Should smoking be banned outright?

Page 2 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,870
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2012, 2:36 pm

Kjas wrote:

Some things have risks, yeah sure. But there's a world of difference between watching tv for 4 hours a day and choosing to smoke a packet of cigarettes a day.

You do realize for a lot of people it becomes more than a choice to smoke that much right? I think nicotine is one of the more addictive substances. Also what about people who started smoking when they were kids and not very aware of the risks? should they be left to die if they end up with lung cancer unless they can afford all the treatment them self? I think not.

But another thing is not everyone who smokes gets cancer......its just a factor in some peoples cancer, so for them to create a policy in which people who develop smoking related health problems would be barred from receiving any assistance with the financial aspect they would have to prove without a doubt that smoking 'causes' cancer not that it 'increases the chances of cancer'.

_________________
We won't go back.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

21 Mar 2012, 2:42 pm

TM wrote:

Kjas wrote:

I do think that people who choose to engage in it, knowing the risks, should take responsibility for themselves and their choice down the road financially rather than depending on the state to pay their medical costs.

By that logic, should we on the same note require the same from people who have high risk hobbies, drink more, eat bacon for breakfast and watch more than 4 hours of TV every day?

I don't know about high risk hobbies, but drinking more or abusing any substance yes. Non-genetic morbid obesity I am also not really very happy to pay for.

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,870
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2012, 2:43 pm

MjrMajorMajor wrote:

TM wrote:

Kjas wrote:

By that logic, should we on the same note require the same from people who have high risk hobbies, drink more, eat bacon for breakfast and watch more than 4 hours of TV every day?

The soda/junk food tax seems to keep popping up as another way to bleed the citizens dry. While the information on health risks should be readily available on anything we consume, I don't think we need a nanny government. We obviously don't have one now, because the money that the states recouped from the tobacco lawsuits isn't all being funneled into stop smoking programs. For all the PR about health concerns, shouldn't the government not be cutting funding to these programs?

I know soda and junk food is unhealthy, but its cheap.....if the government is so concerned with people eating healthy why don't they subsidize companies that produce healthy and/or organic food? I mean as it stands the government and big food corporations seem to like buying up all the small farms to create massive food factories where animals are crammed together and treated like crap and fed crap until they're slaughtered for food.....that can be sold cheaply. Things like that certainly don't help with peoples ability to eat healthy.

_________________
We won't go back.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,870
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2012, 2:46 pm

Vigilans wrote:

TM wrote:

Kjas wrote:

By that logic, should we on the same note require the same from people who have high risk hobbies, drink more, eat bacon for breakfast and watch more than 4 hours of TV every day?

I don't know about high risk hobbies, but drinking more or abusing any substance yes. Non-genetic morbid obesity I am also not really very happy to pay for.

well damn

, I'm glad your not in office...if your policy would be 'anyone who develops substance related health problems, shall be hence forth banished from receiving any financial help should they be unable to afford their medical costs'

_________________
We won't go back.

Robdemanc
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 May 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,872
Location: England

21 Mar 2012, 2:49 pm

I don't think it should be banned but I think it should be limited in its promotion (not allowed to promote sports events etc). The manufacturers should also be obliged to hand over money to cancer research and other health projects.

Kjas
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2012
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,059
Location: the place I'm from doesn't exist anymore

21 Mar 2012, 2:50 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Ideas like this, Sweetleaf, are the kind of thing that I would more than happily lend support to.

As per your other post, if you read my first post, in it I made an allowance for those who did not know the risks. It may be addictive but there are now other options, programs and products to allow people to quit if they wish to. Deciding to do nothing is actually a choice, as is deciding not to make a choice.

Agreed that it is a factor, sometimes the main one, sometimes one among many others. I am asking that people simply take it into account.

Vigilans wrote:

I don't know about high risk hobbies, but drinking more or abusing any substance yes. Non-genetic morbid obesity I am also not really very happy to pay for.

Finally, someone who isn't taking it out of context.

_________________
Diagnostic Tools and Resources for Women with AS: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt211004.html

Last edited by Kjas on 21 Mar 2012, 2:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,870
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2012, 2:53 pm

Kjas wrote:

Sweetleaf wrote:

Ideas like this, Sweetleaf, are the kind of thing that I would more than happily lend support to.

