Smoking

I didn't SAY that smokers cost ME money, I said Raise the tax on their addiction... YOU are the one saying that they don't so prove it...

Do you dispute that smokers litter? Who do you think picks up their garbage? Do they do it for free?
Do smokers' health problems burden the health industry? Who picks up the bill? The smoker or everyone in the group? Why should non-smokers pay for the health services to those addicted to a drug known to kill them? Why should anyone be forced to support idiocy?

Are YOU a smoker?

[Imudman]

Quote by: TheStripey1 I didn't SAY that smokers cost ME money, I said Raise the tax on their addiction... YOU are the one saying that they don't so prove it...

Yes you did:

Let the smokers pay for all the cleanup and medical expenses garnered by smoking that evil weed..

If smokers don't cost YOU money, then why raise taxes 1000% ?

Do you dispute that smokers litter? Who do you think picks up their garbage? Do they do it for free?

Now you're really stretching. Um, here''s a clue: Butts are biodegradable. They kind of just disappear.

Do smokers' health problems burden the health industry? Who picks up the bill? The smoker or everyone in the group? Why should non-smokers pay for the health services to those addicted to a drug known to kill them? Why should anyone be forced to support idiocy?

See, now we're back to the original question that I posed to you. How do you know smokers cost society more money? Here's another clue: When you're old, unless society puts you on an ice drift so you can float into oblivion, you're going to burden the health industry and cost everyone money.

Are YOU a smoker?

What IS a smoker anyway? Does a smoker smoke at every moment of every day? Or is a person still considered a smoker if he has a cigarette on Fridays with his after work beer? Besides, you're question is irrevelent and really none of your business...

[Matt W]

When you're old, unless society puts you on an ice drift so you can float into oblivion, you're going to burden the health industry and cost everyone money

Imudman - please take this in the humourous fashion this is intended - but are you happily advocating involuntary euthansia??? :eek:

[ibm]

Quote by: TheStripey1 I didn't SAY that smokers cost ME money, I said Raise the tax on their addiction... YOU are the one saying that they don't so prove it... Do you dispute that smokers litter? Who do you think picks up their garbage? Do they do it for free? Do smokers' health problems burden the health industry? Who picks up the bill? The smoker or everyone in the group? Why should non-smokers pay for the health services to those addicted to a drug known to kill them? Why should anyone be forced to support idiocy? Are YOU a smoker?

i don’t like your tone, stripey. and i imagine you’re quite young.

usually, if someone states a negative like “something didn’t happen”, he has less burden (if not none) to “prove” it – if proof is needed. it’s easier for him to say “prove me wrong”. on the contrary, someone who states a positive “something did happen” does have to prove it. proof is mostly needed when one has to convince or seeks approval. that’s why in a court of law, you have to prove your case if you claim someone “did” something; otherwise it’s assumed that “he didn’t do it”.

smokers do litter, just like many else. garbagemen pick up the garbage and they don’t do it for free. but they have to come anyway. they don’t send a special team just to pick up the cigarette butts. they have to come to pick everything “littered” by all sorts of people. so there is no additional cost involved. you could be a non-smoker and litter, and they still have to pick it up.

the smoker himself and his insurance company (assuming he’s employed and insured) pick up the bill if he ever has a medical condition caused by smoking. if he’s self-employed and self-insured, then it’s all on his own. if he works for an employer, then the premium he, his coworkers and the employer will have to pay the next year is likely to increase. and they pick that up as a group but it’s not on the entire society. among the reasons for the premium increase, there are so many others and the guy being a smoker is probably just one tiny one of the hundreds of reasons. in other words, if a woman in that same group gives birth to a child, she will cause the insurance premium to go up as well. say the employer provides coverage for employees’ families, then the death of the mother of someone in that group due to say blood cancer will also cause the premium to go up and everyone has to pick up the bill, too.

sounds like i’m advocating smoking? but i am not. i’m all for the current rules we have already in place, such as to separate people in restaurants and public places, or prohibit smoking at certain places. but smoking to me is neither idiotic nor as harmful as many make it out to be. no more “idiotic” or harmful than excessive drinking and eating, or anything else. it increases the chance of getting diseases like lung cancer, but not necessarily causing it. and no one is forcing “support” of it from you or anyone.

