Anti-smoking advocate loses battle with cancer

[Frank the Tank]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...592592-cp.html

I'm sure we've all seen the ads with her in them. Canada seems to be really leading the push against smoking.

I am slightly torn because of the whole "personal freedoms" issues and whatnot, but I hate smoking so very very much that I have to side with the government on this one.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Frank the Tank

but I hate smoking so very very much that I have to side with the government on this one.

Do you mean side with the gov't as far as the Ontario WCB not allowing her claim? Or side with the gov't as far as starting to ban smoking in public places?

[Frank the Tank]

Sorry, I agree with the whole "ban smoking everywhere" part of it.

[jolinar of malkshor]

I agree with you Frank. If people want to smoke then fine go out side and dont bother others. It makes me upset that people argue its ok to smoke in public places that only allow people 18 years or over, A lot of the people that work at these places DO NOT smoke and are forced to work in the haze for hours on end. Yet you get people that say "They dont have to work there". But if you use that arguement then why have any safety rules in place at all? It would be like construction companies not providing hard hats to there workers and saying "if they dont want to work here than they dont have to" or not providing protective gear for firefighters. Same thing.

If you want to smoke go kill yourself alone where you wont affect anyone else.

[jolinar of malkshor]

No one is liable other than people who smoke. No one is forcing them to kill themselves. Personal choice, accept the outcomes of your choices.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If you want to smoke go kill yourself alone where you wont affect anyone else.

And the final irony is that many people started smoking to be part of the crowd, and in the end the last few smokers will be smoking alone.

The one thing with worker's comp- I seem to recall hearing that even fire fighters were having problems getting comp for long term exposure to smoke; and that is something that by it's very nature is a danger that firefighters would be exposed to.

[White Doors]

Not to mention welders

[GrrlGoalie33]

As a smoker, I have absolutely no problem with going outside for a smoke. I go outside when I'm at work. I own my own home and go outside when I'm at home too - totally by choice.

The problem I have is the Nazi-like anti smokers that cough up at storm whenever you come within 30' of them outside. You wanted me outside - I am there. Don't try and push me somewhere else now.

And based on the amount of both federal and provincial tax I pay on my smokes (over $5 a pack), I'd guess that the revenues they get far surpass their expenses.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by fotze

Yes they are, the courts have already decided that. I realize that reason and logic do not enter into these decisions.

The only people that have been found liable are the tobacco companies because it was found that they were hiding ingrediants and new it was addictive. That was 50 years ago. We have all known for many years now that tobacco is BAD FOR YOU. Anyone who smokes now does so at their own risk. No one else is liable.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Frankster

And based on the amount of both federal and provincial tax I pay on my smokes (over $5 a pack), I'd guess that the revenues they get far surpass their expenses.

"Far surpass their expenses"? Care to back up that statement?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Frankster

As a smoker, I have absolutely no problem with going outside for a smoke. I go outside when I'm at work. I own my own home and go outside when I'm at home too - totally by choice.

The problem I have is the Nazi-like anti smokers that cough up at storm whenever you come within 30' of them outside. You wanted me outside - I am there. Don't try and push me somewhere else now.

And based on the amount of both federal and provincial tax I pay on my smokes (over $5 a pack), I'd guess that the revenues they get far surpass their expenses.

Ok, from what I have found treating lung cancer costs anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 or more depending on the stage at which the cancer is discovered. So say the average then is $70,000 dollars per person. Estimating that the government collects $5 in taxes per pack of cigs and a smoker smokes 1 pack a day; one would have to smoke for 40 years until they pay for their lung cancer treatment. That doesnt include the cost of higher blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, diebetes or any other disease that is associated with smoking.

So I think the non-smokers are subsidizing smokers health costs. And that ticks me off.

[moon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, from what I have found treating lung cancer costs anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 or more depending on the stage at which the cancer is discovered. So say the average then is $70,000 dollars per person. Estimating that the government collects $5 in taxes per pack of cigs and a smoker smokes 1 pack a day; one would have to smoke for 40 years until they pay for their lung cancer treatment. That doesnt include the cost of higher blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, diebetes or any other disease that is associated with smoking.

So I think the non-smokers are subsidizing smokers health costs. And that ticks me off.

