More EU Anti Smoking BS (bit of a RANT)
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8239028.stm
Firstly, why are the open displays being banned? Other "dangerous" items like knives and alcohol are allowed to be displayed on the shelf, so why have a different rule for tobacco? And why should branding be taken away? That's only something for a BBC TV programme (I know ironically it's on the BBC website). In my view, tobacco companies have just as much right as anyone else to promote their products however they like. I know, smoking kills and all that. But people die from alcohol poisoning and many other things which are branded and promoted openly. Which brings me on to another gripe, why ban tobacco advertising? Many of the reasons for my other arguments stand in this one. The tobacco companies are offering a product, which they should have every right to promote. It's no different from banning people from advertising chocolate because it makes you fat. Also, I would like to suggest that in a way, the EU banning tobacco advertising has f
ked up F1. All this cost cutting st wouldn't have been necessary if the teams were sponsored by tobacco companies. Just look at Ferrari, they are still sponsored by Marlboro (even though Marlboro logo's aren't actually on the cars) and their last deal which runs until 2011 (from 2005) is worth $1bn to them. So thanks to the EU, F1 teams aren't getting as much sponsorship as the old days, which is why all this cost cutting st has been brought in.
And will someone please tell me why the fk they've listened to a university's research? This "research" which most uni's do is perhaps the most useless ste ever, with pretty much no relevance to modern life at all (you know what I mean, the things like a bird might have a 0.0000000000001% chance of laying its eggs if the temperature of its nest is 33.25 degrees instead of 33.24) Seriously, I would rather all this crap "research" was replaced with finding out which is the best calibre rifle to stop the bird making all that fking noise in the first place.
Anyway, it's about time we seceded completely from the EU and went back to the way things were. Where I could walk down the street without being told I've got a 99.999% chance of having a stroke in the next 3.3 seconds because I've just had a doughnut. Where we can eat, drink and smoke as much as we like without being told we're destroying the world. Somewhere where the Daily Mail and Guardian don't exist so they can't print all this st in the first place.
See, the people who actually listen to this ste, and only eat wheatgrass and wear clothes sewn together with straw, and sandals, and drive a Prius, are very unhappy, very dull, have no friends, and will probably end up committing suicide. And the rest of us, who are probably much fatter, and order whiskey by the gallon, have huge V8's, and smoke like a chimney, are quite happy.
Firstly, why are the open displays being banned? Other "dangerous" items like knives and alcohol are allowed to be displayed on the shelf, so why have a different rule for tobacco? And why should branding be taken away? That's only something for a BBC TV programme (I know ironically it's on the BBC website). In my view, tobacco companies have just as much right as anyone else to promote their products however they like. I know, smoking kills and all that. But people die from alcohol poisoning and many other things which are branded and promoted openly. Which brings me on to another gripe, why ban tobacco advertising? Many of the reasons for my other arguments stand in this one. The tobacco companies are offering a product, which they should have every right to promote. It's no different from banning people from advertising chocolate because it makes you fat. Also, I would like to suggest that in a way, the EU banning tobacco advertising has f
ked up F1. All this cost cutting st wouldn't have been necessary if the teams were sponsored by tobacco companies. Just look at Ferrari, they are still sponsored by Marlboro (even though Marlboro logo's aren't actually on the cars) and their last deal which runs until 2011 (from 2005) is worth $1bn to them. So thanks to the EU, F1 teams aren't getting as much sponsorship as the old days, which is why all this cost cutting st has been brought in.And will someone please tell me why the f
k they've listened to a university's research? This "research" which most uni's do is perhaps the most useless ste ever, with pretty much no relevance to modern life at all (you know what I mean, the things like a bird might have a 0.0000000000001% chance of laying its eggs if the temperature of its nest is 33.25 degrees instead of 33.24) Seriously, I would rather all this crap "research" was replaced with finding out which is the best calibre rifle to stop the bird making all that fking noise in the first place.Anyway, it's about time we seceded completely from the EU and went back to the way things were. Where I could walk down the street without being told I've got a 99.999% chance of having a stroke in the next 3.3 seconds because I've just had a doughnut. Where we can eat, drink and smoke as much as we like without being told we're destroying the world. Somewhere where the Daily Mail and Guardian don't exist so they can't print all this s
t in the first place.See, the people who actually listen to this s
te, and only eat wheatgrass and wear clothes sewn together with straw, and sandals, and drive a Prius, are very unhappy, very dull, have no friends, and will probably end up committing suicide. And the rest of us, who are probably much fatter, and order whiskey by the gallon, have huge V8's, and smoke like a chimney, are quite happy.It's more to do with the effect smoking has on non-smokers. If you scoff a choccy bar or munch on a doughnut or even neck a couple of pints of beer, the bloke standing next to you won't have his health affected in any way.
