Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why are smokers in this country treated worse than dogs? Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As stated by Hal.E.Lujah

    You choose to be a smoker, you do not choose be a dog.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KAB1010101)
    Such as? and do you mean all people?
    People are free to believe they are paragons of good health if they so wish, it's just highly unlikely. I'm not going to give you a case study, what individual people do I do not know but all activities carry some risks.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennies4life)
    Dog owners invade peoples privacy. The animals (and they are just animals) are intrusive and a health hazard. Smokers generally just want a quiet fag.
    Human beings are "just" animals, too.

    And smokers can have a "quiet fag" outdoors or in their own home (along with a number of other places). Just not bus shelters, places of employment, pubs and some public buildings.

    Dogs are not free to defecate everywhere. Owners have a responsibility to clean up after their dog and not let it foul public footpaths. However, many don't. Just as smokers have a responsibility to dispose of their used "fag" correctly and not just litter the pavement. However, most don't. The problem is that rules regarding dog fouling, as well as littering, exist but we don't have the people to enforce such rules.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Dogs are just so damn cute!
    I never feel the urge to go cuddle a smoker...
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    People are free to believe they are paragons of good health if they so wish, it's just highly unlikely. I'm not going to give you a case study, what individual people do I do not know but all activities carry some risks.
    I didn't suggest everyone believes they are a 'paragon of good health' :curious: my point is that someone who chooses to take class A drugs or smoke tobacco or drink excessively are knowingly endangering themselves and increasing their risk of being hospitalised.

    Yeah, some other activies ensue risks, e.g crossing the road, but these types of activity are not thought to be intentionally risky and dangerous as they are a normal part of life.

    Sorry but you can't really say that people who smoke, do drugs, over eat excessively are carrying out behaviour that is justified, with regards to risk of being hospitialised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Also, some smokers (not all or even most, but definitely a fair few) tend to have the most awful attitude towards non-smokers, to the point at which I've refused to hang out with friends who smoke because they continually make out that I'm the stuck-up one for actually giving a damn about my health.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I agree, they are taking risks that disproportionately affects their health in comparisons to most other activities. My point would be that we most us do that to a certain extent. Some days I spend far too long staring at a computer screen and I know this is bad for my eyesight, and could potentially cause eye cancer should my habits remain unchanged. The same could be said for those who constantly use their cell phones, the link between brain cancer and cell phone is still murky but for the sake of the argument let's say it exists, should we consider that they knowingly increased their chances of developing a disease and should therefore not be covered by the NHS?

    The state provides a service that was created to care for every citizen regardless of their habits, sure some people will benefit more than others but this isn't what the focus should be. If we go down that road because we want the system to be fairer, then we need to take into account other contributions made by individuals i.e. if someone pays 50k worth of tax each year have they not contributed more than their fair share and should be benefit from the NHS, even if they knowingly increased their chance of contracting a disease?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RachaelBee)
    I don't drink, I'm not overweight, I don't eat too much salt, I'm frequently told to exercise less and have a low sat fat intake. May I remain on my high horse?



    There hasn't been anything conclusive to prove that smokers pay in more than they take out purely because it's such a massive area to assess, it's unfair to use this as a pro or con for smoking. They do take up a lot of hospital beds/time but there is no solid financial argument.
    I didn't say you, I was talking about society in general. If your going to be on your high horse make it consistent and judge all who: smoke, drink, are fat, eat red meat and too much cr*p in their diet, play injury prone sports like rugby and skiing.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    they should ban dogs in this country
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    In two minds about smokers. It's annoying when they blow it in your face and it's annoying when all your mates go outside for a fag leaving you to guard 6 pints but being around people who smoke isn't that big a deal.

