View Full Version : 5 days till the ban in wales
Penelope_Grey
03-27-07, 06:59 PM
Yep thats it, no more smoking in public places then which means my home will be decisively free of passive smoking related unwellness and that terrible coated feeling in your throat being in a smoky club gives you. Bring it on I say. Got to think of others and their wellbeing.
ReallyDedPoet
03-27-07, 07:23 PM
Where I live in Canada, PEI, this has been in place now for a number of years:yep: A very good thing:up:
bookworm_020
03-27-07, 09:42 PM
Here in Australia they have staged it. Only a percentage of the club can be smoked in and some areas, like bars and eating areas, can't be smoked in at all.
Most wanted a complete ban, but the pubs and clubs association managed to throw soe weight around with the pollies, so a full ban is a couple of years off.
Bring it on!!!:rock: The sooner the better, I say....
RedMenace
03-27-07, 10:02 PM
*GASP*
Giving up your freedom to smoke anywhere you want for the common good of people? :o Isn't that.... LEFTIST? Doesn't that sound.... COMMUNIST? Arn't you all HORRIFIED?
No but seriously, your lungs say thanks.:smug:
No one should have to work in a place where their health is at risk for no good reason. A victory for the good health of every bar worker!
:up:
It does not make economic sense for the bars or tobacco companies, but it is always good to regulate capitalism so the people exploit capitalism and capitalism does not exploit the people.
RedMenace
03-27-07, 11:08 PM
Let us drink to victory!:()1:
Enjoy it, when I go up to Scotland with work it's amazing the difference you notice - you can sit in a pub and have a couple of beers without stinking of smoke for the rest of the day, bring on July 1st down here!
Wisconsins working on passing the bill I think over here in America also...
*ducks as the brits chuck an irishman at me*
Tchocky
03-28-07, 01:55 AM
Wisconsins working on passing the bill I think over here in America also...
*ducks as the brits chuck an irishman at me*
Eh? :)
Well, this Irishman is glad we were one of the first to get a ban in
Captain Nemo
03-28-07, 05:37 AM
Although I do generally agree with most of your views on this, I fear that eventually this will come back to haunt us with higher taxes on other things. If as is predicted, this ban reduces the number of smokers in the UK, then surely the Government will have to raise the taxes it loses from this by taxing things like alcohol. Remember, the reason the Government taxes cigarettes is because they are bad for your health, alcohol is also bad for your health (especially the quantities it seems young people drink in the UK these days) and it also leads to crime that also affects non-drinkers. For example, has anyone been in Romford on a Friday/Saturday night? I am happy for smokers to carry on smoking, because whilst they do, the Government is not heavily taxing something I enjoy.
Nemo
Being a relatively recent ex-smoker I have to say I find the ban smoking in public ruse somewhat hypocritical when we have our city centres choked up by loads of traffic fumes... You only have to walk into town to get a hefty dose of diesel exhaust from all of the buses and emissions from other road vehicles. Prohibiting smoking in all of these places seems a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted already. :hmm:
Besides, I've always considered the possibility of getting glassed or stabbed outside any one of Leicester's drinking establishments on any given friday or saturday night far more of a risk to my health than the bloke smoking a fag at the next table. But that's just me.
Where food is being served is a bit different, but on the whole I find the entire exercise to be a rather dubious and more geared around what's currently fashionable to hate and be seen to hate than out of any real concern for improving public health.
If governments are so solicitous regarding the health of their citizens, then why don't they stop pissing about with these namby pamby edicts to 'protect' all an sundry from the evil ill health despot of second hand smoke and actually do something concrete about removing tobacco from public consumption completely?
Ha! on one hand they are saying "it's your choice as an adult to smoke or not" and on the other you are vilified as some kind of pre-emptive child murderer with your despicable dirty habit (and all the while taking your money regardless). Come on, which is it to be?
Meh. I suppose when half measures are the order of the day, who wants to deny their treasury of the billions of pounds in duty and taxes that are currently levied on the sale of cigarettes? And if this source or revenue 'goes up in smoke' (ahaha, just my little joke) then where will the shortfall be recouped from?
TBH there's more questions than answers as far as I can see. At the very least be true in your motivation and carry it forwards in the same manner instead of the current lip service which we are beginning to see in the form of prohibiting smoking in public places. I wonder how long it will be before you get issued a fixed penalty notice for smoking whilst walking down the street? Well those lost taxes have to be made up somewhere don't they :roll: heheh. Which kind of brings me to the root of the problem here; it's all about money - were it not for that tobacco would have been ditched years ago as it pushes all of the right buttons as a highly addictive and damaging control substance, like alcohol for instance; but again there's plenty of people who are quite happy to drink to excess and consider it wholely acceptable behaviour around others, both young and old, so I guess it depends entirely on your point of view as to what consists 'good' or healthy behaviour for you or those around you.
On the grand scale of things allegedly protecting peolpe from passive smoke is of very little concern really, out of all of the other things that have a negative influence on your health there's far more immidiate issues which should be addressed.
Now, where are my smokes? damn! I gave up... I suppose those mind control adverts and water additives to make you more suggestable are really working :lol:
kiwi_2005
03-28-07, 07:26 AM
Yep thats it, no more smoking in public places then which means my home will be decisively free of passive smoking related unwellness and that terrible coated feeling in your throat being in a smoky club gives you. Bring it on I say. Got to think of others and their wellbeing.
They done the same thing here in New Zealand about 2yrs ago and it works, no smoking in bars clubs, some smaller pubs in the country towns shut down tho as 99% of its publicans smoked so refused to drink their they would buy there alcohol and head home. The smart ones built an open top (no ceiling) smokers bar. Im a smoker but i think no smoking rule is a good thing. Now the govenment is pushing for a Full banning on smokes in the country within 5yrs, if the law passes it will mean tobbacco cannot be sold in NZ. :huh:
Im not to worried in fact im hoping this will happen.
Yep thats it, no more smoking in public places then which means my home
Bloody Nanny State running our lives again and telling us all when you can wipe your ars*e, come on people. You are being brainwashed and your letting this corrupt state get away with it!!! What the hell happen to the backbone in this country? Surgically removed by the State in the dead of night. At this rate your need a farting licence to fart in your own home.
Your home is your castle and tell the state to sod off and stop poking it's bloody great big nose in.
You will all be in nappies at this rate. :nope:
The Avon Lady
03-28-07, 11:25 AM
I appeal to those of you who are still young and not addicted enough to quit, to think about your potential future as a parent, raising the children who will look up to you as an example.
Brake the chain of smoking while you can. Generations of your future descendants will be grateful you did.
Thank you for stopping to smoke. :rock:
Every cigarette is doing you damage (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fa9184e119). :cry:
fredbass
03-28-07, 11:41 AM
Well now I know where I will NOT be taking my tourist money. (Wales)
I live in Vegas, where there is a smoking ban, and noone listens. Hell, some places even hang banners out fron tthat say "Come on in and smoke". They give you plastic cups to ash in at bars so they dont have to keep ash trays on the tables, in case Johnny Law comes in. Its a joke....
But, after all. If you can smoke anywhere, it should be Las Vegas. :|\\
Penelope_Grey
03-28-07, 11:53 AM
STEED, the ban only applies to places like pubs and clubs and workplaces. I don't see it as a nanny state tactic I see it as high time too.
I am pleased about this, despite being a very light smoker myself. The truth of the subject is that while I am sat at home on a weekend puffing my Don Tomas, its just me that is inhaling it, nobody else, unless someone walks into the conservatory with me... I have 2 DT's on a weekend, and then, Normally monday to friday, I do not touch anything smokable. I do smoke two or three menthol cigarettes on a friday, but the daft part is, even before the ban, I always felt a bit uncomfy smoking in the presence of non-smokers. Even when in a smoking section. It didn't feel very polite to do that.
besides its ok for me, I smoke so little, when I am around smoke a long time I feel uncomfortable and a bit ill and happy to get out into fresh air. So I am pleased about the ban, and I know my brother is, being a former smoker hisself. He was 15 when he started to smoke the odd cigarette a day, but he stopped when he was 17 in college because of this girl he was trying to impress and she was a health nut so even though she blew him out, he never went back and he is 22 now.
I was 16 when I started, I was still in school. My dad smokes a cigar every other day. Which is a lot really... No ciggies though. I tried smoking the very first time the day after I turned 16, my thoughts was "there has to be something in it." prior to that, I never cared or bothered. So I pinched one of his cigars and had a go. Tried inhaling, nearly killed myself in the process... I coughed and hacked, tried again, was easier, and again, each time getting easier and I felt so buzzed and lightheaded from the cigar, I smoked another the following weekend, the third time I smoked a cigar I was enjoying it so much, and it was also when I got caught. Dad noticed his cigars were going missing, and blamed my brother, so I owned up and at first they tried their level best to talk me out of it, but they failed, my attitude was: not a chance, that I like it and Im going to keep doing it. Since my mother and father refused to cease their occasional smoking, I refused to cease mine. I felt since I was now over 16 and legal, I had every right to smoke if I so saw fit.
In the end they came round, and it was my mother that got me into menthol cigarettes. Said if ever I went out and fancied a smoke, I would attract a lot of attention with a cigar. LOL I did it once and she was not wrong let me tell you! My mother was a bit hypocritical, she was smoking at age 13! Though she stopped when she was 15, and then at 18 she started up again, smoking the odd menthol ciggie every now and then, and she kept that going. She smokes on anniversaries, birthdays, Christmas, new year, she is lucky she smokes about 15 cigarettes a year, if that she has never smoked regularly or even close to it since she stopped at 15 years old. But the sheer fact she told me no, when she is not averse to a puff herself was too much for me to handle.
My dad and I are the main two smokers in our house, my mum and brother are pretty much the no-smoking camp. My mother is quite anti-smoking, despite having the odd puff herself... my brother is the only one who doesn't bother in the slightest.
Still I do agree with the ban. I've only been smoking 3 years before I began I was dead against it, but I suppose when you are like that, and then you get a try and think well this isn't bad, its people like me who take to it like ducks to water. I don't think the ban is going to aid my decision in stopping smoking though.
Safe-Keeper
03-28-07, 12:44 PM
Good job, Wales:up:.
Bloody Nanny State running our lives again and telling us all when you can wipe your ars*e, come on people. You are being brainwashed and your letting this corrupt state get away with it!!! What the hell happen to the backbone in this country? Surgically removed by the State in the dead of night. At this rate your need a farting licence to fart in your own home.
Your home is your castle and tell the state to sod off and stop poking it's bloody great big nose in.
You will all be in nappies at this rate.:nope:Smoking hurts people near you, simple as that. By smoking in a public place, you're not only hurting your own lungs, you're also hurting others patronizing the same locale, especially the employees.
No one's trying to ban smoking in homes. We all know from the US Alcohol Prohibition era how that'd end:shifty:.
STEED, the ban only applies to places like pubs and clubs and workplaces. I don't see it as a nanny state tactic I see it as high time too.
Really?
Residents are to be banned from smoking in their own homes by a London council. Tenants in Sutton council housing will not be able to light up
PS: I am not sticking up for smokers I am warning you all this is the thin edge of the wedge and from there they move up.
"Commercial that makes you stop smoking"
Nope, only got sudden urge to find my copy of Bad Taste and watch it for the ka-zillionth time. :|\\
danlisa
03-28-07, 01:22 PM
Residents are to be banned from smoking in their own homes by a London council. Tenants in Sutton council housing will not be able to light up
If anyone tries to infringe my own rights inside my home, well, I live in Cornwall on a farm and we have shotguns.
Trespassers Beware.:stare:
This country is going to hell in a handbag!:nope:
I'll smoke if I want to, piss off Blair!!!!
Skybird
03-28-07, 01:46 PM
An examination ordered by a german TV magazine found that in bars where smoking is allowed, and even more so: in discos, the air in those places were seriously poised that in principle German laws on protective measurements at jobs demand to wear gasmasks and limit working time to maximum 4 hours - under raised health protection conditions, of course.
Another reporter magazine had the urine of children examined who lived in smoking parent's households. It was found that there were so much cigarette-related poisons in their urine as if they would have smoked between 1.5 and 4.5 cigarettes themselves - within the last 4 hours.
Passive smoking is said to be even more dangerous, because the smoke is colder and certain poisons that get prevented to become active at burning temperatures get actiove again when the smoke gets colder.
The best joke is "light cigarettes". These "light" cigarettes have so many additonal angents, that many doctors rate them as even more damaging to your health than standard cigarettes.
Smoking should have no place in your life if you want to raise children. And if you smoke, treatement of all smoking-related desease you later suffer from should be payed not by the community (the insurances), but by you alone.
Also, according to the originator principle, wherever interests of smokers and non-smokers (even just a single non-smoker) collide, smokers should be expected to step back.
Tchocky
03-28-07, 02:15 PM
STEED, the ban only applies to places like pubs and clubs and workplaces. I don't see it as a nanny state tactic I see it as high time too.
Really?
Residents are to be banned from smoking in their own homes by a London council. Tenants in Sutton council housing will not be able to light up
Um, yeah
London != Wales
Um, yeah
London != Wales
If it happens in one place what is to stop it from another. ;)
People are sleepwalking in this country, wake up.
Tchocky
03-28-07, 02:22 PM
If it happens in one place what is to stop it from another. ;)
People are sleepwalking in this country, wake up.
No one sleepwalked towards a ban in Ireland, there was massive upheaval from all sides, with the vintners and hoteliers saying that 100,000 jobs would go etc etc. Nothing of the sort transpired, and the ban has been a great success.
I agree though, wake up Britain, and ban smoking in the workplace!
Are place has ban smoking in all breaks and drinking in the lunch break. And drug testing is on the way.
The Avon Lady
03-28-07, 02:30 PM
Our place has ban smoking in all breaks and drinking in the lunch break. And drug testing is on the way.
Sounds like Scott Rodrigues (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/30/national/main2218378.shtml) once worked there. :hmm:
And let us not forget the EU Human Rights Acts, smokers are going to have a field day in compensation. Hang on they already are. ;)
Penelope_Grey
03-28-07, 02:55 PM
And if you smoke, treatement of all smoking-related desease you later suffer from should be payed not by the community (the insurances), but by you alone.
Also, according to the originator principle, wherever interests of smokers and non-smokers (even just a single non-smoker) collide, smokers should be expected to step back.
Smokers in the UK do get hit hard anyway, the tax on a pack of cigarettes is extraordinary, we do pay for our treatment, and then some.
