Getting cigarettes on a doctor's prescription

[Mikey]

#1 - If this policy deems it acceptable to stop smoking only for the duration of the hospitalization and then for the patient to resume once he's home, it's a complete paper tiger and not much of a policy at all.

#2 - The last bit wasn't a switch at all, it was an illustration of why the policy is based on visceral reaction rather than medical concern.

[Deepcrush]

#1 - If this policy deems it acceptable to stop smoking only for the duration of the hospitalization and then for the patient to resume once he's home, it's a complete paper tiger and not much of a policy at all.

A, if its not a serious policy then why are you so worried?
B, if someone is under long term then this would make a difference.
C, it can also motivate people to not smoke.
D, the law provides a positive motivation without violated the rights of the people of its country towards free will.

#2 - The last bit wasn't a switch at all, it was an illustration of why the policy is based on visceral reaction rather than medical concern.

No, it was a switch up and you're simply to much of a pussy to own up to it.

[Tsukiyumi]

C, it can also motivate people to not smoke.

Other than the health aspect while under treatment, this is really no one's fucking business at all.

I'd say that when we live in a country where over a quarter of our population is obese (not merely overweight, mind you), our priority is clear if we're going gestapo on people's personal lives.

[Captain Seafort]

Other than the health aspect while under treatment, this is really no one's fucking business at all.

When we're paying for the results of all that smoking through the NHS it's every taxpayer's business.

I'd say that when we live in a country where over a quarter of our population is obese

Americans must be getting thinner. I'd always heard it was a third.

[Mikey]

A, if its not a serious policy then why are you so worried?
B, if someone is under long term then this would make a difference.
C, it can also motivate people to not smoke.
D, the law provides a positive motivation without violated the rights of the people of its country towards free will.

A - I'm not, and by that logic why should any of us even talk about it since we don't live in Sweden? I'm discussing it because it's the topic of discussion.
B - Just a longer term before the resumption of smoking. The only time that wouldn't apply is if the patient is terminal, and in that case they wouldn't be smoking anyway unless they were in hospice care, which wouldn't fall under the purview of this policy.
C - As a smoker, I can tell you that most people who smoke don't do so in ignorance of the health risks.
D - See "C" above.

No, it was a switch up and you're simply to much of a pussy to own up to it.

Er... nope. Wrong again. If you don't feel like trying to understand my comments, then try not to comment on them incorrectly.

[Tsukiyumi]

Other than the health aspect while under treatment, this is really no one's fucking business at all.

When we're paying for the results of all that smoking through the NHS it's every taxpayer's business.

I just said that in that very quote.

If you're referring to the overall health aspect of smoking on smokers and others... I guess the UK runs entirely on pollution-free fairy dust, right? When we stop burning megatons of coal for power generation, then we can worry about the smoke from cigarettes. Otherwise, it's like worrying about burning the toast when your house is on fire.

[Deepcrush]

C, it can also motivate people to not smoke.

Other than the health aspect while under treatment, this is really no one's fucking business at all.

I'd say that when we live in a country where over a quarter of our population is obese (not merely overweight, mind you), our priority is clear if we're going gestapo on people's personal lives.

Motivate isn't the same as force people to stop. Its just giving an extra reason not to do so.

A - I'm not, and by that logic why should any of us even talk about it since we don't live in Sweden? I'm discussing it because it's the topic of discussion.
B - Just a longer term before the resumption of smoking. The only time that wouldn't apply is if the patient is terminal, and in that case they wouldn't be smoking anyway unless they were in hospice care, which wouldn't fall under the purview of this policy.
C - As a smoker, I can tell you that most people who smoke don't do so in ignorance of the health risks.
D - See "C" above.

I used to smoke and I was fully aware of the risks. However no one said people who smoke don't know what they are doing. This law isn't saying they are going to tell people they are killing themselves. They are simply providing a motivation to stop smoking.

Er... nope. Wrong again. If you don't feel like trying to understand my comments, then try not to comment on them incorrectly.

Hey, you're full of shit pure simple. You know it, I know it... Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to switch your stance while pretending to still have some standing here. The attempts at a redirect, still cute and all since it reminds me so much of a child getting caught out of their timeout chair. But in the end still changes nothing. So why don't you take your crying back to seafort and see if he'll fall for it.

[Captain Seafort]

If you're referring to the overall health aspect of smoking on smokers and others...

I am.

I guess the UK runs entirely on pollution-free fairy dust, right? When we stop burning megatons of coal for power generation, then we can worry about the smoke from cigarettes. Otherwise, it's like worrying about burning the toast when your house is on fire.

