If smoking kills more people per year than CORONA VIRUS....

[RipTrip1]

Why dont we just ban smoking?

Put it this way. If saving lives is number one priority, even if it means sacrificing our freedom and our businesses, why not just ban smoking altogether, keep the economy running and counter act the supposed 'thousands' of deaths from Covid by saving far more lives from banning smoking? I cant understand this which makes me think its just a power move. They don't care at all about our health or saving lives, they want control. If they did care, they'd ban smoking for the benefit of the population

Surgeon General:

https://youtu.be/9mYfh2IvziA

[Hoofy]

Because you smoking can't kill me. Not since the indoor ban.

[RipTrip1]

Also why have we not seen any footage of that makeshift 4000 bed hospital built by the Army since it was on the news a couple of weeks ago? Surely it should be full to capacity now, a good story for the media to publish but why havnt they?

[Hoofy]

RipTrip1 said:

Also why have we not seen any footage of that makeshift 4000 bed hospital built by the Army since it was on the news a couple of weeks ago? Surely it should be full to capacity now, a good story for the media to publish but why havnt they?

Because there aren't enough nurses working there; people are being turned away. :/

You should listen to LBC. You will find the updates and Q&As with experts interesting. I think they have two experts every evening from the US at 1am.

[bigandclever]

RipTrip1 said:

Also why have we not seen any footage of that makeshift 4000 bed hospital built by the Army since it was on the news a couple of weeks ago? Surely it should be full to capacity now, a good story for the media to publish but why havnt they?

We don’t want an overflow, contingency hospital to have anyone in it. It being practically empty is a good thing.

[RipTrip1]

Hoofy said:

Because there aren't enough nurses working there; people are being turned away. :/

You should listen to LBC. You will find the updates and Q&As with experts interesting. I think they have two experts every evening from the US at 1am.

Thats a good explanation, do you have some evidence for it though?

[RipTrip1]

Hoofy said:

Because you smoking can't kill me. Not since the indoor ban.

But it can and will kill you. If it was banned youd have no tobacco and thus no nicotine. So why dont they just ban it so its basically impossible for you to get cigs, therefore saving your life and hundreds of thousands of others, offsetting CV deaths by over 100x while keeping our freedom and economy.

[sherman]

Because tax income from smoking and ecigs is still worth too much.

[RipTrip1]

sherman said:

Because tax income from smoking and ecigs is still worth too much.

But if human lives are so important, important enough to ban freedom and employment, SURELY just banning cigarettes is the most wise move?

[mintybiscuit]

RipTrip1 said:

But if human lives are so important, important enough to ban freedom and employment, SURELY just banning cigarettes is the most wise move?

What about banning American gas guzzling cars ??

[RipTrip1]

mintybiscuit said:

What about banning American gas guzzling cars ??

because that representx 0.0001% of cars on the road and they already pay their fee to have such cars in insurance and tax.

[mintybiscuit]

As does the tax imposed on smokers !!

[RipTrip1]

mintybiscuit said:

As does the tax imposed on smokers !!

So then you 100% agree. The government has caused this lockdown not to save lives, but for another reason

[mintybiscuit]

Go to bed !

[RipTrip1]

mintybiscuit said:

Go to bed !

So you have no logical rebuttal? I think you should follow your own advice I'll await a legitimate answer, any further replies from you will go ignored since you lack the intelligence I require to discuss such matters.

[babelfish]

'Francois Balloux, an infectious disease expert at University College London, says there is “bizarrely strong” evidence for the suggestion, made by artist David Hockney and others, that smoking could protect people against the coronavirus.'

[RipTrip1]

babelfish said:

'Francois Balloux, an infectious disease expert at University College London, says there is “bizarrely strong” evidence for the suggestion, made by artist David Hockney and others, that smoking could protect people against the coronavirus.'

Youve clearly not even tried to read the thread.

[mintybiscuit]

Try these,

. ,

[sherman]

RipTrip1 said:

sherman said:

Because tax income from smoking and ecigs is still worth too much.

But if human lives are so important, important enough to ban freedom and employment, SURELY just banning cigarettes is the most wise move?

Cigarettes kill you slowly. You can pay lots of lovely tax to the government as you die slowly over 40+ years. Which coincidently is how long the average person works before retirement.

[babelfish]

RipTrip1 said:

babelfish said:

'Francois Balloux, an infectious disease expert at University College London, says there is “bizarrely strong” evidence for the suggestion, made by artist David Hockney and others, that smoking could protect people against the coronavirus.'

Youve clearly not even tried to read the thread.

Calm down.

I was just trying to add a little humorous reply to the thread.

I should have added a smiley to keep you happy

BTW youve missed an apostrophe out.