How about this? I'm addicted to huffing asbestos and am going to spray asbestos in the air at every restaurant/bar I go to. It's my addiction and you're infringing on my right to die of cancer if you say it's illegal. Who cares if everyone around me dies, it's my right!
Didn't New York ban smoking in public places some time ago?
I think they should go further and deny NHS treatment to heavy smokers and the obese - it's their choice, why should the taxpayer be burdened with it.
Smoker's and obese people pay their taxes too. It's not like they're some kind of sick people who contribute nothing to society.Bertster7 wrote:
I think they should go further and deny NHS treatment to heavy smokers and the obese - it's their choice, why should the taxpayer be burdened with it.
QFTbuLLet_t00th wrote:
A smoker has the choice of either smoking or not smoking......a non-smoker doesn't have the choice of whether breathing it in or not (unless they're really good at holding their breath). Think about it for a second....it makes sense!
QFlolJahManRed wrote:
We have had it for 2 months now. I don't smoke tobacco so I am all for it. Only problem is now all you can smell is unhygienic people and beer farts.
And they cost far, far more to treat, they account for an immense amount of NHS resources and it's entirely their own fault. It's disproportionate allocation of resources. They should be given ultimatums by the NHS, saying if they don't cut down seriously on smoking or lose a lot of weight, then they'll stop receiving free treatment.jord wrote:
Smoker's and obese people pay their taxes too. It's not like they're some kind of sick people who contribute nothing to society.Bertster7 wrote:
I think they should go further and deny NHS treatment to heavy smokers and the obese - it's their choice, why should the taxpayer be burdened with it.
Alternatively they could pay a supplement to their NI contributions.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-28 11:18:33)
Fine, they cost alot of money. But how many smokers smoke so heavily that they need to go to hospital? The majority shouldn't be punished for what the minority does.Bertster7 wrote:
And they cost far, far more to treat, they account for an immense amount of NHS resources and it's entirely their own fault. It's disproportionate allocation of resources. They should be given ultimatums by the NHS, saying if they don't cut down seriously on smoking or lose a lot of weight, then they'll stop receiving free treatment.jord wrote:
Smoker's and obese people pay their taxes too. It's not like they're some kind of sick people who contribute nothing to society.Bertster7 wrote:
I think they should go further and deny NHS treatment to heavy smokers and the obese - it's their choice, why should the taxpayer be burdened with it.
Alternatively they could pay a supplement to their NI contributions.
What about alcoholics as well?
Or people who go and drive around on a motorbike with no helmet than break their arm, that's their fault but they should still get treatment.
Health care in Canada = free. It is like this though, because under regular circumstances, one can assume you are not going to go out and hurt yourself. Meanwhile, smoking is not the same as an accidental broken limb. You asked for your lungs to get cancer by putting that cancer stick in your mouth. I didn't ask to lose my footing, someone else to drop that block, ect... and get a broken leg. The smokers know they are going to get their money and them some back out of the health care system when they are older. The rest of us pay it for the insurance purpose.Bertster7 wrote:
I think they should go further and deny NHS treatment to heavy smokers and the obese - it's their choice, why should the taxpayer be burdened with it.
Edit: Yes, regarding the above post, there is the whole point, where the hell do you draw the line? Since you can not draw it without someone saying 'hey, what about this', or 'that's not fair to this group', the line is simply never drawn, and everyone gets the health care.
QFTsan4 wrote:
QFTbuLLet_t00th wrote:
A smoker has the choice of either smoking or not smoking......a non-smoker doesn't have the choice of whether breathing it in or not (unless they're really good at holding their breath). Think about it for a second....it makes sense!
I can't walk from home to work without getting a face full of smoke. And I live 4 blocks from work!
