Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart attacks

"Flotillagate" wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 9:56 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...





On Jun 9, 9:30 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 7:44 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:15 pm, Flotillagate wrote:

On Jun 9, 1:43 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:

"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 8:59 am, "Simon S-B" wrote:
Just because we can live longer, should we? Been to a
nursing
home
lately?
Think they have a wonderful quality of life? Reckon the
economy
and the
planet in general really needs people living to be 110?

It's far better to die from the body giving out, than for
the
body
to
stay
fit whilst the mind disappears. Until they can find a way to
stop
dementia
and senility, the only people who benefit from heart attacks
being
slashed
are those who own the 3,000 per month nursing homes that you
have
to
give
all of your relatives life-savings to, then when the cash
has
all
gone
they
go back to being a burden on the state somewhere filthy and
horrible.

Bloody do-gooder PC ****s never actually think anything
through
do
they?
Always too busy patting themselves on the back, like today.

Less smokers mean that my life (and the air that I breathe)
is
less
blighted by their ****ty habit.

Do you drive a car? Do you use public transport? You selfish
****,
if
you
walked my air would be better.

smoking is not necessary but transport is...we are all selfish
****s....though smokers are more selfish.....if there are none
polluting the air in the vicinity please check the road for their
trail of ciggie butts

Well, while we're on the subject of litter, how about chewing gum?
That is far more polluting and anti-social than smoking ever could
be
simply because more people do it and it makes our towns look and
feel
a mess. As you know, I'm a mild-mannered, well-adjusted man but
I'd
set Derrick Bird loose on gum chewers :-) Inconsiderate *******s.

UD

...fine...does chewing gum give you (or me) cancer ?

Yes.

http://current.com/news/88950963_che...-gum-it-may-ca...

As for (or you), are you going to tell me that you have definitive
proof
passive smoking is a problem? I appreciate lots of money has been
spent
by
governments in the media to give you this point of view, but there
really
isn't any evidence to back it up. Roy Castle dying, despite what
they'd
have
you believe, is hardly scientific proof. 'He spent a lot of time in
Jazz
Clubs' - well **** me, that must be it then!

imagine.....just imagine that your 2nd hand smoke was good for my
health....I still do not enjoy the stink....which 'you' can not smell
because your olifactory senses are impaired

I can smell it just fine. That's why I don't smoke in the house. The only
time you have to smell it is when you choose to go to places where there
are
smokers. That's your choice.

why dont you smoke in the house ;?))

I've explained that, because it smells. I choose to smoke outside, the same
place you choose to pollute the air and are free to do so without
harassment, unlike me. Why do you choose to go to places where there are
smokers?

On Jun 9, 10:02*pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...





On Jun 9, 9:56 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

....

On Jun 9, 9:30 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 7:44 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:15 pm, Flotillagate wrote:

On Jun 9, 1:43 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:

"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 8:59 am, "Simon S-B" wrote:
Just because we can live longer, should we? Been to a
nursing
home
lately?
Think they have a wonderful quality of life? Reckon the
economy
and the
planet in general really needs people living to be 110?

It's far better to die from the body giving out, than for
the
body
to
stay
fit whilst the mind disappears. Until they can find a way to
stop
dementia
and senility, the only people who benefit from heart attacks
being
slashed
are those who own the 3,000 per month nursing homes that you
have
to
give
all of your relatives life-savings to, then when the cash
has
all
gone
they
go back to being a burden on the state somewhere filthy and
horrible.

Bloody do-gooder PC ****s never actually think anything
through
do
they?
Always too busy patting themselves on the back, like today.

Less smokers mean that my life (and the air that I breathe)
is
less
blighted by their ****ty habit.

Do you drive a car? Do you use public transport? You selfish
****,
if
you
walked my air would be better.

smoking is not necessary but transport is...we are all selfish
****s....though smokers are more selfish.....if there are none
polluting the air in the vicinity please check the road for their
trail of ciggie butts

Well, while we're on the subject of litter, how about chewing gum?
That is far more polluting and anti-social than smoking ever could
be
simply because more people do it and it makes our towns look and
feel
a mess. *As you know, I'm a mild-mannered, well-adjusted man but
I'd
set Derrick Bird loose on gum chewers :-) *Inconsiderate *******s.

