Smokers 'should not get NHS care'

Originally posted by earthtone
So long as cigarettes are still legal, there should be places in public areas where people can smoke.

Good point.
Put up facilities which smokers can use or make it illegal.

I know somebody who wants to make it illegal to smoke in your own home.
What a scary thought...
Then the next step would be unexpected visits by "police" at anytime to make sure you don�t smoke at home.

Originally posted by Mynaeris
All of this is not news, these facts have been around since the 50s and earlier I am sure,

Guess what else has been around since the 50s. Actually, 1945 - 1963. 4,000 tons of raw plutonium thrown into the atmosphere and stratosphere. Mixture of Earth's atmosphere is so strong each person on earth has breathed some of the air molecules that touched the lungs of Jesus or Napoleon. One particle of plutonium is enough to give you cancer if absorbed in the lungs.

Smoking is distasteful in other ways, and can lead to emphesema and high blood pressure. No studies have ever conclusively linked smoking to lung cancer and the fact that it suddenly causes lung cancer at the same time man threw 4,000 pounds of plutonium into the atmosphere shouldn't be overlooked. Afterall it's our government telling us the fallout did nothing, but cigarettes cause cancer. Then the rate of smokers goes down but not lung cancer, so all of a sudden Radon - radiation from a cellar, is the cause.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
Then the rate of smokers goes down but not lung cancer, so all of a sudden Radon - radiation from a cellar, is the cause.

A lot of things cause lung cancer - smoking included. When the rates of smokers goes down, it will take years for the lung cancer rates to decline as new smokers are not spontaneously cancerous. While I agree smoking is not the only cause of lung, mouth, throat cancers, it is a fairly large risk to smoke, and smoking may worsen damage already done by something else.

In another few years, we'll probably find the polution in the air around us every day causes cancer. Inhaled polutants seem to do the trick no matter what their source.

Putting smoke into your lungs at 42,000 ppm CO when normal CO content is 100 ppm, cannot be good for you, of course. Questions of cancer in environment due to technology, amount of pollution in atmosphere caused by industry (Drive up NJ Turnpike on clear day and look at NYC at about 4:00 pm - sky is brown!) automobiles, wireless toys, etc., not to mention 18 years of blowing thousands of tons of deadly radioactives into sky, what is rate of cancer in people who never touched cigarettes? Some information will tell you lung cancer is impossible in non-smokers, others say non-smoker lung cancer is caused by specific gene, or that non-smoker cancer is different from smoker cancer. Then there are famous smokers, George Burns, Kurt Vonnegutt is 82 and smoked 2 packs of unfiltered Paul Mauls a day since age 12, no lung cancer. Geneticists claim there is gene that practically makes lung cancer impossible in some people. Tobacco companies no doubt would love for gene therapy viral-induced mutation of that gene into human body, would give out gene therapy to prevent lung cancer for free with cigarette cartons

It's about the game of risk factors, and what ups your chances of having your cells join the dark side. Cigarette smoking is a huge risk factor, as is genetics, diet, other polutants, and sex. We can do things that increase or decrease the chances that we will develop disease.

There are people that win $10 bucks in the lottery, and there are smokers that never develop cancer. There are non-smokers that inhale the polutants of their spouse over 30 years that develop cancer. There are people that don't smoke, but worked in chemical companies that developed cancer.
There are many variables, but smoking is a risk factor, and can be considered ONE cause of lung cancer.

Because it can't be proven - what specifically caused one person's specific cancer, I still think that restricting health care to smokers is rediculous. Yes, they are at great risk for blood clots, heart disease, emphysema, hypertension, various cancers, and stroke, but they may require less care in the long run than those that live longer, and there are myriad other reasons why people are in poor health chronicly. Obesity, at least in the US, is now surpassing smoking as the leading cause of death and disease. And as I said before in a previous post, smokers also pay a lot of money in taxes, so they are entitled to the same provlidges as the rest of us - as are the overweight, and the elderly.