    non smokers take the whole thing too far, yes it can give you cancer but what doesn't these days, a lot of non smokers need to unplug their head from their rectum.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JJMS)
    That's the most ridiculous reply to any statement I have ever seen.
    People have a right to smoke if they choose to do so. They now have to go outside to smoke, so obviously, instead of standing in the rain they're going to stand in a doorway. By giving them a shelter it allows them to both be clear of the rain and of non-smokers. What was the need of the sarcastic jacuzzi comment. If someone was to complain about people littering, one might suggest giving a bin, would you offer the same sort of reply to that argument as well, or is this just your personal bias on this topic against those who chose to smoke?
    But by providing them with a shelter, you're basically saying that it's acceptable to smoke. By forcing them to stand outside in the rain, you discourage smoking - people will take a few less cigarettes because they can't be bothered to/ don't want to stand outside in the rain.
    Yes, to a certain extent people have a right to smoke. We can't really do much about people smoking in their own homes, but when they do it in public they are harming other people's health as well as making popular places unpleasant to be in, for example the slightly dirty corner of our local park is never used by kids, dog-walkers, 'normal' teenages/ anyone else wanting to play out side or go for a walk, mainly because it stinks of smoke, is full of rubbish (smokers not only leave their used cigarette butts on the floor, but also crisp packets etc.), and all the smokers glare at anyone who approaches.
    You've also got the issue of the cost to society - the NHS must be spending millions on helping people with conditions such as lung cancer which are often caused by smoking. Also, other people's health suffers - more children are suffering from asthma (which may be due to several causes, including parents/ neighbors smoking, although pollution has also been given as a possible cause).
    The effects on the smokers lives is also important - they will suffer from breathing difficulties, as well as be much more likely to get certain cancers. They will die significantly sooner than most other people (I think one statistic suggested 10 years younger, so they will die only a few years after retiring). This not only affects them, but also their relatives.
    Basically, smoking is horrible, and I fully support a ban.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonkeeper999)
    But by providing them with a shelter, you're basically saying that it's acceptable to smoke. By forcing them to stand outside in the rain, you discourage smoking - people will take a few less cigarettes because they can't be bothered to/ don't want to stand outside in the rain.
    Yes, to a certain extent people have a right to smoke. We can't really do much about people smoking in their own homes, but when they do it in public they are harming other people's health as well as making popular places unpleasant to be in, for example the slightly dirty corner of our local park is never used by kids, dog-walkers, 'normal' teenages/ anyone else wanting to play out side or go for a walk, mainly because it stinks of smoke, is full of rubbish (smokers not only leave their used cigarette butts on the floor, but also crisp packets etc.), and all the smokers glare at anyone who approaches.
    You've also got the issue of the cost to society - the NHS must be spending millions on helping people with conditions such as lung cancer which are often caused by smoking. Also, other people's health suffers - more children are suffering from asthma (which may be due to several causes, including parents/ neighbors smoking, although pollution has also been given as a possible cause).
    The effects on the smokers lives is also important - they will suffer from breathing difficulties, as well as be much more likely to get certain cancers. They will die significantly sooner than most other people (I think one statistic suggested 10 years younger, so they will die only a few years after retiring). This not only affects them, but also their relatives.
    Basically, smoking is horrible, and I fully support a ban.
    Only in theory, in reality it didn't make a difference and people just congregated around doorways (as we are still seeing). Today it was snowing and that didn't stop people (including patients) standing outside in the freezing cold in next to no clothes, providing a shelter encourages people to move away from the doors (even if only a few).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    You can remain on your high horse but I'd still think you were hypocritical, the list was not exhaustive; there are plenty of things people do that damage their health in some way or simply increases their chances of contracting a certain disease. For example exposure to sunlight can increase the chances of contracting skin cancer, and depending on certain genetic factors one may be affected by UVs more so than another, should they regulate their exposure to sunlight in order to reduce the chance that they might be an additional cost to the NHS? This is preposterous, the NHS is here to provide a service to EVERYONE regardless of their lifestyle choice or their genetic predicament. Saying certain people shouldn't be covered is contrary to the ideals of the NHS in the first place.

    Actually they did make up rough figures, the estimated amount made from tobacco products is around 10 billion each year.

    http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/


    While the cost to the NHS would be around 5 billion, supposedly.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...r-1700509.html

    Anyways I certainly wasn't arguing that people should smoke because it fills up the coffers, on the contrary, smoking is hazardous and should be avoided. However I do believe that people should have the right to smoke without being made to feel ashamed for their choice.

