What Of People Who Start Smoking Now

[David Sklansky]

If they get lung cancer should people view them the same way as those few who get lung cancer through no fault of their own?

Please don't use the argument that you can say similar stuff about other activities such as not wearing a helmut, skydiving, etc. Or that we all take risks and that life wouldn't be worth living if we didn't. Starting smoking now is a statistically vastly different category.

[AWoodside]

By people who get lung cancer "through no fault of their own" do you mean older people who started smoking before it was widely acknowledged to be a health risk, or people who have never smoked, but happen to get lung cancer anyway?

As far as viewing them differently, if somebody wants to make what I would (subjectively) view as a massively negative expected value decision, I wont begrudge them the right to make that choice. That being said, I'd certainly be less likely to personally identify or become good friends with such a person. And really, given the exponentially increasing advances in medical technology, a decent argument could be made that starting to smoke now isn't quite as -EV as my gut would tell me anyway.

[chezlaw]

Tax subsidy unless they're so old its not likely to reduce their life expectancy. More precisely someone could work our their net benefit to the economy and offer the appropriate incentives. Not sure why you don't think skydivers shouldn't be rewarded similarly.

Alternatively there could be an anti-risk tax, that would work and could be kinda fun.

chez

[pokervintage]

All those that contract a debilitating and or fatal disease should be viewed compassionately. Those that start smoking knowing the risk should be treated in the same manner as those that attempt suicide by any other means. They are sick and should be treated and helped to overcome their death wish.

Unless of course you dont like them. Then "lite'm up" (this last part is a joke)

pokervintage

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
should people view them the same way

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understand what these sorts of phrases mean.

Personally I doubt I would bother to make the distinction. I also doubt think any individual “should” react in any particular way, but if they want to do so that fine with me.

Should the health service treat the two sorts of patients differently in some way? Probably not, but fortunately resource allocation in the health service is not my problem *relief*. Neither is pricing of health insurance premiums. These problems appear too complicated to separate out individual factors in this way.

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
That being said, I'd certainly be less likely to personally identify or become good friends with such a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, you wont be friends with a smoker?

[dragonystic]

to david: is it really possible to smoke long enough to develop cancer and not realize just how terrible it is for you? i smoked for 6 years (while young and physically fit) and still i noticed all sorts of bad side effects. lowered lung capactiy, getting sick more, coughing more, etc etc. i cant imagine someone smoking for their entire life and being genuinely oblivious to how awful it is.

[joes28]

what if someone believes that the high they get from smoking is worth the chance of cancer

[Phil153]

I think your question would be more interesting if you made it a triage scenario. "should people view them the same way" is too vague.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That being said, I'd certainly be less likely to personally identify or become good friends with such a person.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, you wont be friends with a smoker?

[/ QUOTE ]
Its an added benefit of smoking. Saves wasted time getting to know someone as there's little chance of friendship between the sort of people who don't want to be friends with smokers and the sort of people who don't want to be friends with the sort of people who don't want to be friends with smokers.

bit like not making too much effort to dress smartly at job interviews.

chez

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
what if someone believes that the high they get from smoking is worth the chance of cancer

[/ QUOTE ]

Cancer's a price I'm willing to gamble on as a heavy smoker. Pain don't hurt, goes the movie line.

We all die anyway, at least once. Having that choice is vital for freedom.

I know it's a nasty habit, etc., etc. but I love smoking and not just for the high of nicotine. It's a gamble and my last vice. I think I'll keep it. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[pokervintage]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it's a nasty habit, etc., etc. but I love smoking and not just for the high of nicotine. It's a gamble and my last vice. I think I'll keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should you smoke around others that do not smoke you should be tried for attempted murder. But if you dont care about yourself why would you care about others? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

pokervintage

[joes28]

those people should be thanking him for the free smoke.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
If they get lung cancer should people view them the same way as those few who get lung cancer through no fault of their own?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Why is this an interesting question?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know it's a nasty habit, etc., etc. but I love smoking and not just for the high of nicotine. It's a gamble and my last vice. I think I'll keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should you smoke around others that do not smoke you should be tried for attempted murder. But if you dont care about yourself why would you care about others? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly you dont mean attempted murder.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
should people view them the same way

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understand what these sorts of phrases mean.

