Poster: A snowHead
|
richmond, Agreed! Apart from 2
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
richmond, your argument about smokers not costing more than non-smokers is flawed.
Firstly not all smokers die early and quickly, a large percentage go on in chronic ill health, and with high dependency on the NHS, for a very long time.
The ones that do die early consume massive amounts of resources before they die, as most of the deaths are not quick, and tend to linger on for a significant amount of time. As they are young, and have a potentially reasonable quality of life, all the stops tend to be pulled out in order to treat them, this uses a massive amount of expensive resources, far more than they would have done if they had lived healthily into old age.
Non-smokers who live into old age tend to be healthier than their smoking counterparts, and so even though they are old, they use fewer resources, even though their old age lasts longer. If they do have to go into nursing homes, then it unfortunately doesn't tend to be for more than a couple of years, sometimes shorter.
At all points in their lives, and cumulatively, smokers consume more NHS resources than non-smokers.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Ian Hopkinson,
I tell ya, if I had just started smoking this morning I wouldn't dare to announce it here!
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Smoke more and stop global warming !
Tobacco plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Buring them produces Co2, but it is incomplete combustion ie. not all the Carbon is converted back into CO2. Thus, cigarettes give a nett reduction in atmospheric CO2.
The other CO2 emissions associated with the production of cigarrettes are no different to those associated with processing plant materials into consumer products - eg paper, cereals, etc.
So - preserve our snowfields - smoke a fag today !
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
If anyone is in any doubt as to the net cost of smokers to an economy (this means you richmond, mate ), read this:
Kmietowicz Z. Tobacco company claims that smokers help the economy. BMJ 2001; 32: 126. (21 July.)
It comes to the wrong conclusion because of the fallacious tax argument, but the difference in magnitude between costs and savings clearly illustrates the point that smoking is an expensive habit not just for smokers, but for everybody!
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Almost on Queue.
Published in the British Medical Jounrnal yesterday .
Now lets put this argument to bed .
BMJ article
Ban Smoking
Stop the Brutal Grooming
|
|
|
|
|
|
slikedges, I'm not sure if I've read that or not, it doesn't ring any bells, I'll try and do so. Is it the thing about the Phillip Morris guy in the Czech Republic?
I am sceptical of all the figures I have read, on both sides of the argument, but I question the widespread assumption that smokers are a massive drain on the NHS (not that that would necessarily justify banning smoking). The usual comparison of tobacco tax revenue against treatment cost is almost entirley irrelevant
This is really a question about how health care is rationed (as it must be) and whether self inflicted harm should be treated somehow differently (in so far as you can distinguish self inflicted harm). For example, at the moment, drug costs are controlled in part by comparing drug cost to the 'benefit' it gives (to put it crudely) and deciding whether or not to allow its prescription on the NHS. Should we instead or as well ration drugs by the underlying cause of the illness? Should public money be used to fund research into treatment of self induced conditions?
If we seek to identify activities which cause a drain on the exchequer and either ban them or decline to undertake the cost, such as by refusing treatment for diseases (probably) caused by smoking, how do we distinguish self inflicted from the rest? If I drive my car and crash it, is that self inflicted? No-one else is at fault, I didn't have to drive, but I doubt that many of us would wish to refuse treatment in that situation or ban private driving. More sensibly, what about alcohol? That makes a huge demand on the NHS and other public services, and who knows whether early death compensates for that? A recent article in, I think, 'The Lancet' (I read only a brief report of it) apparently compared the national cost of drinking unfavourably with the national cost of smoking (I don't know what figures were used). The social, as opposed to medical, cost of drinking must be massive. Do we ban it? I hope not, far more fervently than I hope that we don't ban smoking, in which my interest is more a matter of principle.
sharon1953, I am interested in why you believe that you have the right to breathe clean air in a bar. You don't have to go there. The bar is for you to use or not as you choose. Whether or not you choose to use it will depend on a large number of factors, such as its appearance, whether it serves the type of drinks you like, the prices, whether or not it serves food, the dress code, whether or not it the clientele put you off. Why should air quality be any different from these factors? There are pubs which I don't go to because they stink of fags (most of them), and there are pubs which I go to specifically because smoking is not allowed. That seems to be a reasonable state of affairs. As fewer and fewer of us smoke and more of us refuse to go to places which allow it, more and more places will ban it. Smokers will still have some places in which they can smoke, and all will be well. That won't happen with pubs, because smoking will be banned by law in most pubs, which seems tough on smokers (and their families, who will have little choice but to suffer more smoking at home) to me.
