Originally Posted by HometownGal
Father - no disrespect intended here, but let me ask you something. Do you eat red meat? Red meat has been scientifically linked to high cholesterol levels and heart disease. So - using your theory - if there are two people laying at my feet dying and one is a vegetarian and one is a consumer of red meat - I should choose to help the vegeterian because the red meat eater made that "personal decision" to "expose themselves to diseases by their actions"?
Also - you may want to check with the state you live in to see if they charge consumers a cigarette tax and what they use that tax for. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that you, as a non-smoker, benefit from the tax put on cigarettes in some way, shape or form.
Your always respectful... so don't worry about typing "no disrespect intended"... though I appreciate the thoughts.
On the post itself... My point was the fact that the WHO is spending BILLIONS of dollars to stop a legal product from being sold... in the same way that our government is spending billions of dollars to cure AIDS... when there are many more diseases that hit many more people who are much more innocent in their decision making.
There is always a spectrum which any argument can be taken to far. In my scenario of two people at my feet... I was envisioning one with a STD or cancer from smoking, and one with SARS or Breast cancer. There is a different level of decision making between the two. In one, the person usually knows all the risks before the decision is made (I am talking about decisions made today... not years ago when people were lied to about tobacco), yet they still choose to risk their life. Because it is a decision based result, I do not believe that those diseases should have the federal and international focus as diseases that are NOT decision based for the most part... such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, Leukemia, or other types of diseases and illnesses.
The issue of red meat is a bit of a misnomer. Red meat in moderation is fine. Heck, my mothers doctor told my mother she MUST eat more red meat because her iron levels are deficient. Furthermore, red meat is usually only one of MANY causes that together cause the heart attack. Many times, genetics, stress, other undiagnosed problems, etc. cause the heart attack.
The one-to-one relationship of smoking to lung cancer is much greater then red meat to heart attacks.
Please don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a hospital should not see a person if they have lung cancer. I am not saying that smokers are reprobate. I am simply saying that the resources at our disposal should be directed at those diseases which we get REGARDLESS of our decision making... and affect the most people. Those diseases we get which NO personal responsibility is involved first... then those diseases which a little personal responsibility is involved... then, last, those diseases which much personal responsibility is involved. AIDS, Syphilis, Emphysema, etc. can be almost eradicated in one generation with good decision making. Breast cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc. will not be.
That is all I am saying...
But like you said earlier... Good luck trying to get the govt. to do something logical!
BTW... Both of my grandfathers died in thier early 50's of heart attacks... and yes, I am somewhat overweight and love junk food and red meat. Until I moved out here, I would smoke a pipe or cigar about once every two weeks... and LOVED it. So I include myself in that list of people that should be focused on secondly... because of my decisions.