Replies

"It's completely unhealthy to smoke and smoking causes more medical costs than any other act - it's demonstratable and obvious."

Provide this demonstratable and obvious information. Correlation does not equal causation. If your statement is fact, why does the highest per capita smoking population in the world have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease rates in the world? (Japan)

The single biggest determinant for health problems is genetics, followed by diet. Should we restrict persons of certain genetics from applying for a job with this sheriffs office?

"Families may cost more than the single person, but they are not placing a similar burden when compared with smokers."

Yeah, right. The $11K per student education cost, the $4K in lesser taxes are nothing.

"Families are the fundamental basic unit of society - this has been true in Christian as well as Pagan societies."

So in some cases people should be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices, but in others they don't need to be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices. It is very clear now.

"Smoking . . . what does it do for society again? Nothing."

Ah, the foundation of socialism. We give up the individual for the good of society. Our name is Equality 25-5439, it is unlawful for us to be writing.........

"You are only going to look silly chasing this rabbit any further."

Why? Fact: Smokers pay higher health coverage premiums out of their pockets. Fact: Smokers pay a little over $1 Billion in California. Fact: Smokers pay higher product costs as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.

That MSA was supposed to be payback to the states for these additional costs you seem to think exist. How is the money being used? Let me tell you it is not being used to offset any medical costs. Instead, it was put in the general fund. If the costs really existed, it would be used accordingly. On the other hand, since the costs are fictitious the money can be used in the general funds.

"As far as benefits from taxation for the unemployed, while I'm not certain it's germane to this discussion, you're right these folks were disenfranchised."

OK, I'll try to be more clear. The smokers generate $1 Billion in revenues to the state of CA. The smoker is not eligible for employment in this governmental department. I say that if this restriction is put into place, then the revenues should not be allowed.

"Ok, we seem to keep coming back to this. One last time: smokers may pay higher premiums than non-smokers, BUT their premiums cannot keep up with the increased cost of smoking related illness in this country."

Funny thing is, that while the population of smokers has continually declined, health care costs have continued to climb. So, I ask again, provide specific data to support your claim.

"So, when the sherriff's dept.'s insurance carrier has to start chipping in money above and beyound the deductable, it's costs them (isurance co.) - even with the higher premiums - markedly more than those who do not smoke."

Right, the insurance company just absorbs additional costs. The carriers just "chip in" money. Let me be more clear for you. The standard premium is $500, a smokers premium is $750. The way employers handle this is to pay the $500 for both employees and the smokers pay an extra $250 out of their paycheck. The way I interpret your statement is that you propose the employer pay the $500 for the non smoker and make the smoker pay their total $750. In essence you are advocating lower compensation for smokers.

So, you advocate higher taxes on smokers and lower compensation for smokers. Hmmmmm, do you advocate government mandated diets? Obesity is causing 400K deaths a year, ya know. The health costs for obesity is outpacing tobacco, ya know. It's for the children, lets tax any food that might lead to obesity related health care costs.

"Personal attack aside, maybe in Kali you're right . . . where I'm from not so."

I suppose in your area you don't get prime time TV programs. I suppose you don't get magazines. I suppose you don't get any of the media that has been pushing the gay agenda onto the rest of the nation.

Correlation does not equal causation. If your statement is fact, why does the highest per capita smoking population in the world have the lowest per capita lung and heart disease rates in the world?

You are correct about correlation, but I am not merely making a statistical pronouncement. It is quite clear, and has been for some time, just exactly what damage occurs at the cellular level in smokers in the lungs, and elsewhere in the body. Medicine knows exactly why smoking is bad and why is causes disease. The stats only back this up. Lung CA only hits about 13-14% of the poulation, but 80% of this cohort are smokers. Japanese, as a population, get hit with other disease due to smoking.

The single biggest determinant for health problems is genetics, followed by diet.

You are right bad genes and diet do create health problems only to be exacerbated by other stressors such as smoking

So in some cases people should be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices, but in others they don't need to be willing to live with the consequences of their personal choices.

As I said before having a family and smoking are fundamentaly different, if you disagree, then I'm not going to convince you on a political forum. One produces a family, one produces harm.

Fact: Smokers pay higher health coverage premiums out of their pockets. Fact: Smokers pay a little over $1 Billion in California. Fact: Smokers pay higher product costs as a result of the Master Settlement Agreement.

AND all this is still not keeping up with health costs for cigarette smoking realted illnesses - fact.

The way I interpret your statement is that you propose the employer pay the $500 for the non smoker and make the smoker pay their total $750. In essence you are advocating lower compensation for smokers.

Yes, you are correct.

Hmmmmm, do you advocate government mandated diets?

No I do not, but eating is fundamentally different than smoking - no equvalent. Furthermore, I would support not hiring obese cops as well because of the related costs. People who are obese - with a few notable exceptions (folks with metabolic abnormalities) - are lacking in self-control. Their eating is just as much an addiction as smoking, and shouldn't be rewarded.