What does everyone think of the new smoking laws

[spellchecker]

It seems that for most people on here it's enough just to adopt some safe second-hand viewpoint rather than actually thinking it over for themselves and developing an informed opinion of their own.

The way I see it, that's exactly what you do anyway.

[JaseyBoi]

12 bloody pages and not one mention of "our government funds our NHS with tax from tobaco"

F.A.C.T 1

If the government made smoking instantly illegal our NHS would crash within 1 year (Funding to suit)

F.A.C.T 2

Becasue the government knew all this new legislations where gonna happen 5 years ago ...Our NHS dentists are nearly extinct (Funding to suit)

F.A.C.T 3

If smoking is sooooooo bad then why has it took nion 30 years for both tobaco companys and government to now come forward and admit Tobaco costs lives (Funding to suit)

F.A.C.T 4

Tbh guys everyone is entitled to there opinion but at the end of the day "Joe Public" has no say in any new legislation that is brought in (Funding to suit)

Heres 1 for a debate

WHO GET's THE NEW HEART

A) A guy who has never worked in his life never paid 1 penny tax and has never smoked or drank (probably couldnt afford to.... work shy mink)

B) Smoker works avergae 50hrs a week likes a drink likes to be social likes a good fag anaw (Likely work pressures and the fact HE can afford it)

Who gets the new heart?

Now tell me Our government aint all about FACE VALUE

[Guest bluesxman]

Well' date=' I guess perhaps you just don't know me that well then. I haven't seen any threads in here talking about the detention powers blair is proposing or the already scandalous arbitrary arrests of innocent people on the streets of the uk on the slightest suspicion, leading to detention, searching of homes, forensic analysis of computer equipment and so on. Even though these things are happening now and have severe implications for all of us, like I said earlier in this thread, nobody seems to give a fuck. It seems that for most people on here it's enough just to adopt some safe second-hand viewpoint rather than actually thinking it over for themselves and developing an informed opinion of their own.[/quote']

So would you rather have someone detained over the slightest suspicion, found to be involved in a terrorist cell and a tragedy avoided or the law stays the same and another 9/11 or 7/7 occurs? Yes, there is room for mistakes to be made, but there is a required change in there which has been hijacked by politicians seeking to take Mr. Blair down with the vote against.

And out of interest, are you actually involved with any organisations who campaign or try to make a difference against all these government proposals? Or are you an armchair activist? You seem to have pretty strong viewpoints on every topic on here, it would be sad to think all your energy is wasted trying to convince a single web forum they are missing the point rather than actually making your stand as strongly as you seem to indicate you do....

[Guest tv tanned]

Well' date=' I guess perhaps you just don't know me that well then. I haven't seen any threads in here talking about the detention powers blair is proposing or the already scandalous arbitrary arrests of innocent people on the streets of the uk on the slightest suspicion, leading to detention, searching of homes, forensic analysis of computer equipment and so on.[/quote']

So why not start one then? Or do you only join discussions rather than generate them?

For the record we had a very good thread about ID cards a while back.

Even though these things are happening now and have severe implications for all of us, like I said earlier in this thread, nobody seems to give a fuck.

I can assure you that I do, and I have already taken steps in campaigning against some of the anti-terrorism measures, and have signed up to the no2ID campaign to refuse an ID card when they are introduced. Not quite the "fuck da system" approach you seem to favour, but it is hardly apathy.

It seems that for most people on here it's enough just to adopt some safe second-hand viewpoint rather than actually thinking it over for themselves and developing an informed opinion of their own.

Frankly your constant approach to these discussions is becoming tiresome. You're not exactly blessed with original thought yourself, but you seem to imply that people like daveofficer and myself are incapable of forming our own opinions, but basing them on information garnered from other sources, this is not adopting "some safe second-hand viewpoint" as you put it, but rather using an informed opinion.

You, on the other hand, seem to be relying on the old tried and tested methods of winging it with your arguments and providing absolutely no evidence to back them up.

