I am so fucking sick of this. She never did get to light it because she couldn't get away from the paps. She's outside for cripes sakes. It's not illegal. Honestly, I think the anti-people are losing their minds.
17 comments:
Anonymous
said...
There is talk of trying to get laws passed that would make all public smoking against the law, including out on the side walk and in your car if you have someone under the age of 18 with you. The can't smoke with minors present in your car has been passed in several places in canada i think.
Which means the only place you could smoke would be in your home or in a car with other adults. Happy thought uh lol.
We're not mad at smokers. We just don't wanna hold your hand while you're in the hospital bed with your eyes as big as silver dollars cause you can't get any oxygen and your children and grandchildren weep outside of your room on the third floor of the ICU. (i said that all in one breath cause i don't smoke).
(lights up, blows smoke out) Yanno, they gots them laws agin smokin, but they still let the tabacca companies run. Makes a lotta sense don't it? Must be a whole lotta money to be made producin the stuff. And a whole lotta money to be made producin the stuff that is suppose ta cure the addiction to smokin. So the bacca companies, well they just make em more addictin addin more chemicals. Ya'll think that asbestos which is an ingredient in makin bacca occurs natural like in the plant? They got them laws agin puttin stuff in ya food that is harmful. Why isn't what ya put in ya lungs regulated the same? Get rid of all them chemicals, mebby half them poor sod's that's addicted could get off the stuff, without makin some other greedy git rich. Fecking greed rules the roost. All the press out there makin ya'll point fingers in the wrong direction, I reckon. Course, this is just my opinion... I jest saying.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither."
And, I know my risks and I'll accept my consequences. I won't require any handholding, thank you. And I'm confident that I say that with more experience with death; I've been the caretaker of dying bodies for years.
fuck off 12:36. You inhale more from the factories and cars then you do cigs. But the press hasnt told you that yet, so you blindly follow the cig smokers. Go drink your kool aid dumbass. Read the book "State of Fear". You will see yourself. No I dont smoke. But dont let the government control out lives. Freedom. I am sure you wont understand.
Having being a nurse I have seen the effects many times over, hard earned tax dollars going up in smoke because those who choose NOT to smoke suffer,as well as people in general who suffer effects from the disgusting habit,not just from clogging arteries, but ignorant ass smokers clogging up available health services.I even heard patients who smoke whine and complain because a Dr gave them a choice to make about life saving health care. If you make that decision to smoke, then accept that professionals have the choice not to treat you as you continually abuse the system. I for one despise going out to a restaurant for a lovely meal with friends, only to smell ciggy smoke drifting over to my direction and ruining what should have been a nice meal.Its a turn off!!I also have the right to enjoy outdoors without having some ignorant smoking arsewipe puffing smoke into my face. As for smoking with kids in the car,try telling a child who is been treated for toxic smoke induced asthma that its the very same people who are suppose to protect them from harm have actually subjected them to it!.
BTW the paps did Salma a favour, by not lighting up!
Once again it is legal. People die from drinking too, should we outlaw that? People are fat because they overeat, the government should step in? Where does it stop. I know alot of you want the government to control every aspect of your life to make you feel safer. But me, I like freedom. I dont trust the govt.
I think thats taking it too far Bill , no one wants the govt to tell then everything they can and cant do, eat or go.
But when it's a proven fact @ the poision of smoking, thats a different story. If YOU want to smoke and do that to yourself, so be it, i dont care. When IM FORCED to inhale that same disgusting poision via second hand smoke thats what bothers me. Some studies say second hand smoke is worse then actually smoking it.
Smokers dont realize how much it stinks until they quit. You yourself stink, your breath, hair & cloths. Your home & car do to, regardless of how often you clean them or yourself.
I have asthma and shouldnt have to spend days coughing up a lung & in half panic mode because i cant breath all because someone wants to poision themselves publicly. Do what you want to do, but dont force it off on me.
If i was spraying pesticides as airfreshner because i liked the smell but it was making you & your kids sick youd freak and have every right to demand i stop. Smoking in public is no different. It's poision and its your choice to partake of it if you want to, you DONT have the right to poision me too.