As per your other post, if you read my first post, in it I made an allowance for those who did not know the risks. It may be addictive but there are now other options, programs and products to allow people to quit if they wish to. Deciding to do nothing is actually a choice, as is deciding not to make a choice.

Agreed that it is a factor, sometimes the main one, sometimes one amount many others. I am asking that people simply take it into account.

I don't know that you understand much about addiction in general..the thing is it really is not as simple as wishing to quit and being able to, some quitting options don't work and some medications for it have nasty side effects. Its a pretty complex thing, not so much something one can just quit.

I mean its when you realise your smoking for some other reason then simply wanting to, that's usually when your at a point where it can be quite difficult to quit. Then you can quit, and start again under stress, or try to quit and get frustrated and give up on it for a bit. Also if smokers were barred from getting any financial aid for healthcare, how the hell are they supposed to afford treatments to help them quit on top of that? I mean I have to look at this from the perspective of how it would effect people in my financial position....and it just would not lead to good things.

_________________
We won't go back.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

21 Mar 2012, 3:24 pm

Kjas wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I don't know about high risk hobbies, but drinking more or abusing any substance yes. Non-genetic morbid obesity I am also not really very happy to pay for.

Finally, someone who isn't taking it out of context.

Unfortunately, as evidenced already by Sweetleaf's reply, some people will not recognize that

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,870
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

21 Mar 2012, 3:32 pm

Vigilans wrote:

Kjas wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I don't know about high risk hobbies, but drinking more or abusing any substance yes. Non-genetic morbid obesity I am also not really very happy to pay for.

Finally, someone who isn't taking it out of context.

Unfortunately, as evidenced already by Sweetleaf's reply, some people will not recognize that

.....for some reason I am getting that same feeling I get when I end up being the idiot in the room that does not get the joke. Typically I respond better to people maybe explaining what they mean if I don't get it rather then poking fun at me for being too slow to get it.

Would it have been so hard to maybe not try and make things personal, or am I really that bad?

_________________
We won't go back.

Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

21 Mar 2012, 3:34 pm

Let those idiots smoke at home.

Just ban it from public places. Just like pooping.

_________________
.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 Mar 2012, 3:38 pm

No. It's deadly and annoying though, but it shouldn't be considered a crime. However, aboard spacecraft and submarines with limited supplies of oxygen it should be considered the same as any other fire and be put out.

LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

21 Mar 2012, 3:44 pm

No. The way I see it, it is your body and you should be able to do what you want with it.

_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.

Tequila
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Feb 2006
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 28,897
Location: Lancashire, UK

21 Mar 2012, 3:46 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:

Let those idiots smoke at home.

No, because then they'll infect their childrenz. Seen that one coming.

Joker
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Mar 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,593
Location: North Carolina The Tar Heel State :)

21 Mar 2012, 3:46 pm

LiberalJustice wrote:

No. The way I see it, it is your body and you should be able to do what you want with it.

I support this statement.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

21 Mar 2012, 3:54 pm

Joker wrote:

LiberalJustice wrote:

No. The way I see it, it is your body and you should be able to do what you want with it.

I support this statement.

It's a good stance, however there are situations where smoking should not be allowed, such as in spacecraft without sufficient oxygen reclamation systems. If, however, such a spacecraft has sufficient systems to accommodate the extra loss of oxygen then it shouldn't be a problem other than being a matter of individual courtesy.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

21 Mar 2012, 3:55 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

Kjas wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

I don't know about high risk hobbies, but drinking more or abusing any substance yes. Non-genetic morbid obesity I am also not really very happy to pay for.

Finally, someone who isn't taking it out of context.

Unfortunately, as evidenced already by Sweetleaf's reply, some people will not recognize that

I'm sorry you interpreted that as a personal attack. I was agreeing with Kjas on how easy it is to misunderstand that position

Page 2 of 9 [ 134 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 9 Next

Jump to:

Should smoking be banned outright? Post Reply New Topic

Should smoking be banned outright?