So true!!

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Smokers already pay more than there share of taxes..

Originally posted by Superhans

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by Superhans

 

Don't be so naive man!

If the first hand smoke causes cancer then inevitably second hand smoke will cause some (maybe not as much) damage too. It's not exactly going to be good you?

Like I said, ZERO, that means NONE-there is NO proof that second hand smoke causes cancer. It is just propaganda that has been floating around forever now.

I provided you with several studies that show how it damages young children?

How can you be so ignorant to ignore this? There children man - brains and organs still in development, with the number of chemicals in cigarettes how can you bluntly say it does them no damage?

Dont be so OPENLY stupid.

And here, i've quoted my previous post just incase you decided to skim over the evidence that smoke harms children.

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by Superhans

 

Don't be so naive man!

If the first hand smoke causes cancer then inevitably second hand smoke will cause some (maybe not as much) damage too. It's not exactly going to be good you?

www.healthlinkbc.ca...
www.cancer.org...
www.epa.gov...
www.entnet.org...
www.lung.ca...
quitsmoking.about.com...

reply to post by Kluute


studies have also shown that children living in big smog filled cities have lungs that are not developed correctly, maybe we should all stop driving cars???

and those same chemicals in the cigarettes are there because the manufacterers decided to add them for one reason or another, all boiling down to bigger profits for them..... only thing is, they are being added to more than just cigarettes, they are in everything from perfume, to food, to that nice soft cuddly blankee....
maybe instead of griping about the smokers, we should be griping about the manufacturers poisoning us???

reply to post by dawnstar


Maybe we should use cleaner fuels such as water, potatoes and hydrogen.

AND HEMP!

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by Kluute

 

studies have also shown that children living in big smog filled cities have lungs that are not developed correctly, maybe we should all stop driving cars???

and those same chemicals in the cigarettes are there because the manufacterers decided to add them for one reason or another, all boiling down to bigger profits for them..... only thing is, they are being added to more than just cigarettes, they are in everything from perfume, to food, to that nice soft cuddly blankee....
maybe instead of griping about the smokers, we should be griping about the manufacturers poisoning us???

edit on 19-9-2012 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)

I agree wholeheartedly. We should all stop eating as a measure to stop obesity from happening as well. Well said. Have a smoke on me.

Tobacco here in Europe is CRAZY expensive. We already pay ENOUGH taxes, believe me.

reply to post by Kluute


There is not a single definitive statement anywhere in any of the links you posted, NONE of them say second hand smoke causes cancer or any other illness. The most they do is say smoke contains [chemical] and that chemical is bad for you. NONE of them actually prove anything, try again.
You are the one who is being stupid for eating up whatever fits your world view without taking a moment to look at it objectively. Should I post the numerous studies that show that second hand smoke does not cause cancer?