Leslie

Can't put it better than that.

Les

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Are they though? That's the point. Did you read the link posted? Also, if you are aware of the risks, the same as eating too much salt raises your blood pressure, red meat gives you bowel cancer, junk food leads to high chloesterol and drinking damages the liver or jumping out of a plane might equal hitting the ground hard then how is it different? As long as you have been made aware that their is a risk then it is simply a choice like any other.

At some point the government needs to say how it would like us to die as once again chances are you will get cancer or die from heart failure or a stroke smoker or otherwise. If you smoke then that is what is blamed. If you die early and don't smoke that's simply nature. To that end how many 'smoking related' deaths can actually be credited as being premature? the fact is we really don't know. Again, i don't smoke but i have an issue with the ott scare tactic being used to tell us how unhealthy we are whilst at the same time putting up the retirment age because we are all living longer!

From the link:

"The general consensus seems to reflect the pioneering studies of Professor Sir Richard Doll in the 1950s and 60s, which are still regarded as ‘benchmarks’. Doll reckoned that about 160 in 100,000 smokers developed lung cancer as opposed to 7 in 100,000 nonsmokers; so you have about a 24 times greater risk if you smoke. This can also be expressed as ‘2,400%’. But beware of estimates of ‘increased risk,’ especially when expressed in percentages; they’re a good sign that someone is trying to frighten, rather than to inform.

"If you buy 25 lottery tickets instead of one, your chances of winning go up by 2,500%. But though the number sounds impressive, your actual chances of winning are still minuscule. Likewise, if Prof Doll was right, you still have a 99.8% chance of not getting lung cancer."

5t.

Dedrater

Fact is, there is no logical reason to smoke i.e "We all have to die of something" true, but is that a logical reason to deliberately shorten ones life?

Whereas you eat to survive and prolong your life, even eating unhealthy food in moderation is fine and eating doesnt create hunger.

Smoking shortens your life, does not taste, smell nice and starts the craving for the next *** and the next without every relieving it as it is the cause of the problem.

Even if that were true, there still is no reason for punishing your lungs further, would anyone actually put there mouth over an exhaust pipe and inhale the fumes?

Again as Allan Carr put it, smoking is like putting on a really tight pair of shoes, just to have the pleasure of taking them off.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

But people drink. There is no logical reason for drinking. Most alcohol isn't that nice, you do it because it feels good and you accept the risks. Likewise base jumping or any other dangerous sport. There is no logical reason but people enjoy it. People enjoy eating lard otherwise Burger King wouldn't exist. Its just how things are.

If you want to wear tight shoes just for the pleasure of taking them off go right ahead but be aware that it will damage your feet. Make an informed choice but don't have it forcibly rammed down your throat.

5t.

Dedrater

I appreciate your point, but i reckon all smokers don't really want to smoke, if there was a tablet they could take which makes them never want to smoke again and enjoy it, i think 100% would take it.

Also, at least alcohol gets you pissed and Burger King fills you up and is enjoyable etc, whereas smoking does absolute nothing at all, apart from wanting to smoke more and to add insult to injury you have to pay massive sums of money to do it, 20 **** at £5 a day, £1680.00 a year or nearly 70 grand over 40 years to almost guarantee some form of disease, this doesn't make sense to me and if smokers themselves can't see this fact, then I don't see a problem with ramming information down there throat? If it was your wife/girlfriend someone very close etc wouldn't you be on there back all the time and appreciate any method introduced that 'could' make them see sense?.

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Ah but like me you don't smoke so you don't really know how it makes them feel or why they do it. Usual and accepted reasons are that it is very calming a nice thing when stressed just like a pint.

I totally get what you are trying to say but again, even if you don't smoke you will most likely die of one of the 'smoking related illnesses' such as cancer, heart attack or stroke so it isn't true to say that every smoker dies because of their smoking. Non smokers die of the same things all the time in fact given there are more non smokers than smoker more non smokers die of cancer than non smokers. As the article says you are still highly unlikely to get lung cancer from smoking. More likely yes but even then still very unlikely.

If eveyone that smoked wanted to give up then they could. You mention a pill or something, what about nicotine patches? They are the same just without the actual smoke but the fact remains people enjoy it that is why they do it.

I disagree they don't know the risks, they do and they accept them it is that simple. Yes it costs a lot but i know i could go out on a weekend and spend the equivalent of £5 per day on drink in one saturday night out with mates. That isn't good for me, it produces issues with blood and the liver but i accept that when i do it.

5t.