If they're all dying then how does that cost much for healthcare? What costs a lot is the 109 year old vegetarian who has sucked the equivalent of three people's lifetime costs to the system, including CPP and OAS.
how far could you possibly go to try and stop people from smoking?
- Thread starter Chiliagon
- Start date
I have smoked for 54 years. I always thought it was a part of me and that no way I would quit. Then I developed a terrible cough = lung infection and a vague mention of emphysma (not a full test for it) and I stopped smoking 3 days ago.
I don't want any fuss over this, as I might rebel and resume, as I think rebelliousness is what caused me to begin smoking at age 17.
I don't want any criticism either, like "think of all the money you have spent", because that 54 years was, for the most part, having smoking as my only comfort. If it alienated people, so be it. I learned to adapt to the different attitudes.
At this point, I want nothing said, and if anything is, that "to do this is an immense undertaking"....a remark that fits everyone who undertakes quitting.
I want no more attention drawn to it as would be if I altered the colour of my lipstick!
I don't want any fuss over this, as I might rebel and resume, as I think rebelliousness is what caused me to begin smoking at age 17.
I don't want any criticism either, like "think of all the money you have spent", because that 54 years was, for the most part, having smoking as my only comfort. If it alienated people, so be it. I learned to adapt to the different attitudes.
At this point, I want nothing said, and if anything is, that "to do this is an immense undertaking"....a remark that fits everyone who undertakes quitting.
I want no more attention drawn to it as would be if I altered the colour of my lipstick!
How about if everyone is genetically tested for congenital diseases at birth, and anyone that is statistically likely to die of anything other than natural causes should pay extra health premiums. Alzheimer's patients should be at the top of the list, as they suck a lot of money out of the health care system. Also, anyone that consumes alcohol should be required to pay double health premiums as they put themselves at risk for heart disease and stroke. While we're at it, we should also double the premiums of women that take hormone replacement therapy, as they are at a higher risk of heart attack and breast cancer. Let's include people that don't monitor their calcium intake, as they are at risk for osteoporosis. Where do you draw the line?
If you didn't want any attention or responses to the above, then why did you bother to post it? ;-)
I never understood the whole money saving comments either..... if it wasn't smokes our money was blown on, it'd be alcohol, or video games, or parts to trick our our cars..... or something else equally useless.
Alcohol is more dangerous to people associated with alcohol users than any other legal drug. Should alcohol users pay double health premiums?
Eating too much is not genetic, it's gluttony. There is no genetic factor that causes people to put food in their mouths long after they have eaten enough.
Gluttony is a psychological problem, not a congenital problem.
Last edited:
That would be fine if there decision to smoke wasn't affecting everyone else, i.e second hand smoke. Some woman was smoking a cigarette the other day and just blew a load of smoke right in my face.
The bank teller was coming down with a cold the other day. If given the choice of breathing dirty air for a moment or being exposed to someone with a highly contagious virus, it's a no brainer. I think sick people interacting with the public is far more offensive and irresponsibe than a smoke bubble.
I think we've done an amazing job with tobacco over the last ten years. Smoking has been cut in half with nothing more than education, awareness and taxes. This is harm reduction. Lot of help for people to get off the smokes. No punishment, just help. In comparison to the war on drugs, the harm reduction approach is by far the better method.
Attempting to put some punitive measure against those who smoke would be a huge mistake.
Attempting to put some punitive measure against those who smoke would be a huge mistake.
Well when they deliberately blow it in your face, it becomes your problem.
But when it comes to someone just walking down the sidewalk smoking and you get a tiny whiff of smoke as they pass by...... get over it, you'll live...... and it's certainly far less harmful then all the burning gasoline and diesel spewing from all the cars that pass you by.
Funny that even if you don't smoke, that if you smoked a whole pack of smokes back to back, it still wouldn't be as harmful to you as putting your mouth around an exhaust pipe of a truck and taking One big long suck.
See how you feel after doing both of the above and let me know which was worse.
Um, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest all the car fumes are worse than second-hand smoke.
I'll tell you what- you spend an hour in an enclosed garage with a car running and I'll spend an hour in an enclosed garage with 20 people smoking and we'll see who emerges after an hour in the best shape. :smile:
I was almost arrested last time I was in Barrie, ON a couple of years ago smoking on the sidewalk when a security guard near the bus terminal told me it was illegal to smoke on public property. He told me to go off of the sidewalk and smoke on the road. I replied that "the road is also public property" and he said "then you can still get a ticket, but don't smoke on the sidewalk or I will call the police" (the police station was 3 metres away).