[Guest tv tanned]

And for your information' date=' the point I made at Durham was not as you stated. I was pointing out that in Britain, wa have a very narrow-minded view of history lessons, in which we learn, at numerous stages, about the Second World War or the Suffragettes. Now, I would happily enter into a debate on role of the Suffragettes in women gaining the right to vote in 1918, and I do believe that they played an essential part in the early emancipation of women, however, if children are leaving school with a basic knowledge of the Suffragettes and the Second World War, is there something wrong with the history curriculum? But that debate has absolutely nothing to do with smoking, I just wanted to make my position clear. I'm impressed you remembered though.[/quote']

Funnily enough someone standing up in a room and proclaiming that she doesn't think learning about the suffragettes is useful because what did they ever do, tends to stay in the memory.

Perhaps if you'd made the point above, rather than the one you made where the subtext was somewhat lost, then it might have been received with a few less gasps...

[Cloud]

You' date=' on the other hand, seem to be relying on the old tried and tested methods of winging it with your arguments and providing absolutely no evidence to back them up.[/quote']

What amuses me is how little a grasp he has on reality. Every time he enters a debate, it seems to be about "freedoms" and "rights", yet he has seemingly zero understanding of the responsibility that freedom and rights bring.

Personally, I think he read the Jolly Roger's Cookbook too much when he was little.

[Stripey]

What amuses me is how little a grasp he has on reality. Every time he enters a debate' date=' it seems to be about "freedoms" and "rights", yet he has seemingly zero understanding of the responsibility that freedom and rights bring.[/quote']

Hahahah. What is this "responsibility that freedom and rights bring" then that I supposedly have no understanding of?

[Cloud]

Hahahah. What is this "responsibility that freedom and rights bring" then that I supposedly have no understanding of?

The entire thread, perhaps?

You're a strange individual, I've never met anyone quite as willing to demand rights for himself, but so unwilling to grant others some rights.

[Stripey]

The entire thread' date=' perhaps?

You're a strange individual, I've never met anyone quite as willing to demand rights for himself, but so unwilling to grant others some rights.[/quote']

Yaawwwwwnnnnnnnnn.

[Cloud]

Yaawwwwwnnnnnnnnn.

Sorry for boring you, I appreciate that I must be incredibly dull compared to all the exciting people you meet when you're out in the street campaigning for your civil liberties, right?

Oh wait...

[spellchecker]

12 bloody pages and not one mention of "our government funds our NHS with tax from tobaco"

F.A.C.T 1

If the government made smoking instantly illegal our NHS would crash within 1 year (Funding to suit)

F.A.C.T 2

Becasue the government knew all this new legislations where gonna happen 5 years ago ...Our NHS dentists are nearly extinct (Funding to suit)

F.A.C.T 3

If smoking is sooooooo bad then why has it took nion 30 years for both tobaco companys and government to now come forward and admit Tobaco costs lives (Funding to suit)

F.A.C.T 4

Tbh guys everyone is entitled to there opinion but at the end of the day "Joe Public" has no say in any new legislation that is brought in (Funding to suit)

Heres 1 for a debate

WHO GET's THE NEW HEART

A) A guy who has never worked in his life never paid 1 penny tax and has never smoked or drank (probably couldnt afford to.... work shy mink)

B) Smoker works avergae 50hrs a week likes a drink likes to be social likes a good fag anaw (Likely work pressures and the fact HE can afford it)

Who gets the new heart?

Now tell me Our government aint all about FACE VALUE

Transplants are about who needs it most at the point where an organ becomes available, not who deserves it most. Otherwise George Best would never have received a replacement liver.

Not sure where you're getting your "F.A.C.T.'s" from either...

[Guest tv tanned]

Perhaps it is an acronym for:

Facetious And Complete Twaddle

[JaseyBoi]

Transplants are about who needs it most at the point where an organ becomes available, not who deserves it most. Otherwise George Best would never have received a replacement liver.

EM george best is reported to be one of the all time greatest football players ever HARDLY the same as your regular "joe bloggs" (if you gonna speak shite try www.ispeakshite.com or better yet www.NO-one-but-me-is-ever-right-com)

and

About deserving it my arse if u a heavy smoker and u need a transplant of any kind a non smoker will be treated before you..

If you drink alcohol and need a life saving transplant a non drinker will be treated before you

This forum seems to be filled with the same radgies making posts insulting and slating everyone elses opinions

At the end of the day it doesnt matter how many times a TOPIC is posted as with new members comes repetition... sorry we aint all been signed up since 1989....

Also i know a few of these forums reader/writers personaly and they sound guys like but the tits that reply to every post with "there correct opinion" and there babble of complete shite is what lets this forum down

and as for this post has been done b4 and your bored...... 12 pages on a certain topic tells me its still very popular topic...

[NARC]

Im a smoker so i may be biased but i cant see how the government can totally ban smoking without interfering with peoples rights....

A pub with no smoking is like a swimming pool with its own urinating section............

Whats your thoughts?

Sometimes people have to be told what to do; that's the whole point of government. Some win, some lose with any policy. With smoking, it is correct that it is being banned, as it benefits the majority (health-wise).

[Guest tv tanned]

EM george best is reported to be one of the all time greatest football players ever HARDLY the same as your regular "joe bloggs" (if you gonna speak shite try www.ispeakshite.com or better yet www.NO-one-but-me-is-ever-right-com)

and

About deserving it my arse if u a heavy smoker and u need a transplant of any kind a non smoker will be treated before you..

If you drink alcohol and need a life saving transplant a non drinker will be treated before you

This forum seems to be filled with the same radgies making posts insulting and slating everyone elses opinions

At the end of the day it doesnt matter how many times a TOPIC is posted as with new members comes repetition... sorry we aint all been signed up since 1989....

Also i know a few of these forums reader/writers personaly and they sound guys like but the tits that reply to every post with "there correct opinion" and there babble of complete shite is what lets this forum down

and as for this post has been done b4 and your bored...... 12 pages on a certain topic tells me its still very popular topic...

Perhaps I am missing something here, but assuming you are not actually a qualified doctor, what knowledge do you have of the procedures used to determine organ transplant priorities?

Equally, what exactly did you think would happen when you started this thread? That everyone would nod and say they agreed with you?

If you cannot handle people disagreeing with you, and cannot defend your arguments against criticism and scrutiny, then perhaps you should reconsider starting threads on topical issues.

[JaseyBoi]

M8 i have no problem with arguments i love a good rant wat gets me is AND WE CAN ALL CHECK is every post u make is either slating someone else or slating there grammar or generaly slating em for not being as good as you........

And m8 again your nonsence cracks me up why would i need to be a doctor when i have google and the internet........... and personal experience

[Guest tv tanned]

What all the know it alls in here (mostly non smokers i bet) have failed to pick up on is the facts that have been published every year about governments/legislation/policys in fact every cabinet meeting the results are out there to be viewed

Our NHS up to 2 years ago was FULLY funded by tobacco and tobacco advertisment

an extra 2 billion for the National Health Service for the year from April including extra resources from the tobacco tax increase;

pull yourself out your come sock and get out there and actually learn this b4 you come in here on a high from school and spout your garble

/Jumps off the soap box

Perhaps you can provide sources then since this "information" is out there to be viewed?

[Guest tv tanned]

M8 i have no problem with arguments i love a good rant wat gets me is AND WE CAN ALL CHECK is every post u make is either slating someone else or slating there grammar or generaly slating em for not being as good as you........

every post eh?

I think you win today's 'exaggeration' prize.

You will' date=' of course, point out where I am telling everyone they are not as good as me.

And m8 again your nonsence cracks me up why would i need to be a doctor when i have google and the internet........... and personal experience

Yes cos the internet never lies.

And how many liver and heart transplants have you had then?

[spellchecker]

EM george best is reported to be one of the all time greatest football players ever HARDLY the same as your regular "joe bloggs" (if you gonna speak shite try www.ispeakshite.com or better yet www.NO-one-but-me-is-ever-right-com)

i can't tell if you're taking the piss or not. you can't honestly be suggesting that someone should get preferential treatment because of notoriety or sporting achievement?

and

About deserving it my arse if u a heavy smoker and u need a transplant of any kind a non smoker will be treated before you..