I have always tried my hardest to be respectful of non-smokers, but respect works both ways, if I don't give them grief I don't expect to get grief. However I have found over the past 3 years, that there are some non-smokers who treat smokers like second class citizens. That is wrong, smokers may be inferior in a lot of ways, breath, teeth, general health. But as people we are just as valuable as the non-smoker.
-----------------------------
I don't know how the council have got the right to stop people smoking in a council house they are renting. Its crazy that.
Also I don't think smokers are inherently bad when it comes to bringing up children, as long as the smoker does not smoke anywhere near their kids what is the problem? My dad never smoked round me prior to me taking it up. My mother when she does light up every so often did smoke where she wanted but her logic was she went months between cigarettes so it was no big hassle.
Besides, years ago people smoked like chimneys as they didn't know passive smoking was a killer like it was, but the point is... just because you smoke does not mean you should be banned from being a parent or having a child. Smoking during pregnancy compared to drinking during pregnancy is by far the lesser of two evils.
If I do get into a relationship with a non-smoker guy would I be prepared to end my own light smoking? The answer is, yes, eventually. If you really care for someone, you have to be prepared to make a sacrifice for them.
Skybird
03-28-07, 03:44 PM
I have always tried my hardest to be respectful of non-smokers, but respect works both ways, if I don't give them grief I don't expect to get grief. However I have found over the past 3 years, that there are some non-smokers who treat smokers like second class citizens. That is wrong, smokers may be inferior in a lot of ways, breath, teeth, general health. But as people we are just as valuable as the non-smoker.
-----------------------------
I don't know how the council have got the right to stop people smoking in a council house they are renting. Its crazy that.
Also I don't think smokers are inherently bad when it comes to bringing up children, as long as the smoker does not smoke anywhere near their kids what is the problem? My dad never smoked round me prior to me taking it up. My mother when she does light up every so often did smoke where she wanted but her logic was she went months between cigarettes so it was no big hassle.
Besides, years ago people smoked like chimneys as they didn't know passive smoking was a killer like it was, but the point is... just because you smoke does not mean you should be banned from being a parent or having a child. Smoking during pregnancy compared to drinking during pregnancy is by far the lesser of two evils.
If I do get into a relationship with a non-smoker guy would I be prepared to end my own light smoking? The answer is, yes, eventually. If you really care for someone, you have to be prepared to make a sacrifice for them.
I do not demonize smokers, and do not think in terms of "evil" here. I just don't see why I should suffer health risks or should accept being affected by smoke in any way. Their freedom ends were they start to damage the freedom of others: originator principle. And when they decide to intentionally, willingly do damage to their health, then this is no accident, or bad fate. I fail to see why the principle of solidarity should come up for the costs of treatement if you intentionally damage yourself. And finally, passive smoking you mentioned. There is no doubt that it is harmful, and very much so. When you smoke, and inhale the smoke, and breath it out again, where do you breath it out to? Into the air, into the air of a closed room or ambient like your appartment. And what kind of air are people living beside you in that appartment do breathe in? The same air that you intoxicated with the smoke you just breathed out. The example of the children that I described shows how very much effect passive smoking has on the body. It's almost like smoking yourself.
What I did not mentioned is: cigarette smoke stinks, it stinks terribly, awfully, and sticks to cloathes, walls and curtains for hours and days. 20 minutes in a bar, and my cloathing was totally ruined. Hang it on the balcony for 24 hours - does not help much. I need to wash it. I also need a shower to get it out of my hair (of which not so much is left :) ). Smokers also stink, their hair, their cloathing, their skin and from their mouth. That statement is no offending and is no discrimination: it is simpe fact. Non-smokers smell it immediately if somebody smokes, or not. Smoke sticks to surfaces like a thin, oily film, that'S why opening the window does not help that much as one would expect. Smokers are used to that smell, so they do not recognize it as easily as non-smokers.
Some people also react more sensible to smoke than others. I myself get red and itching eyes and a dripping wet nose, I react to it like hay fever. If there is also too much smell of cigarette smoke, it makes me feel sick.
After all it is a poison cocktail we are talking about, not even pure tobacco, but tobacco beefed up with plenty of additives and artifical ingredients, so: what else than these reactions to expect? If you eat the wrong mushrooms, you start vomitting, right?
So, I tolerate smokers. but only when they do not affect other people who do not want to smoke themselves, and pay for treatment of smoke-related deseases themselves, 100%ly. Which is not the case in Germany. Hell, I have some sins myself, I stopped drinking beer, for I like it don'T like it anymore, but I have my glass of red vine every day and a good whiskey occasionally. By that I do not damage anybody, and even not myself, the secret advise is: to strike a right balance. If smokers keep smoking to places where others do not suffer from it, and if they do not enforce smoking onto their children as well, I couldn't care less for if they smoke, or not.
kiwi_2005
03-28-07, 04:04 PM
And drug testing is on the way.
The guys at work all smoke dope, alot of them are in their mid 50's its custom to them like if a bloke goes to the pub after work to have a beer. These guys drive the mining dump trucks monsters trucks where everyone looks like an ant when in the drivers seat, not one of them have ever had an accident the driving required is dangerous too, as they climb the hill where the road is very narrow one wrong turn and its a 300foot drop to there deaths they been doing this for years. Plus they can work 14-18hr days without a yawn seen :cool:
Thing is they beaten this drug test, when ever theirs one coming up they head down to the chemist grab a bottle of this medcine pregnant woman take , drink the bottle , test day comes up and they all show up clean results. :)
Besides there boss knows, yet turns the other cheek cause they such good safe drivers, its just company policy setup by the main bosses. Not long ago when i started up, my position is "bum boy" :oops: I startup the trucks do the checks for them etc., but this knew chap turned up 3 week into the job comes in a bit tired from a night on the booze, heads out and crashes his truck just on the start of the climb lucky for him. First accident in 17 yrs. Guy doesn't smoke dope. :smug:
:roll:
And when they decide to intentionally, willingly do damage to their health, then this is no accident, or bad fate. I fail to see why the principle of solidarity should come up for the costs of treatement if you intentionally damage yourself.
I'm not sure that I entirely follow the logic of that.
Not every smoker, be they a part timer or convinced 40 a day chuffer, will get cancer or a terminal smoking related disease or even require treatment for a smoking related illness of any other sort; that's the luck of the draw.
Many people do things that can and do cause themselves harm; extreme sports people for example. They do some crazy stuff and yet when they end up as a cagoule full of purée on the rocks below they expect to get the same treatment as everybody else. Like most smokers they know that there is a good chance of damaging themselves by continuing their indulgence, yet by what you are saying, unless I'm mistaken, they too ought to be denied free treatment on this country's medical system because they knew they might very well suffer because of something they chose to do? Now that hardly seems fair, especially when everyone in the UK pays for their free nhs treatment, whether they use it or not, straight out of their wages in the form of National Insurance contributions. And as has already been mentioned, smokers pay even more due to the massive duty levied on tobacco products by our government.
I know my comparison is not necessarily a direct one but I think it bears out a certain amount of weight in contradiction of what you say above.
Sailor Steve
03-28-07, 05:37 PM
We've had a similar law here in Utah for more years than I can remember.
On the other hand, "In your own homes"? That's a bit extreme.
Skybird
03-28-07, 05:42 PM
And when they decide to intentionally, willingly do damage to their health, then this is no accident, or bad fate. I fail to see why the principle of solidarity should come up for the costs of treatement if you intentionally damage yourself.
I'm not sure that I entirely follow the logic of that.
Not every smoker, be they a part timer or convinced 40 a day chuffer, will get cancer or a terminal smoking related disease or even require treatment for a smoking related illness of any other sort; that's the luck of the draw.
Many people do things that can and do cause themselves harm; extreme sports people for example. They do some crazy stuff and yet when they end up as a cagoule full of purée on the rocks below they expect to get the same treatment as everybody else. Like most smokers they know that there is a good chance of damaging themselves by continuing their indulgence, yet by what you are saying, unless I'm mistaken, they too ought to be denied free treatment on this country's medical system because they knew they might very well suffer because of something they chose to do? Now that hardly seems fair, especially when everyone in the UK pays for their free nhs treatment, whether they use it or not, straight out of their wages in the form of National Insurance contributions. And as has already been mentioned, smokers pay even more due to the massive duty levied on tobacco products by our government.
I know my comparison is not necessarily a direct one but I think it bears out a certain amount of weight in contradiction of what you say above.
The anti-health reputation of smoking I consider to be pretty much beyond doubt. No doctor with a sane mind will tell you that it leaves your metablism and your body unaffected if you do it regularly, and not only rarely. The soldiarity principle come sinto play where you for example have an accident when doing sports. Sprts is good, but you could have an accident. But smoking never is good, and accumulates damage that increases your risk of suffering certain types of cancer, getting your limbs or your lungues removed, etc.
Smoking is consuming poison, and if you take it intentionally, then deseases caused by that are no accident, but your very own responsebility.
I fail to see the logic in your reply to me that you fail to see the logic in my argument! :lol:
Residents are to be banned from smoking in their own homes by a London council. Tenants in Sutton council housing will not be able to light up
Fair enough!
Why should I have to pay tax to the council to repair smoke damage to a council house!
Penelope_Grey
03-28-07, 05:53 PM
if you intentionally damage yourself.
What about these kids on skateboards and they come flying off and break bones and chip teeth, and extreme sports people, they intentionally are damaging themselves, should they be forced to pay for their own medical costs too? I am paying for any future costs, every time I buy a delivery of cigars or a pack of menthol cigarettes, I am paying. I'm just one 19 year old girl who smokes, there are millions of others like me who all pay with every purchase of ciggies. Don't know what its like in other countries, but I consider myself paying up ready. Though I don't plan on smoking all my life.
When you smoke, and inhale the smoke, and breath it out again, where do you breath it out to? Into the air, into the air of a closed room or ambient like your appartment. And what kind of air are people living beside you in that appartment do breathe in? The same air that you intoxicated with the smoke you just breathed out.
I have every right to smoke in the comfort of my own home. If my neighbours don't like the idea of me smoking too bad. There is a brick wall between us that partitions us. Smoke may stick to walls, it doesn't magically phase through them. Besides, my neighbours irritate me and my family enough with their partys that go on, and that punk 18 year old spoilt brat of theirs, he has his music going till all hours he does. Not super loud, but loud enough.
passive smoking...*snip*... It's almost like smoking yourself.
It is in terms of ill effects, yes. Though being near a smoker is not an accurate sample of what smoking is like.
What I did not mentioned is: cigarette smoke stinks, it stinks terribly, awfully, and sticks to cloathes, walls and curtains for hours and days.... Smokers also stink, their hair, their cloathing, their skin and from their mouth. That statement is no offending and is no discrimination: it is simpe fact.
It is a fact, but, its a trade off. I once thought exactly like that. But what non-smokers don't realise is how enjoyable smoking is. I am not ashamed to admit I don't regret starting to smoke for a second. I accept it would be better if I hadn't, but smoking can be very enjoyable, both for light and heavy smokers. I enjoy it because I like doing it the mechanics, inhaling/exhaling, I like how it feels, and the rush I get off it. Its a bad habit I know, but its delivers satisfying feelings both to the light and regular smoker.
Some people also react more sensible to smoke than others. I myself get red and itching eyes and a dripping wet nose, I react to it like hay fever. If there is also too much smell of cigarette smoke, it makes me feel sick.
Too much exposure to smoke makes me poorly as well, but not to that extent obviously. Which is why I agree with the public ban, because you have multiple people all smoking and that is not good.
So, I tolerate smokers. but only when they do not affect other people who do not want to smoke themselves, and pay for treatment of smoke-related deseases themselves,
I am quite pro-smoking, I like it, and its something I get enjoyment from. Much like people enjoy expensive food loaded with cholesterol and people who enjoy boxing etc... risks, but, since I only smoke 3 cigarettes and 2 cigars a week. I am neither stinky, nor are my teeth in bad shape. I would never encourage anybody to take it up. In fact, I would probably try to talk them out of it. But I like my light smoking and that is that. I know what it can do to me, and I know its pricey, but I only live once, and as long as I am not being inconsiderate of others, no prob in my view.
Also, smoke related diseases, its so up in the air and inspecific. Non-smokers can get lung cancer too, even without over-exposure to 2nd hand smoke. Besides, I have been paying in my view into the UK's NHS for the past 3 years with every purchase of cigars or ciggies I have made, for treatment of any (heaven forbid) smoking related illness I may get.
Skybird
03-28-07, 06:26 PM
if you intentionally damage yourself.
What about these kids on skateboards and they come flying off and break bones and chip teeth, and extreme sports people, they intentionally are damaging themselves, should they be forced to pay for their own medical costs too? I am paying for any future costs, every time I buy a delivery of cigars or a pack of menthol cigarettes, I am paying. I'm just one 19 year old girl who smokes, there are millions of others like me who all pay with every purchase of ciggies. Don't know what its like in other countries, but I consider myself paying up ready. Though I don't plan on smoking all my life.
Read what I answered to jumpy. If you do sports, you do not intentionally try to hurt yourself. Concerning risky sports, there are those who do in fact argue that if you do parachute jumping, or inline skating, you should add a bit more to your treatmeent costs than if you would have had an accidnet from a less risky sport. However, a parachute jumper tries to survie at all cost, and me (inline skating) tries not to have an accident. We try to reduce the risk involved. A smoker is not after a positve health effort (smoking never does any good for you). You cannot compare the two.
When you smoke, and inhale the smoke, and breath it out again, where do you breath it out to? Into the air, into the air of a closed room or ambient like your appartment. And what kind of air are people living beside you in that appartment do breathe in? The same air that you intoxicated with the smoke you just breathed out.
I have every right to smoke in the comfort of my own home. If my neighbours don't like the idea of me smoking too bad. There is a brick wall between us that partitions us. Smoke may stick to walls, it doesn't magically phase through them. Besides, my neighbours irritate me and my family enough with their partys that go on, and that punk 18 year old spoilt brat of theirs, he has his music going till all hours he does. Not super loud, but loud enough.
I never said people should be forbidden to smoke in their own four walls. but I indicated that parents act irresponsible if they smoke in their home while raising kids. Kids are defenseless against the misbehavior of their parents, and many of their body tissues are far more sensitive while they are still young, which also is true for the lungs. They cannot evade passive smokingand are more vulnerable to it than adults, and amongst adults, females are more vulnerable to the toxic effects of smokingk, than males. Let's face it, pregnant women are recommend to drink no alcohol, and stop smoking. And I would like to see parents not smoking, too.
passive smoking...*snip*... It's almost like smoking yourself.