UD

...fine...does chewing gum give you (or me) cancer ?

Yes.

http://current.com/news/88950963_che...-gum-it-may-ca...

As for (or you), are you going to tell me that you have definitive
proof
passive smoking is a problem? I appreciate lots of money has been
spent
by
governments in the media to give you this point of view, but there
really
isn't any evidence to back it up. Roy Castle dying, despite what
they'd
have
you believe, is hardly scientific proof. 'He spent a lot of time in
Jazz
Clubs' - well **** me, that must be it then!

imagine.....just imagine that your 2nd hand smoke was good for my
health....I still do not enjoy the stink....which 'you' can not smell
because your olifactory senses are impaired

I can smell it just fine. That's why I don't smoke in the house. The only
time you have to smell it is when you choose to go to places where there
are
smokers. That's your choice.

why dont you smoke in the house ;?))

I've explained that, because it smells. I choose to smoke outside, the same
place you choose to pollute the air and are free to do so without
harassment, unlike me. Why do you choose to go to places where there are
smokers?

...it stinks..would you like to work with people that stink ?
pollution is bad so I try not to
its a democracy and smokers are in the minority, you should change
your habits....not me....

On Jun 9, 9:16*pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...





On Jun 9, 5:58 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

....

On Jun 9, 4:31 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 1:43 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 8:59 am, "Simon S-B" wrote:
Just because we can live longer, should we? Been to a nursing
home
lately?
Think they have a wonderful quality of life? Reckon the economy
and
the
planet in general really needs people living to be 110?

It's far better to die from the body giving out, than for the
body
to
stay
fit whilst the mind disappears. Until they can find a way to
stop
dementia
and senility, the only people who benefit from heart attacks
being
slashed
are those who own the 3,000 per month nursing homes that you
have
to
give
all of your relatives life-savings to, then when the cash has
all
gone
they
go back to being a burden on the state somewhere filthy and
horrible.

Bloody do-gooder PC ****s never actually think anything through
do
they?
Always too busy patting themselves on the back, like today.

Less smokers mean that my life (and the air that I breathe) is
less
blighted by their ****ty habit.

Do you drive a car? Do you use public transport? You selfish ****,
if
you
walked my air would be better.

smoking is not necessary but transport is...we are all selfish

Why? I work from home. You would create more smoke with your car and
with
public transport than I do by smoking, therefore you are ruining my
air
far
more than I am ruining yours.

****s....though smokers are more selfish.....if there are none
polluting the air in the vicinity please check the road for their
trail of ciggie butts

Yeh, because that's far worse than the bags and bags full of ****e
littering
up country lanes from that edge of town McDonalds, or the four pack
bindings
that are choking ducks.

so its all bad....and the less bad ****e there is.....the better

So why have you singled out smokers?

the article was on smokers

And you posted it. So what you're telling me is that to be balanced, you
also looked for articles on pollution, alcohol and over-eating. Funny, I
didn't see them.

feel free to post anything you like

"Flotillagate" wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 9:59 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...





On Jun 9, 9:24 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 7:41 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:23 pm, Flotillagate wrote:

On Jun 9, 2:37 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:47 am, Flotillagate
wrote:

Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart attacks

What has this got to do with rugby exactly? I thought I'd
managed
to
escape the evil clutches of
uk.politics.fleas.arguing.over.who.owns.the.****in g.dog and you
bring
it into the hallowed halls of rsru. Don't you have a committee
meeting to go to Newport? Begone and take those other losers
with
you!

UD

....since I had to endure a number of years in Rugby clubs where
smoking was permitted etc....

I don't get this anti-smoking hysteria. Drinking must cost the NHS
a
lot more than smoking does. Smokers don't tie up hordes of
policemen,
they don't make excessive noise, they don't **** on your pot plants
or
**** on your doorstep and yet they are reviled and legislated
against
in a way which drinkers aren't. Overall, I think drinking is far
more
anti-social than smoking ever was.

