Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[ehcks]

Smoking is neither a right or privledge, it is a disease

Trolling is neither a right or privledge, it is a disease.

So lets put all trolls in a room without internet and they can troll all they want. (until they go insane)

 

[mikeyx]

Trolling is neither a right or privledge, it is a disease.

So lets put all trolls in a room without internet and they can troll all they want. (until they go insane)

crying troll is an admission of defeat

 

[ehcks]

crying troll is an admission of defeat

If that makes you sleep better at night.

 

[mikeyx]

If that makes you sleep better at night.

line stealing denotes the need for your complete, and immediate unconditional surrender

 

[thines]

Ban smokijng?

Let me chime in here to correct a common misconception as noted in the OP where it is stated that smoking puts further pressure on the healthcare system. In fact, the health effects of smoking, especially lung cancer, kill you quick, kill you young and kill you cheap. Sadly, us non-smokers are not immortal. We all will die of something. And that something is quite likely to be a something that eats up many more health care dollars (or pounds or euros or whatever) that does lung cancer. You know, like Alzheimer's Disease. A 1997 Dutch study (Barendregt et al. New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1052-57) found that the average lifetime health care costs for a smoker was $83,700. For a non smoker it was $97,200. In addition, smokers tend to die right around the time they would retire. So, they've made their contributions but don't get to collect from social security type funds that us longer living non-smokers get to collect from. So, in fact, smokers, by dying fast, young and cheap save the health care system a considerable amount of money.
This is not to say that smoking deaths are "good" but one needs to get the facts straight about the actual effects of smoking on health care costs to have a rational argument about the topic.

 

[Ferguson]

crying troll is an admission of defeat

No, it could just be wishful thinking. It's much more comforting to believe that your arguments are simple trolling, than to accept that you actually believe the petty and sadistic concentration camps you keep proposing would be a good thing.

 

[bottsranzee]

actually a bad reference to eat your veggies, my bad

That's understandable; in fact it would be a good promotion to eat more veggies. I know I'd probably be a lot healthier if I ate them after sex.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

What about living with the exhaust of combustion engines? Don't I have a right not to breath in the exhaust? And I mean ban them everywhere.

Don't I have a right not to live with fast food making people unhealthy? If there were only healthy options I wouldn't have to pay for someone's heart attack.

Don't I have a right not to get attacked by a drunk? Don't I have a right to be free of drunk people? Don't I have a right not to get injured or killed by the drunk driver? Or pay for the medical bills of those with liver damage, alcohol poisoning or alcoholic lung?

Why not ban soft drinks? They can drink water or tea. Why should these beverages be promoted to people when there is no nutrition value to them? I have to pay to subsidize the poor choices of others?

OR...tax all of them. Prohibit them when appropriate, and let people make their own bad decisions.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Can you imagine how successful the JREF would be in exposing frauds if every time Randi got a con-artist in his sights, everybody chanted 'What about all the others?' and made sure no fake psychic was challenged unless they all were? At the same time? Way to go, folks.

 

[welshdean]

Should smoking be banned

For the reasoning behind why it should

1) stink
2) second hand smoke
3) health issues foisted upon an already overburdened healthcare system
4) the general rudeness apathy of smokers towards everyone else.

It short, not just in public, the ban should be EVERYwhere

Should Television be banned
For the reasoning behind why it should

1) The content stinks
2) second hand programs/repeats
3) health issues foisted upon an already overburdened healthcare system
4) the general rudeness apathy of TV viewers towards everyone else in the room.

In short, not just in public, the ban should be EVERYwhere
There you go mikey boy, FTFY

So lets put all trolls in a room without internet and they can troll all they want. (until they go insane)

Until??????

Hey Mikey, way to go for this most original of threads, I've nommed you for the 'Best Thread Of The Month Award'. FFS.

 

[mikeyx]

Should smoking be banned


Should Television be banned
For the reasoning behind why it should

1) The content stinks
2) second hand programs/repeats
3) health issues foisted upon an already overburdened healthcare system
4) the general rudeness apathy of TV viewers towards everyone else in the room.

It short, not just in public, the ban should be EVERYwhereThere you go mikey boy, FTFY

Actually I moved your quote tag and FIFY, as for TV's content, no issues at all, we can pipe as much crap into the smoke free hippy internment camps as you'd like.

Until??????

Hey Mikey, way to go for this most original of threads, I've nommed you for the 'Best Thread Of The Month Award'. FFS.

