{{page.notificationBar.message}}
The Voice of the Military Community
Home / Forum / smoking

smoking

{{forumThread.upVotes}} Created by Mo 06 April 2012 16:47 15459 views Link  
Mo 06 April 2012 16:47
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
smoking

Refering to the latest contributionto the "Ban Smoking Saga"that is the introduction of "Shutters" on Supermarket Shelves to hide all Tobacco Products . Next step will be to stop putting a "Fag" into a Dying Servicemans mouth and explain to the poor Bugger ,that Smoking will kill him/her. How about a Parade past the Houses of Parliement wearing Masks half black half white , Smoking Cigarettes, pipes, cigars and Oh Yes Hubbly Bubbly, and carrying Banners with the words Smoking doesnt make me feel "Queer"! and singing Land of no hope and lost Glory, just a little bit of "Off the Cuff on a wet Sunday Afternoon":thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John Richards 06 April 2012 17:05
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
smoking

If I go out at night, I always avoid the town centre, because of all the heavy smokers fighting outside the tobacconist shops. Some fag shops stay open all night and when the blokes have had too much to smoke, they go home and beat up their wives and kids. I was stopped by the police while driving home and given a nicotine test!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Michael Pavitt 06 April 2012 17:25
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Smoking

Tomorrow I shall shuffle up to Tescos in my mucky raincoat to get my daily fix of Old Holborn.I shall avoid the sidelong glances of the sanctimonious as the curtains are drawn and I am served.I wonder if they have mucky postcards as well!but this is not Cairo.... Will it make any difference... of course not.Another example of Topsy Turveydom worthy of Gilbert and Sullivan by our government
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Nobby 06 April 2012 18:58
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Personally, I think the latest Government move to licence smokers themselves is a good one. It will mean that to obtain said licence, a fee will need to be paid and that will be oh, I dunno, about a 1000 pounds per year? Thats more than a dog licence I know, but dogs dont smoke as a general rule. All the police will have to do is check your Smoking Licence, and those that dont have one will be given an instant fine, say the cost of the licence...
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Sit Vis Nobiscum. 06 April 2012 19:08
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Colin Hall Personally, I think the latest Government move to licence smokers themselves is a good one. It will mean that to obtain said licence, a fee will need to be paid and that will be oh, I dunno, about a 1000 pounds per year? That's more than a dog licence I know, but dogs don't smoke as a general rule. All the police will have to do is check your Smoking Licence, and those that don't have one will be given an instant fine, say the cost of the licence... Those who dont pay will be banned.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Pamela Forbes 06 April 2012 19:15
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Spare a thought for the poor shop assistants who have to lump the shutters up and back down again every time a customer wants cigarettes. I know what the girls at my local supermarket think but I cant put it on here as it would be censored!!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Terry Carey 06 April 2012 20:58
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
smoking

Asda and Sainsburys have sliding shutters round here Pamela. TC. Walks away whistling Smoke gets in your eyes while expecting a well aimed rolling pin at the back of my bonce.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Raymond Hall 07 April 2012 11:44
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
smoking

there are approximateley 28 million cars in the uk,godknows how many trucks,motor bikes and deisel trains, not to mention coaches and buses. all pumping out carbon monoxide far in excess of the amount being generated by us smokers, are we going to impose the sme draconian measures against these as the seem hell bent on findingnew rules against smokers evert week or so? of course there not! think of the loss of revenue to the gov [they get there revenue plus from smokers by continually increasing the taxper packet] in my humble and biased [some might say] this is outright discrimination against those who smoke,IT IS NOT ILLEGAL TO SMOKE its only illegally to smoke where the polliessay so,Iwouldnt mind betting that the revenue derived from tobbaco would more than pay for a few warships and some new aircraft. in the eyes of the pollies its better to die from an enemies bullet, than the possibility of cancer
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Nobby 07 April 2012 12:58
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: raymond hall Iwouldnt mind betting that the revenue  derived from tobbaco would more than pay for a few warships and some new aircraft. in the eyes of the pollies its better to die from an enemies bullet, than the possibility of cancer Raymond...in case you missed it...Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of death and disease in Australia killing 50 Australians daily, 350 each week, and around 19,000 every year. Smoking causes 20% of all cancers, 21% of all heart disease and costs $12.7 billion a year in health care, lost productivity and other costs. So youre right, if you didnt smoke, every Australian could indeed have his own personal aircraft!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
..... 07 April 2012 13:07
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Does that mean Flying Doctor could have two?
