Did Deirdre take some tobacco plants with her?

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Did Deirdre take some tobacco plants with her?

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Did Deirdre take some tobacco plants with her?

Saras posted 12-03-98 11:14 AM ET
Smoking... yeah, nothing like a good ciggie. I wonder, will smoking be banned on Chiron? The current situation and the way it develops suggests that smoking will become banned everywhere, except a persons home. Whaddya think?
BoomBoom posted 12-03-98 01:34 PM ET
Ban smoking, everywhere, apart from your private home. I say this because working in cancer research has given me an unique insight in what cigarettes can do.
If people insist on smoking they will have to pay a lot.
- Taxes, taxes and more taxes. Just tax them to death.
- Deny health care. Controversial but it makes sense. Let them pay for their self-inflicted tumours, and not let the general population bear the brunt.
Saras posted 12-03-98 01:47 PM ET
Yeah, BoomBoom, cancer research included Mein Kampf?
Ban non-jogging in the morning
Ban alcohol (oops!)
Ban homosexuality as one of primary reasons for the spread of AIDS
Ban cars for their pollution
Ban McDonalds
Ban DunkinDonuts
Ban coffee
Ban tee
Ban meat
Ban fat
Ban carbohydrates
Ban food
Ban LIFE
BoomBoom posted 12-03-98 01:58 PM ET
No, but do you want to die coughing up blood, and worse giving other people an elevated risk of cancer as well. I fully support what they try doing in the US, banning it from public places and all that. If you want to kill yourself, do it in your home, and kill yourself and only yourself.
I know that you're from the former USSR and that everyone smokes over there, but 85% of lung cancers are directly caused by smoking, costing 100's of millions of pounds(dollars whatever) to the general tax payer. Now if they tax cigarettes more then that pays for it. And if you don't get any new smokers, they all die out. personally i think smoking cigarettes is more dangerous than taking XTC.
BoomBoom posted 12-03-98 01:59 PM ET
BTW, is it just me or does it seem that we always start of a discussion nowadays and that then others follow.
Saras posted 12-03-98 02:06 PM ET
Yeah, seems like we disagree on most of things. Maybe I am your dark evil twin MoobMoob!
Saras posted 12-03-98 02:13 PM ET
You are following a logic that, when really thought about, is flawed. No, not flawed, but if applied to smokers, should be applied to other areas as well. You say that smokers should bear the cost of medicare. Ok, why don't the women bear the cost of medicare more than men, because they give babies, and sometimes they have to do that in public hospitals. Or make the poor pay for the social security. If you do that, please proceed with smokers.
Smoking or nonsmoking is MY CHOICE, not the governments.
OmniDude posted 12-03-98 02:15 PM ET
Never mind about the tobacco plants. I hope Deidre managed to stash away a few cannabis seeds before takeoff....you can make excellent fabric and rope - among other things - from hemp....
OmniDude posted 12-03-98 02:20 PM ET
Sorry, BOT: I Denmark a packet of cigarettes cost 5$, which seem fair enough to me as a casual smoker. But when a park attendent in Battery Park, New York asks me to put out my cigarette out of respect for the sqirrels, I must say I find that ridiculous.
Saras posted 12-03-98 02:24 PM ET
Poor OmniDude,
In Lithuania a pack of Marlboro is $1. Yeehaa!!
Calculus posted 12-03-98 02:32 PM ET
Excuse me, Saras, but is smoking *really* your choice? Or the companies which sell them to you, using a lot of advertising?
Saras posted 12-03-98 02:44 PM ET
Yes, mister "smarter_than_everyone", it's my choice!! When I started smoking, there was no advertising in this country. And I don't buy this bulls**t that advertising is a primary cause of smoking among teenagers. It's the gang and macho feeling that drives it.
Jeje posted 12-03-98 02:55 PM ET
What comes to smoking, my opinion is that one is to respect the others. Smoking is bad, but we have to respect individual right to choose. (This goes for both smokers and non smokers)
There is only one bad thing with your opinion BoomBoom. If smoking was forbidden becouse smoking is dangerous to your health, so would be alchohol, food, water, etc. Everything is bad in to much.
