Not just smokers

@cas wrote:

@melody wrote:

My dad gave up on his first attempt…. but then again having a lung removed for cancer is enough to make you give up I suppose. Too little too late however.

Non smoking nazi’s??? Is it too much to ask to breath clean air? Dear God get a grip PB, you are acting like the baby who threw his dummy out of the pram.

No it’s not too much to ask to breath clean air, so in light of that, maybe we should have all the cars and lorrys banned from the roads too, many of which give out just as much toxic fumes, if not more :evil: :roll:

You know what I am stepping out of this thread as I have personal reasons for hating smoking.

SMOKING KILLED MY DAD

SMOKING KILLED MY GRAN

SMOKING KILLED MY GRANDAD

you lot just keep wearing your blinkers…. and I wish you all luck

But Cas, I’ve provided a solution to the fiscal issue. Deduct the lost revenue from a total smoknig ban from the vast sums of money that we pour into the NHS.

But hey ….. you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs eh?

@forumhostpb wrote:

But Cas, I’ve provided a solution to the fiscal issue. Deduct the lost revenue from a total smoknig ban from the vast sums of money that we pour into the NHS.

We are constantly being told by the anti-smoking Nazis how much smokers are costing the NHS in the form of wide ranging and (no doubt) expensive treatments for ‘smoking related’ illneses & diseases. OK let’s accept their argument on cost, ban the sale of tobacco totally ….. and thus eradicate all these diseases & illnesses.

Once the ban has taken effect, the NHS will no longer have this awful financial burden to bear and so its costs will go down enormously. Reducing their income proportionately seems only sensible to me.

Of course there is the irony that the very people who shake their heads and tut at those who choose to continue smoking (NHS workers) will be the ones to lose their jobs when the anti-smoking ban is successful.

But hey ….. you can’t make an omelette without breaking eggs eh?

So, lets say that children of 8 smoke these days (or 3 if you read the papers the other day and some stupid plonker was allowing a 3 year old to chain smoke). If they smoke between 20 and 40 cigarettes a day, by the time they are 40 some of them may have died from heart related problems, a further percentage will be developing breathing problems,some will have had limbs amputated by the age of 50, by the age of 60, a large percentage will have required coronary bypass artery surger, and be on regular blood thinning medications. A whole host of people will require oxygen tanks to be able to breath. Some will have had lung cancer and required lung transplants. Most will be dead by the age of 70.

If you stop everyone smoking now…. you will still have people who are aged between 40 and ? 70 plus who are requiring treatment now and who will always require treatment until they die. The numbers would slowly start to reduce, but it could take 30 years before the last person died of smoking related illnesses. The ban on cigarettes would stop the government from getting any money from the sale of cigarettes (obviously), and so they would have to find the money to pay for the care of people already ill from somewhere else.

And that… my friends, is the main reason that the government has not put a total ban on the sale of cigarettes!

Do we ban alcohol as well? If smoking’s banned where do you stop?

Perhaps, but it’s potentially as dangerous. I dont know what the statistics are, but Id imagine a high percentage of cases with fatal liver damage every year.
How about the violence that can be done when people are drunk. How many murders every year have alchohol as a contributing factor?