You’ve lost me, I asked if you can make a case for smokers to be denied public health care.
Thank you for pointing out these issues and informing me of the difference between dependence and addiction, which I was not aware of.
All I’ll say otherwise is that I care mostly about challenging the notion that caffeine does not kill or lead to serious illness. I think the second part of my post may have done a better job with that.
1 Like
I haven’t decided how I feel about this yet. But what I am wondering is: what will the consequences be if this law is passed, assuming no scope creep or other foul play? While I do think less smoking would be good for society overall, I am concerned about potential increased harms to a minority group that grows their own tobacco. Do people “overdose” on nicotine? I don’t smoke, but as I understand it, cigarettes usually have a “filter”, right? What are the consequences of not having one?
I would rather people not use drugs, especially ones that affect others (like cigarettes do by way of secondhand smoke and making everything smell awful), but in the event that they’re going to anyway, I’d at least want them to do so as safely as possible. When people make drugs at home, I think there tends to be much greater risk for additional harm that could have been prevented by regulated manufacturing.
But you haven’t fully represented the dangers, alcohol consumption leads to impairment which dramatically increases the risk of accidents, fights etc as well as diminishing health and life expectancy. We should include sugar in comparison too, something which children are weaned onto at an early age. I just can’t understand why stopping adults buying cigarettes is a priority, it is just a whim and if we makes laws in this basis, whose whim is next and what is it going to be?
Tobacco is attributed to far more deaths annually than alcohol in every single year from 1990 to 2023, with 1990 being the first year we even have data that includes tobacco.
1 Like
In the UK the deaths from smoking are around 3x alcohol but i can’t see any age related data which I think is important
They are no clearly defined victims. As you called for. Clearly defined victim means you can say that exactly that person was injured in that accident.
Saying other drivers could become victims is way too broad for the definition.
I do not say it is not important, however it is not what you asked for.
Okay and what 100% happens while or after baking the cake regularly that you need to see a doctor?
That depends on the drug. If it is something from nature (weed or tobacco) it is far easier to produce it by yourself without extreme knowledge or danger.
If it is something more chemical (LSD, fentanyl, cocaine) than you need a for higher knowledge to produce it and the risk to make a mistake that could kill you is extremely high.
That would be a good idea, sadly the sugar industry makes a pretty good lobby job to stop studies about this. Mostly framing fats for the issues sugar causes.
Can you proof that this is a whim?
While this might be true it should also be acknowledged that way more people are addicted to nicotine than to alcohol.
Why is for you the age important?
This law is not about the age.
There were two points. The way I replied/quoted things probably confused the situation.
To which I asked:
Then the following exchange about healthcare costs:
We seem to have both done the same thing to each other by just pointing/flipping our argument back. Without actually making a case for our view. So for my point on healthcare:
A public healthcare system creates a reciprocal obligation. You pay for others healthcare just as they pay for yours. By knowingly consuming a substance that leads to severe health issues. You are in effect leaching off of others. Yes, there are other things that do the same. But this discussion is about a smoking ban.
Why does the immediacy of the cost reduction matter? It’s an investment. If you’d check my link there are also more costs from smoking than just the NHS.
You’ve missed the point twice now. The victims of a drunken driver are those put at risk by their drunk driving. That is clearly defined. If a person injures or kills someone while drunk driving they will be accused of this crime in addition to drunk driving.
I didn’t make any such claim, please converse in good faith or I’m done. My point is any activity can result in medical treatment being required. You can’t go excluding people from national healthcare just because you don’t like the thing they are doing. The national health service is there to mop up the mess we make of our bodies by living in them.
We should drop this point otherwise we will discuss in circles.
You did.
I said:
You said:
My point was/is that taxpayer are in some sort victims, because they need to pay for a treatment someone receives that knowingly did/do something that will 100% cause a medical health issue.
I never said that.
There is no point my having a conversation like this, have a nice day.
I haven’t read all the replies non here so this isn’t aimed at anyone specific for specific reasons but I hear the drunk driver thing mentioned a lot when discussing smoking and I personally think its a weak argument if being used to compare to the dangers of cigarettes. A smoker could easily drop a cigarette while driving, try to grab it and run someone over while distracted. Same could happen while reaching for cigarettes or lighting them. Its a hypothetical
What is absolute is smoking has zero redeeming qualities, it ruins the quality of life for everyone that does it, almost always kills them if not stopped, and is so dangerous it kills people that don’t do it purely by proximity
Alcohol is bad in any amount, there is no safe level, smoking cigarettes is infinitely worse.
1 Like
Some people like smoking
1 Like
TBH, I have no idea what the issues are right now, but okay.
There are studies that have caffeine increasing the chance of some types of epileptic seizures.
1 Like
That’s been my experience as well. Not sure what the problem would be since the cashier just takes a look at your ID to verify your age, and no information is stored.
In an ideal world, I also don’t want to pay for their inevitable healthcare. So yes, I do agree that people can do whatever they want with their bodies, but I also don’t want to pay for the consequences.
100%, and it doesn’t seem like some people understand the implications in terms of government finances. All this talk about freedom and nothing about personal responsibility. I’m all for freedom, but I hate it when anyone tells me what to do with my life and body. However, I don’t want my tax dollars to save a smoker and an alcoholic’s life.
But you expect tax dollars from smokers and alcoholics to save yours?
1 Like