Gary.Greiner@f47.n272.z1.fidonet.org (Gary Greiner) (01/05/90)
Index Number: 6051
I am going to quote a couple of sentences from a news item (from AP)
that I found in today's newspaper.
"New York's tough statewide anti-smoking law ... is being challenged
in court by two men who claim the statue is discriminatory.
Joseph Fagan and Thomas Blau said their addiction to smoking makes
them disabled. The two said they would be discriminated against if they
cannot smoke at work and in public buildings ... "
TM
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!272!47!Gary.Greiner
Internet: Gary.Greiner@f47.n272.z1.fidonet.orgJerry.Pickup@p33.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.org (Jerry Pickup) (01/05/90)
Index Number: 6077
In a message to Everyone <22 Dec 89 19:40:00> Gary Greiner wrote:
GG> I am going to quote a couple of sentences from a news item (from AP)
GG> that I found in today's newspaper.
GG> "New York's tough statewide anti-smoking law ... is being challenged
GG> in court by two men who claim the statue is discriminatory.
GG> Joseph Fagan and Thomas Blau said their addiction to smoking makes
GG> them disabled. The two said they would be discriminated against if they
GG> cannot smoke at work and in public buildings ... "
That's a crock. There are probably a few psychopaths that would
say that mass murdering is their disability and we must allow it so
as not to discriminate against them!
-Jerry
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!360!1.33!Jerry.Pickup
Internet: Jerry.Pickup@p33.f1.n360.z1.fidonet.orgStephen.White@f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org (Stephen White) (01/05/90)
Index Number: 6091
I suspect that if the judges and jury have any brains, they'll notice
that proper disability does not kill the people around them.
Hmm, I wonder.. Since I'm deaf, am I ear-bashing people to death?
And the blind.. Are they out on a stick? Do they dog people too much?
I think the American legal system is a heap of crap, from what I've
heard of it. "Boy sues parents to divorce" etc.
Steve!
The Child of a Lesser God!
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!681!853!Stephen.White
Internet: Stephen.White@f853.n681.z3.fidonet.orgVixen.*@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.org (Vixen *) (01/05/90)
Index Number: 6104
Hi Jerry,
I have to go along with you! I think we can sometimes overdo this
"who is a disABLED person" thing by including little "splinter
disabilities" and bad habits.
Certainly, smoking is not healthy for anyone and it has taken
people to illness ending in disability (emphysema et cetera). But I
also have trouble with the concept that a smoker, simply by virtue
of being a smoker, is a disabled person. I suppose one might find
logic in such thought by comparing the addicted smoker to an
alcoholic (who can get SSI for being such) or drug addict.
However, if smoking is a legitimate disability, then I am here to
speak of good news!!!!! There is a cure! Quitting!!!!! Easy, no,
possible, most definitely!
Ahhhh, but whereof doth Vixen speak, and how doth she knoweth of
such things! Well, Vixen was a smoker of the cancer stick begining
at age nine and quit (cold turkey) about seven years or so ago this
month! (And I feels soooooo good about that!) But, I hardly would
have considered myself a "disabled person" based on mu smoking
habit! Anyway, I found "quitting" to be a very effective cure!
No, I don't hate people who smoke and I am not one of those
"obnoxious ex-smoker types!" But, I am militant about caring about
people who do smoke and hope they can break the chain.
Keepin' the faith!
. Vixen
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!203!11!Vixen.*
Internet: Vixen.*@f11.n203.z1.fidonet.orgJoe.Chamberlain@f302.n141.z1.fidonet.org (Joe Chamberlain) (01/05/90)
Index Number: 6115
V*> No, I don't hate people who smoke and I am not one of those
V*> "obnoxious ex-smoker types!" But, I am militant about caring
V*> about people who do smoke and hope they can break the chain.
Aaaah, a voice of reason. As another ex-smoker I strongly support
your statements. I quit 3 years ago, after trying for about 3 more
years. I can't come down on smokers, because I still remember the
difficulties I had trying to quit.
There are all kinds of disabilities. The blind, deaf, paralyzed,
retarded, and dismembered are not the other ones disabled. I think we
need to careful how we define disability.
As a person who has been paralyzed for many years, I would cheerfully
trade places with someone who is deaf. But that is because I
understand my disability and do not appreciate fully the difficulties
of being deaf.
-=joe=-
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!302!Joe.Chamberlain
Internet: Joe.Chamberlain@f302.n141.z1.fidonet.orgPat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (01/05/90)
Index Number: 6120
I think you have made a very valid point. People who inflict on
themselves damage, repeatedly, continually, should not be accorded rights
at the expense of the rest of us. They should not be able to get the same
benefits as a person who has a congenital handicap, or one that resulted
from an accident. Thus, people who smoke should not be able to avail
themselves of benefits that I would want to grant to the disabled through
no fault of their own.
I would extend this to AIDS victims who engaged in behavior that caused
exposure. There is a tendency on the part of some to grant them the same
benefits as the disabled generally. I have opposed this from the
beginning, but you have given the best rationale. In general, I would
want to see AIDS victims helped, but I don't think we can afford to
coerce people to provide these benefits, because the cost is astronomical
and there are a lot of folks who simply cannot afford to be taxed at such
a high rate, if they are going to be able to continue to feed their
children. I think volunteer help will be best, because governmental help
is too inefficient.