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
The Huntress 07 April 2012 13:27
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Colin Hall Raymond...in case you missed it...Smoking is the single largest preventable cause of death and disease in Australia killing 50 Australians daily, 350 each week, and around 19,000 every year. Smoking causes 20% of all cancers, 21% of all heart disease and costs $12.7 billion a year in health care, lost productivity and other costs. So you're right, if you didn't smoke, every Australian could indeed have his own personal aircraft! Statistics are just that, statistics.. Equally, scientifically challenged and disproved by health professionals, however, Think about it. if smoking causes 20% of all cancers, what causes the other 80% ?? 21 % of all heart diease, err the other 79%??? $12.7 billion a year in health care costs, there a billions of other chronic and debilitating viruses that attack the human body and the cost is relevant! Smokers pay for most of it! less productivity and other costs ? Speaking from personal knowledge as a 35 year plus smoker, I have only ever lost a week off work due to viral pneumonia and none since. I have never been in hosptal since I had my appendix out at 18 years old, at the time I didnt smoke.... I have rheumatoid arthritis...and nothing else...... Science ? or fact? Every individual is prone to illness or disease of one sort or another, to target smoking and create panic and fear, is just another govt cash grab and spin to keep you all from seeing the other dirty thieving tricks they get up to, which are well publicised if you research properly. And frankly, if anyone wants to lecture me on smoke, i would just say , blow it out of your ear.. We see it everyday,
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Ally Bell 07 April 2012 13:37
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
would a smoker let their 2 year old baby smoke?
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
The Huntress 07 April 2012 13:51
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Ally Bell would a smoker let their 2 year old baby smoke? Hi Ally, probably the same drug induced, drunk sotted degenerates that share with the poor unfortunate child, whilst ignoring the basic necessities of life to them. Some have said it takes a village to raise a child..... it used to be that way, everyone in the village looked out for the kids, chastised them, guided them , or in some cases , smacked the crap out of a neighbour who abused their kids in any form..... Sadly that doesnt happen anymore as we are so governed by Govt induced p.c. and liable to lawsuits, but I know a few , including myself would not be silent if we were to observe such behaviour.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Raymond Hall 07 April 2012 14:34
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Ally Bell would a smoker let their 2 year old baby smoke? hi ally I was under the impression that this thread was for serious discussion,how canyou justy asking us?"would you let a 2 year old smoke"
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
The Huntress 07 April 2012 15:05
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: raymond hall                                                                   hi ally I was under the impression that this thread was for serious discussion,how canyou justy asking us?"would you let a 2 year old smoke" Ray love, I think that was probably a philosophical question from Ally, on the generalisation of smokers moral attitudes on limitations of our freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is a right, however, abusing that right is called taking" licence " Everyone has freedom up to a point at which point, you may need a licence such as to drive, be a doctor or a nurse or a mechanic or electrician etc.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Pamela Forbes 07 April 2012 15:48
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Terry Carey Asda and Sainsbury's have sliding shutters round here Pamela.   TC. Walks away whistling 'Smoke gets in your eyes' while expecting a well aimed rolling pin at the back of my bonce. TC, Im hurt that you could think I would ever throw a rolling pin at your head! A very big syringe with a very big needle at your butt would be a different matter though!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
The Huntress 07 April 2012 15:52
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
smoking

On another track of course and a topic close to a lot of our hearts, methinks..... All this palaver about health and smoking, " granted if you dont smoke that is better for you as you wont get black lungs, (discoloured with the smoke) but HEY, where was all the palaver when our Grandads and dads and brothers were down the mines, they ALL came out with black lungs from the coal dust and they werent ALLOWED to smoke. Oh, thats different isnt it? No it bloody isnt, it is the govt being the same greedy pillocks they always were.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
The Huntress 07 April 2012 15:55
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Pamela Forbes           TC,  I'm hurt that you could think I would ever throw a rolling pin at your head!         A very big syringe with a very big needle at your butt would be a different matter though!     Good girl Pamela love, staying true to form and profession.. Of course, I can include flying frying pans and lobster pots, now that I am in training as a chef
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Steve Greenwood 07 April 2012 15:58
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Will you all stop talking about bloody smoking!! Ive been trying for two months to give up and am finding it really hard. Ive reduced my consumption from 40 per day down to 10 and looking forward to reducing it down to none. Ive never had a serious illness in my life but the cost is now prohibitive and economics will decide my fate.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
The Huntress 07 April 2012 16:04
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Steve Greenwood Will you all stop talking about bloody smoking!! I've been trying for two months to give up and am finding it really hard. I've reduced my consumption from 40 per day down to 10 and looking forward to reducing it down to none. I've never had a serious illness in my life but the cost is now prohibitive and economics will decide my fate. Try the e cig Steve love, I have one and I get a bigger buzzfrom the nicotine in two drags, that I do with my real ciggies.....which are of course, Res pure tobacco, no chemicals as Margaret calls them, pure buffalo shite Good luck with the cutting down Steve, dont rush too fast and end up on nerve pills, that happens a lot, personally, I will probably never quit cos i like it.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John Richards 07 April 2012 16:07
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
smoking

Recently Captain Lisa Head was killed in Afghanistan defusing a daisy-chain bomb. Before she started, she sat behind a wall and smoked 4 or 5 ciggies to calm herself. There are those who would deny her that small comfort.