Personally I doubt I would bother to make the distinction. I also doubt think any individual “should” react in any particular way, but if they want to do so that fine with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is my feeling. I tend to like smokers better, just because they seem less judgmental in general. Er, see chezlaw's post - that's what I mean.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it's a nasty habit, etc., etc. but I love smoking and not just for the high of nicotine. It's a gamble and my last vice. I think I'll keep it.

[ QUOTE ]
Should you smoke around others that do not smoke you should be tried for attempted murder. But if you dont care about yourself why would you care about others?


[/ QUOTE ] Certainly you dont mean attempted murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not attempted murder, but surely, Vhawk, you would agree, that a non-smoker should be able to sue a smoker for damages to his health.

[PLOlover]

well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a couple times of health treatment ( surgery?) being denied in britan because the patient was a smoker. Not sure how true or how widespread the notion is.

luckyme

[Bork]

Should the guy who gets shoved in front of the subway train be viewed the same as the guy who jumps in front of the subway train and suffers the same injuries?

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps not attempted murder, but surely, Vhawk, you would agree, that a non-smoker should be able to sue a smoker for damages to his health.

[/ QUOTE ] He surely believes that the property owner should be able to decide if and where on his property smoking should take place, and non-smokers that are scared for their health will just have to stick to the places where the owner of the property have decided smoking is not allowed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know it's a nasty habit, etc., etc. but I love smoking and not just for the high of nicotine. It's a gamble and my last vice. I think I'll keep it.

[ QUOTE ]
Should you smoke around others that do not smoke you should be tried for attempted murder. But if you dont care about yourself why would you care about others?


[/ QUOTE ] Certainly you dont mean attempted murder.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps not attempted murder, but surely, Vhawk, you would agree, that a non-smoker should be able to sue a smoker for damages to his health.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but not attempted murder. Reckless endangerment or something like that I suppose (no expert on law by any means) but attempted murder seems ludicrous.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a couple times of health treatment ( surgery?) being denied in britan because the patient was a smoker. Not sure how true or how widespread the notion is.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems INCREDIBLY standard in a socialized health system. Whether it is or not. Similarly, McDonalds.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a couple times of health treatment ( surgery?) being denied in britan because the patient was a smoker. Not sure how true or how widespread the notion is.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems INCREDIBLY standard in a socialized health system. Whether it is or not. Similarly, McDonalds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its incredibly rare in fact but is a popular notion amongst a small group of health nutters. Most support a clinical need based system. Where it does happen its normally the doctor insisting the patient gives up smoking/loses weight before the treatment will be given rather than a refusal to treat in some judgemental fashion.

chez

[madnak]

As long as the smoker is also exempt from taxes, I don't see a problem with that...

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a couple times of health treatment ( surgery?) being denied in britan because the patient was a smoker. Not sure how true or how widespread the notion is.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems INCREDIBLY standard in a socialized health system. Whether it is or not. Similarly, McDonalds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its incredibly rare in fact but is a popular notion amongst a small group of health nutters. Most support a clinical need based system. Where it does happen its normally the doctor insisting the patient gives up smoking/loses weight before the treatment will be given rather than a refusal to treat in some judgemental fashion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didnt mean that it does in fact happen all the time, just that there is absolutely no reason why it SHOULDNT in a socialized healthcare system, and I'd imagine that the trend will go that way over time. If the public is picking up the tab for your healthcare, why dont they get to deny you for high-risk choices?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
As long as the smoker is also exempt from taxes, I don't see a problem with that...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are art-haters exempt from taxes? Or people without kids?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a couple times of health treatment ( surgery?) being denied in britan because the patient was a smoker. Not sure how true or how widespread the notion is.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems INCREDIBLY standard in a socialized health system. Whether it is or not. Similarly, McDonalds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its incredibly rare in fact but is a popular notion amongst a small group of health nutters. Most support a clinical need based system. Where it does happen its normally the doctor insisting the patient gives up smoking/loses weight before the treatment will be given rather than a refusal to treat in some judgemental fashion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didnt mean that it does in fact happen all the time, just that there is absolutely no reason why it SHOULDNT in a socialized healthcare system, and I'd imagine that the trend will go that way over time. If the public is picking up the tab for your healthcare, why dont they get to deny you for high-risk choices?