It is in terms of ill effects, yes. Though being near a smoker is not an accurate sample of what smoking is like.
I prefer to trust the scientists here doing the chemical analysis of blood and urine from passive smokers. Obviosuly, as already illustrated be the example of the children I gave two or three postings earlier, you underestimate the effects of passive smoking. Which most smokers do, and even most non-smokers. Most addicts and junkeys and alcoholics spend much time in playing it down and saying they are in control. They aren't. it's part of what in psychology is called "cognitive dissonance".
What I did not mentioned is: cigarette smoke stinks, it stinks terribly, awfully, and sticks to cloathes, walls and curtains for hours and days.... Smokers also stink, their hair, their cloathing, their skin and from their mouth. That statement is no offending and is no discrimination: it is simpe fact.
It is a fact, but, its a trade off. I once thought exactly like that. But what non-smokers don't realise is how enjoyable smoking is. I am not ashamed to admit I don't regret starting to smoke for a second. I accept it would be better if I hadn't, but smoking can be very enjoyable, both for light and heavy smokers. I enjoy it because I like doing it the mechanics, inhaling/exhaling, I like how it feels, and the rush I get off it. Its a bad habit I know, but its delivers satisfying feelings both to the light and regular smoker.
It is learned behavior. It is no instinct of ours to start smoking. That's why cigarette companies are so eager and desperately try by aggressive advertisment to turn people before their 18th-20th birthday into addicts (they even have increased the ammount of addiction-raising nicotine in cigarettes over the last couple of years to compensate for youth protection laws). Beyond that age, the probability of people ever starting to smoke drops dramatically, and that is not good for the profits. Once you are an addcit (speaking as a ex psychologist here, your metabolsim is constantly affected, and starts complaining if you don't carry on taking your drug. You feel negative symptoms, you are cold, you feel angry, you feel tired or think you need to "relax". You opick up a filter, and consume your drug. Your body feels relieved. but for the most it is no additional pleasure, but the avoidance of unpleasurable feelings that are caused from being an addict, a junkey. Also, smoking has a social function today, it is considered to be social, and it is learned by the example of others you see smoking. It gives fingers something to do, it helps to avoid brakes in communication. It fulfills the purpose that the playing with malas has in certain Asian and islamic socieites: it gives your fingers something to do.
Some people also react more sensible to smoke than others. I myself get red and itching eyes and a dripping wet nose, I react to it like hay fever. If there is also too much smell of cigarette smoke, it makes me feel sick.
Too much exposure to smoke makes me poorly as well, but not to that extent obviously. Which is why I agree with the public ban, because you have multiple people all smoking and that is not good.
So, I tolerate smokers. but only when they do not affect other people who do not want to smoke themselves, and pay for treatment of smoke-related deseases themselves,
I am quite pro-smoking, I like it, and its something I get enjoyment from. Much like people enjoy expensive food loaded with cholesterol and people who enjoy boxing etc... risks, but, since I only smoke 3 cigarettes and 2 cigars a week. I am neither stinky, nor are my teeth in bad shape. I would never encourage anybody to take it up. In fact, I would probably try to talk them out of it. But I like my light smoking and that is that. I know what it can do to me, and I know its pricey, but I only live once, and as long as I am not being inconsiderate of others, no prob in my view.
Also, smoke related diseases, its so up in the air and inspecific. Non-smokers can get lung cancer too, even without over-exposure to 2nd hand smoke. Besides, I have been paying in my view into the UK's NHS for the past 3 years with every purchase of cigars or ciggies I have made, for treatment of any (heaven forbid) smoking related illness I may get.
In your first posting in this thread, you also wrote:
"then which means my home will be decisively free of passive smoking related unwellness "
which I perceive a bit as self-contradictory when considering your defending of your light smoking. But that is your own business, so however, I have not much problems with what you said in the last passage above.
As I said, I do not demonize smokers. I only want them to respect their responsebility to do it not at the costs of those who do not wish to smoke, neither actively nor passively. Like you do not wish to loisten to that little punk's loud music in the neighbouring appartment (now I had two house wars because of that in the past, in another city... i hate such things).
Penelope_Grey
03-28-07, 06:49 PM
It is learned behavior. It is no instinct of ours to start smoking. That's why cigarette companies are so eager and desperately try by aggressive advertisment to turn people before their 18th-20th birthday into addicts (they even have increased the ammount of addiction-raising nicotine in cigarettes over the last couple of years to compensate for youth protection laws). Once you are an addcit (speaking as a ex psychologist here, your metabolsim is constantly affected, and starts complaining if you don't carry on taking your drug. You feel negative symptoms, you are cold, you feel angry, you feel tired or think you need to "relax". You opick up a filter, and consume your drug. Your body feels relieved. but for the most it is no additional pleasure, but the avoidance of unpleasurable feelings that are caused from being an addict, a junkey. Also, smoking has a social function today, it is considered to be social, and it is learned by the example of others you see smoking. It gives fingers something to do, it helps to avoid brakes in communication. It fulfills the purpose that the playing with malas has in certain Asian and islamic socieites: it gives your fingers something to do.
Well speakig personally, I had no intention of smoking at all. But when I turned 16 and legal, I got curious, there must be something in it. when I tried it, I didn't find it nearly as bad as I had believed, in fact, the reverse. So did it some more, stands to reason doesn't it? You try something and you find you have a taste for it, you do it more. true, smokers have to smoke to feel normal, yes. I don't get that, for me its purely enjoyment based, I like the mechanics of smoking with inhaling and exhaling and seeing the smoke and so forth, for me its more of a visual and sensational thing as in feeling the smoke in my lungs then out and so on, than just plain addiction satisfaction. I don't believe I am THAT addicted, or else Iw ould be smoking everyday. As it stands I can easily go through weekdays without the urge to smoke. I don't even get urges, and I am reasonably confident, I could stop smoking as easily as I started.
Also when I said home, I mean Wales as a whole. Not my home specifically, I am glad smoking is banned in public places. :)
However, a parachute jumper tries to survie at all cost, and me (insline skating) try not to have an accdient. We try to rduce the risk involved. A smoker is not after a psoitve health effort (smoking never does any good for you). you cannot compare the two.
Oh come one Skybird, be fair. Leaping out of a plane at 20,000 feet!? If that is not throwing yourself in harms way I don't know what is. Also I, as a smoker am after a positive health effort, I don't do it very much, as I said before 3 cigarettes, and 2 cigars a week. I also exercise regular and eat right. I also don't drink alcohol at all, and I walk to everywhere nearby. I consider myself pretty healthy, despite the smoking.
Though in all honesty, I am seriously considering making this my last year as a smoker. When my Liz died, I ended up smoking a full pack of cigarettes in my upset. I found it comforting, but its not something I envisioned when I started and it could have wrecked my delicate routine.
andy_311
03-28-07, 06:53 PM
Should be fun in my local when the ban comes into affect everyone who comes in smokes includeing the bar staff,in fact I have not seen a non smoker in there yet,it's going to be a vey lonely pub very soon.:rock:
fredbass
03-28-07, 06:58 PM
We've had a similar law here in Utah for more years than I can remember.
On the other hand, "In your own homes"? That's a bit extreme.
No doubt.
I can understand a law to prohibit smokers at restaurants, but a plain ole pub??
No way, Jose :nope:
You know, last time I checked, it was legal to smoke cigarettes and cigars. So in my opinion, this is a double standard and should be argued in court (again). :yep:
Tchocky
03-28-07, 07:00 PM
No doubt.
I can understand a law to prohibit smokers at restaurants, but a plain ole pub??
No way, Jose :nope:
You know, last time I checked, it was legal to smoke cigarettes and cigars. So in my opinion, this is a double standard and should be argued in court (again). :yep:
Is it legal to place someone's health in jeopardy because you want a cigarette?
The council house thing is ridiculous, but bar workers shouldnt have to deal with smoke.
fredbass
03-28-07, 07:02 PM
No doubt.
I can understand a law to prohibit smokers at restaurants, but a plain ole pub??
No way, Jose :nope:
You know, last time I checked, it was legal to smoke cigarettes and cigars. So in my opinion, this is a double standard and should be argued in court (again). :yep:
Is it legal to place someone's health in jeopardy because you want a cigarette?
The council house thing is ridiculous, but bar workers shouldnt have to deal with smoke.
My argument is not health related. We all should know its bad for you.
Oh, and if you want to work in a bar, you should expect to deal with smoke or go work somewhere else. :know:
Tchocky
03-28-07, 07:05 PM
My argument is not health related. We all should know its bad for you.
Oh, and if you want to work in a bar, you should expect to deal with smoke. :know:
Smokers who should take it outside, where their choices won't adversely affect someones health. It's ridiculous to expect someone to to breathe smoke for eight hours. I don't see how this can be anything but a health argument :-?
Skybird
03-28-07, 07:07 PM
Oh come one Skybird, be fair. Leaping out of a plane at 20,000 feet!? If that is not throwing yourself in harms way I don't know what is.
Compare the numbers of people dying of smoking-related deaseases and suffering amputations, cancer-treatements and such - to the number of parachuters killed or having accident. Also compare the seriousness of smoker's deseases, and the seriousness of prachaturers's suffering - which are not about lung-extractions, cancer therapies and limb amputations, but for the most deal with sprains, and occasionally broken feet or legs.
It does not compare, in no way. The more spectacular appearance of the sports does not mean that it is the same threat level like smoking, in general. If you nwant to complain about a sports, poick inline skating, or skiing. Accidents with skaters had exploded in numbers in Germany since some years, most do overestimate themslves, or have not properly learned it, especially how to brake :lol: Skaters are a common sight in hospital. when a parachuter has a mishappening and gets his foot broken, it is in the national news.
The news does not hold many reports on it.
fredbass
03-28-07, 07:13 PM
My argument is not health related. We all should know its bad for you.
Oh, and if you want to work in a bar, you should expect to deal with smoke. :know:
Smokers who should take it outside, where their choices won't adversely affect someones health. It's ridiculous to expect someone to to breathe smoke for eight hours. I don't see how this can be anything but a health argument :-?
Again, I'm just saying the laws present a double standard.
And it's quite unrealistic to expect a person who smokes and frequents his local pub to go outside when he wants to smoke, because as a smoker, I can emphatically tell you that smoking and drinking go quite well together at the same time. :know: You can't separate the two. :yep: :cool:
Tchocky
03-28-07, 07:17 PM
And it's quite unrealistic to expect a person who smokes and frequents his local pub to go outside when he wants to smoke, because as a smoker, I can emphatically tell you that smoking and drinking go quite well together at the same time. :know: You can't separate the two. :yep: :cool: Wrongity wrong. The smoking ban in Ireland has done nothing to the social atmosphere, I speak from experience, three years of smoke-free pubs :)
One wonders if, in the long term, there will be any fewer smokers as a result of the ban. The little knots of smokers outside each pub soon became a familiar sight, and in these little groups they often seemed to be having quite a bit of fun. Indeed, in its status as a social lubricant, the cigarette has been enhanced rather than diminished. In due course there will surely be smoking-huddle marriages, and no doubt smoking-huddle babies are already filling out their Pampers. The outlaw image of smoking is surely enhanced by bans. It has become a mysterious Other, the little world of the smoking huddle, and we all know the attraction of the mysterious Other. from http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000336.php
worth a read
If your fed up with a smoker blowing smoke in your face after you told them not too. Whip your (you know what out) and take a leak on them.
Advice given by Dave Allen.
Yep thats it, no more smoking in public places then which means my home will be decisively free of passive smoking related unwellness and that terrible coated feeling in your throat being in a smoky club gives you. Bring it on I say. Got to think of others and their wellbeing.
I cant wait. Give it a few weeks for the stench of smoke to get out of the carpets and buildings and pubs/bars/clubs will actually be decent places to visit again. I barely go to pubs currently as i hate the thick clouds of smoke, the smell, the irritated eyes and having to wash all my clothes and shower on returning to get rid of it.
I'll be able to order foot and eat in pubs again due to lack of smoke. Smoking in food areas really irritates me. Tempted to go up to someone and spit on their food - after all, im getting the crap coming out of their mouth all around me so returning the favour.
Having experienced Ireland, Scotland, Malta and other places with the ban i can say it has no effect on the social side of things, crowds havent lessened, pubs arent now ghost buildings. People just accept it.
In fact pub numbers in ireland have gone UP by 4% since the ban (they were in decline before it, now they're about 3-4% growth).
The ban cant come soon enough. Bringing the ban in early is the only thing the welsh assembley has ever done right.
Penelope_Grey
03-29-07, 12:47 PM
Compare the numbers of people dying of smoking-related deaseases and suffering amputations, cancer-treatements and such - to the number of parachuters killed or having accident. Also compare the seriousness of smoker's deseases, and the seriousness of prachaturers's suffering - which are not about lung-extractions, cancer therapies and limb amputations, but for the most deal with sprains, and occasionally broken feet or legs.
Alright, I get the point you are making there. But even so, there is a risk involved in skydiving, the parachute may not open, or the cord gets jammed or anything. That is a risk, there is a risk of death involved with skydiving. No getting away from that. I get what you mean about making smokers pay for their medical treatment, for smoking related illnesses, but that is not fair at all I also feel I am paying my due in the taxes.
It does not compare, in no way. The more spectacular appearance of the sports does not mean that it is the same threat level like smoking, in general. If you nwant to complain about a sports, poick inline skating, or skiing. Accidents with skaters had exploded in numbers in Germany since some years, most do overestimate themslves, or have not properly learned it, especially how to brake :lol: Skaters are a common sight in hospital. when a parachuter has a mishappening and gets his foot broken, it is in the national news.
The news does not hold many reports on it.
Think, I'd rather take my chances with smoking than jumping out of a plane anyway. :rotfl:
tycho102
03-29-07, 02:23 PM
Unwellness plus plus.
If smokers could contain the particulate-vapor in the same manner that alcoholics can contain the liquid, then I'd have no problem with smokers. Make a self-contained smoking appartus. Just make sure when the smoker keels over, the unit keeps the smoke contained.
Penelope_Grey
03-29-07, 03:12 PM
Unwellness plus plus.
If smokers could contain the particulate-vapor in the same manner that alcoholics can contain the liquid, then I'd have no problem with smokers.
