Donate SIGN UP

"smokers complain about their rights"!

Avatar Image
R1Geezer | 18:51 Thu 03rd Feb 2011 | News
107 Answers
http://news.sky.com/s..._Beaches_And_Streets_
What about our rights, to not breath their poisons?
They've had it all their own way up to relatively recently, yet they still cannot understand why society has had enough of their disgusting filth. Why are smokers so selfish?
Gravatar

Answers

61 to 80 of 107rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The government wins doubly from smokers, they get the revenue from tobacco tax and then the smokers die earlier than they would have done so the government saves on pension payouts. Smoking will therefore never be banned.
If a smoker dies from smoking it is usually a slow, nasty death that costs the NHS a fortune; never mind treating the smoker's children for the recurring chest infections, asthma, glue ear and numerous other ailments that have been directly linked to passive smoking.
Or the cost of keeping a double amputee who has lost his or her legs through smoking.
In Derbyshire alone the fire service had to attend 45 house fires directly caused by cigarette smoking - in one year.
"Fires caused by smoking kill more people than any other kind of fire and account for a third of all accidental fatal fires in the home."
-- answer removed --
My Dad died from liver cancer.....due to alcohol. Should we ban that as well?
No one .ever had to call the police because some one had to much to smoke
-- answer removed --
No, the vast majority of drinkers drink occasionally, very often going weeks with drinking alcohol.
The vast majority of smokers can't get through a working day without needing a fag.

There are healthy limits for drinking alcohol, and alcohol does have some health benefits.
There is no healthy limit for smoking tobacco, and there is no health benefit at all.

A drinker who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic, but anyone who uses cigarettes is a smoker,
Lets all feel sorry for all those poor hard done by smokers

No one is saying you can't smoke, just that you can't smoke in public places

Non smokers rights to not breathe your toxic fumes far outweigh your 'right' to smoke where you like
No one .ever had to call the police because some one had to much to smoke

No, but there are plenty of examples where the police have been called because of criminal activity related to smoking.
http://www.thisisglou...2-detail/article.html
http://www.thisisglou...5-detail/article.html
A drinker who abuses alcohol is an alcoholic

Not true hc....an alcoholic NEEDS to drink.
You cant lash your fag ends down -my daughter got fined by a Dog Warden for this (I know)-£60 fine. I live oppo a Church building and people come out the fire escape (rather than the front of the building) and walk about and blast their reek into my open window and then lash their butts down -it looks like a tip.My OH doesnt even smoke in the house-that annoys me.
HabDabs -youve annoyed me-re your off topic remarks re Bikers.
Apart from that I think the vast majority are quite happy not to foist their habits on others.My OH has cut down drastically -said its the best thing for him -he just goes out for a few puffs then nips it-same if we're out.
-- answer removed --
Good point but were they smoking at the time or had they nicked in case they were nicked.
hc4361 How many have left the chip pan on because of drink and started a fire. Go in any A & E on a Friday and Saturday night and see the crowds of drunks waiting for treatment.
How many times have you heard someone say i just have the odd one or two to be sociable.
They need a fix the same as a smoker.
Ban them and the smelly bikers those that think the law does not apply to them.
I used to smoke. I stopped because it was costing me a fortune.

I know that smoking is bad for your health. I know this because study after peer reviewed study has concluded that there is a direct link between direct inhalation of cigarette smoke and lung cancer.

However, the effects of passive smoking are not so well known. They are assumed to be detrimental and treated as though they have been proved in studies; but they haven't.

I once read of a study carried out by the World Health Organisation [WHO]. It was and still is, the largest study on the effects of passive smoking ever carried out. In 1998, the WHO revealed that the link between passive smoking and lung cancer was not statistically significant (ie. it had a risk ratio of less than 2.0). Put in everyday language, you are no more likely to contract lung cancer from passive smoking than you are to be victim of burglary because you have ginger hair. There is no positive correlation.
Continued...

The study was carried out over seven years in several different countries. It studied the incidences of lung cancer from four distinct categories of people..

1. Husband and wife – neither smoke.
2. Husband smokes, wife doesn't
3. Wife smokes, husband doesn't
4. Both husband and wife smoke.

One thing was absolutely clear – those who smoked had hugely increased incidences of lung cancer. Another thing was also clear - the incidence of lung cancer in the none smoking couples was the same as the none smoking partner of a smoker.

The implications of this enormous study are clear but not welcome to people who want to see smoking banned everywhere - passive smoking doesn't seem to increase your risk of lung cancer.

But let's not allow a good scientific study get in the way of self-righteous rhetoric...
> But let's not allow a good scientific study get in the way of self-righteous rhetoric...

Absolutely! That would be "un-AB"...
hc4361 -

How can you imply that alcohol has such a limited affect? Alcohol related incidents are responsible for 80% of all police time and up to 6 hours every night. How much police time is taken up dealing with smoking related causes?
The cost to the NHS of treating alcohol related diseases is far more than that of treating smoking related ones. Hundreds of thousands of cases of domestic violence occur every week caused by alcohol and equal numbers of families live in misery caused by alcohol abuse. One in 13 of the population (including children) is an alcoholic. Alcohol causes more damage, violence and death that drug abuse or smoking put together. I could go on but won't bother. You'll probably ignore it.

I don't smoke but I don't drink alcohol either. I'm always amazed how many people are happy to attack smoking then leap to the defence of drinking which causes far more problems and costs far more money than smoking ever did.
Just to add,

I really think the Islamic countries have the right idea about alcohol - ban it!
Very few countries, Muslim or otherwise, have a total ban on alcohol. Some try to ban Muslims specifically from drinking, but the vast majority permit non-Muslims to drink mainly in an attempt to boost tourism.

61 to 80 of 107rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

"smokers complain about their rights"!

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.