[El Presedente]

So I went and bought cigarretes for some kids that night.

Tut tut, you said that as if you went out and volintarily looked for children to buy cigaretts for, or is that what passes for a hobby in Argentina?

[joshofalltrades]

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.

Maybe if Medicaid/Medicare is covering the cost. Otherwise, a corporation known as an INSURANCE COMPANY is paying for the hospital bill.

And your logic stinks. People do all kinds of things to themselves that can potentially put them in a hospital. People get older and getting older is a health risk. Why not ban life? You might step in front of a moving car and then you're on the public dime! Let's ban cars! Wait, too much of an accident for you? Well, eating undercooked meat or poultry can increase your risk of infection! Let's ban restaurants! And let's ban all meat while we're at it, because who knows when some guy will accidentally cook some burgers less than others. Everybody must be a vegetarian!

Look, there's only so far the law can go before it gets obnoxious. If you don't like being in places that have smoking... don't go there! The world will still be spinning if you go and eat/drink at an establishment with no smoking.

Don't give me the "well it's just one more bad thing adding to the big problem" argument, either. If smoking wasn't around, people would just find another, more destructive addiction.

You're also trying to lump the people who blow smoke in non-smokers faces with reckless abandon with smokers who are considerate. The former are known as ASSHOLES. If they couldn't smoke, they'd find another way to inconvenience you. And, unfortunately, assholes will never be against the law.

I'm not a smoker, but I am in no way inconvenienced by people who do.

[Gobbler]

And your logic stinks.

O~ho, 's that right...?

People do all kinds of things to themselves that can potentially put them in a hospital.

It's what you call a calculated risk, some of the basic things that define life itself. Chaos theory, if you like. Chances of survival alltogether equal zero, however, that does not apply to your chances of survival in a short time interval, which are considerably lowered by smoking.

People get older and getting older is a health risk. Why not ban life?

Getting older is a health risk. Yeah right. Not. You're referring to the process of gradually becoming unable to support your life functions. Might happen sooner, might also happen later, but in the end, you'll be feeling quite miserable in any case, smoking just fastens things up, but doesn't save you from the pain.

You might step in front of a moving car and then you're on the public dime! Let's ban cars! Wait, too much of an accident for you?

Quite.

Well, eating undercooked meat or poultry can increase your risk of infection! Let's ban restaurants! And let's ban all meat while we're at it, because who knows when some guy will accidentally cook some burgers less than others. Everybody must be a vegetarian!

Cute. I thought you were going to make a point against accidents and random events that you cannot have any influence on. Well, vegetarians could swallow poisoned food, too, by pure accident. Yeehaw.

Look, there's only so far the law can go before it gets obnoxious.

Can't fight destiny, chaos theory, arbitrary events or whatever, but you can be quite certain that smoking's a definite risk - so why not try to protect people from it? Obviously, they're leaving you enough room to still decide for yourself whether you want to smoke or not, so be glad.

If you don't like being in places that have smoking... don't go there! The world will still be spinning if you go and eat/drink at an establishment with no smoking.

... and justice for all, I see. The good ol' (and still invalid) "If you don't like it here, you're free to leave." argument.

If I may enlighten you... in a social welfare state, the smokers are actually the last who would have the right to say something like that.

This post has been edited by Gobbler: 26 March 2007 - 01:54 PM

[joshofalltrades]

You're right, Gobbler. Let's declare martial law! That way nobody will be able to take any more calculated risks!

You're taking everything I said and pulling technicalities out of it.

Getting older is a health risk. Yeah right. Not. You're referring to the process of gradually becoming unable to support your life functions. Might happen sooner, might also happen later, but in the end, you'll be feeling quite miserable in any case, smoking just fastens things up, but doesn't save you from the pain.

Ohhhh I see. You just completely tore that argument apart right there. They couldn't be synonymous, could they?!

Cute. I thought you were going to make a point against accidents and random events that you cannot have any influence on. Well, vegetarians could swallow poisoned food, too, by pure accident. Yeehaw.

No, I ALREADY made the point against accidents and random events that you cannot have any influence on. You can CHOOSE not to eat meat because of possible health risks such as undercooking, which will kill you much faster than smoking will. Did you read what I wrote about car wrecks/getting older?

And as far as I can tell, you didn't give a counterpoint here. Is your point that the world is an inherently dangerous place? Because I could have sworn I said the same thing.

Can't fight destiny, chaos theory, arbitrary events or whatever, but you can be quite certain that smoking's a definite risk - so why not try to protect people from it? Obviously, they're leaving you enough room to still decide for yourself whether you want to smoke or not, so be glad.

This is what makes me laugh. The government works for me, I don't work for the government. If I wanted the government to protect me from the DANGEROUS SMOKERS... I would probably try to push some legislature through to stop that. As it is, the city I live in recently banned smoking in public places. Cars are private property, so they're still okay. A lot of cities leave it up to the businesses to decide. Good on them, I say. But I don't kneel before my bed at night and pray thusly: "Thank you, almighty government, for allowing me to smoke if I should so desire."

... and justice for all, I see. The good ol' (and still invalid) "If you don't like it here, you're free to leave." argument.

If I may enlighten you... in a social welfare state, the smokers are actually the last who would have the right to say something like that.

No, that argument is only used regarding the pro-war, anti-war activists.

