No human rights- Poor smokers

• dragg

  5 Oct 05, 06:20

  frankly i dont understand where the govt is going with this.
  
  a total ban is not possible at all. the high price of cigarettes is already enough. why restrict them?
  
  and banning smoking at pubs or discos will only give businesses a hard time.
• oxford mushroom

  5 Oct 05, 08:18

  Perhaps instead of banning smoking the government can force smokers to pay A class rates for smoking related diseases when they fall ill. No reason why non-smokers should subsidize them through taxes.
• sbst275

  5 Oct 05, 08:22

  Originally posted by aleo:

  Smokers will be more and more disappointed with the unjust action by G**t...It is true that G**t doing this for the help and sake of a good health for everybody...And maybe their first action to help pple save money and in return reduced their cigarettes income...However, there should be human rights like in other countries...Banning smoking in Pubs and bars is really outrageous...No reason for that at all...Those pple going pubs, discos etc will jolly well know that such places bound to be smoky as people smoke inside...But now when you just want to enjoy , drink and smoke in such places over the weekends or after a hard day work also cannot...Aiyoh...Pity the smokers..

  So it is fair for ppl to inhale 2nd hand smoke?
• dragg

  5 Oct 05, 09:16

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  Perhaps instead of banning smoking the government can force smokers to pay A class rates for smoking related diseases when they fall ill. No reason why non-smokers should subsidize them through taxes.

  things dont work that way.
  
  so do we ask hepatitis patients to pay class a rates too. i dont eat crockles, so i shouldnt be subsidizing.
  
  actually a lot of things are no conclusive. lots of people smoke but they dont all die of cancer. smoking is just one of the main cause of cancer.
• aleo

  5 Oct 05, 10:24

  What wrong with 2nd hand smoke...If you dnt sniff in alot...not much harm lah...Unless you are everyday taking in alot of them...Dnt be so "kia see" lah...
  So health conscious until this stage what for....G**t really making live difficult for citizens...It is fate that one will live till how long...Die means die...Even if u good health or dnt take in 2nd hand smoke still will die when your time is up...My grandfather at 70plus still smoke, health also so good...
• The man who was death

  5 Oct 05, 10:31

  A pub that's only for smokers, that's actually not a bad idea. smokers already paid their sin taxes so there must be at least some space for them to smoke. the only thing stopping from this kind of pub opening is the impression it gives that it's ok to smoke.
• dragg

  5 Oct 05, 10:36

  they should allow it. then all the smokers can go there and enjoy. of course non-smokers are also welcome.
  
  isnt this better than telling the smokers to stay away from pubs and discos?
  
  
• The man who was death

  5 Oct 05, 10:38

  Originally posted by dragg:

  they should allow it. then all the smokers can go there and enjoy. of course non-smokers are also welcome.
  
  isnt this better than telling the smokers to stay away from pubs and discos?
  
  

  yeah but this will give the youths the impression that it's ok to smoke, that's why the govt wun allow
• dragg

  5 Oct 05, 10:41

  Originally posted by The man who was death:

  yeah but this will give the youths the impression that it's ok to smoke, that's why the govt wun allow

  if that is the case they should be targetting the youths not the whole smoking population.
  
  chewing gum is an example. they should target people who throw chewing gum indiscriminately but instead they chose to ban it.
  
  easy way out right?
• The man who was death

  5 Oct 05, 10:41

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  Perhaps instead of banning smoking the government can force smokers to pay A class rates for smoking related diseases when they fall ill. No reason why non-smokers should subsidize them through taxes.

  the taxes the smokers pay and the costs it takes to treat all smoking related diseases is about 1:1 ratio so no problem there.
• The man who was death

  5 Oct 05, 10:43

  Originally posted by dragg:

  if that is the case they should be targetting the youths not the whole smoking population.
  
  chewing gum is an example. they should target people who throw chewing gum indiscrimately but instead they chose to ban it.
  
  easy way out right?

  but at the same time it damages the country's image also, the govt want smoke free if possible
• dragg

  5 Oct 05, 10:44

  Originally posted by The man who was death:

  but at the same time it damages the country's image also, the govt want smoke free if possible

  image? i didnt know smoking damages a countries image. the chinese and japanese are probably the heaviest smokers around. and they are also one of the richest. our govt want their tourist dollar right?
• The man who was death

  5 Oct 05, 10:46

  Originally posted by dragg:

  image? i didnt know smoking damages a countries image. the chinese and japanese are probably the heaviest smokers around. and they are also one of the richest. our govt want their tourist dollar right?

  yep i guess that's the way it is
• dragg

  5 Oct 05, 10:48

  so is the ban about the youth, the image or our health?
  
  or all three?
  
  
• shade343

  5 Oct 05, 11:00

  Originally posted by dragg:

  isnt it funny to ban cigarettes but open 2 casinoes?
  
  oh, gambling is not bad for health. only bad for your bank account!!!
  

  Wealth isnt really important. Health is wealth.
• shade343

  5 Oct 05, 11:02

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  Perhaps instead of banning smoking the government can force smokers to pay A class rates for smoking related diseases when they fall ill. No reason why non-smokers should subsidize them through taxes.

