ChezGiven 0 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The incidence of lung cancer amongst women in pacific-rim countries is higher in non-smokers than smokers. Passive smoking clearly worse for you than normal smoking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The incidence of lung cancer amongst women in pacific-rim countries is higher in non-smokers than smokers. Passive smoking clearly worse for you than normal smoking too much Vitamin E, it needs to be banned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 (edited) sorry to hear about your mate losing your job but I'd rather a thousand blokes lost a bar job than a million blokes lost their lives through tobacco-related cancers (I appreciate you were not saying that the loss of job was in any way lesser to a loss of life, I was merely making a point) Christ, here we go again. A million blokes eh? Well, Roy Castle's gone, only another 999,999 to go eh? They put almost everything down to smoking these days, never mind huge swathes of cheap housing are built on former tips, chemical dumps and that gas thing I can't remember....And car fumes what about that? Lead in the water, pollutants in the air...No it's all smoking apparently. Motorway and driving deaths is there a way to blame that on fags as well? Edited March 25, 2008 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 71 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 The incidence of lung cancer amongst women in pacific-rim countries is higher in non-smokers than smokers. Passive smoking clearly worse for you than normal smoking Too fucking right mate! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jusoda Kid 1 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 There's not a bar in Byker that hasn't kept it's tabs under the bar for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11106 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 for the life of me I can't fathom people being upset at the inevitable banning of cigarettes. I don't understand the desire for any sane person to revolt against this? It's not a law for law's sake, it is in everybody's best interests if smoking simply didn't exist. Don't give me any shite about personal freedoms either because that's an incredibly weak ass argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 for the life of me I can't fathom people being upset at the inevitable banning of cigarettes. I don't understand the desire for any sane person to revolt against this? It's not a law for law's sake, it is in everybody's best interests if smoking simply didn't exist. Don't give me any shite about personal freedoms either because that's an incredibly weak ass argument. Lets ban drink too then. Actually lets ban neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 for the life of me I can't fathom people being upset at the inevitable banning of cigarettes. I don't understand the desire for any sane person to revolt against this? It's not a law for law's sake, it is in everybody's best interests if smoking simply didn't exist. Don't give me any shite about personal freedoms either because that's an incredibly weak ass argument. I don't even smoke man, well what you class as normal smoking anyways. But sorry that's utter rubbish. Let us ban everything else while we're at it eh? All forms of transport perhaps as that's no good for everyone due to the fumes, or what about alcohol perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 You get a hell of a high and mighty not to mention hypocritical attitude from a lot of non-smokers like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11106 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I understand your point alex, but you know that cigarettes do not have the same social ... standing as drinking does. Alcohol CAN be enjoyed responsibly and my responsible drinking in no way affects the bloke standing next to me. If cigarettes were discovered now, they'd be illegal and it strikes me that many people angry at the heavy taxation and restrictions are the ones who smoke. So it's not a rights conversation, it's a selfish conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I understand your point alex, but you know that cigarettes do not have the same social ... standing as drinking does. Alcohol CAN be enjoyed responsibly and my responsible drinking in no way affects the bloke standing next to me. If cigarettes were discovered now, they'd be illegal and it strikes me that many people angry at the heavy taxation and restrictions are the ones who smoke. So it's not a rights conversation, it's a selfish conversation. I'll explain my point then - alcohol causes just as many problems as tobacco. And people can't even smoke in an enclosed public space any more can they? And there wasn't much proof that passive smoking caused the health problems that most people seemed to assume it did either. And the little bit you get by being beside someone in the street or at a pub entrance or whatever poses a negligible health threat to put it mildy. You're getting worse from car fumes every time you step outside. And if alcohol was discovered now that would be banned too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 And I don't even smoke either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 Alcohol would never be legalised if it was discovered today. Not in a million fucking years. Yes, smokers complain about the amount of tax, because smokers are the only people that pay for the tax on cigarettes. Be a bit bizarre for non-smokers to complain about a tax they will never pay. Lets just ban smoking and then watch you bleat as tax is piled on everything else. Non-smokers should be grateful, they are more of a burden on the NHS as they live longer tbh and on the extra subsidy we pay. Fucking spongers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11106 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 fair enough points, I just don't see any negligible effects that would come from banning cigarettes, or at least taxing them to the point your average Joe cannot afford them. for what it's worth drinking is dangerous, but I don't think that responsible drinking is as dangerous as responsible smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 (edited) fair enough points, I just don't see any negligible effects that would come from banning cigarettes, or at least taxing them to the point your average Joe cannot afford them. for what it's worth drinking is dangerous, but I don't think that responsible drinking is as dangerous as responsible smoking. Your disposable income would plummet. That enough of a negligible effect for you? What is responsible smoking btw? Surely that would entail people being considerate and smoking out of your vicinity? Therefore no danger? Edited March 25, 2008 by Sima Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 fair enough points, I just don't see any negligible effects that would come from banning cigarettes, or at least taxing them to the point your average Joe cannot afford them. for what it's worth drinking is dangerous, but I don't think that responsible drinking is as dangerous as responsible smoking. One glass of wine a day is likely to double the chances of breast cancer in middle aged women according to the latest research out. Lets ban drink for all women over the age of 45. Or we could let adults make decisions about their own bodies. To be honest, I have two problems with this. I don't think the Government should tell people what to eat, drink or smoke anyway and it's only their business once you start having an effect on other people (not actually the case but it should be imo). Secondly smokers are such a soft target and they always seem to get hammered on taxes and so on - if we're going to ban smoking because it's harmful, why should it end there? I've lost family members to smoking-related illnesses btw and I wish wor lass didn't smoke (or smoked less). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11106 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 fair enough points, I just don't see any negligible effects that would come from banning cigarettes, or at least taxing them to the point your average Joe cannot afford them. for what it's worth drinking is dangerous, but I don't think that responsible drinking is as dangerous as responsible smoking. Your disposable income would plummet. That enough of a negligible effect for you? What is responsible smoking btw? Surely that would entail people being considerate and smoking out of your vicinity? Therefore no danger? My disposable income wouldn't plummet at all mate or at least not so much that I'd notice, but thanks for the concerns. The government (whomever it may be) will find a different way to tax people, most likely on booze and petrol. only the booze will affect me in that regard and to be honest I wouldn't see cutting back as a bad thing. responsible smoking was a term I created to bounce off the "responsible drinking" that's in use at the moment. By this I mean smoking an amount of tobacco that is unlikely to have dramatic and rapid effects on your health. Instead of smoking 2 packs a day smoking a couple of fags a day. Similar to, instead of drinking 48 units every weekend, only having 20 a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 fair enough points, I just don't see any negligible effects that would come from banning cigarettes, or at least taxing them to the point your average Joe cannot afford them. for what it's worth drinking is dangerous, but I don't think that responsible drinking is as dangerous as responsible smoking. Your disposable income would plummet. That enough of a negligible effect for you? What is responsible smoking btw? Surely that would entail people being considerate and smoking out of your vicinity? Therefore no danger? My disposable income wouldn't plummet at all mate or at least not so much that I'd notice, but thanks for the concerns. The government (whomever it may be) will find a different way to tax people, most likely on booze and petrol. only the booze will affect me in that regard and to be honest I wouldn't see cutting back as a bad thing. responsible smoking was a term I created to bounce off the "responsible drinking" that's in use at the moment. By this I mean smoking an amount of tobacco that is unlikely to have dramatic and rapid effects on your health. Instead of smoking 2 packs a day smoking a couple of fags a day. Similar to, instead of drinking 48 units every weekend, only having 20 a week. If the benefits outweighed the costs it would already be banned. As its my job to know these things, Sima is right, you're disposable income would fall under current demographic trends if smoking was banned. I'm not explaining the fiscal model for you either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11106 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking. Guess that makes me a better person than you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking. Guess that makes me a better person than you Easy to say when it isn't happening though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking. Guess that makes me a better person than you That depends on whether you believe in individual rights and liberty or are a nanny-state fucktard tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima 0 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking. Guess that makes me a better person than you It'd be about a tenner a week. Nice of you to say so but some people can't afford to sacrifice around £40 a month just to seemingly breathe "cleaner" air. like Chez said if the pros outweighed the cons it would be banned instantly. They don't and it never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11106 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking. Guess that makes me a better person than you Easy to say when it isn't happening though. come off it alex man, it's blatant that this was never going to happen overnight. Nobody has given me one good reason against the inevitable ban. Personal freedoms are all well and good Chez, but surely a responsible government must, at some point, say enough is enough. The people are smoking themselves into early graves, smoking is not in anyway shape or form a good thing. The taxation of it does provide a lot of cash, but they'll find something else to tax so I don't see that being a problem. The amount it costs, even before the social restrictions were put into practise, was so expensive it made NO sense to continue smoking. I'd understand if it had the same social connotations as drinking but it doesn't it makes you stink, it makes your respiratory system break down, it's a god awful thing and people are railing against it's demise because... they don't want to lose personal freedom? Do me a favour. People seem to be saying they want to make their own choice, but alex, you HAVE made your own choice, you don't smoke. Now if everybody else made the right decision as well we'd not need this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 11106 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking. Guess that makes me a better person than you It'd be about a tenner a week. Nice of you to say so but some people can't afford to sacrifice around £40 a month just to seemingly breathe "cleaner" air. like Chez said if the pros outweighed the cons it would be banned instantly. They don't and it never will be. Sima, a tenner a week is less than the smokers I know spend on fags... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj 17 Posted March 25, 2008 Share Posted March 25, 2008 I don't mind losing a couple of quid a week if that means less people are smoking. Guess that makes me a better person than you It'd be about a tenner a week. Nice of you to say so but some people can't afford to sacrifice around £40 a month just to seemingly breathe "cleaner" air. like Chez said if the pros outweighed the cons it would be banned instantly. They don't and it never will be. Sima, a tenner a week is less than the smokers I know spend on fags... I certainly wouldn't want to be paying a 10er a week taxation to replace something that has nothing to do with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now