Forum post attachment
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Steve Greenwood 07 April 2012 16:10
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Thanks, Patricia. Im on the e ciggies but its still very hard. Watch this space!!!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Marie Drew 07 April 2012 17:43
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Steve Greenwood Will you all stop talking about bloody smoking!! I've been trying for two months to give up and am finding it really hard. I've reduced my consumption from 40 per day down to 10 and looking forward to reducing it down to none. I've never had a serious illness in my life but the cost is now prohibitive and economics will decide my fate. Good for you Steve, just keep going, one day at a time. : Reducing the number of cigarettes gradually is a far better way of giving up smoking than giving up all together - that is too much of a shock to the system. Overcomig the craving for nicotine is one thing, overcoming the habit is much harder. Just persevere, you will find your breathing is much better and food tastes better too, especially that delicious French food. I know I felt the benefits over twenty five years ago.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John Richards 07 April 2012 18:19
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Marie Drew Good for you Steve, just keep going, one day at a time. : Reducing the number of cigarettes gradually is a far better way of giving up smoking than giving up all together - that is too much of a shock to the system.  Overcomig the craving for nicotine is one thing, overcoming the habit is much harder. Just persevere, you will find your breathing is much better and food tastes better too, especially that delicious French food.  I know I felt the benefits over twenty five years ago. I find that very hard to believe, Marie. Ive never heard of a five year old girl smoking!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Ally Bell 07 April 2012 18:47
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
holy smoke...what next...
Forum post attachment
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Marie Drew 07 April 2012 19:04
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: John Richards I find that very hard to believe, Marie. I've never heard of a five year old girl smoking! Compliments, compliments!!! While in the WRNS I did smoke and for a few years afterwards. Even in the first few years of teaching, I would come home and collapse with a ciggie and a cuppa at the end of stressful day. But gradually I found I had no need of the weed during holiday time, so decided to give up completely. Do you remember the blue liners? Not issued to wrens of course, but while at Halfar in Malta, the Met Office was part of NATO as it provided the weather forecasts for exercises in the Mediterranean. This meant that all in the Met Office could buy cigarettes, alcohol and vehicles duty free. I used to buy my ciggies from the Nato Headquarters at Florianna. The row of brand new cars and scooters standing outside the Met Office was a bone of contention with all other personnel serving there. This was how I was encouraged to smoke..........................
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
..... 07 April 2012 20:11
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Ally Bell holy smoke...what next... Ally. I can be smug as a non smoker. Red Ingles definiton of a smoker. "A fire on one end and a fool on tother."