[Imudman]

Quote by: Matt W Imudman - please take this in the humourous fashion this is intended - but are you happily advocating involuntary euthansia??? :eek:

No, but I understand the reasons why some cultures permit it. People complain that older and sick folk are a drain on society's resources. I was just pointing out that Stripey probably wouldn't like being arbitrarily selected for euthenasia just because his meds cost too much...

[Cephus]

Quote by: TheStripey1 I think we should raise the tax on tobacco 10000%.

I think that's a bit excessive, but I do think that smokers should be required to pay for their own smoking-related medical expenses, either through private insurance or out of their own pockets. If they show up with lung cancer and no insurance, hospitals should not be required to do more than make them comfortable. If you're going to do something truly stupid like smoke, you deserve what you get.

[Imudman]

Quote by: Cephus I think that's a bit excessive, but I do think that smokers should be required to pay for their own smoking-related medical expenses, either through private insurance or out of their own pockets. If they show up with lung cancer and no insurance, hospitals should not be required to do more than make them comfortable. If you're going to do something truly stupid like smoke, you deserve what you get.

But since smoking doesn't cause cancer in every case, you'd be penalizing some people who've never smoked yet suffer from cancer. We could take the same position with HIV. In fact, homosexual behaviour is the leading cause of HIV, therefore we should treat homosexuals differently (sarcasm)...

[ibm]

Quote by: Cephus I think that's a bit excessive, but I do think that smokers should be required to pay for their own smoking-related medical expenses, either through private insurance or out of their own pockets. If they show up with lung cancer and no insurance, hospitals should not be required to do more than make them comfortable. If you're going to do something truly stupid like smoke, you deserve what you get.

fyi, smokers are paying on their own. out of every dollar a smoker pays to buy a pack, 65 cents are various taxes that are supposedly to go to various government programs to help the healthy, non-smoking groups of people. that was the last time i checked, and it was before some recent proposal in washington that we increase the price of each pack by another 2 dollars to provide additional funds to the feds to bring down the unemployment rate.

that fair?

stupid or not, it’s a taste. by definition, it’s personal choice.

and i can easily see you suggesting that, when someone shows up with no insurance and is dying of liver cancer as he drinks too much, he’d better pay down 500 grand; otherwise we’d do no more than making him comfortable. can i translate that into the following: a man’s life is no more or less important than some perceived unfairness in terms of who is paying for what?

[BaldEagle]

I am a recovering smoker, just like a recovering alcoholic. I will always consider myself a smoker, just that I no longer actually do it. It was very hard for me and is a struggle every day. One would think that it should have been easy because I was diagnosed with cancer 3 years ago (please no sympathy/empathy posts, I am in remission with only one chemo session left next month). My doctor and myself do not believe they are necessarily related because it is blood cancer but neither of us thought it was a good idea to push the envelope. But it was still hard. I think because unlike a lot of smokers I actually enjoyed it. I never smoked excessively (this is fodder for debate any could be considered excessive) but I mean I was more of a casual smoker. I had jobs that I could smoke at, at least not at my own leisure. But my addiction was/is very real and powerful. If you do smoke then enjoy or quit, your choice, but if you don't, keep it that way (although it is still your choice).

BaldEagle

[BaldEagle]

Quote by: Cephus I think that's a bit excessive, but I do think that smokers should be required to pay for their own smoking-related medical expenses, either through private insurance or out of their own pockets. If they show up with lung cancer and no insurance, hospitals should not be required to do more than make them comfortable. If you're going to do something truly stupid like smoke, you deserve what you get.

And we should also include speeders that get into accidents, and on, and on and on.

BaldEagle

[Cephus]

Quote by: BaldEagle And we should also include speeders that get into accidents, and on, and on and on.

Sure, if you can identify them. But a car has purposes other than speeding. Cigarettes have no productive purposes at all.