Smokers suck

[peasepud 59]

Using the logic of Fish then people who lie in the sun too long til their head goes bright red shouldnt be treat for skin cancer

[Guest alex]

I love the way people get so high and mighty about smoking. I'm for the ban because I think it's a bit selfish to expect other people to breathe your smoke but the way some non-smokers treat smokers as pariahs in hilarious imo. Must be nice being so perfect that you can judge others so unequivocally I suppose.

[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?

 

It's a genetic disease, by definition.

 

 

One in 13 males are going to get some form of cancer or cancer scare regardless of smoking habits.

 

 

No idea where the link is now so don't ask.

[Guest alex]

I wish all the people I like/love who smoke would give up though.

[Renton 21993]

I love the way people get so high and mighty about smoking. I'm for the ban because I think it's a bit selfish to expect other people to breathe your smoke but the way some non-smokers treat smokers as pariahs in hilarious imo. Must be nice being so perfect that you can judge others so unequivocally I suppose.

 

I hope I don't come across like that. I just think it's a natural pregression in a civilised soceity, and as you say, it's inherently selfish. Other things are worse - alcohol related violence for instance - but then again that's illegal already!

[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

 

 

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

 

Just pushing everyone along in the right direction

[Guest alex]

I love the way people get so high and mighty about smoking. I'm for the ban because I think it's a bit selfish to expect other people to breathe your smoke but the way some non-smokers treat smokers as pariahs in hilarious imo. Must be nice being so perfect that you can judge others so unequivocally I suppose.

 

I hope I don't come across like that. I just think it's a natural pregression in a civilised soceity, and as you say, it's inherently selfish. Other things are worse - alcohol related violence for instance - but then again that's illegal already!

It was a general comment and no, you don't come across like that.

[Renton 21993]

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.

 

 

One in 13 males are going to get some form of cancer or cancer scare regardless of smoking habits.

 

 

No idea where the link is now so don't ask.

 

One in three people get cancer, one in four die from it. Most of it has nothing to do with tobaco, passive or not. Also, more people die from cardiovascular diseases related to smoking than cancer.

[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?

 

It's a genetic disease, by definition.

 

 

One in 13 males are going to get some form of cancer or cancer scare regardless of smoking habits.

 

 

No idea where the link is now so don't ask.

 

One in three people get cancer, one in four die from it. Most of it has nothing to do with tobaco, passive or not. Also, more people die from cardiovascular diseases related to smoking than cancer.

 

They say bowel cancer and cardiovascular illness is as much to do with diet and excercise....iirc.

[Mowen 0]

Someone should put a poll on this thread to see what proportion of people are for/against/undecided about the ban. Would be quite interesting.

[Guest alex]

Someone should put a poll on this thread to see what proportion of people are for/against/undecided about the ban. Would be quite interesting.

It's obvious what the result would be.

[The Fish 10963]

it was a throw away post to be fair, not like I put much thought into it.

 

if you took it seriously you definitely need your head read

 

even in the post I said it was an extreme view which I didn't subscribe to, I was just posting through boredom. Pay attention.

 

anyhoo them what wants to smoke will smoke and thems what don't, won't.

 

 

 

 

 

edit. Too many smileys?

Edited July 2, 2007 by The Fish

[Guest alex]

it was a throw away post to be fair, not like I put much thought into it.

 

if you took it seriously you definitely need your head read

 

even in the post I said it was an extreme view which I didn't subscribe to, I was just posting through boredom. Pay attention.

 

anyhoo them what wants to smoke will smoke and thems what don't, won't.

Par for the course then.

[Mowen 0]

Someone should put a poll on this thread to see what proportion of people are for/against/undecided about the ban. Would be quite interesting.

It's obvious what the result would be.

 

The result maybe, but I'd be interested to see the margin.

[Renton 21993]

it was a throw away post to be fair, not like I put much thought into it.

 

if you took it seriously you definitely need your head read

 

even in the post I said it was an extreme view which I didn't subscribe to, I was just posting through boredom. Pay attention.

 

anyhoo them what wants to smoke will smoke and thems what don't, won't.

 

*backtrack*

 

You do sound a bit judgemental Fish, I reckon you do subscribe to some of what you said.

[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.

 

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.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

[Guest alex]

Someone should put a poll on this thread to see what proportion of people are for/against/undecided about the ban. Would be quite interesting.

It's obvious what the result would be.