Last edited by Curtor (2007-06-28 11:25:37)
First off, what do you mean "unfiltered" smoke? It's been filtered twice, once through the filter in the cig and again through my lungs before I blow my evil instant cancer causing filth at your holier than thou, "my body is a temple" person[/sarcasm]. You're probably overweight and get drunk every weekend but of course that's okay because you do it. Alright, so I don't know you and you're probably a tee-total, vegetarian but most of the people that slate smokers are quite happy as long as it's not their guilty pleasures being taken away.buLLet_t00th wrote:
But why should I have to breathe the unfiltered smoke? If they want to smoke they can go and do it somewhere else, I haven't told them they can't smoke, the big boys upstairs do that!
Drunks cause havoc in every city centre on a Saturday night smashing up places and people but I wouldn't advocate banning alcohol on that basis. There's no law against giving your kid junk food and nor would I want one because I believe we are responsible enough to make our own decisions. It is the Government's job to warn when neccessary but not to force with laws.
Also, did you know the link between passive smoking and lung cancer is mixed at best. There have been 5 or 6 studies done and they all had different results; one even claiming that passive smoking was of no danger to children! Sir Richard Doll, who discovered the link between smoking and cancer and the World's foremost expert on the subject said that when he is the company of smokers he doesn't worry him because the risk is so small. Even anti-smoking group ASH can only estimate passive smoking deaths at "hundreds a year". Half a million people die in the UK annually so that tells you how far down the scale passive smoking is as a cause of death.
And many of you have proved Joe Jackson right, that smokers are the only minority you can abuse for being a minority. Dylan Moran's take on the subject isn't bad either
Health care in the UK = Free.Curtor wrote:
Health care in Canada = free. It is like this though, because under regular circumstances, one can assume you are not going to go out and hurt yourself. Meanwhile, smoking is not the same as an accidental broken limb. You asked for your lungs to get cancer by putting that cancer stick in your mouth. I didn't ask to lose my footing, someone else to drop that block, ect... and get a broken leg. The smokers know they are going to get their money and them some back out of the health care system when they are older. The rest of us pay it for the insurance purpose.Bertster7 wrote:
I think they should go further and deny NHS treatment to heavy smokers and the obese - it's their choice, why should the taxpayer be burdened with it.
Smokers and big fat fatties cost the health service more money, much more money. They don't pay any extra, they should.
Right well I'm obviously the only one that's think we're losing yet another freedom.
No matter what is said, it's going to happen. So I'll leave it.
No matter what is said, it's going to happen. So I'll leave it.
Last edited by jord (2007-06-28 11:28:14)
Don't get me wrong - I'm very against a lot of aspects of this new law. The smoking ban in pubs/restaurants is going to be nice for me though.jord wrote:
Right well I'm obviously the only one that's think we're losing yet another freedom.
Not matter what is said, it's going to happen. So I'll leave it.
The ban on smoking in the workplace is stupid and is infringing on personal freedoms. Look into the details of it, you'll be horrifed.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-06-28 11:29:57)
"Last weekend of freedom in the UK "
UK? Well the last time i checked Scotland was part of the UK and we have had our ban in place since march 2006, but yet again English as well as many Americans seem to think England is the UK or the UK is England and Scotland are part of England,
NUMPTYS!
oh and on the smoking issue, its better in the pubs and clubs,no more smelly minks
UK? Well the last time i checked Scotland was part of the UK and we have had our ban in place since march 2006, but yet again English as well as many Americans seem to think England is the UK or the UK is England and Scotland are part of England,
NUMPTYS!
oh and on the smoking issue, its better in the pubs and clubs,no more smelly minks
no..im with ya..but im american...im used to losing freedomsjord wrote:
Right well I'm obviously the only one that's think we're losing yet another freedom.
No matter what is said, it's going to happen. So I'll leave it.
If what you say is remotely true then why don't tobacco companies put two filters on the end of a cigarette?=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
First off, what do you mean "unfiltered" smoke? It's been filtered twice, once through the filter in the cig and again through my lungs before I blow my evil instant cancer causing filth at your holier than thou, "my body is a temple" person[/sarcasm]. You're probably overweight and get drunk every weekend but of course that's okay because you do it. Alright, so I don't know you and you're probably a tee-total, vegetarian but most of the people that slate smokers are quite happy as long as it's not their guilty pleasures being taken away.buLLet_t00th wrote:
But why should I have to breathe the unfiltered smoke? If they want to smoke they can go and do it somewhere else, I haven't told them they can't smoke, the big boys upstairs do that!