    Like I said, it's impossible to get an accurate figure. Taken from the article: '
    But the authors warned that their figures were an underestimate. "First, we have not included indirect costs in our economic analysis; second, we have not included the burden due to passive smoking; and, third, we have not considered all conditions related to smoking," they wrote.'


    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RachaelBee)
    Like I said, it's impossible to get an accurate figure. Taken from the article: '
    But the authors warned that their figures were an underestimate. "First, we have not included indirect costs in our economic analysis; second, we have not included the burden due to passive smoking; and, third, we have not considered all conditions related to smoking," they wrote.'


    An underestimate doesn't mean it's impossible, the figure they've arrived at is of course not exact. An estimate aims to arrive in the ball park region of the actual cost (otherwise what is the point of the estimate) and so we can take the £5.17 billion as being somewhat close to the actual figure.

    That's assuming they're correct in the first place, other researchers have done studies and come to different conclusions most of which are older and have lower figures. I disagree in some of the methods they use to attribute smoking as the predominant factor in various types of diseases, not all lung cancers are caused by smoking, some are partly caused by smoking but other factors also contributed, etc...

    Anyways you're free to believe what you want, if you wish to think that the cost to the NHS is more than the amount brought in by taxes each year feel free do so but in my opinion that would be egregious.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This made me laugh so much and I have no idea why.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bennies4life)
    This society wants to ban smokers from every corner of the land, and yet dogs are free to defaecate openly and knock over small children.

    All that happened after those smoking bans a few years back was that everywhere just stank of piss instead.
    Being around dogs doesn't drastically increase your risk of cancer, lung disease and heart problems
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Dogs are free to knock over children and injure them your right, but those dogs who do that are killed and sometimes their irresponsible owners who don't deserve to be responsible for anything living are sent to prison, so although dogs can knock over children, injure or even kill them there are some laws which don't allow dangerous animals to live. You could even extend this to humans. Humans are free to murder and steal, but they still face the punishment.

    As for the smoking, it will never be banned because thy government get to much money from it. Although they say constantly how smoking kills (And in my opinion it's a disgusting habit which is a bad influence in children and can cause ill health to anyone who has to live with it) the government still want to make money from others weaknesses and addictions.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dragonkeeper999)
    But by providing them with a shelter, you're basically saying that it's acceptable to smoke. By forcing them to stand outside in the rain, you discourage smoking - people will take a few less cigarettes because they can't be bothered to/ don't want to stand outside in the rain.
    Yes, to a certain extent people have a right to smoke. We can't really do much about people smoking in their own homes, but when they do it in public they are harming other people's health as well as making popular places unpleasant to be in, for example the slightly dirty corner of our local park is never used by kids, dog-walkers, 'normal' teenages/ anyone else wanting to play out side or go for a walk, mainly because it stinks of smoke, is full of rubbish (smokers not only leave their used cigarette butts on the floor, but also crisp packets etc.), and all the smokers glare at anyone who approaches.
    You've also got the issue of the cost to society - the NHS must be spending millions on helping people with conditions such as lung cancer which are often caused by smoking. Also, other people's health suffers - more children are suffering from asthma (which may be due to several causes, including parents/ neighbors smoking, although pollution has also been given as a possible cause).
    The effects on the smokers lives is also important - they will suffer from breathing difficulties, as well as be much more likely to get certain cancers. They will die significantly sooner than most other people (I think one statistic suggested 10 years younger, so they will die only a few years after retiring). This not only affects them, but also their relatives.
    Basically, smoking is horrible, and I fully support a ban.
    First of all, the whole point of giving smokers shelters is so they're away from the non-smoking public an therefore not directly damaging their health.
    Secondly, smokers pay more in taxes than they do take out of the NHS's budget.
    Lastly, the world is over populated, so these people who chose to smoke that die '10 years younger' will at least free up some room and resources in the world.
    If someone enjoys smoking, than why not. If they'd rather live 10 years less than the average non-smoker, but enjoy the time they dohave why shouldn't they. By introducing a ban, many people's lives won't be the same as smoking could be something they enjoy.
    And as for smokers glaring at passers by I will have to totally disagree with this statement, as with my experience,smokers are the most sociable group of people. If you walk up to a group of smokers, asking for a lighter is an instant ice-breaker. So support the ban all you want, but the same thing will happen as with marijuana now, and all the money the government could be getting from it will be pushed into the hands of criminals.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sulphur)
    An underestimate doesn't mean it's impossible, the figure they've arrived at is of course not exact. An estimate aims to arrive in the ball park region of the actual cost (otherwise what is the point of the estimate) and so we can take the £5.17 billion as being somewhat close to the actual figure.