Forum post attachment
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Ros Comain. 07 April 2012 23:32
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Patricia Davies Statistics are just that, statistics.. Equally, scientifically challenged and disproved by health professionals, however, Think about it. if smoking causes 20% of all cancers, what causes the other 80% ?? 21 % of all heart diease,  err the other 79%??? $12.7 billion a year in health care costs, there a billions of other chronic and debilitating viruses that attack the human body and the cost is relevant! Smokers pay for most of it! less productivity and other costs ? Speaking from personal knowledge as a 35 year plus smoker, I have only ever lost a week off work due to viral pneumonia and none since. I have never been in hosptal since I had my appendix out at 18 years old,  at the time I didn't smoke.... I have rheumatoid arthritis...and nothing else...... Science ? or fact? Every individual is prone to illness or disease of one sort or another, to target smoking and create panic and fear,  is just another  gov't cash grab and spin to keep you all from seeing the other dirty thieving tricks they get up to, which are well publicised if you research properly. And frankly, if anyone wants to lecture me on smoke, i would just say , blow it out of your ear.. We see it everyday, You make some very good points Patricia. All Maurice wants to do is amble down to his local store and buy some cigarettes, without feeling intimidated, and made to feel like a lepor, also without interference from the left wing liberals who wish to control every aspect of our lives, and be subjected to snide remarks by the holier than thou brigade, not a lot to ask from someone who has served his country, is it? Still, there is some respite for us at that moment, as the BBCs propaganda machine is currently concentrating on RACISM, I wonder when they will be tackling the issue of abortion, given that they are so concerned with smoking and unborn children, not a wise thing I would add, the word Hypocrites comes to mind. It wont be long though before they will back on the subject of smoking!!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John (Scouse) Hirons 08 April 2012 02:51
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Michael Potter You make some very good points Patricia. All Maurice wants to do is amble down to his local store and buy some cigarettes, without feeling intimidated, and made to feel like a lepor, also without interference from the left wing liberals who wish to control every aspect of our lives, and be subjected to snide remarks by the holier than thou brigade, not a lot to ask from someone who has served his country, is it? Still,  there is some respite for us at that moment, as the BBC's propaganda machine is currently concentrating on RACISM,  I wonder when they will be tackling the issue of abortion, given that they are so concerned with smoking and unborn children, not a wise thing I would add,  the word Hypocrites comes to mind.  It wont be long though before they will back on the subject of smoking!!   Alright Michael, theres is a flaw in your argument....the left wing liberals that brought in the hide the fag regulation are the current government & unless theres been a bloodless coup the last time I looked they are predominantly Tory. The Tories have started another series of propaganda adverts all to do with 80% of ciggie smoke being able to defy the laws of physics. I also notice the nebbies have now found out that even with a drop in smokers there has not been an equivalent drop in mouth cancer so now they are claiming drinking is the culprit.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Roly01 08 April 2012 03:22
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: John (scouse) Hirons   I also notice the nebbies have now found out that even with a drop in smokers there has not been an equivalent drop in mouth cancer so now they are claiming drinking is the culprit.   I gave up smoking over 20 years ago and never had mouth cancers. Now you spoil my satisfaction of this achievement and tell me I have to give up drinking now????? Scouse, go away and leave me alone..... I will blame you for the mouth cancers now! Or do I blame your politics?
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Sit Vis Nobiscum. 08 April 2012 09:00
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Patricia Davies Statistics are just that, statistics.. Equally, scientifically challenged and disproved by health professionals, however, Think about it. if smoking causes 20% of all cancers, what causes the other 80% ?? 21 % of all heart diease,  err the other 79%??? $12.7 billion a year in health care costs, there a billions of other chronic and debilitating viruses that attack the human body and the cost is relevant! Smokers pay for most of it! less productivity and other costs ? Speaking from personal knowledge as a 35 year plus smoker, I have only ever lost a week off work due to viral pneumonia and none since. I have never been in hosptal since I had my appendix out at 18 years old,  at the time I didn't smoke.... I have rheumatoid arthritis...and nothing else...... Science ? or fact? Every individual is prone to illness or disease of one sort or another, to target smoking and create panic and fear,  is just another  gov't cash grab and spin to keep you all from seeing the other dirty thieving tricks they get up to, which are well publicised if you research properly. And frankly, if anyone wants to lecture me on smoke, i would just say , blow it out of your ear.. We see it everyday, Its a bit of a specious argument using the percentages to prove or disprove your case eg: 14% of all road deaths in the UK in 2010 were caused by drink driving, therefore 86% were caused by something else, so on the face of it something else is more dangerous than drink driving, to get the something else figures down, get the drink driving figures up, and encourage more people to go out drinking and driving more. The DD % would rise, the something else figures would fall making something else statistically a bit safer, I dont think so!!!!!!!!!! If nobody smoked the cancers caused by smoking would be 0%, then 100% would be caused by other things. My wifes uncle was a lifelong smoker, always in denial that smoking did any harm, seeing him die from emphysema was a tragic testimony to what cigarettes can do to you. When we cleared his flat out it had to be professionally cleaned, not because he was dirty, ceilings and doors,walls etc were sticky with tar. That is fact!! Just because a person appears not to be affected by cigarettes, does not mean another will not be.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Nobby 08 April 2012 10:06
