Smoker haters

Yes. Frankly, I think smoking is cool. I like how it looks and wouldn't mind taking it up if it didn't completely fuck you up at the later stages in life....and I am not even being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

Smoking is way cool, beacuse it's so shitty.

When I smoke, I feel like fucking James Dean. I get the feeling that everyone else thinks they're look cool when they smoke. But they really don't. Not cool like me.
 

Let's talk Tax Burdens.

I pay £1,100 per month in tax.
If I smoke, and bearing in mind that I live in the UK, where we have a FREE contribution driven health service ( yes, that's the one where you get health care even if you don't contribute, so long as you're a resident), I should by the premise set in the first few posts of this thread, have to pay extra for health care simply because I'm a smoker..

Let's think of those who drink. We make them pay extra for liver function assistance.

Those who participarte in sports such as skiing and mountain climbing and sea diving pay extra for any related illnesses or injuries.

Those who have sex and become infected by a sexually transmitted disease pay extra for the ammeliorative treatment.

Those who are injured playing any sport, should pay extra for any disorder arising from their sport.

And those who eat a bit too much should pay extra for cardiac related problems...

If all of the above are true, then I agree.
 
Sure, smoking looks cool. Here's a picture of my dad looking cool.
Resize%20Wizard-3.jpg


But he looks really cool here, dying from lung cancer with only a couple of months to live.
cancer.jpg
 
Cool is not an issue. Who sould pay and Why??

Esp,

That's kind of the way insurance works in the USA.
Click to expand...
Yes. However, If I want to be treated in the UK, I go to the NHS (National Health Service). This has no fixed cost to the individual. If you earn nothing, you pay nothing and still get the same treatment as an individual who pays £1000 (about $1700) per month.
I get private medical treatment but only because I belong to a really good company. I don't pay for this. This is payed entirely for by my company (apart from tax (about 20%)).
If I was without this benefit, I would recieve treatment from the taxes that I pay. But because I am treated privately, my (potential) treatment would be payed for by BUPA (a private medical insurance company).
I still pay for all those not covered by medical insurance.
This is not a bad thing.
If I were to become unemployed, and so not covered by private medical insurance, my 'stamp' (my generic contribution towards those uncovered by medical insurance) which is a compulsory part of my income based tax would pay for all of my treatment (potentially).
Now not everyone contributes as much as me.
But we all have the same vote. And the same statutory medical coverage.
Surely this is one of the principles of democracy?
 
Last edited:
just chuck the cost onto the smoker, there is about $8 of tax on a box of smokes, so the government doesnt haev to worry
 
Tried smoking a couple of times, but dont like the cost - and had a boyfriend who hated it. If people want to do it, I have no problem with them. Just do it near an open window if you can?
 
Repo Man,
Your dad would have looked even cooler had he hit the weight room a little.

The cigarette does make him look real bad ass though.

As to the dying thing, did your mum smoke? Because she looks as shitty as your dad does.
 
Android,

Those numbers aren't controlled for population size. If a black person radomly attacked someone in the US, he'd be more likely to hit a white person than a black.
 
My uncle brought her out to visit one last time. My aunt (my dad's youngest sister) came for a visit. She was also a heavy smoker. The nicotine patch was the latest thing at the time. I asked her if she had explored the possibility of using it to quit smoking. She said "That's for people who want to quit." That was in 1992.

In the summer of 2001, I took a trip to say goodbye to my aunt. She was on her deathbed from lung cancer. When last I saw her, she only looked a little better than my dad looks in his last photo. She was dead by that fall.

But don't let any of this deter you from smoking. I need you people to pay into Social Security, and then die before you can collect. Help keep the system solvent.
 
Smoking WILL kill you but at list it looks cool. On the other hand :How can you say that smoking will kill you if you don't know when you are going to die anyway.
 
My father was sixty two when he died. I'd have to do some checking to find out for sure how old my aunt was, but I believe she was in her mid to late fifties.
 
the reason I ask was, and this is not to disrespect you are your father and aunt, my mother smoked from 13 - 82( 40 a day) my dad from 13 - 79( tobacco, I can always remember him with a butt in his mouth), none through cancer, it all depends on you genetic make up.
I dont smoke, and I abore the smell of smoke. but I dont think smoking is the main cause of lung cancer.
 
That is a logical fallacy.

Hasty Generalization

Description:

The argument draws a conclusion from a sample that is too small, i.e. is made up of too few cases.

Examples:

"In both of the murder mysteries I have read, the District Attorney was the culprit. All mystery writers like to make lawyers out to be villains."

"We have now had five dates together. It is clear we are well-suited. Let's get married."

Discussion:

The size of the sample needed to draw a valid conclusion depends, in part, upon the size of the class from which the sample is drawn. The larger the size of the main class, the larger the size of the necessary sample. However, sample size does not increase at the same rate as the class size, so the proportion of a very large class that must be sampled is much smaller than the proportion of a very small class. For this reason, a sample with only one or two members is never a fair sample, even of a very small class.
http://www.cuyamaca.net/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/hasty.asp

Smoking does not guarantee lung cancer, anymore than walking across a minefield guarantees you'll have you legs blown off by stepping on a mine. But it does greatly increase the probability you'll be afflicted with this dread disease, just as breathing asbestos or exposure to radiation will.
 
Any commentary would merely be repetition of other points already made.

(Link withdrawn; file transfer issues. If for some reason you have already downloaded this file, trash it. Virex showed it clean, but the file is still exceptionally problematic. It's not downloading as itself, and simply attempting to open it brought about the necessity of a reboot.)​

Oh, I do have one question:

If "smoking in public" is made illegal, including commercial establishments, smoking will be prohibited at tobacconists' shops. This seems an absurdity: How many non-smokers hang out in tobacco shops?​
 
Last edited:
pavlosmarcos said:
I dont smoke , and i dislike people who preach, that smoking is evil.
there are millions of ways to die, I met a woman who condemned a person for smoking, and she drove a 4x4, to and from the school, what a frigging hypocrite.
it all depends on your metabolism, my mum smoked from the age of 13 - 88.
there is no evidence that passive smoking harms anyone, alright the smell is obnoxious, and being in a smokey room can make you cough. but your body gets used to most of the nasties of life, but to be to clinical clean will cause more harm then good, my father once said a little dirt never hurt anyone.
Click to expand...

She drove a 4x4?? How the hell does that make her a hypocrite? lol :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top