I gotta agree with anon 2:54. I used to smoke too, ALOT! I haven't smoked for over 34 years. It makes me nauseous to smell the smoke now. I get dizzy and become ill from it. In no way does it make me ever want to smoke again. *blech* It's soooo uncool to smoke now. Why would anyone want to start smoking now with all we know? Try to quit if you can! I cared for my grandmother in the ICU many times, she had emphasema and heart failure. She died at 70. Much too young and a beautiful life snuffed out by Pall Malls! NOW we know, so stop already. There's no excuse. Don't die! Stop smoking. PS: Bill, you need to lighten up! Not LIGHT up! Please don't start!
all those Hollywood women smoke its how they keep skinny. UGLY habit my faveorite smoking celebrity smoking photo is Catherine Zeta Jones topless huge pregnant and smoking
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), estimates that smoking related illnesses cost 75.5 billion dollars per year in healthcare costs. This figure represents about 8% of total healthcare expenses in the United States.
This statistic is being used as the argument that smoking costs society too much money, and that denying health insurance and employment, to people who smoke, is appropriate and justifiable
There is of course more to the story, smokers pay around 20 Billion dollars in state and federal cigarette taxes. Additionally, the cost of the tobacco settlement has been passed on to smokers amounting to another 10 billion dollars a year. This money is based on the amount of cigarettes that are sold in an individual state as well as other factors. This number makes the total paid directly by smokers an additional 30 billion dollars per year, leaving a deficit of 45 billion dollars in tax revenue versus healthcare costs, so far.
Anti tobacco extremists would be happy if the story ended here.
But wait, the CDC, in the same report that it estimates healthcare costs attributed to smoking, says that smokers die 14 years earlier than non-smokers, to the tune of 438,000 premature deaths per year. This puts the average male smokers estimated demise at 60 years old and for females the estimate is 64 years old, in this group. .
How much money is being saved on pension and social security payments as a result of these premature deaths?
The Social Security Administration reports that the average monthly social security benefit is 879.30. This number results in a savings to the Social Security Fund of $10,551 per year, per smoker. Multiply that number by 438,000 and multiply it one more time for the 14 years worth of uncollected benefits, and this leads to an annual savings of 64.4 billion dollars per year, without adjusting for future annual increases in monthly social security payments. Making smokers positive contributors in the amount of 19.4 billion dollars per year.
Some might argue that 19.4 billion dollars is not enough to cover other additional costs to society of smoking. We would argue that for almost every cost there is a cost savings, a reduction in pension benefit payments, is just one example.
Is it fair and proper to assess the entire cost of smoking related illness on current smokers?
More than half of those who have ever smoked have quit. People who have quit smoking tend to be older. The majority of smoking related illness falls on the group of older and former smokers. By comparison the largest percentage of current smokers falls in the 18 to 25 year old age range (39.5% according to the US Department of Health) . The second largest group at 33% is in the 26 to 34 year old age range. These groups of smokers do not tend to get ill from smoking until much later in life, if at all. The most commonly associated illness from smoking is lung cancer, 60% of all lung cancer cases are among former smokers and non-smokers. In the present scenario, illnesses that affect former smokers’ are unjustly being blamed on present smokers.
Smoking related illness is a much smaller burden on the healthcare system than one might imagine.
Roughly half of the population used tobacco or still does. With such a high number of people in this category, and the number of diseases being blamed on smoking, you would imagine the costs of healthcare, as a percentage, should be much higher than 8%. This habit enjoyed in the past and the present by 50% of the population, does not appear to over burden the system. After all, that number of people must be paying at least 8% of the total health insurance payments, if not more.
Quitting smoking does not prevent death or disease; it merely postpones them.
It is unreasonable to believe that refraining from smoking would prevent all illnesses. Of all heart attacks suffered in the United States, 80% can’t be attributed to smoking (no matter how hard they may try). It is very likely that a large part of the health care costs of smoking would simply show up at some later date. With annual, double digit rises in healthcare costs; it would certainly be more expensive to treat these people sometime in the future, than it is today.
Will denying smokers access to health insurance save non-smokers any money?
By denying smokers access to health insurance 25% of the population would be no longer be paying monthly premiums into the system. The resulting savings from a theoretical 8% drop in healthcare costs would not be enough to offset the loss in insurance payments. Additionally, poor smokers would ultimately get their healthcare for free. After running out of money from paying their own healthcare costs, or not having the money to begin with, those people with smoking related illnesses would simply turn to hospital emergency room care, which under federal law can only deny them treatment, if they have no room for them.
Should we charge smokers more money?