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Ive stated my feelings on smokers often enough and it is that is a matter of choice, theyre your lungs and your heart and anyone choosing to ignore the mountain of evidence from every health authority in the world that smoking is bad for you, then thats still your choice. It kills a helluva lot more people than those that dont smoke. Neither I or my wife have ever smoked, nor do any of our adult children and certainly none of the older grandchildren. Right at this moment I dont know anyone in our circle of other families and friends who smoke. Here in NZ smoking is restricted virtually to the open air; you cant smoke inside buildings, on buses , trains, or aircraft.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Bomber 08 April 2012 10:12
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Hi Patricia, Im prone to the illness of life.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Mo 08 April 2012 14:14
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
last thought

Quoting: Ray Harris Hi Patricia, I'm prone to the illness of life. as i was the one who started this round of discussions about smoking (now i dont smoke had my last cigarette Febuary 1970),well i would like to give it a last thought at this time,, When the proposed ban was discussed and voted on in Parliament (by the way it was a free vote) the proposal was put forward by aLabour M.P Now i am of the opinion that if that proposal had been put forward by a Tory M.P. it would never had got through as the labour party wuold not have been seen supporting the Tories ,next the Brewery industry thought the ban would be a good thing and draw more custom to their Pubs so they never even Protested ,but its Back fired so to try and keep going they have shoved the price of beer up ,and thats a no brainer,back to the smoking question why didnt they reinstate Smoke Rooms ,but no that would meean the m rebuilding some of the walls they knocked down. Iwonder what the servicemen/women think when they come home and find that some of the freedoms they have been fighting for was for nothing, do you know i could go on and on but as it is time to eat my Easter Egg i think i will leave my thoughts "Smouldering" (excuse the pun") for another time.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John (Scouse) Hirons 08 April 2012 15:10
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
The main problem with the anti-smoking lobby is it's under researched. The main basis is a limited survey carried out in the early 60's using the limited science of that time, in fact there's more evidence that witches cause all the damage (using the science of that time).   The lobby then started inventing science to cover the short fall in their proof the latest being that 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible & defies the laws of physics by, amongst other miraculous things, traveling great distances against the prevailing wind direction.   The question I would like the the scientist to answer is -- if a passive smoker gets a large enough share of a smokers smoke containing nicotine & all the poisons known to man to cause them harm  how come they don't get the addiction? it may just be me but I've never heard anyone say "I'm gasping for a passive, will someone light up".     In my area of north Liverpool we have a grain terminal, a coal terminal, a metal shredder & two main arterial roads feeding the docks. My area also has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in the North West which in turn has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in England. I wonder what could cause that? it must be all the passive, but invisible, smoke coming across the Irish sea against the prevailing wind. Last edited by John (scouse) Hirons
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Terry Carey 08 April 2012 15:22
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
smoking

This has been and is an interesting thread so Ill add a couple of observations. I smoked from a very early age up to the age of fifty. At first I didnt smoke heavily but as usual the number per day crept up and when I went into Sales I carried them around to pass out to the Buyers, Purchasing Managers etc. When I got to twenty to thirty a day - wow, so many! - I decided to stop. So I stopped. Like that. Its called will power. The habit is the hardest part to kick. I once read an article which said when you feel like a smoke take out a cigarette, put it into your mouth, take out your lighter or matches and then put them all away without lighting the fag. You will have satisfied the habit but will not feel you need to carry on the rest of the ritual. It works. It is also cheaper. Statistics were cited by Winston Churchill in his famous quote - There are lies, damned lies and statistics. We all know someone who has smoked for X number of years and is still alive and well at some advanced age, or we know of someone who popped off from some other cause in his or her nineties or whatever. Individuals cannot