You can't smoke there!

[HometownGal]

Originally Posted by Preacher

In response to the article. Wow....

This is going to sound harsh... and I apologize up front.
__________________________________________________ ______

Why in the WORLD is the WHO funding and running an anti-smoking campaign? It is the dumbest thing I have heard... I have the same thoughts about that as I do about AIDS...

Diseases and deaths which come PRIMARILY because of personal decisions.....

SHould be put LAST on any funding by any government for research or prevention.

Caveat.... Money SHOULD be spent for education, but once the education is done, it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the person to make the choice.


How many more people die from breast cancer, heart attacks (even "healthy People"), Cancers which are NOT linked to personal choice, and diseases like typhoid and others that are stoppable... because money is being funneled away for stupid anti smoking campaigns... or to find cures for politically correct diseases.

If I had two people laying at my feet dying... and only one of them could be saved, I would take care of the one that ended up there through no decision making process of thier own.

Sure, it is very sad about the other... but it is MORE sad about those who are dying from CURABLE diseases because too much money is being spent on cures for diseases and things like cigarettes because it is the politically correct thing to do, even though they are PRIMARILY choice based diseases.

And no, they don't CHOOSE to get a disease... but they DO CHOOSE to expose themselves to diseases by their actions.

I would rather take care of the ones that get diseases NOT through a personal decision first...

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.

[Preacher]

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.

HTG...

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.

[revefsreleets]

This is going to have all sorts of possible double meanings but that is not my intent. Cleveland was in the running to host the Special Olympics and they lost the event and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue because the Special Olympics is a Global affair, and the fact is that a bunch of countries have heavy populations of smokers. They picked a city in a state that allowed smoking. Ohio is experiencing all kinds of economic fallout from their stupid anti-smoking law, and I expect, if not a repeal, then a moderate alternative bill passed soon.

Regardless of your position on smoking, it's wrong for the government to dictate this kind of sweeping moratorium.

And, by the way, there will never be a direct one-to-one correlation from smoking to lung cancer, because that would mean that EVERY smoker who dies dies from lung cancer. Smoking contributes to cancer and heart disease and all that other stuff, but it can never be a 100% direct cause. I'm not defending it, because I quit myself, but I'm just trying to keep it factual and real.

[HometownGal]

Originally Posted by Preacher

HTG...

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.

I understand where you are trying to go with this, Father, but I'm not buying it. Who are we to play God and pick and choose who should or should not benefit from medical research and treatment? There are millions of people who have died from COPD, emphysema, lung cancer, etc. who have never smoked in their lives nor been around a smoker. Having just gone through my ex's medical crises and hearing from various medical experts that his heart problems are most likely genetically predisposed just lends credence to my belief that most diseases, including heart disease and cancer, are often more determined by a person's genetic makeup. His father died at the early age of 39 from CAD (coronary artery disease) and every one of his uncles on his father's side has had bypass surgery.

I've had adenocarcinoma of the sinuses twice since 1996 and from what I was told by doctors who are experts in the head and neck cancer area, my cancers were more than likely NOT caused by smoking. Since I am adopted, I have no idea what diseases I could be at risk for, but I can safely assume via conversations with my doctors that my cancer was predisposed by genetic markers.

I don't agree at all with medical profiling and segregating people because of their choices in life. God created all of us with fault and I don't believe there is a one of us who can say we don't or haven't engaged in something that isn't good for our health and/or welfare at some point in our lives.

[Preacher]

I understand where you are trying to go with this, Father, but I'm not buying it. Who are we to play God and pick and choose who should or should not benefit from medical research and treatment?

We pick and choose already. AIDS gets so much more money because it is a politically correct disease. It is in vogue to have concerts and raise all types of money for it... but it affects less people then many other diseases. No one is genetically predisposed to AIDS, it is simply a disease that comes primarily from choice, as some other do as well.

It is just my opinion that it is a fairer way of decided what gets researched if those who give out the money take into account actual people being killed by the disease, rather than political nonsense.

There are millions of people who have died from COPD, emphysema, lung cancer, etc. who have never smoked in their lives nor been around a smoker. Having just gone through my ex's medical crises and hearing from various medical experts that his heart problems are most likely genetically predisposed just lends credence to my belief that most diseases, including heart disease and cancer, are often more determined by a person's genetic makeup. His father died at the early age of 39 from CAD (coronary artery disease) and every one of his uncles on his father's side has had bypass surgery.

I've had adenocarcinoma of the sinuses twice since 1996 and from what I was told by doctors who are experts in the head and neck cancer area, my cancers were more than likely NOT caused by smoking. Since I am adopted, I have no idea what diseases I could be at risk for, but I can safely assume via conversations with my doctors that my cancer was predisposed by genetic markers.

No argument. I too am adopted and have no idea about my medical history, except that both my grandfathers died of heart attacks. I have had some funky things happen to me that is ONLY attributable to genetics.

WHat I am asking for... is for the hysteria in political community to stop, and for an actualy assessment of which diseases are REALLY able to be stopped by choice... and then hold off on those and focus on those that are killing more people and are not choice based. That is all.

I don't agree at all with medical profiling and segregating people because of their choices in life. God created all of us with fault and I don't believe there is a one of us who can say we don't or haven't engaged in something that isn't good for our health and/or welfare at some point in our lives.

I don't believe I am segregating people, as much as I am discussing the best way to help the most people who are least able to help themselves. In the end, there is always a methodology for giving research grants and funding WHO drives. I am just wanting to be more scientific and lest politically driven/haphazard.

Heck... SARS has affected how many people in the world? Yet how much more money has been put on it as compared to chicken pox.. which is making a comeback amongst those who have already had it.. and is very destructive? But one is more "sexy" then the other, and gets all the attention.

[tony hipchest]

since our state has pushed through with this anti smoking ban, i decided to quit smoking cold turkey last weekend. now i only smoke boiled ham.

seriously, i tried to quit smoking cigs once. while i did cut down, my crack habit went through the roof.

[HometownGal]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

since our state has pushed through with this anti smoking ban, i decided to quit smoking cold turkey last weekend. now i only smoke boiled ham.

seriously, i tried to quit smoking cigs once. while i did cut down, my crack habit went through the roof.

Oh Tony - you are sooooo funny! YAY! (lol)....




Father - we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. Thank you for the respectful (and very well thought out) debate.

[SteelCityMan786]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

since our state has pushed through with this anti smoking ban, i decided to quit smoking cold turkey last weekend. now i only smoke boiled ham.

seriously, i tried to quit smoking cigs once. while i did cut down, my crack habit went through the roof.

Surprised you haven't been jailed yet.

[tony hipchest]

Originally Posted by SteelCityMan786

Surprised you haven't been jailed yet.

what? you dont think im actually posting from home or work do you?



prison is great! (while cigs and crack is readily available, the boiled ham is hard to come by)

[HometownGal]

Originally Posted by tony hipchest

prison is great! (while cigs and crack is readily available, the boiled ham is hard to come by)

I'm sure crack is readily available.