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.

If you say so...

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.

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.

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.

Skybird, off the damn high horse already.

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.

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 ?

First it's jumping out of aircraft now this. :lol:

Coinsidence? I think not... It's a conspiracy!

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-m...,7166237.story

Good one! :lol:

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.

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.

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.

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.


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."

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.

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?

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! ;)