• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Pregnant Smokers

#81
GregC said:
Are you seriously comparing these situations to people who choose to smoke?
Click to expand...

"choose to smoke"??? Whatever happened to addiction due to nicotine? Cigarettes are still addictive, or has that changed recently?

Is there a difference between a person that tried cigarettes a handful of times (chose to smoke) and a long term smoker (addict)? I think there is a difference.

I think the discussion in this thread is very convoluted and somewhat pointless. We have a dichotomy emerging. Half say hang them high, the other half says mind your own business. I tend to fall in the latter camp if no laws were broken.
My personal view is that there are far too many health hazards in the environment to make avoidance a reasonable approach. Even if every carcinogen known to man were eliminated from the environment, people will still get cancer (and in fairly substantial numbers). A more logical approach to the disease question is to more actively work on developing effective treatments or cures, while providing education and practical regulations concerning substances that cause the most severe threat to life and health. Prioritize.
 
#82
Absentia said:
Don't give me this BS, the entire problem is with everyone trying to police the actions of other people rather than let them take responsibility for their own actions. But hey lets throw a bucket of federal tax dollars at it and pretend we're doing something about it.
Click to expand...
Munjibunga said:
So would you rather have your tax dollars thrown at it before the fact or after? You're going to be paying either way. When smokers with no health insurance get emphysema or cancer and end up in the hospital as indigents, who do you think is paying for it? It doesn't matter if they "take responsibility for their own actions." You and I are going to be responsible for them ultimately.
Click to expand...
Ursus Tyrannus said:
This tired old argument again. Who pays for the old who get sick due to aging, the kid who gets leukemia, or the woman hit by a car. Such a shame the poor drain the coffers of the rest of us.


Welcome to the human race.
Click to expand...
GregC said:
Are you seriously comparing these situations to people who choose to smoke?
Click to expand...
Ursus Tyrannus said:
I'm saying you cannot vilify some one because it costs money to provide them with care and treat them like a human.
I'm saying its a terrible way to decide the level of dignity and comfort a human is allowed based on a financial statement.
I'm saying its sad to treat a person like an investment instead of a fellow human.

I see smokers, fat people, substance addicts, the poor, etc spoken of like they should have less rights to care or respect predicated upon the argument they cost money. The elderly, the sick, the weak...they cost money too. At what point do some people become less human? When they cost money? Money determines what life is worth saving and which life is not? Do we need to do a profit/ loss analysis to determine who is worthy of our love and care?

Can we not treat each other with respect, care, dignity....and forgiveness...without a cost analysis spread sheet?
Click to expand...
Then you should have directed your ire at Absentia, not Munji. He's the one who started with the cost argument, Munji was simply pointing out that on those terms, it's worse to wait and better to take a preventive approach. It also happens to be better for the person's health.

The funny thing is, you're getting on a high horse about treating people like humans and caring for them, but you're apparently opposed to attempts to limit people's smoking in the first place.:hmm:
 
#83
Ursus Tyrannus said:
This tired old argument again. Who pays for the old who get sick due to aging, the kid who gets leukemia, or the woman hit by a car. Such a shame the poor drain the coffers of the rest of us.


Welcome to the human race.
Click to expand...

Except that none of the examples you cite were controlled by the victim.

I suspect I've been a member much longer than you. And there is no doubt in my mind I have paid more taxes than you.
 
#84
Hawaii Islander said:
"choose to smoke"??? Whatever happened to addiction due to nicotine? Cigarettes are still addictive, or has that changed recently?

Is there a difference between a person that tried cigarettes a handful of times (chose to smoke) and a long term smoker (addict)? I think there is a difference.

I think the discussion in this thread is very convoluted and somewhat pointless. We have a dichotomy emerging. Half say hang them high, the other half says mind your own business. I tend to fall in the latter camp if no laws were broken.
My personal view is that there are far too many health hazards in the environment to make avoidance a reasonable approach. Even if every carcinogen known to man were eliminated from the environment, people will still get cancer (and in fairly substantial numbers). A more logical approach to the disease question is to more actively work on developing effective treatments or cures, while providing education and practical regulations concerning substances that cause the most severe threat to life and health. Prioritize.
Click to expand...

I know what you're saying. We have a problem with these roving gangs around here who hold people down and force them to inhale the smoke from lit cigarettes.
 
#86
Interesting. When a mother smokes during a pregnancy, she is endangering the health of a baby. When she decides to terminate a pregnancy, she is dealing with a fetus. With the latter, it is part of her body, and she can choose as she pleases.

But heaven forbid she smoke! Gasp! She is harming a baby! Let's ask the Nanny State to step in for this awful case of pre-birth abuse.
 
#89
Munjibunga said:
Except that none of the examples you cite were controlled by the victim.

I suspect I've been a member much longer than you. And there is no doubt in my mind I have paid more taxes than you.
Click to expand...

Ironically, one of the biggest problems in public health now-a days is people are quitting smoking and the percentage of smokers is going down and yet programs like S-chip and many others are paid for almost exclusively by cigarette taxes. One of the biggest budget shortfalls in state revenue these days is cigarette tax receipts, which in most states are way below what they anticipated.
 
#90
Chebass88 said:
Interesting. When a mother smokes during a pregnancy, she is endangering the health of a baby. When she decides to terminate a pregnancy, she is dealing with a fetus. With the latter, it is part of her body, and she can choose as she pleases.

But heaven forbid she smoke! Gasp! She is harming a baby! Let's ask the Nanny State to step in for this awful case of pre-birth abuse.
Click to expand...
Maybe because she has decided to carry the pregnancy to term, eh?
 
#91
burk48237 said:
Ironically, one of the biggest problems in public health now-a days is people are quitting smoking and the percentage of smokers is going down and yet programs like S-chip and many others are paid for almost exclusively by cigarette taxes. One of the biggest budget shortfalls in state revenue these days is cigarette tax receipts, which in most states are way below what they anticipated.
Click to expand...

i'd like to say that while this is a very interesting and relevent factoid, i'm concerned that this particular tangent might evolve into a discussion that is too political for OT.

so just a heads up - things are fine now, and let's try to keep it that way (non-political), because i'd hate to have to truncate this thread prematurely.

thanks :).
 
#93
burk48237 said:
Ironically, one of the biggest problems in public health now-a days is people are quitting smoking and the percentage of smokers is going down and yet programs like S-chip and many others are paid for almost exclusively by cigarette taxes. One of the biggest budget shortfalls in state revenue these days is cigarette tax receipts, which in most states are way below what they anticipated.
Click to expand...

Do you mean that smokers who quit suddenly spend all their money on the black market?
 
#98
Kwin Smith said:
Fetal lungs are the last to develop in the infant. That's why prematurity is really bad in regards to development. When the lungs do not develop completely, that is a birth defect.

It is more like low birth weight, not slightly reduced birth weight. There is actually a difference there.

In the first trimester, the fetus is the most susceptible to teratogenic factors. Heart defects can develop then. I would call that a birth defect, too.

Some studies have concluded that smoking during pregnancy can lead to placental abruption. That's very serious, and can cause maternal, as well as fetal, death.

There's a whole lot more, but I'm not going to waste my time on this. People don't want to believe this type of information, and argue semantics, in an attempt to make it ok.

Whatever. If you work anywhere near a maternity ward, you see the effects every day.
Click to expand...

Yes... and how common are severe instance?

Not very.

On a scale of bad behaviors that are potentially harmful to a developing fetus -smoking is certainly bad, but it falls on the list below any number of other common poor behaviors.
 
#100
Hawaii Islander said:
A more logical approach to the disease question is to more actively work on developing effective treatments or cures, while providing education and practical regulations concerning substances that cause the most severe threat to life and health. Prioritize.
Click to expand...

Bam. All you can do is provide information, and let people make their own ****** choices.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back