Rant!
- Thread starter MackemsRule
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
.
The most ironic thing is, smoking is still allowed in the House of Commons bars.
Do as we say, not as we do. The mp's are all a bunch of ****ers.
As for alcohol, my local club does a nice pint of Soverign Bitter for £1.70.
Cheap supermarket booze is already being targeted.
One litre of white cider is £1.59. When the 50p per unit come in, it will be £3.25.
Taxed up to the bollocks, three months of the working year is spent paying taxes.
Do as we say, not as we do. The mp's are all a bunch of ****ers.
As for alcohol, my local club does a nice pint of Soverign Bitter for £1.70.
Cheap supermarket booze is already being targeted.
One litre of white cider is £1.59. When the 50p per unit come in, it will be £3.25.
Taxed up to the bollocks, three months of the working year is spent paying taxes.
Bit over the top with your statements aren't you davrosFTM
“when, overnight, I was transformed from a 'normal' bloke to an outcast and a leper”
No just an unwelcome smoker to those of us wishing to breathe nicotine free air.
“it's all about money and absolutely NOTHING to do with health”
Is that according to the tobacco companies who have to ‘recruit’ more people every day to replace those they have killed?
“People the world over are being brainwashed and deceived on a biblical scale.”
Oh dear! None of us are in on this except you?
“Indeed, a lot of scientists are scared to report their findings until after retirement.”
So there must be loads of retired scientists who now can speak out. A list of the first hundred out of millions will do then to back your statement.
What you have to remember MrRaW, is that there are two players in the nicotine market...tobacco companies and the huge Pharmaceutical cartels. Glaxo Kline, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson etc are making billions of dollars selling their 'worthless' nicotine replacement therapies...patches, gums, sprays etc.
People are not addicted to replacement therapies. They DO become addicted to tobacco and tobacco companies are making billions.
“when, overnight, I was transformed from a 'normal' bloke to an outcast and a leper”
No just an unwelcome smoker to those of us wishing to breathe nicotine free air.
“it's all about money and absolutely NOTHING to do with health”
Is that according to the tobacco companies who have to ‘recruit’ more people every day to replace those they have killed?
“People the world over are being brainwashed and deceived on a biblical scale.”
Oh dear! None of us are in on this except you?
“Indeed, a lot of scientists are scared to report their findings until after retirement.”
So there must be loads of retired scientists who now can speak out. A list of the first hundred out of millions will do then to back your statement.
What you have to remember MrRaW, is that there are two players in the nicotine market...tobacco companies and the huge Pharmaceutical cartels. Glaxo Kline, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson etc are making billions of dollars selling their 'worthless' nicotine replacement therapies...patches, gums, sprays etc.
People are not addicted to replacement therapies. They DO become addicted to tobacco and tobacco companies are making billions.
Maybe the bottom part of your post is the problem.
Nicotine is addictive.
If these replacement therapies have nicotine they should be addictive, and they should also get people off cigs.
But if they are not addictive like you suggest when the main ingredient in them is, then how can they be working.
tbh I never tried nicotine replacement crap, my wife has tried the lot and none have worked for her, not saying they dont work for anyone, they just havnt worked for her. They could be placebos though.
Nicotine is addictive.
If these replacement therapies have nicotine they should be addictive, and they should also get people off cigs.
But if they are not addictive like you suggest when the main ingredient in them is, then how can they be working.
tbh I never tried nicotine replacement crap, my wife has tried the lot and none have worked for her, not saying they dont work for anyone, they just havnt worked for her. They could be placebos though.
I'm afraid you are banging your head against a brick wall as far as davros is concerned..He is convinced that smoking is good for people's health and will look for any snippet of evidence to back his argument, but is not prepared to give any credence whatsoever to the overwhellming scientific evidence that goes against his arguments..
Something to do with the bodies computer telling it it needs a bit more oxygen so you breathe in a bit more Niall mate (I think).
WTF!
I wouldn't want to SOCIALIZE with a bigotted uneducated sod like you anyway.
