The First Nonsmoking Nation


edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Good for them. I still believe that anyone who is sick due to smoking should not be entitled to free care on the NHS, they brought it on themselves.
 

blackfox

macrumors 65816
Feb 18, 2003
1,208
4,029
PDX
edesignuk said:
Good for them. I still believe that anyone who is sick due to smoking should not be entitled to free care on the NHS, they brought it on themselves.
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.

While I am happy for Bhutan, I am wary of curbing the right to do something, however unhealthy...
 

SteveC

macrumors 6502
Jul 7, 2003
438
0
blackfox said:
where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily?
Yep. I agree with edesignuk. This is a good move, and I'm kind of annoyed that I pay high insurance premiums because of other people's lack of discipline. (Smoking, being obese, etc.) And don't play the hereditary card. ;) People don't get fat from fasting.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
blackfox said:
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.

While I am happy for Bhutan, I am wary of curbing the right to do something, however unhealthy...
I know, I know, It'll never happen and that's because of these other possibilties you stated. But, I still hate to see my hard earned tax money go to idiots who still continue to smoke/start to smoke when the dangers are well known.

Just to add to that, anyone who get's ill from smoking has no sympothy from me! :eek:
 

MongoTheGeek

macrumors 68040
blackfox said:
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.
Well oxygen has long been known to be cause of massive cellular damage so anyone who uses oxygen shouldn't be allowed nationalized health care.

As for smoking. I think it stinks but if people want to do it, fine by me as long as they keep the stink away from me.
 

daveL

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2003
2,425
0
Montana
edesignuk said:
I know, I know, It'll never happen and that's because of these other possibilties you stated. But, I still hate to see my hard earned tax money go to idiots who still continue to smoke/start to smoke when the dangers are well known.

Just to add to that, anyone who get's ill from smoking has no sympothy from me! :eek:
I was under the impression that countries with socialized medicine went out of their way to tax tobacco products commensurate with the health costs associated with their use. I know Canada has very high taxes on tabacco just for this reason. It makes sense to me, although I don't know how much of the tax actually ends up in the NHS (or equivalent) coffers, thus offsetting general tax revenue that supports the system.
 

stoid

macrumors 601
MongoTheGeek said:
Well oxygen has long been known to be cause of massive cellular damage so anyone who uses oxygen shouldn't be allowed nationalized health care.

As for smoking. I think it stinks but if people want to do it, fine by me as long as they keep the stink away from me.
Well I guarantee that if everyone stopped using oxygen for a day that health care costs would become zero... because everyone would be dead. That's not even remotely similar to the smoking issue.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
daveL said:
I was under the impression that countries with socialized medicine went out of their way to tax tobacco products commensurate with the health costs associated with their use. I know Canada has very high taxes on tabacco just for this reason. It makes sense to me, although I don't know how much of the tax actually ends up in the NHS (or equivalent) coffers, thus offsetting general tax revenue that supports the system.
Tobacco is taxed. But the burden on the NHS from somking related illness is massive.
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Original poster
Oct 20, 2002
16,570
0
A government shouldn't have the power to pass laws restricting freedom. If your activity isn't hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be told no. It's definitely a problem when it comes to causing increased health care. They should be charged a fee commensurate to the risk, especially when it comes to smoking. It's an activity under ones complete control. Food however is critical to life.
 

SuperChuck

macrumors 6502
Nov 15, 2003
299
0
Chucktown, SC
I have major problems with laws that prevent people from doing things that do not harm others. Casual, unprotected sex can be a lot deadlier than smoking, do we ban that? Should we restrict people from forcing others to breathe in their second-hand smoke? Sure. Just so long as we take other deadly pollutants with equal seriousness. The banning of smoking in public places in NYC and LA is a joke - the air is toxic as it is.
 

Brize

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2004
732
0
Europe
edesignuk said:
Tobacco is taxed. But the burden on the NHS from somking related illness is massive.
Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS £1.5 Billion per year. Tobacco tax revenues raise £9 Billion per year.

In all probability, a complete ban on tobacco products would necessitate a tax increase if the NHS were to be maintained.
 

edesignuk

Moderator emeritus
Mar 25, 2002
19,077
1
London, England
Brize said:
Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS £1.5 Billion per year. Tobacco tax revenues raise £9 Billion per year.

In all probability, a complete ban on tobacco products would necessitate a tax increase if the NHS were to be maintained.
That's splendid. Do I care? No. If you smoke when you know it is killing you then you don't deserve NHS care IMO. Course that's just my own opinion.
 