Only chance for human race to survive is deny health insurance to coffee drinkers, smokers, alcohol consumers, marijuana consumers, people who drive automobiles, people with cellars (Radon) and people who have sex too much (overuse of prostate gland) and of course:

People who eat processed foods.
People who exercise too much (free radicals due to increased air consumption and increased appetite)
People who use cell phones.
People who use wireless networks.
People who consume processed sugar and flour (white flour).

We should all make concerted effort to eat only raw vegetables, sushi, and brown rice, and walk to work without getting too much exercise.

Oh yes, add in people who use computer monitors closer than 24" from eye. Only difference between staring at computer screen and atomic explosion is lead shield in monitor. (Non-LCD monitor has 7 pounds of lead in it for this very reason.)

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
The typical non-smokers' mindset is to claim their rights are being infringed upon or their health threatened by others, and rather than consistently complain to the tobacco addict, they should be demanding the government make the product illegal. Then again, they would better serve themselves if they applied the same amount of effort to confront the government about the unhealthy additives in their food, or the filth that sat in their water prior to it reaching their taps.

The issue here is that on the scale of things that will kill you, cigarettes are near the top of the list. There are alternatives to food additives and unhealthy tap water--I buy organic when possible and I don't use tap water for anything other than housecleaning. I can control these things to some extent. However, there are many times when I can't avoid smoke and why should I have to move away or seal my apartment? Who are we kidding here? Smoking is not a necessity and it is proven to be bad for me--if you want to smoke, you better make sure that you are doing it in a place where it isn't going to affect me or my family.

And for those who feel that smoking outdoors is enough, I have included some links below to some studies & articles that show otherwise (the NCI study is particularly interesting). It is important to note that smoking is also prohibited in outdoor public venues--being in close proximity to a smoker is a hazard and being outside doesn't abate the smoking hazard. And the fact that it is your cigarette that impacts people in a 100 ft radius makes you the one who is being offensive, especially if children could enter the area. You should alter your behavior--expecting others to move or say something to you is a bit arrogant.

Also, just by smoking, you could be making other people around you sick even if you don't have a lit cigarette in your hand, especially children and newborns. The main issue is that the toxins stay on your hair, clothes and body and people inhale these chemicals just by being around you, even AFTER you finish your cigarette. Parents that smoke are kidding themselves if they think that they are being responsible by taking it outside as their kids are still taking in nicotine and other chemicals. The horrid reek that follows a smoker around is not just an annoying stench--it is made up of 4,000 toxic chemicals, some of which cause cancer. Many smokers think that they are being considerate by stepping outside to smoke, only to return inside and pick up their friend's baby or sit next to a child, but this is nearly as harmful as smoking next to them (again, see the NCI study below.)

Non-smokers, who are the majority of people walking the street, deserve the right to not have to breathe these toxins in. It is true that we are also breathing in other pollutants, but there are very valid reasons for buses and cars to be on the streets (and there are carpooling laws in some areas and rules in effect in some cities that are attempting to limit single car drivers.) Other than for personal enjoyment, what community benefit is being gained from cigarette smoking? Is there any justifiable reason for these additional toxins being in the air? Most of the environmental legislation enacted is to clean up our air and our water (well, that is until Mr. Bush started gutting the Clean Air act in exchange for political favors...) Cigarette smoke is a toxin that has been proven to kill people--why should we regulate other pollutants and not this one?

I'm sorry if you feel that your rights are being infringed upon, but get real--what you are doing is making people sick. If you want to smoke in public, your behavior should change--join a smoking club where proper ventillation equipment is installed and be sure to seal your apartment so the toxins don't leak out, but don't expect other people to compromise their health to accommodate your bad habit. Right now, many non-smokers are used to being compromised and still put up with it, but as fewer people smoke, don't expect to find growing sympathy for your cause. You are literally a dying breed.

family.samhsa.gov...
my.webmd.com...
cancercontrol.cancer.gov...
us.news.globalink.org...
www.workindex.com...

