BuffettNews.com

[quote="Big Red Parrothead"]What they fail to consider is that, in most states, Medicaid is the single fastest growing area of government spending.

I wonder how much of that spending increase can be directly attributed to an aging population(more people in the program) and rising health costs in general.

BadHabitsAcctnt wrote:

Big Red Parrothead wrote:What they fail to consider is that, in most states, Medicaid is the single fastest growing area of government spending.

I wonder how much of that spending increase can be directly attributed to an aging population(more people in the program) and rising health costs in general.

That information is pretty easy to find. Take a look around www.kff.org The Kaiser Family Foundation is a great healthcare information resource. But 'rising healthcare costs in general' is exactly what Big Red and myself have been suggesting is being caused by the results of preventable lifestyle choices, including smoking.

iuparrothead wrote:

BadHabitsAcctnt wrote:

Big Red Parrothead wrote:What they fail to consider is that, in most states, Medicaid is the single fastest growing area of government spending.

I wonder how much of that spending increase can be directly attributed to an aging population(more people in the program) and rising health costs in general.

That information is pretty easy to find. Take a look around www.kff.org The Kaiser Family Foundation is a great healthcare information resource. But 'rising healthcare costs in general' is exactly what Big Red and myself have been suggesting is being caused by the results of preventable lifestyle choices, including smoking.

and overeating, and watching too much TV vs. exercising... and you don't see them outlawing either fast food (or mandating nothing but low-fat food) or cable connections.

If people didn't eat so much fast food, they wouldn't be so fat. If they didn't eat a lot of chips and other salty snacks, the wouldn't be so fat. If they didn't eat ice cream, they wouldn't be so fat. Let's ban McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys, KFC, Frito Lay, Tostidos and Ben & Jerrys.

If people didn't sit in front of their computers surfing the 'net and playing video games all day, they wouldn't be so fat. Let's limit everyone's daily computer time and force them to get up and exercise. In fact, let's legislate EVERYTHING so nobody has the freedom to make their own decisions about anything anymore. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

As much as I dislike cigarettes, the smoke the give off, and the health problems they cause, I don't want to see them banned. Why? Because where do you draw the line? As many have pointed out, there are a number of bad habits that affect our health: overeating/obesity, drinking to excess, etc. If you ban cigarettes, do you ban alcohol? Big Macs? The line is simply too fuzzy. Leaving aside the discussion about health care costs, I believe there's nothing wrong with protecting people from others' bad habits. It's illegal to drink and drive. I don't think it's too much to ask that people who work in the restaurant and entertainment industries have a safe workplace. Smoking isn't being banned altogether, but restricted to areas where it doesn't affect others' health.

I don't know all the facts I just want to say that I agree with CNF - Cigarettes have done nothing but hurt or kill the people I love. Most started back when it was "in" - which is such a joke because I see people smoking and it still looks ridiculous to me - sorry - that is just my opinion.

I hate that my mom wanted to and tried to quit but she couldn't because she was so addicted. Now she has so many health issues that were caused by smoking she will be in pain living out the rest of her life and there is nothing she can do about it. What I hate the most is that companies actually MAKE MONEY from people smoking and damaging their lungs - but it's just not the lungs - it's the skin over time.... the back/spine/ bleeding behind the eyes because smoking speeds up macular degeneration.

ANd yet everyone is going to argue about "MY RIGHTS" and "we should be allowed" and Govt should stay out..

Just because you can do something - doesn't mean you should.

I am glad NJ got smart - at least it is a start. Honestly - I just wish everyone could quit - then we would have one less issue to argue about.

LIPH wrote: In fact, let's legislate EVERYTHING so nobody has the freedom to make their own decisions about anything anymore. Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

No matter what side of the smoking platform you are on.... IMO this is what it boils down to..... Nicely said Larry!

LIPH wrote:Yes, I'm being sarcastic.

And to think I almost missed that part....

A Balding Fan wrote:

prrthd1987 wrote:Awesome! They should do that nationwide

NEVER

Second Hand Smoke has NEVER killed anyone at all.

If you do not like smoking in a certain resturant or bar, plain and simple JUST DONT GO THERE.

It is a proven fact that smokers are better tippers. They stay after the meal, light up, and are happy. They are also more likely to have a drink with the ciggerate, which inturns makes a bigger check.

I will not support any resturant that does not allow smoking at all.

First you outlaw smoking, next they are gonna make all the girls in Gentelmens Clubs wear full clothing.

I RECOMMEND anyone who is for smoking bans to check out Penn and Teller's ***** episode on Second Hand Smoke. YOU WILL LEARN THE TRUTHS.

Wrong. Dr Penn and Dr Peller are not experts on the subject. Second hand smoke has killed.

I'm not for government interference in my life, just enough to protect me from others.

I say again, smokers are stupid, they're addicts, owned by and paying the cig companies that are poisioning them.

