Membership Level: Full Posts: 1618 Status: Offline
Okay I will attempt to answer both Steve and Dennis in this post.
Dennis, motorists, motor cyclists, and all people whilst working are covered by insurance, the soldier is covered by the covenant with the government of the day and the nation, (he should be cared for more because of what he is/was doing for his country) I am not suggesting that normal people, normal families, be restricted from medi-care in any way, rich or poor. Only people who knowingly abuse their bodies, and expect the NHS to pick up the pieces.
Fifty years ago the awareness of what tobacco, drugs, and alcohol could do to the human body was not so well known as now. (If it was it was kept quiet). But with the explosion of how information is available to everyone today, people are fully aware of what damage they do to themselves if they overindulge with tobacco and alcohol, so they have a choice, if they decide on the wrong one why should society be held culpable, and have to foot the bill because they lack common sense, and willpower.
Drug users and abusers are on the road to hell, salvation is in their own hands, why should we pay for it.
Steve, okay you smoke, (I assume) but now you are aware of what can happen to you if you overindulge, common sense tells you to give ciggies the heave-o. you know it makes sense.
Never say a humorous thing to a man who does not possess humour. He will always use it in evidence against you.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 1618 Status: Offline
Quoting John (scouse) Hirons
Alright Steve, You’ve got a point there mate, I too would want all my money I have paid in health stamps returned, then I too could afford Dons nonhealth care system. I think I will also sue British coal, Kellogs & who ever it is that runs the metal chopper for the lethal dust they emit. Then I will take the MOT to court for the high levels of vehicle emissions in my area due to them routing the 2 arterial roads near my house. Forget the NHS I’ll be worth millions so sod the poor. Now I’m gonna be filthy rich can I join the Tories? all I need now is a tax haven, a good accountant, an off shore account & no concience then I will fit in no sweat.
Ps I’ve just had another money making weeze, anyone who has deliberately wound me up has contribted to my heart attacks I’ll sue them...jeeze I’m gonna be minted.
...............................
Gosh John, It has’t taken you long to abandon the Old Labour tenet.
Well! now you can get up with the big boys, and don’t forget, all these court cases can be funded for you by legal aid. It always happens, make a man rich, and he soon says sod the poor,
Ha! Well! such is life. and yes you should be minted
Never say a humorous thing to a man who does not possess humour. He will always use it in evidence against you.
A belated Welcome from me, Michael, and I agree with your very reasoned opinion.
Thank you Patricia for your belated welcome.
Answering Dons question, what the Doctor’s reasoning was, yes, the no smoking ban was a good thing, but, by continually eroding people’s rights, this could result in a backlash, even from non smokers, excluding yourself of course, who, hate the nanny state, more than they do the act of smoking. She argued the way forward was by persuasion rather than legislation, which she felt was working., she also stated that, whilst smoking was a factor in causing lung cancer, stress was another factor, along with other things.
On the question of passive smoking, I have heard from various sources on the the radio, that the Governments own health and safety report into smoking had not confirmed a link between passive smoking causing lung cancer in non smokers. I would however stand to be corrected, as I have not read the report.
I think we can all agree smoking is not good for you, along with many of the things outlined by Scouse, but time was in this country, before the advent of the zealots propaganda machine, the Television, when we were quite tolerent and, had very much a live and let live attitude, but sadly no more. Don argues that we are now better informed, yes, but is the information we receive the truth, or is it presented to suit the argument, for or against, a recent example is the climate change issue, also what foods are good and bad for you, they cannot seem to get that right either.
Don is quite entitled to his point of view, I would however doubt if his hopes, that a section of society would have to pay their own medical fees, would ever come to pass, much as he would like to see it.
Taking Scouse’s point on Harriet, the high priestess of the left, yes, she is a member of the labour party, so I apologise for not making that clear, but she is also part of the Liberal elite, these are people left or right, who have never held a proper job, never known poverty, have no understanding of the real world, but low and behold, they know exactly what is good for us.
Membership Level: Full Posts: 5493 Status: Offline
Quoting: Michael Potter On the question of passive smoking, I have heard from various sources on the the radio, that the Governments own health and safety report into smoking had not confirmed a link between passive smoking causing lung cancer in non smokers. I would however stand to be corrected, as I have not read the report.
