[Captain.Remy]

Message original : Ruth
Just tried to add this to my last post, but my computer won't let me edit it, so I'll put it here. Smoking is totally legal (just about). It's utterly ridiculous to say that taxpayers money should not be used to treat someone who does something which is completely legal and for which they pay tax anyway.

I do agree, that idea is rubbish. I'm a smoker too and I completely agree. Why should we be responsible of the other's lifestyles ?

[Sunny_01]

Like I said earlier In the UK, tobacco tax revenue currently stands at £7 billion a year compared with the £1.5 billion it allegedly costs to tackle 'smoking-related' diseases. Does this not mean that smokers MORE than contribute in taxes. Smokers are entitled to be treated equally, to deny someone the right to treatment because of a lifestyle choice is wrong and also against the whole ethos of the NHS.

[Retroman]

Originally posted by Ruth
No, it isn't ridiculous. He made a valid point. I think it's ridiculous to draw a parallel between a smoker saying that and a paedophile or wife beater saying that.

That only works because you singled out "paedophile" and "wife beater" two of the extreme's. I also listed "and right down to liars, cheaters, drug users" etc. You can't excuse yourself by comparing the bad things you've done, to the entire mass amount of bad things occuring throughout the entire planet.

His so called "valid" point doesn't seem to have much basis for being valid, but rather an excuse...as I said before.

He's pretty much saying "So what, I smoke and you end up having to breathe it in...you don't like it, but guess what? there's much worse going on in the world, so shut your mouth"

How could that be passed off as anything more than the immature ramblings of a selfish man? anyone who approves of such words must be of a similar nature.

Originally posted by Ruth
The point is that the majority of people who need hospital treatment need it because of some lifestyle choice - whether it's because they play a dangerous sport, smoke, drink, do a dangerous job, whatever. You think tax payers money should not pay for treatment for any of these people? Do you think that basically, we should only ever use taxpayers money to treat people who fall ill through no fault of their own? And how would we determine that?

I think you'll find ive been backing up sports players throughout the entire topic, so perhaps you should pay more attention to my words...rather than focusing on the rants you're currently forming in your head whilst reading this.

Ive also established my views on people who choose dangerous jobs...and that if it's justified, eg. A fireman, then I have no problem. If it's "Daredevil, stuntman" then I believe it's within that persons best interests to get themselves insured, or make sure the job can provide assistance if that person is injured.

Smokers and alcohol abusers choose to over use substances that they know full well will cause internal problems, health implications and sometimes death. Again, they can't act irresponsibly, only to expect the general public to help them out.

It's the equivalent of a member of "Jackass" performing a highly dangerous prank, and expecting me to pay for his operation to save him because he decided to jump off a cliff into a mass of rose bushes. He knew it wouldn't end well, he knew there was no benefit or point to his actions, and he acted irresponsible and thoughtless to the situation...but still my money should go towards helping him? What logical reason is there for that?

Originally posted by Ruth
Just tried to add this to my last post, but my computer won't let me edit it, so I'll put it here. Smoking is totally legal (just about). It's utterly ridiculous to say that taxpayers money should not be used to treat someone who does something which is completely legal and for which they pay tax anyway.

They don't pay tax for themselves. Im sure some of their money might end up being used for the treatment of people with smoking related illness, and some of it won't. As with my money...some will go towards them in my lifetime most likely, and some won't.

The fact of the matter is, it's still a portion of my earnings that is spent on them.

It's also irrelevant as to whether it's illegal or not...
They've made a concious choice to abuse a substance that harms their health. Then expect non smokers to contribute to their treatment?

They're sending out a blatant message of: "Im harming myself and know full well I am, being completely irresponsible and I expect you to help me out when it all goes wrong"

It's just utter selfishness.

And again, I have to repeat...
Nobody here is saying people should be refused treatment. So im not sure why people are talking about it.

[Ruth]

You have completely and utterly missed the point that Bill Hicks was making. Well, never mind.