[/ QUOTE ]
but the huge numbers of high-risk takers are subsidising the rest, lose our support and the health system will collapse - we wont be willing to continue the subsidy if they treat us worse than those we subsidise. We only have the NHS because there is massive public support for the principle of clinical need.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a couple times of health treatment ( surgery?) being denied in britan because the patient was a smoker. Not sure how true or how widespread the notion is.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems INCREDIBLY standard in a socialized health system. Whether it is or not. Similarly, McDonalds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its incredibly rare in fact but is a popular notion amongst a small group of health nutters. Most support a clinical need based system. Where it does happen its normally the doctor insisting the patient gives up smoking/loses weight before the treatment will be given rather than a refusal to treat in some judgemental fashion.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I didnt mean that it does in fact happen all the time, just that there is absolutely no reason why it SHOULDNT in a socialized healthcare system, and I'd imagine that the trend will go that way over time. If the public is picking up the tab for your healthcare, why dont they get to deny you for high-risk choices?

[/ QUOTE ]
but the huge numbers of high-risk takers are subsidising the rest, lose our support and the health system will collapse - we wont be willing to continue the subsidy if they treat us worse than those we subsidise. We only have the NHS because there is massive public support for the principle of clinical need.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF cares about what you guys want, smokers are still a minority, go [censored] yourselves ya know? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

You make a good point about why they wont deny coverage to fatties though.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I didnt mean that it does in fact happen all the time, just that there is absolutely no reason why it SHOULDNT in a socialized healthcare system, and I'd imagine that the trend will go that way over time. If the public is picking up the tab for your healthcare, why dont they get to deny you for high-risk choices?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


but the huge numbers of high-risk takers are subsidising the rest, lose our support and the health system will collapse - we wont be willing to continue the subsidy if they treat us worse than those we subsidise. We only have the NHS because there is massive public support for the principle of clinical need.

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WTF cares about what you guys want, smokers are still a minority, go [censored] yourselves ya know?

You make a good point about why they wont deny coverage to fatties though.


[/ QUOTE ]
Fatties, heavy drinkers, smokers, pregant women etc etc. Its the majority, although the health nutters are very vocal they're just a small protest group.

The vast majority who support the NHS don't want anybody to pay the right amount - that's the whole point.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I didnt mean that it does in fact happen all the time, just that there is absolutely no reason why it SHOULDNT in a socialized healthcare system, and I'd imagine that the trend will go that way over time. If the public is picking up the tab for your healthcare, why dont they get to deny you for high-risk choices?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


but the huge numbers of high-risk takers are subsidising the rest, lose our support and the health system will collapse - we wont be willing to continue the subsidy if they treat us worse than those we subsidise. We only have the NHS because there is massive public support for the principle of clinical need.

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WTF cares about what you guys want, smokers are still a minority, go [censored] yourselves ya know?

You make a good point about why they wont deny coverage to fatties though.


[/ QUOTE ]
Fatties, heavy drinkers, smokers, pregant women etc etc. Its the majority, although the health nutters are very vocal they're just a small protest group.