So it's OK to walk around in a city that has a brown skyline. You accept that cities can't provide clean drinking water. World militaries putting 4,000 tons of plutonium into the atmosphere is harmless. But someone smoking, outdoors, is a public health hazard that has to be addressed above all. Who's kidding who.

If you are truly serious about stopping lung cancer etc. I suggest you look at transport and production/industry issues.

Passive smoking every now and then will NOT give you lung cancer. The USA is the largest poluter in the world. It isnt due to smokers, please use your brains.

Originally posted by Hellmutt

Originally posted by earthtone
I know somebody who wants to make it illegal to smoke in your own home.
What a scary thought...

I know somebody who actually made it illegal

A few years ago I remember seeing on the news this absurd story about an american man winning entrustment for his son because his ex-wife smoked at home with his 12 yo sun... and an ABSURD story about this guys neighbour going to court about cigarette smoke getting into his house through the window below him, and actually winning.

This is just crap. Proihibitionism has always led to the increment of black market's money and misuse, as well as ignorance. In holland every drug is legal. It is legal because they think that it is your right to do whatever you want with your body. It is legal because they think you should really be able to make choices, and not be deceived into making the ones that the ptb want you to make. It is legal, and holland is the country which has the LESS deaths for drug abuse per year in the whole world. And that is simply because drugs are controlled. If you are going to take heroin, you are going to do it with a doctor who's next to you and is telling you exactly how to do it and has checked the "pureness" of the substance. And the majoroity of deaths for drug abuse consists in foreigners. Are all you people trying to say that prohibitionism is the way to go? You guys must be crazy. What?? The land of the free?? Yeah right...

You are in deep denial if you do not think that smoking and passive smoking causes lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease and other illnessses. There is no government conspiracy here--I have had relatives who have smoked their entire lives, had to have breathing tubes inserted and then died because of their illnesses. It was not plutonium, it was not radon, it was not pollution--it was from smoking. I have a friend who is 42 years old and has smoked since he was 11. He has been getting x-rays of his lungs every six months for the past few years because he has a chronic "smokers cough" and this past visit they just found an abnormal lesion. It is cancer. You are a moron if you think that this wasn't caused from his smoking two packs a day for 30 years. And guess what--even though he is undergoing radiation and chemo, he still won't stop smoking.

So when studies started coming out about passive smoking being hazardous, I started taking them seriously. When I hear accounts of people who have lived with smokers and worked in bars getting smoking-related illnesses, I don't want to take a chance. When I read studies of passive smoking affecting fertility rates, I don't want to be around it. It is your right to play with your health, but I should not be subjected to your addiction. Because smokers don't have the decency to understand this and go as far as to deny the fact that passive smoking is even unhealthy, smoking laws need to exist (and laws that protect the environment need to exist also--some of you seem to think that cigarette smokers should be absolved of spewing localized toxins in the air because the air is generally polluted anyway, but this just doesn't make sense... so I'll get lung cancer from your cigarette smoke and lymphoma and migraines and breast cancer and god knows what else from the environment. Right.)

I know somebody who wants to make it illegal to smoke in your own home.
What a scary thought...

I know somebody who actually made it illegal A few years ago I remember seeing on the news this absurd story about an american man winning entrustment for his son because his ex-wife smoked at home with his 12 yo sun... and an ABSURD story about this guys neighbour going to court about cigarette smoke getting into his house through the window below him, and actually winning.

This is just crap. Proihibitionism has always led to the increment of black market's money and misuse, as well as ignorance. In holland every drug is legal. It is legal because they think that it is your right to do whatever you want with your body. It is legal because they think you should really be able to make choices, and not be deceived into making the ones that the ptb want you to make. It is legal, and holland is the country which has the LESS deaths for drug abuse per year in the whole world. And that is simply because drugs are controlled. If you are going to take heroin, you are going to do it with a doctor who's next to you and is telling you exactly how to do it and has checked the "pureness" of the substance. And the majoroity of deaths for drug abuse consists in foreigners. Are all you people trying to say that prohibitionism is the way to go? You guys must be crazy. What?? The land of the free?? Yeah right...

