Smoking to be banned OUTSIDE?

[lazaroonie]

Not sure about this either. The social costs of smoking are huge hence the reason for taxing it so highly.

Just picking up all the dirty fag ends that get thrown on the floor must cost councils thousands every year.

The strain on the NHS because of smoking obviously makes this pale in to insignificance as that must run in to billions.

cost to nhs of smoking related treatments - 1.7billion

income raised from smoking taxes - 12 billion.


yup, a huge strain.

[WarBwastard]

As a non-smoker I think this is a pile of shite... FFS IF the governement would give up their huge haul from the tax on tobacco then I'd believe they were serious in trying to ban it.

Leave people alone. They banned smoking in pubs and now you can smell every fart, bit of BO & you can see the people in the place - they all looked better through a smokey haze!!!

Leave it as an open choice (remember them) and pubs put up a sign to say they are smoking or non-smoking - job done. And I'd rather second hand smoke than the non-smoker doing the 'cough cough, handwaving' pish they do to show their disapproval of smokers.

I'd rather put up with the odour then die of lung cancer TYVM

Or go to another pub? Seriously the risk is overplayed anyway FFS. How many old smokers are there? Plenty. If a bit of tobacco smoke cleans up the species by eliminating weak lunged people with a flimsy DNA then it's just darwinism in action anyway.

Darwinsm also selects ignorant twats for elimination too don't forget.

And the government keeps bringing in laws to prevent it too. It's just wrong.

So this is one of the many areas our Government has a duplicitous and hypocritical approach to.  You can make that point without implying weak lunged people deserve to die anyway.

lol@ the sensitivity. I thought it was obvious it wasn't meant literally.

FFS I know it's not, but it's still an insensitive thing to say.  You might need weak lungs and flimsy DNA to appreciate why though.

Still lolling at the over-sensitivity though. Or do you want a blanket ban on all jokes that might be a bit insensitive now as well?

I don't want a ban on anything, not even smoking ironically, but I'm still allowed to be offended if I don't like the joke and say so.    

OK, as I'm allowed to be offended by someone calling me a twat, although I'm not allowed to tell him to f*** off.

But run me through your thought process that took that so seriously? You know, when you read that sentence "If a bit of tobacco smoke cleans up the species by eliminating weak lunged people with a flimsy DNA then it's just darwinism in action anyway." did you think 'God, that bastard Rod's advocating a Hitleresque final solution for the atshmatics & people prone to cancer, what an ignorant twat'?

If I'd said we should release tigers into the street to reduce the number of fat people would you have taken it seriously as well? Applogies to the gravitationally challenged among us, this is not a call to have you hunted and eaten by big stripy cats, but purely the obvious use of hyperbole to exagerate a point in a humourous manner.

You're more than welcome to tell me to f**k off, shall we just tell each other to f**k off and agree to disagree?  To answer your question, I'm probably more likely to be offended by your original comment as it's obviously more relevant to my circumstances and people in my situation are being killed off by secondary smoke so it's a comment that irks me somewhat..where as it's highly unlikely that fat people will ever be targeted by rampant tigers.  I apologise for calling you a twat though.  

[EvilPie]

Seriously, who smokes these days, if people are dumb enough to smoke their way to a quicker death gl to them...

Shake hands with us dumb smokers, for without us you would be paying shit loads more in tax in various forms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm

 

Add to this all the other burdens such as time off work (including 15 paid fag breaks per day) cleaning up their leftovers etc. etc. and you can probably take that handshake back.

I'm not anti smoking btw I just don't like it when smokers claim they are saving everyone money because they pay tax on their ciggies.

[steeveg]

t's highly unlikely that fat people will ever be targeted by rampant tigers.  

not really ,all the fat people will be at the back when the rest of us are running like the clappers

[TheChipPrince]

Seriously, who smokes these days, if people are dumb enough to smoke their way to a quicker death gl to them...

Shake hands with us dumb smokers, for without us you would be paying shit loads more in tax in various forms.

I meant it more in a way that with so many warnings on packets etc, how can people do it to themselves?

It is just the addiction, or do people just not care, 'if i die I die' attitude...

[Rod Paradise]

You're more than welcome to tell me to f**k off, shall we just tell each other to f**k off and agree to disagree?  To answer your question, I'm probably more likely to be offended by your original comment as it's obviously more relevant to my circumstances and people in my situation are being killed off by secondary smoke so it's a comment that irks me somewhat..where as it's highly unlikely that fat people will ever be targeted by rampant tigers.  I apologise for calling you a twat though. 

Right, to draw a line under a spat over an off the cuff remark. I'm sorry you have lung trouble, I'm asthmatic & while thankfully I'm not too bad now I'd a few spells in hospital as a kid, it's a scary thing when you have an attack as well. My Grandad died of silicosis too, so I'm not totally insensitive to respiratory problems. I'm not going to withdraw the gag though becasue it seems pretty obvious to me that it wasn't a serious attack on anyone, just a ridiculous exageration.

I do however have my doubts about the number of people killed by secondary smoke. If smoking is the problem why have the incidences of asthma gone up considerably while smoking is on the wane?

