Let them smoke
#2
So what is their definition of "smoking in public?"
Does it mean anywhere outside of your own home?
Man this is getting ridiculous.
Does it mean anywhere outside of your own home?
Man this is getting ridiculous.
#3
Re: Let them smoke
Originally posted by doctor scrumpy
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040609/140/evjvi.html
"What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette."
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040609/140/evjvi.html
"What enjoyment does a 21-year-old single mother of three living in a council sink estate get? The only enjoyment sometimes they have is to have a cigarette."
I imagine here in the States it will be illegal or child abuse soon for a parent to smoke at home with kids in the house.
In GA now you can not smoke in a car with a child- unless the window is open.
#4
I'm in Bulloch County, Georgia and they have just made it illegal to smoke in restaurants here.
I can't enjoy a cigarette after my hash browns and coffee in the Waffle House now
I can't enjoy a cigarette after my hash browns and coffee in the Waffle House now
#5
I agree with it and not before time. The health secretaries analogy is quite intresting though. I really feel sorry for the dole scroungers (there's no way his 21 year old with three kids works) if they have to give up the only pleasure in their lives, (aside from the big screen telly, DVD player and XBOX that is) It's intresting how certain unemployed people (talking of the schemie variety so don't flame me) can aford to buy 20 cigs a day. Yes it's selfish to try and remove something that costs billions to the British tax payer and puts a massive strain on the NHS isnt it? After all that's what a welfare state like Britain is for...so let them have their "only pleasure in life" and don't worry, the tax payer will pay for their lung cancer treatment and funeral costs when they snuff it later!
#6
Originally posted by jambo_2004
how certain unemployed people (talking of the schemie variety so don't flame me) can aford to buy 20 cigs a day. Yes it's selfish to try and remove something that costs billions to the British tax payer and puts a massive strain on the NHS isnt it?
how certain unemployed people (talking of the schemie variety so don't flame me) can aford to buy 20 cigs a day. Yes it's selfish to try and remove something that costs billions to the British tax payer and puts a massive strain on the NHS isnt it?
1.) Smokers pay a tremendous amount of tax on the tobacco they consume, adding to the public kitty.
2.) Smokers die on average 15 years before their non-smoking counterparts. For every 1 that reaches chronic stage and has cancer, COPD or heart disease (and thus run up the bill) 50 more have dies in their 50's or 60's- well before they have begun to cost the gov't big bucks.
In essence, we neeed MORE smokers to balance the budget.
#7
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Location: Arizona
Posts: 961
Re: Let them smoke
Originally posted by ironporer
Evidently she has some other pass-times to have 3 kids by age 21. Guess she needs the smoke when they get done.
I imagine here in the States it will be illegal or child abuse soon for a parent to smoke at home with kids in the house.
In GA now you can not smoke in a car with a child- unless the window is open.
Evidently she has some other pass-times to have 3 kids by age 21. Guess she needs the smoke when they get done.
I imagine here in the States it will be illegal or child abuse soon for a parent to smoke at home with kids in the house.
In GA now you can not smoke in a car with a child- unless the window is open.
#8
Originally posted by ironporer
Actually it's a fallacy that smokers cost the system more.
1.) Smokers pay a tremendous amount of tax on the tobacco they consume, adding to the public kitty.
2.) Smokers die on average 15 years before their non-smoking counterparts. For every 1 that reaches chronic stage and has cancer, COPD or heart disease (and thus run up the bill) 50 more have dies in their 50's or 60's- well before they have begun to cost the gov't big bucks.
In essence, we neeed MORE smokers to balance the budget.
Actually it's a fallacy that smokers cost the system more.
1.) Smokers pay a tremendous amount of tax on the tobacco they consume, adding to the public kitty.
2.) Smokers die on average 15 years before their non-smoking counterparts. For every 1 that reaches chronic stage and has cancer, COPD or heart disease (and thus run up the bill) 50 more have dies in their 50's or 60's- well before they have begun to cost the gov't big bucks.
In essence, we neeed MORE smokers to balance the budget.
in Britain, I have absolutely no doubt that her ciggies are coming out of her welfare check......
#9
Originally posted by manc1976
I agree to a certain extent IP, BUT...........
in Britain, I have absolutely no doubt that her ciggies are coming out of her welfare check......
I agree to a certain extent IP, BUT...........
in Britain, I have absolutely no doubt that her ciggies are coming out of her welfare check......
Maybe they ought to double their cig ration, even give em free heroin too- kinda like a benevolant (or Malevolant) welfare reform??
Free booze, free cigs, free smack, hopefully theey "drop" off the dole in 4-5 years.