 

The result maybe, but I'd be interested to see the margin.

3 to 1 in favour would be my guess.

[Park Life 71]

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.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

 

The passive smoking thing has always been tenous even a monkey can see that. It is a tiny tiny risk, albeit one that I understand why non-smokers don't want to be exposed to.....As they book the next half hour sunbed and plan the next drinking binge and fire up the V8 and wrap everything in clingfilm and drink estorogen flooded tap water......

[Guest alex]

I once had a woman having a pop at me for smoking in Jesmond Metro station. I was pissed. Anyway, I put it straight out, no problem. But she kept going on and on. It was a Saturday night so I said, have you been out tonight then? Yes, she replied. Smoky pub was it? She didn't answer. That's what I mean about people getting on their high-horse. Get a fucking grip man.

[Renton 21993]

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.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

 

 

I'll have a look at that ref when I get the chance, cheers.

 

You're analogy is still bogus though, I go into a Fish and Chip shop to buy said goods, and the smell of them is part of the process. I don't go into a pub to smoke and don't want it inflicted on me.

 

I had a great burger in Copperfields yesterday, for the first time ever the experience wasn't tainted with second hand smoke.

[ChezGiven 0]

I always though Nick O'Teen was unfailry treated and superman sounds a bit like Arnie.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9ROZOCtE-c&NR=1

 

[Guest alex]

Remember Candy Cigarettes btw?

[Renton 21993]

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.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

 

The passive smoking thing has always been tenous even a monkey can see that. It is a tiny tiny risk, albeit one that I understand why non-smokers don't want to be exposed to.....As they book the next half hour sunbed and plan the next drinking binge and fire up the V8 and wrap everything in clingfilm and drink estorogen flooded tap water......

 

I'm prepared to listen to CG, but I don't think I'll trust your viewpoint on the aetiology of smoking related illnesses, considering your past form in rational discussions involving science, thank you very much.

[The Fish 10963]

it was a throw away post to be fair, not like I put much thought into it.

 

if you took it seriously you definitely need your head read

 

even in the post I said it was an extreme view which I didn't subscribe to, I was just posting through boredom. Pay attention.

 

anyhoo them what wants to smoke will smoke and thems what don't, won't.

 

*backtrack*

 

You do sound a bit judgemental Fish, I reckon you do subscribe to some of what you said.

 

I do think that smokers, morbidly obese people and heavy drinkers should in some way "pay" the extra cost to the NHS that they create.

 

in regards to the drinkers and fatties ( ), this could be in levies or mandatory attendance to courses to help buck their trend.

 

obviously there's a million and one reasons why this won't work and there's a million and one reasons why this opinion is abhorent to many. That's ok because I freely admit it's a little extreme and equally am unsurprised that it will probably never come to pass. I don't bemoan and rail against the system because I know the view of the majority vastly contradicts my own and so I am not that bothered. I don't take it seriously because I know that my view is not based on facts and figures, just a gut (scuse the pun)reaction and it is dismissed by others as such (justifiably so). I'm not expecting people to rally behind my flag because it's a ridiculous opinion, ridiculous in the truest sense of the word.

 

the rest was just for melodrama

[Park Life 71]

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.

 

Ref = E. Enstrom and G. C. Kabat Br. Med. J. 326, 1057; 2003

 

The cosmetic reason is valid if the exposure to the risky agent is not strong enough to cause diseases.

 

We are exposed to the sun every day and this has risks but the exposure level is not high enough generally to be problematic. You should know Renton that exposure does not lead to outcomes if the exposure level is considered safe. Sunlight, car fumes etc. All dangerous at certain levels but safe at others. The passive smoking study suggests that exposure via this method is not strong enough.

 

Hence if there is no evidence it is a cosmetic reason as it is not a health related one, on the basis of the evidence. Hence the comparison to another of our wonderful traditions, the fish and chip shop is equally valid.

 

The passive smoking thing has always been tenous even a monkey can see that. It is a tiny tiny risk, albeit one that I understand why non-smokers don't want to be exposed to.....As they book the next half hour sunbed and plan the next drinking binge and fire up the V8 and wrap everything in clingfilm and drink estorogen flooded tap water......

 

I'm prepared to listen to CG, but I don't think I'll trust your viewpoint on the aetiology of smoking related illnesses, considering your past form in rational discussions involving science, thank you very much.

 

Chez is doing the technical stuff and I'm pitching in with the common sense.