If you drink alcohol and need a life saving transplant a non drinker will be treated before you

Well I don't work in the NHS anymore but a lot of my family still do' date=' and that's not how I understood it to work. I took my information from

[url']http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/about_transplants/organ_allocation/organ_allocation.jsp

Good information on that site about becoming a donor too.

This forum seems to be filled with the same radgies making posts insulting and slating everyone elses opinions

At the end of the day it doesnt matter how many times a TOPIC is posted as with new members comes repetition... sorry we aint all been signed up since 1989....

Also i know a few of these forums reader/writers personaly and they sound guys like but the tits that reply to every post with "there correct opinion" and there babble of complete shite is what lets this forum down

and as for this post has been done b4 and your bored...... 12 pages on a certain topic tells me its still very popular topic...

Not sure if you're addressing me directly, or the contributors to this thread as a whole. I haven't insulted you though, and I didn't intend to patronise you either, if that's what you're implying. As regards to the post about these threads being done before - it was in the hope that people could see that most of the threads are just circular arguments based on strong opinions and sentiment, with no rational conclusion, and more often than not, the threads seem to be a vehicle for insults and bad feeling. The point being, there's little need to go through all that again.

I can understand why smokers feel put out by the legislation, however, there was public consultation on the issue before it became statute - if there was such furious opposition, it would have arisen at that stage - such opposition never materialised though.

[Paranoid Android]

F.A.C.T 1

If the government made smoking instantly illegal our NHS would crash within 1 year (Funding to suit)

Thats ridiculous, if smoking was banned the make up of their budget would certainly be affected but to say they would sacrifice one of the key components of their welfare system to cover the cost is just stupid. The government is in a position where they virtually have the power to raise whatever money they require either through tax on other items or increased debt.

[soundian]

I can understand why smokers feel put out by the legislation' date=' however, there was public consultation on the issue before it became statute - if there was such furious opposition, it would have arisen at that stage - such opposition never materialised though.[/quote']

The majority of people who responded to the questionnaire indicated that they wouldn't like a total ban in pubs/clubs.

[spellchecker]

The majority of people who responded to the questionnaire indicated that they wouldn't like a total ban in pubs/clubs.

Ironically, most of the intense public debate came about after the consultation, once they said it was to be introduced as law in March next year.

Given recent discussion and debating about the smoking ban, I think that if there were to be a public consultation tomorrow, the results would be rather different. Many people are becoming accustomed to the idea of not smoking in pubs, citing Dublin as an example of how it can and does work (for patrons and employees), and also pubs / restaurants choosing voluntarily to disallow smoking on premises.

[soundian]

Ironically' date=' most of the intense public debate came about after the consultation, once they said it was to be introduced as law in March next year.

Given recent discussion and debating about the smoking ban, I think that if there were to be a public consultation tomorrow, the results would be rather different. Many people are becoming accustomed to the idea of not smoking in pubs, citing Dublin as an example of how it can and does work (for patrons and employees), and also pubs / restaurants choosing voluntarily to disallow smoking on premises.[/quote']

Probably because no one believed they would go for a total ban straight away, especially when you look at the results of the public questionnaire.

[JaseyBoi]

Thats ridiculous, if smoking was banned the make up of their budget would certainly be affected but to say they would sacrifice one of the key components of their welfare system to cover the cost is just stupid. The government is in a position where they virtually have the power to raise whatever money they require either through tax on other items or increased debt.

More than 2billion alone Funds our NHS EVERY YEAR from the sale directly or indirectly from tobacco products

oh and the george best debate ROFL@u ...... He has the best bloody medical care money can buy hardlt the bloody nhs now is it foooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.... god it gets me mad ...

[Paranoid Android]

More than 2billion alone Funds our NHS EVERY YEAR from the sale directly or indirectly from tobacco products

Tax from cigarettes goes to the Government. The Government allocates a portion of their budget to the NHS and will do so whatever has made up their budget.

I'm not saying the loss of tax revenue wont casue problems to the government with financing but to say the NHS will collapse is just incorrect.