And you are in deep denial if you think every public respiratory problem and every case of lung cancer is connected to smoking.

I think it's great that there are smoke-free bars and restaurants. I can guarantee you will have a smoker's cough if you smoke two packs a day for just one month.

But trying to set up laws that say you can't smoke in your home, or can't smoke outdoors, is going beyond being concerned about public health and going into fanaticism.

What's funny is so many of the people who want to totally ban smoking are advocates of medical marijuana or lifting marijuana prohibition, free needle distribution. That's the mind of a brainwashed individual for you.

Originally posted by lmgnyc

I'm sorry if you feel that your rights are being infringed upon, but get real--what you are doing is making people sick. If you want to smoke in public, your behavior should change--join a smoking club where proper ventillation equipment is installed and be sure to seal your apartment so the toxins don't leak out, but don't expect other people to compromise their health to accommodate your bad habit. Right now, many non-smokers are used to being compromised and still put up with it, but as fewer people smoke, don't expect to find growing sympathy for your cause. You are literally a dying breed.

I address your closing non-sequitur first because I am always dismayed at the propensity to second guess the individual whom you address and launch into an attack in a basal effort to garner sympathy for a losing cause. I have not spoken of my rights, and you have no knowledge of my vices do you? Nor should you be jumping to conclusions that my habits should change to conform to those you deem satisfactory especially since I declared that there is no excuse for rude smokers. With that out of the way, I will address the rest of your liturgy.

The issue here is that on the scale of things that will kill you, cigarettes are near the top of the list.

A quick google tells me that in the U.S, fast on its heels is unhealthy eating. That may not be so in other countries, as I specifically recall, Americans have the biggest appetite for the most unhealthy foods while obesity in children is growing.

There are alternatives to food additives and unhealthy tap water--I buy organic when possible and I don't use tap water for anything other than housecleaning. I can control these things to some extent. However, there are many times when I can't avoid smoke and why should I have to move away or seal my apartment? Who are we kidding here? Smoking is not a necessity and it is proven to be bad for me--if you want to smoke, you better make sure that you are doing it in a place where it isn't going to affect me or my family.

Of course you do, I fully expect anyone launching an argument in defense of a position to put forth the least used but most positive practise to make their case. Unfortunately, statistical evidence is not on your side. As for avoiding smoke, you may not be able to duck second hand smoke, but unless you closet yourself in your allergy free home or wear a face mask when you walk outdoors, your problems hardly lie with the noxious emissions from a set of lungs, when compared to the noxious emissions of a motor vehicle. Perhaps as with the chemically treated water to cleanse the same of the human and animal feces those unlike you cook and bathe with, or consume, your government would tell you that you stand a better chance of dying from what your fellow man spews in your face than what you charge them with making safe.

And for those who feel that smoking outdoors is enough, I have included some links below to some studies & articles that show otherwise (the NCI study is particularly interesting). It is important to note that smoking is also prohibited in outdoor public venues--being in close proximity to a smoker is a hazard and being outside doesn't abate the smoking hazard. And the fact that it is your cigarette that impacts people in a 100 ft radius makes you the one who is being offensive, especially if children could enter the area. You should alter your behavior--expecting others to move or say something to you is a bit arrogant.

The arrogance I have already politely addressed, and it comes not from my fonts. When the medical experts can unequivocally state that a heart attack was brought about by second hand smoke and not stress, or genetics, I'll take your links under consideration. Likewise when they provide a detailed analysis as to why millions of vehicles spewing carbon monoxide for 5 minutes is not more of a contaminant than millions of people puffing on a 3 inch long weed. Take the test, invite 25 smokers into your garage, close the door and have them light up one after the other. In writing, record the effects on your body, sign the document and leave it for the coroner before you then start your car and run it for ten minutes to conduct the next test. But before you conduct those, tell us which of the two events you expect to survive.

