Smokers getting a rough ride?

6th

Ok rb, because people drives cars and buildings can have harmful chemicals then its ok to smoke around kids because "sure everyone else is killing them"?

Can you denie that smoking around a child on a regular basis is harmful? And if you acknowledge the dangers then are you saying that the pleasure outways the value of the childs quality of life?

cornbb

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

So you are saying smokers have no will power and are abundantly stupid?

No. I'm saying your comment is characteristic of the ignorant views of anti smokers, indicating that you are in fact an anti smoker.

Why the stupid comment? i'm pointing out why the point is completely wrong, it doesn't even warrant consiederation.

I was sarcastically playing the stupid, ignorant smoker. My point is, smokers are well aware of how bad smoking is for you and comments like "smoking is bad for you" are patronising and unhelpful

6th

rb_ie wrote:

Should kids be just killed at birth so?

Obviously not but sure if you think thats what it needs so people can smoke all they want well then you are free to think what you want.

Tar.Aldarion

cornbb wrote:

No. I'm saying your comment is characteristic of the ignorant views of anti smokers, indicating that you are in fact an anti smoker.

Why must you again post assumptions that are just wrong?
I am not anti smokers. I am against people who endanger others, such as their family, for their habit.

I was sarcastically playing the stupid, ignorant smoker. My point is, smokers are well aware of how bad smoking is for you and comments like "smoking is bad for you" are patronising and unhelpful

Why did you reply to me so? I had not made any such comment.
All I commented on was one posters stupid comment or complete lack of self control.

stovelid

I think raising the price is not really the answer.

I assume that price rises will not put a lot of heavy smokers off anyway and its hard not to see it as just a cynical revenue raising exercise.

Something like the smoking ban was more effective as it provided a real disincentive to smoking and addressed the rights of those directly affected by others peoples smoking.

Fighting Irish wrote:

So the price of smokes is more than likely gonna go up again and also they're banning boxes of 10 smokes........I think us smokers are getting screwed because parents/government can't control the kids these days and stop them from smoking :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Muck This

PiE

I had not heard of this smoking forum, please consider this a request for access as I do not know who mods it. Ta.

I also grew up in a smoking household and never once touched a cigarette 'til I was about 20 years old, when a boring job forced me into it to avail of those oh so precious 5min breaks. I do not believe the smoke in the house harmed me as I was rarely ill and it certainly didn't get me hooked. I'm struggling to think of the last time I heard of a child dying of a passive-smoking related illness.

Rb

6th wrote:

Ok rb, because people drives cars and buildings can have harmful chemicals then its ok to smoke around kids because "sure everyone else is killing them"?

Can you denie that smoking around a child on a regular basis is harmful? And if you acknowledge the dangers then are you saying that the pleasure outways the value of the childs quality of life?

I'm treating smoking like any other toxic emission in life, which it is.
My point wasn't that its ok to smoke around kids, I personally would never as its an emission that can be avoided easily/ unnecessary emission, but that non-smokers generally kick up a fuss over smokers whilst they couldn't give two sh1tes about the other toxic emissions that are surrounding them day in day out.

Do you live near any manufacturing plants? Chances are theres some toxic emissions coming from that too.
How many cars are on our roads? Or in this world? And yet people feel its necessary to target smokers more so than car drivers? Car drivers are plowing tonnes upon tonnes of toxic fumes into our atmosphere, into the air we breath day in day out, and yet people feel its more important to turn around to someone and say "You know that'll kill you" or "We should double the tax on this, then it'll get them to stop harming THEMSELVES".

What I did find a bit OTT was you saying that children whos parents smoke should be removed as they're in a harmful enivornment.

Anyway, smoking around children isn't the topic of the thread so I suppose we had better get it on topic.

I would ask again though, to all the non-smokers out there, if everyone in Ireland magically quit smoking tomorrow, would you moan about the tax increases put on other products to try and recover the massive loss of government revenue which would come if everyone suddenly quit smoking? You surely would, you should all be grateful that we're pumping so much tax revenue into this economy and quit you're "They should double the price" crap. Without the smokers, you lot would be suffering with increased prices in other areas and I'm 90% sure you'd be whining about that too.