If someone lights up next to me in a restaurant I will assume they are on fire and take all necessary action to put out the fire.

teh 'let's legislate everything' is a bogus argument. fast food, cable, radio, video games, etc are all personal choice affecting the single individual who is partaking in them...smoke affects everyone around that person, whether you believe it or not...

doxadive wrote:teh 'let's legislate everything' is a bogus argument. fast food, cable, radio, video games, etc are all personal choice affecting the single individual who is partaking in them...smoke affects everyone around that person, whether you believe it or not...

amen

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:As much as I dislike cigarettes, the smoke the give off, and the health problems they cause, I don't want to see them banned. Why? Because where do you draw the line? As many have pointed out, there are a number of bad habits that affect our health: overeating/obesity, drinking to excess, etc. If you ban cigarettes, do you ban alcohol? Big Macs? The line is simply too fuzzy. Leaving aside the discussion about health care costs, I believe there's nothing wrong with protecting people from others' bad habits. It's illegal to drink and drive. I don't think it's too much to ask that people who work in the restaurant and entertainment industries have a safe workplace. Smoking isn't being banned altogether, but restricted to areas where it doesn't affect others' health.

There is just one of me on this board, as far as I know.

Why is everyone always picking on me?

BadHabitsAcctnt wrote:There is just one of me on this board, as far as I know.

Why is everyone always picking on me?

No, we like YOUR Bad Habits.... (or should I say Nicole's BadHabits? )

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:As much as I dislike cigarettes, the smoke the give off, and the health problems they cause, I don't want to see them banned. Why? Because where do you draw the line? As many have pointed out, there are a number of bad habits that affect our health: overeating/obesity, drinking to excess, etc. If you ban cigarettes, do you ban alcohol? Big Macs? The line is simply too fuzzy. Leaving aside the discussion about health care costs, I believe there's nothing wrong with protecting people from others' bad habits. It's illegal to drink and drive. I don't think it's too much to ask that people who work in the restaurant and entertainment industries have a safe workplace. Smoking isn't being banned altogether, but restricted to areas where it doesn't affect others' health.

but we get back to the same argument: if you are going to ban it on the basis of "a healthy workplace", then you are still telling people that something legal is actually illegal. I work in a pipe shop. I knew I would have exposure to smoke from pipes and cigars (and a few cigarettes) when I took the job.

It is the same with servers in bars. People in bars smoked prior to all these bans. It's a spin issue more than anything else, designed to slowly limit choices and force other people's views on a small segment that has been increasingly villified in the past 10 years.

You can mandate a certain level of air quality in a bar, which would require installation of air purification equipment. You can tell folks: If smoking offends you, stay out. That goes for patrons and potential employees. But, until you as a society have the outside air perfectly clean, it boils down to telling property owners they have no rights in the use of their property; telling people who can legally buy tobacco that they can't use it; and wasting my time with a crappy argument that it is all about the greater good.

I have been a member of the Fred MacMurray Dork Patrol since I was 19. I smoke cigars from time to time. I am usually courteous depending on the circumstances when asked to put a cigar away (ask Q&S). I have, prior to this whole new furor over smoking in public, only been asked to put out my pipe two or three times (now I don't bother to smoke it outside the shop or home, or in transit on long drives.) I don't buy into the furor, and think it is a bit disingenious that the settlement money is being used for purposes other than education (i.e. lobbying and ballot issue creation)

I really don't like that people blame a person's addiction and death on a company, or someone else, or a product, especially when the side effects are more than well known. Each person is responsible for their own actions. A lot of addictions, including smoking, overeating, alcoholism, and so on are directly related to an issue with the person, be it eating because of depression, smoking due to stress, drinking to deal with a life situation, and so on. Saying that someone's addiction is due to a company's product is not right, simply because the person would most likely find another crutch to use if they did not have that particular one. That is just basic psychology.

People fall into a rut, a hole, whatever, and they have a crutch they lean on, be it good or bad. How they deal with that is a matter for themselves and their family/friends. McDonalds is not responsible for person A's low self esteem and the fact that they binge on big macs when they're feeling blue.

This, of course, does not apply to second hand smoke or smoking in public, obviously.

I hope that came out right. It is not in relation to anything other than the fact of blaming tobacco companies for people smoking, and so on.

Second hand smoke..

http://health.msn.com/centers/lungcance ... =100050301

http://health.msn.com/centers/cardio/ar ... =100100853

Smokers are stupid.

http://health.msn.com/centers/mentalhea ... =100110970

I should also add that I am not exactly addicted to smoking like a lot of cigarette smokers appear to be. I can put aside my pipe or cigars for weeks without touching one, and it is not as tho they call me when I do decide to pick one up.

From that first MSN article:

But regular exposure to other people's tobacco smoke — secondhand smoke — also may threaten the health of nonsmokers.

Such smoke may cause or contribute to a number of health conditions from ear infections to cancer. By avoiding the smoke, you can decrease your risk of becoming sick from it.
emphasis added

They use terms like "may", "experts believe", "associated with". They never come right out and say ETS is a direct cause of anything but they do an awful lot of hedging their bets.

Crazy Navy Flyer wrote:Smokers are stupid.

http://health.msn.com/centers/mentalhea ... =100110970

I would like to think we can discuss a topic without calling people slanderous or judgemental names.....