Smokers suck

[ewerk 26160]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

Y'know if more people started smoking people like Vic could get the help they need on the NHS.

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

[Fop 1]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

 

Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP).

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

 

Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP).

 

 

fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

[Fop 1]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

 

Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP).

 

 

fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

 

Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban.

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

 

Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP).

 

 

fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

 

Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban.

 

you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

the problem is, you think you're making a point by being sarcastic and convoluted, when you actually forget to include any facts or examples to back yourself up

[Fop 1]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

 

Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP).

 

 

fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

 

Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban.

 

you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references

 

*rolls back time* Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

 

Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP).

 

 

fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

 

Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban.

 

you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references

 

*rolls back time* Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then

 

you're only proving my point really

[Fop 1]

where did I do that then?

 

In the first few pages.

 

Just £2.50 a day for senility drugs you know, help with memory and everything.

 

I don't see it

 

Ah that'd be the £10,000-£20,000 for blindness then (and pray for the masturbation ban ASAP).

 

 

fine, I don't really care. you've proven time and again incapable of holding a logical argument or even answering basic points, seemingly intent rather to act like a complete tosser

 

Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then , and everyone has to make the most of it before the ban.

 

you havent answered a single point from me, you've just come back with random wierd references

 

*rolls back time* Every time I do you just ignore it and try a different tangent, so if that is your "proof" then

 

you're only proving my point really

 

I think we're stuck in a paradox now, damn you!

[Ketsbaia 0]

If I can just cut inbetween Laurel and Hardie and share my two penneth...

 

I don't mind smoking in general and I don't mind smokers but I do mind having to get lungfuls of the stuff whenever I want to have a social life. It will also be nice to wake up after a night out and not smell like an ashtray.

 

Saying that, I do think that the Government have went too far. For example, private members clubs should be exempt and the fact that smoking shelters are no longer up to standard for smokers is daft. They're the only ones going in, they should be allowed as much cover as they want.

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

and Fop, to break you out of your paradox, since you claim passive smoking is harmless, please explain this report:

 

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups.../dh_4101475.pdf

 

I suspect you will dismiss it, but this is the evidence that MP's took a free vote on, so these are the facts you need to refute if you want to retain even the slightest piece of dignity in this thread

[Radgina 1]

Just a strange thought but.....do either of you actually SMOKE ???????????

[Park Life 70]

Just a strange thought but.....do either of you actually SMOKE ???????????

 

 

[Fop 1]

and Fop, to break you out of your paradox, since you claim passive smoking is harmless, please explain this report:

 

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups.../dh_4101475.pdf

 

I suspect you will dismiss it, but this is the evidence that MP's took a free vote on, so these are the facts you need to refute if you want to retain even the slightest piece of dignity in this thread

 

 

That isn't a report it's a (bad) literature review (I might go into the difference, but I suspect I'd be wasting my breath).

 

 

And yes I just read it (although it's pretty clear you have not, or at least not understood it if you have).

 

And yes it's basically scare tactics and very misleading (as I've said all along).

 

 

Take the "25% increased chance of lung cancer from SHS", sounds really nasty doesn't it? (this was actually one of the publicity campaign figures thrown about that I'd forgotten about till now).

Yet that is NOT about your average person, that is about women that live long term with smokers in the home....... something this ban will do NOTHING about.

 

You don't have a 25% increase increase in lung cancer from a few hours down the (even very smoky) pub a week, any more than a few units of alcohol a week will ruin your liver.

 

 

 

Other than that it basically says smoking is bad for you (well I never) and even worse for kids (it is, and kids are one of the few areas where SHS is an genuine issue, although still mostly in the home - which actually may be INCREASED by the ban ).

 

 

 

Again when we go back to the deaths data 600 people (at most) dying from SHS related issues is small (especially bearing in mind that most of those will have had long term sustained exposure in the home - a ban in public places being directly of little issue to that) and is one of the least increased risks of death out there. Radon base lung cancer kills 2500 a year yet we don't ban people from living in those areas (although as I said it should be publicised ad not actively hidden by councils IMO).

[Fop 1]

Just a strange thought but.....do either of you actually SMOKE ???????????

 

 

He smokes miners whenever he mets them I think, if that counts.

[ewerk 26160]

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.

[Gejon 2]

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?

[Fop 1]

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.

 

Yep it's just total, there will be all sorts of exposures in there.

[Fop 1]

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?

 

 

Well if NICE had any say in (cost/life) it they'd probably say it wasn't.

 

 

(but this isn't really the issue, those lives could have been "saved" in other ways, and it still doesn't justify the way it's been gone about.)

[ewerk 26160]

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?

[Gejon 2]

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!

[ewerk 26160]

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.

[Gejon 2]

Don't really care about the proportions its still 54 lives. Why should one person die a week so people can enjoy a fag with a pint?

 

If people going outside for a fag saves 54 people a year then its a very good thing.

[The Fish 8947]

but those poor poor smokers might get a bit chilly