The meddling Nanny State "at work" again!

[Bulletguy]

All you fanatical anti smokers will love this; *-)

 

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/uk-could-no-smoking-nation-2032-001234969.html

 

Shame they conveniently omit to mention how they propose to make up the shortfall of vast taxes collected by the Exchequer from the sales of tobacco. (lol)

[RogerC]

Bloody control freaks......

[Retread24800]

Vive La France !!!!!

[Brian Kirby]

Ahem! Wrong forum, methinks! :-) Surely discussion of how folk choose to euthanase themselves belongs on chatterbox?

[pepe63xnotuse]

....I suppose,thankfully, this would be the same "nanny state" and the same type of "control freaks" who introduced the compulsary wearing of seatbelts..? *-)

 

(Sorry Brian..but I find these type of short sighted comments hard to let go... :$ ;-) )

[747]

pepe63 - 2012-09-01 2:22 PM

 

....I suppose,thankfully, this would be the same "nanny state" and the same type of "control freaks" who introduced the compulsary wearing of seatbelts..? *-)

 

(Sorry Brian..but I find these type of short sighted comments hard to let go... :$ ;-) )

 

In a true nanny state, shortsighted comments would be a thing of the past as everyone would have corrective spectacles?

 

I also disagree with the 'Vive Le France' remark. I am more in favour of 'Viva La Espana' myself as the cigarettes are much cheaper there. ;-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Obesity in the United Kingdom is a growing health concern with health officials stating that it is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths, obesity rates have almost quadrupled in the last 25 years, with 22% of Britons now obese.

I do wonder how many of these were former smokers, as it appears one of the things that people battle with after giving up the fags, is weight gain, a mate of mine went from 12 stone to 18 stone in just under a year when he packed up, so you win some and lose some.

 

Perhaps soon be a similar call to ban all "junk" food, and perhaps take children into care that are obese due to their parents food buying preferences that get fed to their kids.

[Bulletguy]

1footinthegrave - 2012-09-01 3:15 PM

 

Obesity in the United Kingdom is a growing health concern with health officials stating that it is one of the leading causes of preventable deaths, obesity rates have almost quadrupled in the last 25 years, with 22% of Britons now obese.

 

I do wonder how many of these were former smokers, as it appears one of the things that people battle with after giving up the fags, is weight gain, a mate of mine went from 12 stone to 18 stone in just under a year when he packed up, so you win some and lose some.

 

Perhaps soon be a similar call to ban all "junk" food, and perhaps take children into care that are obese due to their parents food buying preferences that get fed to their kids.

 

You can't "win".......not in UK! Whatever you do there will always be some 'Police Person' telling you what to do, how to do it, where and when, how much or how many you should or shouldn't have of whatever.......and God forbid anyone daring to disobey "the rules"! *-)

 

Oh brother. *-)

 

The past two months i've lived and mixed amongst normal people.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

I hope no one discovers my cheap red wine and pork pie habit :-S

[robertandjean]

Brian is right this is in wrong forum but seeing it is here might as well comment. Very happy if U.K. became smoke free would be greatest step forward in public health in this generation. Loss of revenue? More than made up for by reduction in costs to Health Service etc. Do not see it as any thing to do with nanny state just common sense to stop something which clearly results in early death and illness for lots of people. Interesting that those who declare smoking to be a "freedom" do not seem to take same line on hard drugs.

There had our say now back to enjoying our glass of vino overlooking the River Meuse!!!

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Driving a private motor vehicle can end in untimely death and injury, and a huge cost for the health service, so why not ban that also if using the same logic, and any other activity that can have the same result, including stuffing yourself full of McDonalds and the like, which is creating the next major health issue, what do you do about that ?

 

I for one take the same line on "hard drugs" if someone wants to use any substance surely that is their choice, just like the meths drinker, or the step up from that, the wine connoisseur, or the out and out alcoholic. WHY make the distinction about fags, just another drug, that just happens to be legal like booze ( for now )

 

Just remember, fags today, your booze tomorrow, so whilst the anti fag brigade celebrate, don't say you've not been warned it may well be your turn next, don't think it can't happen once the thought police have run out of things to do.