I like the law in Finland, for smoking at work. One is not allowed to smoke in a room, unless all the workers in the room are smokers and that room has a separate ventilation. (So smoke don't go inside) The work place is to arrange a smoking place for smokers (Room with own ventilation and/or out) to smoke. [This law doesn't apply to restaurants. In many restaurants/bars it is forbidden to smoke at the disk]
And yes I do smoke occacionally.
Jojo posted 12-03-98 03:40 PM ET
This got really out of hand--
I think in SMAC, Lady Skye would probably NOT have tobacco plants to begin with, due to the clearly deleterious effects on colonists, who need to breed, work, and other things that cancer tends to inhibit.....
However, I also believe that Gaia's Stepdaughters would be able to discover addictive carcinogenic herbs or plants to use as weapons. Further along the research tree I could see them discovering or developing more addictive varieties, ala Phillip Morris, et. al. And possibly further or somewhere in-between, they would develop the same stuff, only with hallucinogenic or other mind-destroying chemicals.
Realistically, the Hive as well as New Jerusalem would probably be less susceptible to such weapons, but we could see the CEO's HQ falling prey to the rush, as well as University of Planet using excuses for mind-expansion to become victims.
The question becomes one of reaction: will the faction leaders determine that such weapons consititute chemical warfare, which is typically a violation of international law, or will these attacks be allowed as part of normal warfare?
Spoe posted 12-03-98 03:57 PM ET
Maybe she would, OTOH, because tobacco juice makes an excellent natural pesticide. :P
Gord McLeod posted 12-03-98 04:12 PM ET
Saras, yours is the logic that is flawed here.
Why make pregnant mothers pay for having children
when having children in no way harms other
people? To bring it back to smoking, why
should *I* as a non smoker who is allergic
to smoke in the first place, pay your
medical care when you know perfectly well that
smoking is very likely to do you harm, and
you have known this for years?
Childbirth is good for humanity. Smoking is
not. Period. So go ahead and smoke if you
want, but do it only where you're the only
one who's going to die as a result. And don't
you dare come crawling to me for aid when it
catches up with you...
OmniDude posted 12-03-98 04:25 PM ET
Coming from a country that excels in export of porkmeat, I have to ask you, Gord: How about eating too much? Should fat people - those that are not disposed for fatness genetically, I imagine - also pay for themselves if they get a weight-related condition?
Mot necessarily opposed, just curious.
Gord McLeod posted 12-03-98 04:33 PM ET
To my mind, that's a much trickier question
because it centers around eating, which is
pretty much essential for survival. I'm of the
opinion that we eat far too much meat,
especially in North America and some parts of
Europe... I'm by no means a vegetarian, but
I do believe we were designed to eat a fair
bit less meat than we do.
I think I'll have to bring the 'eating is
necessary' line of logic in, and add to that
the 'Eating too much meat is bad for you but
isn't going to harm me in any way' concept
in as well, to justify some sort of medical
aid. My main problem with the smoking issue
is that I have to pay to help those who are
not ONLY harming themselves, but also harming
other people. While the idea of paying to
help those who eat too much meat is tinged
a bit with the notion that they are harming
themselves in a sense, they aren't harming
themselves nearly as bad as a smoker is, and
that consumption does keep them alive too.
Smoking has NO beneficial aspects to help
justify itself as a behavior, and affects
those around the smoker as well as the smoker
him/herself.
OmniDude posted 12-03-98 04:50 PM ET
Well, Gord, I guess I agree, albeit reluctantly. Coming from a country with almost exclusively public health care, I find the idea that I should not expect treatment if I get lung cancer because my condition is my own fault very scary and intuitively unjust. I'd rather that my cigarettes cost a lot and I pay that way. There are people who live a whole life smoking like crazy without ever having any other complications than a nasty morning cough.
And I'm entirely in favor of showing maximum consideration when smoking. If just one person objects to my smoking I'll put out my cigarette without a second thought (well, almost ).