Spark up a ciggy and the chap will be inhaling your secondhand smoke which means there's a chance his health could suffer.
Spark up a ciggy and the chap will be inhaling your secondhand smoke which means there's a chance his health could suffer.
GKP said:
Spark up a ciggy and the chap will be inhaling your secondhand smoke which means there's a chance his health could suffer.
About the same chance that he'll turn purple and float away.You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily overstated to justify these anti-smoking policies? You'll inhale more carcinogens on a tube journey, or cycling behind a bus, than you do just 'cos someone is smoking nearby...
Nanny knows best.
Passive Smoking is a load of bks anyway. Its just an excuse to ostracise people who do something you don’t like. Just like vegetarians who whinge about you eating meat, just like the warmist retards who think you shouldn’t have a car. (it’s for your own good, you know!)
How about the health effects of ‘passive drinking’, where sober innocent bystanders get punched by some drunkard? I bet if you wander around A&E at 3am on Saturday night, there are going to be a lot more people sporting missing teeth and broken noses than people who lit up and coughed up a lung.
These whingers need to STFU.
Passive Smoking is a load of b
ks anyway. Its just an excuse to ostracise people who do something you don’t like. Just like vegetarians who whinge about you eating meat, just like the warmist retards who think you shouldn’t have a car. (it’s for your own good, you know!)How about the health effects of ‘passive drinking’, where sober innocent bystanders get punched by some drunkard? I bet if you wander around A&E at 3am on Saturday night, there are going to be a lot more people sporting missing teeth and broken noses than people who lit up and coughed up a lung.
These whingers need to STFU.
HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
grumbledoak said:
You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily understated by smokers to justify their chemical dependency?
- EFA
Changing your brake pads will do you far more harm that being near someone smoking.I really hope you don't go to barbqueues. All that smoke and all that. Better stay in the house for the whole of November too, all those bonfires with all sorts of dangerous stuff burning.
In fact, you had better to stay inside all the time. Look at the crap diesel cars kick out. Soot, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides, Ozone, it’s bad out there.
Hey, did you know, when you smell a fart, its little particles of s
t going up your nose?Shall we wrap you back up in cotton wool and put you back in the box now?
HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
grumbledoak said:
You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily understated by smokers to justify their chemical dependency?
- EFA
Changing your brake pads will do you far more harm that being near someone smoking.It's banned for a reason. I think the governments would quite like the tax income it provides if it really didn't cause any health problems.
But I have to admit, it all seems a bit daft pushing all this anti smoking when we have more coke and pills being used than ever before because drinking is too expensive. If you price something out of reach, people will go for an alternative. But I guess it's better than not doing anything?
I have to admit, one thing that is good about the smoking ban, is the ability to go out as a non-smoker and not walk into clouds of smoke.
If you want to smoke, I don't really care. You can get put lower down the "rung" on the NHS for certain operations, and if I don't have to be around you and breath it in, I couldn't care less.
But I have to admit, it all seems a bit daft pushing all this anti smoking when we have more coke and pills being used than ever before because drinking is too expensive. If you price something out of reach, people will go for an alternative. But I guess it's better than not doing anything?
I have to admit, one thing that is good about the smoking ban, is the ability to go out as a non-smoker and not walk into clouds of smoke.
If you want to smoke, I don't really care. You can get put lower down the "rung" on the NHS for certain operations, and if I don't have to be around you and breath it in, I couldn't care less.
gamefreaks said:
Nanny knows best.
Passive Smoking is a load of bks anyway. Its just an excuse to ostracise people who do something you don’t like. Just like vegetarians who whinge about you eating meat, just like the warmist retards who think you shouldn’t have a car. (it’s for your own good, you know!)
How about the health effects of ‘passive drinking’, where sober innocent bystanders get punched by some drunkard? I bet if you wander around A&E at 3am on Saturday night, there are going to be a lot more people sporting missing teeth and broken noses than people who lit up and coughed up a lung.
These whingers need to STFU.
I was going to say something along these lines but this works for me.Passive Smoking is a load of b
ks anyway. Its just an excuse to ostracise people who do something you don’t like. Just like vegetarians who whinge about you eating meat, just like the warmist retards who think you shouldn’t have a car. (it’s for your own good, you know!)How about the health effects of ‘passive drinking’, where sober innocent bystanders get punched by some drunkard? I bet if you wander around A&E at 3am on Saturday night, there are going to be a lot more people sporting missing teeth and broken noses than people who lit up and coughed up a lung.