My mind an alcoholic is more dangerous to others than a bit of 2nd hand smoke. Alcoholics can fight and hurt people, even kill them. Alcoholics can drive cars and cripple you.
Alcoholics can't make you passively drink, but in my view they have the potential to do far more harm than a smoker.
Unwellness plus plus.
If smokers could contain the particulate-vapor in the same manner that alcoholics can contain the liquid, then I'd have no problem with smokers.
My mind an alcoholic is more dangerous to others than a bit of 2nd hand smoke. Alcoholics can fight and hurt people, even kill them. Alcoholics can drive cars and cripple you.
Alcoholics can't make you passively drink, but in my view they have the potential to do far more harm than a smoker.
I'd agree. Alcoholism is a far worse disease than smoking. The social and emotional impact that it can have on those around an alcoholic are frightening, particularly in a family. The scars from that can be far reaching, beyond childhood and deep into adulthood. We're far more complacent about that than smoking.
As it is our societies seem to be all over the place on substance abuse. Weed is illegal most places, ciggies are legal as long as they have a lobby and bring tax revenue, we think you need rehab for everything except booze cause AA is enough for that wussy crap... our whole perspective on drugs is so archaic. Its like we're clinging to our pruitanical origins like a baby holding onto his crib and every 10 or 20 years we get one more finger pried free.
Skybird
03-29-07, 04:06 PM
Alright, I get the point you are making there. But even so, there is a risk involved in skydiving, the parachute may not open, or the cord gets jammed or anything. That is a risk, there is a risk of death involved with skydiving.
I think i take a risk every morning I leave my bed. And when I stay, too! Damn, life is a risky business, and so far nobody ever survived it. :88)
No getting away from that. I get what you mean about making smokers pay for their medical treatment, for smoking related illnesses, but that is not fair at all I also feel I am paying my due in the taxes.
I think it is fair, and what is even more important, it is just. Because a smoker does not pay more contributions to health insurances, than a non-smoker does.
Think, I'd rather take my chances with smoking than jumping out of a plane anyway. :rotfl:
Your death will be slow and miserable! :D
TheSatyr
03-29-07, 04:17 PM
What I find amusing is the whole "passive smoke is gonna kill you" thing. The Los Angeles Times did an article a few years ago that stated that the US Government funded a research project to find out the dangers of second hand smoke. The majority of the researchers claimed that second hand smoke caused little if any harm to people,while a minority claimed it was hazordous to others health. The Government went with the minority claims that second hand smoke was harmful,because that's what Congress wanted to hear.
Seems to me if second hand smoke was so bad my pets would live shorter lives...so how come all my pets have lived an average of 16 years? Especially when they are only supposed to live 9-12 years? Even had a cat that lived 22 years...and she was a house cat that NEVER left the house. I personally feel the whole second hand smoke thing is a hoax...an attempt to get people to quit by playing on their sympathies towards other people. (On the other hand,it does work...I usually don't smoke where there are other people around.).
And don't get me started on Global Warming...if it was entirely man made than why is the ice on the poles on Mars also melting? (A number of Astronomers claim a main factor is that the Sun is going through a phase where it's putting out more heat...but is anybody listening? Nope...they are branded as heretics by the Church of Global Warming,where Al Gore is the Pope.).
The "Inconvenient Truth" is that anyone who disagrees with Al Gore and his Acolytes is branded a Renegade that no one should take seriously...and since Al Gore is the Darling of the Media those who disagree get ignored.
BTW,does anyone remember back in the 60s when climatologists back then said we were heading for Global Cooling which would cause a new Ice Age? Last I looked their weren't any glaciers down the street.
And why do a number of Meteorologists (spelling?) consider the whole global warming thing as nothing more than an excuse for scientists to get grant money? They've studied the weather patterns through tree rings that go back tens of thousands of years...and to them what is happening now isn't that unusual. The earth warms...the earth cools...it never stays the same for very long...and if it, did THEN they would get worried.
The Munster
03-29-07, 04:18 PM
Up here in 'guinea pig' land where all this stuff is plied onto us first [remember the Poll Tax ?, we had a full year of that crap before anybody else] metal ash tray box thingy's appeared on the outside of Hotels [no riff raff pubs here :rotfl: ] and the Council created a "smoking prohibition officer" that wanders from Village to Village trying to catch people out in the Local puffing away. If caught, they are given a spot fine [dunno how much it is].
It'll be policed by wardens of some sort here. Also like in ireland and elsewhere the general public will likely have a role in reporting.
I'd definately report someone for breaking the rule.
What I find amusing is the whole "passive smoke is gonna kill you" thing. The Los Angeles Times did an article a few years ago that stated that the US Government funded a research project to find out the dangers of second hand smoke. The majority of the researchers claimed that second hand smoke caused little if any harm to people,while a minority claimed it was hazordous to others health. The Government went with the minority claims that second hand smoke was harmful,because that's what Congress wanted to hear.
Seems to me if second hand smoke was so bad my pets would live shorter lives...so how come all my pets have lived an average of 16 years? Especially when they are only supposed to live 9-12 years? Even had a cat that lived 22 years...and she was a house cat that NEVER left the house. I personally feel the whole second hand smoke thing is a hoax...an attempt to get people to quit by playing on their sympathies towards other people. (On the other hand,it does work...I usually don't smoke where there are other people around.).
And don't get me started on Global Warming...if it was entirely man made than why is the ice on the poles on Mars also melting? (A number of Astronomers claim a main factor is that the Sun is going through a phase where it's putting out more heat...but is anybody listening? Nope...they are branded as heretics by the Church of Global Warming,where Al Gore is the Pope.).
The "Inconvenient Truth" is that anyone who disagrees with Al Gore and his Acolytes is branded a Renegade that no one should take seriously...and since Al Gore is the Darling of the Media those who disagree get ignored.
BTW,does anyone remember back in the 60s when climatologists back then said we were heading for Global Cooling which would cause a new Ice Age? Last I looked their weren't any glaciers down the street.
And why do a number of Meteorologists (spelling?) consider the whole global warming thing as nothing more than an excuse for scientists to get grant money? They've studied the weather patterns through tree rings that go back tens of thousands of years...and to them what is happening now isn't that unusual. The earth warms...the earth cools...it never stays the same for very long...and if it, did THEN they would get worried. Thats a real polemic mate!
To begin with I wouldn't trust the LA Times all that much. And comparing humans to animals isn't very fair either. Different immuno-responses and metabolisms.
And if you wanna start a dirt war on Global Warming then you might ask why is it happening now? Why is it coincidentally only 150 years after the industrial revolution? Why is it after most of the reainforests in South America have been decimated? Why is it now? Sure it could be to do with nature. But just because humans aren't 100% responsible for it doesn't mean that we can't contribute to it in a huge way.
Life on earth is a delicate balance that we constantly upset. Just like a chemical reaction if you change too many of the variables too quickly you might make a big mess. We've always treated our planet like our parent's bank accounts: limitless and ours for the taking. But we've reached the limit of the expendable earth. We are now rather than using the earth, burning it. We burn oil for heat, cut trees for homes, and kill animals in the process. The whole system is funky now. If a person has a fever then its a bad thing. If the planet's temperature is going up many degrees at a time then why are we trying to pretend that we aren't causing it? Why does it even matter? The fact is that if something is going wrong that will affect our existance aren't we supposed to do something?
If its so not true then why are governments everywhere getting on board with it, why are the vast majority of credible scientists confirming it, and why are half the oil companies out there taking steps to help in reducing it?
The pinko-commie-left-wing-society-hater-conspiracy is no more valid than if I went on about Bush causing 9/11 for its own political benefits. Its just non sense. If the earth is getting hotter and that endangers the entire way life exists on this planet then you can't be telling me that it isn't a serious issue.
And if I recall correctly the last big grant deal I heard was from some hardcore right wing group that offered huge sums of money to any scientist for challenging global warming.
Penelope_Grey
03-29-07, 05:43 PM
I think i take a risk every morning I leave my bed. And when I stay, too! Damn, life is a risky business, and so far nobody ever survived it. :88)
Well there is risk and then there is unreasonable risk. I could have been knocked over by a car 1 hour ago. The end of me. But then again that is an accident, its not like chucking yourself out of an airplane just for kicks.
I think it is fair, and what is even more important, it is just. Because a smoker does not pay more contributions to health insurances, than a non-smoker does.
Fair and just?! how!? To deprive someone of basic health care or make them stump up extra money anyway. There is a lot of tax on cigarettes, cigars, and anything else you can legally smoke. Therefore, like it or not, smokers are paying into the pot. How the money raised in taxes from smoking is spent is neither here nor there, that is up to the government, a smoker should not be deprived health care just because government spends the taxes on something else. If you have a National Health Service like the UK does or something similar, then, my motto is, if you puff you are paying.
But that is not fair that one branch of society gets it in the neck maybe overweight and obese people should be forced to pay extra too because of their fat-related illnesses. Such as heart problems, diabetes, kidney difficulties etc... After all, like a smoker, if they took better care of their body they would not need medical help... You have to draw the line somewhere, or you make EVERYBODY pay for their own treatment. Can't just say these guys and those guys have gotta pay, but them lot over there with the big muscles get free treatment.
Your death will be slow and miserable! :D
There are exceptions to that rule. Also, considering I only smoke 3 cigarettes a week and 2 cigars, I feel perfectly fine. I am fitter than all of my non-smoking friends are. And some of them exercise too. :)
---------------
I fully intend to continue smoking for the time being, ban or not. I like it and so will do so. I know the health consequences only too well, which is why I keep myself low level. People would blame the cause of the common cold on smoking if they could! :yep:
Skybird
03-29-07, 06:46 PM
In Germany, some months ago there was the story of some doctors who challenged the laws on the ground of ethical arguments. They refused to treat smokers for smoking-related deseases anymore if these smokers did not accept to sign self-obligations that they would stop smoking. It cannot be that they get treatment while having decided to intentionally consume poison - and other people have to pay for that endlessly - and then they even go on smoking and causing other people even more costs for their selfish egoism in the future. These doctors let them sign treaties that they had to pay for all treatement afterwards if they would just continue to smoke, and did not start therapy to stop smoking.
In Germna health system, you can gain bonusses now for taking measurements (early checks, sport courses etc.) to lower the risk of later serious deseases. If you don't take such bonus programs, in case of related deseases you will pay more. Why should the community compensate for you not taking some minor efforts to reduce the risk of such deseases. Why should the community pay for all and everything that you are doing, or not doing?
Making people to accept responsibility for their acts is very fair towards the paying community, and I consider it to be just and fine. The principle of solidarity is not there to reward the stupidity or irresponsibility of somebody. It is there to give protection in case you become a victim of circumstances or events that are beyond your control. If you live unhealthy, eat a lot of bad stuff, consume poisons, that is no accident and no mishap - it is your decision. It is only fair then if you have to pay for negative consequences deriving from your own stupid deeds. I do not accept your queer comparison to sports as long as it isn't something extremely unreasonable (like mountain climbing without security ropes, or soemthing like that). For the latter example, special insurances are already there, as a matter of fact. And a growing number of services are no longe payed for in Germany, and must be payed by the patient. the removal of tatoos, for example. Beauty surgery witout a need, when there is no medical or psycholoigical need to correct a deformation. Fillings in teeth, and teeth replacements also are things where patients need to pay more and more shares for. Which I consider to be okay, fair, and fine.
So you smoke. Okay, your business. But if you do it in public, please have the decency to clean the place of your ash and burned cigerattes before you leave - and if one day you get sick from your smoking, pay for that yourself. Your act, your consequence - your responesbility. I do not wish to spend money on you because you have choosen to ruin your health. Or another example, if you are drunk and drive over somebody and kill him, do not expect me to accept your alcohol level to be an excuse that gives you a milder sentence. The law allows that, I am unforgiving on that (both for reasons of logic, and personally being affected). It is you who decided to drink, and it is you being fully responsible for how much you drink. You brought yourself into a state of being drunk. You could have stopped drinking, or told somebody before to take away your key. Not me is responsible, not your victim, and nobody else - but you. You are no victim of circumstances.
But if you get hit by a car when leaving a store, or brake your leg when exercising, or get ill by age-related deseases or because you fetched up malaria while being in holiday, you can count on me to help you. I mean if only I would be a British... :lol:
What I find amusing is the whole "passive smoke is gonna kill you" thing. The Los Angeles Times did an article a few years ago that stated that the US Government funded a research project to find out the dangers of second hand smoke. The majority of the researchers claimed that second hand smoke caused little if any harm to people,while a minority claimed it was hazordous to others health. The Government went with the minority claims that second hand smoke was harmful,because that's what Congress wanted to hear.
Please, I am allergic to smoke and during the hayfever season I am even more sensitive and even got asthmatic crises at times. :nope:
Skybird
03-30-07, 08:46 AM
What I find amusing is the whole "passive smoke is gonna kill you" thing. The Los Angeles Times did an article a few years ago that stated that the US Government funded a research project to find out the dangers of second hand smoke. The majority of the researchers claimed that second hand smoke caused little if any harm to people,while a minority claimed it was hazordous to others health. The Government went with the minority claims that second hand smoke was harmful,because that's what Congress wanted to hear.
Were that the same researchers that some years earlier claimed that cigarettes do not cause any addiction at all and that nicotine and the other poisons in it are in very severe doubt to be able to cause cancer?
A scientific study showed that in the past years cogarette companies increased the level of nicotine by around 15%, if I remember the value correctly. The sudy was able to give undoubtly evidence that comanies were lieyng when claiming that this was due to natural fluctuation of a natural product, but was being raised intentionally, artifically.
The newest reseacrh on passive smoking comes from European institutions and is less than one year old. Beyond that, simple logic dictates to reject a statement that when breathing in the stuff a smoker breathes out, this means that the toxic agents meanwhile have dissapeared into nothing. And you still breathe it in hours after the cigarette has been consumed.
for the most, smoking is learned by social examples, and before the age of 18-20. After that age, not even 20% of those who were vulnerable to it will become addicted. The industry must turn young people into addicts before they reach that age, beyond that age, 80% of the potential addicts are lost for them. That is long-known data, btw.
Hayfever for me, too, joea. Let's suffer together . Mind if I spend you a virtual Dalwhinnie, 15 years?
Btw that quote is from TheSatyr not me....
Hayfever for me, too, joea. Let's suffer together . Mind if I spend you a virtual Dalwhinnie, 15 years?