Pat
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.orgwtm@bunker.UUCP (Bill McGarry) (01/10/90)
Index Number: 6167 PG>...people who smoke should not be able to avail themselves of PG>benefits that I would want to grant to the disabled through PG>no fault of their own. PG> PG> I would extend this to AIDS victims who engaged in behavior PG>that caused exposure...In general, I would want to see AIDS PG>victims helped, but I don't think we can afford to coerce PG>people to provide these benefits, because the cost is astro- PG>nomical and there are a lot of folks who simply cannot afford PG>to be taxed at such a high rate...I think volunteer help will PG>be bet, because governmental help is too inefficient. Phew! First of all, the majority of the people who have full-blown AIDS today contracted it before we knew how it was transmitted. Under the rationale presented above, they would be entitled to benefits. I hear views like this and wonder, "Who are we to play God?" What gives us the right to decide who is entitled to medical care and who isn't? I understand that resources are limited. God knows that I can't even afford to be taxed to support someone with a common cold ... _or_ and AIDS patient..._or_ a cancer patient ... _or_ a physically or mentally disABLED person. Perhaps is we had spent more time and effort (and money) on AIDS research years ago, instead of waiting for it to take its toll on "mainstream" America, we wouldn't have these enormous hospital bills. And the medical treatment doesn't have to be that expensive. It's the pharmaceutical companies that won't produce a drug unless the price can be high enough that makes the bills so large; it's the hospitals that refuse to care for patients that make the other hospitals overcrowded and understaffed; it's the insurance companies that refuse to pay for AIDS/HIV treatment for their policyholders. Volunteer help isn't the answer. If it were, the ADA wouldn't be needed. And I don't think we're "coercing" people to help. If I were taxed to pay for someone else's medical care, I would know that I could reasonably expect to get the same care myself if I needed it. And the _taxes_ are going more for research and education than medical care. Research and education to prevent people like you and I and our families from seroconverting. George ---------- George Russell Defense Personnel Support Center grussell%dpscg1.uucp@dsac.dla.mil
Stephen.White@f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org (Stephen White) (01/12/90)
Index Number: 6207 > need to careful how we define disability. > > As a person who has been paralyzed for many years, I would > cheerfully > trade places with someone who is deaf. But that is because > I > understand my disability and do not appreciate fully the > difficulties of being deaf Oh I'd say that the main difficulty of being deaf is the language barrier. Once that's solved, there is really not much of a problem. But then I've never been ABLED, so I dont know how much of a problem I'm having! Probably a lot less, seeing all these people shoot themselves from stress! Steve! -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!681!853!Stephen.White Internet: Stephen.White@f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org
Stephen.White@f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org (Stephen White) (01/12/90)
Index Number: 6209 > I think you have made a very valid point. People who inflict > on themselves > damage, repeatedly, continually, should not be accorded > rights at the expense > I would extend this to AIDS victims who engaged in behavior > that caused > exposure. There is a tendency on the part of some to grant > them the same As far as I know, you only get AIDS once! Except for me! I got AIDS twice! One for each ear! (grin!) Hearing aids, to make sure you follow, gee I'd hate you to misinterprete THAT! More seriously, but not much, can you imagine trying to establish that the person with AIDS got it through no fault of theirs? Judge: What was the due process in which you acquired this disease? Person: Weeeelll (AAaaaaaammmmeeeerrrrrikaaaaannnnnnnnn drawl) Moi Maaaate aaaann OOooiii, weeeeell, weeee adda bidda fun! Judge: Of what alleged gender is this alleged mate, and was this alleged mate allegedly involved in the aquistion of this alleged disease? (reverting back to his lawyer days!) Person: (counts on fingers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12) Judge: (sighs) Person: (an hour later: 14673 14674 14675 14676) Judge: (snoring) Person: 52786! Which one did you have in mind sir? Steve! -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!3!681!853!Stephen.White Internet: Stephen.White@f853.n681.z3.fidonet.org
Floria.Antin@f304.n109.z1.fidonet.org (Floria Antin) (01/13/90)
Index Number: 6231 > Volunteer help isn't the answer. If it were, the ADA wouldn't > be needed. And I don't think we're "coercing" people to help. > If I were taxed to pay for someone else's medical care, I would > know that I could reasonably expect to get the same care myself > if I needed it. And the _taxes_ are going more for research Well put. If we followed the logic that some shoiuld not be entled to treatment because their disability was caused by their actions I think that except for those born with a disability most if not all people with a disability would be ineligible, for example most vitims of sport or car accidents contributed to their condition by participating in the sport or driving or riding in the car. The same could ve said of many illnesses, they can ve due to our life style,(heart conditons, many cancers, etc.) I think we have to be able to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves. If we start to quantify we can make rules so that very few qualify for services. Hardly fair. -- Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!109!304!Floria.Antin Internet: Floria.Antin@f304.n109.z1.fidonet.org
Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz) (01/17/90)
Index Number: 6284
The only thing that makes sense to me is that eligibility should not
extend to those who persist in deliberate behavior that causes or
aggravates their disability, or who became disabled because of persistent
dangerous behavior. The problem now becomes how to distinguish from a
person who merely engages in risky behavior because the odds of injury
are somewhat higher than average (stock car racing, for example) and
persons who engage in behavior known to cause the disability eventually
in almost every case (smoking, for example). The problem is, if people
are gonna be forced to pay for someone else's care through taxation, they
DO have the right to order such folks NOT to make their condition worse,
or to cause it in the first place. It becomes a matter of whether or not
we realistically have the resources to help out! If I act responsibly at
all times, why must I have the bulk of my income taken for those who
refuse to act responsibly?
It's a real problem. I don't like the idea of depriving people of help
they really need, but on the other hand, my family and I are being
deprived of help WE really need.
Pat
--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org