Why should we ban smoking from public funds paid f

Why must we ban cigarette smoking from manifeste funds paid for well being treatment coverage
Can it be time to ban cigarettes but? In this particular essay, I'll give you three different views on the subject. From a standpoint, the standpoint of manifeste health, cigarettes, says a deadly product, indescribable pain, suffering and deaths in the U.S. population. From another point of view, I will make the libertarian argument and the value of people who choose to take themselves to their own health outcomes have to talk, even if it is negative. And third, I will present an alternative solution that avoids the pitfalls of both perspectives, but all the benefits of free choice and personal responsibility
First, the manifeste well being argument. This is a fairly simple argument, and we have heard for some time. He says that cigarettes are a deadly product. Even when used correctly, they kill their customers – not overnight, of course, but in the long run. Cigarettes are highly addictive, so once a person starts smoking, it is very difficult for them to leave, always, a further deterioration of negative overall health outcomes.
All this is absolutely correct. Cigarettes are, in fact, cancer sticks. Exposure to cigarette smoke is the closest thing other than suicide leap from the Golden Gate Bridge, or by jumping from a building of the high bank in downtown Manhattan. A logical, rational, community well being point of view really should be outlawed cigarettes without hesitation. They have no place at all in a civilized society, and in fact, they affect the growth of the company by reducing the longevity of our adult population and contributes significantly to the overall success of overall health care costs .
But then we have the libertarian argument that people are free to choose to do what they want, even if it damages their own body, she said. We let people operate dangerous sport, for example – dirt biking, mountain biking and snowboarding – and they are not responsible for their own wellness outcomes in these efforts, right? Well, not quite. When people are injured in sports, their injuries are often covered by insurance, and insurance costs are shared by the general population. So there is a hole in the argument that only really affect people when they engage in dangerous activities. Because if they are raped, it is everyone who financially subsidize their costs of wellness treatment
But there's an important point in the libertarian argument. If we live in a free society, and in a free society need to not trust people to make their own decisions? It is not correct, the argument for the government that the parents of the individual and the power to act of man, to avoid certain products or other products to swallow what the government has established wellbeing standards. And certainly some who would know something about wellbeing care has the confidence of the well being of the incumbent government, where public wellbeing policies are dictated by the financial interests of Big Pharma and Big Business rather than legitimate wellness concerns public. The libertarian argument
nevertheless another important point, and it is the effectiveness of state regulation of the sale of nicotine products. Suppose the government has banned smoking cigarettes – that would mean that nicotine products disappear overnight, and nobody would have access to them? Of course not! Mean anything what would it be,More:, that to develop a huge black market in cigarettes, and we will continue to enrich the drug dealer who now peddling crack cocaine, marijuana and other controlled substances by the passage of a huge industry multi-billion dollar sale of tobacco products. This tactic would
a huge cost to society. Would we declare war on tobacco, the same way that we declared war on drugs today? Since the war against drugs is a huge waste of taxpayer money, and was not actually very effective in eliminating the use of illegal drugs, drug trafficking, drug abuse, and so on. The reality of the economy here means that even if we are to ban nicotine products, it would certainly be a black market for them, and it may indeed be much better they consider where they are legal and regulated taxed. So what is the libertarian argument in a word, and I do not pretend to speak for libertarians on this one -. This is an overview of the most common positions on this issue I
an alternative to all is that which maintains freedom of choice in the hands of users, and reduces the financial impact on the general community. And this comes the question: Why ought to society have to pay for the cost of health and fitness treatment for people who choose to commit suicide slowly through the consumption of tobacco products, you? If a person is to give you cancer, and if they do it consciously, day by day, then year after year is that a cost factor that ought to really be supported by their neighbors and fellow citizens? It does not seem fair. When there is some caution people about their well being and the prevention of cigarette smoking, why those who smoke must require everyone else to pay for their healthcare?
My suggestion is that we take legal cigarettes, but we create a new policy that says that those who are covered do not become more of cigarettes on Medicare, Medicaid or private insurance. I know this is radical enough, and it will never, of course, to become law, because it seems too hard. But let me find some interesting points on this so that you get an idea of ??why this can get at least worthy of discussion.
If these smokers to destroy their wellbeing, they should really really outside the system the community pay for their medical treatment. If they take a road of slow suicide, and they will choose to destroy their overall health and create extraordinary costs of health treatment, then they should really simply warn you that they will take responsibility for their own health care costs . Because right now, are smokers say, essentially, for society: “You have to pay my expenses for overall health treatment, although I'm going to sit around and smoke cigarettes and to destroy my overall health, you need to pay for me .. ” I think we really should
as not smoking in society stand up and say, we are no longer willing to choose the slow suicide of the habits of people who smoke subsidize. Why need to we fund their wellness care costs … what is essentially a way to subsidize their habit of smoking? It's almost as if we are rewarded for being smokers, even though they are draining the economic productivity of society.
This approach would keep cigarette smoking legal, so would the people to exercise free will, but at the same time, they would be accountable for their decisions about their wellness. And of course, could someone who smokes to stop cigarette smoking, and, say, one or two years may again be covered by health and fitness insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. It's a decision they do to get back into the system could, if they want, but if her until she was diagnosed with lung cancer or heart disease, while they wait to smoke more, it's too late.