Please enjoy! I am a fan of quality scotch which I manage to drink very rarely. Let me say I have no problem with people smoking at all, nor even smoking in a bar, I go out once or twice a week so can tolerate it. I disagree there is no effect on those around smokers, I would also point out to smokers that there are laws againt the secondary effects of alcohol, mainly in drinking and driving, and I am concerned with violence etc. fuelled by alcoholism. I just tihnk we should be concerned with smoking too.
Skybird
03-30-07, 09:05 AM
:lol: I stand corrected! Slainte!
Penelope_Grey
03-30-07, 11:05 AM
Making people to accept responsibility for their acts is very fair towards the paying community, and I consider it to be just and fine. The principle of solidarity is not there to reward the stupidity or irresponsibility of somebody. It is there to give protection in case you become a victim of circumstances or events that are beyond your control. If you live unhealthy, eat a lot of bad stuff, consume poisons, that is no accident and no mishap - it is your decision. It is only fair then if you have to pay for negative consequences deriving from your own stupid deeds.
What if you can't pay, go away and suffer? You obviously don't seem to like the point I am making. If you smoke, you are paying taxes and that counts towards the infrastructure of the country. Furthermore, its not as simple as "just stop smoking!" its a lot more complicated than that, some people do not have the will power or where with all to accomplish the task and thus have no choice but to continue to smoke. Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on the face of the earth. Not everybody can simply just do it.
I do not accept your queer comparison to sports as long as it isn't something extremely unreasonable (like mountain climbing without security ropes, or soemthing like that). For the latter example, special insurances are already there, as a matter of fact. And a growing number of services are no longe payed for in Germany, and must be payed by the patient. the removal of tatoos, for example. Beauty surgery witout a need, when there is no medical or psycholoigical need to correct a deformation. Fillings in teeth, and teeth replacements also are things where patients need to pay more and more shares for. Which I consider to be okay, fair, and fine.
I think its a disgrace, especially as my parents and their parents have paid into the system all their lives, and are still paying and are denied healthcare. Thats like me paying into a savings account and then being denied a withdrawl.
So you smoke. Okay, your business. But if you do it in public, please have the decency to clean the place of your ash and burned cigerattes before you leave - and if one day you get sick from your smoking, pay for that yourself. Your act, your consequence - your responesbility. I do not wish to spend money on you because you have choosen to ruin your health.
Don't be so melodramatic. I know full well the consequences of my actions and I am very 100% respectful of non-smokers which you should know as I mentioned it earlier. But I absolutely refuse point blank to feel I have an obligation to pay when I am in fact already paying with taxes on tobacco products. So really you are not spending money on me, if I smoke all my life, I have paid all my life for any treatment I may need. (I wont smoke all my life, but Im just saying)
Skybird
03-30-07, 12:00 PM
What if you can't pay, go away and suffer? You obviously don't seem to like the point I am making. If you smoke, you are paying taxes and that counts towards the infrastructure of the country.
Quatsch. The taxes per package sold do not go into the health system, at least not in Germany, they are added to he genral national tax income which is spend to pay for all activities and services of the state - not just health care. the latter is massively financed by individual health insurances. Also, smokers do not pay more taxes in general than non-smokers. And last, in germany we have health insurances, the fees one has to pay intom them do not discriminate between smokers and non-smokers as well. What has taxes goiung into the economy, education, traffic and infrastructure to do with it?
Furthermore, its not as simple as "just stop smoking!" its a lot more complicated than that, some people do not have the will power or where with all to accomplish the task and thus have no choice but to continue to smoke.
Don't make me cry. You must not tell me about this, i have been clinical psychologist, and although it did not specialize in drug abuse treatment, I nevertheless needed to learn about it. If somebody has "no will power", sometimes it helps if he seeks professional help and makes a therapy to raise that will power. Sometimes just a kick in the a$$ also helps. Artificial coma and intense 24-36 hour decontamination of the body also can help in serious cases - the rest is behavioral changes. "I am so weak, i have no will, so I do what I want - could you pay my bill please?" is no excuse - it's an affront. If I would practice as therapist and somebody would come to me and tell me such BS, I would (metaphorically) slap his face. As meditation teacher (that I also worked as) I also kicked people out of their habit to make their self-invented weakness in will responsible for their claim that others have to share their responsebilities, do their work, pay their issues. No chance to avoid that! Get your bu-tt moving, and when I see you are serious in the effort, I will give you the assistance you need. If you don't even try and invest all what is yours before demanding others to invest into you, yo better get away and don't waste my time.
Nicotine is one of the most addictive substances on the face of the earth.
Why the hell are you consuming it then, and if you get sick from it, expect others to pay for your treatment? You play with fire, so expect to get burned. Nobody forces you start playing with fire. But when you start with it you are responsible for the consequences of it. No matter if you are low on will power or not. You - not me, not sombeody else - YOU. - On that matter, I strictly oppose tobacco adverts and selling drugs like these to juveniles below the age of 20, for this reason. the same concerning alcohol.
Not everybody can simply just do it.
That's why there is professional help available. The problem is not so much willingness, but seriously wishing to get away from a drug. that wish often does not raise before the pain has become too much. Therapists know that sometimes they must kick somebody even deeper, or wait until he has fallen deeper himself, before their possebilities of helping can become fruitful. People usually don't do what they do not wish to do, if they can avoid it. But why must others pay for that phlegmatism of theirs?
I think its a disgrace, especially as my parents and their parents have paid into the system all their lives, and are still paying and are denied healthcare.
Don't become abstract by saying "the system". We are talking about a precisely defined port of it only: health care.
I hope they receive that support they need in order to deal with health problems that they suffer from without massively being responsible for it. Things that are caused by aging, usual desease, accidents. All that is fine. But if they suffer lunge cancer and have been smoking, maybe even refuse to stop smoking and start a therpay after the surgeon took away their lunge, I do not see any reason why it is a disgrace that they are expected to pay for all that themselves. If you cause a traffic accident, your insurance will pay. but only when it is clear that you did not intentionally cause tha accident. In the example with your parents, it was them making the decision to smoke, not anybody else. And today nobody can claim anymore that he does not have intellectual understanding of smoking being hazardous to one's health.
Don't be so melodramatic. I know full well the consequences of my actions and I am very 100% respectful of non-smokers which you should know as I mentioned it earlier.
You just refuse to be held responsible for the consequences of your actions you are so very much aware of. That is absurd, you contradict yourself. Your respect for non-smokers ends where you demand them to pay for your smoking-related diseases.
But I absolutely refuse point blank to feel I have an obligation to pay when I am in fact already paying with taxes on tobacco products.
As I said, these taxes do not go into the health system, they are added to the general pot only. And although you choose to challenge your chances and raise your risks, you still do not pay "more" into the pot than those who keep their risks lower that the community have to pay for them, eventually. - If you have become older, you will find that most life insurances you want to enter first try to rate you on your age and health, and the money you have to pay varies accordingly. the higher the risk, the higher the entrance fee. When you have a car, at least in Germany you have to pay less when you already have driven twenty years or so without accident. When you had an accident, the costs for you go up. But when you smoke, it all of a sudden should be any different?
So really you are not spending money on me, if I smoke all my life, I have paid all my life for any treatment I may need. (I wont smoke all my life, but Im just saying)
You haven't payed a "bonus" for the massively increased risks you intentionally have choosen, that'S why I would demand you to pay first with the money you have yourself, and spend it on the purpose (if you have made that experience, you certainly will give it a second thought before continuing with smoking, I promise you). If your money is not sufficient, then we can talk about eventually adding some communal money to make sure that you can cover the costs for basic treatment. Which does not mean that you can demand the luxury room in hospital.
You give me very much the feeling that we talk in circles now, and so please understand that I leave it to this, I see no need to endlessly repeat myself. I have said anything on the issue I have to say. Love it or leave it. Nothing personal, nichts für ungut! ;)
Penelope_Grey
03-30-07, 12:36 PM
Well if that is what you want Skybird... really, I should have walked out of this discussion with you the moment you told me I was going to die a slow painful death kind of unnecessary and rather morbid even if meant as a joke, but, there we are...
Skybird
03-30-07, 06:31 PM
Well if that is what you want Skybird... really, I should have walked out of this discussion with you the moment you told me I was going to die a slow painful death kind of unnecessary and rather morbid even if meant as a joke, but, there we are...
Obviously you do not share my sense of humour. The first and third repliy I gave in that posting all were not meant so seriously. I even was surprised that you answered them in all seriousness!
So smile again.
[quote=Penelope_Grey]
Compare the numbers of people dying of smoking-related deaseases and suffering amputations, cancer-treatements and such - to the number of parachuters killed or having accident.
As well as the numbers being tiny nearly everyone involved in whats classed as a dangerous sport pays and carries insurance of some kind.
A parachute accident is unlikely to cause much in the way of long drawn out ill effects - you make a red splodge on the floor, are scraped off and generally thats the only cost to the system.
Also compare the seriousness of smoker's deseases, and the seriousness of prachaturers's suffering - which are not about lung-extractions, cancer therapies and limb amputations, but for the most deal with sprains, and occasionally broken feet or legs.
Compare that to a smoker that can need 10 - 20 or even more YEARS of treatment of one form and another to cope with the related diseases. All of this comes off the health service. Someone having a parachuting accident is highly unlikely to cause health effects on total strangers around them either.
Im involved with what some insurance companies class as a dangerous sport (scuba diving), i pay a large amount per year in insurance for myself and 3rd party. If things go wrong, i can only blame myself and im not affecting the health of other people sat around me minding their own business.
Sports and smoking health issues just aren't comparable.
I think its a disgrace, especially as my parents and their parents have paid into the system all their lives, and are still paying and are denied healthcare. Thats like me paying into a savings account and then being denied a withdrawl.
More like paying into a savings account then being denied when you try to take out more than you actually put in.
Here is an interesting situation, today I was waiting at the checkout then these three folk stood behind me smelling of cigarette smoke and I mean they really stank and made me feel ill, I should had excised my human rights and had them ejected from the shop.
No I have not gone made, read on.
Last year a employee came into work smelling of smoke and a complaint was lodge by fellow employee's which resulted in this person being sacked for smoking in there own home and coming to work smelling of cigarettes, that sacked person took the case to the EU courts and lost.
The point is this do we non smoker's have the rights to take smoker's to court?
Penelope_Grey
03-31-07, 07:27 AM
yeah probably you do... what most non-smokers seem to forget is, all smokers were non-smokers once upon a time. And since some non-smokers are happy to treat smokers like second class citizens then I am not surprised.
H
Last year a employee came into work smelling of smoke and a complaint was lodge by fellow employee's which resulted in this person being sacked for smoking in there own home and coming to work smelling of cigarettes, that sacked person took the case to the EU courts and lost.
The point is this do we non smoker's have the rights to take smoker's to court?
Thats fair enough, lots of places will sack you if you come into work smelling of alcohol and a fair few also have minimum standards of dress code/hygeine etc. Stinking like an ashtray could breach those.
For once the EU court made a sane ruling it seems.
Nobody cares what you do in your own home provided what you do stays there. Heavy smoking stinks on a person for ages, its no different to getting drunk at home the night before and turning up to work stinking of vodka.
Penelope_Grey
03-31-07, 03:36 PM
Its not fair at all. Taking someone to court because they smell of smoke. Maybe I should take my next door neighbour to court becuase he stink of BO, is that fair too?
Its a vast difference, smelling of smoke does not impair your peformance or standard of work, stinking of booze does becuase you are probably tired, not with it, and very hung over. There is a huge difference between smelling of smoke and smelling of alcohol. The EU court yet again has made a joke of things. Nothing sane there.
Well, I'm off to have a cigar now as its saturday. I will be sure to consider everything you said gnirtS... I will also consider how anybody could support Iran when they have 15 sailors in thier captivity.
Its not fair at all. Taking someone to court because they smell of smoke. Maybe I should take my next door neighbour to court becuase he stink of BO, is that fair too?
Once the door is open anything can happen. :hmm:
Its not fair at all. Taking someone to court because they smell of smoke. Maybe I should take my next door neighbour to court becuase he stink of BO, is that fair too?
Quite possible to be sacked from a job if you turn up in an unhygenic condition. Happens in lots of places.
Its a vast difference, smelling of smoke does not impair your peformance or standard of work, stinking of booze does becuase you are probably tired, not with it, and very hung over.
Not always. People can stink of alcohol even when not impaired at all.
There is a huge difference between smelling of smoke and smelling of alcohol.
No there isn't. You can be impaired from stinking of smoke, withdrawal, nerves, irritability and so on. Its no different to alcohol in that respect. Nicotine is very very addictive with quick and severe side effects.
The EU court yet again has made a joke of things. Nothing sane there.
I will also consider how anybody could support Iran when they have 15 sailors in thier captivity.
Well firstly nobody knows if they strayed into irans waters or not. If they did, then they deserved it. Secondly, dont forget UK/US arrested several Iranians who were diplomatically immune in iraq. We play dirty, they play dirty. Thats what happens.
Penelope_Grey
03-31-07, 06:27 PM
Quite possible to be sacked from a job if you turn up in an unhygenic condition. Happens in lots of places.
Then they should seek legal advice and fight it on the ground of unfair dismassal. I would. That is no different to sacking someone because they are ugly or something.
Not always. People can stink of alcohol even when not impaired at all.
If you say so...
No there isn't. You can be impaired from stinking of smoke, withdrawal, nerves, irritability and so on. Its no different to alcohol in that respect. Nicotine is very very addictive with quick and severe side effects.
I am not impaired by my light smoking. Its only the chain-smokers who have a serious problem with this. The Majority of smokers can handle themselves throughout the day.
Rykaird
03-31-07, 06:57 PM
So I usually come down on the side of individual freedoms in these arguments. And I happen to enjoy the occasional cigar (and given the sentiments of most folks towards cigars, including my wife, I have to go hike into the outermost wilderness to enjoy one in peace.)
That being said, I can remember working in a place that allowed smoking in the workplace back in the 1980s. It was an airplane hangar that had been converted to desks, and the smoke cloud just filled the place. Everyday my wife and I (both non-smokers) would come home just reeking of the stuff. Our hair, our clothes, it was just awful.
So banning smoking in public is not like banning, say, wearing yellow clothing. There is a definite health downside to the non-smoking majority of allowing the smoking minority to pollute the local air supply.
There really isn't much difference between someone smoking and polluting my personal air and someone putting some mild toxin in my water. It makes good health sense to ban it, and it isn't fair that my air quality should be compromised to support someone else's consumption habits.