The vast majority who support the NHS don't want anybody to pay the right amount - that's the whole point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to lump everyone in to the "unhealthy" group. The rest of the unhealthy group is far too myopic to realize that they are in the same boat as the smokers, and smokers alone are still a distinct minority, and even better, an immoral, unpopular one. Just ripe for being picked on.

We'll get to the rest later but for now, [censored] the smokers.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I didnt mean that it does in fact happen all the time, just that there is absolutely no reason why it SHOULDNT in a socialized healthcare system, and I'd imagine that the trend will go that way over time. If the public is picking up the tab for your healthcare, why dont they get to deny you for high-risk choices?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


but the huge numbers of high-risk takers are subsidising the rest, lose our support and the health system will collapse - we wont be willing to continue the subsidy if they treat us worse than those we subsidise. We only have the NHS because there is massive public support for the principle of clinical need.

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WTF cares about what you guys want, smokers are still a minority, go [censored] yourselves ya know?

You make a good point about why they wont deny coverage to fatties though.


[/ QUOTE ]
Fatties, heavy drinkers, smokers, pregant women etc etc. Its the majority, although the health nutters are very vocal they're just a small protest group.

The vast majority who support the NHS don't want anybody to pay the right amount - that's the whole point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to lump everyone in to the "unhealthy" group. The rest of the unhealthy group is far too myopic to realize that they are in the same boat as the smokers, and smokers alone are still a distinct minority, and even better, an immoral, unpopular one. Just ripe for being picked on.

We'll get to the rest later but for now, [censored] the smokers.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's always that risk but fortunately most of the intelligent don't have that myopia and most of the dumb smoke.

chez

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As long as the smoker is also exempt from taxes, I don't see a problem with that...

[/ QUOTE ]

Are art-haters exempt from taxes? Or people without kids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better stay on the safe side and make everyone exempt.

[StayHungry]

Isn't this kind of question reserved for those, you know, in power?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I didnt mean that it does in fact happen all the time, just that there is absolutely no reason why it SHOULDNT in a socialized healthcare system, and I'd imagine that the trend will go that way over time. If the public is picking up the tab for your healthcare, why dont they get to deny you for high-risk choices?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


but the huge numbers of high-risk takers are subsidising the rest, lose our support and the health system will collapse - we wont be willing to continue the subsidy if they treat us worse than those we subsidise. We only have the NHS because there is massive public support for the principle of clinical need.

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WTF cares about what you guys want, smokers are still a minority, go [censored] yourselves ya know?

You make a good point about why they wont deny coverage to fatties though.


[/ QUOTE ]
Fatties, heavy drinkers, smokers, pregant women etc etc. Its the majority, although the health nutters are very vocal they're just a small protest group.

The vast majority who support the NHS don't want anybody to pay the right amount - that's the whole point.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

No reason to lump everyone in to the "unhealthy" group. The rest of the unhealthy group is far too myopic to realize that they are in the same boat as the smokers, and smokers alone are still a distinct minority, and even better, an immoral, unpopular one. Just ripe for being picked on.

We'll get to the rest later but for now, [censored] the smokers.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's always that risk but fortunately most of the intelligent don't have that myopia and most of the dumb smoke.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]


Haha, good point.

[FortunaMaximus]

[censored] the smokers? We're used to that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We all have the certainity of death anyway, how we get there really doesn't matter. I choose to smoke instead of drink. Alcohol's much more dangerous to society anyways.

Poor rationale for a nasty habit perhaps, but I'll keep it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[censored] the smokers? We're used to that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We all have the certainity of death anyway, how we get there really doesn't matter. I choose to smoke instead of drink. Alcohol's much more dangerous to society anyways.

Poor rationale for a nasty habit perhaps, but I'll keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few of the lung cancer and COPD and emphysema patients I see say things like "[censored] it, you die anyway, this way is just as good as any!"

I'm about as staunchly anti-smoking as you can get, but I'm marginally more pro-freedom, so do what you want. I still think smoking is really [censored] dumb.

