5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
You can always chose not to be there. It is a two party issue. It is not polite to walk into a room, and tell others how to behave. Stench or not.But people who impose their smell on me (tobacco, perfume or other) bother the living daylight out of me because I can't choose to stop breathing.
You can always chose not to be there. It is a two party issue.
Excuse me when I'm in a doctors office I cannot choose to not be there. They even post signs saying do not wear perfume people have allergies and yet all these old people douse themselves in cologne anyway.You can always chose not to be there. It is a two party issue. It is not polite to walk into a room, and tell others how to behave. Stench or not.
I'm not trying to bust your chops or anything, but to me it is just as impolite to tell someone doing an activity that they can't do it because you just happen to be there, or want to be there.
In some cases it is a health issue. people have allergies. they're not going to die but it may give them a headache for the rest of the day or they may not be able to breathe.The guy is barking up the wrong tree: the problem with passive smoking isn't that it may or may not be harmful to non-smokers (he's wrong on that too: it is. I know that first-hand. But I digress...) The problem is that people who smoke indoors impose their nasty stench on other people.
It's not a health issue, it's a politeness issue. I have exactly the same beef with people who reek of perfume and stink up the room I happen to be in. I don't have a problem with seeing people smoking - or seeing them dressed indecently, for that matter - because I have the choice of looking elsewhere if it bothers me. But people who impose their smell on me (tobacco, perfume or other) bother the living daylight out of me because I can't choose to stop breathing.
Starbucks won't let you smoke within 500 feet of their property, which is ridiculous. E cigarettes included. which is why I no longer go to starbucksI just got a taste of people freaking out myself, just took a trip to riodoso NM and somebody had called the cops on me while I was by my car vaping. I guess Colorado plates are targets in these small towns. Officer asked what I was smoking, showed him and he went about his way.
I wasn't mad but cmon, people are so frickin touchy these days. I'm starting to notice the no smoking OR electronic cigarettes allowed signs.
I get not being able to smoke inside but ignorance and lack of knowing what we're doing I feel will be a battle for a while...
Excuse me when I'm in a doctors office I cannot choose to not be there. They even post signs saying do not wear perfume people have allergies and yet all these old people douse themselves in cologne anyway.
On the subject they are proposing a ban on smoking in a car with a child under 14. It's only a matter of time before they say the same thing about vaping. The Nanny government is going too far
There are just some places where any person with common sense won't vape. A doctor's office is one of them (waiting room, that is - I have vaped while waiting in the closed door examination room while I was alone, and I will do so again). I wouldn't do it in an elementary school - unless I was alone in an area with no kids around.Excuse me when I'm in a doctors office I cannot choose to not be there. They even post signs saying do not wear perfume people have allergies and yet all these old people douse themselves in cologne anyway.
You just built a very strong case for the government keeping their hands off of our health care. Thank you.It's not so clear cut. There are two very good reasons why the government should get involved:
1/ There is a strong body of scientific evidence linking what you experience as a child with what you like as an adult. For instance, if your kids eat too often at McDonald's, they have a strong chance of subconsciously equating junk food with good times, and favoring that type of food as an adult. Likewise, I'm almost certain I started smoking as a child because I somehow remembered the smell of cold tobacco floating around my dad all the time. Had I not been exposed to the smell, I don't think I'd have picked up the habit.
Most people don't know that, or don't realize that. So if the government wants to prevent them from harming the future adults that are their children against their will, I think it's an intelligent and visionary thing to do. That's what governments should do - act in the best interest of the population, especially the section of the population that is vulnerable and can't necessarily make informed decisions, such as kids. As a matter of fact, I'd love to see them tax the hell out of junk food and sugary drinks, for the same reason.
2/ As long as the government pays for health care, they have a right to oversee how you take care of your health - or how you harm the health of other people they pay health care for. This may not be a very strong argument in the US, where health care is all but a joke, but here in Europe where Iive now, health care is real and it really works for the benefit of citizens. As long as the state agrees to treat lung cancers for free, they have a right to force people to quit adopting behaviors that lead to lung cancers.
And it's not like you can opt out of the health care system and decide your health is strictly your business either: the health care system is mutualized, therefore everybody pays for the risk of disease incurred by everybody else. By definition, if too many people opt out of a mutualized system, it eventually collapses.
The only way out of the health care system is to elect politicians who want to tear it apart. It's a societal choice. However, people vote for the exact opposite time and time again. So as a society, since people choose to have the system, they choose to let the system interfere with what they can or cannot do too. That comes with the package.
You just built a very strong case for the government keeping their hands off of our health care. Thank you.
Anyone in the US can get basic treatment, yes. If you want the best treatments however, you'd better be rich and pay up. It's not a politician's lie either: I had a colleague who needed a specialized treatment after a back injury, and Bluecross / Blueshield refused to cover the cost because they considered it an unnecessary luxury. As a result, he got basic care and now has 3 fused lower vertebraes.
In Europe, they always propose you the best, and it's as good as free. Period.
(Oh and by the way, viral meningitis isn't too hard to survive. I contracted meningococcal meningitis. It's not exactly the same beast...)
Exactly! It is right and proper to sue doctors when they are incompetent or careless, but many lawsuits with no merit result in huge awards, which drives up the physician's insurance rates, and therefore the costs for the rest of us. There should be a mechanism in place to prevent the frivolous ones from resulting in large awards. True malpractice deserves real compensation...I also do not agree that malpractice suits should be limited or eliminated. When a doctor or a facility is CARELESS they should be responsible for their actions. However, dumb ass lawsuits should be quickly tossed. People suffering real injuries should not be "capped" by some stupid law.