[Chris]

A lot of smokers I've known justify it by saying something to the effect of "it's my choice, it's my body, I'm taking my own risk." This is fantastically annoying, because it's a steaming pile of shit.

If you smoke you may get cancer; entirely more likely you'll get some less harmful disease that requires hospital treatment such as bronchitis or such.

When you get such a disease the government is legally obliged to pay for your treatment. Drugs, doctors' wages and such cost a HUGE amount, and are paid for by every single working citizen. Not to mention blocking up a bed whilst you cough your last few hundred breaths, slowly. That money, and that hospital bed, could be used to help someone who didn't shoot themselves in the foot and come crying to the government afterwards.

Therefore your stupid habit DOES effect people; moreover it effects EVERYONE. Therefore you have a responsibility not to do it, in the same way you have a responsibility not to steal, or anything else generally considered immoral because it harms people.

Much respect, by the way, to any smoker who declines NHS or Medicare service because his/her condition was caused by smoking.

Of course this argument does come with a caveat; namely that things such as mountain climbing have inherent risks of accident which may also result in your unintentionally raiding the taxpayer for thousands if not millions to reconstruct your face. I'd argue that we shouldn't be banning mountain climbing, but that this does make it your responsibility to climb in as safe a way as possible (so test your equipment properly, don't try things that are beyond your skill, and so forth). This is just common sense anyway.

You can't really "smoke safely", so I don't think that can be applied to smoking.

[David-kyo]

If we apply your argument to every other aspect of life, then we'll see how demagogue it is: don't drink a glass of champagne on New Years Eve, for instance, because alcohol fucks up your liver, and I'll have to pay for your treatment. Sounds stupid, doesn't it? ANY kind of drug/alcohol/etc. addict falls into the same category, but for some reason, smokers seem to get all the bashing for it, everyone else gets sympathy. Hmmm.

Anyway, what you say is blatant generalisation: a chain-smoking addict is an entirely different cup of tea than a smoker who smokes about 2-3 sticks a week (my current dosage).
Moreover, many cases of lung cancer which are caused by environmental effects (I know jackshit about this, some article I've read about certain gases used in power plants) are blamed on smokers.

[Prodian]

The only point that I made that hasn't been argued is that smoking is ikky. Does this mean we are all agree on that?

This post has been edited by Prodian: 24 March 2007 - 09:00 AM

[Blueskirt]

Another flaw with the taxpayers' money argument is that most of the time the smokers pay so many additionnal taxes on their pack of ciggies that they contribute for a big part of said taxpayers' money wasted in treatment, if not the treatment of non-ciggies related stuff.

The only point that I made that hasn't been argued is that smoking is ikky. Does this mean we are all agree on that?

Yes.

[El Presedente]

And then theres thw whole deal with second hand smoke, appart from being a health risk to me, its a pain in the arse, I'd be like me farting in someones face.

[David-kyo]

Another flaw with the taxpayers' money argument is that most of the time the smokers pay so many additionnal taxes on their pack of ciggies that they contribute for a big part of said taxpayers' money wasted in treatment, if not the treatment of non-ciggies related stuff.

Which is the reason I argue marijuana should also be legalised:
- eliminates dealers from the streets, thus lowers crime rate and the price of dope
- creates mellow fucked-up people with peaceful disposition, thus lowers crime rate and general frustration
- creates an enormous tax income for the government, thus lowers deficits
- reduces sperm count, thus lowers birth rate (come on, we all agree that there are enough retards on this planet already)
- is a much cooler drug than alcohol anyway
- and a lot more other reasons I can't be arsed to conjure up

Anyway, this might be a debate for another day.

[El Presedente]

Well to counter that it could be argued that marijuana can create mellow fucked-up people with peaceful disposition at any time, and that means you can smoke it in your car, riding a bike, fighting in a war etc, something that you can't do with alcohol, you have to be immobile to do that, and an immobile stoned person is safer than a mobile one.

[David-kyo]

That argument is retarded because if you wanted, you could drink alcohol in your car while driving, and the same law enforcement would be applied in a stoner's case, anyway. Moreover, when high people drive, their speed is usually not more than 4 mph.

And then theres thw whole deal with second hand smoke, appart from being a health risk to me, its a pain in the arse, I'd be like me farting in someones face.

WAKE UP, we have already discussed asshole smokers vs. non-asshole smokers.

This post has been edited by David-kyo: 24 March 2007 - 02:59 PM

[El Presedente]

their speed is usually not more than 4 mph.

Which is my point exactly, we don't want stoned people slowing the moterways down keeping me from getting to the pub on time, thats taking up precious drinking time, time I'd have to compensate for by drinking and driving at the same time, which could cause accidents.

This post has been edited by El Presedente: 24 March 2007 - 03:00 PM

[David-kyo]

Then you can still take up jogging to balance the effects of drinking AND get to the pub quicker or return the empty bottles and use the atrocious amount of money gained to buy yourself a private helicopter.

[El Presedente]

Neah, I'm just kidding, I can't drive, but there is a union and a pub across the road from me, and I never take lifts.

[David-kyo]

In that case, you've got nothing to complain about. Let the high people stay high.

[Chris]

David-kyo --

Your champagne glass thing is exactly the same as the rock climbing example. The point is not taking unreasonable risks at the expense of all. Smoking lots is likely to lead to trouble, so I'd say it's an unreasonable risk when other people have to bear the consequences.

[David-kyo]

David-kyo --

Your champagne glass thing is exactly the same as the rock climbing example. The point is not taking unreasonable risks at the expense of all. Smoking lots is likely to lead to trouble, so I'd say it's an unreasonable risk when other people have to bear the consequences.

If you're bringing up the financial aspects again, then you're clearly trying to craft an iron ring out of wooden planks, as we've already pointed out that smokers don't smoke for FREE, they PAY taxes on their lung torpedoes, which is higher than their healthcare bills (if there's any to speak of). If you meant something else then please elaborate.

[El_Gostro]

I remember the first time I went to a bar here in the states,turns out I can't get in there because of that idiotic twenty one year old law.
Aside from the fact I am unusually asthenic I got rather pissed when I dsocvered I tasted drink and started going to bars at a much much earlier age than many of the local bartenders.Not to mention I've reached the legal for everything age long ago in Argentina and most common sensed countries.
So I went and bought cigarretes for some kids that night.

I think what they are doing with smoke is a tactic very similar to that of pot,ban it and persecute it so a bunch of smartcats can scalp them real nice (in the case of tobacco the smartcats being massive businesses who can afford to pay off the titanic taxation and processing facilities instead of a chain of producers and/or refiners that may hail from various walks of life)

This post has been edited by El_Gostro: 26 March 2007 - 08:43 AM