Drunks cause havoc in every city centre on a Saturday night smashing up places and people but I wouldn't advocate banning alcohol on that basis. There's no law against giving your kid junk food and nor would I want one because I believe we are responsible enough to make our own decisions. It is the Government's job to warn when neccessary but not to force with laws.
Also, did you know the link between passive smoking and lung cancer is mixed at best. There have been 5 or 6 studies done and they all had different results; one even claiming that passive smoking was of no danger to children! Sir Richard Doll, who discovered the link between smoking and cancer and the World's foremost expert on the subject said that when he is the company of smokers he doesn't worry him because the risk is so small. Even anti-smoking group ASH can only estimate passive smoking deaths at "hundreds a year". Half a million people die in the UK annually so that tells you how far down the scale passive smoking is as a cause of death.
And many of you have proved Joe Jackson right, that smokers are the only minority you can abuse for being a minority. Dylan Moran's take on the subject isn't bad either
But until they ban beer.....the goggles still remain!iainstr wrote:
oh and on the smoking issue, its better in the pubs and clubs,no more smelly minks
I'm curious. What defines 'passive' smoking? Where is the cutoff? A cigarette every hour? day? every other day? week?=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Also, did you know the link between passive smoking and lung cancer is mixed at best. There have been 5 or 6 studies done and they all had different results; one even claiming that passive smoking was of no danger to children! Sir Richard Doll, who discovered the link between smoking and cancer and the World's foremost expert on the subject said that when he is the company of smokers he doesn't worry him because the risk is so small. Even anti-smoking group ASH can only estimate passive smoking deaths at "hundreds a year". Half a million people die in the UK annually so that tells you how far down the scale passive smoking is as a cause of death.
Inhaling smoke from someone elses cigarette.Curtor wrote:
I'm curious. What defines 'passive' smoking? Where is the cutoff? A cigarette every hour? day? every other day? week?=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
Also, did you know the link between passive smoking and lung cancer is mixed at best. There have been 5 or 6 studies done and they all had different results; one even claiming that passive smoking was of no danger to children! Sir Richard Doll, who discovered the link between smoking and cancer and the World's foremost expert on the subject said that when he is the company of smokers he doesn't worry him because the risk is so small. Even anti-smoking group ASH can only estimate passive smoking deaths at "hundreds a year". Half a million people die in the UK annually so that tells you how far down the scale passive smoking is as a cause of death.
Now a beer ban would be a shitemarebuLLet_t00th wrote:
But until they ban beer.....the goggles still remain!iainstr wrote:
oh and on the smoking issue, its better in the pubs and clubs,no more smelly minks
I hope you're joking! Don't pay extra tax when they should! How much of the £5.60 I pay for 20 Marlboros do you think goes to mr shop keeper? I pay a good £4 a day extra in tax than a non-smoker which is £120 a month so don't give me that. And unlike smoking, which probably pays more in tax than it costs, NHS bills for poor diet and drink related illnesses cost more and are their sources are taxed a lot less.Bertster7 wrote:
Health care in the UK = Free.Curtor wrote:
Health care in Canada = free. It is like this though, because under regular circumstances, one can assume you are not going to go out and hurt yourself. Meanwhile, smoking is not the same as an accidental broken limb. You asked for your lungs to get cancer by putting that cancer stick in your mouth. I didn't ask to lose my footing, someone else to drop that block, ect... and get a broken leg. The smokers know they are going to get their money and them some back out of the health care system when they are older. The rest of us pay it for the insurance purpose.Bertster7 wrote:
I think they should go further and deny NHS treatment to heavy smokers and the obese - it's their choice, why should the taxpayer be burdened with it.
Smokers and big fat fatties cost the health service more money, much more money. They don't pay any extra, they should.