UD

never had (or want) a lung scrape or a liver transplant...I equate
smoking with someone ****ting in my mouth, hence my hysteria

The don't smoke, that's your choice. Unfortunately people can't seem
to
accept my choice to do so.

I don't care if you smoke.....just do it in your own home

I don't smoke in my house, and who the hell are you to tell me I can't
smoke
outside?

...cos it stinks ?

I'm your neighbour and I don't like your smoke pervading my nostrils...

You're really clutching at straws now aren't you? My neighbour is 30m away
through 4m of 10m high trees. The only time you will smell your neighbours
smoke is if you live in an apartment building, and then you can shut your
window. If you do live in an apartment, then you probably live in the city.
You are aware smog isn't caused by smokers? Yet you contribute to that
whilst looking down your nose at us?

"Dick Toy" wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 10:02 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...





On Jun 9, 9:56 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 9:30 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 7:44 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
On Jun 9, 3:15 pm, Flotillagate
wrote:

On Jun 9, 1:43 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:

"Flotillagate" wrote in message

...

On Jun 9, 8:59 am, "Simon S-B" wrote:
Just because we can live longer, should we? Been to a
nursing
home
lately?
Think they have a wonderful quality of life? Reckon the
economy
and the
planet in general really needs people living to be 110?

It's far better to die from the body giving out, than for
the
body
to
stay
fit whilst the mind disappears. Until they can find a way
to
stop
dementia
and senility, the only people who benefit from heart
attacks
being
slashed
are those who own the 3,000 per month nursing homes that
you
have
to
give
all of your relatives life-savings to, then when the cash
has
all
gone
they
go back to being a burden on the state somewhere filthy
and
horrible.

Bloody do-gooder PC ****s never actually think anything
through
do
they?
Always too busy patting themselves on the back, like
today.

Less smokers mean that my life (and the air that I
breathe)
is
less
blighted by their ****ty habit.

Do you drive a car? Do you use public transport? You selfish
****,
if
you
walked my air would be better.

smoking is not necessary but transport is...we are all selfish
****s....though smokers are more selfish.....if there are none
polluting the air in the vicinity please check the road for
their
trail of ciggie butts

Well, while we're on the subject of litter, how about chewing
gum?
That is far more polluting and anti-social than smoking ever
could
be
simply because more people do it and it makes our towns look and
feel
a mess. As you know, I'm a mild-mannered, well-adjusted man but
I'd
set Derrick Bird loose on gum chewers :-) Inconsiderate
*******s.

UD

...fine...does chewing gum give you (or me) cancer ?

Yes.

http://current.com/news/88950963_che...-gum-it-may-ca...

As for (or you), are you going to tell me that you have definitive
proof
passive smoking is a problem? I appreciate lots of money has been
spent
by
governments in the media to give you this point of view, but there
really
isn't any evidence to back it up. Roy Castle dying, despite what
they'd
have
you believe, is hardly scientific proof. 'He spent a lot of time in
Jazz
Clubs' - well **** me, that must be it then!

imagine.....just imagine that your 2nd hand smoke was good for my
health....I still do not enjoy the stink....which 'you' can not
smell
because your olifactory senses are impaired

I can smell it just fine. That's why I don't smoke in the house. The
only
time you have to smell it is when you choose to go to places where
there
are
smokers. That's your choice.

why dont you smoke in the house ;?))

I've explained that, because it smells. I choose to smoke outside, the
same
place you choose to pollute the air and are free to do so without
harassment, unlike me. Why do you choose to go to places where there are
smokers?

..it stinks..would you like to work with people that stink ?
pollution is bad so I try not to
its a democracy and smokers are in the minority, you should change
your habits....not me....

I work with many people who stink and I don't like it, but there's no law
against BO. Have you any idea what a pious **** you sound saying I should
change my habits, whilst admitting to polluting the very same air? Muslims
are in a minority, why don't you go and tell them not to blast those calls
to prayer out? It's a democracy after all.

