Smokers unite before it is too late.

[accymel]

Originally Posted by pendy

how do we fund the NHS? It's already running over budget. So, how do we cut down? Simple, don't treat smokers.

If only simple as that then after the smokers are not in existance then what NHS will still have problems!!! So whats next for NHS cull? overweight people, alcholics, drug addiction, then who after people with depression/mental health as in attempted suiciders????? Binge drinkers/party the weekenders are the worst for Emergency services costings but nope nobody says boo cos thats seemingly acceptable.

Sorry start with one & further down the line come the others, so least be interesting for those against smoking but have a little addiction of their own that could in future down the line be banned - see who else would moan then. The major point above all the other crap here that the bad guys smokers have, is that its discrimination because 1 addiction is sorely more attacked than any other!!! Also if that has to be banned so has other addictions like the above i mention for health reasons otherwise its hypocritical.

As for being Governments fault - not wholely the choice as with owt is with the individual but the gov certainly can be called HYPROCRITICAL, in one breath its wrong bad etc BUT in another is great cos we get money from it!!

How would most of you feel if mobile phones were banned or restricted - most of you have one, so its easy to condemn one act because you dont do it but if you do you cant argue the point - no win situ as with thread.

[jambutty]

Once again shakermaker you bring into the debate a point that has absolutely no relevance. If you want to discuss the depletion of the o-zone layer that’s fine by me but don’t try and hijack this thread for the purpose. But then that is what people do when they have no further points to make to enhance their argument. They try to drag the thread off topic.

Having a view on someone’s opinion isn’t intolerance garinda.

Indeed junetta, when I joined the navy in 1954 at the age of 16 years and 10 months I was able to buy 300 cigarettes each month for SEVEN SHILLINGS. They were specially made for the navy that we nicknamed ‘Blue Liners’ because each fag had a blue line along its length. In the late fifties I was hospitalised with double pneumonia and during the four weeks stay in hospital I could still buy my Blue Liners and smoke them whilst in bed. I was encouraged to smoke because it helped me cough up the muck in my lungs. The only restriction was no smoking during doctor’s rounds. But times and attitudes change.

Many thanks for your observation on my age Madhatter. I take it that it was made with your tongue firmly in your cheek.

would you pour tar in a glass and drink it?

You need to brush up on your human anatomy. Since when did drinking something send it to the lungs?

when you get smoking related illness's you should be refused treatment.

Now there’s a charitable attitude. I suppose that you would also agree to refusing treatment for drink related injuries or sports related injuries and so on. No? That wouldn’t have anything to do with you liking a pint of something, would it? You really do highlight my accusation that today’s society has got extremely selfish and intolerant of other people’s views and life style.

My point Madhatter is that blaming just smoking for all the ills is not only unfair but grossly inaccurate. I accept that smoking does pollute the atmosphere to a small degree in the open air but the non-smoking, anti-smoking drivers point blank refuse to accept that their vehicular activity causes far greater pollution. They always come back with the argument that because cars etc are necessary it is OK to pollute the air that I breathe. It’s the hypocritical attitude of these people that saddens me.

If your are advocating making tobacco an illegal substance who_eat_all_the_pies then you would also have to say the same about alcohol. Alcohol does far more harm to the imbiber and those around him/her than tobacco. Try any town centre on any weekend night not forgetting the abuse the family gets when the drunk gets home.

For the NHS to refuse treatment to smokers would drive a coach and horses right through the Hippocratic oath and would make it a hypocritical oath pendy.

[accymel]

Yeh Jambutty i agree with you about alcohol that to me is worse than being trapped in a room with 100 smokers LOL!!

Its the worst for costing emergency sevices [police & ambulance] per week all for a good time - the worse is living with someone alcohol dependant specially when they get violent of it & wrecks the family..... i lived with one so i do know!

Look at George Best what ended it for him - booze or fags???

[Wynonie Harris]

So, do cigarettes cause people to beat, gouge, kick, rape, maim and kill their fellow human beings?

Have cigarettes caused many of our city and town centres to become violent no-go areas for peaceable folk on weekend nights?

Have cigarettes led to the word "British" being equated with the word "hooligan" in certain parts of continental Europe?

Yet, unbelievably, this government have freed up restrictions on drinkers in the futile hope of creating a cafe-style culture, whilst proposing yet more restrictions on smokers.

...and, by the way, I'm a non-smoking boozer!

[accymel]

Excellent point & logical perspective in the scheme of things Wynonie

[wozaup]

I aint a smoker and im glad ill be able to go out and not comeback stinking of smoke..

But i do feel sorry for the smokers. Taking liberties away from people isnt fair, whats next ?

[Madhatter]

The age, of course it was, don't take it serious.

You need to brush up on your human anatomy. Since when did drinking something send it to the lungs?

Thats my point, you wouldn't, yet you have been putting it in to your lungs.

Now there’s a charitable attitude. I suppose that you would also agree to refusing treatment for drink related injuries or sports related injuries and so on. No? That wouldn’t have anything to do with you liking a pint of something, would it? You really do highlight my accusation that today’s society has got extremely selfish and intolerant of other people’s views and life style

yes but drop the tax on them first. My point being that if the government is banning something, it shouldn't be condoning it with collecting tax and treating people.