  This system could lead to abuse. What if the patient who suffers from lung cancer got it through second hand smoke? How would the doctors know whether she is lying or not?
• oxford mushroom

  5 Oct 05, 15:25

  No system is perfect but as it is, smokers have to pay a higher premium for medical insurance, for example. What if they lie? Well, don't get caught. If the insurance company finds out, they will not honour the policy. You can now detect components of cigarette smoke in lung tissues of smokers as well.
  
  The health risk of smoking carries huge economic implications, not Hep A.
  
  The link between smoking and a variety of cancers is indisputable. On an individual level, obviously not every smoker will get cancer but as a group, the causation is clear.
  
  The government and pubs can consider allowing a toilet in the pub to be fitted with ventilation for smokers to puff themselves to death.
• dragg

  6 Oct 05, 16:11

  there is something wrong with the posters displayed at bus stations.
  
  many complained that the qinzhuyi wordings are much bigger than the no smoking logo.
  
  
• SilverPal

  6 Oct 05, 16:27

  Originally posted by aleo:

  What wrong with 2nd hand smoke...If you dnt sniff in alot...not much harm lah...Unless you are everyday taking in alot of them...Dnt be so "kia see" lah...
  So health conscious until this stage what for....G**t really making live difficult for citizens...It is fate that one will live till how long...Die means die...Even if u good health or dnt take in 2nd hand smoke still will die when your time is up...My grandfather at 70plus still smoke, health also so good...

  What's wrong with blasting my hifi system at 2am in the morning? As long as I do it only once a week... Or you can choose not to listen. In fact, my neighbours should be thanking me for the free music!
  
  This is a mere variation of some fallacious arguments put forth by many smokers.
  
  I guess its not so much about the health but rather the fact that some people prefer not to breathe in 2ng hand smoke, healthy or not.
  
  Some ppl prefer not to eat meat, some prefer not to eat vegetables, some prefer to suck in 1st hand smoke, some prefer not to smell 2nd hand smoke.
  
  I'm indifferent to the ban on smoking. I believe that ppl should be allowed to kill themselves at any rate they like. But it does vex me when I'm eating at a hawker centre and ppl are puffing and the cigerette smell infuses with my food. It is impractical to constantly change my position everytime the wind direction changes.
  
  Consideration by both smokers and non-smokers would help tremendously. My smoker friends try to stay down wind from me when smoking and we co-exist happily, i dun smell 2nd hand smoke, they get to smoke as much as they like.
• pearlie27

  6 Oct 05, 18:02

  Originally posted by aleo:

  Smokers will be more and more disappointed with the unjust action by G**t...It is true that G**t doing this for the help and sake of a good health for everybody...And maybe their first action to help pple save money and in return reduced their cigarettes income...However, there should be human rights like in other countries...Banning smoking in Pubs and bars is really outrageous...No reason for that at all...Those pple going pubs, discos etc will jolly well know that such places bound to be smoky as people smoke inside...But now when you just want to enjoy , drink and smoke in such places over the weekends or after a hard day work also cannot...Aiyoh...Pity the smokers..

  Then you should learn to enjoy without smoking.
• fai

  6 Oct 05, 18:13

  Smoking are for idiots, remember that.
• NuLife

  6 Oct 05, 18:43

  Smokers are bunch of inconsiderate bastards and losers.
  
  No need to ban, else it wil affect tourism.
  
  But I suggest "Mulitply" the tax they place on cigrettes.
  to compensate for what others had to put up with:
  
  eg
  -health issue related to second-hand smoke
  -the risk they put their life into like stroke, lung cancer
  which allow them to get goverment subsidy or even charity funds.
  
  i want to add... really hate those smokers
  esp when they sit near my in coffeeshop or outdoor.
  make the fresh air that im privileged to stink,
  and makes my cloths stink too.
  
• SilverPal

  6 Oct 05, 19:27

  Originally posted by NuLife:

  Smokers are bunch of inconsiderate bastards and losers.
  
  No need to ban, else it wil affect tourism.
  
  But I suggest "Mulitply" the tax they place on cigrettes.
  to compensate for what others had to put up with:
  
  eg
  -health issue related to second-hand smoke
  -the risk they put their life into like stroke, lung cancer
  which allow them to get goverment subsidy or even charity funds.
  
  i want to add... really hate those smokers
  esp when they sit near my in coffeeshop or outdoor.
  make the fresh air that im privileged to stink,
  and makes my cloths stink too.
  

  $1 per stick?
• Spirit of Fire

  7 Oct 05, 12:32

  All the policies the government implement can solve the problems in the short-term, but not in the long-term. They just only want quick solutions. Anyone on the road can think of a harsh rule. I don't understand why they are paid big money to perform such a simple job. This shows that how short-sighted they are.
• The man who was death

  7 Oct 05, 12:34

  Originally posted by NuLife:

  Smokers are bunch of inconsiderate bastards and losers.
  
  No need to ban, else it wil affect tourism.
  
  But I suggest "Mulitply" the tax they place on cigrettes.
  to compensate for what others had to put up with:
  
  eg
  -health issue related to second-hand smoke
  -the risk they put their life into like stroke, lung cancer
  which allow them to get goverment subsidy or even charity funds.
  
  i want to add... really hate those smokers
  esp when they sit near my in coffeeshop or outdoor.
  make the fresh air that im privileged to stink,
  and makes my cloths stink too.
  

  the taxes they pay now is more than enough to cover the medical costs already