These whingers need to STFU.
TheD said:
gamefreaks said:
Nanny knows best.
Passive Smoking is a load of bks anyway. Its just an excuse to ostracise people who do something you don’t like. Just like vegetarians who whinge about you eating meat, just like the warmist retards who think you shouldn’t have a car. (it’s for your own good, you know!)
How about the health effects of ‘passive drinking’, where sober innocent bystanders get punched by some drunkard? I bet if you wander around A&E at 3am on Saturday night, there are going to be a lot more people sporting missing teeth and broken noses than people who lit up and coughed up a lung.
These whingers need to STFU.
I was going to say something along these lines but this works for me.Passive Smoking is a load of b
ks anyway. Its just an excuse to ostracise people who do something you don’t like. Just like vegetarians who whinge about you eating meat, just like the warmist retards who think you shouldn’t have a car. (it’s for your own good, you know!)How about the health effects of ‘passive drinking’, where sober innocent bystanders get punched by some drunkard? I bet if you wander around A&E at 3am on Saturday night, there are going to be a lot more people sporting missing teeth and broken noses than people who lit up and coughed up a lung.
These whingers need to STFU.
stuart-b said:
If you want to smoke, I don't really care. You can get put lower down the "rung" on the NHS for certain operations, and if I don't have to be around you and breath it in, I couldn't care less.
If it wasn't for the smokers, everyone would be on a lower 'rung' for NHS care. I've done some 'back of a fag-packet' calculations to illustrate this.The total revenue from tobacco taxes for the 2006/7 tax year was £10.0 Billion.
Total expanditure on the NHS during the same period was £100 Billion.
Smokers 'cough up' 10% of the whole NHS bill.
The cost of treating smoking reated diseases is around £2.7 Billion a year, so that is over £7.3 Billion in profit. (This is equal to £232 per taxpayer in the UK.) This does not take into account the lower pension costs of smokers (on average) having shorter lifspans.
Sources:
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx
http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/brie...
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/pres...
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_tax/table2_1.p...
Edited by gamefreaks on Sunday 6th September 21:50
Edited by gamefreaks on Sunday 6th September 21:51
gamefreaks said:
The total revenue from tobacco taxes for the 2006/7 tax year was £10.0 Billion.
This is the problem, it makes the government have double standards. Yes, they want us all to quit, but at the same time they will all personally jump through the gates of hell before losing that kind of tax revenue. Which probably explains why all the nicotine patches, gum etc cost so fking much. One more thing, if they're already getting that much tax from tobacco, then why do they keep piling more tax on top? There was nothing wrong with the way things worked in the old days, when we could buy a pack of fags without having "smoking kills" and a picture of a man with half his throat hanging off a giant tumour forced into our faces. If I ever come to power, the Daily Mail will be closed down, and all these vegetarian sandle wearing peace and love b
ds will be force fed greasy fried chicken, all made to drive supercharged Chevy LS9 powered Range Rovers, and sent off to war to make them see sense, and I suppose give them a taste of their own medicine, see how they like it when someone's view they don't like is forced upon themHRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
grumbledoak said:
You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily understated by smokers to justify their chemical dependency?
- EFA
Changing your brake pads will do you far more harm that being near someone smoking.
gamefreaks said:
HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
grumbledoak said:
You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily understated by smokers to justify their chemical dependency?
- EFA
Changing your brake pads will do you far more harm that being near someone smoking.I really hope you don't go to barbqueues. All that smoke and all that. Better stay in the house for the whole of November too, all those bonfires with all sorts of dangerous stuff burning.
In fact, you had better to stay inside all the time. Look at the crap diesel cars kick out. Soot, Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides, Ozone, it’s bad out there.
Hey, did you know, when you smell a fart, its little particles of s
t going up your nose?Shall we wrap you back up in cotton wool and put you back in the box now?
However, whilst I do understand there are many poisons out there in the real world, I can't see why I should put up with any more of them so the chemically dependent can get their fix in my presence.
OnTheOverrun said:
HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
grumbledoak said:
You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily understated by smokers to justify their chemical dependency?
- EFA
Changing your brake pads will do you far more harm that being near someone smoking.HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
grumbledoak said:
You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily understated by smokers to justify their chemical dependency?
- EFA
Changing your brake pads will do you far more harm that being near someone smoking.OnTheOverrun said:
HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
HRG. said:
OnTheOverrun said:
grumbledoak said:
You do realise that the risks of second hand smoke are heavily understated by smokers to justify their chemical dependency?
- EFA
Changing your brake pads will do you far more harm that being near someone smoking.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff