Smokers suck

[Scottish Mag 3]

but those poor poor smokers might get a bit chilly

 

Heres hoping...

[peasepud 59]

Fop your figure of 600 deaths from passive smoking is slightly misleading. The figure of 600 covers people exposed to smoke at work, the figure for deaths of people employed in the hospitality industry as a result of passive smoke is in fact just 54. So the smoking ban in pubs and clubs is in fact saving just 54 lives a year.

 

 

Just 54 lives, not really worth it is it?

 

For the effect it will have on a sizebale amount of the population for just 0.0009%

 

Hardly seems proportionate does it?

 

 

The having to stand outside effect? Those poor smokers!

 

I know you mightn't like it but you have to remember that 25% of the population still smoke, that percentage probably rises if you just surveyed regular pub goers. If this law is, as Vic says, to protect workers then it's a disproportinate measure to save just 54 lives a year.

 

25% of those legally allowed to smoke, ie over 16s not the overall population. Yes it goes up, it becomes 40% of those that regularly visit pubs so you're probably talking (at a guess!!) more like going back to the 25% mark.

 

Also, 70% of smokers say they want to quit therefore this cant do anything but good for their chances as most ex-smokers state that the hardest part was when they were out with friends.

 

Oh and source? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4709394.stm

[Fop 1]

Also, 70% of smokers say they want to quit therefore this cant do anything but good for their chances as most ex-smokers state that the hardest part was when they were out with friends.

 

That's such a pants excuse though, if you want to quit, then quit (the physical withdrawal peaks at 3-4 days and is gone within 3-4 weeks), they rest is psychological (and most people couldn't quit TV for a week). But it is more along the line of the reasoning for the ban.

[peasepud 59]

Also, 70% of smokers say they want to quit therefore this cant do anything but good for their chances as most ex-smokers state that the hardest part was when they were out with friends.

 

That's such a pants excuse though, if you want to quit, then quit (the physical withdrawal peaks at 3-4 days and is gone within 3-4 weeks), they rest is psychological (and most people couldn't quit TV for a week). But it is more along the line of the reasoning for the ban.

 

Agreed, but now that problem isnt there it must be easier for people to give up. I found the withdrawal didnt peak at 3-4 days, it becomes its biggest about 10 days in, the first days hard then the next few are a piece of piss and then it hits. Oh and it reappears at times later on, I find that 6 months you get cravings and then (as I found to my cost a few years ago) 7 years in. Now that you cant smoke in pubs then these people will find it that touch easier to stay off them as well.

[Park Life 71]

Also, 70% of smokers say they want to quit therefore this cant do anything but good for their chances as most ex-smokers state that the hardest part was when they were out with friends.

 

That's such a pants excuse though, if you want to quit, then quit (the physical withdrawal peaks at 3-4 days and is gone within 3-4 weeks), they rest is psychological (and most people couldn't quit TV for a week). But it is more along the line of the reasoning for the ban.

 

I've only been smoking cigarettes for about 5 years and in that time have quit twice with 6month and the most recent 3 month break.

 

In the day (lunchtime etc) I rarely smoke more than 2 cigarettes(sometimes none)....It's when I'm pissed I'll go through the best part of a pack of 20 in an evening.

 

So yes it is all in the mind.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Parky

[Gejon 2]

Serious queston Parky, what made you take up smoking? I can understand kids giving into pressure and doing it to "look cool" but I couldn't understand why someone more mature would take it up. I tried smoking for a week and it was just horrible, why would you put yourself through the horrible part to do it?

[Gemmill 46027]

Parky started cos Cigarette Smoking Man on the X Files is his hero.

[The Fish 10963]

because it's cool, all the big kids are doing it and.... oh lets say he was encouraged by... Hilda Ogden... in a daydream

[Happy Face 29]

Tore up a box with 7 left in this morning. Sick of finishing boxes i buy in the pub pissed up.

 

Think I'll move on to cigars.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

[Guest alex]

I might be wrong here but I think Steve is teetotal because he damaged the lining of his stomach by vomitting profusely after drinking too much Aftershock (or similar).