It is obvious from the statistics provided that most current or former smokers will not suffer any ill effects from their habit. Asking them to pay for those who do, seems unfair. Sadly, our country has a history, at least temporarily, of putting people into groups, which unfairly categorizes them. By and large, we have decided to practice and to teach our children, that all people should be judged as individuals. If we single out smoking as a behaviour that requires additional health insurance premiums, where do we go from there? Other risky behaviours such as sporting activities, alcohol use, poor diets or lack of exercise would almost certainly be next, possibly leading to an individual’s record of previous health insurance claims, being used to determine their monthly healthcare premium. This policy would shift a large percentage of health insurance costs to the elderly and the poor. They would simply not participate and ultimately get their healthcare for free.
Targeting Smokers will not solve the healthcare crisis
The real crisis or burden in the healthcare system is among the elderly and the poor. As our population ages this will continue to be a growing problem. While I can offer no immediate solutions to the crisis, I can say with absolute certainty that targeting smokers, which to date is the only attempts being made to correct the system, will not work.
A very large part of the 75.5 billion dollars being spent on smoking related illnesses is being spent on former smokers. If every current smoker gave up the habit today, there would be an immediate drop in revenue, the potential future drop in the costs of smoking related illnesses, decades from now, if at all, would be insufficient to offset the increased drain on Social Security; created by those additional non-smokers.
During the movement against alcohol in early 1900’s, moral extremists justified their personal war on alcohol by blaming a litany of health and social costs on alcohol use. Many of the diseases they sought to blame on alcohol use, such as tuberculosis, were actually not caused by alcohol use and were later cured and rendered irrelevant to the debate.
If the medical advances of the last 50 years continue, even at a reduced rate, most of the diseases accurately or inaccurately associated with smoking, will likely be treated with great success, rendering most of the arguments we are making today, irrelevant.
Jonathan Pinard, Executive Director New York Coalition of Social Smokers www.socialsmokers.org
I am so fucking sick of this. She never did get to light it because she couldn't get away from the paps. She's outside for cripes sakes. It's not illegal. Honestly, I think the anti-people are losing their minds.
17 comments:
There is talk of trying to get laws passed that would make all public smoking against the law, including out on the side walk and in your car if you have someone under the age of 18 with you. The can't smoke with minors present in your car has been passed in several places in canada i think.
Which means the only place you could smoke would be in your home or in a car with other adults. Happy thought uh lol.
PC laws. People fukkin krazy now.
We deserve the creeps we allowed to be elected.
I wouldn't be surprised if they made meat illegal in restaurants.
Smoking is ugly. Smoke is disgusting.
Why defend it?
That horrendous photo will be far more infamous than if she'd just lit up and embraced the fact that she's a smoker.
In her defense, she's probably in Paris--- you can't escape the smoking and some feel if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
We're not mad at smokers. We just don't wanna hold your hand while you're in the hospital bed with your eyes as big as silver dollars cause you can't get any oxygen and your children and grandchildren weep outside of your room on the third floor of the ICU.
(i said that all in one breath cause i don't smoke).
mm
Does that make her a Smoking Salami?
(lights up, blows smoke out) Yanno, they gots them laws agin smokin, but they still let the tabacca companies run. Makes a lotta sense don't it?
Must be a whole lotta money to be made producin the stuff. And a whole lotta money to be made producin the stuff that is suppose ta cure the addiction to smokin. So the bacca companies, well they just make em more addictin addin more chemicals.
Ya'll think that asbestos which is an ingredient in makin bacca occurs natural like in the plant? They got them laws agin puttin stuff in ya food that is harmful. Why isn't what ya put in ya lungs regulated the same? Get rid of all them chemicals, mebby half them poor sod's that's addicted could get off the stuff, without makin some other greedy git rich.
Fecking greed rules the roost. All the press out there makin ya'll point fingers in the wrong direction, I reckon.
Course, this is just my opinion... I jest saying.
"Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither."
And, I know my risks and I'll accept my consequences. I won't require any handholding, thank you. And I'm confident that I say that with more experience with death; I've been the caretaker of dying bodies for years.
It's fine if you're comfortable with dying, but the rest of us who inhale your secondhand smoke didn't choose to kill ourselves with cig smoke.
fuck off 12:36. You inhale more from the factories and cars then you do cigs. But the press hasnt told you that yet, so you blindly follow the cig smokers. Go drink your kool aid dumbass. Read the book "State of Fear". You will see yourself. No I dont smoke. But dont let the government control out lives. Freedom. I am sure you wont understand.