Point me to one of these people who have been killed whilst socializing!
There isn't one death certificate in the world with KILLED BY SECOND HAND SMOKE on!
As for smelling rancid you seem to have a personal problem of being a smell magnet.
I can assure you I don't smell rancid.
I shall state again I want choice I don't want to force that choice on others, that is DEMOCRACY!
Had to stop reading after the bit about smoking and working class..fool.. cancer kills anyone and the price paid for ***s and its tax is abigger proportion of a poor persons wage than a rich one.
Now if you are arguing why are there not more good and proper apprenticeships that is a relevant class issue!
Ok then...I have never said that "smoking is good for people's health". I said that smoking has many health benefits, which is an undeniable fact. Overall, smoking is bad for a few, ok for the vast majority, and beneficial for others. Did you know, for example, that the only two people to blow out 120 candles on their birthday cakes were both lifelong smokers? Did you know that red indians smoked for thousands of years and never had lung problems till modern times?
You then mention this "overwhelming scientific evidence"....ok then, where is it?
Lets look at this 'overwhelming evidence' regarding second hand smoke. Over 80% of studies on secondhand smoke shows NO risk or, a preventive effect – with a preventive effect meaning a LOWER risk for lung cancer in adulthood. Only around 15% find an associated risk, and the average relative risk of those is only 1.17 (17%) Any scientist will tell you that a 17% risk increase is insignificant. Scientists look for a RR of at least 3.00, thats a 200%, or 3x as likely risk increase to class a risk as significant. This is FACT, regardless of what the zealots at tobacco control might say. To put it into perspective, whole milk has a RR of 2.00 and bacon has a RR of 3.00.
The RR of second hand smoke (1.17) is roughly the same as that of drinking water at 1.15.....a slight risk but certainly nothing to worry about and definitely not enough to enforce smoking bans!
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=33
It was Roy Castle himself who attributed his lung cancer to SHS. It was a self-diagnosis and so bears little credence. Oh yeah, one other thing...Roy Castle smoked cigars on and off for 25 years....not a lot of people know that
Roy Castle smoked cigars on and off for 25 years....not a lot of people know that
You Michael Caine Davros?
He got cancer like millions of other people have, including ones who had never come in contact with tobacco smoke.
Ask scientists why people who have never come in contact with smokers or second hand smoke get the same cancers!
Why is he so special?
Poor sod was just unlucky.
No matter what he and his family tried to claim before his death.
Untold thousands have worked in smoky clubs more than he ever did and not been taken down by cancer.
The plain fact is scientists are guessing 9 times out of ten about the causes of cancer.
If no one smoked they would be finding links with some other random thing.
Do you know scientists with an agenda were claiming cancer of the cervix was linked to smoking?
Well until it was proved it was caused by a virus!
Davros is spot on with what he says and being shot down by claims of paid for by Big Tobacco.
Shoot down the science not where the funding came from.
Saying something isn't true because of it's funding is preposterous.
Well after reading some of the other comments on here, I thought back to something I read ages ago.
Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State
May I suggest people read this essay by Joe Jackson, yes Joe Jackson the singer. He actually researched his findings.
The link to the PDF is a couple of lines down on his official site.
http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.php
Try reading it with an open mind and not a SUN readers mentality, where everything papers print is gospel truth.
Well worth a read for smokers and none smokers alike.
Smoke Lies, and the Nanny State
May I suggest people read this essay by Joe Jackson, yes Joe Jackson the singer. He actually researched his findings.
The link to the PDF is a couple of lines down on his official site.
http://www.joejackson.com/smoking.php
Try reading it with an open mind and not a SUN readers mentality, where everything papers print is gospel truth.
Well worth a read for smokers and none smokers alike.
A snippet that says a lot about which side are the liars.
At a World Health Organisation conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir GeorgeGodber announced that:
“It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active
smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or
young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS.”