And if most people abused alcohol like ALL smokers abuse cigarettes, sure, alcohol would be just as bad.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] the smokers? We're used to that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We all have the certainity of death anyway, how we get there really doesn't matter. I choose to smoke instead of drink. Alcohol's much more dangerous to society anyways.

Poor rationale for a nasty habit perhaps, but I'll keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few of the lung cancer and COPD and emphysema patients I see say things like "[censored] it, you die anyway, this way is just as good as any!"

I'm about as staunchly anti-smoking as you can get, but I'm marginally more pro-freedom, so do what you want. I still think smoking is really [censored] dumb.

And if most people abused alcohol like ALL smokers abuse cigarettes, sure, alcohol would be just as bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I get that part, and I won't deny that I worry sometimes and think about quitting. But at the same time it also doesn't matter. Even pain and discomfort is irrelevant. But that's just my view, having a high tolerance for it.

I realize you're a med student, and have good grounds to be anti-smoking and your point is certainly clear. You'd be surprised at how many nurses smoke, even though they work in hospitals. Same mentality probably.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] the smokers? We're used to that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We all have the certainity of death anyway, how we get there really doesn't matter. I choose to smoke instead of drink. Alcohol's much more dangerous to society anyways.

Poor rationale for a nasty habit perhaps, but I'll keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few of the lung cancer and COPD and emphysema patients I see say things like "[censored] it, you die anyway, this way is just as good as any!"

I'm about as staunchly anti-smoking as you can get, but I'm marginally more pro-freedom, so do what you want. I still think smoking is really [censored] dumb.

And if most people abused alcohol like ALL smokers abuse cigarettes, sure, alcohol would be just as bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I get that part, and I won't deny that I worry sometimes and think about quitting. But at the same time it also doesn't matter. Even pain and discomfort is irrelevant. But that's just my view, having a high tolerance for it.

I realize you're a med student, and have good grounds to be anti-smoking and your point is certainly clear. You'd be surprised at how many nurses smoke, even though they work in hospitals. Same mentality probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of people are hypocrites, no doubt about that. I mean, I'm 24, I'm obv invincible, so it really doesnt matter what I do. But you, you are practically on deaths door. Knock that [censored] off.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[censored] the smokers? We're used to that. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

We all have the certainity of death anyway, how we get there really doesn't matter. I choose to smoke instead of drink. Alcohol's much more dangerous to society anyways.

Poor rationale for a nasty habit perhaps, but I'll keep it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very few of the lung cancer and COPD and emphysema patients I see say things like "[censored] it, you die anyway, this way is just as good as any!"

I'm about as staunchly anti-smoking as you can get, but I'm marginally more pro-freedom, so do what you want. I still think smoking is really [censored] dumb.

And if most people abused alcohol like ALL smokers abuse cigarettes, sure, alcohol would be just as bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I get that part, and I won't deny that I worry sometimes and think about quitting. But at the same time it also doesn't matter. Even pain and discomfort is irrelevant. But that's just my view, having a high tolerance for it.

I realize you're a med student, and have good grounds to be anti-smoking and your point is certainly clear. You'd be surprised at how many nurses smoke, even though they work in hospitals. Same mentality probably.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plenty of people are hypocrites, no doubt about that. I mean, I'm 24, I'm obv invincible, so it really doesnt matter what I do. But you, you are practically on deaths door. Knock that [censored] off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm only 30 and that's such a small number. Take it easy, youngun. I'll at least think about it.