Imagine if every time someone ate a donut or some fatty substance near you, some percentage of the calories and cholesterol got into your system. That's what smoking does - it has a direct negative impact on your health without your consent.
This isn't a freedom issue. It's a health issue.
Skybird
03-31-07, 07:36 PM
Is this nonsens still going on...?
Little girl now listen what daddy is saying: you cause a mess - you clean it. You intentionally cause a damage - you pay with your pocket money to fix it when you broke it intentionally. You don't listen when daddy tells you the oven is hot - you get your playing hands burned. Rightly so.
You consume a poison cocktail knowingly and intentionally and have thousands of lousy excuses for it - so stop expecting others to pay for you when that poison doesn't serve your health any good. Nobody owes you to support you when you wish to damage yourself. Egoism like yours is not what the social insurance systems in Europe had been invented for - they are life rafts: in case you get into existential troubles without your fault.
BTW, most junkeys and alcoholics also say, like you, "I have it under control", "I do it a bit only", "it is harmelss", "I can stop whenenevr I want." -Maybe you can, maybe not. One thing is certain: in no way you acchieve anything good when smoking, but for sure you are damaging yourself, and increase the risk of suffering serious diseases. Ask your doctor about it.
Stand up for what you are doing, and not only by lip-confessions, but by deeds. If you intentionally raise the stakes and try to do damage, pay for it, don't expect others to pay for it. If you seek a job, but there is no job, the system is intended to help you out until you found a job. But if you even do not wish to work, even avoid to work, and counting on the system come up for your living - i would cut you all financial aid. that these social security systems exist is no invitation to abuse them. But some people do exactly this. People like you and your view on the health system, young lady. And they usually have as many foul excuses like you have.
You see, I believe in freedom. You are free to do what you want. But freedom is not a right, but an ability, it must be learned, and it is not free, but comes at a price, and that is: accepting the responsibility that comes with freedom. I just want you to show us the maturity to come up for the consequences that you cause.
Do what you want. You can robb a bank, if you want. But please accept that the police will chase you. You pay into an insurance - but please don't take that as an invitation to abuse it. It will not pay for your failings if you fail intentionally.
Responsibility is the magic word here, and I think so far you have not spend much thought on that in your life. Responsibility most often means: MY responesebility. To lend a bit from Kennedy: don't ask so much what others can do for you. Better ask how you can live your life that way so that you are as small a burden for others as possible. That is your damn ethical duty when living within these social communties of ours that we call civilisation, imho. Intentionally failing to do so, and doing the oppsite, is called EGOISM. If everyone would take more from the system than he invests into it - how should such a system then be financed...??? If what is in your best abilities is not enough to secure your living, then the social solidarity system should help you, you shall not be left behind when it is not your intentional fault. But if you are just lazy and too phlegmatic to change yourself, and draw ressources from the system that are meant for emergencies, not for little kids avoiding responsibility for their deeds - what responsibility do others have to pay for your living, then?
"Take me like I am" translates into "leave me alone, I do not want to change my habits."
"i have my freedom rights" often translates into: "I refuse to be held responsible for my deeds."
"I payed into the system" translates into: "I demand you to pay for me, no matter if I behave reasonable or unreasonable."
It all together means: "I want more than what is my share." You know your rights, but you don't want to know about your duties.
Or to sum it up: you simply avoid responsibility for the consequences that you cause, and think all world is just there to fulfill your demands. Stuck in the oral phase, maybe? You say you are 19, but you sound like a little stubborn girl stomping it's feet because Mom does not give it the candies that it wants.
What you in principle defend is that you intentionally cause damage to a health system that is designed to help you in emergencies that vare beyond your responsibility. It is you being neither solidaric nor responsible. But you say others are discriminating you when rejecting to come up for the damage you intentionally do? Labelling you a second class citizen? You abuse "solidarity" by demanding more than is yours, and claim that is your right? Young lady, it is YOU being unsolidaric, and degrading those you expect to pay for you to second class citizens.
You simply betray the good-willingness of others, young lady. Social wellfare systems in europe are beyond what nations can afford, economically. We live on tick, and keep the system alive by making more and more financial debts. we spend more than what we earn. more demands are raised than everyone is willing or able to pay for. If you want to contribute to a good cause, or your nation's fitness, try to be as small a burden as possible - instead of expecting others to support you in increasing your dependency on the system. Europeans today wrongly think the social system are there only to feed their growing wishes and decreasing willingness to take up the responsibility for themselves. that's the major reason why these systems nowadays are - bancrupt.
Tchocky
03-31-07, 09:20 PM
Skybird, off the damn high horse already.
Winston
03-31-07, 10:30 PM
Being a long time ex-smoker I can see both sides of the argument here. I want to take a moment here to relate my experience so non-smokers might relate better to what it might mean to give up something that’s very addictive. First a little back story…
My smoking came to an end six years ago when I had a stint in hospital due to a collapsed lung. It’s what they call a ‘spontaneous pneumothorax’ which was nothing to do what smoking. Although I’d never heard of it it’s quite common. It was in interesting experience as it happened as I was driving along feeling fine and I coughed to clear my throat and I could not. I did not have enough breath in my lungs, a very odd feeling. Anyway, since I had a busy day I put it behind me and continued on about my day intending to phone the doctor as soon as I got home.
During the course day it got worse, chest pain, shortness of breath, rapid breathing. All the good stuff. When I got home I phoned the local surgery and I told some fellow on the other end what was going on. I got an appointment for four days hence. Feeling a little annoyed I decided to try and have an early night. Things got worse lying down and by now I knew something was quite wrong. I got up and jumped in my car, heading off to the local community hospital. On arriving I sat down in the waiting room after telling the receptionist I wanted to see a doctor. After some time I was led in to a room where I was greeted by on old, tired looking doctor, who had a almost completely disinterested look on his face. After a quick examination he sent me on my way with some antibiotics ordered an x-ray to be taken the following morning. I still had no idea what was wrong with me but I had to make do.
After a night of very little sleep I headed off to have the x-ray and meeting a friendly nurse had it done. After a while she came holding this brown folder and asked if I could follow her so we could go see the doctor. I asked how my x-ray was, but she did not want to say. Something in the way she said it suggested she knew what was wrong with me and that it was more serious than a cold or some such. Feeling a little glum we arrived to see my regular doctor and he explained what was wrong with me. On showing me the x-ray he pointed out my lung was the size of a small apple and said I should go to hospital at once. He offered an ambulance to take me but feeling fine I suggested a member of my family would take me instead. This seemed fine with him and this saved an ambulance from doing a delivery.
Anyway, to cut a very long story short what should have been three days ended up being a month ending with a transfer to another hospital and an operation. Quite the adventure for something so routine.
Not being able to smoke did not help much. Being young, full of myself and in the middle of an active life it was quite the shock to the system. No one wants to go to hospital and when in good health one never really thinks about illness. Just a day before I was doing my thing, having fun drinking, smoking and just carrying on as I always had, enjoying life. And now, come the time to go to sleep the first day in hospital I was craving a smoke in a room with eight beads seven of which were occupied by old men in there probably final hours. Coughing continuously though the night and mostly delirious from drugs or mental degradation. I could do nothing but feel sorry for them, feel sorry for myself. It’s funny what it does to you, lying there, nothing to do but think on things. I remember thinking damn it I’m going to give up smoking just so something good can come of this. I remember thinking it could not get worse than this and that life had presented me with an opportunity to really give up for good.
On returning home I had not smoked for quite some time. About twelve years before my mother had a stint in hospital and had given up smoking for a time. After a while she started again. I was determined to show that I could do better more for her sake than mine. It’s interesting some of the things that would pull at you as an ex-smoker. I think there are two sides to this addiction. First you have the chemical addiction, which makes you want to smoke. And then you have the physiological addiction which relates to the very act of smoking it’s self. By the time I was back I was very sure that I had beaten the chemical addiction but the physiological addiction was still there. One of the things I found is that I’d dream of smoking. And on the moment between waking and sleep I’d have the intense feeling of disappointment of failing to give up. After the sleepiness cleared I’d realise it had been a dream and chuckle to myself thinking how amusing my crappy brain is trying to play tricks on me.
As a smoker I think the act of smoking is seen to relieve tension and stress. Over time it becomes attached to this. A smoker gets angry with some one they would go and have a smoke to calm them down. Maybe after a long drive round the M25 with a non-smoker in the car they go light up as soon as they can. Now that’s fine, the passage of time means they need to restock there nicotine levels back to normal. However when an ex-smoker faces the same situation and gets agitated or angry they find the same impulse is to smoke a cigarette as this has been there habit for a long time. Smoke a cigarette and feel better. It can be quite a powerful emotion I found. What a smoker has forgotten is how to deal with anger and stress in the normal way you see.
What I did was to remind my self of this fact and remember that I was trying to make it look easy to my mother and brother who also smoked. I really wanted them to give up one of these days and was trying to do it subtly, not condemning them or lecturing them. Unfortunately it back fired. One day, in a normal conversation the subject drifted on to my giving up of smoking. It seems that my example is not good enough as I had no choice in the matter of giving up as I was in hospital. I just looked at them and thought to myself, damn! What’s it going to take to get them to stop? Anyway, it’s been six years now, and I’m at the stage where I don’t even think about smoking as a normal part of my life. I don’t even have to try to ‘not smoke’
Hmm, sorry about the length of this account. It could be longer but I’m going to end it there in the interest of my bed time and getting up late, having a Sunday roast for breakfast. :rotfl:
I too am a ex-smoker who gave up some 10 years ago and I was a thirty a day guy and that was thirty cigars. :huh: I soon gave up on cigarettes as the smell of them is pure chemical crap.
I am not against smoking out right but I would be happy if smokers would take in to account of the needs of non smokers and not to smoke around them and blow there smoke in there direction. Granted smoking is becoming a out cast interest due to the clamp down on them. You will never stop people experimenting in smoking, drinking and drugs and that is a cold fact of life.
Skybird
04-01-07, 07:38 AM
I too am a ex-smoker who gave up some 10 years ago and I was a thirty a day guy and that was thirty cigars. :huh: I soon gave up on cigarettes as the smell of them is pure chemical crap.
I am not against smoking out right but I would be happy if smokers would take in to account of the needs of non smokers and not to smoke around them and blow there smoke in there direction. Granted smoking is becoming a out cast interest due to the clamp down on them. You will never stop people experimenting in smoking, drinking and drugs and that is a cold fact of life.
Yes. But if you have your private passions (most of us have one or two, don'T we), follow them in a way that
a.) you are not pestering others (originator principle), and
b.) that you don't be a financial burden for others (not abusing the solidaric community). You are responsible for the consequences of your deeds.
The others have no obligation to tolerate you when your practicing your private sins at their cost. Your freedom ends where you limit the freedom of others.
If these valid and reasonable demands are answered by comments that those violating them feel offended, feel like being treated as second-class-citizens, and that it is unfair to reject that the system has always, without any criterions, to pay for what people are doing, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable, then this is not only impertinent, but shows a lack of social responsibility and lacking solidarity that simply is egoism in pure form.
This kind of attitude towards the "state", "system", whatever, simply is abusing the intentions by which such security system were designed. I am not in favour of the american way, to not have any obligatory social solidarity at all and leave wellfare to a voluntary willingness only. Those who benefit from the system, owe it to the system to give back accordingly. Those being in misery without their fault, shall not be left behind, and should be enabled to live a liofe in human dignity, because we are humans, no animals living in cages. That is not voluntary, but obligatory, from an ethical viewpoint. But i am also not enthusiastic about the growing tendency in Europe to show an attitude that tries to take all and everything from "the system" what is possible, and see how much cash one can take and still get away. Europe'S security systems are eroding, and selfishness like being displayed in this thread, and the lacking sense for being responsebility for one's own acts and deeds, are what cause these developements.
If somebody intentionally jumps off the deck of an ocean liner, do I have any obligation to jump into the ocean myself and risk my life in an effort to safe him? No. It is my choice to do so, or to refuse it. And when I am not fit to do so, I am better off not to jump - so that others now must worry about TWO persons and wether or not to take them out of the water. If somebody intentionally does something that knowingly raises his risk that he will need more help by the system at a later time than it would have been the case if he would not doing it, do others have an obligation to "tolerate" that? If you receive extremely expensive treatment, and after that refuse to stop doing what has caused you needing to get that rtreatement, if you continue with it, and maybe even reject all help and therapy that could support you and encourage you and help you to get away fro theat self-damaging thing - why is it discriminatory to make such a person to pay himself for his follish behavior? How could one offend others and accuse them of treating such selfish egoists as secodn class citizens, and intolerant ignorrants? The one behaving unsolidaric and selfish - accusing his victims to be like that when they defend themselves against his selfishness? "Nicht mit mir."
"If he wants to go to hell - let him go." As long as he does not change course, don't help him, don't run for him, don't join him. Else you find yourself sooner or later in hell, too.So again: if people wnat to smopke, let them smoke. but not at the cost of others. They have to do it in a way that they do not bother others, and thy have to pay for the consequences of this "hobby" of theirs. they can't claim a right that the community has to come up for it.
note that I said I would welcome a sales ban of tobacco for people under the age of 20, and i also like the ban of tobacco commercials. Let's keep the number of people getting addicted by social learning as low as possible. Beyond the age of 20 the risk that somebody starts smoking has become very low. That cigarettes in Germany are legally accessible for kids of the age of 16, is a very bad joke. Maybe the state's income from tobacco taxes has something to do with it ?
If somebody intentionally jumps off the deck of an ocean liner, do I have any obligation to jump into the ocean myself and risk my life in an effort to safe him? No.
First it's jumping out of aircraft now this. :lol:
ASWnut101
04-01-07, 11:28 AM
If somebody intentionally jumps off the deck of an ocean liner, do I have any obligation to jump into the ocean myself and risk my life in an effort to safe him? No.
First it's jumping out of aircraft now this. :lol:
Coinsidence? I think not... It's a conspiracy!
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-moverboard1707mar17,0,7166237.story
Skybird
04-01-07, 11:41 AM
If somebody intentionally jumps off the deck of an ocean liner, do I have any obligation to jump into the ocean myself and risk my life in an effort to safe him? No.
