In general, when people talk about smoking, they always think that smoking can cause many negative effects to our health and life. Why some people still smoking? Because it looks cool? Or Anything else?
According to “Quitting smoking 'cuts heart risk despite weight gain'" article, a US study says stopping smoking bring about significant weight gain; however, it can cuts the risk of heart diseases such as cardiovascular risk.
As everyone knows smoking is conducive to several negative effects to our health and life. For example, for the appearance, it can cause your lips turn to black and the teeth become too yellow and also make you look older. For the health, nicotine causes many serious problems such as heart attract and stroke, asthma, cancers especially lung cancer. The smoke not only causes bad result for smoker, but cause damage to secondhand smoke as well. As I know the secondhand smokes more dangerous than the firsthand because they are no filter. Moreover, they can get from two ways. The first way is from the smoke exhale by smoker. Another way is smoke from the lighted end of the cigarette. Many non-smoke do not think about it may be because they don’t know.
I do understand quitting smoking is too difficult. They have to make a painstaking effort to stop doing it. However, if you are success in stopping smoking, it is worth to do it right? when compared with the negative effects that will occur. By the way, I sometime don’t understand why some people continue to smoke even though they know that is unhealthy. Moreover, I think people tend to smoke tobacco more, especially adolescences. Why? Perhaps because of peer pressure or the advertisement. How can we help the smoker give up? At present, the government try to encourage people to quit smoking in many ways such as launch campaign to stop smoking, increase the price of cigarette and even have gruesome cigarette images but it still seem does not work. Anyone have any good ideas?
Reference
Quitting smoking 'cuts heart risk despite weight gain'.(2013, March 13). BBC News Health. Retrieved March 15, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21757875
Friday 15 March 2013
20 comments:
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Many smokers already knew that they are in dangerous situation which they must quite their smoking for saving their lives, but they still smoke. The cause of these might come from their behavior which they used to have it when they had smoked for many years before they tried to stop smoking. In many cases, for example, smoker’s mouth used to carry the cigarette when they smoked. When they tried to quit smoking, they don’t know what to do with their mouths, so they start smoking again.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the government encourages people to stop their smoking in which we can see from many prohibit smoking policies that already applied in many places such as restaurants, parks and on the bus , some smokers cannot stop their smoking. It might be effective in one day. Therefore, the government should continue their good attending to stop smoker from smoking.
Should the government even be encouraging people to stop smoking?
DeleteAnd are those high taxes just or unjust? Why?
The government should continue to stop people smoking even though their policies seem less effective. one of the reasons is that people's health are hurt by smoke. As we already know that the dangerous effects which come from the smoke that contains many unhealthy substance such as Nicotine can harm our healthy which these can result in many deaths even though people who don't smoke, but they inhale the smoke can be passive-smoker. Therefore, the government should continue doing their encouragements.
DeleteTape, it's a great title.
ReplyDeleteI like Tape's chosen topic and her comments.
DeleteShe confirms a point that came up in Pin's post on Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban large soda's in New York, having already totally banned some foods that are unhealthy, such as trans-fats. As the evidence seems to suggest, education is not a solution: people do not generally engage in unhealthy behaviour because they don't know it's unhealthy. And learning that X is unhealthy is unlikely to change behaviour. It's a nice idea to think a solution would be that simple, but the facts suggest that that idea, however believable, is wrong.
I was thinking of writing a new essay question to replace the current number 11. It would have been something like:
A common supporting argument for bans on cigarette smoking is that smoking cigarettes is useless, offering no benefit to the smoker. Is this right? Can one supporting reason for a ban on cigarettes be that they are useless for smokers, that they contribute no good to the lives of users?
I'm guessing that Bas will answer "No, this is not a reason to ban cigarettes." What do others think?
Peter,
DeleteActually, I would like to say "yes, the government should ban smoking and these cigarettes, although the government can receive a lot of money from these Taxes".
The reason why the government should ban smoking is that smoking is unhealthy activity that all smoker can use it to attack other people who inhale their smoke even though these people do not want to smoke as smokers do. These passive-smokers are in danger which they cannot avoid because they have to live with smokers, for example, children who their parent are smokers can receive many bad substance from smoke. These unwanted thing threats our health and it also invade our right which we have the right to protect ourselves form dangerous things.
I agree with Bas that people do have a right not to be threatened by the unhealthy behaviour of others on public property, so cigarette smoking should reasonably be banned in government offices, footpaths and the like to which all must have equal access. However, I can't see how bans on smoking on private property can be so justified. On private property, the owner must have the right to decide the smoking policy, and others are then free to decide to enter or not as they wish. For example, laws banning smoking in restaurants are unjust, and remove choice from citizens as well as violating the owner's right to determine the policy for his own property.
