This was an actual letter to the editor in yesterday's Chicago Tribune.

 

People who die from lung cancer cause by years of smoking, like Peter Jennings, should have their deaths classified as "suicides"

 

That took me aback for a second. Is it really that different to partake in an activity that you know will kill you, whether it be in a split-second from now, or years from now?

 

I'd be curious to hear thoughts on this one.

This was an actual letter to the editor in yesterday's Chicago Tribune.

That took me aback for a second.  Is it really that different to partake in an activity that you know will kill you, whether it be in a split-second from now, or years from now?

 

I'd be curious to hear thoughts on this one.

 

Would this include skydivers? Construction workers? Any dangerous job or activity? All have inherent risks. I wouldn't call it a suicide. I would call it reckless indifference. (Thank you Law and Order.)

I understand the sentiment, but certainly it is an over-reach. The McDonald's I had for dinner last week was clearly not in my best health interests, but I don't have a death wish. Similarly, most smokers fully intend to quit, know they are putting themselves at risk etc., But for smoking-related, alcohol-related deaths, etc., death is a side effect of the bad choices and not the primary goal (as it is in suicide).

Eh... then I suppose those that drive cars, ride bikes, hell.. walk outside or live outside of a plastic bubble and breathe anything other than "clean" oxygen could also be classified that way. Some people have way too much time on their hands.

How about the obese?

From what I understand, most of them don't have a 'glandular' condition or an actual clinical 'addiction' to eating. You don't wake up one morning and suddenly you're 200 lbs overweight. Don't they eat themselves to obesity by choice? At least a smoker can say they became addicted.

Thoughts?

I also think you need to keep in mind that when Jennings started smoking, the true risks weren't really common knowledge. He didn't start thinking it would kill him one day

Would this include skydivers?  Construction workers?  Any dangerous job or activity?  All have inherent risks.  I wouldn't call it a suicide.  I would call it reckless indifference.  (Thank you Law and Order.)

 

I didn't interpret the letter as meaning meerly "dangerous" activities. I think he was talking about thinks you know will kill you. Things such as smoking, overeating, overdrinking, etc.

 

Not that I agree with the guy who wrote this, but I just thought it might make for an interesting discussion.

How about the obese?

From what I understand, most of them don't have a 'glandular' condition or an actual clinical 'addiction' to eating. You don't wake up one morning and suddenly you're 200 lbs overweight. Don't they eat themselves to obesity by choice? At least a smoker can say they became addicted.

Thoughts?

 

 

Before anyone else says it.. some diagnosed as obese are addicted to food. That aside, I agree with you.

 

Any and every activity in the world could fit this.

 

Hell.. people die from a slip and fall in the bathtub... so would taking a bath or shower qualify..?

 

Like I said... too much time this one's hands. And stupid for the paper to give it attention. Extremely disrespectful to Jennings - who by the way had quite 10 years previous IIRC.

Extremely disrespectful to Jennings - who by the way had quite 10 years previous IIRC.

 

 

He did quit for awhile, but im pretty sure he started back up again after 9/11

He did quit for awhile, but im pretty sure he started back up again after 9/11

 

 

Thanks. I wasn't sure.

Since some are comparing smoking to driving a car and sky diving, does anyone have the statistics?

 

I would assume that the statistics would be much higher for dying from smoking than from driving, especially when considering the large volume of people that drive and the fact that driving takes up much more time than smoking, but I'm not sure.

Since some are comparing smoking to driving a car and sky diving, does anyone have the statistics?

 

I would assume that the statistics would be much higher for dying from smoking than from driving, especially when considering the large volume of people that drive and the fact that driving takes up much more time than smoking, but I'm not sure.   

Then you would have to look at the population, and determine the number of smokers vs. skydivers vs. drivers and figure out the rates directly attributable to dying from each.

 

Too much damn work and it's rather pointless, as steff has said I think 4 times in this thread now.

Oh, and this just in, we are all 100% going to die.

 

Some statisitcs can't be manipulated.

Then you would have to look at the population, and determine the number of smokers vs. skydivers vs. drivers and figure out the rates directly attributable to dying from each.

 

Sounds like something right up your alley Mr CPA

This was an actual letter to the editor in yesterday's Chicago Tribune.

That took me aback for a second.  Is it really that different to partake in an activity that you know will kill you, whether it be in a split-second from now, or years from now?

 

I'd be curious to hear thoughts on this one.

There isn't enough bandwith on this site for the rant I could let loose. Free people make free choices and for every Peter Jennings there are five or ten in the pink of health at the same age he was when he died. PC has gone too far. Triage and euthanasia for the "defective" are just around the corner. Hitler would be proud. Not that it's anybody's business but no I don't smoke.

Then you would have to look at the population, and determine the number of smokers vs. skydivers vs. drivers and figure out the rates directly attributable to dying from each.

 

Too much damn work and it's rather pointless, as steff has said I think 4 times in this thread now. 

 

 

Not too much damn work. Not possible. The numbers of smokers and skydivers, I'm gonna use my common sense here.. and guess... is not a question on the census thus not avaliable. I suppose someone who really wanted to know the infomation could go door to door across the country and gather the actual numbers...

Not too much damn work. Not possible. The numbers of smokers and skydivers, I'm gonna use my common sense here.. and guess... is not a question on the census thus not avaliable. I suppose someone who really wanted to know the infomation could go door to door across the country and gather the actual numbers...

 

 

Jane, you ignorant slut.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jane, you ignorant slut.

   

 

 

 

Hey... my name is not Jane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This was an actual letter to the editor in yesterday's Chicago Tribune.

That took me aback for a second.  Is it really that different to partake in an activity that you know will kill you, whether it be in a split-second from now, or years from now?

 

I'd be curious to hear thoughts on this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Logically speaking there's a big difference. Not all smokers die prior to the age of normal life expectancy. Many smokers live beyond that age. Thus no one can say they know for certain that an activity like smoking will have an adverse effect on their life beyond the norm. Provided you are skilled in the art of killing yourself it is certain you will die from a suicidal act.

 

Philosophically speaking there is a big difference as well. Does a smoker smoke because they seek death? More likely than not the answer is no. Do suicides try to kill themselves because they seek death? More likely than not the answer is yes.

This was an actual letter to the editor in yesterday's Chicago Tribune.

That took me aback for a second.  Is it really that different to partake in an activity that you know will kill you, whether it be in a split-second from now, or years from now?

 

I'd be curious to hear thoughts on this one.

 

Then shouldn't the tobacco industry be charged with murder since they know smoking could kill you? Or at least assisted suicide?

Oh, and this just in, we are all 100% going to die.

 

Some statisitcs can't be manipulated.

 

No one, and I mean no one gets out alive.

 

Having said that, I have heard that some people refer to smoking, obesity, boozing, etc. as "chronic suicide." I'm not sure I buy the logic, though. Anyone who would refer to a smoker's death as a suicide is pretty damn self-righteous, IMO.

Then shouldn't the tobacco industry be charged with murder since they know smoking could kill you? Or at least assisted suicide?

And the government as well. (For not outlawing it and profiting off of it.)