Antismokers then started actively looking for ‘proof’. One of the first studies they seized upon,
in 1981, was that of Prof Hirayama in Japan, which showed a possible risk from ETS. Although
the risk was trivial, the methodology was dubious, and the director of Hirayama’s own Institute
cautioned against taking the study too seriously, it was seen as ‘encouraging,’ and ETS studies
started to proliferate rapidly. By 1990 the well-known American antismoking activist Stanton
Glantz was able to declare:
“The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people
like me pay the mortgage, is it has legitimised the concern that people don’t like
cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be harnessed and
used. We’re on a roll, and the bastards are on the run.”
At a World Health Organisation conference in 1975, former British Chief Medical Officer Sir GeorgeGodber announced that:
“It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active
smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or
young children who would be exposed involuntarily to ETS.”
Antismokers then started actively looking for ‘proof’. One of the first studies they seized upon,
in 1981, was that of Prof Hirayama in Japan, which showed a possible risk from ETS. Although
the risk was trivial, the methodology was dubious, and the director of Hirayama’s own Institute
cautioned against taking the study too seriously, it was seen as ‘encouraging,’ and ETS studies
started to proliferate rapidly. By 1990 the well-known American antismoking activist Stanton
Glantz was able to declare:
“The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people
like me pay the mortgage, is it has legitimised the concern that people don’t like
cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be harnessed and
used. We’re on a roll, and the bastards are on the run.”
Pleased you mentioned this. Back in the day, when every man and his dog were smokers, asthma was virtually non-existant. As the number of smokers has fallen dramatically, so the number of asthma cases has rocketed. It seems like every other bairn nowadays has asthma.
A few years back, two New Zealand scientists conducted studies into asthma/smoking and their results showed that children of smoking parents are 70% LESS likely to get asthma. They presented their findings to the World Health Organisation, who told them..."Sorry...not interested...it goes against our anti-smoking agenda". This is an example of the type of barriers that scientists face when coming up against the tobacco control industry.
Since this initial study, there've been other studies done that prove that smoking has a preventitive effect against childhood asthma. Again though, it's nothing that you'll hear from the biased media. Read about it here http://www.jimmunol.org/content/180/11/7655.abstract or here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11422156 or here http://www.jacionline.org/article/PIIS0091674907019549/abstract
Asthma cases have risen in line with the number of vehicles on the roads, so you're surely not trying to say that smoking prevents asthma are you?
wow £26,000 for the leaf $41,000 USD over here
$27,000 £16,000 over there.
makes you wonder how the **** they get away with it, especially as their factory (not sure if they make them there though) is in England.
$27,000 £16,000 over there.
makes you wonder how the **** they get away with it, especially as their factory (not sure if they make them there though) is in England.
Where Are The Bodies? Estimates of thousands of deaths from ETS are based on
statistical computer projections. There is not one death certificate, anywhere in the world, citing
ETS as cause of death. There is not even one documented case of death proven to have been caused specifically by ETS. Antismokers have been challenged over and over again to produce one, and have refused every time. They now say simply that their position is ‘proven’ and refuse
to debate it any further.
Statistically (here we go again) higher cancer risks have been found for eating mushrooms, wearing a bra, or keeping a pet bird than for ETS. A bartender has a much higher statistical chance of dying in a bicycle accident, or from being left-handed and using right-handed things, than he or she has from exposure to tobacco smoke. I swear I’m not making this stuff up.
Oh by the way Oral Sex has been statistically linked to cancer.
So no more BJ's.
statistical computer projections. There is not one death certificate, anywhere in the world, citing
ETS as cause of death. There is not even one documented case of death proven to have been caused specifically by ETS. Antismokers have been challenged over and over again to produce one, and have refused every time. They now say simply that their position is ‘proven’ and refuse
to debate it any further.
Statistically (here we go again) higher cancer risks have been found for eating mushrooms, wearing a bra, or keeping a pet bird than for ETS. A bartender has a much higher statistical chance of dying in a bicycle accident, or from being left-handed and using right-handed things, than he or she has from exposure to tobacco smoke. I swear I’m not making this stuff up.
Oh by the way Oral Sex has been statistically linked to cancer.
So no more BJ's.