Brize

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2004
732
0
Europe
edesignuk said:
That's splendid. Do I care? No. If you smoke when you know it is killing you then you don't deserve NHS care IMO. Course that's just my own opinion.
The issue here is that smokers are probably maintaining the NHS through tobacco revenues.

Without smokers, the NHS probably wouldn't exist for non-smokers to receive treatment for non-smoking related illnesses, let alone for smokers to receive treatment for smoking related illnesses.
 

candan9019

macrumors regular
wdlove said:
A government shouldn't have the power to pass laws restricting freedom. If your activity isn't hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be told no. It's definitely a problem when it comes to causing increased health care. They should be charged a fee commensurate to the risk, especially when it comes to smoking. It's an activity under ones complete control. Food however is critical to life.
I agree, they should be charged a fee. In Ontario here people freely use our health system for trivial things, like getting a band-aid from emergency because it's free.

I don't know about the rest of Canada but I have noticed in here Ontario there is a ridiculous amount of smokers, especially teenagers. In Colorado there were very few. I don't want to pay for the inevitable increase in cancer rates. Getting smoking banned however is very hard to do in any democracy. A NHS with co-pays and added fees for self-inflicted problems would sure help.
 

maya

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2004
3,225
0
somewhere between here and there.
Come on now, baby steps........today Bhutan tomorrow NewYork city....hold on make that tomorrow city near Bhutan. :)


While I do agree that health care for smokers in relation to smoking should receive some health care, it should come at a premium.


We cannot argue the issues with fat and health since some people have genes that lead them on the overweight side and some people may look health while in actuality they are not. Smoking is not a genetic issues its a choice and comes down to free will, and bad choices.
 

Brize

macrumors 6502a
Jun 13, 2004
732
0
Europe
maya said:
We cannot argue the issues with fat and health since some people have genes that lead them on the overweight side and some people may look health while in actuality they are not. Smoking is not a genetic issues its a choice and comes down to free will, and bad choices.
Poor diet and a lack of exercise are the biggest contributory factors to health problems. Most of us have the opportunity to eat healthily and do some light exercise on a regular basis, but many make a choice to eat a disproportionate amount of junk food, drink too much alcohol, and lead a sedentary life.

Are we to charge these people a premium as well, or would it simply be easier to offer tax breaks to those who lead a perfectly healthy lifestyle?
 

Xtremehkr

macrumors 68000
Jul 4, 2004
1,897
0
blackfox said:
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.

While I am happy for Bhutan, I am wary of curbing the right to do something, however unhealthy...
I don't think it has gone that far yet. I get your point though. Maybe a compromise would be to remove smokers from government provided healthcare if they choose to smoke. They have the freedom to smoke and everyone else is free not to pay for them?
 

chanoc

macrumors 6502
May 20, 2003
339
0
Anchorage, Alaska USA
Non-smokers listen up!

"Any non-smokers here? Good because I have something important to tell you! Ready? Okay here it goes: non-smokers die every day. :eek:

Sleep tight! :D "

- Bill Hicks
 

chanoc

macrumors 6502
May 20, 2003
339
0
Anchorage, Alaska USA
wdlove said:
Bhutan is the first nation to ban smoking. The ban began on December the fine is equivalent to $232. Only 1 - 3% are smokers. They don't produce any tobacco. Bhutan wants to set an example for the rest of the world.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112449&
Okay, now Bhutan is on my black-list of countries I will not visit. Just because you do not smoke, drink, consume fatty foods, do drugs, etc. does not mean you will live forever - get real people! :rolleyes:
 

combatcolin

macrumors 68020
Oct 24, 2004
2,284
0
Northants, UK
edesignuk said:
Good for them. I still believe that anyone who is sick due to smoking should not be entitled to free care on the NHS, they brought it on themselves.
Agree 100%

Once had a MASSIVE (i.e almost fisticuffs) argument with a friend when we were 18 when i accused him of being a sheep because he started smoking when we went college.

Any action that relegates smokers to feel like 2nd class citizens gets my vote.
 

maya

macrumors 68040
Oct 7, 2004
3,225
0
somewhere between here and there.
Brize said:
Are we to charge these people a premium as well, or would it simply be easier to offer tax breaks to those who lead a perfectly healthy lifestyle?

That sounds like a very good idea, give a tax break to people who are healthy. You can already see this with some companies that promote people who are healthy and have a positive attitude towards they work and coworkers. :)

Charge a premium for an unhealthy lifestyle would help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system and channel the money acquired via premiums to research for more important illnesses.

Since we have paid sick days, people who do not take they sick days can bank them and accumulate them for a time when it is really needed without drawbacks. <-- I am one of those few. :)