I hate all images of people smoking cigarettes

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
maybe its not the smoking itself, but the chemicals that are turned into vapor and then inhaled which is present in nicotine and most commercially produced tobacco??

I know pot smoking does not cause lung cancer.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

maybe it has more to do with HPV than tobacco at all?

In my country, many poor people smoke even though a regular pack costs USD 8.
Smoking to me show that the person has low self control.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Like this?

originally posted by: everyonedies
In my country, many poor people smoke even though a regular pack costs USD 8.
Smoking to me show that the person has low self control.

Childhood hunger in the US is problem? Schools need summer time lunch programs so children can get fed?

But parents always have money for alcohol, cigarettes, and drugs?

a reply to: everyonedies

yes I see what you mean. How dare poor people allow themselves any pleasure whatsoever. Pleasure is only for the rich and well off. Poor people must know their duty. or must be taught their duty, if they don't it. Their job is to suffer, if only to show the rest of us what poor really means. Allow them never a moment of relaxation or an instant of pleasure.

a reply to: neutronflux

Are you sure?

There is a lot of money to be made pretending to give to the poor.

Smokers of the world should immediately unite and form their own country, that way we can keep the easily offended at bay.

When they all want to come and use our so excellently funded health system due to the tax we pay, we can all laugh and deny them entry and sit on pedestals in our smoked filled rooms, laughing, drinking and really having a very jolly time!

Can anyone come up with a better name for our new country than ‘Smokeland’ ?

a reply to: dfnj2015

I’ve been smoking for 30 years and will probably die from it soon. I hate them but they help keep me relaxed while others violate my human rights

a reply to: Ehlehan

Now that anti-smokers have made it politically correct to chastise and punish poor people for spending their money on legal goods that are frowned upon by pointing out how much money could be saved by not smoking, I wonder how long it will be until others point out how much money could be saved by the middle class if they would stop taking vacations, going to movies, amusement parks, having children etc.

Think of how much more money could be spent in the form of taxes to fight climate change, if we all lived as we expect the poor to live.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Are you saying that your choice doesn’t effect the cost of my health care? Your habit cost me money in higher insurance premiums. The health ills of smoking does eat up healthcare resources, hospital beds, drives up demand, and cost.

Is that a false statement......

And there are parents that will buy cigarettes while having trouble putting food on the table for their children. Putting pleasure before providing.

Is that a false statement.....

a reply to: neutronflux

Are you saying that I should have to help pay the cost of health care and retirement for the middle -class? They spent their money on vacations that I never got to take? Why should I help them now?

If you have the right to decide how the poor spend their money (cause we all know that adults that are poor are, in fact, infantile and irresponsible), Why don't the upper class have the right to consider the middle class as infantile and irresponsible?

a reply to: neutronflux

Yes it is an absolutely false statement that smokers affect the cost of your healthcare. In fact, smokers subsidize your health care. Not only do smokers pay more in taxes than it costs the government to pay for smoker's healthcare, smokers die younger than non-smokers.

It is non-smokers who clog up the senior citizen's centres for 10 years before death that really cost the system.

a reply to: IAMTAT

If DB is behind you, that's not a thermometer.

a reply to: neutronflux

You have forgotten your history.

in the 1940s, men returned home from the war and had big families. Not only did these big families thrive, the family was usually supported by ONE income. The man's income.

I don't know about the United States but I do know about Canada. The generation of men returning from the war was also the generation that supported most of the infrastructure of our society (roads, hospitals, schools, electrical grid and energy providers).

75 % of that generation were SMOKERS.

Now how is it that prior to anti-smoking campaigns, smokers were capable of being responsible contributing adults capable of not only supporting their families but also of contributing to society?

Today - all smokers are poor adults, irresponsible, infantile, incapable of providing for their families, depriving their children of food to buy cigarettes and nothing but a burden on society?

Take a hike neutronflux - everything you want to say about smokers, can be said about you.

Are you overwieght - well in fact, you are costing more in healthcare and depriving your children of something they need (like secondary education that I have to pay taxes to provide) just so you can irresponsibly buy too much food for your self.

