TranceAddict Forums

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- What cigarette do you smoke, doctor ?
Pages (2): [1] 2 »


Posted by Omega_M on Sep-21-2007 23:30:

What cigarette do you smoke, doctor ?




Posted by leph555 on Sep-21-2007 23:30:

that shit is disgusting


Posted by nchs09 on Sep-21-2007 23:40:

quote:
Originally posted by leph555
that shit is disgusting
your mum is disgusting, camels are as sweet as the apple in the garden of eden.


Posted by Salegon on Sep-22-2007 02:13:

hrhrhr...smokers will guarantee my future income


Posted by 4clubber on Sep-22-2007 04:38:

quote:
Originally posted by nchs09
your mum is disgusting, camels are as sweet as the apple in the garden of eden.


camels? pffft...that's not what the flintstones are saying...


Posted by LoveHate on Sep-22-2007 05:20:

everyone in that video died of lung cancer.


Posted by Orpheus Is Dead on Sep-22-2007 10:07:

i never really understood the whole anti-smoking movement...

If I want to go smoke and fuck up my lungs thats my business..I don't understand those people who protest it. If they feel its bad then they shouldn't do it.

But honestly why do they give a fuck if I do it? Why get rid of cigarettes, which I smoke, just because they feel its bad?


Posted by Jarvmeister on Sep-22-2007 11:40:

quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus Is Dead
i never really understood the whole anti-smoking movement...

If I want to go smoke and fuck up my lungs thats my business..I don't understand those people who protest it. If they feel its bad then they shouldn't do it.

But honestly why do they give a fuck if I do it? Why get rid of cigarettes, which I smoke, just because they feel its bad?


It's unpleasant for non smokers to be in a smokey environment, or around someone who smokes all the time.

In the UK we have a national health service, which means that we all chip in for everyone's health care. This means that non smokers are paying for smokers health care. Arguably the tax on cigarettes covers this additional expenditure - but it's more likely these taxes are spent elsewhere.

I smoke in the privacy of my own home, around no one and only one or so a day. And I clean my teeth afterwards (normally) as I know that when I meet someone else who has just smoked they FUCKING STINK!

An absolute pre-requisite for a potential girlfriend is that she doesn't smoke. Happily more and more people are thinking like me these days.


Posted by montana on Sep-22-2007 11:43:

i'll smoke a camel.

an actual one tho


Posted by NeoPhono on Sep-22-2007 13:27:

quote:
Originally posted by Salegon
hrhrhr...smokers will guarantee my future income


I'm guessing you're in medicine. In that case, fat people will insure you of future income (that and the fact that people will always get sick and fall down and break things).


Posted by narcism on Sep-22-2007 14:51:

quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus Is Dead
i never really understood the whole anti-smoking movement...

If I want to go smoke and fuck up my lungs thats my business..I don't understand those people who protest it. If they feel its bad then they shouldn't do it.

But honestly why do they give a fuck if I do it? Why get rid of cigarettes, which I smoke, just because they feel its bad?


its because when you are dying a slow death, you are leeching off the medical field, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, multiple surgeries, medicine and palliative care aint come cheap you know....


Posted by Salegon on Sep-22-2007 14:52:

quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
I'm guessing you're in medicine. In that case, fat people will insure you of future income (that and the fact that people will always get sick and fall down and break things).


Indeed, they will.


Posted by Sunsnail on Sep-22-2007 15:00:

quote:
Originally posted by narcism
its because when you are dying a slow death, you are leeching off the medical field, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, multiple surgeries, medicine and palliative care aint come cheap you know....


That's true, but that's not the reason most people will snarl at smokers


Posted by NeoPhono on Sep-22-2007 16:33:

quote:
Originally posted by narcism
its because when you are dying a slow death, you are leeching off the medical field, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, multiple surgeries, medicine and palliative care aint come cheap you know....


After working in both a cancer hospital as well as in general practice, I'd take the death of a smoker over that of an obese person any day. (Yes, I'm very biased against those with unhealthy lifestyles, especially the obese.) With smoking you have chronic conditions, but most of them at least allow the individual to be somewhat productive until they become terminal. At that point they tend to "go" fairly quickly. The overweight on the other hand tend to have life-long, disabling conditions that end up costing them and everyone else much more money than those who smoke.

I'm not trying to say smoking is OK, but I think smokers get vilified much more than others, even though other groups are a much bigger strain on the health care system. I have sympathy for neither group, but I find it much easier to see a smoker than an obese patient.


Posted by chimera66 on Sep-22-2007 20:21:

quote:
Originally posted by Orpheus Is Dead
i never really understood the whole anti-smoking movement...

If I want to go smoke and fuck up my lungs thats my business..I don't understand those people who protest it. If they feel its bad then they shouldn't do it.

But honestly why do they give a fuck if I do it? Why get rid of cigarettes, which I smoke, just because they feel its bad?


I'm with you, it's your body so you should really do to it as you please as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. I just don't want to pay for other people's healthcare because of their decisions


Posted by nchs09 on Sep-22-2007 20:25:

quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
After working in both a cancer hospital as well as in general practice, I'd take the death of a smoker over that of an obese person any day. (Yes, I'm very biased against those with unhealthy lifestyles, especially the obese.) With smoking you have chronic conditions, but most of them at least allow the individual to be somewhat productive until they become terminal. At that point they tend to "go" fairly quickly. The overweight on the other hand tend to have life-long, disabling conditions that end up costing them and everyone else much more money than those who smoke.

I'm not trying to say smoking is OK, but I think smokers get vilified much more than others, even though other groups are a much bigger strain on the health care system. I have sympathy for neither group, but I find it much easier to see a smoker than an obese patient.
so you are telling me if i have the choice between a deep fried snickers bar or a pack of camel lights... go with camel lights?


