What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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?

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

pokervintage

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

those people should be thanking him for the free smoke.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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?

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

pokervintage

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly you dont mean attempted murder.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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?

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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?

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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?

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

[ 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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

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.

Re: What Of People Who Start Smoking Now
 

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

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.