366 comments Add a comment
So smoking is banned in public indoor areas and now we have to put up with revolting smokers whenever we step outside. They're next to the doors at the mall, outside the pub (where the outdoor areas have become their territory), outside the office and in the parks.
Why the hell hasn't this filth been banned completely? It costs a fortune to the tax payer and slows down the NHS, meanwhile fag companies continue to reap the benefit of hawking a dangerous, and filthy revolting product.
Smokers - they are socially unacceptable...
And, if that's not enough...if makes some otherwise quite likable people (the smokers) stink. That's right. They are socially unacceptable even when they come back inside from their squalid ritual. That's right! If you smoke you stink, and your kids stink too (if you smoke in the privacy of your own home). You've really thought of their health and well being now haven't you?
So, spare yourselves, spare your kids, spare the taxpayer, spare the non-smokers but most importantly, spare me from your disgusting habit of smoking!
The only people I wish to continue smoking are the executives of Gallagher and BAT etc. I hope they will enjoy their product to the max and do EVERYONE a favor by copping what we all know smoking is good for.
"Enjoy boys...here let me light that one for you." :)
By: Shove the Butt
Leave a comment
There is a code of pratice within the NHS concerning patient treatment. Those that show the highest level of commitment to their health and well being will be given priority status. This pratice bodes well for the ratings of any hospitals in thier yearly achievements ratings. In other words, there is a points system in the care you receive.
Obese, smokers, drinkers, drug dependants ect, are not viewed favorably when the system is so overloaded and under funded.
12/04/19 Jethro
Obese, smokers, drinkers, drug dependants ect, are not viewed favorably when the system is so overloaded and under funded.
7
I have just started a course of treatment at the James Paget Hospital in Gorleston on sea.( The dumping ground of wasters for England).My first visit forced me to attend a waiting area full of fat, overwieght, smelly, people that have abused themselves all their lives and now expect the NHS to cure them of their self inficted conditions. Surely, there has to be a system within the NHS that prioritize those that have taken care of their health, and the great unwashed. Or, maybe unbeknown to me , there is within the ranks of Doctors that interview these patients.
11/04/19 Jetty boy
5
James Paget hospital in Gorleston on sea Norfolk admited a 72 year old woman with COPD severe beathing problems. After the doctors and nurses stabilized her she insisted to be able to go to a designated smoking area and have a fag. There are so many old very sick brain deads moving to the East coast because it's acceptable practice to be this way. It's no wonder that any self respecting medical person takes one look at this place and applies for a job somewhere else. Great Yarmouth and Gorleston on Sea, has become the great dumping ground for druggies, benifit spongers, pushers, beggars, immo's and end of life OAP's with complexed health problems.
30/12/18 Jetty Boy
2
You have lost me Englishman, please explain? (Other page)
17/10/11 Boblet
-10
Nice to see Blobet up to his usual mockery. The other page too much for you ?
17/10/11 Englishman
-7
They are entitled to abuse their bodies if that is their wish. It pays taxes. I am entitled to not to have to smell them poisoning themselves, however. I wouldn't fart where other people would be forced to endure the stench, so it's just polite for them to go away from others when they want to do it.
12/09/11 Zyrcona
-14
Just in from the Dirty Duck Legcan. You now have me at a loss. what is your point? I seem to have missed it. You can find so called facts to agree with any argument you like on the Internet. Have you not realised that?
For your own edification look up the Flat Earth society these lunes actually exist.
07/09/11 Boblet
For your own edification look up the Flat Earth society these lunes actually exist.
-17
Yes, you are entitled to breaks. If your working day is longer than 6 consecutive hours you are entitled by law to a break of 20 minutes which can be designated as a lunch break,coffee break or whatever.
Most employers allow their workers longer than that for lunch but many offices no longer allow coffee or tea breaks and, as most cigarette breaks are in addition to lunch, smokers who go outside to puff are costing their employers money.
07/09/11 ANON
Most employers allow their workers longer than that for lunch but many offices no longer allow coffee or tea breaks and, as most cigarette breaks are in addition to lunch, smokers who go outside to puff are costing their employers money.
-1
@ANON
Actually, breaks are designated by law. You are not supposed to work at your desk for prologned periods without breaks - fact, so whether it be for smoking or drinking coffee, your argument is 'flawed'.
@Boblet
My argument is based on fact. Read it again, do some research on the world wide web and you will see for yourself.
Whilst I sympathise with you for being mislead, it has been common knowledge for a very long time that smoking is indeed harmful. Back in the 60's, oil companies ran propaganda campaigns in which they claimed that sea life thrived when contaminated with oil - did you fall for that one too?
07/09/11 Lagalise Cannabis
Actually, breaks are designated by law. You are not supposed to work at your desk for prologned periods without breaks - fact, so whether it be for smoking or drinking coffee, your argument is 'flawed'.
@Boblet
My argument is based on fact. Read it again, do some research on the world wide web and you will see for yourself.
Whilst I sympathise with you for being mislead, it has been common knowledge for a very long time that smoking is indeed harmful. Back in the 60's, oil companies ran propaganda campaigns in which they claimed that sea life thrived when contaminated with oil - did you fall for that one too?
-10
Well in anon very fair comments in my opinion. As for you "LEG CAN".
I used to smoke, I loved it, I have smoked a pipe, cigars, cigarettes, tailor made & rollups. I enjoyed it immensely. The tobacco industry & popular medical sources insisted it wasn't habit forming even my GP smoked. He also died of cancer. They totally refuted the fact that it was habit forming or injurious to health when I was smoking. Can you clear one thing up for me? Is your argument based on the flat earth principal or sound medical fact?
PS I have had a by-pass.
07/09/11 Boblet
I used to smoke, I loved it, I have smoked a pipe, cigars, cigarettes, tailor made & rollups. I enjoyed it immensely. The tobacco industry & popular medical sources insisted it wasn't habit forming even my GP smoked. He also died of cancer. They totally refuted the fact that it was habit forming or injurious to health when I was smoking. Can you clear one thing up for me? Is your argument based on the flat earth principal or sound medical fact?
PS I have had a by-pass.
-12
No, these are facts. Most offices don't allow coffee breaks any more by the way. Mine doesn't. You can make coffee but you drink it at your desk while working.
If you are going to call people retarded , a phrase that only the very stupid use, then learn how to spell "flawed".
07/09/11 Anon
If you are going to call people retarded , a phrase that only the very stupid use, then learn how to spell "flawed".
-1
@anon
That's ridiculous! 'loss of productivity due to smoking breaks'???!!! 'absenteeism'???!!! - your counter argument is completely floored. What about tea and coffee breaks? absenteeism as a result of smoking?! 'Loss of economic output from deaths of smokers'???!! - now you are getting desperate. The fact is, today more people are dying as a result of eating too much than are dying as a result of smoking. You have stolen somebody elses floored argument - you are retarded.
07/09/11 Legalise Cannabis
That's ridiculous! 'loss of productivity due to smoking breaks'???!!! 'absenteeism'???!!! - your counter argument is completely floored. What about tea and coffee breaks? absenteeism as a result of smoking?! 'Loss of economic output from deaths of smokers'???!! - now you are getting desperate. The fact is, today more people are dying as a result of eating too much than are dying as a result of smoking. You have stolen somebody elses floored argument - you are retarded.
-4
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/cancernews/2010-03-22-Tobacco-duty-must-rise-to-reflect-cost-of-smoking-to-society
"the cost of smoking is made up of the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (2.7 billion); loss in productivity due to smoking breaks (2.9 billion); increased absenteeism (2.9 billion); the cost of cleaning up cigarette butts (342 million); the cost of smoking-related fires (507 million); and the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers and passive smokers (4.1 billion and 713 million respectively)."
06/09/11 ANON
"the cost of smoking is made up of the cost of treating smokers on the NHS (2.7 billion); loss in productivity due to smoking breaks (2.9 billion); increased absenteeism (2.9 billion); the cost of cleaning up cigarette butts (342 million); the cost of smoking-related fires (507 million); and the loss in economic output from the deaths of smokers and passive smokers (4.1 billion and 713 million respectively)."
-12
@Nikki
You're completely wrong. In 2006 the cost for treating smoking related illnesses was 2.8billion. The same year the income generated from tax on cigarettes alone was in excess of 10.2billion pounds. Since then, the increases in tax have mean't that the revenue has increased, and the reduction in numbers of smokers has mean't that the cost of treatment has steadily fallen. The tax equivilates to approximately 4x the cost of treatment. 8billion pounds is a lot of revenue to make up, that combined with longer life expectancy would mean that a ban on smoking would actually cost the NHS a lot more money over the long term.
06/09/11 Legalise cannabis
You're completely wrong. In 2006 the cost for treating smoking related illnesses was 2.8billion. The same year the income generated from tax on cigarettes alone was in excess of 10.2billion pounds. Since then, the increases in tax have mean't that the revenue has increased, and the reduction in numbers of smokers has mean't that the cost of treatment has steadily fallen. The tax equivilates to approximately 4x the cost of treatment. 8billion pounds is a lot of revenue to make up, that combined with longer life expectancy would mean that a ban on smoking would actually cost the NHS a lot more money over the long term.
3
It's coming for you.
"Sorry to break this very bad news concerning your results, you have terminal lung cancer." Think you can handle those words? or maybe your love ones?