I think that I've exhausted myself on this topic. I'm pretty certain that no-one has changed their mind as a result of the discussion so far, but it's been fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
richmond, I agree with you. It's like complaining about things on the telly. There's quite a bit of choice, including the off switch.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
richmond,
Yes it is that news article. The disparity between costs and savings is one order of magnitude though, so that no matter the inaccuracies or differences resulting from their dissimilar socio-economic environment, it is unlikely that the direction of the disparity would be reversed. Having some experience of the variety, multiplicity, intensity, chronicity and cost of smoking related disease, I am intuitively sure that the cost of smokers to the economy, in terms of health costs, time off work, etc would exceed that saved by their early but eventful demise. Actually, there are several actual papers which have calculated these cost comparisons - I just don't remember their references and it was that BMJ one that was to hand! I could do a search I suppose.....
Definitely agree with the rest of it. It is debatable at best and arbritary at worst, where the line of personal responsibility (read culpability) should lie. Are we heading for a society where no-one will leave their homes because to step foot outside would constitute a small but unnecessary risk for which the insurance companies would not indemnify you? Like you, in principle I would defend the right to choose to engage in a hazardous activity, assuming circumstances in which it was having little or no effect on others who had no choice in the matter (so you could smoke in a bar if the owner said you could).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
All those of you who think you have a right to breath clean fresh air - you're right!
So stop driving your damn cars and polluting the air with more carcinogens, carbon monoxide and other crap than a smoker puts out in a year that poor pedestrians have to inhale whilst enjoying a 'healthy' walk to work.
I dont get a choice about whether I want to inhale that either. I'm going to start smoking again just so that at least I can filter the fumes that I breath!!
(Slightly tongue in cheek!)
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Duplicate post deleted
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Thu 3-03-05 8:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
easiski, let me know if you're in Morillon.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
snowskisnow wrote: |
Quote: |
Are we heading for a society where no-one will leave their homes because to step foot outside would constitute a small but unnecessary risk for which the insurance companies would not indemnify you?
|
Almost certainly,to some degree.Its easy to make the jump from personal choice to unacceptable risk.Our beloved sport is a classic example.Its your decision to participate,exposing yourself to varying levels of(some would say)unnecessary risk.Then there is the impact on others to consider.How long before insurers demand proof of competence,and place varied restrictions on what you may,or may not,do?Off-piste restrictions are just the first step and,currently,not a real problem;yet!!Not possible?Well,I've learnt to never say never.I've yet to experience practicalities clouding an insurers judgement Still not possible?Track the development of scuba diving(in the UK)to get a taste of how it could go
Bit off topic;but this thread is about personal freedoms(as much as anything else)and we will see these freedoms increasingly 'controlled'. |
Insurers can put whatever conbditions they like on their insurance, they are after all merely commercial enterprises out to make a profit - and if they think that people being incompetent or some other risk factors will eat into their profits, they can put restrictions on them. They are not there for a social function. If people don't like their terms and conditions they can easily go with another insurance firm or not get insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Um , reading all this is enough to make me want to give up my 2 a day
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
richmond, You make many assumptions about peoples choices of where they can and cannot socialise. And with that you must also feel that people have a choice as to where they work. I must assume therefore, that you live either inner city or in a suburb. So you have probably not experienced the situation where the local pub is THE only place one can socialise, and it is THE only place in that area where youngsters can find part time evening work to subsidise their living costs whilst studying. Some are not fortunate enough to make choices about where they work, live, or socialise, so it must surely be everyones right to breath air that is a clean as is possible. If pubs can provide a choice of smoking or none smoking areas with adequate air filtration sytems, then that would be the ideal. But to say that I have a 'choice' to avoid smoke inhalation by avoiding all the places where the smoke is, is rather like saying I have a choice not to walk down my road at night if I want to avoid being mugged! Or a miner had a choice to change his job if he didn't want to die from black lung desease!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
sharon1953, I don't find your arguments convincing. What's wrong with socialising at home (the beer's cheaper, after all)? As for employment opportunities, of course there are fewer in the countryside - that's why hardly anybody lives there, but it's a matter of personal choice for those who do. And apart from a few years during WWII and its immediate aftermath, miners could seek alternative employment and, of course, did.
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
I'm confused. Aren't bars or pub all about damaging your body with alcohol, smoke and unhealthy food, while socialising ?
What's next ? Sparkling water on tap ? Fat free peanuts ? What kind of pubs are we talking about here !
As a smoker (who does not smoke on the lifts, because I understand it may bother others) I'm tired of smokers bashing ! If you can't stand it, go to the non-smoking section of the restaurant (mandatory in France BTW) and ride a bicycle instead of a car !
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
laundryman, ee up lad, tha does not remember the miners stikes dos thou?
|
|
|
|
|
|
sharon1953, yes, but I don't understand the relevance to the discussion. Miner's always enjoyed premium wages (compared to people with comparable skills) for doing a dirty and dangerous job (quite right too): but they weren't conscripted -- at least outside of roughly 1942-8. Incidentally, my uncle preferred to fight the Japanese than go down the local pit (not too far from you) as a 'Bevin Boy'! I think tens of thousands left the industry voluntarily as well as those who were unfortunately (for them) made redundant. Anyway, I'm not sure how we got to talking about black stuff rather than white stuff!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point was: In small Welsh mining towns there wasn't any other employment, hence the demise of many villages when the mines closed - so once again - no choice!
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
philippeR, I know the non-smoking area is mandatory in France, but the problem is the smokers either ignore it, or it is so small we are still surrounded by smokers. I have however noticed less smoke in French bars and restaurants recently. I've also notcied the French tend to leave the smoking until the end of the meal rather than light up between courses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, the miners may have recently had premium wages, but when my Grandfather was a miner, they didn't know from one day to the next whether the owner woud open the pit that day or not. If the pit didn't open, they didn't get paid. And he didn't have a choice to change his job either. Up here it was either the pit, steel works , shipyards or nothing I'm afraid. Perhaps not relevant to the thread, but............... perhaps if you have seen someone dying form the effects of the coal dust you may understand that it's more relevant than you think.
Last edited by Ski the Net with snowHeads on Thu 3-03-05 23:40; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Helen Beaumont, thanks Helen that was the point I was trying to make - but you put it better!
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
sharon1953, many villages up here are still suffering from the closure of the pits (did you see Jamie Oliver in Peterlee last night ). It affected more than just the pitmen, Shops, banks, hairdressers, all closed through the pit closures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are not asking the skiers enjoying a fag or two in the top of the mountain to come down into the pit because the miners have left and the smoking space is now available, are we? Or are we using the black lung disease to scare them?
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Helen Beaumont wrote: |
And he didn't have a choice to change his job either. Up here it was either the pit, steel works , shipyards or nothing I'm afraid. |
That contains a contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Quote: |
philippeR:
I'm tired of smokers bashing ! If you can't stand it, go to the non-smoking section of the restaurant (mandatory in France BTW) and ride a bicycle instead of a car !
|
Beautifully sums up all I hate about selfish smokers in a couple of sentences. Encapsulates the quintessential "I'm alright Jack" attitude, the hopeless argument (like ANYONE believes non-smoking sections work, coz the smoke KNOWS it can't cross that barrier, doesn't it? and the, frankly, insane argument about cars as usual. So a) no smokers drive cars and b) who else comes home smelling of car fumes every day?
Well done PhilippeR, you win my award for eejit of the week. Please find somewhere you can air your views to a wider audience and, with any luck, get into a debate. With you on the side of the smokers, it'll be banned for good by next Christmas...
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Nice soundbyte on the radio this am from JD Wetherspoons. Reporting that, from the restaurants within their chain where clean air is available to customers, takings have gone up. They now plan to extend the programme.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
snowbunny, Good news indeed. That's how things should work.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Helene Baumont,
of course you're right, second hand smoke is a hassle. And that's why I actualy, believe it or not, try to minimize my indoor smoking (and why, back on-topic, I don't smoke on the lifts).
My point (on the ranting side, granted) was that :
1- As long as tobacco is still legal it should be tolerated by non-smokers in some places, like bars or restaurant (after the meal) where it's historicaly and culturaly part of the experience.
2- 'Others' are a hassle in general. Loud voices, crying babies, poor bodies odor or perfume, inane conversations... and smoke. Some people here seem to have a very low tolerance to others.
3- We've come a long way from the days when smokers where allowed everywhere and non smokers just had to cope and shut up. That's a good thing. And we shouldn't go to far on the other side.