First it's jumping out of aircraft now this. :lol:
Good one! :lol:
Penelope_Grey
04-01-07, 02:29 PM
You consume a poison cocktail knowingly and intentionally and have thousands of lousy excuses for it - so stop expecting others to pay for you when that poison doesn't serve your health any good. Nobody owes you to support you when you wish to damage yourself. Egoism like yours is not what the social insurance systems in Europe had been invented for - they are life rafts: in case you get into existential troubles without your fault.
I don't have thousands of excuses for doing so, no idea where you get that non-idea from. I know full well its not good for me, but I tried something that is legal and liked it, thefore I do it. If you can't get your head around that is not my problem either, but it does become my problem when people like you inisist on giving people like me a hard time. So you say I am damaging myself, you are right, but there are plenty of others out there who intentionally damge themselves besides me. You have overweight and obese people, you have people who deliberately cut themselves with knives, skating people, and even reckless drivers... I don't expect anybody else to pay for me, because like it or not, and clearly you don't... with the tax on tobacco products, smokers are paying... everytime they buy they pay. You consider how much an average smoker pays in tax over a lifetime its a pretty hefty amount, that is not counting their income tax payments, and other taxes they are called to pay. I don't expect others to pay, because I am paying, whether you agree with that or not. Like I said earlier, how the government spends that money is their concern, not mine. They decide how to spend, all I do is pay it. As a paying citizen, paying for my public services, I am entitled to get healthcare if I need it. Also my family have paid into it over thier lifetimes more than they would need, so what they pay should count towards me too. That is not unfair or unreasonable to expect that.
Just like the overweight people are entitled too with the VAT they spend on their food habits, and such forth. You can't refuse to help people just because you dont like their lifestyle routine.
BTW, most junkeys and alcoholics also say, like you, "I have it under control", "I do it a bit only", "it is harmelss", "I can stop whenenevr I want." -Maybe you can, maybe not. One thing is certain: in no way you acchieve anything good when smoking, but for sure you are damaging yourself, and increase the risk of suffering serious diseases. Ask your doctor about it.
Most doctors, you go into their office and tell them there is something wrong with you, they will ask you if you smoke, if you tell them no, then 9 times out of 10 they are stumped. I am in great health, smoking, is the only unhealthy thing I do. I am completely teetotal, I don't touch junk food with a barge pole. Very rarely do I drink caffeine, mostly, I drink water. Apart from a bit of light smoking, I take excellent care of myself. That and worhty of mention; I attend the gym 4 sometimes 5 times a week.
Stand up for what you are doing, and not only by lip-confessions, but by deeds. If you intentionally raise the stakes and try to do damage, pay for it, don't expect others to pay for it. If you seek a job, but there is no job, the system is intended to help you out until you found a job. But if you even do not wish to work, even avoid to work, and counting on the system come up for your living - i would cut you all financial aid. that these social security systems exist is no invitation to abuse them. But some people do exactly this. People like you and your view on the health system, young lady. And they usually have as many foul excuses like you have.
Don't call me 'young lady' please, I address with you with proper respect so I should get it back... and secondly where are these, so called "foul excuses?" I have not made a single excuse in this thread at all. All I said was people who smoke through their taxes on tobacco are paying into the system, its not the smokers concern how the money is spent, all they are aware of is they are paying into the public services and other government things with their money. Therefore you have no right to refuse them that help.
Responsibility is the magic word here, and I think so far you have not spend much thought on that in your life. Responsibility most often means: MY responesebility. To lend a bit from Kennedy: don't ask so much what others can do for you. Better ask how you can live your life that way so that you are as small a burden for others as possible. That is your damn ethical duty when living within these social communties of ours that we call civilisation, imho. Intentionally failing to do so, and doing the oppsite, is called EGOISM. If everyone would take more from the system than he invests into it - how should such a system then be financed...??? If what is in your best abilities is not enough to secure your living, then the social solidarity system should help you, you shall not be left behind when it is not your intentional fault. But if you are just lazy and too phlegmatic to change yourself, and draw ressources from the system that are meant for emergencies, not for little kids avoiding responsibility for their deeds - what responsibility do others have to pay for your living, then?
How much more pompous are you capable of becoming towards me? First I am 'young lady' then I digress to 'little kid'. Next post you will likely be calling me a foetus.
Also, you are epitomising my point of some non-smokers treating smokers like second class citizens, here you do it endlessly, you are basically saying a smoker is not worthy of help from the state, despite the fact they are paying into it.
"Take me like I am" translates into "leave me alone, I do not want to change my habits."
"i have my freedom rights" often translates into: "I refuse to be held responsible for my deeds."
"I payed into the system" translates into: "I demand you to pay for me, no matter if I behave reasonable or unreasonable."
It all together means: "I want more than what is my share." You know your rights, but you don't want to know about your duties.
Or to sum it up: you simply avoid responsibility for the consequences that you cause, and think all world is just there to fulfill your demands. Stuck in the oral phase, maybe? You say you are 19, but you sound like a little stubborn girl stomping it's feet because Mom does not give it the candies that it wants.
That's it, I'm done with you. You have been quite arrogant and rude towards me during your post. You think you are better than me? Maybe you are. But at least I am not scared to speak my mind and what I believe to be right, and what actually IS right, and all you can do is look down on me like I am inferior to you. I have a viewpoint on the subject and I stick to it, I am 100% for the ban but I don't agree with you saying smokers should be forced to pay extra for healthcare when technically they do pay extra through their habit anyway. You don't agree with me and what I have to say, fine, I have no problem with that, but if all you can do to fight your corner is to call me "little girl", "young lady", and "little kid" and be condescending then we have nothing further to say to each other.
Rykaird
04-01-07, 03:12 PM
That's it, I'm done with you. You have been quite arrogant and rude towards me during your post. You think you are better than me? Maybe you are. But at least I am not scared to speak my mind and what I believe to be right, and what actually IS right, and all you can do is look down on me like I am inferior to you. I have a viewpoint on the subject and I stick to it, I am 100% for the ban but I don't agree with you saying smokers should be forced to pay extra for healthcare when technically they do pay extra through their habit anyway. You don't agree with me and what I have to say, fine, I have no problem with that, but if all you can do to fight your corner is to call me "little girl", "young lady", and "little kid" and be condescending then we have nothing further to say to each other.
In the workplace or during other normal face-to-face human interaction, if we disagree with someone, even strongly disagree, we attack the arguments the other person is making. On the internet, many folks instead attack the person making the arguments.
I guess this is the fallout from everyone being anonymous. Unfortunately, this tendency to make it personal shuts down communication, when the whole purpose of debate is to use communication to attempt to forge understanding. Debate is one of our most powerful techniques to learn and to understand diverse points of view. Attacking the person rather than their arguments renders the power of debate useless and even counter-productive.
A pity, really, that some folks (Skybird, in this example) simply can't behave online the way they would down the pub.
I guess this is why God in his wisdom created "ignore lists."
Skybird
04-01-07, 04:19 PM
And more self-excusing from Penelope. I did not call you a little kid by mistake, but because you behave like one. Please note that I did not tell you to stop smoking. I told you that it is intentional self-damaging, that the social security system is not made for being abused by stupid egoists who expect to always be financed no matter how much mess they cause (smoking causes billions and billions in health costs, btw.), and that you have no right whatever to demand others to come up and pay for you if that damage you intentionally provoke ever becomes appearent. You were unable to see the humour by which I silently offered to stop this debate earlier, and just continued. You then called me indirectly as treating you and smokers as second-class-citizens even after I had withdrawn here, which implies that you say I behave in any way discriminatory towards you and smokers. And now you wonder why I do not take you seriously...? Go to bed, little girl, and grow up a bit more until you accept responsibility for yourself and pay for what you intentionally are willing to cause in damages for the community-treasure.
Boy, what ammount of hypocrisy in all that word-pouring of yours. Go on to smoke if you want, no problem, BUT DONT BOTHER OTHERS BY DOING SO, neitehr by smell, nor by money, AND PAY THE PRICE FOR IT ALL BY YOURSELF. Which - when judging by your circular arguments - obviously is too much demanded from you.
Rykaird,
if we would face vis a vis in a pub, I would say the same, any maybe even much sharper. You can safely assume that I am much more fluid in my mother language. I would say these things always when somebody shows uzp and tells me that I owe him to pay his persopnal private follies, endlessly. That's not what my money is there for, and that is not what the social wellfare state is there for. And if you - just hypothetical - happen to always drink so much alcohol in the pub over many years that you finally need a new kidney - pay it yourself, please, don't expect others to pay for it, for you provoked it. If that is too expensive, you maybe wish to take more care of yourself, then...?
It's easy to spend the money - especially if it is the money of others.
New German health laws in effect since today, April 1st (no joke). People have to pay more money into health insurance from now on or have to pay more for treatment themselves in case of becoming ill and if they refused to take according regular healthchecks. They have to add less money to their treatment, if they have done these checks in the years before. They also can collect boni for participating in student seminaries to learn about food, for example, or do regular exercising. If they do not become ill by doing so, they eventually can receive paybacks. The more you do to decrease the risk that you become ill, the more rewards you can get, and the lesser you have to add if you nevertheless should become ill. The more careless you behave, the more risk-factor you accumulate, the more expensive it becomes for you if you become ill for these reasons. Very good encouragement for people to take responsebility for themsleves, their lives, their health.
But possible that it needs people to change some old habits they grew fond of. Grrrreat problem!
With dentists, it is like this since a longer while now.
You must hate it, Penelope. No more unconditional full-time 5 star service for everybody who is trying to become sick. Isn't this even more unfairness towards those many second-class citizens living in our nations?
And has anyone ever noticed that no matter how little moeny somebody gets from social wellfare, there seem to be always two things present for which there is always money enough: extremely sweet soft-drinks like Coke or Sprite (tons of white sugar in them), and cigarettes? ;) Kind of absurd.
Penelope_Grey
04-01-07, 05:12 PM
I know didn't call me a little kid by mistake, I may be young but I am far from stupid despite your opinion...
I am fully aware of that fact it was no mistake. Further I didn't find it all that funny when you told me I was going to "die a slow and painful death", because what you put was incredibly insensitive when many others here perhaps lost loved ones to smoking-related illnesses and might well have found your joke a tasteless thing.
You assume correct about when you say "You then called me indirectly as treating you and smokers as second-class-citizens" I don't say you discriminate but I got the impression you do find smokers as second class citizens and I can definately sense an auro of superiority there, can I ask do you have and friends who smoke? Any overweight friends?
I find your attitudes towards 'social outcasts' like myself and other 'unfit' people disturbing, you would basically turn your back on them and leave them to suffer unless they can pay, well I care for my fellow human beings, whether they are fat, smoke, mental... whatever.... Everybody deserves help, no ifs buts and maybes, your survival of the fittest crap is outdated and should have gone with the dinosaurs. Also, I stand by what I say, about how tax on smoking could be used to help health services and pay for treatments, and you and your arguments of individual responsibility is not going to budge that belief of mine, we all in some way pay what we can and how much we can into the system. And for that, you call me little kid. And tell me to go to bed. Do you think that because you are older you think you are automatically right?
Skybird
04-01-07, 05:49 PM
So now I am about "social outcasts" that I want to see extincted by "survival of the fittest". And that i do not help at all (while I already said the exact opposite twice). More labels behind which you can hide your egoism.
Rest assured that others can care themselves to let me know if they find my humour towards you in that oneliner you quoted any hurting to themselves. This forum is no shy place, if someone has a problem with sombody else, he usually lets him know beyond doubt.
I have or had smokers amongst my friends. But they use to not smoke in my presence or the presence of other non-smokers, whereas in my appartement it simply is forbidden for all.
Everybody deserves help, you say. that could be debated, but let's skip that philosophical exploration. I said aboive that we are humans, no animals, and that smokers should be helped (note that, please!) I also said that for smoking-related issues they first should spend their own money, before they can expect others to pay for that, and that if they let others pay for their selfishness of accumulating risk factors, they cannot expect that others are thankful for their mindlessness, and that they cannot expect to receive more than the basical treatment without any luxury programs and top service, if they do not pay special compensations for the added risks they accept by smoking.
If you ride a bike and shatter a window while passing it, it is an accident you are responsible for, but it was unintentional, so your insurrance will pay for it. If you shatter it because a car hits you, the car driver's insurance will pay. But if you stop, get off your bike and intentionally throw a stone into the window, the insurrance will a.) not pay for you, or b.) it will pay - and after that end the contract with you.
Risks are part of life. To have some safety in case you get hit by fate without your guilt - that is what the social security system is there for. Also when you try to do something good that can only be done at the price to accept a certain risk (sports, for example, with the exception of most extreme sports, or sports that statistically are overrepresented in accident statistics). But if you intentionally raise your risks, wilfully accept to damage community treasures - you have no claims to make that others should pay for you. The more risks you accept, the more contribution you should spend for the community treasure.
Obviously more and more Europeans politicians and private people as well see it like this, because you find mechanisms that make acceptance of respensibility for your own health obligatory, like those in Germany that I described, in many european nations.
I don't see why smoking should stay an exception from this rule.
And you can ignore it or not like it as long as you want - but tobacco taxes are not bound to the health sector only. They are added to the general tax income. You do not explicitly finance the health system when buying cigarettes. not in Germany. And not in Britain as well, as far as I do know.
Everyone deserves help? If somebody refuses to be helped, I try a second time, and if he still refuses, I walk away and wait for somebody you needs and accepts my help, or until he comes after me and asks for help. Nobody deserves that help is enforced upon him. Some people need help because they brought themselves intentionally into a situation where they need help. that has something to do with terms like stupidness, idiotism, incompetence or thoughtlessness. Okay, help them. but since they are responsible for their fate, why should they have a right that they get all help for free? why shouldn't they pay themsleves for the fate that they have provoked and choosen?
You are thoughtless about your own smoking. Maybe because you expect that any negative effect will be cost-free for you. If you have made the first painful financial payment for treatement yourself, you will think differently about your smoking - if you are no junky. If you already are an addict, it is the reasonable right of the community to demand you to accept helpt to quit smoking after you got treated. If you reject this help and do not care for stopping to smoke, it is only fair that we others than demand you to pay for the damage you have thoughtlessly caused to the community treasure. You say you know what you are doing when smoking, but that all is cheap and empty words only as long as you are allowed to leave it to words only when you eventually get sick. when you accept the responsebility for the choice you made and then pay for it with your very own money - than I am impressed and accept that you really know what you do. Instead olyu have endless excuses why you smoke, and why you expect not to be charged for it when you get ill.