Having being a nurse I have seen the effects many times over, hard earned tax dollars going up in smoke because those who choose NOT to smoke suffer,as well as people in general who suffer effects from the disgusting habit,not just from clogging arteries, but ignorant ass smokers clogging up available health services.I even heard patients who smoke whine and complain because a Dr gave them a choice to make about life saving health care. If you make that decision to smoke, then accept that professionals have the choice not to treat you as you continually abuse the system.
I for one despise going out to a restaurant for a lovely meal with friends, only to smell ciggy smoke drifting over to my direction and ruining what should have been a nice meal.Its a turn off!!I also have the right to enjoy outdoors without having some ignorant smoking arsewipe puffing smoke into my face.
As for smoking with kids in the car,try telling a child who is been treated for toxic smoke induced asthma that its the very same people who are suppose to protect them from harm have actually subjected them to it!.
BTW the paps did Salma a favour, by not lighting up!
Once again it is legal. People die from drinking too, should we outlaw that? People are fat because they overeat, the government should step in? Where does it stop. I know alot of you want the government to control every aspect of your life to make you feel safer. But me, I like freedom. I dont trust the govt.
I think thats taking it too far Bill , no one wants the govt to tell then everything they can and cant do, eat or go.
But when it's a proven fact @ the poision of smoking, thats a different story. If YOU want to smoke and do that to yourself, so be it, i dont care. When IM FORCED to inhale that same disgusting poision via second hand smoke thats what bothers me. Some studies say second hand smoke is worse then actually smoking it.
Smokers dont realize how much it stinks until they quit. You yourself stink, your breath, hair & cloths. Your home & car do to, regardless of how often you clean them or yourself.
I have asthma and shouldnt have to spend days coughing up a lung & in half panic mode because i cant breath all because someone wants to poision themselves publicly. Do what you want to do, but dont force it off on me.
If i was spraying pesticides as airfreshner because i liked the smell but it was making you & your kids sick youd freak and have every right to demand i stop. Smoking in public is no different. It's poision and its your choice to partake of it if you want to, you DONT have the right to poision me too.
I gotta agree with anon 2:54. I used to smoke too, ALOT! I haven't smoked for over 34 years. It makes me nauseous to smell the smoke now. I get dizzy and become ill from it. In no way does it make me ever want to smoke again. *blech* It's soooo uncool to smoke now. Why would anyone want to start smoking now with all we know? Try to quit if you can! I cared for my grandmother in the ICU many times, she had emphasema and heart failure. She died at 70. Much too young and a beautiful life snuffed out by Pall Malls! NOW we know, so stop already. There's no excuse. Don't die! Stop smoking.
PS: Bill, you need to lighten up! Not LIGHT up! Please don't start!
all those Hollywood women smoke its how they keep skinny. UGLY habit
my faveorite smoking celebrity smoking photo is Catherine Zeta Jones topless huge pregnant and smoking
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC), estimates that smoking related illnesses cost
75.5 billion dollars per year in healthcare costs. This figure represents about 8% of total
healthcare expenses in the United States.
This statistic is being used as the argument that smoking costs society too much
money, and that denying health insurance and employment, to people who smoke, is
appropriate and justifiable
There is of course more to the story, smokers pay around 20 Billion dollars in state and
federal cigarette taxes. Additionally, the cost of the tobacco settlement has been
passed on to smokers amounting to another 10 billion dollars a year. This money is
based on the amount of cigarettes that are sold in an individual state as well as other
factors. This number makes the total paid directly by smokers an additional 30 billion
dollars per year, leaving a deficit of 45 billion dollars in tax revenue versus healthcare
costs, so far.
Anti tobacco extremists would be happy if the story ended here.
But wait, the CDC, in the same report that it estimates healthcare costs attributed to
smoking, says that smokers die 14 years earlier than non-smokers, to the tune of
438,000 premature deaths per year. This puts the average male smokers estimated
demise at 60 years old and for females the estimate is 64 years old, in this group. .
How much money is being saved on pension and social security
payments as a result of these premature deaths?
The Social Security Administration reports that the average monthly social security
benefit is 879.30. This number results in a savings to the Social Security Fund of
$10,551 per year, per smoker. Multiply that number by 438,000 and multiply it one
more time for the 14 years worth of uncollected benefits, and this leads to an annual
savings of 64.4 billion dollars per year, without adjusting for future annual increases in
monthly social security payments. Making smokers positive contributors in the amount
of 19.4 billion dollars per year.
