Do smokers deserve healthcare from the province?

geoffrey · June 19, 2007

But how would you ensure that people pay for behaviours that are unhealthy for OTHER people? How much second hand smoke have you inhaled? How much exhaust have you inhaled? Are you ok with people freely endangering other peoples' health?

Indeed. Essientially, my right to my private property would gaurntee me the ability to kick anyone that smoked off. If I venture elsewhere, I play by others rules by my own choice. My second hand smoke exposure is by choice (and until this year, I had plenty of it in Calgary bars).

Mad_Michael · June 19, 2007

Smokers already pay more for healthcare by being taxed more for cigarettes than you are for a carton of milk.

Drinkers also pay more and so do drivers.

Alcohol tax should be removed as evidence has shown health benefits to consuming one or two drinks daily: responsible drinking should be encouraged.

Encouraged?

The Government has no business telling me I ought to drink more or less, whether it is good for me or not. That is big-brother government interfering in my life. That is obnoxious politics of the worst kind. I don't care what the government thinks about food/beverage consumption.

The Government retains the right to tax alcohol lightly or heavily. That is their business.

Mad_Michael · June 19, 2007

But how would you ensure that people pay for behaviours that are unhealthy for OTHER people? How much second hand smoke have you inhaled? How much exhaust have you inhaled? Are you ok with people freely endangering other peoples' health?

Indeed. Essientially, my right to my private property would gaurntee me the ability to kick anyone that smoked off. If I venture elsewhere, I play by others rules by my own choice. My second hand smoke exposure is by choice (and until this year, I had plenty of it in Calgary bars).

How do you reconcile yourself with automobile exhaust or toxic emissions from factories? Or coal-fired electricity generating plants?

How come they all have a 'right' to pollute the air at their will - an action that clearly causes others to suffer.

Indeed, air pollution actually has medical science to back up the claim of harm (quite unlike the article of faith that backs up second-hand cigarette smoke damage).

gc1765 · June 19, 2007

Indeed. Essientially, my right to my private property would gaurntee me the ability to kick anyone that smoked off. If I venture elsewhere, I play by others rules by my own choice. My second hand smoke exposure is by choice (and until this year, I had plenty of it in Calgary bars).

I'm talking about public property here. How much second hand smoke/exhaust do you inhale walking down the sidewalk? Shouldn't you have as much right to walk on a sidewalk (which you paid for through taxes) as a smoker without endangering your health?

Mad_Michael · June 19, 2007

Indeed. Essientially, my right to my private property would gaurntee me the ability to kick anyone that smoked off. If I venture elsewhere, I play by others rules by my own choice. My second hand smoke exposure is by choice (and until this year, I had plenty of it in Calgary bars).

I'm talking about public property here. How much second hand smoke/exhaust do you inhale walking down the sidewalk? Shouldn't you have as much right to walk on a sidewalk (which you paid for through taxes) as a smoker without endangering your health?

Comparatively speaking, when you walk down a sidewalk, the emissions from automobiles are exponentially higher than any your exposure to second hand cigarette smoke, even if you are walking down the sidewalk with a smoker.

But you see, cars are popular, cigarettes are not. Thus, there is laws against smoking and public subsidies for car driving!

And of course, all the harm from airbourne pollutants is blamed on cigarettes - despite the fact that harm from airbourne pollutants is rising exponentially, yet smoking has been falling for 30 years. But smoking is the cause, just keep repeating the mantra. Smoking kills, smoking kills. I'm sure that makes everyone healthier while they suck another lungful of automotive pollutants.

Drea · June 19, 2007

Let's ban cigarettes, cars, semitrucks, trains, factories, airliners, boats with engines, and farting...

That way there will be clean air for all you crybabies.

When I am outside I WILL smoke as much as I frigging want to. Tough luck, if you don't like it, go indoors.

gc1765 · June 19, 2007

Comparatively speaking, when you walk down a sidewalk, the emissions from automobiles are exponentially higher than any your exposure to second hand cigarette smoke, even if you are walking down the sidewalk with a smoker.
*snip*

But smoking is the cause, just keep repeating the mantra. Smoking kills, smoking kills. I'm sure that makes everyone healthier while they suck another lungful of automotive pollutants.

If you read my post, you'll see that I've argued that cars emit carcinogens as well, and thus should be taxed as well. Do you at least agree with me that pollution from cars should be taxed?

gc1765 · June 19, 2007

When I am outside I WILL smoke as much as I frigging want to. Tough luck, if you don't like it, go indoors.

Sure, and when I'm outdoors I'm going to spray benzene into the air wherever I wish. If you don't like it, you can stay indoors.

geoffrey · June 20, 2007

When I am outside I WILL smoke as much as I frigging want to. Tough luck, if you don't like it, go indoors.
Sure, and when I'm outdoors I'm going to spray benzene into the air wherever I wish. If you don't like it, you can stay indoors.