DeleteI dislike the smell and never allow guests to smoke cigarettes in my home. And I think that it's my right to make that decision and I could choose to allow smoking if I wanted to. I would object to the government forcing me to disallow smoking in my own home, even though it is in fact the policy I choose. I can't see why restaurants, hospitals, pubs or other private property should be treated differently - it seems like a nasty communist-like interference in people's private affairs with no sound moral justification.
I think smoking sometimes it is a way to break the ice, one of my friends said "I knew it cause money and healthy problems but it makes me feel terrific, and because of smoking I got some friends and we smoke together." Well, what can I say? "Good for you to having new friends?" I have nothing to say. Speechless!
ReplyDeleteEven though the government raises the tax many times, they still smoke! I think the best way to quit them smoking is let them visit the lung cancer patients, let them know how painful they got and how regret they are. Therefore, they might have a determination to quit smoking and get a better health life back.
In my opinion,those smoker are well know what is a harm to them? But seems nobody care because they never seen who suffer from cigarette directly such as suffer from COPD (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease) or lung cancer so they don' t mind at all. I found many patients who suffer from these disease when they getting older cause from smoke for many years since they were young. As Peter mentioned that is it good to ban cigarette or can not ban due to taxation;a huge money they pay for government each year. I think even though a ban is implemented, those people can find out where is sell cigarette illegal which has many places in Thailand such as "lottery" which is forbidden but people can buy illegal in every villages or evry street corners. However,I hope that the campaign launch by our government will effective, at least to stop a new smoker who just want to try because of friends.
ReplyDeleteI am about to say the same as Pin's that even though the government imposes the higher tax on cigaratte, there can still be an illegal one.
DeleteBut those unjustly high taxes are a great support for corrupt officials and mafia groups. Maybe they are the ones the policy is really meant to profit.
DeleteAnother thing to consider, smoking probably costs governments millions of dollars because of a large number of people who need treatment in hospital for smoking related problems.
ReplyDeleteSo, if a cost benefit analysis showed that encouraging smoking saved the government money, would that be a good reason for the government to start promoting this deadly activity?
DeleteIn fact, some years ago, a cost benefit analysis was done in Czechoslovakia, and it was discovered that the taxes raised and money saved from not having to support so many old people, who died early because of their smoking, was very good for the national budget (Sandel, 2010, pp. 42 - 43). I suspect that the same is true in Thailand.
I'm now wondering if people who like Sorn's argument are going to start supporting government campaigns for more cigarette smoking because of the great financial benefits it can bring to nations.
Reference
Sandel, M. (2010). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? London: Penguin.
I mean the government might have to pay bills for smokers who get treatments. To be precise, the government funds state hospitals so it's still the nation's expenditure.
DeleteCzechoslovakia's case is very interesting. It would have benefits to both nation and citizen. Apart from budjet, people might tend to avoid smoking because they don't want to be ignored when they get old.
Sorn
DeleteYes, but the CBA shows that the tax income and pension savings from having a larger population smoking is actually benefits the government budget.
The income from cigarette taxes + savings not paid in pensions is greater than the cost of publicly funded medical treatment for smoking related illnesses.
But perhaps the government should not pay for self-inflicted illnesses at all. Then the benefits of having lots of people smoking and dying early would be very great.
DeleteShould governments provide free health care?
Should they provide free education?
What could justify such things?
Oh! I get it after I re-read your comment again.
DeleteThe government should not encourage people in the ways that urge them to die as soon as they can, although it would bring huge incomes to the country. I think it's not the right way to get money and immoral.
So, is it morally OK to place punitive taxes on cigarettes to get money from citizens trying to enjoy their own lives? By punitive I mean "higher than required to fully cover the cost of providing publicly funded health care for smoking related illnesses"; that is, taxes which in effect punish people for a personal decision that some disapprove of.
DeleteI think smoking is one of ways people do when they want to be released and relieved. To illustrate, when being under stressful situation, some people choose to play sports or stay still, whereas some people choose to smoke. And when they keep smoking for a long time, it will come into their habit and hard to get rid of it. As a result, even thogh they know the consequences of smoking, they cannot quit.
ReplyDeleteI sort of agree with Peace. Smoking is unhealthy, like many things we all do, but it also has benefits for the smokers, which is why they do it. So, why should my personal preferences be forced on everyone else?
DeleteShould everyone, for example, be forced to read Plato because I think that's of greater value than cartoons?
Should the overweight be taxed at a higher rate to punish them for being unhealthy? Before you think I'm joking, some British legislators have recently proposed something very like this ("Obese Who Refuse", 2013). The thinking does seem to be that one group has decided that everyone in the society must be forced to follow their own personal preferences about what makes life worth living.
I think people in a democracy must be allowed to decide things for themselves, even if they make decisions we think are foolish, or even if they make decisions we think are offensive, such as eating insects or McDonalds, making violent video games, or reading cartoons and watching TV series! (Yuck!)
Reference
Obese who refuse to exercise 'could face benefits cut'. (2013, January 3). BBC News London. Retrieved March 17, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20897681