[AlexM]

I don't understand the value of this question or why it would be any different than it was 30 years ago.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the value of this question or why it would be any different than it was 30 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was reasonably possible to start smoking 30 years ago without really knowing/believing it was disastrous for your health. Now, its impossible. At least, thats what I think the OP is talking about.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the value of this question or why it would be any different than it was 30 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was reasonably possible to start smoking 30 years ago without really knowing/believing it was disastrous for your health.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You must live in some alternate reality. In mine, they started putting a big "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health" on cigarette packs in 1970.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the value of this question or why it would be any different than it was 30 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was reasonably possible to start smoking 30 years ago without really knowing/believing it was disastrous for your health.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You must live in some alternate reality. In mine, they started putting a big "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health" on cigarette packs in 1970.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still totally reasonable not to have read that. CERTAINLY reasonable to not believe it. Maybe I should be using "common" rather than reasonable, but I'd imagine a survey of the general population in 1977 on smoking would find a LARGE group of people doubting or unaware of the dangers.

[mbillie1]

It makes a lot more sense to smoke than it does to believe in god, and smoking is much less detrimental to your overall quality of life. At least today's smokers exhibit a type of intellectual honesty: they know it's bad for them and choose it anyway, the way other people's fat asses choose to scarf down McDonalds or slam beers or do drugs. The people wasting their lives going to church and praying refuse to recognize that it's an enormous waste of time. It's frequently the same sanctimonious [censored] that get on the high horse about the second-hand smoke their baby happens to inhale while I'm hotboxing the local IHOP. Seatbelt laws and fast food and ski helmets and big business polution regulations and smoking and war in Iraq and all the other stuff... prioritize...
<font color="white">flame on</font>

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
It was reasonably possible to start smoking 30 years ago without really knowing/believing it was disastrous for your health.
[ QUOTE ]
You must live in some alternate reality. In mine, they started putting a big "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health" on cigarette packs in 1970.
[ QUOTE ]
Still totally reasonable not to have read that. CERTAINLY reasonable to not believe it. Maybe I should be using "common" rather than reasonable, but I'd imagine a survey of the general population in 1977 on smoking would find a LARGE group of people doubting or unaware of the dangers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

People must have been dumb in the 1970's. King James the VI wrote a pamphlet in 1604, "Counterblast to Tobacco," where he outlined the dangers of smoking before outlawing it in all public places. Since 40 years after the introduction of tobacco in Europe, smoking has been known to be dangerous. People smoke even though they know it to be dangerous because it makes them feel good, especially when taken in conjunction with drinking. Nowdays, we don't have to use the tobacco, booze combo, because we have drugs like X, etc, to feel even better. Smoking also can calm your nerves. That's why the tobacco companies, along with the government, were able to addict a whole generation during World War II. These folks all knew it was bad for them, but they didn't care much - so was a bullit in the head.

[hitch1978]

Smoking's cool and you know it.

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It was reasonably possible to start smoking 30 years ago without really knowing/believing it was disastrous for your health.
[ QUOTE ]
You must live in some alternate reality. In mine, they started putting a big "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health" on cigarette packs in 1970.
[ QUOTE ]
Still totally reasonable not to have read that. CERTAINLY reasonable to not believe it. Maybe I should be using "common" rather than reasonable, but I'd imagine a survey of the general population in 1977 on smoking would find a LARGE group of people doubting or unaware of the dangers.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

People must have been dumb in the 1970's. King James the VI wrote a pamphlet in 1604, "Counterblast to Tobacco," where he outlined the dangers of smoking before outlawing it in all public places. Since 40 years after the introduction of tobacco in Europe, smoking has been known to be dangerous. People smoke even though they know it to be dangerous because it makes them feel good, especially when taken in conjunction with drinking. Nowdays, we don't have to use the tobacco, booze combo, because we have drugs like X, etc, to feel even better. Smoking also can calm your nerves. That's why the tobacco companies, along with the government, were able to addict a whole generation during World War II. These folks all knew it was bad for them, but they didn't care much - so was a bullit in the head.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYgLAPhbyKg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycFrFx8MiVw

They are only a few seconds long.