Uncle wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:41:31 -0700 (PDT):

On Jun 9, 3:23 pm, Flotillagate wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:37 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:47 am, Flotillagate
wrote:

Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart
attacks

What has this got to do with rugby exactly? I thought I'd
managed to escape the evil clutches
of uk.politics.fleas.arguing.over.who.owns.the.****in g.dog
and you bring it into the hallowed halls of rsru. Don't
you have a committee meeting to go to Newport? Begone and
take those other losers with you!

UD

....since I had to endure a number of years in Rugby clubs
where smoking was permitted etc....

I don't get this anti-smoking hysteria. Drinking must cost
the NHS a lot more than smoking does. Smokers don't tie up
hordes of policemen, they don't make excessive noise, they
don't **** on your pot plants or **** on your doorstep and yet
they are reviled and legislated against in a way which
drinkers aren't. Overall, I think drinking is far more
anti-social than smoking ever was.

Ever thought how much cancer treatment costs your insurance company or
the Health Service (ultimately yourself) in Britain?
--

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

"James Silverton" wrote in message
...
Uncle wrote on Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:41:31 -0700 (PDT):

On Jun 9, 3:23 pm, Flotillagate wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:37 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:47 am, Flotillagate
wrote:

Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart
attacks

What has this got to do with rugby exactly? I thought I'd
managed to escape the evil clutches
of uk.politics.fleas.arguing.over.who.owns.the.****in g.dog
and you bring it into the hallowed halls of rsru. Don't
you have a committee meeting to go to Newport? Begone and
take those other losers with you!

UD

....since I had to endure a number of years in Rugby clubs
where smoking was permitted etc....

I don't get this anti-smoking hysteria. Drinking must cost
the NHS a lot more than smoking does. Smokers don't tie up
hordes of policemen, they don't make excessive noise, they
don't **** on your pot plants or **** on your doorstep and yet
they are reviled and legislated against in a way which
drinkers aren't. Overall, I think drinking is far more
anti-social than smoking ever was.

Ever thought how much cancer treatment costs your insurance company or the
Health Service (ultimately yourself) in Britain?
--


Far less than what the government makes in taxes from them. If they put that
money towards the NHS it would be brilliant, but they don't. You need to
blame the government for that, not smokers. I pay a premium at my insurance
company because I smoke, as does everyone else who smokes. Why is it not
necessary to pay one for being overweight, or for drinking?

On Jun 9, 9:30*pm, "James Silverton"
wrote:
*Uncle *wrote *on Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:41:31 -0700 (PDT):



On Jun 9, 3:23 pm, Flotillagate wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:37 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:47 am, Flotillagate
wrote:

Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart
attacks

What has this got to do with rugby exactly? *I thought I'd
managed to escape the evil clutches
of uk.politics.fleas.arguing.over.who.owns.the.****in g.dog
and you bring it into the hallowed halls of rsru. *Don't
you have a committee meeting to go to Newport? *Begone and
take those other losers with you!

UD

....since I had to endure a number of years in Rugby clubs
where smoking was permitted etc....
I don't get this anti-smoking hysteria. *Drinking must cost
the NHS a lot more than smoking does. *Smokers don't tie up
hordes of policemen, they don't make excessive noise, they
don't **** on your pot plants or **** on your doorstep and yet
they are reviled and legislated against in a way which
drinkers aren't. *Overall, I think drinking is far more
anti-social than smoking ever was.

Ever thought how much cancer treatment costs your insurance company or
the Health Service (ultimately yourself) in Britain?

There are many forms of cancer and by no means all those who die of
cancer of the throat, lungs etc. are smokers so the cost argument must
also be valid for other things and yet it is ignored. I would happily
wager that the cost in monetary terms to the UK of drunkenness and
associated diseases is already higher than that of smoking. God knows
what it will be in future when all the damage being done to themselves
by these eejits take effect. People should pay for the damage they
cause whether it be to themselves (booze, smoking etc.) or by
negligence (car accidents etc.) Trouble is proving it, and I find the
hysteria about smoking to be political correctness of the worst sort
in that it is entirely discriminatory and arbitrary. If we paid the
same attention to other "anti-social" behaviour - chewing gum
pollution, littering, drunkenness, killing with motor cars and so on,
that would be fine by me.

UD

On Jun 9, 9:41*pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"James Silverton" wrote in message

...