Exactly gc. Drea, go smoke outside or anywhere you want to, but as soon as I smell it, it becomes my issue. Even on your own property, it can become an issue.

Try lighting a big tire fire in your backyard and see how long your allowed to do whatever you friggin want to.

Why we let smokers get away with it so long, I'm not sure.

BornAlbertan · June 20, 2007

When I am outside I WILL smoke as much as I frigging want to. Tough luck, if you don't like it, go indoors.
Sure, and when I'm outdoors I'm going to spray benzene into the air wherever I wish. If you don't like it, you can stay indoors.

Exactly gc. Drea, go smoke outside or anywhere you want to, but as soon as I smell it, it becomes my issue. Even on your own property, it can become an issue.

Try lighting a big tire fire in your backyard and see how long your allowed to do whatever you friggin want to.

Why we let smokers get away with it so long, I'm not sure.

HAHA...a BIG tire fire versus a tiny little smoldering cigarette. There is a logical comparison!

Mad_Michael · June 20, 2007

Why we let smokers get away with it so long, I'm not sure.

Why do we continue to let car drivers still do it?

Automotive exhaust puts second hand smoke to shame for both quantity and severity.

cybercoma · June 21, 2007

Why do we continue to let car drivers still do it?
Automotive exhaust puts second hand smoke to shame for both quantity and severity.

I see your point, but to play devil's advocate here...

Cars serve a purpose other than personal enjoyment. People have a need for transportation, the same can't be said about cigarettes. It's a personal choice to smoke, for no other reason than pleasure. Cars bear a certain risk, aside from pollutants alone (accidents probably cause more death than emissions), but their purpose outweighs the risks and damages caused by them. Cigarette smoke and vehicle emissions are apples and oranges.

How about comparing smoking and spraying harmful pesticides?

geoffrey · June 21, 2007

HAHA...a BIG tire fire versus a tiny little smoldering cigarette. There is a logical comparison!

Whatever. If I can smell it, if I breathe it in, it becomes my issue.

Automotive exhaust puts second hand smoke to shame for both quantity and severity.

Agreed.

BornAlbertan · June 21, 2007

...My second hand smoke exposure is by choice (and until this year, I had plenty of it in Calgary bars).
HAHA...a BIG tire fire versus a tiny little smoldering cigarette. There is a logical comparison!

Whatever. If I can smell it, if I breathe it in, it becomes my issue.

Automotive exhaust puts second hand smoke to shame for both quantity and severity.

Agreed.

So why don't you take issue with everyone that drives past your home?

You had no issue going to the bar and exposing yourself to smoke...for you CHOSE to. If you did....you wouldn't. I mean, either you stick to your principles or you don't. You don't just choose to throw them away because you want to have fun one night and then decide to get all self-righteous the next when the party is over. Right? To do otherwise makes you a hypocrite.

geoffrey · June 21, 2007

So why don't you take issue with everyone that drives past your home?

There is good in having automobiles, nothing good comes from cigarettes. Currently, there is no possible way for everyone to give up their cars so I can't really hold them responsible. Eveyrone could quit smoking tomorrow.

You had no issue going to the bar and exposing yourself to smoke...for you CHOSE to. If you did....you wouldn't. I mean, either you stick to your principles or you don't. You don't just choose to throw them away because you want to have fun one night and then decide to get all self-righteous the next when the party is over. Right? To do otherwise makes you a hypocrite.

I don't agree with the smoking ban in bars. I agree with a smoking ban in public. On private property (as long as nothing escapes the private property and interfers with the enjoyment of other's property), the owner should be free to determine the rules within just laws. If there is a smoking bar, then ya, I willingly accept that when I go there.

To be honest, I don't really notice a huge diffence in bars without smoking. Things still smell, just of sweaty people and puke instead of smoke. Somedays I wish smoking was still around.

The case of Rylands v. Fletcher is still the basis for many of the laws governing emissions from private property that interfer with the enjoyment of the private property of other's. This case has been applied not only to dangerous animals, but to carbon monoxide emissions (in the case of an above garage apartment) and other emissions (fireworks too!). I agree with this.

As a rather Libertarian guy, I could care less what you do on your property, as long as I don't need to know or be affected by it (your smoking affects the health care system I pay for, so there is a connection).

jbg · June 21, 2007

There is good in having automobiles, nothing good comes from cigarettes. Currently, there is no possible way for everyone to give up their cars so I can't really hold them responsible. Eveyrone could quit smoking tomorrow.

I am for making smoking in public hard enough that people learn that it's an antisocial habit that should be given up. It's going to far to make office workers stand out in the snow in New York City to get their puffs though.