[Brian Kirby]

OK, so its game on, is it! :-)

 

What many seem to forget when they ignore health advice is a) that it is provided with all of our best interests at heart, b) it is extremely naive to expect all such advice to be right for all time, it is based on current knowledge, but always subject to change should new discoveries dictate, c) if folk ignore it, and become ill as a consequence, they all seem to expect the dear old NHS to pick up the bill. So, the rest of us, having demonstrated rather more common-sense and self-discipline then these feckless idiots, end up paying for their treatment through our taxes. All I would say to that, is any honest smoker with the courage of their convictions would remove themselves forthwith from NHS lists, and take out their own private health insurance. That would leave the NHS to concentrate on those who become ill through no fault of their own.

 

I bear BG no animosity, but from his post I gather he rather thinks he is able to to look after himself. Until, that is, he visits Spain via a notoriously bandit-prone stretch of road, gets robbed, and then spends hours and pages of forum and MP time trying to get "something done" about it. It seemed to me then, that he would have very much appreciated a "nanny state" to protect him from the consequences of his actions. Indeed, he seemed to me to be crying out for one. In saying this, I do not condone the actions of the robbers, or of the Spanish authorities in dealing with his predicament, but I do think I see evidence of a double standard, verging on hypocrisy. Nanny state please, when it suits me, but not when it doesn't. You can't really have it both ways, can you? ;-)

 

Should BG have the misfortune to succumb to lung cancer, stroke, or heart attack, in future, he will no doubt begin earnestly telling all and sundry, probably on Motorhome Matters, that they should desist from smoking. To save him that trouble I think I can safely say, on behalf of the rest of us, WE ALREADY KNOW THAT!

 

Sorry if this offends anyone, it is not intended to do so, just to encourage a little healthy soul-searching among the feckless.

[Bulletguy]

robertandjean - 2012-09-01 5:39 PM

 

Brian is right this is in wrong forum but seeing it is here might as well comment. Very happy if U.K. became smoke free would be greatest step forward in public health in this generation. Loss of revenue? More than made up for by reduction in costs to Health Service etc. Do not see it as any thing to do with nanny state just common sense to stop something which clearly results in early death and illness for lots of people. Interesting that those who declare smoking to be a "freedom" do not seem to take same line on hard drugs.

 

According to the link Smokers 'cost' the NHS £2.7 billion a year. What it doesn't mention is that UK Government rake in excess of £10 billion a year from punitive tobacco taxation.

 

 

 

robertandjean - 2012-09-01 5:39 PM

 

There had our say now back to enjoying our glass of vino overlooking the River Meuse!!!

 

LOL.........no comment!

[Guest pelmetman]

Has anybody done the sums between how much a alcoholic, fag smoking, working until he drops waister costs the public purse now days?,

 

When compared to the fine upstanding doctor who is lecturing us and will probably live out his twilight years in a comfortable rest home ;-)

 

But don't forget the Doctors been living of the public purse for ever *-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Yes game on Brian, but you ignore all the other "feckless" folk, how many can honestly say with hand on heart that they lead a faultless life style, getting their five a day etc.

 

There are millions of people who find themselves becoming ill through lifestyle choices, why pick on the fag merchants all the time, think about that the next time you see some big wobbling bag of lard wobbling down the road all self inflicted with diabetes going through the roof,

 

or think about this.....Alcohol “causes 13,000 cancer cases a year”, The Daily Telegraph has reported. The newspaper says that in the UK drinking is responsible for 2,500 cases of breast cancers, 3,000 bowel cancers and 6,000 cases of cancers of the mouth, throat or windpipe.

 

So do we ban everything is all I say, or just accept we are all guilty of some form or other of self abuse, even sitting in your m/home for mile after mile breathing in noxious fumes from other vehilcles, or does that not count...... ;-)

[RogerC]

Brian Kirby - 2012-09-01 1:08 PMAhem! Wrong forum, methinks! :-) Surely discussion of how folk choose to euthanase themselves belongs on chatterbox?

