Watch all-holier-than-thou nonsmokers rationalize this......

your move now

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Paul Andrews

Actually, the taxes on cigarettes doesn't come close to covering what Australian medicare spends in smoking related health care. This has been well documented.

Having said that, if we are to look at the issue of healthcare, obesity, high risk sports, alcohol and other substances all cost medicare and, in turn, our taxes. I think it would be hard to find anyone in the community whose lifestyle choices do not impact on the eventual cost of their healthcare. So this being the case, I am not for denying health care to anyone, irregardless of their lifestyle choices. We're a community and our underlying compassion and care of one another is important.

I don't mind the idea of a weighted contribution system though and you will find the private healthcare providers do this, I don't mind the medicare system doing the same. I was knocked back for an income protection insurance policy because I admitted to using pot in the previous 12 months - and I'm a non smoker.

The OPs original issue is one of smokers needing to respect the rights of those around them. The same as drink driving is illegal because of the damage you do to innocent parties, I agree, second hand smoke and the inability of certain smokers to understand that they do no have the right to pollute others' clean air is what does their cause the greatest harm. I am all for smokers rights - especially those I know who make an effort to minimise the harm to non smokers.

It's all about respect - from both sides.

Godfather.

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Kevinman wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

Really? Time to buy a bubble.

nope...time for people to realize how their actions affect other people.

My same argument on drug legallization..can we call it a tie ?

Godfather.

USARAY

people don't respect each other it seems no matter how respectful a smoker is
it's not enough for non smokers they want no smoke period we need smoking only establishments
to balance the bans so smokers can enjoy an evening out while having smoke with
their friends

Paul Andrews

squirt wrote:

people don't respect each other it seems no matter how respectful a smoker is
it's not enough for non smokers they want no smoke period we need smoking only establishments
to balance the bans so smokers can enjoy an evening out while having smoke with
their friends

It will be almost impossible to insure the health related effects to workers in these places. It is a workplace safety issue.

oona left

your move now wrote:

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Interesting. I live outside Chicago. In the suburbs, I can get a pack of cigarettes for $4.96, which includes tax. In the city, a single pack can cost well over $9.00. When the state needs more revenue, it seems the go after the current scapegoats first: those awful smokers.

When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions so far as diet is concerned? Heart disease is a leading cause of death, and can be directly related to diet. If someone eats fast food more than four times a week for years, would anyone consider deny them medical care for related illnesses because they had an opportunity to avoid them but chose not to?

green mountain man

oona left wrote:

your move now wrote:

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Interesting. I live outside Chicago. In the suburbs, I can get a pack of cigarettes for $4.96, which includes tax. In the city, a single pack can cost well over $9.00. When the state needs more revenue, it seems the go after the current scapegoats first: those awful smokers.

When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions so far as diet is concerned? Heart disease is a leading cause of death, and can be directly related to diet. If someone eats fast food more than four times a week for years, would anyone consider deny them medical care for related illnesses because they had an opportunity to avoid them but chose not to?

Yes , the malnourished are next. Then force people to become teetotalers. RELEASE THE HOUNDS !

Godfather.

green mountain man wrote:

oona left wrote:

your move now wrote:

had an interesting discussion last night regarding the banning of smoking.
Was more related to the idea that has been raised that illness caused by smoking should not be covered by Medicare for smokers which is very popular in parts of Aus atm, mostly because people think their taxes shouldn't pay for people who are poisoning themselves voluntarily to be treated.

What isn't well known is that the taxes on cigarettes bring in more money than medicare costs us, so really the smokers are paying for other illnesses and whatever health care issues non smokers and smokers alike have... interesting to see what those who want us cut from the scheme would say to rationalize their position if they were aware of this. But of course the gov'ment could never officially release this info as it would show how much they actually love smoking

Interesting. I live outside Chicago. In the suburbs, I can get a pack of cigarettes for $4.96, which includes tax. In the city, a single pack can cost well over $9.00. When the state needs more revenue, it seems the go after the current scapegoats first: those awful smokers.

When are we going to start holding people accountable for their actions so far as diet is concerned? Heart disease is a leading cause of death, and can be directly related to diet. If someone eats fast food more than four times a week for years, would anyone consider deny them medical care for related illnesses because they had an opportunity to avoid them but chose not to?

Yes , the malnourished are next. Then force people to become teetotalers. RELEASE THE HOUNDS !

Godfather.