Well it ends up being less than that for each smoker because not every smoker develops lung cancer, but they all end up paying taxes for packs of cigarettes bought.

It also ends up costing lots of money to treat people who are injured in car crashes, motorcycle crashes, people who eat unhealthy, people who drink alcohol, people who are involved in dangerous sports, people in farm accidents etc.

Do all those people **** you off?

[mudcrutch79]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok, from what I have found treating lung cancer costs anywhere from $40,000 to $100,000 or more depending on the stage at which the cancer is discovered. So say the average then is $70,000 dollars per person. Estimating that the government collects $5 in taxes per pack of cigs and a smoker smokes 1 pack a day; one would have to smoke for 40 years until they pay for their lung cancer treatment. That doesnt include the cost of higher blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, diebetes or any other disease that is associated with smoking.

So I think the non-smokers are subsidizing smokers health costs. And that ticks me off.

Not necessarily. Smokers pay income taxes and all sorts of other taxes as well. Almost everyone needs some sort of end of life treatment of some sort or another that costs a ****load and comes from the public purse. In the case of smokers, they've contributed a pile to that in the form of direct taxes. I know of people who've eaten poorly their entire lives (lots of fatty foods etc.) who are know in the cardiac unit at the local hospital. They're incurring huge expense for the public system through a lifestyle that was just as likely to have negative outcomes as overeating but they weren't taxed. Where's the difference.

As to fotze's point, if you wanted to argue that governments were negligent and owed a duty of care to the public at large you'd have a real uphill battle. Torts is three years in my past now but my recollection is that it's pretty difficult to sue the Crown directly-there are cases where the Crown was arguably negligent in clearing the roads of snow and there was a finding of no liability after a catastrophic accident.

[Looger]

Originally Posted by mudcrutch79

Not necessarily. Smokers pay income taxes and all sorts of other taxes as well. Almost everyone needs some sort of end of life treatment of some sort or another that costs a ****load and comes from the public purse. In the case of smokers, they've contributed a pile to that in the form of direct taxes. I know of people who've eaten poorly their entire lives (lots of fatty foods etc.) who are know in the cardiac unit at the local hospital. They're incurring huge expense for the public system through a lifestyle that was just as likely to have negative outcomes as overeating but they weren't taxed. Where's the difference.

the difference is there's no pie tax or steak tax or macdonald's tax.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by moon

It also ends up costing lots of money to treat people who are injured in car crashes, motorcycle crashes, people who eat unhealthy, people who drink alcohol, people who are involved in dangerous sports, people in farm accidents etc.

Do all those people **** you off?

The difference being that with many of the items you mention; if those are being used as intended they are not bad for your health; ie cars, motorcycles, sports, farming, etc.

As for alcohol and unhealthy food; I agree those cost our system; but also they can be consumed in responsible quantities that don't cause health problems.

Smoking has no benefits whatsoever, and being used as intended can also cause health problems in other people who don't smoke.

I'm not saying I have an easy answer; I just don't agree with what you said.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Dear God, not another does smoking cost the economy debate.
Go search the addiction costs the economy $40B each year thread for this if you want.

[Bobblehead]

From the stuff I've read, the smoke taxes are relatively close to balancing the health costs directly attributable to smoking. They don't come enywhere near addressing the other related issues such as increased absenteism, more sick days off, smoke breaks, increased insurance rates, and so on.
It looks like the largest study was done in 1991

According to this analysis, smokers cost society about $15 billion while contributing roughly $7.8 billion in taxes.

link

[moon]

Originally Posted by ken0042

Smoking has no benefits whatsoever, and being used as intended can also cause health problems in other people who don't smoke.

It provides me with enjoyment so I think it does have some benefits!

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by moon

It provides me with enjoyment so I think it does have some benefits!

You must be some sicko then, enjoying killing yourself and making your family suffer by watching you die a terrible death due to the numberous illnesses that one usually gets from smoking.

Ya, ya, ya not everyone who smokes dies of these illnesses but it is a significant contributor to these illnesses and contracting such illnesses can be greatly reduced by not smoking.

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

You must be some sicko then

No, I think he's just a guy who was having a little fun with my post.