Losing Rights one step at a time

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

01/20/2007 11:17:32 PM · #26

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Ristyz:

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Talk all you want about health advocacy, step behind the children whatever, but we are losing rights one step at a time..............Then when they are done with smoking, guess who's next? EATERS. Yup, fat folk are next, I believe..........

Already started

Story

AT LEAST NYC is attacking the source and not the eater.

What's also unhealthy is today's politicians. I think I'm going to call my congressman and ask for a ban on that. Wish me luck!

01/20/2007 11:19:49 PM · #27

Originally posted by yanko:

What's also unhealthy is today's politicians. I think I'm going to call my congressman and ask for a ban on that. Wish me luck!

:-) Good luck... I want to read the letter too or hear a recording of the phone call :-)

Message edited by author 2007-01-20 23:20:13.

01/20/2007 11:20:00 PM · #28

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Don't try to legislate people into not smoking just make them pay their own way or they don't get health care.

...Great idea, and then we can start asking the same of those who get injured whilst participating in dangerous sporting activities, or who take unwarranted risks in their livelihood.

What about people who drink alcohol , have bad diets, eat too many sweets ... and the list goes on. Smoking is not the only bad habit that has an impact on health care, but it is certainly the most taxed.

To eradicate the problem, we need to treat it like the addiction it is, and strive to educate future generations,

Ray

Message edited by author 2007-01-20 23:22:00.

01/20/2007 11:21:28 PM · #29

Originally posted by RayEthier:

To eradicate the problem, we need to treat it like the addiction it is, and strive to educate future generations,

Ray

But that doesn't line pockets.

01/20/2007 11:22:23 PM · #30

Originally posted by routerguy666:

Anything short of outlawing all, ALL, behaviors and lifestyles that increase the chance that a person will get sick and become a burden on 'the healthcare system' is discriminatory legislation.

Outlaw all activities that increase the chance you will contract AIDS. Outlaw 60 hour work weeks. Outlaw all fast food.

No? Then shut the f**k up about smoking.

If ya wanna commit suicide by cigarette, that's your choice.

You should have the right to do just that, eat 6 Big Mac meals a day, never exercise, drink like a fish, party like a rockstar every night, whatever you want. It's your life and your choice. It should be my choice not to pay for it.

All activities contain risk. All I want is for smokers (and everyone else) to pay based on the risk they assume or, if they choose not to pay, not expect certain benefits (i.e. care beyond a certain degree for emphysema/lung cancer/heart disease etc.)

01/20/2007 11:23:06 PM · #31

Got me there Leroy... we are doomed.

Ray

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

01/20/2007 11:23:35 PM · #32

The problem with politicians is the main measure of their "success" is how much legislation they create. Regardless of whether there is a need for legislation to be created or not the goal of the politician is to create new laws so that they can say they actually did something and therefore are deserving of re-election.

01/20/2007 11:25:12 PM · #33

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

All activities contain risk. All I want is for smokers (and everyone else) to pay based on the risk they assume or, if they choose not to pay, not expect certain benefits (i.e. care beyond a certain degree for emphysema/lung cancer/heart disease etc.)

Us photographers have certainly proven not to be the most careful lot, should we also be paying more also?

01/20/2007 11:26:41 PM · #34

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

So that they can say they actually did something and therefore are deserving of re-election.

I would be first in line to vote for any politician that reversed stupid legislation and put better plans in place.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/20/2007 11:27:26 PM · #35

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Don't try to legislate people into not smoking just make them pay their own way or they don't get health care.

...Great idea, and then we can start asking the same of those who get injured whilst participating in dangerous sporting activities, or who take unwarranted risks in their livelihood.

What about people who drink alcohol , have bad diets, eat too many sweets ...

Ray

Exactly. Many insurance policies have waivers that void coverage for risky activities such as skydiving, bungee jumping, hang gliding etc.