I can't believe that airlines have deemed it neccessary to carry plastic handcuffs in order to be able to pacify bad-tempered smokers, who can't take a few hours without smoking. Those people - the smokers that is - must really be out there.
Gord McLeod posted 12-03-98 05:02 PM ET
I kind of know how you feel, OmniDude. I'm Canadian, and we pride ourselves on our healthcare... but it's still just that fact that it does so much harm to other people as well. If it were only the smoker alone, that'd be a different situation, but unfortunately it isn't.
I do have a great deal more tolerance for smokers such as yourself, who are considerate of the needs of those who don't smoke... I have a number of friends who are smokers of that nature. What I *would* support, in place of medical care for (smoking-induced) lung cancer, would be publicly-funded "rehabilitation" to help people QUIT smoking...
Sofielisk posted 12-03-98 05:04 PM ET
Smoking. I have no trouble with others smoking so long as they don't do it near someone who doesn't want them to. You don't (shouldn't(not usually at least))drive cars off cliffs if you have someone else on board, so I can't see how smoking in public can be legal.
On the other hand. Punishing people for smoking is a definte no-no. Drugs counselling for Smokers yes. Punishment No.
"If you tolerate Smokers then your lungs will be next"
Brother Greg posted 12-03-98 07:05 PM ET
Frankly I think any attempt to disclude (is that a word?) anyone from Health care because of anything that they do to themselves is slightly ridiculous. Frankly, if you chucked everyone out of health care that did anything detrimental to their health, there'd be almost nobody in there.
And where do you draw the line. If I drink 6 beers a week after cricket every saturday, do you then say that it has been proven that alcohol consumption past 3 or 4 drinks can cause damage to your liver, and therefore you shouldn't be covered.
Or what about people that are overweight. It has been proven that a mild increase in weight improves the chances of heart problems. So do we cut them out as well?
Frankly, what it comes down to is that you can't remove from somebody their right to do things of detriment to their body, and neither can you harm them for it. So you can't remove health care from them.
As to the whole smoking thing - I have one point to make to those that think they should be able to smoke anywhere:
What gives you the right to potentially give me lung problems, or at the least improve the chances of me having lung problems. It has been proven that passive smoking increases the chances of lung problems, so in effect, by your smoking, you are threatening my life (albeit it in a minor way for one smoke).
What gives you the right to do that to me?
In your own home, I have no problem with it, although I do object to subjecting children to smoking. But I object to you doing it to me. And frankly I have every right to object to it.
That's the whole problem, most smokers with the attitude of "why the hell can't I smoke wherever I damn well please" are thinking of one person only - themselves.
And as well as the risk of lung problems, you also make my clothes smell. Your habit of smoking has the by product of causing my clothes to become stained and smell. So, my habit is drinking beer. The by-product of that habit is that it makes me piss. So, if you wanna stink my clothes out with smoke, please calmly stand by whilst I piss on your clothes.

Brother Greg.
Gord McLeod posted 12-03-98 07:24 PM ET
Normally I tend to agree with you Brother Greg... this is a charged issue though. When you get right down to it I would probably have to decide to allow them health care too, but it feels wrong to make the public pay when smokers *KNOW* well in advance what is going to happen to them, *and to others*, and then they do it anyway. Addictive or not, they know it before they start. <sigh> It just really ticks me off.
Brother Greg posted 12-03-98 08:21 PM ET
Then again I know smokers who have smoked all their lives, and lived to the ripe old age of 90+, and never had a problem...
So, where do you draw the line?
It could also be argued that people who are overweight, drink stc know what is in store for them...
And what of a person who contributes, but never uses it? Should we give them a rebate?
I know it sucks, but that's life really. I hate it that New South Wales taxes subsidise the rest of Australia. But there's not much that I can do about it, and in the end, sometimes what is good for the whole population is better than what is good for the individual...
Brother Greg.