The government know this won't stop people smoking, its just another way to scam us out of more money.

They also said that one of the biggest concerns lies with the amount of children smoking, so 10 packs will be banned? Think that'll stop kids smoking? Not a chance.
I'd be 100% in favour of them bringing in new laws whereby anyone under 18 caught smoking is punished (legally) and stricter monitoring of stores selling cigarettes. That would be a step in the right direction.

Wacker

Dragan wrote:

To be honest, i haven't seen a single smoker in this thread saying " i will not get cancer/sick/whatever?". So maybe you can point out where they are not "resigned to the facts".

Sorry, I was away for a while so this reply is way late. Anyway, you misunderstood me. When I said "resigned to the facts" I was not referring to the medical risks associated with smoking. What I meant was that smokers need to be resigned the fact that the government is probably raising the tax.

Wertz

super_furry wrote:

Can't see the problem with either of those measures. Why would you against banning boxes of 10?

Personally I'd argue against the banning of 10 boxes for a few reasons;

1) Forcing non-heavy smokers to buy 20 means that they inevitably smoke more.

2) Take your average OAP, who's smoked all their lives...with pensions what they are, even the 10 box is a small luxury; why take that away from them?

3) Poor or working class make up a large % of the smoking populace...in times of hardship, many will choose ciggarettes over other essentials....driving the price up and cutting them off from a cheaper pack ultimately harms either them or their children in the short term through potential malnutrition, lack of heat, light or other necessities

4) Kids can well afford to either bunch in for 20 between a few of them or nick the cash from mummy or daddy to feed their habit.

5) In all reality the banning of 10 boxes is all about increasing revenue on the double (through an increase in the 20 box price and on the smokers mentioned in points 1, 2 and 3)


Again, like the banning of magic mushrooms back when that happened, this is something very easy to do that makes it look like affirmative action to tackle the scourge of tobacco consumption...it grabs headlines, stirs up debate and makes it look like the government bodies care about the elctorate (it is an election year after all)

People KNOW smoking is bad for them...most of them don't really care in the short term....it's certainly not the only thing of pleasure that is bad for you....but it does happen to be one big money spinner for the revenue coffers and after this publicity stunt, even more so.

As someone else mentioned above; if the youth are so much a focus of anti smoking policy how about enforcing the age restriction with IDs being asked for at point of sale, and stiff penalties for those shops breaking the law...

<- ex smoker

Dooom

Anyone know how much they're going up by? Last I heard was €2. Which is fuppin ridiculous tbh, if I want to smoke it's my cursed choice.
And to cover the increased medical costs later in life for my cancer ridden body, why don't VHI/BUPA whoever just increase the premiums for smokers? Thought they did that as it was. Or if I don't have health insurance can't they just charge me a bit more on the hospital bill?
AND they take away the possibility of buying smokes for dirt all from Poland or wherenot.

Get d'feck away tbh.

All the anti-smoking nazis seem to appear this time of year. I've lost count of the people who have walked by me while I was sitting somewhere outside or wherever, enjoying my cigarette and have them glare and do the "get that smoke out of my face" thing (and it was for the smoke, ye smarmy bastards). Even when the smoke was going the opposite directions. Idiots.

Maybe I don't like the smell of your unwashed body's odours? Or that ming perfume/aftershave you're wearing?
Christ I'm so bloody sick of all those f*ckers I'm tempted to move country where I can enjoy a less hassle-filled smoke break, and not have to go to my bank account each time I want to buy a pack. But just to spite you all, I'm going to stay. And screw all this considerate smoker crap, I've had enough. My smoke going in your face? Then YOU f*cking move. Concerned that your child will follow my example and start smoking? F*ck off and go rent them How To Be A Complete Scumbag In 3 Steps again. And yes madam on the luas who's standing beside me, I have been smoking which is why my clothes smell of smoke. Unfortunately I don't give a f*ck that you find it unpleasant.