[yukoncpa]

Hi Hitch

Nice propaganda advertisements. Makes me want to light up a Chesterfield. I remember anti- cigarette advertising in the 1970's as well. It would be awesome to dig one of these up on Google. Larry Flynt, use to put pics of the handsome John Wayne smoking a Camel, in Hustler Magazine, then in the right hand corner, he would show a withered and dying pic of Wayne right before he died of lung cancer.

Many people may have been duped by cigarette company advertising, but I think most people clearly understood the danger. I could be wrong, but I don't think people were quite as dumb in previous generations as we think ( improved science aside )

edit - the bald headed dude that was in the Ten Commandments with Charlten Heston, also put out anti-smoking ads in the 1970's. I'm pretty sure people were fully aware of the dangers, cute advertising aside. - "would you like coffee, tea, or a flick of my bic."

[DougShrapnel]

not only because of this post, I'm quitting smoking. The last smoke I had was almost 48 hours ago. I've been planning on quitting for about a week now. That includes removing ashtrays form the house, throwing away lighters, getting mentally prepared, ect.

I am under the impression that the physical addiction should go away in about another 24 hours and the mental addiction should take about a week to vastly subside. Does that sound about right? I had a two pack a day habbit, and I'm cold turkey quitting, no patch, no gum, no chew, no tobacco.

[West]

[ QUOTE ]
It makes a lot more sense to smoke than it does to believe in god, and smoking is much less detrimental to your overall quality of life. At least today's smokers exhibit a type of intellectual honesty: they know it's bad for them and choose it anyway, the way other people's fat asses choose to scarf down McDonalds or slam beers or do drugs. The people wasting their lives going to church and praying refuse to recognize that it's an enormous waste of time. It's frequently the same sanctimonious [censored] that get on the high horse about the second-hand smoke their baby happens to inhale while I'm hotboxing the local IHOP. Seatbelt laws and fast food and ski helmets and big business polution regulations and smoking and war in Iraq and all the other stuff... prioritize...


[/ QUOTE ]

sanctimonious? terrible post.

[kimchi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well there's a clear legal parallel.

things you buy new you have all sort of legal entitlements, like it actually doing what it's supposed to do, and the seller assumes all risk of defective product.

things you buy used and marked "as is" or something the buyer assumes all risk of faulty or nonfunctioning product.

so if you take the "health consequences of smoking", I would say that by this point in time it's "as is", and the consumer assumes all risk.

an argument anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read a couple times of health treatment ( surgery?) being denied in britan because the patient was a smoker. Not sure how true or how widespread the notion is.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems INCREDIBLY standard in a socialized health system. Whether it is or not. Similarly, McDonalds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Smokers in Western European countries with scocialised heathcare systems pay up to 80% in tax on a pack of [censored]. With a pack of 20 retailing at $10 - $11 in The UK, I think smokers have paid enuogh into their health system to be given equal treatment for healthcare.

Edited to express surprise at the censorship of the British word for "cigarettes"

"She has a lovely fanny" - /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kimchi]

[ QUOTE ]
I am under the impression that the physical addiction should go away in about another 24 hours and the mental addiction should take about a week to vastly subside. Does that sound about right? I had a two pack a day habbit, and I'm cold turkey quitting, no patch, no gum, no chew, no tobacco.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was about right for me too. I quit a month ago and unless I have a few beers on board - I never really think about it. I also live with a (discrete) smoker and in a country where I see people chain smoking in taxis, restaurants, bars, trains, offices etc.

I've tried many times before, but for some reason, this time it's been easy.

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
not only because of this post, I'm quitting smoking. The last smoke I had was almost 48 hours ago. I've been planning on quitting for about a week now. That includes removing ashtrays form the house, throwing away lighters, getting mentally prepared, ect.

I am under the impression that the physical addiction should go away in about another 24 hours and the mental addiction should take about a week to vastly subside. Does that sound about right? I had a two pack a day habbit, and I'm cold turkey quitting, no patch, no gum, no chew, no tobacco.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find someone here to make a bet with.