Health & Fitness >
Nicotine Dependence
RSS FeedShould smokers bear the responsibility for the health risks of cigarette smoking?
Results so far:
| No | 21% | 92 votes | Total: 432 votes | |
| Yes | 79% | 340 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesQuite frankly, no.
Let's start by defining why anyone would say 'yes'. Firstly, the idea is that smoking is a conscious choice, that smokers are fully aware of the risks, and therefore it's their own fault if they end up ill because of it. Cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and so on. Therefore, they should have to foot their own medical bills, be it either because their HMO refuses to, or the nationalised health service in more civilized countries forces them to be treated privately.
I'm not going to touch on whether smoking is a choice or an addiction in this article. Everyone has their own opinion, and really, it's academic. No-one starts addicted to anything, it's a conscious choice to become so. No-one actually forces you to smoke long enough to gain a chemical addiction to nicotine.
So, why is that such a bad idea?
Firstly, it's a double standard. Why is smoking being singled out here? If someone is an alcoholic, does that mean they should pay for their treatment? What about obese people? Is taking that fourth helping of pudding a conscious neglect of their health, and thus they should have to pay? What about firefighters? They deliberate put themselves in harm's way, so they should pay up if they get hurt.
Some people will protest the last one, but then consider this: What about hang-gliding? There may be a moral reason to support firefighters, but what's so ethical about deliberately strapping yourself to a frame covered in canvas and hurling yourself off a cliff? If they break their legs, it's their own damned fault. They knew the risks.
Take it one step further: If a person avoids all of the above, and generally lives illness free, but then has a heart attack, what criteria should we apply? Is he liable to pay if he didn't join up with a gym to make sure his body was in the peak of health? What if he only went once a week instead of three times? Surely he has a duty to optimise his future health. And if he collapses from overexertion at the gym, well again, he knew the risks.
Next point, and people don't like this one, but it does come up: Governments rely on people smoking. It provides a tax which fills their coffers, a tax which is then spend on things like, oh, healthcare. Banning smoking tomorrow would cause a deficit. It also cuts down on expenses later on. Regardless of whether they're treated, smokers die from smoking-related illnesses, often quite young. Young enough that the cost of any national healthcare is greatly offset by the saving in state pensions they would have otherwise been able to claim. A few months of palliative care is far cheaper, on paper, than paying someone a regular stipend for thirty years. It's a brave politician who admits this kind of thinking goes into the budget, but occasionally one does, to much disgust by the public.
Told you you wouldn't like it.
Let's get back on firmer moral ground, here. Anyone remember the Hippocratic Oath? To do no harm? I can't imagine there's a doctor in the world who would condone such a heartless policy as to deny treatment to patients in need, unless they were self-funding. But then, I'm an incredible optimist, and that's even after having worked with a variety of doctors for over ten years who make my teeth itch to be in the same room as them.
This, essentially, is why you'll never see this happen. People might whine and complain that it's taking funds from elsewhere to treat these people, but that's really the sum total of the argument on the 'yes' side.
Learn more about this author, Dave Simmons.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Yes
I am a smoker and fully aware of the reported health risks associated with the practice of smoking. How could I not be? We are bombarded with warnings on a daily basis, and it's been going on for over 40 years now.
Since the mid-1960's, cigarette packages have been labeled with warnings of the possible consequences of smoking. Over the years, the wording has changed somewhat, but the message is still more or less the same: If you smoke, you are putting yourself at risk for health complications. Fair enough. I still choose to smoke. I enjoy it, and therefore am willing to gamble.
For this reason, I find it appalling that the tobacco companies were viciously attacked by our government and threatened with bankruptcy as soon as Bill Clinton assumed the Presidency. I have never nor will ever believe that anything sinister ever took place on the part of this industry. The notion that the companies deliberately "spiked" their products with added nicotine to keep customers addicted is idiotic. When the executives who were subpoenaed before Congress tried to explain that during the manufacturing process, nicotine is removed and then added back (along with some preservatives) to develop a particular brand's flavor, they were dismissed as diabolical liars. The fact is that unless you buy totally organic food, everything you get at the grocery store or in restaurants has added preservatives as well, and very few have a problem with that. As soon as it was revealed that the tobacco companies processed their products in similar fashion, they were labeled as evil. This is a bit hypocritical to say the least.
Even when this took place during the early 1990's, smokers had seen the warnings for nearly 30 years. Next, we can't forget about the use of biased, corrupt science employed to proclaim that smokers harm not only themselves, but also those around them. The general public has fallen for this without question. The average nonsmoker will passively "smoke" about 5 cigarettes a year. I'll do that before breakfast each morning, and it will still take over 50 years for me to develop about 1 chance in 10 of getting lung cancer. This is but one of many reasons I believe the hype surrounding "secondhand smoke" is fraudulent. In other words, it is the government who lies, and a full-scale investigation should be implemented, for the basic rights of not only 60 million smokers in this country are at stake, but also those of business owners forced to ban smoking.
Therefore, a notable exception to the question the title to this topic asks would involve a situation as such: Someone suffers a heart attack who happens to live with a smoker and then some brainwashed, rabid anti-tobacco fanatic tries to say that the smoking was responsible. Unfortunately, I see a time coming when smokers will indeed be unjustly accused and even convicted of such an act:
"What are you in for?"
"Armed robbery. How about you?"
"Involuntary manslaughter. I smoked in the house, and my wife died of heart failure. It didn't matter that her mother had a heart attack at 35 or that my wife weighed 682 pounds and ate triple cheeseburgers five days a week. After all, everybody knows that secondhand smoke kills."
It has become common practice for individuals to shift the blame on others when unfortunate circumstances beset them. Remember the lady who spilled hot coffee on her lap at a fast-food drive-through and sued the company for millions of dollars? I have no right to sue the makers of Clorox if I decide to chug a bottle down and get my stomach pumped in the Emergency Room before the bleach dissolves my esophagus. If I drink 12 beers at a bar, get in my car, and kill somebody, I have no right to sue the bar or the beer manufacturer for my stupidity. Therefore, if I get lung cancer, COPD, or emphysema from my 30+ year smoking habit, it is because I took the risk and lost. That's nobody's fault but mine.
I personally believe the figure of 450,000 smoking-related deaths as reported by the Centers For Disease Control to be grossly inflated for the simple reason that it has become the norm to assume that if someone dies of just about any affliction that is even remotely linked to smoking, then smoking surely was the cause.
Nevertheless, smokers know the risks; both real and fabricated, and therefore are solely responsible if they develop an illness.
Learn more about this author, Patrick Sills.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Nicotine Dependence
- Is the smoking ban in England working?