Do YOU smoke? You seem agitated.

 

[slingblade]

How's it going, Mikey? Any progress to report?

 

[bottsranzee]

If smoking was banned, I don't know where I would get my addicted fix of second hand smoke?

 

[Babbylonian]

If smoking was banned, I don't know where I would get my addicted fix of second hand smoke?

I've found that to be an amusingly true phenomenon. Way back when, I was on a break and decided to smoke a [great] cigar on the loading dock. The shipping/receiving boss came outside and asked me what I was smoking. I immediately apologized and told him I'd walk a ways from the building. He said "No, no. I really miss smoking and wouldn't mind just standing here with you for a bit." I would have laughed but he was so sincere about it.

 

[23_Tauri]

If smoking was banned, I don't know where I would get my addicted fix of second hand smoke?

It would whaft up from the grilles in the street, coming from the illicit smoke-easys down in a thousand haze-filled basements. You could kneel down on the sidewalk and inhale.

Just like the 1920s, the mafioso would be making a killing and people would getting sick on dodgy contraband.

 

[bottsranzee]

I used to work residential construction and the smokers of the crew smoked Marb Reds. I used to look forward to break to enjoy the smell.

 

[Stray Cat]

It would whaft up from the grilles in the street, coming from the illicit smoke-easys down in a thousand haze-filled basements. You could kneel down on the sidewalk and inhale.

Just like the 1920s, the mafioso would be making a killing and people would getting sick on dodgy contraband.

But instead of Moonshine, it would be called Moon Fog.

 

[23_Tauri]

Let me chime in here to correct a common misconception as noted in the OP where it is stated that smoking puts further pressure on the healthcare system. In fact, the health effects of smoking, especially lung cancer, kill you quick, kill you young and kill you cheap. Sadly, us non-smokers are not immortal. We all will die of something. And that something is quite likely to be a something that eats up many more health care dollars (or pounds or euros or whatever) that does lung cancer. You know, like Alzheimer's Disease. A 1997 Dutch study (Barendregt et al. New England Journal of Medicine, 337, 1052-57) found that the average lifetime health care costs for a smoker was $83,700. For a non smoker it was $97,200. In addition, smokers tend to die right around the time they would retire. So, they've made their contributions but don't get to collect from social security type funds that us longer living non-smokers get to collect from. So, in fact, smokers, by dying fast, young and cheap save the health care system a considerable amount of money.
This is not to say that smoking deaths are "good" but one needs to get the facts straight about the actual effects of smoking on health care costs to have a rational argument about the topic.

Nice post, thines. Welcome to the forum!

Sadly, when it comes to debating smoking with smoking nazis, rationality tends to be the first casuality on their side.

 

[slingblade]

Responding to Thines' good post (and it was), keep in mind that it's not just lung cancer that could be the result of smoking. Smoking does other things to you that can kill you.

It can wreck your blood pressure, damage your heart, lead to strokes and heart attacks and COPD. My mom was smoker. She died at 79 from it, and the last few years of her life were relatively expensive in terms of care. More expensive than had she not smoked, I'm guessing. She needed a home oxygen generator, a scooter to get around her own tiny apartment because she hadn't the strength or breath to walk, and boxes of medications that had to be delivered to her because she couldn't get out to get them for herself. A housekeeper paid for by the state, because she couldn't clean her own house anymore. A few hospital stays. Hospice end-of-life care.

She developed COPD in her 50s. It took almost 30 years for it to finally kill her. That's not "quick." And she continued to smoke two cigarettes a day until the last year of her life, when she simply couldn't breathe enough to blow the smoke back out.

My brother was a smoker. He died at 59 from having two major heart attacks, two weeks apart. And he had COPD, too. So he fits the premise Thines laid out, but my mother did not. It just depends, I guess. In general, Thines is quite right.

However, I wouldn't call for it to be banned. As has been said, something has to kill us. If people choose smoking, that should be up to them.

 

[Drachasor]

However, I wouldn't call for it to be banned. As has been said, something has to kill us. If people choose smoking, that should be up to them.

Gosh, you're right. SOMETHING has to kill people! Why bother trying to stop any of the causes of death? Heck, we don't even need to bother with Health Care at all. Peoples gonna die anyways.

That said, I am not sure a general ban is the most efficient way to curb smoking. Limiting where smoking can be done and taxes seem to work fairly well for the public so far. Don't make it illegal, make it really inconvenient. Maybe in the future add some tax rebates for non-smokers if that's feasible.