In my country, you have the freedom to do what you please as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Non-smokers who are offended by smoking are putting themselves in a position to be offended. It's like taking your kids for a nice night out to eat at a strip club. You can gasp and moan and complain that there are naked women in there... but you are the one who decided to go there! If you are offended by naked women, then you should go somewhere that doesn't promote pornography. It's the same with smoking... most places have smoking and non-smoking sections. The only places that are smoking throughout are bars, pubs, etc. So if you're offended by smoke... why are you in a bar? People go there to smoke and drink. If you just want to drink without the smoke, go to a restaurant! This isn't about "If you don't like it, leave"... this is about common sense!

And if I may enlighten you... I don't live in a social welfare state. Please take your condescending tone to the forum frequenter Deflun where it is required.

[El Presedente]

No, I ALREADY made the point against accidents and random events that you cannot have any influence on. You can CHOOSE not to eat meat because of possible health risks such as undercooking, which will kill you much faster than smoking will. Did you read what I wrote about car wrecks/getting older?

But what he was saying is that its down to chance. Every time I eat meat I May get food poisoning, but every time someone smokes, they Will take damage from that cigarette, no matter how minute.

People go there to smoke and drink. If you just want to drink without the smoke, go to a restaurant! This isn't about "If you don't like it, leave"... this is about common sense!

But that, blatently, Isn't fair. I suffer from asthma, or at least used to, It may have gone now, but smoke can tighten up my lungs, so what your saying is that if I don't want to put up with that then I'll have to go somewhere else, but why should I have to suffer because someone else is taking a privlage that disadvantages me? Why should I have to go and drink elsewhere, when sombody could simply go without a cigarette for half an hour.?

The same goes for everyone else, why should non-smokers have to put up with smoke in their face because of someone else smoking. It'd be like having to be showered with crisp dust every time someone eats a packet of crisps?

Why should somebody have the right to inconvinience others for an entirely selfish act? They should have the curtacy to go outside, and suffer a little for their pleasure, unless people expressly say they are alright with it. No Pain, No Gain.

This post has been edited by El Presedente: 26 March 2007 - 05:34 PM

[CJ Marren]

Aye, it isn't fair that someone should smoke and annoy others - El Presedente basically covered every point.

[Chris]

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.

I was indeed mostly going for the financial aspect, though as far as irresponsible risk taking is concerned, if you actually die there's also your dependents to be considered.

Some research shows that the estimated cost of smoking-related diseases to the NHS is £2bn/year, whilst tax revenues are around £10bn/year, so I guess smokers do pay for their treatment. Wooden planks indeed

[Chris]

I appreciate this has already been covered, but just to reiterate...

Maybe if Medicaid/Medicare is covering the cost. Otherwise, a corporation known as an INSURANCE COMPANY is paying for the hospital bill.

Depends where you live.

And your logic stinks. People do all kinds of things to themselves that can potentially put them in a hospital.

Yes they do; this is why I included the rock climbing example. The point is the difference between reasonable and unreasonable risk to take at public expense. As David-kyo correctly established, smokers more than cover their NHS bills, so at least from that perspective it's certainly a reasonable risk, though their friends and family may believe otherwise should they take themselves to an early grave.

People get older and getting older is a health risk. Why not ban life?

Inevitable things over which you have no control aren't really risks.

You might step in front of a moving car and then you're on the public dime! Let's ban cars!

Hmm. No. Crossing the street is a reasonable risk, unlikely to get you hurt if you do it sensibly. I'd wholly agree with a ban on crossing the street with your eyes closed and ears blocked on these grounds however. Similarly you should probably pay if you get yourself hit by a car because you're too drunk or otherwise deranged to avoid it.

Wait, too much of an accident for you? Well, eating undercooked meat or poultry can increase your risk of infection! Let's ban restaurants! And let's ban all meat while we're at it, because who knows when some guy will accidentally cook some burgers less than others. Everybody must be a vegetarian!

Nooooo. A good idea however would be to ban selling food which is a hazard to public health. Interestingly enough, that's already illegal.

[El_Gostro]

Tut tut, you said that as if you went out and volintarily looked for children to buy cigaretts for, or is that what passes for a hobby in Argentina?

Heheh I think thats a national sport anywhere in the world.

But yes you are correct I should phrase myself more clearly,I meant I went to buy some cigarretes for the teenager brothers of a friend of mine,who was with me at the time.
I just felt a little bit like pissing on the system after we left the bar and passed by a deli that had the "It' s your ID" sign...

[El Presedente]

El Presedente basically covered every point.

Yes!

Ha haaaaa, Yeeeeaahhhhh! Time for a celebration I think

*cracks open champaign, pours in glasses, hands out*

[David-kyo]

Me and a girlfr- I mean a friend, who in fact is a girl, decided to give up smoking together today, and try to become an ideal non-smoker like Yahtzee. We'll see how it turns out...

This post has been edited by David-kyo: 27 March 2007 - 02:26 PM

[Gobbler]

Good luck with that. And her.

[El Presedente]

I wish you all the best...

And no hard feelings, eh?

[Gobbler]

And no hard feelings, eh?

Aw, that messes up my "And her." statement from before.

[joshofalltrades]

By the way, I in no way take offense to any picking-apart of my previous statements. I'm glad to discuss things with people who think differently than me.

Just thought I'd make it clear that I'm not a rabid, insane, I'm-right-and-you're-wrong forum frequenter.