Mortis posted 12-04-98 12:34 AM ET
I don't know if she brang tobaco, but she would have certainly had some cannabis with her. After all, she is a hippie.
Gord McLeod posted 12-04-98 02:52 AM ET
Right now the line I'm trying to draw is the one that separates those harmful activities that one is aware of in advance *and which harm others too,* from those that one is aware of in advance but which only affects yourself. Drinking and being overweight harm only yourself. (In the sense of medical assistance from stuff like liver disease, etc... I'm not talking about getting drunk and starting a bar fight...)
Gord McLeod posted 12-04-98 02:53 AM ET
Mortis, she's not a hippy at all - she's a biochemist. :-P
DCA posted 12-04-98 04:41 AM ET
Society doesn't own the individual. Everything that doesn't directly harm anyone else (which smoking in public arguably does) should be legal. If I want to kill myself with cigarettes, pork fat, cannabis or heroin, that's my ****ing problem and everybody else should stay the **** out of it.
Of course, since people with unhealthy livestyles will, on average, burden the health care system more than 'healthy' people, I think it's perfectly acceptable to tax the 'questionable' activities to make up for this.
DCA,
On a scale of 1 to 4, what are your feelings about the colour green?
Spoe posted 12-04-98 05:04 AM ET
You know, I find it interesting that some of our more noted conservatives haven't sounded off here yet...
DCA posted 12-04-98 06:00 AM ET
Darwin's Law of Carcinogens: Cancer cures smoking.
BoomBoom posted 12-04-98 07:01 AM ET
Looks like most people sort of agree with me. But I think I didn't make myself clear. I think that smokers, because they know that they have an elevated risk of lung cancer etc., should bear the cost of their treatment as well. This can be through increased taxation, or by directly paying for your treatment. Personally I'm more in favour of the former.
And I agree with DCA, as long as things don't harm others there's no reason for them not to be legal. I mean it is your body, and if you want to ruin it it is your business and your business only. However, if you're activities lead to an increase in the amount of public money spent on you then there must be taxes on those activities. But I don't agree with people who have no consideration of others, and therefore take no consideration of your health when they light up.
As long as you ask me if you can light up I'm fine.
Roland posted 12-04-98 08:00 AM ET
Always finding a topic where you wouldn't expect it..
"My main problem with the smoking issue is that I have to pay to help those who are not ONLY harming themselves, but also harming other people."
So we have two problmes: harming others, and harming yourself while others have to pay for the consequences.
For the first problem, I'm a "light" (sounds weird) smoker. If someone doesn't want me to smoke next to them, fine. So I'm only harming myself.
Second, here, cigarettes are heavily taxed. So I think when I by a pack I'm paying about the cost. And don't forget: smokers don't live as long as non-smokers. So smoking saves a lot of money on pensions and geriatric care (cynical, but true).
Alcohol is only harming myself and taxed as well. The only problem I have is with unhealthy food. Many people eat lots of meat, preferably fat meat, get overweight that you could make two people out of one, and this food does not only not get specially taxed, but even subsidised. So, as a smoker who eats very little meat and has about ideal weight, I feel DISCRIMINATED!!!
Poor me...
PS: Brother Greg: disclude ? don't know... how about exclude ?
Roland posted 12-04-98 08:20 AM ET
On what Deirdre may have taken with her: The Gaians won't have tobacco, cannabis or stuff like that. They talk to the planet, and the planet will give them the secret of SOMA.
Gee, Ma, I'm a Gaian now... look at'em freakin' colors...wow...
Tolls posted 12-04-98 09:05 AM ET
In the UK the taxes on ciggies more than covers the medical costs.
Same with alcohol...my vice...which I am currently paying for with a rather unpleasant hangover...
Saras posted 12-04-98 10:16 AM ET
What's SOMA??
Roland posted 12-04-98 10:36 AM ET
Ehm... difficult. I think the name is from indian mythology and was used by Huxley in "brave new world". It's the perfect drug, whatever that means in detail. At least, it doesn't kill oyu...
Roland posted 12-04-98 10:37 AM ET
Ouch... next question, who is "oyu" ? Darn typos...