 

 

Rather a broad statement from one who usually posts a balanced view......not everyone who smokes dies from it.

 

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2012-09-01 6:35 PM

 

or think about this.....Alcohol “causes 13,000 cancer cases a year”, The Daily Telegraph has reported. The newspaper says that in the UK drinking is responsible for 2,500 cases of breast cancers, 3,000 bowel cancers and 6,000 cases of cancers of the mouth, throat or windpipe.

 

Do you mind 1 foot *-)........................I'm quietly enjoying the latest cheapest plonk from Morrisons ;-)................................Looking forward to when I'll be a drain on the public purse :D

[Bulletguy]

Brian Kirby - 2012-09-01 6:20 PM

 

What many seem to forget when they ignore health advice is........

 

So, the rest of us, having demonstrated rather more common-sense and self-discipline........ then these feckless idiots, end up paying for their treatment through our taxes.

Through your taxes????

 

Excuse me Brian but that is a rather grandiose pompous statement.

 

I went to work at 15 and paid my taxes until I retired fifty years later.

 

 

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-09-01 6:20 PM

 

All I would say to that, is any honest smoker with the courage of their convictions would remove themselves forthwith from NHS lists, and take out their own private health insurance. That would leave the NHS to concentrate on those who become ill through no fault of their own.

 

And all I would say to any 'honest' flag waving supporter of Private Healthcare with 'the courage of their convictions', to promptly remove themselves forthwith from all and any NHS benefits and let their wonderful Private Health Hospital do the work instead of ABusing NHS facilities.....a most despicable practice of the wealthy and greedy which has gone on for far too long and leeched vital and expensive resources from those less well off.

 

 

[Bulletguy]

1footinthegrave - 2012-09-01 6:35 PM

 

Yes game on Brian, but you ignore all the other "feckless" folk, how many can honestly say with hand on heart that they lead a faultless life style.........

 

It seems one person considers himself to.........and no it's most certainly not myself.

[Derek Uzzell]

RogerC - 2012-09-01 6:38 PM....not everyone who smokes dies from it.

This is indeed true, but dying from lung cancer is not a pleasant way to go and, if you've seen someone you've been fond die that way, you might think that any arguments the pro-smoking lobby puts forward lack credibility.

[Brian Kirby]

1footinthegrave - 2012-09-01 6:35 PM

 

Yes game on Brian, but you ignore all the other "feckless" folk, how many can honestly say with hand on heart that they lead a faultless life style, getting their five a day etc.

No Mike, I do not ignore the others, I merely refrained from clouding the issue of smoking with other, different, forms of stupidity. :-)

 

There are millions of people who find themselves becoming ill through lifestyle choices, why pick on the fag merchants all the time, think about that the next time you see some big wobbling bag of lard wobbling down the road all self inflicted with diabetes going through the roof,

Why not pick on smokers, they seem fair game to me. :-) The obese? Of course they should be given the same treatment, but this was more about the so-called "nanny state" than about smoking, and I made the point I wished to make.

 

or think about this.....Alcohol “causes 13,000 cancer cases a year”, The Daily Telegraph has reported. The newspaper says that in the UK drinking is responsible for 2,500 cases of breast cancers, 3,000 bowel cancers and 6,000 cases of cancers of the mouth, throat or windpipe.

Indeed, and the "nanny Telegraph" is very naughty for mentioning this. :-) They'll be educating the masses next! However, these facts no more mean the average person should give up drinking, than obesity means the obese should give up eating. It is a matter of balance and judgement. They all get told the error of their ways: they can take note, or stay as they are. All I object to is when they winge about being told. What to they want: to be left in glorious ignorance?

 

So do we ban everything is all I say, or just accept we are all guilty of some form or other of self abuse, even sitting in your m/home for mile after mile breathing in noxious fumes from other vehicles, or does that not count...... ;-)

No, we ban selectively, and sensibly, and little, I hope, rather than resorting to chop-logic. Suppose I turn your argument on its head. Ban nothing, and legalise everything. Just rely on common sense and good judgement. Suits me.