My comment about sports persons was not aimed specifically at you – I am well aware of your opinions on that issue. I was making a point in general – you shouldn’t assume that everything I’m saying revolves around your point of view.

However, the point I was trying to make – and I am not at all sure that you took it in the way it was meant – was this: lots of people who need treatment, need it because of some lifestyle choice. Are you saying that we should only ever use taxpayers money to treat people when it can be proven that they have not, in any way, contributed to the problem that put them in poor health in the first place? I mean, we can’t all be absolutely perfect. Can you honestly say that NOTHING that you ever do could potentially result in you needing treatment?

Sunny has already provided the figures regarding how much smokers pay in taxes and how much they cost the NHS per year, so there is no point in me repeating that. Check the figures if you want – I’m sure you will find they are correct.

Now – you take the view that smokers choose to do something unhealthy and then expect the NHS to sort it out for them if they become ill. I take the view that smokers choose to do something which they pay to do, pay tax on, and which is completely legal. Therefore – just like the rest of us – they should be entitled to NHS treatment. What is your view on people who NEVER work or pay taxes, and become ill through no fault of their own. Do you think they should be entitled to taxpayers money?

By saying that smokers should not be allowed treatment on the NHS you are effectively saying that people who have paid into the NHS should not be allowed to seek treatment through it. Is that logical?

[Retroman]

Originally posted by Ruth
You have completely and utterly missed the point that Bill Hicks was making. Well, never mind.

Explain to me the indepth meaning to his mindless swearing and attitude problem, id love to know what message he was trying to get across.

Originally posted by Ruth
My comment about sports persons was not aimed specifically at you – I am well aware of your opinions on that issue. I was making a point in general – you shouldn’t assume that everything I’m saying revolves around your point of view.

1. You have nobody else to aim it at, since you only seem to be talking to me judging from all of your recent posts in this topic.

2.

Originally posted by Ruth
whether it's because they play a dangerous sport, smoke, drink, do a dangerous job, whatever. You think tax payers money should not pay for treatment for any of these people?

It clearly was revolving around me and my point of view =] since you wrote it for the reason of asking me a question about it.

Originally posted by Ruth
However, the point I was trying to make – and I am not at all sure that you took it in the way it was meant – was this: lots of people who need treatment, need it because of some lifestyle choice. Are you saying that we should only ever use taxpayers money to treat people when it can be proven that they have not, in any way, contributed to the problem that put them in poor health in the first place? I mean, we can’t all be absolutely perfect. Can you honestly say that NOTHING that you ever do could potentially result in you needing treatment?

No we aren't perfect, and things ive done may/may not have/will result in me needing treatment...but im not excusing myself. If I made concious decisions to directly put myself in danger, whether it be my health or injury, for unjustifiable reasons then I wouldn't expect any tax money to go towards me.

And yes, I am suggesting [unless for good reason.] that if someone wishes to use tax payers money to treat themselves for things they are to blame for, such as: Alcohol abuse, drug abuse and smoking...then they should be denied it.

Just because smoking is common place amongst the world, doesn't mean it isn't wreckless behaviour, and that the person is being completely irresponsible for their person.

It could almost be compared to a child accidentally kicking a football through a persons window and getting in trouble...I would have sympathy for him and maybe even try to make an excuse for him if I thought it was an accident.

If that kid deliberately picked up the football, kicked it through the window to cause someone trouble, then was found out...it'd be the exact opposite and I wouldn't condone his behaviour or attempt to help.

It's all about moral issues, and the fact that I think people who deliberately do wrong are undeserving of that so called sympathy, in a financial form.

Originally posted by Ruth
I take the view that smokers choose to do something which they pay to do, pay tax on, and which is completely legal. Therefore – just like the rest of us – they should be entitled to NHS treatment. What is your view on people who NEVER work or pay taxes, and become ill through no fault of their own. Do you think they should be entitled to taxpayers money?

Paying for the right to damage themselves and claim other people's money? I don't think that's the case.

Using their money to make the choice, is their own choice in itself...choosing to spend their money on smoking doesn't mean any of my money has to go there way, so that's completely irrelevant.

