Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Earl of Bronze
Lets all sit around and watch the government goose-step down Whitehall, and take away even more of our personal freedoms.
|
That's an interesting viewpoint you have there...
Quote:
|
It's fummy to see all the complaints about the health issues of smoking, and how these will be sorted by banning smoking in public. Will they b0ll0ck$,
|
Well, curiously enough, I don't seem to have seen many comments from people actually *saying* that "these will be sorted by banning smoking in public". So perhaps the testes you are referring to are from people who exaggerate what is being said when actually what the suggestion is is that it will help *reduce* these health issues.
Quote:
|
how much time each week do you non-smokers sit in a bar full of smokers? Now compare that to the amount of time you spend in any urban area with vehicular traffic. What do you think will do you more harm, the passive smoke in the bar, or the tons of fumes pumped out by all those internal combustion engines every day.
|
So you're saying that because *something else* does more damage (although smoking is actually reckoned to be responsible for around 90% of lung cancer deaths), we shouldn't at least make a *start* somewhere?
Oh, BTW, does smoking get you to work? Does smoking carry your shopping? If you gave up smoking would you *lose* money? If you didn't smoke would you have trouble getting a job? No...?
Yes, it would be a good idea if we didn't have so much pollution chucked out by cars and lorries etc, but until there's a better alternative (improved public transport, non-polluting vehicles etc) it's a bit ridiculous to compare the two situations because it's much easier to try to stop smoking.
Quote:
|
I vaguely remember the report that was produced about 5 years ago, that gave a comparison asto the amount of tax from cigarette duty. I turned out that the duty paid was the equivilent to 25% of the NHS budget, we are talkin BILLIONS and prolly TENS of BILLIONS in tax. So forget a ban, the only way the government could get that money back would be a tax rise of about 4% for everyone. LOL
|
Ah, so now we have the "it's going to cost *you* money if *we* give up smoking, so we're actually *helping* you" argument...
Except, of course, that "4% tax rise for everyone" figure you claim there is *completely* misleading because there will be less working hours lost through tobacco related illnesses such as asthma, mouth, tongue, throat and lung cancer and coronary heart disease, less lives lost through those illnesses, so people will live longer (and, hence pay more tax over a longer period) and less cost to the NHS, less lives lost through fires caused by careless smokers, so less cost to the Fire Brigade etc etc etc.