4- The health argument about second hand smoke is strawman. As long as you don't work all day on a smoke filled environment, yor lungs are much more damaged by other sources of athmospheric pollution. And what will people drink in those smoke free bars anyway? healthy Carot juice ?
In short : Chill out non-smokers. Time is on your side but you're not fautless either.
Carled,
I'm not only selfish, but also french. What 'eejit' means ? Is that phonetics for idiot ?
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Here's some more info on the JD Wetherspoons report mentioned above, which claims "the first of its non-smoking outlets had achieved sales “substantially higher” than the company average."
It will be expanding the policy "on Wednesday when it introduces the ban at existing pubs in Reading, Bath, Rickmansworth, Liverpool and Gateshead."
See : http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/03/04/story192072.html
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Quote: |
I'm not only selfish, but also french. What 'eejit' means ? Is that phonetics for idiot ?
|
Yup.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/02/99/e-cyclopedia/1643319.stm
In answer to your points:
1. What a load of bloody nonsense. Non-smokers hate the smell. Why the hell should we put up with it at any time? It's your choice to smoke, it's our choice not to smoke.
2. Are you serious? "Loud voices"? "Crying Babies"?? Oh yeah, they leave you smelling awful in the morning and give you streaming eyes, a sore throat and inflamed sinuses, don't they?
3. You just don't get it, do you? Smoking is a nasty, smelly, selfish habit that offends people who don't want to smell the by-products of your chosen vice. It WILL be banned in public soon and will gradually fade as a habit over an extended period.
4. "strawman?" don't get it. If you're implying it's an irrelevant argument, you're more of an eejit than I originally thought. If ONE person dies as a result of passive smoking, that's one too many. Hundreds are dying, you do the math.
Smoke all you like, but do it where non-smokers don't have to smell it.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
what carled said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
carled, you seem to assume that it is your right to walk into any bar on the planet and have it ordered the way you like. Selfish perhaps? The important right is the one to walk out of it.
In passing, your previous post is offensive. Bad enough at any time, the more so to someone from a different culture who is politely engaging in a debate not in his native language. Of course, philippeR has the right to walk out of here but I hope he doesn't because it would be nice to broaden our active membership outside of the English-speaking world in general and the UK in particular.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Smoking outdoors is not a problem. The smoke tends to rise and dissapate. Indoors is where I have the problem. Most places that allow smoking have inadequate ventilation. So "string 'em up I say"
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I am not a smoker but I would say people who complain about smoking would be in their nappies when in UK it was simply unsocial not to smoke at one time! Why can't we let the social trend takes it scourse instead of stirring all this smoke bashing hatred. Non smoker still eat smoked salmon and smoked ham, don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carled, I'm afraid this is getting us nowhere. I'll try one more time anyway.
Quote: |
1- What a load of bloody nonsense. Non-smokers hate the smell. Why the hell should we put up with it at any time? It's your choice to smoke, it's our choice not to smoke.
|
Because I put up with others offensive habits all the time. Because that's what life among others is made of, up to a certain point. Because tolerance is a relative thing, not an absolute.
Quote: |
2. Are you serious? "Loud voices"? "Crying Babies"?? Oh yeah, they leave you smelling awful in the morning and give you streaming eyes, a sore throat and inflamed sinuses, don't they?
|
If you really wake up in such a shape in the morning, Carled, you spend too much times in pubs, I'm afraid...
Quote: |
3. You just don't get it, do you? Smoking is a nasty, smelly, selfish habit that offends people who don't want to smell the by-products of your chosen vice. It WILL be banned in public soon and will gradually fade as a habit over an extended period.
|
It will, maybe. But it is not yet. Deal with it. I may sound selfish and idiot, you may sound self-rigteous and condescending.
Quote: |
4. "strawman?" don't get it. If you're implying it's an irrelevant argument, you're more of an eejit than I originally thought. If ONE person dies as a result of passive smoking, that's one too many. Hundreds are dying, you do the math.
|
Selfrighteous again. As long as you use fossil fuel propeled transport means, as long as you use coal produced electricity, as long as you buy plastic objets you're arguably second handedly (spelling?) kill people too, Carled. So spare me the second hand smoke health argument. It has never really be demonstrated that second hand smoke was really lethal anyway.
Thanks Laundryman
|
|
|
|
|
|