Tbh the nazis need a hobby. Should give smoking a try. And I'll quit when I bloody well feel like quiting!

/mega rant over

dr.bollocko

I can hear the crowds chanting... and they're screaming "Thunderdome, thunderdome, thunderdome...."

There is no solution to a problem like this. Anti-smokers will always have one opinion, former smokers will have another, and current smokers will have yet another.
If you have never ever smoked though and post up here talking about how you are so glad the price is going up, smoking is disgusting, healthcare timebomb, kids smoking, passive smoking, and on, and on, and on.... it just serves to patronize smokers. its the equivalent of a priest giving you sex advice. You just cannot listen. It doesnt help that the anti smoker usually tends to take an "I'm so right, smokers are all such total idiots, if only I had a longer nose so I could look further down at the vile smoking scum" stance. This is a fairly pathetic and laughable stance to take. Smoking does not make someone a bad person, or a weak person. Smoking has been a part of human life for thousands of years in different formats. So has drug use.
What I resent is the Holier than thou attitude of anti-smokers who presume that just because someone smokes they are unhealthy, that just because they dont smoke they are healthy. It is an unhealthy habit, but so is drinking, fast food, longboarding, power **** and bomb disposal. What I am saying is that an anti-smoker's preachy attitude will only serve to get a punch in his holier-than-thou face rather than actually get listened to, and the constant quoting of this invalid statistic and that dubious statistic is not going to do anything but further stroke your non-smoking ego.

Tar.Aldarion

Spike wrote:

Should give smoking a try. And I'll quit when I bloody well feel like quiting!

Sure you will Spike, sure you will.

dr.bollocko

And No Eggs!

Tar.Aldarion

dr.bollocko wrote:

And No Eggs!

Good work!

FranknFurter

Dragan wrote:

To the people like Kizzyr I would simple say that it's free choice. Just because you don't want to do something yourself does not mean you can force others not to do it. Whatever way you want to look at it smoking is legal in this country, as is drinking. So people are entitled to do both, either as much or as little as they like.

I would simply suggest you get on with your own lives and if you are so interested in health then remove all hydrogenated fats from diet, get your veg in and do your excercises.

Leave people to do what they want to do within the realms of the law.

Quite right!
Us smokers pay a RIDICULOUS amount of money for our cigs.
Alcohol is a much bigger problem in this country and is hardly ever mentioned in comparison.

I, believe it or not, actually enjoy having a cig, somtimes it is the only pleasure in a very stressful day. Without it I think I would have homicidal days instead of bad days.
Any increase on the already stupid cost will do nothing but make poor people poorer, and all that achieves is increasing the amount of social welfare payouts applied for.

The price going up, for me will achieve one of two things:
1- I will spend less on essentials, like food, which will make me more ill than cigs ever could.
or
2- I will be forced to give up one of the very few indulgences I currently have in my life.

I do not smoke where I am not allowed, and even when I am somwhere where I can smoke I always ask if anyone minds first and would not dream of lighting one up if a single person minds. I would never smoke near a child or encourage anyone else to smoke. I am a responsible smoker just as there are responsible drinkers.

I totally respect somones right NOT to smoke and not to be near somone smoking.
All I ask is that MY right to enjoy somthing legal not be taken away from me. I dont (can't) drink alcohol, a lot of foods I cannot tolerate, smoking is one of few pleasure for me and now, if they rise the cost I may lose that too. Until they tackle other health issues like alcohol and diet amoung the young then I have no respect for them doing this and consider it a violation of my basic rights and a tax on the poorer sections of society.

B

Black Swan

I see no probs with smokers, so long as they do not force the rest of us to inhale their secondary smoke or tash the neighborhood with butts. Ran into a maintenance supervisor at a major university in the States the other day in a coffeehouse. Was working on his budget for next year, and was complaining about having to spend an estimated $4,000 USD each year in labour costs having a crew member pick up cig butts along campus walkways.

dr.bollocko

Well if the guy was just picking up cigarette butts and ignoring all the other rubbish on the campus walkway then thats discrimination and I am going to sue.