They also increase premiums for those who drink to excess, have bad diets, are excessively overweight etc.

sher

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/20/2007 11:27:30 PM · #36

It's frightening how fast our lives are now being regulated. Yes, I smoke. Yes, I know I should quit...blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda. As long as I am sound of mind, my life is my own to do with what I will.

My grandfather smoked and, unfortunately, he was also an alcoholic. One day, while in an alcoholic stupor, he dropped a lit cigarette into his shirt pocket and burned to death because he was too drunk to do anything about it. So, which was to blame for that? The cigarette he was smoking or the whiskey he was drinking? Suppose the next thing the government decides to implement is another prohibition? No more beer...no more cocktails...no more wine!

Suppose next that the government decides to tackle the problem of over-population. Do you really want the government invading your bedroom? Forced sterility, anyone? AIDS and STD's are another big health problem. What if the use of condoms becomes mandatory for all sexual encounters unless you have a special license from the government?

Like it or not, small steps lead to big leaps and our freedoms are slowly losing the race.

01/20/2007 11:29:52 PM · #37

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

All activities contain risk. All I want is for smokers (and everyone else) to pay based on the risk they assume or, if they choose not to pay, not expect certain benefits (i.e. care beyond a certain degree for emphysema/lung cancer/heart disease etc.)

Us photographers have certainly proven not to be the most careful lot, should we also be paying more also?

I don't see why occupation would not be considered. Insurance is very hard to get and/or very expensive for people who have high-risk occupations.

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

01/20/2007 11:32:25 PM · #38

Originally posted by sher9204:

Suppose next that the government decides to tackle the problem of over-population. Do you really want the government invading your bedroom? Forced sterility, anyone? AIDS and STD's are another big health problem. What if the use of condoms becomes mandatory for all sexual encounters unless you have a special license from the government?

Worked in China didn't it.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

01/20/2007 11:37:58 PM · #39

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I don't see why occupation would not be considered. Insurance is very hard to get and/or very expensive for people who have high-risk occupations.

But you are not paying high insurance rates because of people with risky behavior, you are paying high rates because insurance companies are making big time money. They want to make money, but they hate to pay out.

You can pay years and years of home owners and make one claim and boom you are dropped. And they don't have to give all the money that YOU paid in back. Ask a bunch of people in the South about that. Many got screwed after Katrina and Ivan.

Health insurance is no different. They are in the same game. So, I don't believe for ONE moment that you are paying because I smoke.Although they would certainly like you to believe that.

Message edited by author 2007-01-20 23:39:49.

agenkin

Nikon MF Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AIS

01/20/2007 11:48:01 PM · #40

I read the originally linked article, and I think that everybody here is missing one important point. Smoking *with children* in car is targeted. If you are alone in a car, or with an adult, you can smoke all you want. Somehow you are so concerned about the smoker's right to smoke, forgetting about the child's right not to breath in nicotine.

Smoking restrictions are mostly dictated by the health risks and inconvenience that they have on those around the smoker, not on the smoker himself.

01/20/2007 11:49:48 PM · #41

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by sher9204:
Suppose next that the government decides to tackle the problem of over-population. Do you really want the government invading your bedroom? Forced sterility, anyone? AIDS and STD's are another big health problem. What if the use of condoms becomes mandatory for all sexual encounters unless you have a special license from the government?

Worked in China didn't it.

Not so well in the prevention of AIDS
//www.avert.org/aidschina.htm

TechnoShroom

Canon EOS-30D

01/20/2007 11:51:46 PM · #42

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by sher9204:
Suppose next that the government decides to tackle the problem of over-population. Do you really want the government invading your bedroom? Forced sterility, anyone? AIDS and STD's are another big health problem. What if the use of condoms becomes mandatory for all sexual encounters unless you have a special license from the government?

Worked in China didn't it.

Not so well in the prevention of AIDS
//www.avert.org/aidschina.htm

Was supposed to have been...