Edited July 2, 2007 by alex

[ChezGiven 0]

First important point is that the largest study ever undertaken on smoking was a passive smoking study in LA which used data from over 100,000 people. The original Doll study which proved the link between smoking and cancer only had 30,000. That is to do with statistical power and the incidence of the event under investigation. Whatever, the passive smoking study showed no increased risk of smoking related illness through exposure to passive smoking.

 

Banning smoking from public houses for the convenience of workers who dont like the smell or for 'cosmetic' reasons is akin to banning fish from fish and chip shops because the staff smell of fish.

[peasepud 59]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

[Park Life 71]

Serious queston Parky, what made you take up smoking? I can understand kids giving into pressure and doing it to "look cool" but I couldn't understand why someone more mature would take it up. I tried smoking for a week and it was just horrible, why would you put yourself through the horrible part to do it?

 

It was a slide into smoking that happenned very gradually. It started with my last job which was very high pressure and in a very gung ho masculine environment. I found myself on the balcony with frineds from work chatting to them when they nipped out for their quick ciggies and me with my coffee.

 

When one of my ex-girlfriends smoked a few years back I used to have the occassional one, maybe 2/3 a week and it was pure bonding/enjoyment stuff....This is how it started on the balcony at work, I would pinch the odd fag now and again when stressed and tbh found it comforting in a strange way and also the group behaviour was also a factor. I am totally aware now this is how it began, but at the time you never think you're going to start smoking never mind buy a packet.

 

Then over the months I started buying cigs at first in packs of 10 and only once or twice a week. Before I knew it I was leading the smoking squad on the balcony. In this period I was actually only smoking at work! Seems funny now but that is how it began.

 

I quit for a time and then I moved to Germany and started a new project here which was the most stressful thing in my life and I remember the first year here was very hard away from the usual support networks of friends and familiar faces.....and the smoking crept back in.

 

 

Violins at the ready.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

Fair enough. Makes his point quite retarded in my eyes because the principle of resource allocation he signs up to in healthcare is ridiclously unworkable.

 

If any harm comes to you from engaging in an activity known to raise risks of poorer health (by accident or through a chronic disease process) means you are not entitled to treatment or should be de-prioritised.

 

To see the full extent of the lack of principled thought that goes into that, do we now consider the risk of a terrorist attack to be higher at airports? If so and this is common knowledge then if you knowingly went to an airport and got blown up its your fault and shouldnt expect to be treated ahead of people who genuinely didnt engage in a risky activity?

[The Fish 10963]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

 

to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em.

 

it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it?

 

of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny.

 

but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that.

[Guest alex]

Absolutely ridiculous to start make moral judgements about who should get prioritised for treatment based on lifestyle choices imo. Where would it end?

[Guest alex]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

 

to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em.

 

it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it?

 

of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny.

 

but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that.

Why just binge drinkers? Just placing your prejudices on the judgement which shows how unworkable this sort of thing would be.

[Renton 21996]

First important point is that the largest study ever undertaken on smoking was a passive smoking study in LA which used data from over 100,000 people. The original Doll study which proved the link between smoking and cancer only had 30,000. That is to do with statistical power and the incidence of the event under investigation. Whatever, the passive smoking study showed no increased risk of smoking related illness through exposure to passive smoking.

 

Banning smoking from public houses for the convenience of workers who dont like the smell or for 'cosmetic' reasons is akin to banning fish from fish and chip shops because the staff smell of fish.

 

Source? Who funded the study? My old professor once conducted a meta-analysis on passive smoking and came to the same conclusion. The fact he was funded by BAT had no bearing whatsoever.....

 

From any rational viewpoint, it is glaringly obvious that the particulate matter present in passive smoke will increase the risk of a huge range of respiratory diseases. The only question that can be debated is by how much, and you know as well as I do this question can't be resolved ethically by any controlled trials.