Ruu_Old

PiE wrote:

I had not heard of this smoking forum, please consider this a request for access as I do not know who mods it. Ta.

I also grew up in a smoking household and never once touched a cigarette 'til I was about 20 years old, when a boring job forced me into it to avail of those oh so precious 5min breaks. I do not believe the smoke in the house harmed me as I was rarely ill and it certainly didn't get me hooked. I'm struggling to think of the last time I heard of a child dying of a passive-smoking related illness.

Papa Smut and Sarge (on holiers at the moment) are the mods, so contact them for access. It would be an insult to teh smokers if I moved this thread now.
As a non-smoker from a mainly smoking family, I have no problem with people who have ciggie, its their choice. *shrug*

nlgbbbblth

Smokers are getting a rough time in my opinion.

However there's nothing more pathetic than a smoker who won't defend his/her habit.

i.e. 'Yeah, smoking is terrible'
or
'I agree with the smoking ban even though I'm a smoker'
or
'I think they should put the price up and ban 10s'

I smoked from when I was 11 until I was 28 and enjoyed every cigarette,

Why smoke and complain about it?

cornbb

dr.bollocko wrote:

It is an unhealthy habit, but so is ... longboarding ... power ****

Not so bad if u don't mind the scarred knees and blurry vision

tj-music.com

I don´t care!

Having said that, I do think that making cigarettes heavily expensive doesn´t make the issue of smoking go away.

I am a non smoker but I guess I am addicted to coffee - so, if they would put up the price to €10,- a cup - I would probably still have some.

Thrill

tj-music.com wrote:

I don´t care!

Having said that, I do think that making cigarettes heavily expensive doesn´t make the issue of smoking go away.

I am a non smoker but I guess I am addicted to coffee - so, if they would put up the price to €10,- a cup - I would probably still have some.

I think the idea behind increasing the price of cigs is to try to make it too expensive for kids to buy. Its also an added incentive to give them up.

FranknFurter

thrill wrote:

I think the idea behind increasing the price of cigs is to try to make it too expensive for kids to buy. Its also an added incentive to give them up.

Fine in theory but in the real world (the one most politicians dont inhabit), both ideas fail miserably.

If a child is going to smoke they are going to smoke. Underage drinking is rife and alcohol you would think would be a lot harder to obtain for a child.
10 euro is nothing to a child these days, we all know that, especially to a child who has his / her mind set on a certain specific purchase, be that barbie or benson & hedges.

"Encouraging" smokers to quit by taxing it to the point where it is only available to people of a certain income is both unethical and downright wrong in so many ways. Hell, you could probably base a legal case of discriminatory behaviour of the government on that alone!

B

Fighting Irish

thrill wrote:

I think the idea behind increasing the price of cigs is to try to make it too expensive for kids to buy. Its also an added incentive to give them up.

Thats the whole reason for this thread, us smokers who are legally allowed to smoke are being punished(by increases in prices) because the government/parents can't stop their children from smoking

Vex Willems

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

oh I forgot, cigs that are not smoked in one day go off after seven hours and explode after ten.

Cigarettes do go off if left in an open packet too long :rolleyes:

rb_ie wrote:

I think his point was that, if those of us who only smoke a few a day are forced to buy 20 packs, having the 20 cigarettes sitting there will lead to us smoking more.
It comes as part of the addiction, if I only buy 10 a day I can limit myself as I know I've only 10 for the day, if I have 20 I'll have a cigarette every time I need one because they're there.

yes, if i have a 20 box, everytime i go for a ciggy and see that there are plently left i go "oh goody loads left for me to smokey" but if i opened the box and there was only 3-4 left i go "i deary me I had better save my lovelys for such and such a time"

layke

http://josh.bakehorn.net/squalor2.html

Fighting Irish

layke wrote:

http://josh.bakehorn.net/squalor2.html

:rolleyes: brilliant addition to this thread

wow sierra

Banning packs of ten is going to make it much harder to give up or cut down. And anyone who thinks kids cant afford €6 for 20 is so ill-informed its scary. I dont smoke myself and I would love if noone did but this is a measure which will encourage people to smoke more and not less.

netwhizkid

This government in my opinion have made a complete hash of the way they are managing smoking. €6.55 for Cigarettes is a joke they should be at least €9, Banning ten packs is a good idea too, but their is so much more that could be done, for instance suspension/expulsion for teenagers smoking on school grounds etc.

