TopBanana

Just came back from watching a film with my son.

The viewing audience were subjected to two nannying adverts - one about drink driving and one about talking on a mobile whilst driving. It's horrible stuff.

brihoppy

to all the so called 'advocates' out there, an objective viewpoint is one thing but are you seriously suggesting that there is no difference between treating someone with a smoking related disease or even a condition caused by excessive alcohol/eating and treating someone for a sports injury or a condition that manifests itself in old age as a result of being fit, healthy and active...?



reference the whole smoking debate, id be happy to see it banned in public completely, and in what i would consider to be a perfect world, be as unacceptable as touching underage kittens...

Lee247

At the end of the day, smoking, drinking, drugs etc, all down to personal choice.
Most people pay into the NHS by NO choice. Off your wages.
People should be treated and not taxed no matter what the ailment or the cause. To tax people who may enjoy something that may make them ill eventually, is an absolute disgrace. Hopefully, people will develop a backbone soon, and say, Pi$$ Off

I'd love to see them try to get a tenner out of me for a sly smoke, if I wanted one. Duck, ar$e, watertight springs to mind

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I don't recall a point in time where I mentioned anything about sports or old age as such. I merely pointed out that many illnesses can be 'self inflicted' if you look into the possible causes. It comes down to where the line is drawn. How can you say they should be refused treatment when somone else may have 'brought something on themselves', just becasue you don't agree with smoking. Plus the main point was it would have to be proven that a certain illness was without doubt caused due to smoking.

I could be sitting here thinking those, for example, who partake in extreme sports shouldn't get 'free' treatment because they don't have to do it, but I wouldn't do that, purely because everybody has a right to make certain choices in what they do. They pay for a medical service and are entitled to any treatment they require,( as do smokers and many other examples too vast to mention). This too, could be costly life saving surgery.

As for banning smoking altogether, go for it, support that, then when all the revenue made from smokers is lost as they've all chucked the habit, don't come back crying when your tax bill goes up. That amount of money lost would have to come from somewhere, and it would be made back somewhere else effecting everybody.

brihoppy

sorry if you thought i was having a pop at you, i wasnt, i was just using your post to illustrate my point...

im not saying smokers and drinkers should necessarily be refused treatment, but when this debate comes up and people use this argument it always reminds me of when people compare speeders to rapists simply because they break the law...!

as for making up for the lost taxes, youve got me there, i dont know what id do, but i believe well see an end to smoking in its current form within a couple of generations (hopefully)...

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

I didn't take offence, just felt it was worth putting my side across.

I know there are sometimes occassions when people use unreasonable comparisons in an attempt to make a point. I hope you didn't feel I was doing so, but in terms of healthcare, it presents us with a grey area as so many illnesses or injuries could be construed as self inflicted so it would be unfair to target one group over another just because it is felt one choice which could lead to illness is 'worse' than another.

I thought I might stump you on the tax part.

Seriously though, if the government really wanted to stop smoking, why just bring in a ban in public, why not just make it illegal? Money has been lost in revenue already by those who have kicked the habit, which leads me to believe this is where this ridiculous suggestion of a licence comes from. Yet another way of making money, possibly making back some of what was lost through those who have quit.

Why does it always seem when the government supposedly doesn't want us to do something, they hit us in the pockets? Maybe because they don't really want us to stop, but they try to make us think that's the case while rubbing their hands watching the money come in.

Leslie

Well said Lesley

Les