Forces Reunited
Current Members: 1,578,966  
 
 
    HOME    
FORCES WAR RECORDS
 FORCES SHOP 
FORCES DATING
FORCES DISCOUNTS

Community
  >> Search >> Home


You are not logged in. Click here to login or click here to register.

Turn off these pesky adverts! - What is this?
Get a FREE "Proud to be a Forces veteran" Badge
Show how proud you are to be a Forces Veteran with your free badge.
Click Here Now!

Forces Reunited - smoking
www.forcesreunited.org.uk >> General >> Hot Topic >> smoking
Forces Reunited Forums
>> Post New Topic
<< Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next >>
AuthorTopic
Colin Davies
"Sit vis nobiscum."





Membership Level: Full
Posts: 1543
Status: Offline

Quoting: Patricia Davies



Statistics are just that, statistics..

Equally, scientifically challenged and disproved by health professionals, however,

Think about it. if smoking causes 20% of all cancers, what causes the other 80% ??
21 % of all heart diease,  err the other 79%???

$12.7 billion a year in health care costs, there a billions of other chronic and debilitating viruses that attack the human body and the cost is relevant!
Smokers pay for most of it!

less productivity and other costs ?

Speaking from personal knowledge as a 35 year plus smoker, I have only ever lost a week off work due to viral pneumonia and none since.

I have never been in hosptal since I had my appendix out at 18 years old,  at the time I didn’t smoke....

I have rheumatoid arthritis...and nothing else......
Science ? or fact?

Every individual is prone to illness or disease of one sort or another, to target smoking and create panic and fear,  is just another  gov’t cash grab and spin to keep you all from seeing the other dirty thieving tricks they get up to, which are well publicised if you research properly.

And frankly, if anyone wants to lecture me on smoke, i would just say , blow it out of your ear..

We see it everyday,

 



It’s a bit of a specious argument using the percentages to prove or disprove your case eg: 14% of all road deaths in the UK in 2010 were caused by drink driving, therefore 86% were caused by something else, so on the face of it something else is more dangerous than drink driving, to get the something else figures down, get the drink driving figures up, and encourage more people to go out drinking and driving more.
The DD % would rise, the something else figures would fall making something else statistically a bit safer, I don’t think so!!!!!!!!!!

If nobody smoked the cancers caused by smoking would be 0%, then 100% would be caused by other things.

My wifes’ uncle was a lifelong smoker, always in denial that smoking did any harm, seeing him die from emphysema was a tragic testimony to what cigarettes can do to you.

When we cleared his flat out it had to be professionally cleaned, not because he was dirty, ceilings and doors,walls etc were sticky with tar.

That is fact!!

Just because a person appears not to be affected by cigarettes, does not mean another will not be.

Report Post
08/04/2012 09:00:55
                                                   >> Edit This Post >> Quote This Post
Colin Hall
Add Forum Tag





Membership Level: Full
Posts: 2605
Status: Offline
I’ve stated my feelings on smokers often enough and it is that is a matter of choice, they’re your lungs and your heart and anyone choosing to ignore the mountain of evidence from every health authority in the world that smoking is bad for you, then that’s still your choice. It kills a helluva lot more people than those that don’t smoke.

Neither I or my wife have ever smoked, nor do any of our  adult children and certainly none of the older grandchildren. Right at this moment I don’t know anyone in our circle of other families and friends who smoke.

Here in NZ smoking is restricted virtually to the open air; you can’t smoke inside buildings, on buses , trains, or aircraft.
Report Post
08/04/2012 10:06:54
                                                   >> Edit This Post >> Quote This Post
Ray Harris
Add Forum Tag



Membership Level: Basic
Posts: 342
Status: Offline
Hi Patricia, I’m prone to the illness of life.
Report Post
08/04/2012 10:12:43
                                                   >> Edit This Post >> Quote This Post
philip maurice robinson
Add Forum Tag





Membership Level: Full
Posts: 476
Status: Offline
last thought


Quoting: Ray Harris
Hi Patricia, I’m prone to the illness of life.
as i was the one who started this round of discussions about smoking (now i dont smoke had my last cigarette Febuary 1970),well i would like to give it a last thought at this time,, When the proposed ban was discussed and voted on in Parliament  (by the way it was a free vote) the proposal was put forward by aLabour M.P Now i am of the opinion that if that proposal had been put forward by a Tory M.P. it would never had got through as the labour party wuold not have been seen supporting the Tories ,next the Brewery industry thought the ban would be a good thing and draw more custom to their Pubs so they never even Protested ,but its Back fired  so to try and keep going they have shoved the price of beer up ,and thats a no brainer,back to the smoking question why didnt they reinstate Smoke Rooms ,but no that would meean the m rebuilding some of the walls they knocked down.  Iwonder what the servicemen/women think when they come home and find that some of the freedoms they have been fighting for was for nothing,  

               do you know i could go on and on
             but as it is time to eat my Easter Egg
             i think i will leave my thoughts
                "Smouldering" (excuse the pun")
                 for another time.
               
         
Report Post
08/04/2012 14:14:11
                                                   >> Edit This Post >> Quote This Post
John (scouse) Hirons
"The Dingbat"





Membership Level: Full
Posts: 9889
Status: Offline
The main problem with the anti-smoking lobby is it’s under researched. The main basis is a limited survey carried out in the early 60’s using the limited science of that time, in fact there’s more evidence that witches cause all the damage (using the science of that time).

  The lobby then started inventing science to cover the short fall in their proof the latest being that 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible & defies the laws of physics by, amongst other miraculous things, traveling great distances against the prevailing wind direction.

  The question I would like the the scientist to answer is -- if a passive smoker gets a large enough share of a smokers smoke containing nicotine & all the poisons known to man to cause them harm  how come they don’t get the addiction? it may just be me but I’ve never heard anyone say "I’m gasping for a passive, will someone light up".  

  In my area of north Liverpool we have a grain terminal, a coal terminal, a metal shredder & two main arterial roads feeding the docks. My area also has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in the North West which in turn has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in England. I wonder what could cause that? it must be all the passive, but invisible, smoke coming across the Irish sea against the prevailing wind.  

Last edited by John (scouse) Hirons

A situation may be desperate but never serious
Report Post
08/04/2012 15:10:35
                                                   >> Edit This Post >> Quote This Post
<< Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next >>
>> Reply To This Post
Moderated By: Murray Whyte, Edward Bishop,Bob Draper
Users Here: Ray McWilliams
REGISTER
LOGIN
FIND FRIENDS
MILITARY NEWS
CAMPAIGNS
REUNIONS
GALLERY
FORUMS
CHAT ROOM
REMEMBRANCE
HONOUR ROLL
TESTIMONIALS
MEMORIES
COMPETITIONS
ADVERTISE
MEDIA CENTRE
WHO'S ONLINE?
AFFILIATES
FAQ/CONTACT US
ABOUT US
BLOG
BOOKMARK US
HOME
Recommend this page to a friend.
Your Name:
Friends Name:
Friends Email:

This site uses cookies. For information on this, please see our privacy policy

About Contact Us Advertise Military Records New Members Terms Military Genealogy Sitemap