There are large claims of the number killed by passive smoking, but they all seem to be from the anti-smoking lobby or the politicians introducing the legislation. Even the doctor who proved the link between smoking and lung cancer said that the effect of secondary smoke was too small to worry him. The effect of a walk through a city centre in rush hour is likely to more dangerous than sitting in a smoky pub for the same time. (Indeed they did test on a non-smoking pub ona a main street in Glasgow City centre & a smoking pub down a side street with good ventilation & the air was healthier in the smoking pub). Since the legislators and the anti-smoking lobby made such a hoo-haa about it that it's logical I suppose for people to be worried, but I don't think it justifies a total ban, if there's 2 pubs on a street, let them compete for a smoking license - one gets it & there's a choice, and to ban smoking in the street outside the premises is nonsense.

[Colchester Kev]

Seriously, who smokes these days, if people are dumb enough to smoke their way to a quicker death gl to them...

Shake hands with us dumb smokers, for without us you would be paying shit loads more in tax in various forms.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm

 

Add to this all the other burdens such as time off work (including 15 paid fag breaks per day) cleaning up their leftovers etc. etc. and you can probably take that handshake back.

I'm not anti smoking btw I just don't like it when smokers claim they are saving everyone money because they pay tax on their ciggies.

A separate paper published by the team in the Journal of Public Health found that alcohol consumption costs the UK NHS £3bn.

never let it be said that poker players are tax dodgers

[Claw75]

Seriously, who smokes these days, if people are dumb enough to smoke their way to a quicker death gl to them...

Shake hands with us dumb smokers, for without us you would be paying shit loads more in tax in various forms.

I meant it more in a way that with so many warnings on packets etc, how can people do it to themselves?

It is just the addiction, or do people just not care, 'if i die I die' attitude...

addiction for me.  if it was as easy to take or leave as, say a bar of chocolate, I'd not be poisoning my body with chemicals that I can't afford to buy.

[Josedinho]

Interesting thread. Release the tigers i say. I'm pretty confident of surviving despite my weight but i'd be interested in seeing the experiment work.

[CelticGeezeer]

This is shows just how addiction can affect behavior


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4570665.stm

[trafficjam]

 I want to ban stupid-menstrual-semi-feminist-fat-slappers from telly. (This includes Kyle and Vine)

Hmm it is obvious you do not watch the programme!  I find your observations insulting!

[thetank]

So the weathers picked up and the non smokers are pissed all the smokers are sitting on the same chairs in the beer garden that we sat on in the winter when it was snowing.

When it's raining they will forget about it again.

This

[boldie]

 I want to ban stupid-menstrual-semi-feminist-fat-slappers from telly. (This includes Kyle and Vine)

Hmm it is obvious you do not watch the programme!  I find your observations insulting!

I have sat through about 3 or 4 episodes of the programme. It rates no higher than the Jeremy Kyle show with me..or that annoying phone in thing on Channel5..the Wright stuff.



I also have to laugh @ the whole "secondary smoke thing" in the context of the discussion about smoking outside. Are we now saying that walking past someone exhaling smoke in a well ventilated area (I assume "outside" is well ventilated enough..it being in the open air and all that) will give you lung cancer in the same way that sitting in a smoking room without ventilation (the famous blue cloud hanging in the air) does?

A big load of nonsense.

[trafficjam]

 I want to ban stupid-menstrual-semi-feminist-fat-slappers from telly. (This includes Kyle and Vine)

Hmm it is obvious you do not watch the programme!  I find your observations insulting!

I have sat through about 3 or 4 episodes of the programme. It rates no higher than the Jeremy Kyle show with me..or that annoying phone in thing on Channel5..the Wright stuff.

Goes to show what a sexist person you are as none of the women on that show are a) stupid, b) semi-feminist c) fat ( what is wrong with that) and d) being slappers well, how would you know, do you know them personally? and finally c) menstrual, yes you got that right, and if women were not menstral you wouldn't be here!!!!

I thought this was a nice forum with friendly people who can have a good debate and can be rude to each other in a friendly fashion but you have overstepped the mark with your degrading views of women!

[byronkincaid]

 I want to ban stupid-menstrual-semi-feminist-fat-slappers from telly. (This includes Kyle and Vine)

Hmm it is obvious you do not watch the programme!  I find your observations insulting!

I have sat through about 3 or 4 episodes of the programme. It rates no higher than the Jeremy Kyle show with me..or that annoying phone in thing on Channel5..the Wright stuff.

Goes to show what a sexist person you are as none of the women on that show are a) stupid, b) semi-feminist c) fat ( what is wrong with that) and d) being slappers well, how would you know, do you know them personally? and finally c) menstrual, yes you got that right, and if women were not menstral you wouldn't be here!!!!

I thought this was a nice forum with friendly people who can have a good debate and can be rude to each other in a friendly fashion but you have overstepped the mark with your degrading views of women!

ban boldie the insulting german sexist pig!

was wondering while cooking dinner how they get the figures for smoking costs the nhs £X. seems like it would be almost impossible to get an accurate figure but obv I'm not a statistician so wadda I know