Posted by NeoPhono on Sep-22-2007 23:37:

quote:
Originally posted by nchs09
so you are telling me if i have the choice between a deep fried snickers bar or a pack of camel lights... go with camel lights?


If someone's putting a gun to your head and asking you to choose, then yes.

I can guarantee that if all you do is sit on your butt and eat fried chicken, you'll get fat, get diabetes along with all of the wonderful things it leads to, and your heart will eventually decide not to work. You could smoke a pack a day for the rest of your life and the only thing I can gurantee is that you'll find yourself short of breath, cough up some nasty stuff and get lung infections more often. You might get cancer, emphysema or god knows what else, but you might die a happy smoker. I've never seen a person die a "happy" life-long obese person.

You'll also be happy to know that whereas on average an obese patient costs over a thousand dollars a year more to care for than a "thin" person, the difference in health care dollars between a smoker and non-smoker is nowhere near that much.


Posted by Sunsnail on Sep-22-2007 23:48:

I've always wondered: how many smokers die from their smoking?


Posted by NeoPhono on Sep-23-2007 00:12:

quote:
Originally posted by Sunsnail
I've always wondered: how many smokers die from their smoking?


Studies vary quite a bit, mainly in what they do and do not say are tobacco-related deaths, but the best estimate is somewhere around 1 in 3 smokers die of smoking-related illnesses. So, 33% (or more) of chronic smokers will die because of it.


Posted by nchs09 on Sep-23-2007 00:55:

quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
If someone's putting a gun to your head and asking you to choose, then yes.

I can guarantee that if all you do is sit on your butt and eat fried chicken, you'll get fat, get diabetes along with all of the wonderful things it leads to, and your heart will eventually decide not to work. You could smoke a pack a day for the rest of your life and the only thing I can gurantee is that you'll find yourself short of breath, cough up some nasty stuff and get lung infections more often. You might get cancer, emphysema or god knows what else, but you might die a happy smoker. I've never seen a person die a "happy" life-long obese person.

You'll also be happy to know that whereas on average an obese patient costs over a thousand dollars a year more to care for than a "thin" person, the difference in health care dollars between a smoker and non-smoker is nowhere near that much.
for all that medical "knowledge" i would expect someone to use the word healthy instead of ""thin"" in parenthesis


Posted by Sunsnail on Sep-23-2007 00:57:

I wish you would know the difference between parenthesis and quotations


Posted by NeoPhono on Sep-23-2007 14:11:

quote:
Originally posted by nchs09
for all that medical "knowledge" i would expect someone to use the word healthy instead of ""thin"" in parenthesis


There's a difference between "healthy" and "thin," and that's why I wrote it and didn't choose to write "healthy." I'm going for opposites here and as "non-smoker" is the opposite of "smoker," "thin" is the opposite of "obese," not "healthy." There are many non-smokers who are not healthy, just as there are many thin people are not healthy. However, "thin" unhealthy people still on average cost far less to take care of than the obese. Their illnesses also tend to be much more treatable and transient.


Posted by nchs09 on Sep-23-2007 14:58:

you got alot of problems when talking thin, you could be talking about anorexic poeple etc, which are just a big of a burden on society as fat poeple/



anyhow i bought a pack of camels at 4 am yesterday............ never tasted so good :P


Posted by NeoPhono on Sep-23-2007 15:31:

quote:
Originally posted by nchs09
you got alot of problems when talking thin, you could be talking about anorexic poeple etc, which are just a big of a burden on society as fat poeple/



anyhow i bought a pack of camels at 4 am yesterday............ never tasted so good :P


False on the anorexic people being just as big of a burden as the overweight (from an overall standpoint), but I do know where you're coming from. That's why "thin" was in quotation marks, because I was not trying to equate thin with healthy, just thin as in not overweight. I could have put "non-overweight," but I thought the "thin" in quotation marks worked just as well, and sounded a bit less stuffy. I'm in no way saying that all thin people or non-overweight people are healthy, simply that the cost of care for the obese far exceeds the cost of care for the non-obese, and that difference is more than between smokers and non-smokers.

Heck, as far as smoking goes, if you're young and plan on quitting sometime in the reasonable future, it'll probably have no long-term effects on your health. Your doctor will never fully approve, but they know full well a young smoker who quits will probably never suffer any life-long problems because of it. The same could be said about the young obese population, but there is a dangerous rise in type II diabetes in the young, and even if they lose the weight, they'll be diabetics the rest of their lives.


Posted by nchs09 on Sep-23-2007 15:34:

quote:
Originally posted by NeoPhono
False on the anorexic people being just as big of a burden as the overweight (from an overall standpoint), but I do know where you're coming from. That's why "thin" was in quotation marks, because I was not trying to equate thin with healthy, just thin as in not overweight. I could have put "non-overweight," but I thought the "thin" in quotation marks worked just as well, and sounded a bit less stuffy. I'm in no way saying that all thin people or non-overweight people are healthy, simply that the cost of care for the obese far exceeds the cost of care for the non-obese, and that difference is more than between smokers and non-smokers.

Heck, as far as smoking goes, if you're young and plan on quitting sometime in the reasonable future, it'll probably have no long-term effects on your health. Your doctor will never fully approve, but they know full well a young smoker who quits will probably never suffer any life-long problems because of it. The same could be said about the young obese population, but there is a dangerous rise in type II diabetes in the young, and even if they lose the weight, they'll be diabetics the rest of their lives.
WRONG... haha dude iv just been fucking with ya , but seriously why am i wrong ? anorexic poeple, what they dont spend on medical supplies spend on psychologist fees.


Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.