Sedentary - rinse and repeat

Do you drink pop or sugar - same thing

yada yada yada

We are all smokers now. We all need big government and NGOs to punish us for our poor choices through their favorite choice (increase in taxes).

We have ALL been considered incapable of living our own lives without interference.

a reply to: dfnj2015

The group on here who use the black and white pics of celebrities smoking cigarettes as avatars have proven to be dishonest and agenda driven, it's always been like this. It's very suspicious and I don't believe in coincidences.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: neutronflux

Yes it is an absolutely false statement that smokers affect the cost of your healthcare. In fact, smokers subsidize your health care. Not only do smokers pay more in taxes than it costs the government to pay for smoker's healthcare, smokers die younger than non-smokers.

It is non-smokers who clog up the senior citizen's centres for 10 years before death that really cost the system.

Please explain how smoking, which is proven to lead to/cause numerous illnesses, does not drain and create greater health care demand.

Please explain, if smokers float the cost of their habit, why my insurance premiums also rise from year to year.

I didn’t know in the 50s people could get costly medical procedures like MRI’s and lung transplants. The fist successful lung transplant was not unti 1963. Sad, people just died because there was little in the way of treatment. So, false argument by you.

Finally, Tobacco is a drug pushed by corporations that have manipulated its addictive properties over time. If Tobacco was discovered today, it would not pass approval for human consumption.

So, keep empowering those that make money bent on supplying an addictive poison. It’s your health not mine. But smoking does eat up healthcare resources.

a reply to: PainGod

Yes, EXACTLY like that!

That is the PERFECT image for this purpose!

a reply to: dfnj2015

Here some 1950s Commercials to Enjoy! !

Doctors Smoke Camels More then Any other Cigarette!
www.youtube.com...



Light UP! a Lucky! It Light UP Time!!
www.youtube.com...


I Miss the Old Lucky Strikes !


Americas Finest Cigarette!!
Philip Morris Cigarette
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: neutronflux

It is clear that you fell for simple propaganda

Anti-smoking activists conducted "studies" to demonstrate how much smokers cost society. They threw in everything but the kitchen sink. Things like the cost of pre-mature grief (who says I have to pay the government for grief) and the "loss of productivity" in retired smokers. The "studies" also failed to subtract the benefit to society of smoking ie taxes paid to government and the benefit of pleasure.

IN the end, the final cost of smoking to society was presented and, in the end, compared to nothing at all.

It is clear that this is propaganda. In order for it to make sense, you can't just throw a number out for its shock value! You need to compare it to something. In this case, it is logical to compare the cost of smokers to society to the cost of non-smoking to society.

bmjopen.bmj.com...

The net effect of smoking on healthcare and welfare costs. A cohort study

Smoking was associated with a greater mean annual healthcare cost of €1600 per living individual during follow-up. However, due to a shorter lifespan of 8.6 years, smokers’ mean total healthcare costs during the entire study period were actually €4700 lower than for non-smokers. For the same reason, each smoker missed 7.3 years (€126 850) of pension. Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers. However, if each lost quality adjusted life year is considered to be worth €22 200, the net effect is reversed to be €70 200 (€71.600 when adjusted with propensity score) per individual in favour of non-smoking.

of course it is only anti-smoking who believe that there is a "lost quality of life" cost, which for some reason, must be paid in cash to the government.

Note the sentence: Overall, smokers’ average net contribution to the public finance balance was €133 800 greater per individual compared with non-smokers.

If the cost of your healthcare keeps going up year after year, it is possible that prices in the medical community are out of control????

Why are you blaming smokers when the rate of smoking has been decreasing for something like 60 years?

As per your comment about corporate drug pushers, I could be saying the same thing about the pharmaceutical industry. The only difference is that smoking has far fewer side effects and smokers tend to die in their 70s and not any age from the teen years on up!

How dare a corporation exist to produce a legal product that I can legally consume and enjoy. Just where is the world coming to?