He didn't like it very much when I told him to send the ticket to Germany and left me alone.
I've never heard that smoking would be punishable on public property, unless it was within several metres (?) from the entrance of an establishment.
I suggest you go into a closed space like a garage with your car for 30 minutes, turn the ignition and let it run for a while. Come back and let us know whether it was harmful or not. If you're still alive, do the same thing with 100 smokers.
That's not a good analogy.
Cigarettes more polluting than diesel exhaust - 24 August 2004 - New Scientist
The air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust, a small Italian study finds.
Cigarettes more polluting than diesel exhaust - 24 August 2004 - New Scientist
The air pollution emitted by cigarettes is 10 times greater than diesel car exhaust, a small Italian study finds.
I smoke, & work in a Welding Shop about 1/2 the time when I'm not running
a Loader in a Gravel Pit...., and some days that cigarette smoke
is the healthiest stuff to hit my lungs....trippy though, eh?
If you didn't want any attention or responses to the above, then why did you bother to post it? :wink:
I see I left something out of my post.
My point was that there are responses to people who have just quit, like. "Good for yoü"!...."Way to go!"....and more but those can be terriblr for a new quitter when he/she fails, so i was tryin to point out waht |i would find to be the best for me, even should I fail.
I had a very weird experience about my quitting, or "winning", whatever word we want to use for this..... as the Dr. in the Clinic, listened to my lungs, said 'lung infection", my brain said "Stop Smoking", before the thought was implanted firmly into my mind.....that's the best way I can say it.
....and now 4 days later, I still do not have a craving,. It has been a cold turkey incident that tells me that I have never before had a health threat in my 54 years of smoking ....now I did......and stopped.
I see I left something out of my post.
My point was that there are responses to people who have just quit, like. "Good for yoü"!...."Way to go!"....and more but those can be terriblr for a new quitter when he/she fails, so i was tryin to point out waht |i would find to be the best for me, even should I fail.
I had a very weird experience about my quitting, or "winning", whatever word we want to use for this..... as the Dr. in the Clinic, listened to my lungs, said 'lung infection", my brain said "Stop Smoking", before the thought was implanted firmly into my mind.....that's the best way I can say it.
....and now 4 days later, I still do not have a craving,. It has been a cold turkey incident that tells me that I have never before had a health threat in my 54 years of smoking ....now I did......and stopped.
Why is it (at least it seems that way) that poorer people with problems seem to smoke the most? Is it just the stress with coping? So much money could be saved by them just quiting.
If the goal were to adopt harsh measures to bring cigarette smoking down quickly, one possible solution could be:
1. Require a pharmaceutical license to sell nitotine;
2. Restrict the sael of nicotine to those who have a presciption, which can be obtained only after addiction is proven;
3. Make the prescription, sale, and provision of nicotine to anyone who is born after a certain date (let's say one year after the law is passed) illegal, with severe criminal penalties for those who violate this new law.
4. Make addiction therapy compulsory for those who are born after the cutoff date who do become addicted to nicotine.
This would only be possible with the same public support that eventually made opium a restricted substance. Short of that, we'd be wasting our time.
I wouldn't be surprised that the poor are more likely to be addicts. After all, either their addiction made them poorer, or their poverty encouraged them to find an escape, or both. Just like most opium addicts are likely to be or at least become poorer too.
The poor are the most likely to gamble too with the lottery for example. That doesn't stop the government from digging in though. Then we wonder why socialists cry foul. For crying out loud, when the government is profiting from gambling, it's essentially profiting from usury. Balanced and fair capitalism with a conscience is one thing, but such pure exploitation?! No wonder some people turn to socialism. If I were to confound government exploitation of the poor via the lottery corporation with capitalism, I'd be dead set against capitalism too.
Liken it to prohibition, but we have not been successful as the politicians would have us belief. What we have created is another underground economy of unregulated tobacco. Not to say that the government stuff is healthy, but the unregulated stuff is even worse and they are targeting kids.
Like gun control we are targeting legal suppliers and ignoring the untethered criminal aspect of this supply and demand industry.
See a young person smoking, ask them where they get their smokes.