be used to justify any argument but the facts are that many people who smoke die of lung cancer and equally there are many who dont. My Mother-in-law died at 89 from lung cancer having never touched a fag in her life although she sometimes went to clubs which were thick with smoke. On balance I feel that with the evidence available smokers are more likely to suffer from lung cancer or emphysemia than non- smokers. That in itself is a good reason to give it up but it is up to the individual and I would never interfere with their choice. I dissuaded my children from the habit by pointing out the dangers. The obvious happened as I was questioned as to why I didnt stop but when they were young they had not the force of argument as needed to influence me. I feel healthier since I stopped and can save the money I would otherwise have allocated to smoking. I can still run for a bus if needed - provided it is no more than twenty yards away but hey, at my age thats pretty good and after that distance my left knee is knackered anyway. Ah well, enough for now I think. Regards to all - smokers, non-smokers, zealots, reprobates and holier than thou types who have given up and want to preach and those who say if it suits you then fine. Terry. Thanks Pamela, I appreciate you keeping the rolling pin in your kitchen - I thought Id be safe but I wondered if youd think I meant you lived in the outback.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John (Scouse) Hirons 08 April 2012 15:25
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Arthur(Roly) Rowsell I gave up smoking over 20 years ago and never had mouth cancers. Now you spoil my satisfaction of this achievement and tell me I have to give up drinking now????? Scouse, go away and leave me alone..... I will blame you for the mouth cancers now! Or do I blame your politics? Alright Roly, It wernt me Mistah onust, our kid made me say it.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Nobby 08 April 2012 16:31
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: John (scouse) Hirons The main problem with the anti-smoking lobby is it's under researched. The main basis is a limited survey carried out in the early 60's using the limited science of that time, in fact there's more evidence that witches cause all the damage (using the science of that time).   The lobby then started inventing science to cover the short fall in their proof the latest being that 80% of cigarette smoke is invisible & defies the laws of physics by, amongst other miraculous things, traveling great distances against the prevailing wind direction.   The question I would like the the scientist to answer is -- if a passive smoker gets a large enough share of a smokers smoke containing nicotine & all the poisons known to man to cause them harm  how come they don't get the addiction? it may just be me but I've never heard anyone say "I'm gasping for a passive, will someone light up".     In my area of north Liverpool we have a grain terminal, a coal terminal, a metal shredder & two main arterial roads feeding the docks. My area also has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in the North West which in turn has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in England. I wonder what could cause that? it must be all the passive, but invisible, smoke coming across the Irish sea against the prevailing wind.   Last edited by John (scouse) Hirons Surely Scouse you are using exactly the same argument as the scientists, but in a non-scientific way? You are a heavy smoker, so youre never going to accept proof that it will do you harm, no matter who proves it, and there are screeds of research available from much more recent research than "the early 60s" in your quote. The facts arent invented, they just dont fit your opinion! If you look more closely at how passive smoking occurs,and what is meant by that description, I guarantee none of the research has been in the circumstance you have suggested. There is a prevailing wind, for sure, and its coming from just north of Liverpool!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 16:41
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting John (scouse) Hirons In my area of north Liverpool we have a grain terminal, a coal terminal, a metal shredder & two main arterial roads feeding the docks. My area also has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in the North West which in turn has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in England. I wonder what could cause that? it must be all the passive, but invisible, smoke coming across the Irish sea against the prevailing wind. ................................ I feel that the above situation would be an excellent motive for people to up-sticks and emigrate to healthier climes, if only to avoid the mysterious invisible smoke that is enveloping the northern parts of Liverpool, which, if as stated, must arrive against the prevailing wind, from the land of the Leprechauns and tatti (as in spud) mashers. There may be a good case for "Lawyers are Us" to start a compensation gold rush. Just an opinion, simple as it may be. Regards Simon.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Ros Comain. 08 April 2012 16:42
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
[QUOTE]Quoting: John (scouse) Hirons [I] Alright Michael, there's is a flaw in your argument....the left wing liberals that brought in the hide the fag regulation are the current government & unless there's been a bloodless coup the last time I looked they are predominantly Tory. Come now Scouse, you are not seriously telling me that this current bunch of Liberals led by Boy Dave are Tories, in the true sense, although they may refer to themselves as such. Yes you are right they brought in the legislation, based on the proposals made by the Labour government in Oct 2009. My apologies Maurice for assuming you were, dare I say it, a smoker!!