 

But do tell, what would we then do about those who can't or won't cope, and whose practises are anti-social, or endanger others? So, presumably we should ban what is socially unacceptable. Question then is, unacceptable to whom? Who should we ask? The local paedophile, or the vicar (or the mullah)? There's the rub. We all have to conform with things that irk us to some extent; it is what allows societies to function. Democracy gives such debate relevance, but it also makes it more difficult. So, we are forced to listen to the ramblings of fools, because we are encouraged to believe they have an equal right to be heard.

 

Now, whose round is it, and pass the fags someone! :-D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Lung cancer in non-smokers is more common than many people realize. In fact, lung cancer in never-smokers is now considered the 6th most common cause of cancer deaths in the United States for example, look you can do all you like, but the bottom line is your going to snuff it one way or the other, if we were so lucky as to just pass in our sleep that's wonderful, but that's rarely the case whatever life choices you adopt, to believe anything else is delusion.

My own father a life long smoker died probably as a result of the fags, but my father-in-law a life long non smoker lived to a great age but developed numerous health problems and cost the health service no doubt a bundle over the years simply because his body was worn out, but they kept patching him up until he was 88, but trust me for many of those years it was no life.

It's simply not all black and white.

[Guest pelmetman]

Derek Uzzell - 2012-09-01 6:55 PM

RogerC - 2012-09-01 6:38 PM....not everyone who smokes dies from it.

This is indeed true, but dying from lung cancer is not a pleasant way to go and, if you've seen someone you've been fond die that way, you might think that any arguments the pro-smoking lobby puts forward lack credibility.

Agreed its not a nice way to go..............but is there a nice way to go? :-S............My mum went that way without hardly a whimper............a short spell in hospital and then straight to the BBQ..............Given the choice of the many ways of popping my mortal coil :-S...............I'd frankly rather go out having enjoyed myself fully :D.........than spend my time dribbling in some home with my mind away with fairys 8-) .....................but at least if I do end up in a home I'll know I'm not paying for it (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

Bulletguy - 2012-09-01 6:52 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-09-01 6:20 PM

 

What many seem to forget when they ignore health advice is........

 

So, the rest of us, having demonstrated rather more common-sense and self-discipline........ then these feckless idiots, end up paying for their treatment through our taxes.

Through your taxes????

 

Excuse me Brian but that is a rather grandiose pompous statement.

 

I went to work at 15 and paid my taxes until I retired fifty years later.

So, what is your point? I started work at16, and am still paying tax, even in retirement. So what? As to being grandiose and pompous, do you consider all unwelcome facts to share these characteristics?

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-09-01 6:20 PM

 

All I would say to that, is any honest smoker with the courage of their convictions would remove themselves forthwith from NHS lists, and take out their own private health insurance. That would leave the NHS to concentrate on those who become ill through no fault of their own.

 

And all I would say to any 'honest' flag waving supporter of Private Healthcare with 'the courage of their convictions', to promptly remove themselves forthwith from all and any NHS benefits and let their wonderful Private Health Hospital do the work instead of ABusing NHS facilities.....a most despicable practice of the wealthy and greedy which has gone on for far too long and leeched vital and expensive resources from those less well off.

 

But you digress! Your point was about the "nanny state", was it not? I carry no banners for private health care, but I do consider it would be more honest for those who don't follow sound health advice to seek their cures at their own expense, rather than at the common expense. The more so when they criticise the state's sound advice as being "nannying". However, it seems you now want the "nanny state" to ban private health care. Some may see that as a little self-serving, don't you think? :-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2012-09-01 7:14 PM

 

Question then is, unacceptable to whom? Who should we ask? The local paedophile, or the vicar (or the mullah)?

 

A bit spoilt for choice there Brian ;-)......................It may say vicar on the collar...............but is it a pedophile?....................Is it a Mullah?...............or an extremist *-).............aaah...........choices ;-)..................................Bit like how we chose our poison eh? ;-)