Smokers/Non Smokers, dumb laws

[tarheel]

tarheel,

Just an FYI, when I took drivers ed in HS, they did show some graphic videos of people all mangled and dead in car wrecks...most of them drunk driving incidents.

I still remember them quite well and I'm glad they showed them.

As to your arguments regarding "liberty" and "freedom" to smoke, drink like a skid-row bum, etc.

Hell I agree with you...I also think that people who want the freedom to smoke, do drugs, drink in excess, etc. should be denied health insurance. They're so much smarter than everyone else, they should be smart enough to pay for the treatment of their "freedoms".

I'm tired of my insurance premiums having to be increased year after year because of others "freedoms"...

Freedom isnt "free"...and when your "freedoms" infringe on mine, and I have to pay for them....there is a problem.

Smoke all you want, drink all you want, do all the drugs you want...but fuggin' dont ask me to pay for your crap choices. Drink and drive and kill someone...IMO, thats premeditated murder...I'd seek the death penalty on that.

Get in a wreck while driving drunk, call your friends or family to help you, I dont want my tax dollars paying to send an EMT, ambulance, etc. to save your drunk ass. You're smart enough to excercise your "freedom" to drink and drive...you should be smart enough to figure out how to get yourself out of trouble.

Smoke and develop lung cancer, emphysema, etc....great, either pay out of pocket for treatment or die, I couldnt give a shit less.

People need to own their choices and "freedoms"...few do. They whine about individual freedoms, yet expect society to cover their poor choices once they develop a problem from their freedom to choose.

Fuggin' hypocrits...and largely dont deserve the freedoms they have.

Buzz, some good points. The state of Ohio used to produce color films of the results of traffic accidents which were used in driver's ed courses around the country. My hometown used to pull the wrecked cars from fatality wrecks to a certain lot in town so people could go by and see the results. No attempt was made to clean off the blood or gore from the wreck, and you can believe it made an impression on the local teenagers.

However, at no point did I advocate or defend anyone's right or "freedom" to drink drive or use drugs, nor did I use the word "freedom" in either post, yet you used it eleven times with six being placed in quotation marks, so I'm assuming that you're referring to hypothetical people who defend their choices without condition, although the reference to these people being "hypocrites" leaves me to wonder if I'm being painted with that same brush. Please clarify, as I have no intention of entering into a name calling session or pi--ing contest.

 

[CJ...$]

People need to be held financially, legally, and morally responsible for their "freedoms"....period.

Don't worry Obamacare is on the way ... along with hope and change

Yes Signal 30 .. best film in high school:hump:

 

[Straight Arrow]

I fully agree, Buzz. 'Best thing I ever did was to quit smoking over thirty years ago. Now secondhand smoke makes me nauseous. The smokers "freedom" to blow smoke in my air significantly infringes on my freedom to breathe and feel well.

I'm also tired of my costs increasing due to the poor decisions of others regarding their health and other habits. So you can expect my support for higher taxes for tobacco products.

 

[Calif. Hunter]

As others have said above - where does it stop? I fully agree with reasonable restrictions on smoking so as to not interfere with us non-smokers - no smoking in restaurants, etc. Prohibiting smoking in your own car or home is beyond reasonable, however.

Do we charge more for insurance and health care people who engage in other dangerous or unhealthy activities like unprotected/promiscuous/homosexual sex? Eating/apply makeup/shaving while driving? Many say eating red meat in unhealthy... Hunting and firearms competitions can be considered risky behavior, as are skiing, rock-climbing, etc. Or do we charge more for just those risky activities we don't agree with?

And how far do we invade people's privacy to determine whether they deserve the lower rates?

 

[Straight Arrow]

Only as far as decades of research, data, actuarial tables, and known health and safety risk probabilities substantiate ... and there is much conclusive information.

ie: not so much for makeup application while driving, but for smoking, volumes and volumes, and court cases, and story after story of smoking related pain, suffering, and death, with all the huge related costs.

 

[Brudno]

Only as far as decades of research, data, actuarial tables, and known health and safety risk probabilities substantiate ... and there is much conclusive information.

ie: not so much for makeup application while driving, but for smoking, volumes and volumes, and court cases, and story after story of smoking related pain, suffering, and death, with all the huge related costs.

We have decades of research, statistics, cases and mountains of data showing certain portions of the American population are at a high risk of being repeated habitual criminals, do you propose we take the same tact on them as well? Before they even get a chance to negatively impact society

Nothing in the future is ever written in stone.

 

[MattK]

Brudno- Not many products, if used exactly as you are supposed to use them, give you as high a chance of injury or death.

Using your example of people and putting it in terms of cigarette use...it would be like releasing all the known serial killers out of prison and saying "they may not kill again, the future is uncertain".