Young people should be prevented from Smoking at all costs and I would go furthur by banning 20 packs and make it only available in packets of 200 @ €100 per pack representing €10 per 20 pack, I'd like to see teenagers get their hands on them then. Smokers would benefit from having the major incentive to quit and would never run out also. Smokers are second class citizens and are the same sort's you see feeding McDonalds to toddlers or who would happily run a key down the side of your car.

There should be no let-up in the taxation on them. If the Government do take the initiative and hike cigarette prices it will be only the 4th good thing they have done since coming to power in 1997. No. 1: Banning Smoking in Workplaces (should be public ban) No. 2: The Citizenship Referendum and the Drift Netting Ban this year. Smokers deserve nothing more than to get screwed and told tell me otherwise, the thing is if they are so worried why don't they go out and vote, they won't most will vote Fianna Fail so they deserve tax hikes.

When I see smokers, I think Darwinism at work, nothing to see here people, they will only live half of their life, bequating illness's to their offspring like Asthma etc. Frankly I think society is better off without smokers as such people are a drain to society and help hold it back.

Intelligence and Non-Smokers FTW.

Hal1

If cant control what there kids get up to they are unfit parents imo . Seriously though this increase in the price of smokes is no way to control young kids smoking, if thats what they hope to achieve by doing this.

Dooom

netwhizkid wrote:

/snip

No, just no. Leave.

Vex Willems

netwhizkid wrote:

Frankly I think society is better off without smokers as such people are a drain to society and help hold it back.

really :rolleyes:

smemon

don't see what the problem is.

smoking is bad for everyone - should be banned full stop in all public places - outside or in.

if people are stupid enough to pay good money for something that they know will harm them, then let them. :rolleyes:

all smokers should be charged an annual fee to hold a card, which then entitles them to buy cigs. No card, no cigs. That way, there's no under age problems.

yes i know i should be taoiseach, thank you

dotsman

netwhizkid wrote:

This government in my opinion have made a complete hash of the way they are managing smoking. €6.55 for Cigarettes is a joke they should be at least €9, Banning ten packs is a good idea too, but their is so much more that could be done, for instance suspension/expulsion for teenagers smoking on school grounds etc.

Young people should be prevented from Smoking at all costs and I would go furthur by banning 20 packs and make it only available in packets of 200 @ €100 per pack representing €10 per 20 pack, I'd like to see teenagers get their hands on them then. Smokers would benefit from having the major incentive to quit and would never run out also. Smokers are second class citizens and are the same sort's you see feeding McDonalds to toddlers or who would happily run a key down the side of your car.

There should be no let-up in the taxation on them. If the Government do take the initiative and hike cigarette prices it will be only the 4th good thing they have done since coming to power in 1997. No. 1: Banning Smoking in Workplaces (should be public ban) No. 2: The Citizenship Referendum and the Drift Netting Ban this year. Smokers deserve nothing more than to get screwed and told tell me otherwise, the thing is if they are so worried why don't they go out and vote, they won't most will vote Fianna Fail so they deserve tax hikes.

When I see smokers, I think Darwinism at work, nothing to see here people, they will only live half of their life, bequating illness's to their offspring like Asthma etc. Frankly I think society is better off without smokers as such people are a drain to society and help hold it back.