USARAY

Paul Andrews wrote:

squirt wrote:

people don't respect each other it seems no matter how respectful a smoker is
it's not enough for non smokers they want no smoke period we need smoking only establishments
to balance the bans so smokers can enjoy an evening out while having smoke with
their friends

It will be almost impossible to insure the health related effects to workers in these places. It is a workplace safety issue.

the workers would be smokers
smokers gotta stand up for the freedom to smoke in environments established for them

justam

I think laws like this are too restrictive! Why deny the smoker's rights like this?

If these people are worried about their children, bring them inside when the neighbor is outside smoking. It can't be that difficult to organize, the smokers are not going to be outside CONSTANTLY. :shock: :P

chadwick

do torque stands and let the neighbors breathe that

your move now

It is about respect, and that's a given but I don't think it exists on either side, and I actually think smokers are more considerate of non-smokers than vice versa. The majority of smokers that is, of course there are some complete fucktards out there. I know I'm always conscious of the direction of non-smokers when smoking and if there are children, people eating, pregnant people or whatever. I don't think it's reciprocated though because a friend who needed a couch for a week or so recently asked me not to smoke in my own house. My house and I was doing them a favour in the first place. AND moving myself to the other side of the room to smoke.

Paul Andrews wrote:

Actually, the taxes on cigarettes doesn't come close to covering what Australian medicare spends in smoking related health care. This has been well documented.

Having said that, if we are to look at the issue of healthcare, obesity, high risk sports, alcohol and other substances all cost medicare and, in turn, our taxes. I think it would be hard to find anyone in the community whose lifestyle choices do not impact on the eventual cost of their healthcare. So this being the case, I am not for denying health care to anyone, irregardless of their lifestyle choices. We're a community and our underlying compassion and care of one another is important.

I don't mind the idea of a weighted contribution system though and you will find the private healthcare providers do this, I don't mind the medicare system doing the same. I was knocked back for an income protection insurance policy because I admitted to using pot in the previous 12 months - and I'm a non smoker.

The OPs original issue is one of smokers needing to respect the rights of those around them. The same as drink driving is illegal because of the damage you do to innocent parties, I agree, second hand smoke and the inability of certain smokers to understand that they do no have the right to pollute others' clean air is what does their cause the greatest harm. I am all for smokers rights - especially those I know who make an effort to minimise the harm to non smokers.

It's all about respect - from both sides.

I believe that taxes do cover well and truly more than just what the gov pays in smokers medical costs... a lot of the socalled documentation readily available whilst not incorrect as such is , I will however hunt down the information that led to that discussion, it was based on information received from the health minister and the source that I heard it from is very reliable and knowledgable, he's not one for saying stuff like this with no factual basis. But like I said I will talk down him in order to get his more detailed info that I don't have

Paul Andrews

http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/17 ... an-society

The above website shows some interesting information on the economics of smoking.

I believe smokers - or their health insurance provoders - should be able to sue the tobacco companies for the cost of medical treatment and early death. No other product gets such a free ride in our legal systems.

Look at what has happened to the companies who produced products containing asbestos or other harmful products or other dangerous goods that have harmed consumers. Tobacco companies should suffer the same fate.

your move now

No, look smokers under a certain age (which is rapidly rising) knew what they were getting into... another part of Friday nights conversation. It's fine to say that if you started smoking all that time ago before we knew smoking was bad - long time ago now. But smokers who took up the habit well aware of the health risks shouldn't be able to sue tobacco companies for their owned informed decision

Paul Andrews

your move now wrote:

No, look smokers under a certain age (which is rapidly rising) knew what they were getting into... another part of Friday nights conversation. It's fine to say that if you started smoking all that time ago before we knew smoking was bad - long time ago now. But smokers who took up the habit well aware of the health risks shouldn't be able to sue tobacco companies for their owned informed decision

Yes, I agree that is is an informed decision and I really do not have a lot of sympathy in general for people who have smoking related illness - but do sympathise with individuals, we do all make mistakes that we ultimately have to pay for/live with or in than case die from. But I have no sympathy at all for tobacco companies and firmly believe they should be hounded out of business.

What other product, when used exactly to the manufacturer's specifications goes on to kill the majority of its users? This is the point. People often compare tobacco with fast food - and I am no defender of the fast food industry - but there is a safe level of consumption of their products - the same with alcohol and other substances. Tobacco companies knowingly produce a product which kills and went to great length to hide the proof of this for decades.

