unclebuck

And Jews Pakis and Muslims - let's ban them too....

filth...

CLSII

I used to blame Sir Walter Raleigh for smoking but it was Sir John Hawkins to blame apparently.

I'd ban chewing gum
I'd ban Jehovah's witnesses
I'd ban ambulance chasing lawyers representatives
I'd ban cold callers
I'd ban people who annoy me
I'd ban smokers...cos I used to be one
I'd ban religion because it kills people
I'd ban lots of things

Lots of different people would ban all sorts of different things. We 're clinging on to liberty with this government in our country by our fingernails. We are becoming extremely intolerant these days when any vocal minority can exert pressure on the rest of society out of all proportion whilst protesting human rights and 'proportionality'.

It makes me feel really quite sad that a nation that stood up for the rights of everyone is gradually being buried by the nanny state and it's we know best kind of attitude of a minority

c_maguire

Replace 'doesn't necessarily' with 'generally' and you would be spot on, but unfortunately you would probably be generalising.
Kevin

Dedrater

I think you have taken it out of context, smoking is a nothing drug, i.e is does nothing positive for the individual, there are only negative points to be attributed to it, the same as smack, glue sniffing etc i.e. trigger death, whereby that last sniff, puff, injection could be the last. Plus the fact if smoking were eliminated we would pay less tax towards the health service, hence more money in our back burner, it 'should' be mandatory for smokers to fund there own private health care and not burden the rest of us.

If it interests you, read up on my last point, most would have a hard time putting forward a decent argument after you did.

+Doc+

echo this, if a smoker is being treated for a smoke related illness they should pay for it themselves! It's not like they don't have the warnings.

Zeon

Technically they are and they are also paying for other peoples healthcare.

20 cigs cost nearly £6. The cigarette company gets about 25p from every packet the rest goes to the government. The revenue generated adds up to a serious amount of money each year. If everybody stopped smoking today the amount spent on public services would dramatically reduce. You could probably kiss good bye to prescriptions only costing £6-7.

Smoking is a necessary evil for the government. Yes it's bad for everyones health but it certainly makes a tidy profit and makes the bank balance look good hence why it isn't going to be made illegal anytime soon.

Luke

smokers tend to be smug tossers who litter the streets with "butts" etc . They have no pride in themselves . And women that smoke are 100% off my "to do list" the ugliest scene in the world is a woman driving first thing in the morning with a *** in her mouth sucking on it like a crack hooker.

they where dumb enough to get hooked only due to not been confident enough .They just had to follow the herd when they where young etc to be cool

Thats why any smoker who gets cancer can go and die for all i care. They dont deserve any sympathy

MJW

Hmm I think its the anti-smoking camp that's more vitriolic, certainly judging by the comments on this thread anyway.

mykp

great idea in principal but where do you draw the line.

someone gets drunk falls down needs hospital treatment, drinking related - you pay.

someone gets heart disease because they have lived a sedate life and never excersised, sorry you didnt look after your body - you pay.

You had a car crash, you where driving recklessly or without due car - you pay.

Point I am trying to make is if you say to one group of society, sorry you did something which is harmful to your body then where do you say its okay not to treat smokers, but okay to treat drinkers or fat people, etc....

as for smokers being smug tossers, i'd say the no-smoking lobby are more smug.

btw: im not a smoker

fivetide

iTrader: (1)

Fallen for the propaganda there. The government makes more from the tax than it costs the NHS - FACT so not only are smokers (and i'm not one) paying for their healthcare they are also paying for yours.

Also anything that happens to someone who smokes automatically has the illness put down as smoking related. The other half's gran had a blood clot in her leg - cause - smoking.

My sister had the same thing, she's only 25 and a non smoker - cause - just one of those things that happens.

Totally agree on clamping down on people littering though, not just tab ends but gum, the lot.

5t.

Leslie

I can't say whether it will really do any good in the present situation. I suspect not to be honest.

I personally think that one thing that might help is to give young children specific education at school about the real dangers of smoking right from the start. It should tell them just like it is and also they should be in no doubt about the consequences and their dreadful effects. If that had been done when I was a child I would never have started myself and had to go through the difficult business of kicking the habit.

While they are at it whey could go into the use of drugs too-class A.B.or C.

This might well be a better approach rather than just to try to ban it.

Les