Buy to lets

It sounds like subject matter for a labour party conference. Those seem to have plenty of dogs and s*it.

I remember mumble years ago visiting the offices of BAT in Woking.

In the reception and all of the conference rooms there were glasses stuffed full of fagerettes. The walls were brown and visitors were encouraged to light up. It was a kind of antimatter statement to the more typical opposite of that.

It's along the same lines as the reception of Mars in Slough. There's trays of s***ty choccybars. They are pushing sugar.

In the meantime, as you say, we have the pharma companies pushing nicotine through gum and patches.

This is cynical also. The smell of gum in a confined space is almost as offensive as the version involving conflagration.

A better solution would be to make it all available on prescription in slow release format. Then the nicotine addiction could be addressed by a single SR pill taken once a day. A win-win solution all around

Oh I say.

Is she still practising or has she got it right?

That is probably the reality of the situation. It would have been upsetting, just like doctors prescribing increasing morphine doses for cancer patients. However, a shock to the survivers might just save a life.

yes, and if that ever did happen, I would be pleased to contribute towards the legal fees.

Do Dr's ever put "speeding" as a cause of death? Isn't that the same?

It's not the speeding that kills you directly in the same way as it's not the passive smoking that kills you *directly*.

Darren (who loves the smoking ban as as an asthma sufferer I can finally go out for a drink without nearly dieing)

Jesus. I never had you down as a tin-foil-hatted loon.

And on those points we are entirely in agreement.

You have heard of toxocara canis?

What about the big bucks made by the tobacco companies?

Heck, you're wrong, but that's not exactly a first for you.

He's a smoker An addict that is wittingly playing Russian roulette with his health what else would you expect.

This is a typical example of the rabid, hyterical, ill informed anti smoking lobby.

First of all an ad hominem attack - my opinions are worthless because I choose to smoke. Well done Mark. Clever boy.

Your Google search has brought up a report by the HDA. No point trying to impress with your detailed knowledge of the situation.

They use the phrase "the smoking epidemic blighting the nation" regardless of the fact that smoking has decreased significantly in the past 20 years.

In the article the HDA give a figure of 83,000 deaths a year from smoking, wheras the chief medical officer quotes 106,000, then the HDA gives another figure of 86,500 and finally the HDA quote 17,400 deaths each year caused by smoking.

Lets not forget the unsupported claim that 9,000 or 11,000 Brits die from passive smoking and/or that 16,000 Europeans die from passive smoking. All three are 'official' figures.

Doesn't this give you a clue? They don't actually know and make the figures up to suit their argument. Learn to think for yourself.

However, lets look at the figures overall. Roughly 600,000 people die in the UK every year. If 83,000 die from smoking, thats about 13% of the population. An epidemic blighting the nation obviously.

I'm fully aware of the health risks of active smoking thank you. I am indeed an addict and have no intention whatsoever of giving up.

You just keep believing everything the guvmint tells you, and keep on believing everything you read in the papers.

A few minor points; If everyone gave up smoking tomorrow, GB would be short of £16bn and you would have to pay it. Then all the ex smokers would live longer, clogging up the pension/benefits system.

Oh. One more point - you are going to die one day Mark. Non smokers die every day.

So, carry on with your non-smoking, non-passive smoking, 21 units of alcohol, low fat, 5 a day cholesterol free, high fibre lifestyle and spend the last 15 years of your life in an old folks home dribbling down your shirt & smelling of stale urine.

..Maxie's had nice good swear ..the sort of language we should not hear. ..a courteous man? Maxie ain't ..he causes old ladies to drop and faint

..walk around Watford if you dare ..you will hear expletives through the air ..as Maxie screams out loud ..the sort of language of which he's proud ..with effs and C's and B's and T's ..directing words at old ladies

..the Plod viewed Maxie so adverse ..as he shouted out a curse ..they took this foul mouthed fatty man ..and slapped him right inside the can

..through the keyhole Maxie directed ..foul mouthed words towards the detective

..wearing a poka dot frock he did shout ..you effing bastards let me out ..the Plod had enough of this fat slob ..and rammed his frock inside his gob

Maxie, Chavs, yes Chavs Maxie! They live in Essex. Are you a Chav Maxie?

It isn't!!! Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

I can't believe you could rant and nit-pick over the numbers

And then say this

I hope on your familys behalf that you live long enough not to regret that.

It sounds more like you being in denial over the consequences and causes of smoking related disease.

Whereas at present they linger on with lung cancer, cardiac disease, ciculatory disease and and whoel raft of other diseases costing the NHS far more than they pay in taxation. Every smoker expects sympathy when their addiction bites, personally I'd be in favour of the Chinese bullet in the back of the head as soon as they light up.

That is quite simply rubbish. The NHS spend on smoking related disease is a fraction of the duty paid on cigarettes. Smoking also shortens the life so old age costs are also reduced.

You and Drivel can fight it out to be leader of the lynch mob, a close call as you both seem amply qualified.

The depths of denial that one encounters from sokers is amusing.

Dribble does not publish his "opinion" in a peer-reviewed journal, and the paper referred to was published in a journal with a good reputation and has not been overthrown by subsequent research.

No - he just quotes stuff as you have.

Research has to be funded. And those who fund it have always an agenda. Tobacco companies are unlikely to bother wasting their money on counteracting such claims.

If you actually apply some logic to it you'd agree that you almost certainly personally know of many non smokers who have ended their days with a long term stay in some form of residential care. Now count up those you know who have needed long term residential care through the effects of smoking.