Some might argue that 19.4 billion dollars is not enough to cover other additional costs
to society of smoking. We would argue that for almost every cost there is a cost
savings, a reduction in pension benefit payments, is just one example.
Is it fair and proper to assess the entire cost of smoking related
illness on current smokers?
More than half of those who have ever smoked have quit. People who have quit
smoking tend to be older. The majority of smoking related illness falls on the group of
older and former smokers. By comparison the largest percentage of current smokers
falls in the 18 to 25 year old age range (39.5% according to the US Department of
Health) . The second largest group at 33% is in the 26 to 34 year old age range. These
groups of smokers do not tend to get ill from smoking until much later in life, if at all. The
most commonly associated illness from smoking is lung cancer, 60% of all lung cancer
cases are among former smokers and non-smokers. In the present scenario, illnesses
that affect former smokers’ are unjustly being blamed on present smokers.
Smoking related illness is a much smaller burden on the healthcare
system than one might imagine.
Roughly half of the population used tobacco or still does. With such a high number of
people in this category, and the number of diseases being blamed on smoking, you
would imagine the costs of healthcare, as a percentage, should be much higher than
8%. This habit enjoyed in the past and the present by 50% of the population, does not
appear to over burden the system. After all, that number of people must be paying at
least 8% of the total health insurance payments, if not more.
Quitting smoking does not prevent death or disease; it merely
postpones them.
It is unreasonable to believe that refraining from smoking would prevent all illnesses. Of
all heart attacks suffered in the United States, 80% can’t be attributed to smoking (no
matter how hard they may try). It is very likely that a large part of the health care costs of
smoking would simply show up at some later date. With annual, double digit rises in
healthcare costs; it would certainly be more expensive to treat these people sometime
in the future, than it is today.
Will denying smokers access to health insurance save non-smokers
any money?
By denying smokers access to health insurance 25% of the population would be no
longer be paying monthly premiums into the system. The resulting savings from a
theoretical 8% drop in healthcare costs would not be enough to offset the loss in
insurance payments. Additionally, poor smokers would ultimately get their healthcare
for free. After running out of money from paying their own healthcare costs, or not
having the money to begin with, those people with smoking related illnesses would
simply turn to hospital emergency room care, which under federal law can only deny
them treatment, if they have no room for them.
Should we charge smokers more money?
It is obvious from the statistics provided that most current or former smokers will not
suffer any ill effects from their habit. Asking them to pay for those who do, seems unfair.
Sadly, our country has a history, at least temporarily, of putting people into groups,
which unfairly categorizes them. By and large, we have decided to practice and to
teach our children, that all people should be judged as individuals. If we single out
smoking as a behaviour that requires additional health insurance premiums, where do
we go from there? Other risky behaviours such as sporting activities, alcohol use, poor
diets or lack of exercise would almost certainly be next, possibly leading to an
individual’s record of previous health insurance claims, being used to determine their
monthly healthcare premium. This policy would shift a large percentage of health
insurance costs to the elderly and the poor. They would simply not participate and
ultimately get their healthcare for free.
Targeting Smokers will not solve the healthcare crisis
The real crisis or burden in the healthcare system is among the elderly and the poor. As
our population ages this will continue to be a growing problem. While I can offer no
immediate solutions to the crisis, I can say with absolute certainty that targeting
smokers, which to date is the only attempts being made to correct the system, will not
work.
A very large part of the 75.5 billion dollars being spent on smoking related illnesses is
being spent on former smokers. If every current smoker gave up the habit today, there
would be an immediate drop in revenue, the potential future drop in the costs of
smoking related illnesses, decades from now, if at all, would be insufficient to offset the
increased drain on Social Security; created by those additional non-smokers.
During the movement against alcohol in early 1900’s, moral extremists justified their
personal war on alcohol by blaming a litany of health and social costs on alcohol use.
Many of the diseases they sought to blame on alcohol use, such as tuberculosis, were
actually not caused by alcohol use and were later cured and rendered irrelevant to the
debate.
If the medical advances of the last 50 years continue, even at a reduced rate, most of
the diseases accurately or inaccurately associated with smoking, will likely be treated
with great success, rendering most of the arguments we are making today, irrelevant.
Jonathan Pinard, Executive Director
New York Coalition of Social Smokers
www.socialsmokers.org
You can rationalize smoking and all of it's statistics. If you get to smoke while we eat, I get to shit on your plate.
Post a Comment