Re: Smoking ban

In message <46b08da3$0$10493$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Wolf <ElLoboViejo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

beamendsltd wrote:

[... ]
I gave up for 2 and a half years. I felt no better, put on weight,
and noticed no difference in the taste of food - and to cap it all
I started suffering from IBS (which went away when I stated again!).

This suggests serious underlying problems, for which smoking is merely a
symptomatic treatment, not a cure. The negative effects of smoking are a
steep price to pay for such illusory improvements. But it's your life.


Not according to the specialist. IBS is partly caused by dietry issues(
it seems I have a problem with fresh fruit, too much bread, and too much
milk), and either brought out by, or triggered by stress. The fags reduce
the stress, that'll do me. I have no desire to live to a ripe old age
sitting in a chair with some form of dimentia......

But now I see you are an ex-smoker I can see where you are coming from,
it was ok when you did it, but you have decided to stop so everyone else
should too. I do actually understand that, but I'm affraid I don't
think it's fair.


Richard


Actually, I don't want to stop you smoking. Just don't smoke in my presence.

It was _not_ ok when I did it. I used to tell my students that smoking
was a stupid thing to do. They knew I'd been a smoker, so they always
challenged me: "Then you must have been stupid when you smoked, too." I
always answered, "Of course I was."

I started smoking as most people do - because I suffered from the
delusion that it made me look cool and more mature (remember the sweets
that looked like cigarettes?) Within a very short time, I realised just
how bad it was for me, but I couldn't stop. And didn't stop, for years.
I was smoking 30-40 cigs a day.

When I coughed up bloody phlegm and reached for the cigarettes first
thing in the morning, even before taking the early morning leak, I
realised something was seriously wrong with me. That's when I tried to quit.

I'm sorry you didn't notice any improvement in the the taste of food
when you quit. It can't have had any taste, then. ;-)

Curries? No flavour? Ahem.... though I am willing to conceed that to
hot food may have numbed my taste buds somewhat.


As for government intrusion into private lives: there's been talk of
putting up video surveillance cameras here, as has been done for years
in the UK. People here don't want that intrusion into their privacy.
Then there are planning rules about cutting down trees on your own
property, for example, which are considered normal in the UK - good
grief, you allow that intrusion into your private decisions? What's the
world coming to?

I agree with your opponents - cameras just move the problem elsewhere,
not actually solving anything.
Only trees covered by TPOs (Tree Preservation Orders) cannot be cut
down - however, the need to chop one dowm is open for discussion
with the planners and usually a compromise is reached (I've been
there). No problems there - the key word is compromise. Often there
have to be rules, but with a little thought it is possible to
accomodate all (except those who don't want to be, I suppose).
If the rule where simply that no trees can be cut down, then that
would be a different matter. The issue with the smoking ban is
that there has been no room for compromise left - and not only
in the pus/clubs/bingo halls etc - I have spent 5 years of working
12 to 16 hours a day setting up my own business and I really don't
see it's anyone else's business to tell me if I can or can't smoke
in my own unit, i.e. have a smoking area. As it happends we don't
have any non-smokers, but if we did and they complained about
smokers going outside then they'd get told the truth - "they",
antis, wanted "clean air", and they've got it. Now stop moaning.
(Probably not at all PC, but then I hate wingers!)


So it's really just what you're used to.


But that doesn't mean one has to like it.

There is another argument wrt to smoking: you and we have publicly
funded healthcare. Smokers account for the vast majority of early (under
60) heart attacks, and assorted other early-onset ailments, which cost
loadsadough. There are a few hard-hearted souls who argue that a smoker
should be allowed one heart attack at public expense. The second (if
there is one) will be at your expense. I don't agree, but I've heard
this argument from those who claim to protect the tax payers from
government folly.

The governments own figures say that smokers cost the NHS 1.6 billion
a year extra. However, they also say that smokers raise 6.5 billion
a year in tax - so we smokers actually fund a substantial chunk of
the NHS - the non-smokers should be very greateful! Seriously, though,
if we all gave up tomorrow there would be a huge hike it tax, and the
wailing and gnashing of teeth would be deafening (and expensive, as
there are virtually no NHS dentists anymore). In the 60's the
government used to raise 25% of it's income from smoking and drinking
taxes. That has dropped somewhat, and tax has had to be rasied elsewhere
to cover the short fall - hence all the stealth taxes *everyone* moans
about.



Richard

--
www.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have become... comfortably numb
.

Loading