Passive smoking comes in the form of ’second hand’ smoke and also ’third hand’ smoke.
I won’t bother with 2nd hand. Researchers have proved that ’third hand’ smoke is just as bad as 2nd hand.
All of you at some point must have stood next to a smoker after they have just had a fag. Their clothes stink. The more they smoke throughout the day the more coatings of ’third hand’ smoke their cloths get.
"Third-hand smoke is tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette has been extinguished". - Jonathan Winickoff, a pediatrician at the Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center in Boston and author of a study on the new phenomenon published in the journal Pediatrics.
Third-hand smoke refers to the tobacco toxins that build up over time—one cigarette will coat the surface of a certain room (a second cigarette will add another coat, and so on). The third-hand smoke is the stuff that remains (after visible or "second-hand smoke" has dissipated from the air)…. You can’t really quantify it, because it depends on the space…. In a tiny space like a car the deposition is really heavy…. Smokers may smoke in another room or turn on a fan. They don’t see the smoke going into a child’s nose; they think that if they cannot see it, it’s not affecting [their children. (Scientific Report)
Smokers themselves are also contaminated…smokers actually emit toxins from clothing and hair.
Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, many of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic (60 carcinogenic at the last count).
If you live in Scotland then call Smokeline on 0800 84 84 84
If you live elsewhere in the UK then call Smokefree: 0800 022 4 332
NB: I smoked 60 a day. Camel, Marlborough, Willie Woodbine, Craven A. Any high tar fag.
I stopped in 1979 after seeing my pal about die because of a fag.
Passive smoking comes in the form of ’second hand’ smoke and also ’third hand’ smoke.
I won’t bother with 2nd hand. Researchers have proved that ’third hand’ smoke is just as bad as 2nd hand.
All of you at some point must have stood next to a smoker after they have just had a fag. Their clothes stink. The more they smoke throughout the day the more coatings of ’third hand’ smoke their cloths get.
"Third-hand smoke is tobacco smoke contamination that remains after the cigarette has been extinguished". - Jonathan Winickoff, a pediatrician at the Dana–Farber/Harvard Cancer Center in Boston and author of a study on the new phenomenon published in the journal Pediatrics.
Third-hand smoke refers to the tobacco toxins that build up over time—one cigarette will coat the surface of a certain room (a second cigarette will add another coat, and so on). The third-hand smoke is the stuff that remains (after visible or "second-hand smoke" has dissipated from the air)…. You can’t really quantify it, because it depends on the space…. In a tiny space like a car the deposition is really heavy…. Smokers may smoke in another room or turn on a fan. They don’t see the smoke going into a child’s nose; they think that if they cannot see it, it’s not affecting [their children. (Scientific Report)
Smokers themselves are also contaminated…smokers actually emit toxins from clothing and hair.
Over 4000 chemical compounds are created by burning a cigarette, many of which are toxic and/or carcinogenic (60 carcinogenic at the last count).
If you live in Scotland then call Smokeline on 0800 84 84 84
If you live elsewhere in the UK then call Smokefree: 0800 022 4 332
NB: I smoked 60 a day. Camel, Marlborough, Willie Woodbine, Craven A. Any high tar fag.
I stopped in 1979 after seeing my pal about die because of a fag.
There’s nothing worse than an ex-smoker getting all sanctimoniuos about the legal activity they once enjoyed. The health argument is spurious and specious - it is irrelevant.
I smoke and have done so over 40 years.
I shouldn’t have explain to anybody on a daily basis, the reasons why I smoke.
I shouldn’t have to, on a daily basis, explain whether I understand the health risks to myself and other people..
I shouldn’t have to explain on a daily basis what pleasure I derive from smoking.
I shouldn’t have to explain whether I understand the financial cost of smoking.
.......... I shouldn’t have to explain... but find myself having to do that, almost on a daily basis.
If we go down the road some are advocating (ban smoking completely or deny them the service they more than help finance (NHS)). Where do we stop and who decides?
Do we start banning young kids eating chocolate because of the associated health risks to teeth and propensity to obesity it causes? (Substitute chocolate with sweets, biscuits, cakes etc etc ad infin). Do we, based on the same rationale deny them NHS treatment?
What else can we find that is supposedly not good for us but totally legal?
I defend my right to smoke and my reasons that I smoke are none of anyone’s business.