Intelligence and Non-Smokers FTW.

smemon wrote:

don't see what the problem is.

smoking is bad for everyone - should be banned full stop in all public places - outside or in.

if people are stupid enough to pay good money for something that they know will harm them, then let them. :rolleyes:

all smokers should be charged an annual fee to hold a card, which then entitles them to buy cigs. No card, no cigs. That way, there's no under age problems.

yes i know i should be taoiseach, thank you

I certinaly hope all those who are happy to see smokers die young and want smoking banned etc. would be willing to have the same happen to all those who use mobile phones. And drink. And eat fatty foods. And don't excercise enough. And don't wash their hands after the toilet... (The list can go on forever).

There are a lot of things out their that are bad for you. Sticking your head up your ar$e and screaming nonsense just makes intelligent people laugh at you.

Tobbaco products, like Oil and Alcohol are inert goods (and thus they have a different taxation policy to all other goods - which come under standard VAT). Upping the price of cigarettes will have no affect (and never has in the past) on the number of cigarettes being smoked. No goverment has ever upped the tax with that in mind. It's merely a way to make a quick buck and get a lot of happy voters in the anti-smoking(nazi) lobby.

People love to spout nonsense about how much smokers cost the economy, yet there never has been a study done on it. In fact, successive governemtns have refused such a study. The only independant study carried out was in the Czech Republic which was then quashed by its government (under pressure from the EU). Fact is smokers statistically die younger. There fore they use up less of the pension fund (which they have been contributing to all their lives), less nursing home/carers costs, less hospital bills for broken hips, dementia, flus and countless other illnesses that the elderly often suffer from.

Do you honestly believe that non-smokers just suddenly die without getting sick? The average non-smoker will be in hospital as much as a smoker. Only the smoker will have paid a higher Health insurance premium, and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Euro in cigarette taxes.

Do you people honestly have a clue what you are talking about?

Laslo

It's a money-making exercise by the government, piggybacked by anti-smoking nazi idiots who have nothing better to do than exercise their impotent and irrelevant opinions.

I would say the following - the government should either ban the sale of cigarattes completely or stop increasing tax on them completely. It's utter hypocrisy to use the excuse that smoking is so dangerous that is deserves such taxation and yet maintain that it should still be legal. Why not legalise heroin and tax that? The government don't give a s**t about how dangerous smokes are... as long as they can use it as an excuse to keep raising taxes.

And as for those busy-body, loud-mouthed non-smokers who have a problem with OTHER people's filthy habits: get a hobby.. or at least mind your own business.

Hal1

Laslo wrote:

It's a money-making exercise by the government, piggybacked by anti-smoking nazi idiots who have nothing better to do than exercise their impotent and irrelevant opinions.

I would say the following - the government should either ban the sale of cigarattes completely or stop increasing tax on them completely. It's utter hypocrisy to use the excuse that smoking is so dangerous that is deserves such taxation and yet maintain that it should still be legal. Why not legalise heroin and tax that? The government don't give a s**t about how dangerous smokes are... as long as they can use it as an excuse to keep raising taxes.

And as for those busy-body, loud-mouthed non-smokers who have a problem with OTHER people's filthy habits: get a hobby.. or at least mind your own business.

Well said.

Tony Danza

kizzyr wrote:

I'm not of the exact same opinion of alcohol as I am of smoking. Having a drink once per week harms no one but when you smoke you don't have a cigarette once per week, its addictive so it doesn't work in the same way.

Yeah I agree I don't think anyone has gotten addicted to alcohol....ever. And no smoker anywhere in the world only smokes one cigarette a week, it's just not allowed.

FranknFurter

Spike wrote:

No, just no. Leave.

Couldnt have said it better myself.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I have ever read, and thats saying somthing!
NWK, are you serious or just joking?
If the former Id advise climbing out of your ivory tower and actually experiencing the real world a while, because such a post only serves to make you sound like a stuck up 16yo living off daddys money and being driven to school each morning in mammies SUV.
Real life, and real people do not work that way dearie. There are many many shades of grey between the black and white of your Sunday Times.