If you wanted a tax system whereby items are taxed by what they cost the NHS, drinking would be more expensive and smoking would be less so I'd not use that argument again if i were you
In belgium it is forbidden to smoke in restaurant since beginning this year, you can still smoke in cafés (pubs) though.
I gotta say I like it. You can go out for dinner without your clothes smelling like smoke. Besides I'm asthmatic, and the smoke is really annoying for me to inhale. For me they should make the same rule in pubs (no smoking). If you wanna smoke, go outside.
Smoking is kinda like farting. It smells and although no-one will say it in your face you smell, a lot of people think it. So if you gotta fart/smoke, go outside so the smell disappears in the open air.
I gotta say I like it. You can go out for dinner without your clothes smelling like smoke. Besides I'm asthmatic, and the smoke is really annoying for me to inhale. For me they should make the same rule in pubs (no smoking). If you wanna smoke, go outside.
Smoking is kinda like farting. It smells and although no-one will say it in your face you smell, a lot of people think it. So if you gotta fart/smoke, go outside so the smell disappears in the open air.
That tax doesn't go anywhere near the NHS and that tax is the only reason why you are still smoking so you should be happy!=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
I hope you're joking! Don't pay extra tax when they should! How much of the £5.60 I pay for 20 Marlboros do you think goes to mr shop keeper? I pay a good £4 a day extra in tax than a non-smoker which is £120 a month so don't give me that. And unlike smoking, which probably pays more in tax than it costs, NHS bills for poor diet and drink related illnesses cost more and are their sources are taxed a lot less.Bertster7 wrote:
Health care in the UK = Free.Curtor wrote:
Health care in Canada = free. It is like this though, because under regular circumstances, one can assume you are not going to go out and hurt yourself. Meanwhile, smoking is not the same as an accidental broken limb. You asked for your lungs to get cancer by putting that cancer stick in your mouth. I didn't ask to lose my footing, someone else to drop that block, ect... and get a broken leg. The smokers know they are going to get their money and them some back out of the health care system when they are older. The rest of us pay it for the insurance purpose.
Smokers and big fat fatties cost the health service more money, much more money. They don't pay any extra, they should.
If you wanted a tax system whereby items are taxed by what they cost the NHS, drinking would be more expensive and smoking would be less so I'd not use that argument again if i were you
Precisely. The 'duty' you pay on cigarettes is nothing to do with the NHS, NI contribution need to go up for smokers or the obese - not all smokers, I think there should be a cut off point, maybe 25-30 a week.buLLet_t00th wrote:
That tax doesn't go anywhere near the NHS and that tax is the only reason why you are still smoking so you should be happy!=OBS= EstebanRey wrote:
I hope you're joking! Don't pay extra tax when they should! How much of the £5.60 I pay for 20 Marlboros do you think goes to mr shop keeper? I pay a good £4 a day extra in tax than a non-smoker which is £120 a month so don't give me that. And unlike smoking, which probably pays more in tax than it costs, NHS bills for poor diet and drink related illnesses cost more and are their sources are taxed a lot less.Bertster7 wrote:
Health care in the UK = Free.
Smokers and big fat fatties cost the health service more money, much more money. They don't pay any extra, they should.
If you wanted a tax system whereby items are taxed by what they cost the NHS, drinking would be more expensive and smoking would be less so I'd not use that argument again if i were you
I'm certainly not joking, I'm very serious. It's a choice, it cost the government more money, you should have to pay more NI.
The smoking ban worked in the Republic of Ireland like you wouldn't believe. It pains me to have to put up with smoke in pubs in other countries now. So many people have quit it's unreal. One thing you will find strangely is that a new social scene at the doorsteps of pubs develop where strangers strike up conversation over their cigarettes.
Back here in OHIO, a smilar law was put in place to protect employees in the work place. I can't say I have had any complaints, other than my mother in law increased the amount she smokes at her house while we are visiting. I swear she smoked half a pack while watching re-runs of House the other night.