Smoking ban has dramatically slashed number of heart attacks

Yawn

"Uncle Dave" a écrit dans le message de groupe de
discussion :
...
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 Wed, 09 Jun 2010 19:14:08 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
wrote:

On 09/06/2010 18:23, Shaun wrote:
On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:48:33 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
wrote:

On 09/06/2010 11:27, Mike wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 02:50:39 -0700 (PDT), My two cents
wrote:

Quality of life is important - not just quantity.

indeed, like having clean air in pubs.

In the old days I used to go to a pub about 3 or 4 times a year.
Now there is no smoking it's about every couple of weeks.

Now the working classes have been ethnically cleansed

I don't think you'll find many middle and upper class in a Wetherspoon

You won't find many people who refer to Wetherspoons as a pub

On Jun 9, 10:23*pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"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.

I thought you worked from home....its good you agree that its a stinky
habit, why anyone would persist in stinking is beyond me

Have you any idea what a pious **** you sound saying I should change my habits, whilst admitting to polluting the very same air?

We should all change our habits otherwise the planet really is
****ed....I try to pollute as little as possible by cycling and taking
public transport. You have kids surely you would like them to inherit
a less ****ed up place ?
As for those BP ****s....

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.

I agree, I don't want their noise pollution...I am happy that the
local ****ing church is far enough away on a Sunday morning....

On Jun 9, 10:12*pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"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?

au contraire....I can smell you from here....;-)

all pollution is bad, and that is a fact....I hope the price of oil
goes up considerably, as its the only way to make people really change
their habits

On Jun 9, 11:15*pm, Uncle Dave wrote:
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?

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

....we do....check out other threads

On 10/06/10 11:52, Flotillagate wrote:

au contraire....I can smell you from here....;-)

all pollution is bad, and that is a fact....I hope the price of oil
goes up considerably, as its the only way to make people really change
their habits

If the price of soap fell would gRunge wash?

"Flotillagate" wrote in message
...
On Jun 9, 10:23 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"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.

I thought you worked from home....its good you agree that its a stinky
habit, why anyone would persist in stinking is beyond me


I work from home but have to go to site occasionally. I didn't agree it's a
stinky habit, I said I work with many people who stink.

Have you any idea what a pious **** you sound saying I should change my
habits, whilst admitting to polluting the very same air?

We should all change our habits otherwise the planet really is
****ed....I try to pollute as little as possible by cycling and taking
public transport. You have kids surely you would like them to inherit
a less ****ed up place ?
As for those BP ****s....

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.

I agree, I don't want their noise pollution...I am happy that the
local ****ing church is far enough away on a Sunday morning....

On Jun 10, 10:55*am, Flotillagate wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:15*pm, Uncle Dave wrote:



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?

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

...we do....check out other threads

No.

UD

"Uncle Dave" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 10:55 am, Flotillagate wrote:
On Jun 9, 11:15 pm, Uncle Dave wrote:



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?

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

...we do....check out other threads

No.

UD

This is obviously not a rugby discussion but MN cross-posted it here. Do you
mean to tell me there's a newsgroup for people where they pat themselves on
the back for being good little sheep? Where they can feel smug in their own
righteousness and superiority over those who choose to exercise independent
thought? I'm sorry but nobody has yet come back with an argument as to why
smoking is singled out. I've explained clearly why the things they dislike
smoking for are not unique to smoking, but still they're coming out with the
same old socially-engineered lines rather than actually answering any of the
points. If they are not socially engineered. why are passive smoking (no
evidence), the NHS, Health Insurance etc being mentioned? A tiny bit of
personal research would show how irrelevant these ideals are, so where did
they get them from? (that's rhetorical btw).

It seems to me that the people on the rugby NG are far more able to have a
reasoned debate than those on the politics NG - something which perhaps
should not surprise me. After all, it's normal for politicians to sidestep
every time they're presented with a logical statement, and it's normal for
party members to tow the party line without bothering to think for
themselves.

On Jun 9, 2:50*pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Mark (newsgroups)" wrote in message

...





On Jun 9, 2:07 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Mark (newsgroups)" wrote in message

....

On Jun 9, 1:06 pm, "Simon S-B" wrote:
"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in
...
On 09/06/2010 12:31, Simon S-B wrote:

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/2010 11:27, Mike wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2010 02:50:39 -0700 (PDT), My two cents
wrote:

Quality of life is important - not just quantity.

indeed, like having clean air in pubs.

In the old days I used to go to a pub about 3 or 4 times a year..
Now there is no smoking it's about every couple of weeks.

You're very much in a minority. Pubs are closing in huge numbers
because
nobody is going to them since the ban.

That's more to do with drink driving laws, esp in the countryside..

What a load of twaddle. The drink driving laws have not changed, yet
the
pubs are shutting. How on earth can you back up that statement?

But on that note, have you got anything to back up your statement that
pubs closing is directly caused by the smoking ban rather than a
combination of factors (eg. recession, stricter drink drive enforcing,
etc)?

Yep. For starters the economic downturn in this country did not happen
until
the second year of the smoking ban, and it wasn't until then that the
government blamed the recession for pub closures. The first year the
smoking
ban came in, they blamed a gloomy summer. However, when winter rolled in
it
was obvious this was not the case.

There is no stricter drink-drive enforcement in this country. If you
would
like some evidence of this please go
tohttp://www.drinkdriving.org/drink_driving_statistics_uk.phpwhereyou'll
see
things were actually stricter during the recession of the late 80's, but
pubs were not shutting then. Why not I wonder?

Pubs fall into two categories, those which are 'wet led' *(majority of
business from booze) and those which are 'dry led' (majority of business
from food). The dry led pubs have suffered much less, because they've
simply
increased the price of their food. Have you noticed how much a pub lunch
costs these days (unless you're somewhere you really shouldn't be eating
like Weatherspoons)? The wet led pubs are nearly all gone, because they
were
essentially full of working men who went there straight from/during work
to
have a pint and a fag.

I was the leaseholder on a pub in Somerset until 5 years ago (Butchers
Arms
in High Littleton if you'd like to check the records). I got rid of it
before the ban came in and bought somewhere in Spain. When the police
smoke
at the bar even after the ban, you don't have to worry too much.

Heheh.

Thanks for the interesting view. I tend to become sceptical when I see
the the 'victims' of the smoking ban crying loudest about pub
closures, which is why I don't take it at face value. But you raise

I'm no victim. I sold before the ban.

some good points above. Though (no offence), since there are no stats
presented to verify what you say (wet vs dry closures) I'm not sure if
they're your views/heresay or if it's official.

I was just answering the ones you asked (economic downturn, drink driving
enforcements). I'm sure I could find figures for wet vs dry if you really
want them, but I can assure you it's correct. How many country pubs that
don't sell food do you know? There used to be lots.

Also interesting, I don't see the same effect where I live in South
West London. Nor in the area I work, nor in the West End in London,
etc. Perhaps the capital isn't facing the same problems as more rural
areas?

Never does. The fact of the matter is the ban has been a disaster for the
countryside. Whole communities are dying because there's no local. I'd also
be curious to know how it's better to sit drinking vast quantities of cheap
beer alone at home rather than drinking less (constrained by budget) and
socialising with your neighbours? The government used to say if you drink at
home alone then you're probably an alcoholic. It's complete speculation on
my behalf but I suspect we'll see a rise in alcoholism and domestic violence
over the next few years because of people doing this.

And then they can ban alcohol. It's all part of the plan.

Cheers

Brent