Uncle *wrote *on Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:41:31 -0700 (PDT):

On Jun 9, 3:23 pm, Flotillagate wrote:
On Jun 9, 2:37 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:

On Jun 9, 5:47 am, Flotillagate
wrote:

Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart
attacks

What has this got to do with rugby exactly? *I thought I'd
managed to escape the evil clutches
of uk.politics.fleas.arguing.over.who.owns.the.****in g.dog
and you bring it into the hallowed halls of rsru. *Don't
you have a committee meeting to go to Newport? *Begone and
take those other losers with you!

UD

....since I had to endure a number of years in Rugby clubs
where smoking was permitted etc....

I don't get this anti-smoking hysteria. *Drinking must cost
the NHS a lot more than smoking does. *Smokers don't tie up
hordes of policemen, they don't make excessive noise, they
don't **** on your pot plants or **** on your doorstep and yet
they are reviled and legislated against in a way which
drinkers aren't. *Overall, I think drinking is far more
anti-social than smoking ever was.

Ever thought how much cancer treatment costs your insurance company or the
Health Service (ultimately yourself) in Britain?
--

Far less than what the government makes in taxes from them. If they put that
money towards the NHS it would be brilliant, but they don't. You need to
blame the government for that, not smokers. I pay a premium at my insurance
company because I smoke, as does everyone else who smokes. Why is it not
necessary to pay one for being overweight, or for drinking?

Happily, I took out my insurances before smoking became an issue. I
smoke the occasional cigar and will definitely become a smoker when it
comes time to find annuities :-)) I knew it would be useful
eventually ;-)

UD

"Flotillagate" a écrit dans le message de groupe
de discussion :
...

Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart attacks

By JENNY HOPE
Last updated at 1:33 AM on 9th June 2010

The number of heart attacks has fallen dramatically since the smoking
ban came in, figures reveal.
At least 1,200 heart attacks were prevented in England in the year
after the ban's introduction, according to a report in the British
Medical Journal.
In the largest study of its kind, information on adult heart attack
patients from the five years before the ban came into force in July
2007, was compared with data from the subsequent 14 months.

Forcing people to smoke outside has dramatically slashed the number of
heart attacks by 1,200, a report has revealed
The Bath University research found hospital admissions for heart
attacks fell 2.4 per cent in England in the year after it became the
last UK nation to ban smoking in indoor public places.
This cut in admissions saved the NHS around £8.4million and is likely
to have prevented almost 200 deaths.
The survival rate in hospital is 85 per cent, so within a group of
1,200 admissions around 180 would be expected to die.
Experts pointed out that heart attacks are only one of the smoke-
related health problems that the ban will have reduced.
Deborah Arnott, of the charity Action on Smoking and Health, said
longer-term improvements in cancer could also be expected.
Research has already demonstrated that the smoking ban has
significantly reduced exposure to secondhand smoke among nonsmokers
and children, which is likely to result in further improvements in
health.
Smoke, both first and secondhand, is thought to increase the chances
of a heart attack by making the blood more prone to clotting, reducing
levels of 'good' cholesterol and raising the risk of dangerous heart
rhythms.
More than one in five adults in Britain is a smoker, with 23 per cent
of men and 21 per cent of women smoking regularly.
There are 230,000 heart attacks each year, of which 123,000 are in
adults younger than 75.
Betty McBride, of the British Heart Foundation, said: 'It's brilliant
news that an average three fewer people a day are admitted to hospital
suffering a heart attack.
'What's more, we'll see more benefits in future because heart attacks
aren't the only way that tobacco smoke harms the heart.
'Government should see this as a green light for further life-saving
measures, going beyond the forthcoming ban on cigarette vending
machines, to crack down on illegal tobacco smuggling and introducing
plain packaging on cigarette boxes.
'These will also help stop people dying prematurely because of smoking-
related illnesses.'
Previous studies have shown reductions in the number of heart attacks
of 14 to 17 per cent after bans were introduced in Scotland and
Northern Ireland.
Experts said the effect was smaller in England because many workplaces
and restaurants were already smoke-free when the law changed.


Read mo
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...#ixzz0qKOfzN5y