 

[Brudno]

Brudno- Not many products, if used exactly as you are supposed to use them, give you as high a chance of injury or death.

Using your example of people and putting it in terms of cigarette use...it would be like releasing all the known serial killers out of prison and saying "they may not kill again, the future is uncertain".

I would agrue your rebuttal is more akin to a cigarette user after they have contracted cancer in terms of releasing prisoners from jail. I'd be willing to bet the probability of contracting cancer from smoking and a single parent minority male in urban America ending up in some form of the correctional system are very similar.

 

[BuzzH]

Smoking is good for you, definately doesnt cause cancer, emphysema, copd, etc.

I think packs of cigarettes should have cartoon characters on them.

 

[MattK]

Brudno-

Smoking causes death.

The adverse health effects from cigarette smoking account for an estimated 443,000 deaths, or nearly one of every five deaths, each year in the United States.2,3
More deaths are caused each year by tobacco use than by all deaths from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), illegal drug use, alcohol use, motor vehicle injuries, suicides, and murders combined.2,4
Smoking causes an estimated 90% of all lung cancer deaths in men and 80% of all lung cancer deaths in women.1
An estimated 90% of all deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease are caused by smoking.1

This sounds more like a serial killer being let out of prison...except that serial killers don't kill nearly as many people each year.

 

[BuzzH]

I think we should stage a come-back on cigarette vending machines...a good place for them would be lunch rooms in schools.

 

[belly-deep]

Brudno-

This sounds more like a serial killer being let out of prison...except that serial killers don't kill nearly as many people each year.

Nobody is saying cigs are good. In fact, nobody is here promoting smoking.

The issue is whether we want/need the government to invade our lives and make every little decision for us.

There is a public welfare argument lurking in nearly every freedom we have in this country.

 

[BuzzH]

I know, how about toys in cigarette packs, something like those found in cracker jacks.

Why not promote them? Isnt infringing on a cig. companies right to advertise to who they want, how they want, taking a fundamental right?

Fuggin' haters.

 

[Brudno]

I know, how about toys in cigarette packs, something like those found in cracker jacks.

Why not promote them? Isnt infringing on a cig. companies right to advertise to who they want, how they want, taking a fundamental right?

Fuggin' haters.

I know what you mean like selling menthol variety as well its been well documented by the good Reverend Jackson and probably you how racist it is to sell them. I got your back homie...

 

[BuzzH]

I wouldnt stop at the menthol variety, how about making them in popular candy flavors...just for kids.

 

[noharleyyet]

Brudno-

This sounds more like a serial killer being let out of prison...except that serial killers don't kill nearly as many people each year.

Brudno I would agrue your rebuttal is more akin to a cigarette user after they have contracted cancer in terms of releasing prisoners from jail. I'd be willing to bet the probability of contracting cancer from smoking and a single parent minority male in urban America ending up in some form of the correctional system are very similar.

So we should only allow cigarettes and serial killers in Detroit?...three problems solved?

 

[fowladdict]

I wouldnt stop at the menthol variety, how about making them in popular candy flavors...just for kids.

Apple Blend skoal and Citrus Blend skoal work for this kid!! Grape flavored prime time cigars are also enjoyable now and then.

 

[MattK]

Nobody is saying cigs are good. In fact, nobody is here promoting smoking.

The issue is whether we want/need the government to invade our lives and make every little decision for us.

There is a public welfare argument lurking in nearly every freedom we have in this country.

Belly-Deep- Using your argument...why are any drugs illegal? Isn't prohibiting the sale of any illicit drug an invasion on our lives by the government? I'll bet you're just mad because we don't have the Winston Cup, Marlboro Man and Joe the Camel anymore aren't you? Now when you're sitting by the campfire, you're just smoking a cancer stick whereas before you were the Marlboro Man...

 

[Straight Arrow]

"..... high risk of being repeated habitual criminals, do you propose we take the same tact on them as well? Before they even get a chance to negatively impact society"

Yes and did you realize that is the case now ... since habitual criminals (most felons) cannot own a firearm, drink in the bar, or many other things you wouldn't even hesitate to do and they break parole and are back in the hoosegow! It's not a matter of infringing on their rights or privileges, it's a matter of protecting yours and the overall right to public safety.

 

[Brudno]

"..... high risk of being repeated habitual criminals, do you propose we take the same tact on them as well? Before they even get a chance to negatively impact society"

Yes and did you realize that is the case now ... since habitual criminals (most felons) cannot own a firearm, drink in the bar, or many other things you wouldn't even hesitate to do and they break parole and are back in the hoosegow! It's not a matter of infringing on their rights or privileges, it's a matter of protecting yours and the overall right to public safety.

I wasrefering to those to young to even be able to commit a crime but are at a high risk for being criminals when they age. Not those already in the system.