Calculus posted 12-04-98 12:43 PM ET
Read "The Runaway Jury" by John Grisham. A lot of answers there. I thought it was very interesting.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Did Deirdre take some tobacco plants with her?
Saras	posted 12-03-98 11:14 AM ET Smoking... yeah, nothing like a good ciggie. I wonder, will smoking be banned on Chiron? The current situation and the way it develops suggests that smoking will become banned everywhere, except a persons home. Whaddya think?
BoomBoom	posted 12-03-98 01:34 PM ET Ban smoking, everywhere, apart from your private home. I say this because working in cancer research has given me an unique insight in what cigarettes can do. If people insist on smoking they will have to pay a lot. - Taxes, taxes and more taxes. Just tax them to death. - Deny health care. Controversial but it makes sense. Let them pay for their self-inflicted tumours, and not let the general population bear the brunt.
Saras	posted 12-03-98 01:47 PM ET Yeah, BoomBoom, cancer research included Mein Kampf? Ban non-jogging in the morning Ban alcohol (oops!) Ban homosexuality as one of primary reasons for the spread of AIDS Ban cars for their pollution Ban McDonalds Ban DunkinDonuts Ban coffee Ban tee Ban meat Ban fat Ban carbohydrates Ban food Ban LIFE
BoomBoom	posted 12-03-98 01:58 PM ET No, but do you want to die coughing up blood, and worse giving other people an elevated risk of cancer as well. I fully support what they try doing in the US, banning it from public places and all that. If you want to kill yourself, do it in your home, and kill yourself and only yourself. I know that you're from the former USSR and that everyone smokes over there, but 85% of lung cancers are directly caused by smoking, costing 100's of millions of pounds(dollars whatever) to the general tax payer. Now if they tax cigarettes more then that pays for it. And if you don't get any new smokers, they all die out. personally i think smoking cigarettes is more dangerous than taking XTC.
BoomBoom	posted 12-03-98 01:59 PM ET BTW, is it just me or does it seem that we always start of a discussion nowadays and that then others follow.
Saras	posted 12-03-98 02:06 PM ET Yeah, seems like we disagree on most of things. Maybe I am your dark evil twin MoobMoob!
Saras	posted 12-03-98 02:13 PM ET You are following a logic that, when really thought about, is flawed. No, not flawed, but if applied to smokers, should be applied to other areas as well. You say that smokers should bear the cost of medicare. Ok, why don't the women bear the cost of medicare more than men, because they give babies, and sometimes they have to do that in public hospitals. Or make the poor pay for the social security. If you do that, please proceed with smokers. Smoking or nonsmoking is MY CHOICE, not the governments.
OmniDude	posted 12-03-98 02:15 PM ET Never mind about the tobacco plants. I hope Deidre managed to stash away a few cannabis seeds before takeoff....you can make excellent fabric and rope - among other things - from hemp....
OmniDude	posted 12-03-98 02:20 PM ET Sorry, BOT: I Denmark a packet of cigarettes cost 5$, which seem fair enough to me as a casual smoker. But when a park attendent in Battery Park, New York asks me to put out my cigarette out of respect for the sqirrels, I must say I find that ridiculous.
Saras	posted 12-03-98 02:24 PM ET Poor OmniDude, In Lithuania a pack of Marlboro is $1. Yeehaa!!
Calculus	posted 12-03-98 02:32 PM ET Excuse me, Saras, but is smoking really your choice? Or the companies which sell them to you, using a lot of advertising?
Saras	posted 12-03-98 02:44 PM ET Yes, mister "smarter_than_everyone", it's my choice!! When I started smoking, there was no advertising in this country. And I don't buy this bulls**t that advertising is a primary cause of smoking among teenagers. It's the gang and macho feeling that drives it.