 

Your point about "cosmetic" reason is invalid too I'm afraid. The majority of people don't smoke, and believe me, it's pretty disgusting if you don't. You end up stinking of it which can make you feel nausous.

Edited July 2, 2007 by Renton

[Park Life 71]

Drinking helped me overcome my fear of women and smoking rid me of all my allergies inc my asthma.

 

 

All good really.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Renton 21996]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

 

to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em.

 

it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it?

 

of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny.

 

but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that.

 

What a stupid post.

[ChezGiven 0]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

 

to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em.

 

it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it?

 

of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny.

 

but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that.

 

You have to be consistent though. You cant punish one group of people for embarking on a risky activity and not others. So you cant pick and choose things like drinking, that really isnt fair, or consistent or even principled. Its aribtrary

 

So are you saying that if people make a choice that includes more risk, then they should be de-prioritised in the NHS wating list system versus someone who hasnt?

 

How do you account for someone who engages in less of the activity but has a higher genetic pre-disposition to diseases? Now you're fucked

[Park Life 71]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

 

to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em.

 

it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it?

 

of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny.

 

but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that.

 

You have to be consistent though. You cant punish one group of people for embarking on a risky activity and not others. So you cant pick and choose things like drinking, that really isnt fair, or consistent or even principled. Its aribtrary

 

So are you saying that if people make a choice that includes more risk, then they should be de-prioritised in the NHS wating list system versus someone who hasnt?

 

How do you account for someone who engages in less of the activity but has a higher genetic pre-disposition to diseases? Now you're fucked

 

 

They say a lot of cancer is genetic don't they?

[Renton 21996]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

 

to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em.

 

it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it?

 

of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny.

 

but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that.

 

You have to be consistent though. You cant punish one group of people for embarking on a risky activity and not others. So you cant pick and choose things like drinking, that really isnt fair, or consistent or even principled. Its aribtrary

 

So are you saying that if people make a choice that includes more risk, then they should be de-prioritised in the NHS wating list system versus someone who hasnt?

 

How do you account for someone who engages in less of the activity but has a higher genetic pre-disposition to diseases? Now you're fucked

 

 

Can't believe you bothered to answer his post tbh, it was moronic even by Fish standards.

[Renton 21996]

I'd like to take the smoking ban one step further and tell the smokers that they go to the bottom of waiting lists for angiography, stress echo, myocardial perfusion scans and bypass surgery until they quit smoking for good. Fuck the smokers.

 

Fuck the drinkers, fuck the burger eaters, fuck deep fried food eaters, fuck anyone who engages in a risky activity, fuck the sky-divers, the carless road crossers, the fast drivers, the speeding motor-cyclists. Anyone of them gets into any bother, then fuck em.

 

Thought that one through didnt you?

 

Based on my understanding of Steve he would probably agree with you on all those fronts.

 

 

to be fair the ones in bold are pretty bob on and if I wasn't so biased I'd include drinking as well. I'd say fuck all those if we said binge drinkers and high risk activities which directly affect others, then yup... fuck em.

 

it's their choice to take part in things which can be to the detriment of their life expectancy/quality, why should others have to pay for it?

 

of course that's an extreme view and one I don't fully subscribe to as there are a myriad of examples where mundane activities cost the general public more than these more dangerous ones, there will also be a stack of comparatively high risk activities which don't cost us a penny.

 

but the whole crux of this is that it'll cost very little to enforce a piece of legislation which will at the very least save 54 people a year (irrespective of the way it's been put into place and the reasons given).... and I'm all for that.

 

You have to be consistent though. You cant punish one group of people for embarking on a risky activity and not others. So you cant pick and choose things like drinking, that really isnt fair, or consistent or even principled. Its aribtrary

 

So are you saying that if people make a choice that includes more risk, then they should be de-prioritised in the NHS wating list system versus someone who hasnt?

 

How do you account for someone who engages in less of the activity but has a higher genetic pre-disposition to diseases? Now you're fucked

 

 

They say a lot of cancer is genetic don't they?

 

It's a genetic disease, by definition.