b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9011011 (Thread)

# If a relative of mine dies in hospital and someone tries to stop me having a ciggie outside the hospital
it'll be bloody dangerous for their health.

(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:06, archived)
# This.
Find me some documentation on the health affects of smoking.

I think that statistically smoking over 20 a day reduces the life span by 2 years?

Compare this to car related issues - why do we allow ambulances to drive on hospital grounds? We should ban CDs TODAY - they are made with plastics.
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:10, archived)
# I'm currently watching my dad go through a rather awful bout of treatment for Hepatitis C
(he may have got this due to blood transfusions/shots in the Army, so another aside to this comment is to ask you if you've been tested for it).

He drank for years and years, which didn't help it, and really fucked things up for a long time. Cirrohsis, for one.

Are they going to demonise alcohol? Are they bollocks.
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:13, archived)
# Its alraedy started
but on a much smaller scale

I reckon we will see tv ads for alcohol banned in our lifetime
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:16, archived)
# I want to see ads for TVs banned in alcohol
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:20, archived)
# 20 minutes on the tube
is equivelent of smoking two fags in terms of the carconegins you inhale
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:14, archived)
# Probably more like 19 for me.
Why is it I'm always stood/sitting next to The Man With All The Aftershave In The World On?
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:15, archived)
# That's a specious comparison, and you know it.
But let's take it at face value. Maybe some lives would not be ended by ambulances if there were none. But a lot of people would be made worse off directly.

Now perform the same thought-experiment with cigarettes. Not quite the same result.

Look: of course there's a trade-off to be made. But noone'd deny that. And since smoking does nothing at all to promote health, and ambulances do quite a bit, it's clear which way the trade should go on that one.


The actual measure of the harm of smoking isn't all that important here, I don't think. It's just a matter of a body the function of which is to improve health deciding not to facilitate an activity that diminishes it. No biggie.
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:15, archived)
# smoking prevents alzheimers
i'd rather have lung cancer and know who the hell i am
than be eight years old again at the age of ninety
FACT
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:21, archived)
# nonsense
get Alzheimer's - then you can forget you've got lung cancer

/logic blog
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:22, archived)
# Hmmm...
That's a different question, though, innit?
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:23, archived)
# It is?
Or is it just a question which is hard for you to answer?

Ignore Ambulances - let's go with cars instead?
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:28, archived)
# No, really...
It's a different matter. I dig hard questions.

EDIT: OK, let's go with the car thing. I don't see your point.
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:37, archived)
# Cars are more dangerous than fags.
Why ban fags when you can ban cars?

Non essential journeys are just to make you happier - which is what fags are for . . .
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:55, archived)
# Ah, but you've shifted the debate...
... Noone proposed banning fags; that's not what the issue here was. Here, we were concerned with banning smoking in some places. Applying that principle to cars - that they should be banned in some places as well, seems straightforward...
(, Wed 10 Dec 2008, 12:58, archived)