Quote:
Originally posted by Retroman
My entire point was orientating around the fact that smokers know that allowing themselves to smoke and become addicted will have guaranteed health implications...whether they be major or minor.
|
I see lots of ex sportsmen and women with lifelong medical problems caused by their participation in sports, and we know enough to know that some of their injuries were, as you put it, guaranteed.
Quote:
Originally posted by Retroman
People choosing to play sports don't face guaranteed injuries, and the injuries are often caused because of other people involved. They're also choosing to play an innocent sport that has almost no chance of causing any life risking problems, so if something really bad was to happen...they really weren't to know, and it was no fault of their own.
|
There are plenty of stories of people smoking from aged 12 til say 90, [that is a generalisation to give you the drift] and dying peacefully in their sleep. I am not denying the obvious health risks of smoking but am pointing out the flaw in your argument. Every smoker is NOT guaranteed a slow painful death with the added inconsideration of it being at your expense
Quote:
Originally posted by Retroman
In short, I think there's a difference between choosing an innocent hobby to take up, and facing unfortunate circumstances of an accident and needing treatment...compared with taking a life harming substance.
If you can't see that, then my words are wasted on you.
|
There are plenty of sportsmen and women who suffer lifelong heath problems as a result of playing sport and they all get medical treatment. They suffer those problems because they choose to play a sport, and a lot of them don't have the common courtesy to die painfully at your expense like you believe smokers do - instead they hang on costing me more and more of my money
Quote:
Originally posted by Retroman
Whereas people choosing to smoke, are in reality, pretty much choosing to have bad health. Whether it be anything from your breathing and tar filled lungs, to full on cancer...everyone who takes up smoking knows they'll suffer to some extent.
|
Anyone who plays football knows they will suffer to some extent
Anyone who plays rubgy knows they will suffer to some extent
etc etc
What we are talking about here is choice, some people choose to start to smoke, there are many reasons for it, image [for some reason] is a big one, and amongst the young the biggest is peer pressure.
they made a bad choice, fair enough.
But your argument that you should not have your money used to treat them shoudl they fall ill, falls on its face when faced with the realities of life.
We do not deny health care based on a persons lifestyle choices and nor should we ever. Your opinion that your money should not be used to treat them, as it is their own self inflicted injury is pure self centric greed, especially as the personal cost to you for the treatment of all those damned smokers is actually less that the societal benefits you have reaped from the tax they pay on their tabs - strange I don't see you arguing you should pay back the difference.
What will you advocate next ?
Deny medical treatment from those who choose to do dangerous jobs ?
I wonder if you drink - I don't see you moaning about your money being used to treat alcohol related illness, and its secondary cause and effect, which actually outstrips spending on smoking related illness. i.e. costs you more of your money
Smokers don't tend to go home after a pack of twenty and slap the wife and kids around - sending them off to A&E or adding to social services workload and hence spending more and more of your money.
Yes I am a former smoker,
I started aged 16 and quit at 24 after an accident and I spent 8 months in hospital where it was difficult to have a crafty tab.
One or twice a year I do occasionally partake of the noxious weed, usually when drunk and am triggered off by other smokers conspiring to add me the bill you have to pay.