CP limits smoking!!
CoasterDiscern said:
My cousin brought me to a the casino in Buffalo accross the boarder from Niagra Falls. When you walk in that casino it's like stepping into a smoke stack and inhaling it for hours. "Great, isn't this fun." I started to weez when we left the building that night, thats what it did to my breathing.
Let's see if I can sum up:
Smoking = bad
Gambling = okay?
and I'll add a ;) for the irony deficient.
lata, jeremy
--hanging out b/w Gonch and RGW (reverse oreo?)
I don't gamble NOT because I feel it's *wrong* per se...just it has no appeal for ME. I'm not interested in preventiong YOU from doing it just because *I* don't feel a need (compulsion?)...
Vices are vices...except in Miami. Protect the individuals in society from harm, don't try to protect society as a whole from the "generalized harm" done by people enjoying stuff that YOU don't agree with...
*jumps off soapbox, heads to indulge in the AUCE buffet*....
Did I fail to mention gluttony? :)
How 'bout this: You can smoke as much as you want, as long as you're willing to only get the health care you can pay for yourself.
(Tangent ahead)
If someone opens a thread about counting credits and someone opens an "S:TE is not a coaster" thread, we'll have all the controversial topics going at the same time! Woot! *** Edited 3/30/2007 5:16:59 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
rollergator said:
Laws should be in effect to prevent you from bringing harm to OTHERS. Morals are for teaching you not to harm yourself, and should NEVER be legislated...IMO.I get more and more concerned when our "liberties" are infringed upon by majority rule. If the MAJORITY (or in this administration, the executive branch) was how individual civil rights and freedoms were decided, then we very well could find that it might become illegal to do LOTS of things we once took for granted....just because they're *unpopular*.
I'm NOT necessarily saying that smoking fits this description *in all contexts*....but it certainly has that potential....see: outlawing transfats.
*** Edited 3/30/2007 4:35:49 PM UTC by rollergator***
Im a patriot and a rebel and thouroughly for Democracy meaning majority rule.
The problem I have is when a small group gets massive power in the form of YOUR BEST INTEREST. Not to mention half the crap is pure lies they dish out. And making a non factual documentary on it should get no merit whatsoever.
The last non polictically or industry backed smoking poll found that 1 in 400,000 people living in a home with a smoker would die from lung cancer. The odds of a non smoker living in a home never smoked in are 1 in 450,000.
Yes it increases your chances but so does playing two lottery tickets instead of one. Negligable at best.
Chuck, who'll one day stroll through smoke free parks full of people dumping the F bomb. I find both offensive when it effects me but does it really hurt me? NO.
Seriously though, I smoke at parks. I have no problem using the designated smoking areas. All I ask is that you please provide an ample amount of them located throughout the park. For example, I have no problem with HW's setup.
One question though. Is there any place in CP where I'd be allowed to have a beer while I'm smoking my cigarette? ;)
ApolloAndy said:
I'm all for educating people and then letting them make their own decision (however dumb it may be) but when they start becoming a huge drag on the health care and health insurance system, that's when it does start to affect other people and that's when I say "You can't have your cake and eat it."How 'bout this: You can smoke as much as you want, as long as you're willing to only get the health care you can pay for yourself.
(Tangent ahead)
If someone opens a thread about counting credits and someone opens an "S:TE is not a coaster" thread, we'll have all the controversial topics going at the same time! Woot! *** Edited 3/30/2007 5:16:59 PM UTC by ApolloAndy***
Think you better do your research. People dying early actually save the health care industy money vs people living 20 years longer in assisted living.
Rob Ascough said:
...but I don't agree with the government making cigarette companies charge an arm and a leg for a pack of smokes. Regardless of what it does to one's body, if they want to smoke and assume the risks, that's their decision.
The government has every right to charge an arm and a leg for smokes when they have to pay the dramatically ramped up health bills created by the habit – that whole universal health care thing we've got going up here. Why should I pay to treat the cancer you went out of the way to give yourself?