Why must a stranger, more than twice as old as you and from a foreign country, tell you these things? Hell, I'm not your father. All this is basic ethics, principal stuff. At your age I would expect even young people to understand that they have no right not to be held responsible for damage that they are intentionally, wilfully causing.
But your position reflects the Zeitgeist and omni-present egoism in our societies, and that is a shame, so in a way, you maybe don't know it any better. Victim of circumstances.
Which does not mean that you cannot learn to know it better! ;)
I am not impaired by my light smoking. Its only the chain-smokers who have a serious problem with this. The Majority of smokers can handle themselves throughout the day.
No way to measure this though short of blood tests and i cant see smokers agreeing to one of those every morning before work.
You can stink of smoke and not be impared. Likewise however you can stink of alcohol and be unimpaired/under all legal limits.
All I said was people who smoke through their taxes on tobacco are paying into the system, its not the smokers concern how the money is spent, all they are aware of is they are paying into the public services and other government things with their money. Therefore you have no right to refuse them that help.
You do when they dont pay enough to actually cover the costs as is the case with smoking.
Very expensive medical care can be needed for 10-20 YEARS for some smoking related illnesses. On an individual basis this costs more than they've contributed in taxes meaning other people who choose not to self harm end up paying to cover that cost.
Skybird
04-03-07, 05:00 AM
All I said was people who smoke through their taxes on tobacco are paying into the system, its not the smokers concern how the money is spent, all they are aware of is they are paying into the public services and other government things with their money. Therefore you have no right to refuse them that help.
You do when they dont pay enough to actually cover the costs as is the case with smoking.
Very expensive medical care can be needed for 10-20 YEARS for some smoking related illnesses. On an individual basis this costs more than they've contributed in taxes meaning other people who choose not to self harm end up paying to cover that cost.
I searched two days ago and found plenty, I mean: real floods of varying data concerning how much tax income the sales of cigarettes produce for the state in Germany, England and America, and how much of the health care costs are related to treatment of smoking-related diseases. There is great variation in the data given, unfortunately, which makes it hard to nail it down to two single numbers.
The taxes are estimated the higher the more pro-smoking lobbying the site is doing. Sites related to the tobacco industry count them as signbificantly higher than others.
There is also no stable estimation on health costs produced by smoking, at least not on the many sites I googled. The values also are hugely varying, more for Europe, than for America, which seems to have better data available both on taxes and health costs. Sure is that we talk about several billions per nation. the problem could be that opinions vary in when to conclude that a disease if caused by smoking. More intense long time care at high age due to a living with smoking also is hard to be defined in precise numbers. There are a number of disease where the link between smoking and desease is very obvious (lunge cancer, limb amoutations), in other cases we need to think more in terms of a given disease having an increased risk for outbrake (certain types of cardiovascular diseases)
But a trend can be clearly formulated: the relation between tax income and smoking-related health cost. The health costs are multiple times higher than the procuded tax income. The relation varies, according to the data from mutiple sites between 1:4 and 1:10.
that means that by selling cigarettes, the state accepts related costs to the health system that are at minimum 4 times higher than the produced tax income. It could be as much as 10 times higher.
Which makes it kind of absurd for the state to legalize cigarettes on the ground of arguing with the tax income for the state. The fact that the tobacco-taxes do not go directly into the health system, but into the tax pot in general and from their got distributed for multiple purposes, seems to have a very strong deceiving effect. Not to mention the actoive lobby work by the industry: which in germany just had managed to weaken up planned and quite rigid anti-smokeing-laws successfully again - although after long negotiations the parties agreed on a very tough course before. It got loosened up by private relations of authorities from Länder-ebene with representatives of the tobacco-lobby, while the federal government's great coalition exactly wanted to prevent these backdoors..
Solution: do a count of how high smoke-related health costs in your nation has been last year. Divide the health costs by the number of packages that got sold over that year, and you have the tax value you need to add to the price of each package in order to make tobacco taxes compensating for the fincial damage smoking does to the health system.
The prices for cigarettes will skyrocket into the air. :up: the tax per package will be several times as high than the actual price set by the tobacco industry.
repeat this procedure every or every second year. Experience shows that the connsumation by smokers of opportunity and light and medium addicts goes down the higher the prices become. When Germany rasied the taxes over the last years, it suddenly had tax incomes going down, due to less packages being sold.
If then you smoke in private rooms only, not in public buildings, restaurants, bars, and not when you are raising children, then it is your private business only indeed, and people like me will not complain. Becasue the children are defensless and need to be protected from the stupidity of irresponsible parents, and if they develope long-time disease due to their parents smoking (asthma, concentration deficits, allergic reactions, damage to the immune system and others being real problems), smoking again would do damage to the public treasury. Not to mention the damage to the child.
I was wondering about the relation between taxes and health costs, Skybird and gnirtS seem to back up what I suspected. However, another question, besides creating restrictions to discourage smoking and protect others from its effects (not ban it of course)...I would be in favour of "natural" tobacco. I suspect a lot of harm is done by additives the industry has mixed in (as is the case with the food industry frankly) and would support a ban on their use. :hmm:
Skybird
04-03-07, 05:45 AM
That is true as to my knowledge, the many additives are doing a great ammount of harm. I remember to have red a longer while ago that certain light-cigarettes include even more various poisons, than the original brand (that'S why the EU has prohibited the use of names like "Brandname Light". Many of these addditives are not there for "taste", but to increase the efficieny of the nicotine, so that the smokers becomes an addict faster. Two months ago there was also a report from a medical university that was able to show that the increase of tar and nicotine in cigarettes is not due to natuzral fluctuations in a natural product, but was increased intentuionally by th eindustry, to compensate for expected losses due to raising taxes. These companies intentionally turn people into junkey depending on them. They are dealers, all of them, and should be locked behind iron bars.
However, natural tobacco also include significant levels of tar and nicotine.
I defend the zero promille rule, concerning alcohol and car driving. The organism reacts differently from day to day, and every man is different from all others. If you plan to drive, don't drink. Clean, clear solution, everybody understand there is no optional exception from the rule, it is the most safest. Why not having a rule like that with tobacco, too? especially when we are hypocritical. Cannabis has it's risks, yes, but it is not as harmful and causes us much, much lesser health costs than cigarettes. Or even white sugar! Moden society is pleagued and poisened by "foods" that better should carry a skull-and-bones emblem in their name: white flour, bad fats, bad oils, way to much salt, white sugar, gene-food being highly suspicious and animals in experiemnts becoming sick from it ... No wonder that there are more and more fat people, young kids already suffering from obesity and cannot stand on one foot for a minute and even cannot walk backwards, health costs for such things exploding, and diabetes becomeing the new most widespread disease amongst all "civilisational diseases". Add to this the lack of excersising (I admit the older I get the more I am guilty of this myself...).
"Natural" contains 300-400 various compounds, a % of which are known to be carcinogens or other health hazards. Some are still unknown. Just because it grows naturally doesn't mean its safe to burn and sniff.
Yes tobacco companies of late have artificially increased the tar and nicotine percentages to keep people addicted and smoke more but even without that the things are one massive list of compounds you dont want in your body.
"Natural" contains 300-400 various compounds, a % of which are known to be carcinogens or other health hazards. Some are still unknown. Just because it grows naturally doesn't mean its safe to burn and sniff.
Yes tobacco companies of late have artificially increased the tar and nicotine percentages to keep people addicted and smoke more but even without that the things are one massive list of compounds you dont want in your body.
I never said it's good to smoke of course, heck too much bugs me in springtime, and we know there are loads of plants and things in nature that are poisonous yet natural. Just saying why add to it, plus as you mentioned companies adding stuff to make smoking more addictive. :nope:
I know one Welshman who is returning to Wales to have a good puff and stick to fingers up to the law, thats the guy who owns the local paper shop near me.
I wonder if he will get life. ;)
I know one Welshman who is returning to Wales to have a good puff and stick to fingers up to the law, thats the guy who owns the local paper shop near me.
I wonder if he will get life. ;)
Let me know where so i can report him :)
I know one Welshman who is returning to Wales to have a good puff and stick to fingers up to the law, thats the guy who owns the local paper shop near me.
I wonder if he will get life. ;)
Let me know where so i can report him :)
I have no idea where abouts in Wales he will be this weekend.
Penelope_Grey
04-04-07, 12:37 PM
You do when they dont pay enough to actually cover the costs as is the case with smoking.
Very expensive medical care can be needed for 10-20 YEARS for some smoking related illnesses. On an individual basis this costs more than they've contributed in taxes meaning other people who choose not to self harm end up paying to cover that cost.
Yeah, well assylum seekers and immigrants come to a country, they have paid nothing, not a cent, yet they get state support and such forth for as long as it takes. Yet the rest of the population has to pay to support them. So why not smokers then who have been paying all their lives, and the close family who have paid all their lives?
The trouble is, what you and skybird propose, make the smoker pay for their treatments can be took to the extreme. Somebody will come along and say, "lets not bother to treat smokers at all!" Then what? What about befrore that, them who need treatment and cannot afford to pay? Are they just left to die? You say, very sorry, you don't deserve treatment.
[quote=gnirtS]
Yeah, well assylum seekers and immigrants come to a country, they have paid nothing, not a cent, yet they get state support and such forth for as long as it takes. Yet the rest of the population has to pay to support them. So why not smokers then who have been paying all their lives, and the close family who have paid all their lives?
I fail to see what asylum seekers and immigrants (i assume you mean ILLEGAL immigrants) has to do with smoking ?! The UK like most other countries is signed up to treaties regarding asylum seekers and yes the UK law is extremely laxed and poorly enforced but thats not relevent to the smoking debate at all. People legitimately seeking political asylum have good reason to be here if fleeing persecution and so on. Most have nothing. Its not related at all to the debate. Legal immigrants pay for themselves, illegal immigrants should be deported ASAP but b'liars government wont do it. So tax money goes towards paying for people who have had to flee their country for their lives but i fail to see why it should go to people who have just chosen to self harm and are now experiencing the consequences (ie smokers).
Somebody will come along and say, "lets not bother to treat smokers at all!" Then what? What about befrore that, them who need treatment and cannot afford to pay? Are they just left to die? You say, very sorry, you don't deserve treatment.
Im not against that. You pay for what you do. I have to carry insurance for such things for sports, other at risk groups also have to carry insurance. In short, by accepting an elevated risk you pay a financial penalty for that to ensure medical treatment. Smokers put themselves at a far higher risk than just about any other group so should be charged as such, maybe force them to pay an extra insurance tax as such. Again, i dont see why people should pay for someone elses deliberate self-harm.
Penelope_Grey
04-04-07, 12:58 PM
I fail to see what asylum seekers and immigrants (i assume you mean ILLEGAL immigrants) has to do with smoking ?! The UK like most other countries is signed up to treaties regarding asylum seekers and yes the UK law is extremely laxed and poorly enforced but thats not relevent to the smoking debate at all. People legitimately seeking political asylum have good reason to be here if fleeing persecution and so on. Most have nothing. Its not related at all to the debate. Legal immigrants pay for themselves, illegal immigrants should be deported ASAP but b'liars government wont do it. So tax money goes towards paying for people who have had to flee their country for their lives but i fail to see why it should go to people who have just chosen to self harm and are now experiencing the consequences (ie smokers).
Well, ok... you propose make smokers pay for their medical treatment because its not fair to make the system pay for them. yes? I say... if the system can pay for assylum seekers, who have not paid a cent into the system, yet can claim their way to everything. Then we should look after the smokers too.
Im not against that. You pay for what you do. I have to carry insurance for such things for sports, other at risk groups also have to carry insurance. In short, by accepting an elevated risk you pay a financial penalty for that to ensure medical treatment. Smokers put themselves at a far higher risk than just about any other group so should be charged as such, maybe force them to pay an extra insurance tax as such. Again, i dont see why people should pay for someone elses deliberate self-harm.
Of course you don't, because you don't share the same view on equality of people, despite the faults, as I do. My grandmother would have been dead a long time ago if she was forced to pay for her treatment of smoking relatied illnesses, because she would never have been able to afford insurances or even payment of costs, she is a typical example of a poor pensioner in britain.
But it isn't even as simple as you are suggesting, why would an insurance company want to cover a smoker if the system is not prepared to assist either?
Well, ok... you propose make smokers pay for their medical treatment because its not fair to make the system pay for them. yes? I say... if the system can pay for assylum seekers, who have not paid a cent into the system, yet can claim their way to everything. Then we should look after the smokers too.
Slight difference. (i) there are international binding treaties on asylum of what HAS to be done which the UK has to obey. Secondly theres a hell of a difference than someone fleeing their country for fear of persecution or death who have absolutely nothing attempting to get away from it to someone with resources, money, freedom who simply chooses to smoke. The first group of people have no choice, the second have and make a choice. Nobody is forcing them to smoke. Nobody is going to kill or beat them if they dont.
Of course you don't, because you don't share the same view on equality of people, despite the faults, as I do.
Equal in that everyone pays their own way. Thats fine. If someone makes a deliberate choice that is nothing more than personal pleasure that greatly increases their cost to everyone then they should pay for that. Other increased risk sports and groups have to pay expensive insurance. Smokers dont but should. Paying large amounts of money to subsidise someone elses lifestyle choice shouldnt happen. In short, people should pay for what they cost and not expect or in your case demand others support them in that.
My grandmother would have been dead a long time ago if she was forced to pay for her treatment of smoking relatied illnesses, because she would never have been able to afford insurances or even payment of costs, she is a typical example of a poor pensioner in britain.
Who is aware of the cost, damage it causes and still chooses to do it. 40 years ago then nobody know of the dangers. These days people do. Nobody is forced to smoke, nobody will suffer if they dont smoke. Its a personal choice. If someone makes that choice everyone should be forced to pay for it.
Otherwise its extremely unfair on others who chose not to abuse themselves paying over the odds and therefore getting less money for their own life just to subsidise others.
But it isn't even as simple as you are suggesting, why would an insurance company want to cover a smoker if the system is not prepared to assist either?
Im sure if the costs are evened out you could find a policy for £700 a year or so that would cover the average costs vs risk for a smoker. Of course, maybe nobody will insure them. That means they have to pay for their own costs. Thats fine. Again, nobody forced them to smoke, by choosing to do so they should accept the extra cost towards looking after them and not demand others do it for them.
Platapus
04-04-07, 03:26 PM
Congratulations. Soon we will have some laws here that will do the same thing.
I used to hate going to bars and then having to bag my clothing up because of the stink :(
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.