I rest my case.

Smokers 'should not get NHS care'
Then maybe the makers should be sent to jail for murder.

Originally posted by taibunsuu
And you are in deep denial if you think every public respiratory problem and every case of lung cancer is connected to smoking.

I think it's great that there are smoke-free bars and restaurants. I can guarantee you will have a smoker's cough if you smoke two packs a day for just one month.

But trying to set up laws that say you can't smoke in your home, or can't smoke outdoors, is going beyond being concerned about public health and going into fanaticism.

What's funny is so many of the people who want to totally ban smoking are advocates of medical marijuana or lifting marijuana prohibition, free needle distribution. That's the mind of a brainwashed individual for you.

I agree with your points totally. I think the problem here is that the gov't has allowed non-smokers the right to intrude on smokers for so long that they think it's just the way it should be. See a smoker, time to get your back up on the air. Have little control in their own lives so they're going to get some in someone elses.

Some people will not be happy until there is no cigarette smoke left for them to happen to come in contact with!....at least they weren't in NY. We've had that kind of policy for years...a nice sane policy in my opinion A year or so ago, they change it. Now, "for the protection of the workeres", smoking is banned in just about every business that has employees. Then they sell exemption--probably to the highest bidder---no only joking there, but they've come up with the idea that if the business can prove that the ban is hurting their business enough....and of course you have to pay for the opportunitiy to try!...you can get a waiver.

Our governor, when he announced that he signed that bill said something like...."I would never allow anything as dangerous as second hand smoke into a workplace." Well, one probem, he is, and always has. So, fine, he can print his own crap from now on for all I care. Because I'll never go back to working in a print shop with air quality so poor that any bird who happens to venture into the place dies within 24 hours! Protection of the workers my eye!! Alot of those workers go without health insurance, and are expected to work with hazardous chemicals on a daily basis. But, they care about our health...sure they do.... If being uninsured in america was a disease, it would be the third leading cause of premature death in this country!

And, well, while yous gripe about the cigarette smoke ruining your lovely dinner or disturbing your right to sit down at the bar and commence destroying your liver, you have no qualms (at least here in the US) about hopping in your car and driving three blocks to the nearest store for that case of beer. Well, if people don't like the resturant filled with cigarette smoke, there was alternatives all over the place.. many of the resturants in my town had already gone completely smoke free. No one....not even the most primitive tribemen in africa who never had the priviledge to ride, let alone drive a car, no one on this planet can escape the combined effect of oil consumption! And, well, do you like to take pictures? Just living in the area the Kodak plant in Rochester NY increase a women's risk of pancreatic cancer much more than any tests has shown second hand smoke to cause....and let's not forget the increase in the rate of childhood brain tumors and the like. Do you enjoy having those lovely signs in the window of your favorite store announcing their weekly sales? Well....brain lesions, respitory problems...very much similar to those caused by smoking....and neurological disorders are cause by the chemicals used to print the crap up! Workers in plastic factories increase their risk of liver damage a few hundred percent. Metals are the most dangerous substances around.....think about the machinist who made the parts to your lawnmower before you replace it with a new one.

the list goes on and on. At least here in NY, for the most part, if you didn't want to be around the smoke, you could avoid it....much easier and painlessly than an employee can avoid being assigned to the back of a dryer to pull those signs off the conveyer belt all the while breathing those fumes in full force... or a resident of one of the big cities can avoid all the smog produced by our gas guzzling cars! or for that matter, it was much easier to avoid the second hand smoke than it is for a poor person in india to avoid the crap that the brewery is throwing into their drinking water so you can enjoy that beer!!
think about it next time you take a picture....your consumption of film might be contributing to the brain tumor in some little child!