If they want to show the world they're selfish and lack self-control, that should be their prerogative, as long as they don't impose on the rights of others. Thus, I do agree with smoke-free bars and concerts. I enjoyed seeing Blue Rodeo at the Bowery Ballroom far more than I enjoyed seeking Great Big Sea there a year or two earlier. The music was fine in both cases. Only difference, New York's anti-smoking laws.

Smoking in private offices, though, should be subject to employers' and other employees' discretion, not the government's.

BornAlbertan · June 21, 2007

I don't agree with the smoking ban in bars. I agree with a smoking ban in public. On private property (as long as nothing escapes the private property and interfers with the enjoyment of other's property), the owner should be free to determine the rules within just laws. If there is a smoking bar, then ya, I willingly accept that when I go there.
To be honest, I don't really notice a huge diffence in bars without smoking. Things still smell, just of sweaty people and puke instead of smoke. Somedays I wish smoking was still around.

As a rather Libertarian guy, I could care less what you do on your property, as long as I don't need to know or be affected by it (your smoking affects the health care system I pay for, so there is a connection).

I would assume you are one of those electorates that are impossible to please.

Mad_Michael · June 21, 2007

Somedays I wish smoking was still around.

You and anyone who owns a bar.

The volume of business drop off is substantial. If you don't have a patio, your business is in trouble.

gc1765 · June 21, 2007

I don't agree with the smoking ban in bars. I agree with a smoking ban in public. On private property (as long as nothing escapes the private property and interfers with the enjoyment of other's property), the owner should be free to determine the rules within just laws. If there is a smoking bar, then ya, I willingly accept that when I go there.

Exactly.

Leafless · June 21, 2007

Why we let smokers get away with it so long, I'm not sure.

That's because it is a legal commodity and nicotine is not a banned substance.

But relating to automobile and truck pollution from exhaust gases a major problem also with 'fine particle pollution'.

"The global epidemic of fine particle pollution is estimated to kill nearly a million people each year. The toxic particles are so incredibly small they can slip straight through lung walls into our bloodstream. "

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1630007.htm

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50324

gc1765 · June 21, 2007

But relating to automobile and truck pollution from exhaust gases a major problem also with 'fine particle pollution'.
"The global epidemic of fine particle pollution is estimated to kill nearly a million people each year. The toxic particles are so incredibly small they can slip straight through lung walls into our bloodstream. "

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1630007.htm

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50324

Precisely why, even if you don't believe in global warming, people should be driving less. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

geoffrey · June 21, 2007

I would assume you are one of those electorates that are impossible to please.

I have voted in the past. Not so sure about the immediate future, I'd like to vote again though.

Somedays I wish smoking was still around.

You and anyone who owns a bar.

The volume of business drop off is substantial. If you don't have a patio, your business is in trouble.

Initially, yes. It won't be that way out here when the casino's go smoke free next year. You still can't get a seat in most bars late on a Friday or Saturday, obviously they aren't losing their realistic business.

The business they lost are the chain smoking 11am-10pm VLT players that should never have been in bars in the first place.

BornAlbertan · June 22, 2007

The business they lost are the chain smoking 11am-10pm VLT players that should never have been in bars in the first place

Hey those are people simultaneously subsidizing the health care system by smoking...and then throwing even more money away in the VLTs.

Despite my beliefs that a smoker should get all the care they need (preferably to QUIT smoking before they do get sick) if they get cancer...I feel no sympathy towards them. And it is just like that with gambling. All the help in the world is available to them while they work towards throwing their assets away....but so long as they don't do something about it by seeking help, I won't lose any sleep over it.

And as so long as gambling and smoking are legal...who are we to say people shouldn't be doing it or at least when they shouldn't. Continue to throw your health away...you are paying for that right. Continue to throw your home away...I will sleep well in mine.

jester · June 22, 2007

But relating to automobile and truck pollution from exhaust gases a major problem also with 'fine particle pollution'.

"The global epidemic of fine particle pollution is estimated to kill nearly a million people each year. The toxic particles are so incredibly small they can slip straight through lung walls into our bloodstream. "

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1630007.htm

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=50324

Precisely why, even if you don't believe in global warming, people should be driving less. Why not kill two birds with one stone?

I have read that the average American won't walk more than 200 yards from their car for something. If there is the same problem in Canada how are people going to drive less......

geoffrey · June 23, 2007

And as so long as gambling and smoking are legal...who are we to say people shouldn't be doing it or at least when they shouldn't. Continue to throw your health away...you are paying for that right. Continue to throw your home away...I will sleep well in mine.

My main issue is with VLT's in particular, not gambling. The government designs machines that are intentionally addictive and puts them in places where people are most vunerable. That's unreasonable.

If it was a private inititive, I wouldn't care. But since the government is actively attempting to get people addicted in order to fill their overflowing coffers... I oppose it.