The fact big tobacco companies make billions annually from their products, to my mind, means they should be open to litigation for the effects of these products. I would have sympathy for them if they honestly did not know the harm their products did, and at one time this was the case. But as they move from one dying market into other new markets, using thew same practices that worked so well in the former, they lose all right to claim immunity from litigation by using the 'informed choice' argument. They are scum drug dealers in suits.

As smoking rates have steadily declined in Western Countries, they have moved their operations into other markets and generally used the same techniques to sell their product as outlawed in the Western countries. As corporation, they have no moral compass, they have exploited people for far too long with complete immunity and then declare war on governments and groups who have tried to inform the public or regulate their products.

I have no problem if someone wants to smoke with them growing their own. Pot users have been doing it for ages - and this should be legal too. Cut the corporation out of the loop. Make it legal to grow pot or tobacco plants in your own yard for personal use - what we put into our bodies is our choice, but I just don't think is it right that massive corporations get rich on the misery they breed. If we replaced the word tobacco with heroin in the above argument, people see things far differently - yet heroin kills a fraction of the people tobacco kills.

PS. I sypathise with you being told what you can and cannot do in the privacy of your own home. I'd have kicked your guest's arse to the curb. If someone willingly enters the house of a smoker, they have no right whatsoever to complain about you smoking in your own house.

PJ_Soul

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.

Paul Andrews

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.

No, second hand tobacco smoke does have a health effect - no matter how small. Remember, it only takes one asbestos fibre to cause methothelioma and even light smokers and passive smokers (second hand smoke) can get lung cancer and the other negative effects. When I was playing in a band in pubs and clubs before bans on smoking, i used to often have bouts of respiratory illness, increased allergies and used to get a lot more colds - my doctor put it down to second hand smoke. I chose not to smoke yet suffered because of those who did. Even today, ten years after my last gig, if I open my guitar case it smells of tobacco smoke.

If your smoke is bowing into your neighbour's house, you should take steps to stop it. The other points you mention are not the same thing, and in most places there are noise rules - what time you can create noise, how loud it can be - some councils and estates will dictate the colours you may paint your house. We live under a pile of regulations - most for the common good.

I believe myself to be a good neighbour and try as hard as I can to make sure my actions have as little an impact on my neighbours. If you are a smoker and you smoke is going into your neighbour's property, what is so hard about being a good neighbour and trying to stop it happening? My wife and one of my kids is asthmatic. If smoke from next door (both sides are smokers) was affecting my family to a point the health of my wife and kids was an issue, it be sure to say something (politely) and given the quality of my neighbours, I have no doubt in my mind they'd try their hardest to make sure that their actions did not affect my family. It's part of being a good neighbour and works both ways - I have been asked to stop my dog barking, and it was done politely and we managed to work it out.

JOEJOEJOE

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.

Second-hand smoke is more than a slight annoyance.

your move now

I would have thought that from a neighbouring property it would take a lot of smoke to have an affect second hand, it's not like it's being blown directly into your breathing area, the effects of smog pollution in most cities would be as strong if you're over a fence and am guessing what 10-15 metres away?

I still have problems with suing a tobacco company, not because it doesn't suck that people get sick, but because you can't choose to put what you know is a poison into your body and then turn around and blame someone else when you get sick. I'm not saying the tobacco companies are good guys, but it's the choice that most smokers of our time made with full disclosure. If you choose to buy a car that didn't have airbags you can't get mad at anyone by yourself at the result (less an issue now but the first comparison that popped into my head).

In the western world at least, nobody is being forced to smoke and nobody is having the health consequences delibrately hidden from them.

Also at that point did want to kick them out, my house, my rules and they're here because they have nowhere else :?

PJ_Soul

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

PJ_Soul3388 wrote:

JOEJOEJOE wrote:

Doesn't take much rationalization....if someone is smoking in their backyard, and the smoke is blown in the direction of people in the yard next door, those people suffer.

And people "suffer" the noisethe neighbor's kids make, the sound of the leaf blower, the smell of Mrs. Neighbor's bad cooking, and the horrible color they decided to paint their house. It's called living in a society. We all need to tolerate each other's presense. Someone smoking in the next yard over poses NO health risk. Therefore, this law would be about people trying to cut out any human behavior around them that they consider slightly annoying. That is ridiculous.

Second-hand smoke is more than a slight annoyance.

Second hand smoke out doors from another yard is NOT dangerous to anyone. It is literally worse for your health to walk down a city street and breathe air. So yeah, what we're talking about here is merely a smell that bothers some people... and they decide it's bad for their health - it's a false argument.