Comments on: So let it be written, So let it be done…

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:24:25 +0000

I am still quite surprised that the non-smoking comments have had a belligerent tone for the most part. Many like the one above that offer nothing to the conversation and show no respect for comments and viewpoints on the other side.

I know many of you have had arguements outside of this space which may have jaded and polarized your view. But the hope was to put those aside and discuss this topic treating each other like human beings.

By: Monique

Monique — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 22:19:41 +0000

Never mind who’s actually whining about other people’s business — what’s scary is the word-for-word echoes of bygone eras when we had to fight smug-ass pigs like this for control over our bodies just because the bureaucrats were on their side at the time. So here’s an echo right back at ya: My Body, My Choice, pig.

By: Strange

Strange — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:18:51 +0000

ROFL – keep on whining.

By: Monique

Monique — Thu, 01 Jun 2006 09:21:50 +0000

Twisting the reasoning? Ugh — never mind that it’s simply restating exactly the same thing to say “why should a non-smoking taxpayer pay [the increased costs] for a smoker’s healthcare [instead of banning his activity]” — the follow-on comparison is even MORE disgusting… asserting that a smoker’s body is something YOU OWN part of, like a house, because you ‘chip in’ to it?? Foul.

By: chris

chris — Wed, 31 May 2006 22:28:21 +0000

Also, sugar and alcohol cost the health system more than tobacco. According to strange’s line of thinking, they should be banned and excercise mandated.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:57:24 +0000

The reports in the media seem to be mixed as to whether this will have an affect on cutting down on smoking. The government says it will, but since when do we believe everything they say.

Strange, your analogy seems extreme for effect. Does anyone have any numbers regarding how much a non-smoker takes from health care in their lifetime and how much a smoker takes. I mean real numbers for each and not how much one takes more than the other.

Logic would suggest that it should be fairly even since a non-smoker should live longer (usually longer after retirement) and incur costs during that time. Long term diseases that tax the healthcare system inflict smokers and non-smokers alike.

By: Strange

Strange — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:33:30 +0000

Chris, you’re twisting the reasoning a little bit because it goes more along the lines of: “why should a non-smoking tax payer pay for a smoker’s healthcare who knownly damages his body?”
It’s the same as if I was chiping in to a build a house with you knowing that you were going to destroy your side of the building to make me pay for the half of the repairs – seems a little awkward doesn’t it ?

By: chris

chris — Wed, 31 May 2006 20:06:37 +0000

It’s funny how in Toronto and other North American jurisdictions with stronger traditions of limited government, it’s usually argued that the ban isn’t meant to protect smokers from themselves, but to protect the people around them from the supposed (and unproven) cancer risk that exposure to second-hand smoke brings. But here in Quebec, it’s shamelessly asserted that the ban is definitely intended to reduce smoking in the pronvice–not for any sentimental humanitarian reasons, but to ease budget pressure on the province’s wasteful and inept health care system!

So the reasoning goes: since the healthcare system is public, the government has the authority to ban activities which might increase its costs. This seems fundamentally wrongheaded to me. The point of public healthcare is not to grant government the authority to dictate our lifestyle choices.

By: Dahlia

Dahlia — Wed, 31 May 2006 18:41:42 +0000

What about B.O.? What will the government do about that? At least perfume and cologne are made to mask the smell, but will the poor citizens do when they’re confronted with someone with the inevitable smell of bacteria and sweat in the air? I think everyone should start wearing gas masks for good measure.