B

Wibbs

netwhizkid wrote:

When I see smokers, I think Darwinism at work,

When I read your posts I'm often uncharitable enough to think that it's a pity that Darwinism is not harder at work.

nothing to see here people, they will only live half of their life,

Untrue. You do realise that a large majority of the oldest people who've ever lived were smokers? In fact the oldest person on record was a smoker. My family see their nineties and beyond and guess what? They're all smokers. Can you make the same claim?

bequating illness's to their offspring like Asthma etc.

Completely wrong, though not surprising given the source. For a start smokers are less likely to suffer from Parkinsons and Alzheimers among other ailments that are a drain on the medical resources. Indeed non smokers get cancer too. Even if your contention held, which it doesn't, that means that smokers as others pointed out more than make up for the shortfall by a constant topping up of the tax coffers. As dotsman points out there are other risky behaviours people get up to. Should they be penalised for same in your view? Are you the perfection of healthy living? It could be argued that processed sugar is a far higher health risk to life and limb than smoking.

Frankly I think society is better off without smokers as such people are a drain to society and help hold it back.

As are idiots, but I would be breaking Godwins rule if I pointed out where that leads - on soooo many levels

Intelligence and Non-Smokers FTW.

This is a man(and the term is looser than a threpenny strumpet), who if memory serves finds it a tad difficile to negotiate the manual gearbox on a car. Muuuhahahahhaha.

As in the past, you will regale us no doubt with your tales of how brilliant you are and, how well you have done for yourself. It's impressive indeed given the maturity of the mind behind the "success".

JC 2K3

kizzyr wrote:

I think people have a responsibility to care for their bodies and look after their health as best they can and smoking, drinking to excess on a regular basis.

Why?

I personally have no religious beliefs, ultimately I don't believe humans or indeed myself to be significantly important.

Why should I bother keeping healthy?

Now I don't smoke, but I drink and sometimes do other drugs, possibly damaging my body, but I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to/should have a responsibility not to.

Laslo wrote:

Why not legalise heroin and tax that?

TBH, I don't know why, heroin is in fact much less harmful than cigarrettes.

That's a discussion for another thread, however.

nesf

I cannot understand the argument that I have a responsibility to maintain my good health. Surely that's my own wish/desire/decision? Yes, if I'm doing something that is meaningfully* impacting negatively on your health then I should stop doing it unless stopping would cause an even greater negative impact on mine but beyond that I don't see how you can force me to maintain my health without restricting my rights. You can influence me, run campaigns or whatever, but you should never coerce me into maintaining it or not damaging it.


*this is the trickiest part and is very much up for debate but most reasonable people can at least agree on rough boundaries here (for instance I don't have to be under house arrest and avoid contact with all others if I have the flu or a head cold).

madhitchhiker

nesf wrote:

I cannot understand the argument that I have a responsibility to maintain my good health. Surely that's my own wish/desire/decision? Yes, if I'm doing something that is meaningfully* impacting negatively on your health then I should stop doing it unless stopping would cause an even greater negative impact on mine but beyond that I don't see how you can force me to maintain my health without restricting my rights. You can influence me, run campaigns or whatever, but you should never coerce me into maintaining it or not damaging it.

Right! Like what Bon Jovi had said 'It's my Life'...:D

DonkeyStyle \o/

Smokers getting a rough ride?

I'd be lucky to get a ride of any description; my teeth are yellow and my clothes smell like arse.
But I am in flavour country.

The Sweeper

I have an on-again off-again love-hate relationship with cigarettes. At the moment it's off-again. When I lapse and go back to smoking, it's not that many - 10 a day or less - and it doesn't last that long - three or four months before I stop again for another six or eight months. These days the off-again is more prevalent than the on-again, and for that I'm thankful.

I'm all for smoking bans in public places and the workplace - because I do know I'm better off not smoking and I appreciate the preventative measures other people take that help me not to smoke.