Jeje	posted 12-03-98 02:55 PM ET What comes to smoking, my opinion is that one is to respect the others. Smoking is bad, but we have to respect individual right to choose. (This goes for both smokers and non smokers) There is only one bad thing with your opinion BoomBoom. If smoking was forbidden becouse smoking is dangerous to your health, so would be alchohol, food, water, etc. Everything is bad in to much. I like the law in Finland, for smoking at work. One is not allowed to smoke in a room, unless all the workers in the room are smokers and that room has a separate ventilation. (So smoke don't go inside) The work place is to arrange a smoking place for smokers (Room with own ventilation and/or out) to smoke. [This law doesn't apply to restaurants. In many restaurants/bars it is forbidden to smoke at the disk] And yes I do smoke occacionally.
Jojo	posted 12-03-98 03:40 PM ET This got really out of hand-- I think in SMAC, Lady Skye would probably NOT have tobacco plants to begin with, due to the clearly deleterious effects on colonists, who need to breed, work, and other things that cancer tends to inhibit..... However, I also believe that Gaia's Stepdaughters would be able to discover addictive carcinogenic herbs or plants to use as weapons. Further along the research tree I could see them discovering or developing more addictive varieties, ala Phillip Morris, et. al. And possibly further or somewhere in-between, they would develop the same stuff, only with hallucinogenic or other mind-destroying chemicals. Realistically, the Hive as well as New Jerusalem would probably be less susceptible to such weapons, but we could see the CEO's HQ falling prey to the rush, as well as University of Planet using excuses for mind-expansion to become victims. The question becomes one of reaction: will the faction leaders determine that such weapons consititute chemical warfare, which is typically a violation of international law, or will these attacks be allowed as part of normal warfare?
Spoe	posted 12-03-98 03:57 PM ET Maybe she would, OTOH, because tobacco juice makes an excellent natural pesticide. :P
Gord McLeod	posted 12-03-98 04:12 PM ET Saras, yours is the logic that is flawed here. Why make pregnant mothers pay for having children when having children in no way harms other people? To bring it back to smoking, why should I as a non smoker who is allergic to smoke in the first place, pay your medical care when you know perfectly well that smoking is very likely to do you harm, and you have known this for years? Childbirth is good for humanity. Smoking is not. Period. So go ahead and smoke if you want, but do it only where you're the only one who's going to die as a result. And don't you dare come crawling to me for aid when it catches up with you...
OmniDude	posted 12-03-98 04:25 PM ET Coming from a country that excels in export of porkmeat, I have to ask you, Gord: How about eating too much? Should fat people - those that are not disposed for fatness genetically, I imagine - also pay for themselves if they get a weight-related condition? Mot necessarily opposed, just curious.
Gord McLeod	posted 12-03-98 04:33 PM ET To my mind, that's a much trickier question because it centers around eating, which is pretty much essential for survival. I'm of the opinion that we eat far too much meat, especially in North America and some parts of Europe... I'm by no means a vegetarian, but I do believe we were designed to eat a fair bit less meat than we do. I think I'll have to bring the 'eating is necessary' line of logic in, and add to that the 'Eating too much meat is bad for you but isn't going to harm me in any way' concept in as well, to justify some sort of medical aid. My main problem with the smoking issue is that I have to pay to help those who are not ONLY harming themselves, but also harming other people. While the idea of paying to help those who eat too much meat is tinged a bit with the notion that they are harming themselves in a sense, they aren't harming themselves nearly as bad as a smoker is, and that consumption does keep them alive too. Smoking has NO beneficial aspects to help justify itself as a behavior, and affects those around the smoker as well as the smoker him/herself.
OmniDude	posted 12-03-98 04:50 PM ET Well, Gord, I guess I agree, albeit reluctantly. Coming from a country with almost exclusively public health care, I find the idea that I should not expect treatment if I get lung cancer because my condition is my own fault very scary and intuitively unjust. I'd rather that my cigarettes cost a lot and I pay that way. There are people who live a whole life smoking like crazy without ever having any other complications than a nasty morning cough. And I'm entirely in favor of showing maximum consideration when smoking. If just one person objects to my smoking I'll put out my cigarette without a second thought (well, almost ). I can't believe that airlines have deemed it neccessary to carry plastic handcuffs in order to be able to pacify bad-tempered smokers, who can't take a few hours without smoking. Those people - the smokers that is - must really be out there.
