Does Mat Hayes smoke?

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by BUDGIE:

 

I had real bad sinusitus.Went three days without a fag and just carried on!

---

You're a good man, and no mistake, Budgie.

 

I hope others follow your example* and give-up the fags

 

DG

 

[* not with live-baits though ..... oh, nor with spelling )

 

[ 25. April 2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[RUDD]

Christ, I was only asking out of curiosity.

If a human wants to smoke, drink or take drugs its up to them.

 

On the smoking in public thing - last Thursday I took my two year old toddler and two month old baby for a family day out at the zoo.

For lunch we sat down for a picknic.

Another family sat next to us and the two parents sparked up.

All of their smoke drifted our way.

In the end we had to move as

it takes about five years for a childs lungs to fully develop. Why should my children have to breath other peoples smoke?

 

I am all for having smoking rooms in public places.

[The Diamond Geezer]

Some more fuzzy logic here, in my personal opinion:

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RUDD:

 

A. If a human wants to smoke, drink or take drugs it's up to them. (never mind the law then, and while driving too :confused: and who pays/suffers when they get ill because their liver & lungs are completely clucked-up, or they kill someone's child while driving under the influence ? DG)

 

B. Why should my children have to breath other people's smoke?

 

C. I am all for having smoking rooms in public places.

---

I'm outa here .

[RUDD]

The Diamond Geezer:

Some more fuzzy logic here, in my personal opinion:

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RUDD:

 

A. If a human wants to smoke, drink or take drugs it's up to them. (never mind the law then, and while driving too   :confused:     and who pays/suffers when they get ill because their liver & lungs are completely clucked-up, or they kill someone's child while driving under the influence ?  DG)

 

B. Why should my children have to breath other people's smoke?

 

C. I am all for having smoking rooms in public places.

---

I'm outa here .

They will have fuzzy logic once they have had their vice!

 

The point I was making was if a person wants to smoke, let them.

But they have to see that non smokers also have rights and should not have to put up with another persons smoke.

The only way I can see this happening is by having public smoking areas that non smokers can avoid.

[Peter Waller]

RUDD:

RUDD:

Some more fuzzy logic here, in my personal opinion:

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by RUDD:

 

A. If a human wants to smoke, drink or take drugs it's up to them. (never mind the law then, and while driving too :confused: and who pays/suffers when they get ill because their liver & lungs are completely clucked-up, or they kill someone's child while driving under the influence ? DG)

 

B. Why should my children have to breath other people's smoke?

 

C. I am all for having smoking rooms in public places.

---

I'm outa here .

 

 

---

The point I was making was if a person wants to smoke, let them.

But they have to see that non smokers also have rights and should not have to put up with another persons smoke.

The only way I can see this happening is by having public smoking areas that non smokers can avoid.

Thats it in a nutshell Rudd. No logical way anyone, even a smoker, can seriously argue with that!

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RUDD:

 

The point I was making was if a person wants to smoke, let them.

---

That's OK .. just as long as you accept that when any of your family needs hospital help/treatment, and the NHS has no beds free, a long waiting list, and not enough money anyway, or staff as a result, this is because some beds are taken-up by people suffering from self-inflicted smoking-related problems. Same applies to drinkers. And who's paying (in addition to the smokers, of course)?

 

DG

 

[ 26. April 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: The Diamond Geezer ]

[Peter Waller]

Its about choice DG. If someone wants to kill themselves then so be it, so long as they don't take other folk down with them.

 

Okay, so they might be depriving someone from a bed. But how far do you take it? That road accident was your fault, sorry, no bed for you. You're a fat git, your fault, sorry no bed for you. Freedom and choice can be an expensive option.

 

Your arguement is valid, in a society where choice, even unwise choice, is no longer an option.

 

Okay, so some folk make a wrong choice, but they deserve respect, and care sometimes.

 

[ 26. April 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[RUDD]

The Diamond Geezer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by RUDD:

 

The point I was making was if a person wants to smoke, let them.

---

That's OK .. just as long as you accept that when any of your family needs hospital help/treatment, and the NHS has no beds free, a long waiting list, and not enough money anyway, or staff as a result, this is because some beds are taken-up by people suffering from self-inflicted smoking-related problems. Same applies to drinkers. And who's paying (in addition to the smokers, of course)?

 

DG

DG I dont know the correct figures but the TAX from smoking and drinking outdoes the amount these habits cost the NHS per year.

 

Yes smokers take up hospital beds as do drug addicts, the elderly, babies, children, HIV/Aids victims etc etc ALL are entitled to a bed if they can get it as we live in a free country where free treatment is available to all.

The elderly cost the NHS more than any other age group per year but is it their fault they have reached that age due to healthy living.

Surely they have bought on old age themselves by not dying!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Next you will be starting on people who have never paid or not paid much tax such as immigrants or the long term unemployed.

[mark barrett]

DG

 

i think that you are getting sucked in (no pun intended) by the labour governments spin on the beds and NHS debate. the reason there are no beds is because the NHS has been chronically underfunded for years. in the forties and fifties the percentage of smokers was far higher than it is now. yet the NHS did not collapse under the pressure. there are several factors that are causing the strains on the NHS and smoking is just a tiny percentage of this.

 

increased life expectancy due to better healthcare and the closing down or change in funding of geriatric housing has pushed an increasingly ageing population back into hospitals for its long term care, in years gone by this was not done by the NHS hospitals.

 

Chronic underfunding by succesive governments.

 

poor diet. whilst the awareness of what foods do for us is better now than it has ever been, the calorie intake for the average person is far higher than it was twenty years ago, and i say this as a smoking lard arse (although on a diet!!!).

 

whilst smoking does put a strain of sorts on the NHS as has been previously stated smokers contribute far more in taxes and as such you cannot refuse them treatment, not in a democracy anyway.

[The Diamond Geezer]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RUDD:

 

Yes smokers take up hospital beds as do drug addicts, the elderly, babies, children, HIV/Aids victims etc etc ALL are entitled to a bed if they can get it as we live in a free country where free treatment is available to all.

The elderly cost the NHS more than any other age group per year but is it their fault they have reached that age due to healthy living.

Surely they have bought on old age themselves by not dying!!!!!!!!!!!

---

Obviously you don't understand the meaning of self-inflicted illness ... or the difference between lung-cancer sufferers and, for example, the elderly :mad:

 

DG