I would never begrudge treatment to someone who comes upon a condition naturally, but we're talking about deliberate behaviour leading to the illness. In that case the only fair thing to do is to tax the product that causes the condition so there is some balance in the equation. Not a perfect system, but it works. I do agree in principle with your theory though... No, taxes shouldn't be jacked up on smokes to pay for a new highway. That is picking on one segment of society for the gain of another.
ApolloAndy said:
How 'bout this: You can smoke as much as you want, as long as you're willing to only get the health care you can pay for yourself.
That's how I feel.
In the Six Flags VIP thread that turned its attention to Wal-Mart, I made note of my many reasons for hating the company... one of them being that the company pays most of its employees so little that they are forced to rely on government health care programs- programs that taxpayers like myself often have to foot the bill for. I don't understand why Wal-Mart makes a huge profit each year yet I end up paying to supply its employees with health care.
Likewise, I don't think health care companies should have to pay for medical conditions that crop up from someone deciding that they want to smoke. I'm not a smoker and therefore I wouldn't want to have to pay more for my health care (or have my employer pay more for me health care and in turn pay me less) because someone else smokes and things related to that drive up my costs.
I like my fast food but I don't think it's fair for a healthy person's health care premiums to increase so that the insurance company can pay for my bypass surgery. I chose to eat garbage and that should be my cross- and my cross alone- to bear.
Why should I pay to treat the cancer you went out of the way to give yourself?
So what happens when smoking is abolished and people still die of lung cancer?
Perhaps the cause of lung cancer in certain smokers wasn't the smoking, but rather the same causes that give it to non-smokers. (and it isn't second-hand smoke)
Make sense?
Do we automatically assume the worst? "That guy smoked so he did it to himself!" Well, maybe not.
No, of course not, but on a societal level they are able to estimate the costs associated with a type of behaviour and recoup some of that through the taxes on the products that causes those increased expenses.
Does anybody lose? No, if you choose to smoke, you increase the risk of certain conditions, but pay more into the system to cover that risk. If you choose not to smoke, you don't pay the extra. Both people are still covered for whatever may happen. As I said, it's not perfect, but it works.
** Just correcting my ^'s -- Rob is quicker than me! *** Edited 3/30/2007 5:50:01 PM UTC by Odd Todd***
...on a societal level they are able to estimate the costs associated with a type of behaviour and recoup some of that through the taxes on the products that causes those increased expenses.
Ok, I see. That's fair enough.
Insurance don't work that way. Sad but true.
If you could start paying a premium for yourself when your say age one that would cover you for your healthy and unhealthy years. Yeah thats a perfect world. It just don't work like that.
Yet lose your job, Go to a private hospital and tell them you don't have insurance and see how fast they boot you out the door.
Be in this country illegally and they can't refuse you. MAKES SENSE doesn't it????? Not to mention that if they do treat you, they will bill or garnish you till the bill is paid. Ruin your credit status ect. The illegal gets treated and never gets charged, The hospital either gets nothing or gets paid some tax money but most likely everyone but the illegal got screwed..
People need to look deep into these issues and not what some ACTOR is spouting off
Bill Clinton orders lawsuits against big tobacco. Smokes and plays with CIGARS himself.
Hypocrite
The end
Chuck, who's not seen one FREE PATCH, FREE COUNCILING SESSION or FREE TREATMENT for a smoker given by any of the BILLIONS COLLECTED from this.
Odd Todd said:
Does anybody lose? No, if you choose to smoke, you increase the risk of certain conditions, but pay more into the system to cover that risk. If you choose not to smoke, you don't pay the extra. Both people are still covered for whatever may happen. As I said, it's not perfect, but it works.
I don't totally agree with that. It's not like non-smokers pay very little compared to what smokers pay for health insurance. There is a difference, but as is the case with all insurance situations, everyone pays for everything to some extent. Even if you're a good driver, part of your insurance premium goes to pay for the mistakes of the bad drivers. It's not fair but no one is going to avoid paying for what someone else does. If that was the case, a driver with a perfectly clean driving record wouldn't be paying for any insurance at all, because why would he need insurance? After all, he's a perfect driver ;)
I think all we need is the healthy food/overweight people in parks thread, and then the offseason will be complete!
You must be logged in to post