Gord McLeod	posted 12-03-98 05:02 PM ET I kind of know how you feel, OmniDude. I'm Canadian, and we pride ourselves on our healthcare... but it's still just that fact that it does so much harm to other people as well. If it were only the smoker alone, that'd be a different situation, but unfortunately it isn't. I do have a great deal more tolerance for smokers such as yourself, who are considerate of the needs of those who don't smoke... I have a number of friends who are smokers of that nature. What I would support, in place of medical care for (smoking-induced) lung cancer, would be publicly-funded "rehabilitation" to help people QUIT smoking...
Sofielisk	posted 12-03-98 05:04 PM ET Smoking. I have no trouble with others smoking so long as they don't do it near someone who doesn't want them to. You don't (shouldn't(not usually at least))drive cars off cliffs if you have someone else on board, so I can't see how smoking in public can be legal. On the other hand. Punishing people for smoking is a definte no-no. Drugs counselling for Smokers yes. Punishment No. "If you tolerate Smokers then your lungs will be next"
Brother Greg	posted 12-03-98 07:05 PM ET Frankly I think any attempt to disclude (is that a word?) anyone from Health care because of anything that they do to themselves is slightly ridiculous. Frankly, if you chucked everyone out of health care that did anything detrimental to their health, there'd be almost nobody in there. And where do you draw the line. If I drink 6 beers a week after cricket every saturday, do you then say that it has been proven that alcohol consumption past 3 or 4 drinks can cause damage to your liver, and therefore you shouldn't be covered. Or what about people that are overweight. It has been proven that a mild increase in weight improves the chances of heart problems. So do we cut them out as well? Frankly, what it comes down to is that you can't remove from somebody their right to do things of detriment to their body, and neither can you harm them for it. So you can't remove health care from them. As to the whole smoking thing - I have one point to make to those that think they should be able to smoke anywhere: What gives you the right to potentially give me lung problems, or at the least improve the chances of me having lung problems. It has been proven that passive smoking increases the chances of lung problems, so in effect, by your smoking, you are threatening my life (albeit it in a minor way for one smoke). What gives you the right to do that to me? In your own home, I have no problem with it, although I do object to subjecting children to smoking. But I object to you doing it to me. And frankly I have every right to object to it. That's the whole problem, most smokers with the attitude of "why the hell can't I smoke wherever I damn well please" are thinking of one person only - themselves. And as well as the risk of lung problems, you also make my clothes smell. Your habit of smoking has the by product of causing my clothes to become stained and smell. So, my habit is drinking beer. The by-product of that habit is that it makes me piss. So, if you wanna stink my clothes out with smoke, please calmly stand by whilst I piss on your clothes. Brother Greg.
Gord McLeod	posted 12-03-98 07:24 PM ET Normally I tend to agree with you Brother Greg... this is a charged issue though. When you get right down to it I would probably have to decide to allow them health care too, but it feels wrong to make the public pay when smokers KNOW well in advance what is going to happen to them, and to others, and then they do it anyway. Addictive or not, they know it before they start. <sigh> It just really ticks me off.
Brother Greg	posted 12-03-98 08:21 PM ET Then again I know smokers who have smoked all their lives, and lived to the ripe old age of 90+, and never had a problem... So, where do you draw the line? It could also be argued that people who are overweight, drink stc know what is in store for them... And what of a person who contributes, but never uses it? Should we give them a rebate? I know it sucks, but that's life really. I hate it that New South Wales taxes subsidise the rest of Australia. But there's not much that I can do about it, and in the end, sometimes what is good for the whole population is better than what is good for the individual... Brother Greg.
Mortis	posted 12-04-98 12:34 AM ET I don't know if she brang tobaco, but she would have certainly had some cannabis with her. After all, she is a hippie.
