E
EddieM
should "decriminalise" all substances..... as long as it affects no-one else, then its up to you what you pump into yourself.
Good riddance tobacco!
- Thread starter noseall
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Wow. You telling me how it is again. I bet you've got away with a lot of this pompous pontificating and insulting people. I dunno maybe it makes you feel more somehow when you put people down. You an ex school teacher by any chance ?
Apologies for going off topic but i was responding to a point that was thinly associated to it and got totally carried away.
Ban smoking. Then if someone wants to do it that badly they do it without our govt's blessing. Govt's are supposed to look after our interests after all. And it would surely be better to be seen that way.
Apologies for going off topic but i was responding to a point that was thinly associated to it and got totally carried away.
Ban smoking. Then if someone wants to do it that badly they do it without our govt's blessing. Govt's are supposed to look after our interests after all. And it would surely be better to be seen that way.
It is funny how a topic that started out (quite clearly) as a subject raised by DOCTORS and not the government, keen to see tobacco PHASED OUT and not banned.
Seems that the pro-smokers are not only deluded but also blinkered or even blind.
Smoke screen
Seems that the pro-smokers are not only deluded but also blinkered or even blind.
Smoke screen 
Sponsored Links
Which thread is this, because in this one the OP had two links from government and pharmaceutical funded bodies.
"Senior doctors and anti smoking campaigners blah, blah blah...."
Twas these senior bods that raised the issue, this was the crux of the topic.
Twas these senior bods that raised the issue, this was the crux of the topic.
Are you really that naive?
The doctors in question work for the tobacco advisory group, which receives some funding from the government, some from ASH, and some from Cancer research UK (and ASH and CRUK get government money, so a bit of a double roundabout that one).
+ Ash get money from Big Pharma
(Although smoking quit aids have an average 80% FAILURE rate, and some have shown horrible side effects, ash have no problem taking Pharma money, and smoking quit aids are a market worth BILLIONS).
Do you think when some random doctor spouts out this stuff anyone will listen, Ha, you are a Muppet, This is a government/fake charity/pharma driven campaign.
And you think any of these people have care of smokers as their intent, HA, they are all just sponges looking at increasing how much they can soak up.
The government wants their money, the doctors want to refuse them treatment, and pharma wants to rip them of with ****ty products.
That's the company you choose to use as your source, says a lot about you!
Wow Aron Surly you REALLY ARE upset aren't you, this anti smoking thing has certainly got under your skin. Calm down and take a nap and stop letting your emotions ruin your temper.
Everyone knows the truth about smoking and that smokers are mostly in denial about the real truth.
The fact is the world would be a better off place both financially and medically without tobacco.
Enjoy your nap.
How naive, though I admire your gleeful zealotry but I think you'll find Utopia is still a long way off. Both financially and medically.
The NHS already report that 1 in 8 beds are taken by alcohol related illness and the cost is unsustainable.
When the smoker social leper has been dealt with who do you think will be next for exorbitant taxation and reforming into good characters. And I wouldn't bank on been safe if you're only a moderarte drinker. Every drinker will get penalised in the bid to curb binge drinking and alcohol abuse.
Thank god I don't drink too. Though I grant you one thing .. with no cigarette smoke fouling the air I'll be able to walk the streets and breathe in good wholesome healthy exhaust fumes instead. Filthy habit.
Am I?
Not really, just educating people, though some choose to remain ignorant.
It's funny how you consistently just ignore large parts of my post, probably you'll respond with a childish "you said nothing worthwhile" jibe, Up to you if you want to look ignorant.
killerheels said:
Alcohol cost to NHS 2.7 billion
Alcohol duty collects <10 billion
You do the maths.
(and nobody waste my time with silly reports saying alcohol costs 30 billion or sum such from all kinds of nonsense costs like "lost productivity", holidays are "lost productivity" gonna ban/tax them?).
You are all fools buying into this crap that this is about health, this is just the government manipulating people so they can wack them with large taxes, which they can spend on pet projects, bondoggoles, MP wages, and of course to pay for their subsidised drinks in the house of parliament.
We will soon start to see "fat" taxes on all kinds of nice food, then give it more time, tax on sports trainers because of the cost of sports injuries on the NHS.
I find it funny how the generation that rioted over the poll tax, buys this crap
I suppose if it was all about health then the obvious course of action would be to introduce rationing at least of alcohol, sugars and fats, maybe it wouldn't work with tobacco but ho hum. It wouldn't even be copstly to introduce either, just use exsisting chip and pin and give everyone an "account" and credit it with so many units of alcohol or fat or whatever. Never going to happen though.
I'm also a bit skeptical about the figures put forward by both sides. There wouldn't really be any saving to the NHS as the money would end up being spent on some other treatments, likewise the deficit or loss of tax wouldn't be as clearcut either. The money spent on tobacco would still be there and would end up being spent on something else , just ask any body who has given up what they do with the money that used to go up in smoke.
I've no doubt the government (or any government) will follow the recommendations and raise the tobacco taxes year on year.
I'm also a bit skeptical about the figures put forward by both sides. There wouldn't really be any saving to the NHS as the money would end up being spent on some other treatments, likewise the deficit or loss of tax wouldn't be as clearcut either. The money spent on tobacco would still be there and would end up being spent on something else , just ask any body who has given up what they do with the money that used to go up in smoke.
I've no doubt the government (or any government) will follow the recommendations and raise the tobacco taxes year on year.
I was thinking the same. Rather agitated and still sadly deluded.Are you on drugs Aaron?
He actually believes his ramblings are educational!
Yes, the money would still be in the economy, but it wouldn't be in the government coffers, and that's what all this is about, and why the figures differ. it's not about health, it's about the government getting more money.
Because if you spend your £6 on CD's instead of fags, the government will only see <£1 rather than >£4.
The government is incapable of cutting it's budget, I mean look at my other thread where I show how in just 4 years state pensions have gone from costing 99 to 127 billion, a 30% increase in 4 years!
People like noesall are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot )
They are the same figures, just counted differently.
The report in the OP mixes in costs to society with costs to the state (I.E what smoking costs YOU, and what it costs the NHS), and lumps this against the revenue raised. Then it doesn't count any of the savings to the state.
I was thinking the same. Rather agitated and still sadly deluded.Are you on drugs Aaron?
He actually believes his ramblings are educational!
I'm sure everyone is convinced by your erudite arguments.
Sponsored Links