0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 5691 times.
I have not had a smoke (tobacco) in over 12 years now. I could care less if you smoke around me at a party. I chose to come, and you chose to smoke.I have been diabetic (type 1) for over 12 years now. Eat all the donuts around me you want, I am used to this too!
I can respect Leonard's decision. It is his life.Same for all others who make decisions on a daily basis.I'd prefer if the smokers would respect the signage and smoke where they are "allowed to" and if they do that, I am totally fine with it.
Not really the same is it?Would you be ok with my smoking in the same room with you if you had COPD?Its not like when i eat donuts I am throwing sugar at your face.His life yes, but it will be our health system, that means yours and my tax dollers paying to keep him breathing. If he choose to not go to the hopsital and does not force his care givers to breath his smoke then sure, he is not affecting anyone else....
But we also go overboard in this logic. If you are trying to guilt-shame people by using extreme examples like COPD or tax-payer healthcare dollars, then should we not use that same logic for all the other sh*t people routinely do?<SNIP>Sorry, I am not trying to be a bugbear.. just pointing out that the anti-smoking movement have made all our reactions over the top. For what it is worth, I don't smoke. But it feels like we use selective logic when it comes to smoking. And I resent the fact that mass media manipulated us this way. Just saying...
As a somewhat related factoid: according to the book "Sugar Blues" by William Dufty, in regions of the world (and there can't be many now) where people smoke tobacco that is cured naturally - that is, by hanging the leaves outside under cover to dry instead of 'force curing' (in low temperature ovens) which is the norm - there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancer. This is attributed to the fact that it is the inhaling of the byproducts of the combustion of sugar which is the carcinogenic factor, and naturally cured tobacco has much lower sugar content than force cured.http://www.amazon.com/Sugar-Blues-William-Dufty/dp/0446343129As a further aside; the history of the printing of the first and second edition of that book is interesting. The manuscript for the first copy was 'lost' by the printer (this really never happens) and since there was no carbon copy the book had to be re-written and was sent to another printer. That first run of 2000 went out to retailers bu basically disappeared off the shelves. The third try finally got the book out there. I bought a copy in around 1973, I think, although I see it is said to have been written in 1975. I don't think that is correct.
Sooo why then do are there high rates of cancer for people that work in tobacco fields?
His life yes, but it will be our health system, that means yours and my tax dollers paying to keep him breathing.
Scott,You make a lot of ASSumptions. Many smokers will require medical assistance sooner and to a greater degree than non-smokers. They may not necessarily live longer but they may require as much or more medical care.
And it isn't just the harm they do to themselves. For instance, my non-smoking baby girl neighbor. Her mother smoked so the baby was born prematurely and with defects. She spent the first four weeks of her life in a hospital and had two surgeries. Woops, she had not smoked one cigarette so I guess that blows my theory that non-smokers need less medical care. And yes, I don't need to hear about outliers like a 101-year old who smoked since they were 15. There will always be outliers.
I worked for Manville Corp. They filed bankruptcy because of all the asbestos related illnesses. It was well documented that smokers suffered a higher incidence because smoking killed the cilia (or whatever) in the lungs that help to expel particles.