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John (Scouse) Hirons 08 April 2012 16:54
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Colin Hall   Surely Scouse you are using exactly the same argument as the scientists, but in a non-scientific way? You are a heavy smoker, so you're never going to accept proof that it will do you harm, no matter who proves it, and there are screeds of research available from much more recent research than "the early 60s" in your quote. The facts aren't invented, they just don't fit your opinion! If you look more closely at how passive smoking occurs,and what is meant by that description, I guarantee none of the research has been in the circumstance you have suggested. There is a prevailing wind, for sure, and it's coming from just north of Liverpool! Alright Colin, I would still like to know how a gas can, as is now being claimed by the alleged scientists, defy the laws of physics & why so called passive can smokers get all the contents of ciggie smoke & yet dont form the habit themselves. As a point of interest there has been no major scientific investigation on the damage done by smoking since the tests in the early 60s & passive smoking was invented in ,of all places, California & we all know how down to earth they are. At one time I went along with the nebulous passive smoke propaganda until they started insulting our intelligence with invented scaremongering claims, they then made me look closer & doubt their claims.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
John (Scouse) Hirons 08 April 2012 17:25
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting: Don Knight Quoting  John (scouse) Hirons  In my area of north Liverpool we have a grain terminal, a coal terminal, a metal shredder & two main arterial roads feeding the docks. My area also has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in the North West which in turn has the highest incidence of chest & heart disease in England. I wonder what could cause that? it must be all the passive, but invisible, smoke coming across the Irish sea against the prevailing wind.                             ................................ I feel that the above situation would be an excellent motive for people to up-sticks and emigrate to healthier climes, if only to avoid the mysterious invisible smoke that is enveloping the northern parts of Liverpool, which, if as stated, must arrive against the prevailing wind, from the land of the Leprechauns and tatti (as in spud) mashers. There may be a good case for "Lawyers are Us" to start a compensation gold rush. Just an opinion, simple as it may be. Regards Simon.     Alright Don, Its either them Mick smokers wafting their invisible ciggie gases over here or it could be a thing which obviously doesnt exist (according to the men in white coats) industrial pollution, nah it couldnt be that its the ciggies.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 17:35
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
My opinion for what its worth, if any-ones respiratory system is weak or failing, inhalation of any contaminated air can be harmful, how damaging depends on the severity of the damage to the system. Some people smoke all their lives, and have no adverse effects from the habit, but they die from some other cause. Others never smoke, but they die from respiratory related diseases, caused by, or not, from passive smoke inhalation, or other obnoxious gasses. My objection to smoking is the smell, but as an ex-smoker (28years ago) I think that we (ex-smokers) react to it more than most. Im pleased smoking has been banned in enclosed spaces, but I have no objection to people smoking, anywhere other than where they could cause offence. They have been made aware of possible effects and the probable illnesses they could get, so they knowingly make a choice, their problem. As for smokers children, it is the parents choice to gamble with their childrens welfare or not. In any case the tax revenue generated by tobacco is a welcome source of income for the government of the day. If it is not raised by this method, other ways would have to be found, so it eases my tax burden. Life is a lottery, some win, some lose.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 17:41
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Quoting John (scouse) Hirons Alright Don, It's either them Mick smokers wafting their invisible ciggie gases over here or it could be a thing which obviously doesn't exist (according to the men in white coats) industrial pollution, nah it couldn't be that it's the ciggies. ................................ Gotta agree scouse, industrial pollution as much as anything else, nothing has been caste in stone.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 19:21
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
How do cigarettes damage health? Term watch 'Cardiovascular' means the heart and circulation. Cardiovascular disease causes: poor circulation angina (chest pains) heart attacks stroke. Cigarettes contain more than 4000 chemical compounds and at least 400 toxic substances. When you inhale, a cigarette burns at 700°C at the tip and around 60°C in the core. This heat breaks down the tobacco to produce various toxins. As a cigarette burns, the residues are concentrated towards the butt. The products that are most damaging are: tar, a carcinogen (substance that causes cancer) nicotine is addictive and increases cholesterol levels in your body carbon monoxide reduces oxygen in the body components of the gas and particulate phases cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). The damage caused by smoking is influenced by: the number of cigarettes smoked whether the cigarette has a filter how the tobacco has been prepared.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 19:22