and what some seem to want.....free healthcare paid by the printer in the shop who is breathing substances prone to cause the same complications as smoking is known to produce, or worse.... but, they don't want any chance that they may be paying for the printer's healthcare if he smoked. Prove to me that the printer's occupation did not have anything to do with his asthma, brain lesions, liver damage or any other ailment!!!
Prove to me that your car's exhaust didn't!!
This is why instead of being in a print shop limping around and earning the money our family needs to live decently, I am home sitting on my duff patiently waiting for it to heal completely..
You want your free health insurance, but you want to decide who is worthy of it and who ain't.....well, don't expect me to be paying for it, I'm not now, and won't be until my gov't gets their act together and starts acting like the public servents they are. The workers will lose their rights to seek damages for the illnesses caused by the crap at work, even if they've never smoked in their lives....it will be prove to me you haven't then we'll talk about the chemicals at work.....
and what they can't use cigarettes as a scapegoat for, there is your diet to fill in the gaps....

IT'S SCAPEGOATING!

"The arrogance I have already politely addressed, and it comes not from my fonts. When the medical experts can unequivocally state that a heart attack was brought about by second hand smoke and not stress, or genetics, I'll take your links under consideration. Likewise when they provide a detailed analysis as to why millions of vehicles spewing carbon monoxide for 5 minutes is not more of a contaminant than millions of people puffing on a 3 inch long weed. Take the test, invite 25 smokers into your garage, close the door and have them light up one after the other. In writing, record the effects on your body, sign the document and leave it for the coroner before you then start your car and run it for ten minutes to conduct the next test. But before you conduct those, tell us which of the two events you expect to survive. "


or take some birds......bring one to work with you, let it sit by you all day, and leave it for the night in the closed up shop (last place I worked at it would die!), take another bird, and leave it close to the stove while you overheat a teflon pan......park your car in a garage running, take a bird and place it in the garage, close up the garage, and remotely shut the engine off in about fifteen minutes.....and then take your favorite bird (since this just migh be the only one left alive depending on what your occupation is! and call some buddies over to play poker with you and your feathered friend......close the bird into the smoke filled room. Birds were used in the old days to warn miners of the bad air in caves......if they die, the air was bad!!

"Some people will not be happy until there is no cigarette smoke left for them to happen to come in contact with!...."

Yes. That's exactly right.

I don't have an issue with people smoking in the privacy of their own homes/clubs, etc, what I object to is when I'm simply walking down the street shopping or whatever, and some smoker walks past and before I know it I've a lungful of their smoke. That's unpleasant and obtrusive, I don't want it and I sure don't need it, but I guess the average smoker wouldn't give a toss about me having to endure their right to smoke.

Originally posted by Moley
"Some people will not be happy until there is no cigarette smoke left for them to happen to come in contact with!...."

Yes. That's exactly right.

I don't have an issue with people smoking in the privacy of their own homes/clubs, etc, what I object to is when I'm simply walking down the street shopping or whatever, and some smoker walks past and before I know it I've a lungful of their smoke. That's unpleasant and obtrusive, I don't want it and I sure don't need it, but I guess the average smoker wouldn't give a toss about me having to endure their right to smoke.

Do you use film.......maybe some of those kids in Rochester really resent having to endure brain tumors just so you can enjoy your picture album also??
If you want clean air.....fine clean up the air!!! Otherwise....well, it's kind of the same mentality that of slave owner would have.....beat the slave half to death for muttering under his breath, but then insisting that he eats the healthy diet and behaves in the manner the master deems "healthy" for him.
"We can kill you, but heaven forbid you kill yourself!! You are mine and you must be capable of doing your work for me to benefit from you!!! And, you are mine, and it will be me losing money if you get sick!!! All the while ignoring the damage his own actions has done to the person...
well, print your own crap for all I care, and pay your own medical bills.....
I don't need to work that hard, so I ain't gonna....and I will do everything legally possible to avoid paying any taxes to a government that hypocritical!