Do try to avoid being so fucking stupid, it's aggravating. If smoking was such a minor addition, then there would be very little variation in rates of lung and throat cancer between smokers and non-smokers. Since it is extremely well-known, and has been for decades, that this isn't the case, it is a fucking site more serious than "worrying about burning the toast when your house is on fire". Unsurprising, given that smokers are doing their level best to ingest as much of the crap as they can.

[Tsukiyumi]

Do try to avoid being so fucking stupid, it's aggravating.

I was going to say the same to you, but I know that's a hobby of yours.

If smoking was such a minor addition, then there would be very little variation in rates of lung and throat cancer between smokers and non-smokers. Since it is extremely well-known, and has been for decades, that this isn't the case, it is a fucking site more serious than "worrying about burning the toast when your house is on fire". Unsurprising, given that smokers are doing their level best to ingest as much of the crap as they can.

Millions of tons of carcinogens into the air, every year. Smoking on top of that is naturally going to cause more cancer. I'm not saying smoking doesn't cause additional problems for the smoker; only that it's impossible to get control numbers, given that everyone is breathing in shitloads of cancer-causing agents on a daily basis. They're on our skin, in our water, our food, etc. Deal with the major pollutants first, before you go after smokers to any larger degree than is already done.

And, now Mikey's other analogies definitely come into play; why should the obese guy get NHS money to treat the health issues caused by stuffing his face? Why should the footballer get NHS treatment for injuries sustained in a game he chose to play? It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Either treat all, or treat none.

[Mikey]

Hey, you're full of shit pure simple. You know it, I know it... Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to switch your stance while pretending to still have some standing here. The attempts at a redirect, still cute and all since it reminds me so much of a child getting caught out of their timeout chair. But in the end still changes nothing. So why don't you take your crying back to seafort and see if he'll fall for it.

*sigh* You know, nobody will blame you for failing to understand something. But taking your incapability and trying to turn it into a positive argument... well, that's just Blackstar-ish.

[Deepcrush]

*sigh* You know, nobody will blame you for failing to understand something. But taking your incapability and trying to turn it into a positive argument... well, that's just Blackstar-ish.

Yeah yeah yeah, I know... its totally my fault you can't come up with a good argument. That you have to lie about the subject matter and your own comments as the talking has progressed. Totally my fault...

Again, go bug Seafort with your bullshit.

[Deepcrush]

And, now Mikey's other analogies definitely come into play; why should the obese guy get NHS money to treat the health issues caused by stuffing his face? Why should the footballer get NHS treatment for injuries sustained in a game he chose to play? It's hypocrisy, plain and simple. Either treat all, or treat none.

If thats a problem, maybe the doctor would order them onto a healthier diet while under their care. Your not far from that yourself IIRC. If that football player is being treated by a private doctor or if he stops playing while under treatment, then again it doesn't apply. There's no hypocrisy for not treating people if everyone can get treatment so long as they follows the doctors orders while under treatment.

[Mikey]

Deep, the only thing that you're at fault for is misunderstanding something and then digging in your heels and growling about how you're going to take the incorrect reading to heart. It's actually kind of cute, like a mentally-challenged puppy.

As to the response to Tsu... again, writing a policy that automatically excepts an athlete for the downtime between games, or for not playing while too injured to play (and then presumably going back to the game,) is an exercise in both hypocrisy and idiocy. If that's the sort of anti-smoking program you folks want, then bring it here by all means... according to that policy, I legitimately quit smoking for 2.5 to three hours after every cigarette, and longer when I go to bed.

[Tsukiyumi]

If thats a problem, maybe the doctor would order them onto a healthier diet while under their care. Your not far from that yourself IIRC. If that football player is being treated by a private doctor or if he stops playing while under treatment, then again it doesn't apply. There's no hypocrisy for not treating people if everyone can get treatment so long as they follows the doctors orders while under treatment.

I was under the impression that Seafort is arguing that smokers shouldn't receive any kind of care from an NHS, period, and that smoking-related illness should never be covered.

If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

[Deepcrush]

If thats a problem, maybe the doctor would order them onto a healthier diet while under their care. Your not far from that yourself IIRC. If that football player is being treated by a private doctor or if he stops playing while under treatment, then again it doesn't apply. There's no hypocrisy for not treating people if everyone can get treatment so long as they follows the doctors orders while under treatment.

I was under the impression that Seafort is arguing that smokers shouldn't receive any kind of care from an NHS, period, and that smoking-related illness should never be covered.

If I'm mistaken, I apologize.

I can't speak for Seafort, but the policy in place would require the person to stop doing what is killing them while they are under treatment.