Gord McLeod	posted 12-04-98 02:52 AM ET Right now the line I'm trying to draw is the one that separates those harmful activities that one is aware of in advance and which harm others too, from those that one is aware of in advance but which only affects yourself. Drinking and being overweight harm only yourself. (In the sense of medical assistance from stuff like liver disease, etc... I'm not talking about getting drunk and starting a bar fight...)
Gord McLeod	posted 12-04-98 02:53 AM ET Mortis, she's not a hippy at all - she's a biochemist. :-P
DCA	posted 12-04-98 04:41 AM ET Society doesn't own the individual. Everything that doesn't directly harm anyone else (which smoking in public arguably does) should be legal. If I want to kill myself with cigarettes, pork fat, cannabis or heroin, that's my **ing problem and everybody else should stay the ** out of it. Of course, since people with unhealthy livestyles will, on average, burden the health care system more than 'healthy' people, I think it's perfectly acceptable to tax the 'questionable' activities to make up for this. DCA, On a scale of 1 to 4, what are your feelings about the colour green?
Spoe	posted 12-04-98 05:04 AM ET You know, I find it interesting that some of our more noted conservatives haven't sounded off here yet...
DCA	posted 12-04-98 06:00 AM ET Darwin's Law of Carcinogens: Cancer cures smoking.
BoomBoom	posted 12-04-98 07:01 AM ET Looks like most people sort of agree with me. But I think I didn't make myself clear. I think that smokers, because they know that they have an elevated risk of lung cancer etc., should bear the cost of their treatment as well. This can be through increased taxation, or by directly paying for your treatment. Personally I'm more in favour of the former. And I agree with DCA, as long as things don't harm others there's no reason for them not to be legal. I mean it is your body, and if you want to ruin it it is your business and your business only. However, if you're activities lead to an increase in the amount of public money spent on you then there must be taxes on those activities. But I don't agree with people who have no consideration of others, and therefore take no consideration of your health when they light up. As long as you ask me if you can light up I'm fine.
Roland	posted 12-04-98 08:00 AM ET Always finding a topic where you wouldn't expect it.. "My main problem with the smoking issue is that I have to pay to help those who are not ONLY harming themselves, but also harming other people." So we have two problmes: harming others, and harming yourself while others have to pay for the consequences. For the first problem, I'm a "light" (sounds weird) smoker. If someone doesn't want me to smoke next to them, fine. So I'm only harming myself. Second, here, cigarettes are heavily taxed. So I think when I by a pack I'm paying about the cost. And don't forget: smokers don't live as long as non-smokers. So smoking saves a lot of money on pensions and geriatric care (cynical, but true). Alcohol is only harming myself and taxed as well. The only problem I have is with unhealthy food. Many people eat lots of meat, preferably fat meat, get overweight that you could make two people out of one, and this food does not only not get specially taxed, but even subsidised. So, as a smoker who eats very little meat and has about ideal weight, I feel DISCRIMINATED!!! Poor me... PS: Brother Greg: disclude ? don't know... how about exclude ?
Roland	posted 12-04-98 08:20 AM ET On what Deirdre may have taken with her: The Gaians won't have tobacco, cannabis or stuff like that. They talk to the planet, and the planet will give them the secret of SOMA. Gee, Ma, I'm a Gaian now... look at'em freakin' colors...wow...
Tolls	posted 12-04-98 09:05 AM ET In the UK the taxes on ciggies more than covers the medical costs. Same with alcohol...my vice...which I am currently paying for with a rather unpleasant hangover...
Saras	posted 12-04-98 10:16 AM ET What's SOMA??
Roland	posted 12-04-98 10:36 AM ET Ehm... difficult. I think the name is from indian mythology and was used by Huxley in "brave new world". It's the perfect drug, whatever that means in detail. At least, it doesn't kill oyu...
Roland	posted 12-04-98 10:37 AM ET Ouch... next question, who is "oyu" ? Darn typos...
Calculus	posted 12-04-98 12:43 PM ET Read "The Runaway Jury" by John Grisham. A lot of answers there. I thought it was very interesting.