Hoiking the price of fags right up makes little difference. I think it was Canada, where they did something like tripling the price of fags in one move, only to find that the poor and downtrodden who could not longer afford them were replaced by the affluent who took up smoking as a status symbol.

rogue-entity

Personally, it doesnt really affect me weither they ban 'em or just raise the prices on them. I dont like smoking myself, I dont like it when members of my family smoke. I am not in favour of banning ciggies, people have the right to make that choice, this is a free country after all. Now, what I dont like is those underage scumbags smoking away and what I truely abhor is the ciggarette butts that litter the entrance to pubs, shops and other places because some smokers are too fecking lazy to put the butts into the nearest bins (after they squash them out).

The thing is, governments are happy to kill peoples choices and I can well see smoking being banned outright, now that wont bother me, but it bothers many people, and to be honest, I think it would be wrong for smoking to be banned, just as I think its wrong that some drugs are banned (particularlly magic mushrooms and cannibis).

WhiteWashMan

Wibbs wrote:

Completely wrong, though not surprising given the source. For a start smokers are less likely to suffer from Parkinsons and Alzheimers among other ailments that are a drain on the medical resources. Indeed non smokers get cancer too.

until you can come back with facts and figures to back up a statement like that, dont use it as fact.
smoking related illnesses take up far more healthcare resources, and account for more deaths than any other cause of unnatural death in the UK and Ireland.

other than that, its just the usual smokers rhetoric.

i smoked for about 13 years. i dont at the moment. i may go back on them, who knows, but i am honest enough with myself to know that i dont like the taste of them, they make me smell awful, they are an expensive habit, they really screw my breathing and my lungs, and i often used them to hide behind during awkward situations, or as some sort of placebic stress reliever.

i feel that people who tend to defend their decision to smoke to such a degree, often feel the way i do about smoking.
as hamlet said, 'me feel the lady doth protest too much'.

nesf

WhiteWashMan wrote:

until you can come back with facts and figures to back up a statement like that, dont use it as fact.
smoking related illnesses take up far more healthcare resources, and account for more deaths than any other cause of unnatural death in the UK and Ireland.

I've seen the figures for his statement about Alzheimers actually. They aren't very pro-smoking though; the reason why smokers are less likely to suffer Alzheimers is because the condition tends to only affect people over 70/75 or something like that and if you smoke you've a pretty good chance to not suffer the indignity of Alzheimers by not reaching the "danger" age group for the condition. So, yeah, not exactly "pro-smoking" really, but the correlations do exist and have been quantified.

Oh and smoking related illnesses is a very broad term. Heart disease falls into that catagory, and is a major killer (I think it's the biggest here), but there are a lot of other major risk factors (high blood pressure, obesity, cholesterol et al) and to just label it as a smoking related illness is misleading imho. Smoking is a major risk factor for it but blaming smoking for heart disease is like blaming alcohol for all car crashes, it doesn't really work (though personally I think it is the best health reason not to smoke, your chance of getting cancer is far lower iirc).

cornbb

Some Bill Hicks quotes to ponder:

I smoke. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your ****in' mouth.

I have something to tell you non-smokers that I know for a fact that you don't know, and I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times. Ready?.......Non-smokers die every day...Enjoy your evening. See, I know that you entertain this eternal life fantasy because you've chosen not to smoke, but let me be the 1st to POP that bubble and bring you hurtling back to reality....You're dead too.

Not saying he's logical or anything, but damn, the guy is funny

Tar.Aldarion

I think you will find that 'is' is a 'was' for some reason...
:P

Adam

kizzyr wrote:

I am unapologetically anti-smoking and would welcome a move like this by the government. I think the banning of boxes of 10 is long over due and the price of 20 should at the very least be doubled.
There is nothing good about smoking, its a nasty habit that kills and if these are the steps that have to be taken to make more people stop well then let them be taken.

Just because yours was the first post that I came across spouting this búllshít point of view. Any person over the age of 18 is LEGALLY ENTITLED TO THEIR RIGHT TO SMOKE!

If kids are an issue, thats up to the vendors not being stringent enough on ID checks, that's what they're there for!

Why should we be charged twice the price if we choose to smoke?

As I said, nothing personal, this thread is dedicated to all that support your point of view.