And I find it rather funny that I keep being asked questions based on other groups of people...
"What if someone abuses alcohol then? what if someone sits around not paying taxes?" it's almost asked as though you think im defending those people somehow...which is highly strange. Just because im saying smokers are undeserving, doesn't mean im claiming the rest of the world is, but the topic is about smokers, so there we go.

Originally posted by Ruth
By saying that smokers should not be allowed treatment on the NHS you are effectively saying that people who have paid into the NHS should not be allowed to seek treatment through it. Is that logical?

You're digging rather low so it would seem...
Nowhere have I suggested people who pay into the NHS shouldn't be allowed treatment, that's utter madness.

And smokers should be allowed treatment on the NHS, as long as the money is from fellow smokers. If we have statistics on the amount of taxes smokers pay, there should be some way to invest that money directly into aiding people who also smoke.

That way non smokers who disagree with smoking, wouldn't have to pay their money towards people who choose to cause themselves harm through smoking.

[Sunny_01]

A very interesting message from the General medical council to surgeons and doctors who are tempted to put smokers to the back of queues:

'To treat justly or to ensure equity in the provision of treatment and care is at the centre of the NHS. It means that no-one should be discriminated against because of their ability to pay, their social position, their health status, their race, religion, sex, lifestyle or their age. Indeed, those whose needs are greatest, for whatever reason, even if their illnesses are to some extent self-inflicted, have the same rights as anyone else and if equity is to be respected they may well require a greater share of the available resources to maintain life or restore health' (Priorities and Choices, GMC Guidelines, July 2000).

The thing is we all pay taxes and all have strong feelings about what they should and should not be spent on. I hate the thought that my taxes help to keep some people sat on their bottoms at home all day, those that have no desire to work because our benefits system is happy to keep them in front of the telly.

[spacebandit]

Originally posted by Retroman
And id never ask anyone to deny people health care, so I hope you're making a general statement and not a remark directed towards me..because id never deny anyone health care who needs it.

I never said you would deny it per se , I said that you didn't want your money to be used for treating smokers, I said that you wanted to deny them your contribution to it.

Originally posted by Retroman

If someone chooses to smoke, something that isn't beneficial in any way, shape or form...but is actually the complete opposite, then I wouldn't be happy if my tax money went towards trying to rectify the negative implications of their awful choice in life.

and again here, where YOU expanded it originally to include alcohol

Originally posted by Retroman

I have no responsibility to help someone who has an alcohol addiction, or a troubled life that lead to attempted suicide. Not one penny from me should have any obligation to go towards those people.

[bananarama]

Originally posted by Shaun
Totally agree with you, wobblywoo. People are too quick to jump on the anti-smoking bandwagon, and as much as I can't stand smoke around me, the thought that a smoker shouldn't be entitled to the same rights to a free health service as the rest of the country is absurd.

I agree. One of the things about a free society is that people are allowed to do silly things and still get help for the consequences.

If you refuse the treatment of smokers then you would also have to follow suit and refuse to treat football injuries. Potholers in troube, Mountain climbers injured, Bad drivers injured by their own actions.. The list is endless.

We all pay financially for a free society a society that allows reckless behavour in the name of pleasure........That's life. To be otherwise would require a nanny state of even higher proportions than we have at present.

As a none smoker myself I would love to see others off the foul habbit. However I would not dream of saying they should not get treatment for smoke related illness.

[easypeasy]

funny how the healthiest people can drop down dead after doing rigorous excercise. wasnt there a scottish football player die on the pitch recently?

[spitfire]

Originally posted by easypeasy
funny how the healthiest people can drop down dead after doing rigorous excercise. wasnt there a scottish football player die on the pitch recently?

Funny!FUNNY!!!?

[Jake!]

I personally believe its gone so far that if we tried to stop people from smoking it wold be impossible. I'm only 13 and I tried it and got hooked, luckily I guit after 6-7 months but even I found it hard that soon in the addiction. I think yes money is getting wasted on sokers, but it is also getting wasted elsewhere...