    That's assuming they're correct in the first place, other researchers have done studies and come to different conclusions most of which are older and have lower figures. I disagree in some of the methods they use to attribute smoking as the predominant factor in various types of diseases, not all lung cancers are caused by smoking, some are partly caused by smoking but other factors also contributed, etc...

    Anyways you're free to believe what you want, if you wish to think that the cost to the NHS is more than the amount brought in by taxes each year feel free do so but in my opinion that would be egregious.
    I never said that, I said that funding should not be used as an argument for OR against smoking, since we don't know then you can't use it as an argument.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JJMS)
    First of all, the whole point of giving smokers shelters is so they're away from the non-smoking public an therefore not directly damaging their health.
    Secondly, smokers pay more in taxes than they do take out of the NHS's budget.
    Lastly, the world is over populated, so these people who chose to smoke that die '10 years younger' will at least free up some room and resources in the world.
    If someone enjoys smoking, than why not. If they'd rather live 10 years less than the average non-smoker, but enjoy the time they dohave why shouldn't they. By introducing a ban, many people's lives won't be the same as smoking could be something they enjoy.
    And as for smokers glaring at passers by I will have to totally disagree with this statement, as with my experience,smokers are the most sociable group of people. If you walk up to a group of smokers, asking for a lighter is an instant ice-breaker. So support the ban all you want, but the same thing will happen as with marijuana now, and all the money the government could be getting from it will be pushed into the hands of criminals.
    1. No, it encourages them to smoke. It promotes smoking by giving smokers their own social spaces, rather than forcing them away from everyone else. It gives them permission to smoke, when smoking should clearly be banned outright in any public place.
    2. You are not considering the fact that the tax from the sale of cigarettes does not go to the NHS directly, but mainly to other government projects. Money and time is therefore being taken away from patients with more important health issues which they did not cause themselves. Also, no current statistics on this really consider the effects of smoke on other people, they only look at the smokers themselves. If the cost and time of treating or monitoring people with health problems caused by secondary inhalation of smoke then I doubt this would be the case. Also, the effect of smokers health problems on their work life, income, and sick leave is not considered. There are also links between smoking and taking other recreational drugs, which may have more harmful affects on the body - these health problems would not have been filed under 'smoking' but under 'illegal drugs', and so not appear in the statistics.
    3. I have noticed an interesting trend between smoking and living in council houses, and living in council houses and having loads of kids. If people didn't smoke, they would be in better health and so more able to work (and so earn some money themselves and live in their own house). They would also have more control over their body and are less likely to take other 'drugs' such as alcohol (which IS a drug as it has an affect on the body) or illegal drugs, which could lead to a few more kids than they originally planned.
    4. You're considering the individual needs of the smoker, clearly showing a selfish and thoughtless meaning to their smoking. Think about the effects of their early death on their family, particularly if they die at a reasonably young age and so are no longer able to earn money to support their family. Also, think about the effects of smoking on other people's lives. Their kids will be much more likely to suffer from problems such as asthma, and their neighbors will have to put up with smoke and chatter coming over the fence in the evenings when they are trying to enjoy their meal. Their friends will be more likely to develop cancers or breathing difficulties. Smokers can find another hobby, for example a sport. This is also a sociable activity, and has proven health benefits.
    5. As much as you love marijuana, clear links have been made between it and health problems, other drug misuse, and crime. I would have thought that we are far better off with it banned rather than having the tax revenue from its sale. Yes, now some criminals are profiting from selling marijuana, but would this really change much if it was legalised?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.