[sarcasm]Worked in China didn't it.[/sarcasm]

01/20/2007 11:53:16 PM · #43

Originally posted by agenkin:

I read the originally linked article, and I think that everybody here is missing one important point. Smoking *with children* in car is targeted.

I alluded to that in my original post, but it was just a stepping stone IMO. It's MUCH easier to get legislation passed if you put the word "children" in it. Politicians LOVE to protect the children.

If you'll remember, seat belt laws originally covered ONLY children. ...

Message edited by author 2007-01-20 23:53:39.

01/21/2007 12:06:15 AM · #44

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I don't see why occupation would not be considered. Insurance is very hard to get and/or very expensive for people who have high-risk occupations.

But you are not paying high insurance rates because of people with risky behavior, you are paying high rates because insurance companies are making big time money. They want to make money, but they hate to pay out.

You can pay years and years of home owners and make one claim and boom you are dropped. And they don't have to give all the money that YOU paid in back. Ask a bunch of people in the South about that. Many got screwed after Katrina and Ivan.

Health insurance is no different. They are in the same game. So, I don't believe for ONE moment that you are paying because I smoke.Although they would certainly like you to believe that.

I disagree. Insurance is a business, not a public service, they're supposed to make money. Profit is not evil. No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to buy insurance.

People pay insurance companies to mitigate their risk, the companies charge based on that risk. The money you pay in premiums goes, in part, to pay the claims of others. Insurance companies don't cancel everyone just for making one claim, though making a claim may cause them to reassess how much risk you pose and whether continuing coverage is a good idea.

It's not just through insurance costs either. Lots of uninsured people smoke too. Their health care is covered by public money aka the taxes we pay. So, my tax dollars are going to support people's poor choices, when they could be used to fill a pothole or some other good service.

01/21/2007 12:11:12 AM · #45

Originally posted by agenkin:

Smoking restrictions are mostly dictated by the health risks and inconvenience that they have on those around the smoker, not on the smoker himself.

Not so in Canada !!! If a group of smokers in the province I live in wanted to open a "Smokers Only Lounge", by law they couldn't do it.

I personally do not smoke, but I do feel that this is one area where we truly have gone overboard.

Ray

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

01/21/2007 12:21:11 AM · #46

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I disagree.

Can we agree that rehabilitation and education would be a better route than legislation?

agenkin

Nikon MF Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AIS

01/21/2007 12:21:59 AM · #47

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Not so in Canada !!! If a group of smokers in the province I live in wanted to open a "Smokers Only Lounge", by law they couldn't do it.

I agree, this is silly, if it is really so. However, I vaguely recall that in Ontario (where I live) smokers' clubs are allowed, but I may be wrong (obviously, I haven't researched the issue).

I traveled to Cuba recently, and there I could feel how much I do not miss second-hand smoke. There smoking is allowed in most areas, even in the airport. When standing in line for about 40 minutes to pass the customs, I was subjected to quite a bit of smoke (and so were lots of little children). There was no escape, no way to exit the room except by way of passing the customs. In the restaurants, I changed tables several times because of the heavy smokers at a nearby table. I believe Ontario did the right thing to outlaw smoking in public places.

Message edited by author 2007-01-21 00:24:24.

01/21/2007 12:29:06 AM · #48

Originally posted by agenkin:

I believe Ontario did the right thing to outlaw smoking in public places.

I fear you might be mistaken... Smoking Ban in Ontario.

I have no problems with the law as it relates to public places. I do however have a problem with a law that will not allow like minded individuals to have their own private club where members could go and enjoy a drink and a smoke.

Ray

01/21/2007 12:31:42 AM · #49

Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I disagree.

Can we agree that rehabilitation and education would be a better route than legislation?

Rehabilitation and education are preferable, however, they only work for those who are willing to try them. Some people just love their smokes and don't want to quit. The carrot won't work for them, maybe the stick will.