Drink is a dead argument, because it's legal, as is ciggarettes, and when used in moderation is completely safe, it's only when it's abused that it does damage, the same with sport. Drugs are illegal, some say that they too can be safe in moderation, but thats not true, many a people have died taking them for the first time. Weed is the same as cigarettes, it stinks and it ages you and kills brain cells. People who smoke weed Continuously look thin, pale and gaunt, far older than they are. They look ill.

Me, I hardly ever drink. and can't remember the last time I had a pint, although in the right situation I do enjoy one. I certainly wouldn't miss it if it was banned, same with sport, I could care less if all sports of every description were banned, as for the car, I'd find another job, and i'd go back to public transport, which would then be environmentally friendly which I used for many years when getting together with the ex and building our flat up. OR i'd get a bike. I saw three people on one bike yesterday, and it was pulling a trailler with a young person in. I thought, how good is that.
Sometimes, I think I'd like to be on that island on lost. That would suit me fine.

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Madhatter

I saw three people on one bike yesterday, and it was pulling a trailler with a young person in.

Sounds like it may have been the circus coming to Atherstone.

Were they wearing big shoes and sporting red noses?

[Madhatter]

Originally Posted by garinda

Sounds like it may have been the circus coming to Atherstone.

Were they wearing big shoes and sporting red noses?

lol no it was a normal family, and it was in loughborough not here, unfortunately.

[chav1]

all these none smokers objecting to smoking in pubs is a Fing joke]]

if you were that against smoking in pubs and found teh smell so disgusting you wouldnt go into the pubs in the first place but the pleasure of rotting your liver with alchol makes it ok to stand in a smoke filled pub

we had a non smoking pub in accrington for a while and was it busy , was it f**k busy all the non smokers were stood drinking in teh pubs that allowed smoking because those pubs are considered the beter pubs to be seen in

you want to breath fresh air go get some oxygen tanks and a ventelator off the NHS , as a smoker i dont mind my taxes from my ciggrettes paying for it so that your constant bitching and moaning dosnt hurt my ears no more

i dont smoke when others eat

i dont smoke in other peoples homes if they say not too

but i will be damned if i will not smoke in a pub just because a handfull of hypocryts decide they can no longer after many years of doing so put up with smoking in pubs

buy your own bloody pubs and if you serioulsy think people smoking in the street can give you cancer then you better buy a bloody bubble and stay in that because theris a lot more harmfull things in our atmosphere to worry about that a slight whiff of cigrette smoke

ps:

after you manage to stop smoking outdoors what are you going to try banning next

farting because it offends your nasel passages and is erroding teh ozone layer

grow up will ya

[Madhatter]

I do think pubs should have better ventilation though chav, I know of smokers complaining in some pubs the air was so thick with smoke. Infact I truelly believe that if all pubs had very good ventilation, all this banning smoking in pubs stuff wouldn't have come about.

[accymel]

PMSL!! another well said comment Chav though after that i bet you needed a fag eh This thread could be increasing smoking by 30% to avoid a pm from mods lmao

[Madhatter]

and you could therefore have half a pub smoking and half no and it would actually work. Seperate rooms don't because everybody ends up in the smokers side, because while we can put up with smokers, smokers can't put up with going without for a few hours or waiting till they're outside.

[lettie]

I agree that banning smoking outdoors is totally unworkable. The only way to do it would be to make tobacco illegal and that would mean that the government would lose the billions in taxes which come from tobacco......Therefore hell will freeze over before they do that.

If they did make tobacco illegal then they would have to recoup their tax losses from somewhere.......alcohol and petrol look likely candidates here.

The only thing about quoting death statistics is that cause of death is often uncertain and confounded by other variables. Many people who die (unless killed outright in a quick and painful accident) have several things wrong with them all of which cause a deterioration in the body functions. Somebody may have a smoking related illness but they may also be grossly obese, if they have a sudden heart attack and die......was it caused by the smoking or the obesity???? Do you see what I mean?

The AIDS statistics quoted earlier in the thread said that 3 million died of AIDS worldwide last year.....not a statistic to be proud of but it failed to mention that there are 40 million living with AIDS worldwide and that there were roughly 4-5 million new infections diagnosed last year... By the way, these are just the cases which have been diagnosed, there are potentially many more. The reason why less people are now dying is because treatments are so good and freely available in the western world. BTW, most people don't catch HIV from drugs and promiscuity as mentioned by somebody earlier. Heterosexual women are now accounting for most new diagnoses because women are anatomically more likely to catch it. Most of these women are not promiscuous and have actually caught it from a husband. Drug addicts account for only a tiny percentage of HIV diagnoses...... I have references for all of this info if anyone wants to see them...

The debate about not treating smokers on the NHS will rage on. I think that most medical and nursing staff who are bound by the ethical principles of beneficience, non-maleficience, autonomy and justice could not bring themselves to refuse to treat somebody just because they smoke/smoked.

Like other minority groups, smokers will have to fight for their rights. Ethnic minorities, women, elderly, disabled, homosexual people have all stood up and demanded their rights... Is it against the human rights act to be marginalised because you smoke????? I think it probably is in this current climate.

[accymel]

What is must be like to be holier than thou!!!

Actually hatter smokers do most of the waiting & going out for their smoke in fact while non smokers are cushty, likes of workplace, public transport, anywhere where smoking is not permitted - they even have to smoke in all weathers being outcasts as it is, but ooo table turns in a pub then its bad, again unfair as we do respect non smokers more than they respect us.