If you smoke...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
My problem with smoking is that yes it does affect the person smoking...but it also affects those around them. I for instance am allergic to it and my windpipe closes up, so I can't breathe. Of course there are also all the negative effects of second hand smoking. If it were only affecting the individual i would say to heck with it but since it also affects those around the individual i have problems with it.
 
U2democrat said:
My problem with smoking is that yes it does affect the person smoking...but it also affects those around them. I for instance am allergic to it and my windpipe closes up, so I can't breathe. Of course there are also all the negative effects of second hand smoking. If it were only affecting the individual i would say to heck with it but since it also affects those around the individual i have problems with it.

:up: Personally, I don't care if smokers have to pay more. I am so fucking sick of encountering smoking everytime I walk by a store entrance or go to a restaurant or bar. We need more states to pass laws to keep smoking out of public places. Smoking is the only legal substance that I know of that is dangerous in moderation, both to the person engaging in the activity and those around them. Fast food, while bad, is not THAT bad in moderation. Same with alcohol. Just a couple cigarettes a day is harmful to all within the range of the smoke.
 
I hate smoking and I agree people should have to pay more for health insurance if they smoke. Other people in the work place should not have to cover costs for people who smoke.
 
I am thinking soon this will be changed. Now people live for many times in the western world until they are in their 80s if they do not smoke. Then they get things like oldtimers diseases and lose their minds and very sadly must be kept in the special homes.

Now people didn;t used to live so long anyways. But is changed. So it will become better value from a healthcare pointview to have someone die of heart attack or stroke or lung cancer ina a comparably quick burst than to be sitting dribbling in the home with special nurses.
 
nbcrusader said:


It is not discrimination.

Smoking (1) is a personal choice and (2) has costs that affect more than just the individual.

Bullshit it aint discrimination.

And you're just stating the obvious with the second 2 points.
 
melon said:
Tobacco should be banned. We ban other substances for being only a fraction of its danger. Tobacco is highly addictive and kills people. Now how is that different from any myriad of drugs (i.e., Vioxx) that are banned on a regular basis?

Melon
A little bit harsh perhaps? Why shouldn't people be allowed to go out and smoke their lungs to dust or drink themselves stupid ~ just because a minority goes to excess is no reason to take punitive measures against the majority. Same with these bullshit sin-taxes, whenever the government wants more money it just ups the taxes on smokes and booze. People should have freedom to do stupid things, but they should also have all information availiable to them.

I have family who smoke excessive ammounts of cigarettes and I don't approve of them doing it, but for the government to outlaw it ~ very dodgy. And before you pull out a why don't we legalise marijuana or heroin argument I will answer with a why not indeed, marijauna is already smoked profusely and heroin was at a time legal along with plenty of other opiates ~ having a more pure and safe process could cut deaths from such drugs. I don't smoke but I would like the freedom to smoke if I want to.

So remember, don't smoke kids - unless you want to be cool.
 
Last edited:
I suspect you have a pack of Winnie blues shoved under your Bonds singlet A_W.
:wink:

I cannot see though, in all seriousness, why this is deemed acceptable. Health risks? Naturally. That's why smokers and drinkers will pay more for health cover. Infact, so will people with a family history of cancer. Or heart disease. So will the people who choose to drive a high powered car, like your garden variety V8. People who choose to do many things suffer the consequences of their choices in insurance and the like. Risk however comes from many places. That's the beauty of living in a free society though, we can choose to wrap ourselves around a telegraph pole if we want from a high speed accident, or smoke ourselves into an early grave. We can spend every weekend lighting up the barbie, 3 eskies full of ice and 6 slabs of piss. Throw on some steak, side it up with some homemade coleslaw and other artery clogging foods and we're set. Do it every weekend til we're laying on a bed in the Royal Prince Alfred hospital waiting to be carted into the operating room for a quickie quadruple bypass. Aren't we lucky?
An employer though, has no right whatsoever to selectively cull staff or hire on the basis of personal choice. Has anyone heard of, or familiarised themselves with the laws of EEO? That's Equal Employment Opportunity. Learn it. Just incase one day an employer decides you are too gay, too hispanic, too short, too old, too fat, too at risk of dropping dead from a heart attack or too blonde to be hired. Or yet, too whatever to have your employment continued with your respective companies.
We're damned lucky to have these precious laws protecting us all - that's why we're the lucky country...Oh hang on, that exists in Australia...we're talking about America here aren't we. Guess you guys luck out. You're not covered. Too gay, too hispanic, too short, too old, too fat, too at risk of dropping dead from a heart attack or too blonde to be worth EQUALITY.

:der:
 
If I smoked you know that I would be smoking Montecristo's. And I must be halucinating right now because of this site http://www.eeoc.gov/ U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
 
Last edited:
A_Wanderer said:
I have family who smoke excessive ammounts of cigarettes and I don't approve of them doing it, but for the government to outlaw it ~ very dodgy. And before you pull out a why don't we legalise marijuana or heroin argument I will answer with a why not indeed, marijauna is already smoked profusely and heroin was at a time legal along with plenty of other opiates ~ having a more pure and safe process could cut deaths from such drugs. I don't smoke but I would like the freedom to smoke if I want to.

Heroin shouldn't be legal, because it is highly addictive and dangerous. The UK actually uses it in IV drips instead of morphine, and it's perfectly safe that way. Heroin is really just a concentrated form of morphine.

Marijuana...I don't think anyone has died from this. I'm not a big fan of pot, but not only is it non-addictive, but has, to this date, none of the same health problems! It is because of the addictive nature of tobacco that I particularly single it out, not to mention the absolute hypocrisy of keeping it legal. It's only "legal," because it is the "white man's drug." Marijuana was banned because it was seen as "Mexican."

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:


It is not discrimination.

Smoking (1) is a personal choice and (2) has costs that affect more than just the individual.
nevermind,....someone else made the same point ( but in much nicer words )
 
Last edited:
it is understandable that employers want to cut risks
and since it is fairly easily to establish that someone smokes (if you can't smell it you can tell it by looking at their teeth 99% of the time) this makes smokers an easy target
you don't need to invade someone's private life to tell that he/she smokes

does that make it right for an employer to discriminate against smokers though?
by no means
it could even set a dangerous precedent
 
Back
Top Bottom