You see, it is the decision back in their hands, without the government acts like Big Brother. The arguments against this system will of course begin with the most obvious is that it is cruel for people who smoke. It is not cruel, to cover their well being care – what do you want, they came from hospitals? My answer is that these people are cruel to themselves first. You have to commit suicide – they do so knowingly, willfully, deliberately, day after day. If you smoke, you have no respect for their own wellness, why must society have more regard for your wellbeing than you
And actually, it's worse than that: by killing people who smoke around them the destructive effects of passive cigarette smoking. Smoking does not only destroy their own wellbeing, require that you pay for it, they are also poisoning the air we all breathe. They are indirectly endanger the overall health of you and your family as they sit outside the buildings and put up a wall of smoke to get through you just go through the front door. So now have health and fitness treatment costs due to destructive habits of smokers who want the lights appear to be increasing everywhere: parks, beaches, trails … You name it. Why are we subsidizing this type of activity? Why smoking cigarettes in public still legal on this area?
Other people might say, Mike, you think, because you never really lost someone to lung cancer, you are not close enough to this issue in order to understand the implications. This is not true – I lost two close family members of lung cancer. I know what it's like smoking cigarettes and lose close to nicotine, and that's not what I wanted the family to have to punish them in the health sector, c ' is that I wanted to talk to them, was 40 years before she ever started smoking and said, hey, you have a choice. If you want to use this product, you can, but there will be a price to pay, and the price is long-term cancer, pain and suffering, premature death, and you will no longer be covered by well being as a insurance, Medicare or Medicaid. They are not compensated, will be a smoker. On the other hand, if you do not smoke, you choose well being insurance can be covered, you can live longer, healthier and happier, without negative consequences. The choice is yours to make.
Free choice. It is a delicate thing, you see. Almost everyone says they want, but nobody wants the responsibility for the consequences. When people exercise freedom of choice in smoking cigarettes, they always want someone else to pay for their cancer or heart disease. For me, this is not a choice: He is to act as a parasite on society. This is nothing more than shifting the responsibility onto someone else, if it runs its own free choice to be the wrong choice. Some even believe that health and fitness care is a “right”. As in: “I have the right, illegal drugs, smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, be obese, avoiding exercise, eat junk food … and then demand that you pay for my expenses overall health treatment. ” Seriously. Some people actually believe, know that
Undoubtedly, the debate on smoking cigarettes in our society continues to rage. They are those who say we should ban smoking cigarettes and nicotine now. Others will say that we ought to have a free choice for consumers, and it will be some that might come up with creative ideas on how I can be offered here already. But the fact remains that as long as people continue to smoke in our society, there is a huge cost, not only to individuals but to society as a whole.
The case of a national ban on smoking is that if people do not act like adults, then maybe a government agency to jump into the water and help people make healthy choices needed it. If we trust people to make good decisions about their health and avoid cigarettes will, why does not it? Why is it always so many people continue to smoke? The answer is because many people within this country really minds of children. You can not make good decisions, so it is pretty ridiculous, I think, to follow the libertarian argument and say that these people must be allowed to make decisions on their own when it comes to smoking . People obviously can not manage what
decision. On the other hand, the individual freedom loving me say, I do not want the government to make decisions for me, because I fully understand the consequences my actions and I am an overall government policy would be unfair, even if it is not Orwellian. Here are some questions that deserve consideration.

Leave a Reply