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Cardiovascular disease Cardiovascular disease is the main cause of death due to smoking. Hardening of the arteries is a process that develops over years, when cholesterol and other fats deposit in the arteries, leaving them narrow, blocked or rigid. When the arteries narrow (atherosclerosis), blood clots are likely to form. Smoking accelerates the hardening and narrowing process in your arteries: it starts earlier and blood clots are two to four times more likely. Cardiovasular disease can take many forms depending on which blood vessels are involved, and all of them are more common in people who smoke. A fatal disease Blood clots in the heart and brain are the most common causes of sudden death. Coronary thrombosis: a blood clot in the arteries supplying the heart, which can lead to a heart attack. Around 30 per cent are caused by smoking. Cerebral thrombosis: the vessels to the brain can become blocked, which can lead to collapse, stroke and paralysis. Damage to the brains blood supply is also an important cause of dementia. If the kidney arteries are affected, then high blood pressure or kidney failure results. Blockage to the vascular supply to the legs may lead to gangrene and amputation. Smokers tend to develop coronary thrombosis 10 years earlier than non-smokers, and make up 9 out of 10 heart bypass patients.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 19:24
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Cancer Smokers are more likely to get cancer than non-smokers. This is particularly true of lung cancer, throat cancer and mouth cancer, which hardly ever affect non-smokers. The link between smoking and lung cancer is clear. Ninety percent of lung cancer cases are due to smoking. If no-one smoked, lung cancer would be a rare diagnosis - only 0.5 per cent of people whove never touched a cigarette develop lung cancer. One in ten moderate smokers and almost one in five heavy smokers (more than 15 cigarettes a day) will die of lung cancer. The more cigarettes you smoke in a day, and the longer youve smoked, the higher your risk of lung cancer. Similarly, the risk rises the deeper you inhale and the earlier in life you started smoking. For ex-smokers, it takes approximately 15 years before the risk of lung cancer drops to the same as that of a non-smoker. If you smoke, the risk of contracting mouth cancer is four times higher than for a non-smoker. Cancer can start in many areas of the mouth, with the most common being on or underneath the tongue, or on the lips. Other types of cancer that are more common in smokers are: bladder cancer cancer of the oesophagus cancer of the kidneys cancer of the pancreas cervical cancer
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 19:25
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
COPD Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a collective term for a group of conditions that block airflow and make breathing more difficult, such as: Term watch Chronic means long term, not severe. emphysema - breathlessness caused by damage to the air sacs (alveoli) chronic bronchitis - coughing with a lot of mucus that continues for at least three months. Smoking is the most common cause of COPD and is responsible for 80 per cent of cases. Its estimated that 94 per cent of 20-a-day smokers have some emphysema when the lungs are examined after death, while more than 90 per cent of non-smokers have little or none. COPD typically starts between the ages of 35 and 45 when lung function starts to decline anyway. Quitting can help Lung damage from COPD is permanent, but giving up smoking at any stage reduces the rate of decline in lung capacity. In smokers, the rate of decline in lung function can be three times the usual rate. As lung function declines, breathlessness begins. As the condition progresses, severe breathing problems can require hospital care. The final stage is death from slow and progressive breathlessness.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 19:26
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Other risks caused by smoking Did you know? A single cigarette can reduce the blood supply to your skin for over an hour. Smoking raises blood pressure, which can cause hypertension (high blood pressure) - a risk factor for heart attacks and stroke. Couples who smoke are more likely to have fertility problems than couples who are non-smokers. Smoking worsens asthma and counteracts asthma medication by worsening the inflammation of the airways that the medicine tries to ease. The blood vessels in the eye are sensitive and can be easily damaged by smoke, causing a bloodshot appearance and itchiness. Heavy smokers are twice as likely to get macular degeneration, resulting in the gradual loss of eyesight. Smokers run an increased risk of cataracts. Smokers take 25 per cent more sick days year than non-smokers. Smoking stains your teeth and gums. Smoking increases your risk of periodontal disease, which causes swollen gums, bad breath and teeth to fall out. Smoking causes an acid taste in the mouth and contributes to the development of ulcers. Smoking also affects your looks: smokers have paler skin and more wrinkles. This is because smoking reduces the blood supply to the skin and lowers levels of vitamin A.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete
Who Does Guard The Guardians?? 08 April 2012 19:27
[pending deletion]
Originally Posted by
Smoking and others There are many health-related reasons to give up cigarettes - not just for smokers, but to protect those around you. Babies born to mothers who smoke during pregnancy are twice as likely to be born prematurely and with a low birth weight. Passive smoking The side-stream smoke that comes off a cigarette between puffs carries a higher risk than directly inhaled smoke. Children who grow up in a home where one or both of their parents smoke have twice the risk of getting asthma and asthmatic bronchitis. They also have a higher risk of developing allergies. Infants under two years old are more prone to severe respiratory infections and cot death. For adults, passive smoking seems to increase the risk of lung cancer, but the evidence for an increased risk of heart disease is not yet conclusive.
{{forumPost.upVotes}} Reply With QuoteEditLink   Report [Reported] Delete