0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Hadrian on 07/05/2007 17:54:04Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm? In strictly financial terms, yes. The political interest might be otherwise.
Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm?
I heard that cigs contain trace, very trace, amounts of chemicals were present in the atom bomb.
Quote from: another_someone on 07/05/2007 19:38:20Quote from: Hadrian on 07/05/2007 17:54:04Then would you say the state has vested interest in keeping smokers smoking despite the harm? In strictly financial terms, yes. The political interest might be otherwise.i feed myself agreeing with George far too often these days [] , and this is no exception. For all the Government adverts and warnings, i doubt that they actually want all smokers to stop. i remember the other week buying two packs of ten, one carried the warning "smoking may affect your health" the other "smoking kills". tongue in cheek i asked the assistant to take away the one that said "smoking kills" and give me another pack of "may affect your health.i heard o the radio the other day that they may force the cigarette companies to stop selling packs of ten! This is so ludicrous, i now only buy packs of ten. this has helped me cut down my smoking, the reason for yesterdays relapse was because the shop only had packs of twenty left. now i knew that i should separate them and put ten away but the fact that i had twenty on me, well............i just had to smoke them.i know that sounds strange, and you may say i did not have to. but, my brain and all logic went out the window. i had twenty and by Christ i was going to smoke then, the temptation was just too much.i would say, stopping selling packs of twenty, or more was the better option.
If you are prepared to accept the government is happy to kill off a percentage of its citizens for money then why would you trust them on anything?
Quote from: Hadrian on 08/05/2007 19:02:23If you are prepared to accept the government is happy to kill off a percentage of its citizens for money then why would you trust them on anything? And who says we do trust them on anything?
I think "kill off a percentage of its citizens" is actually only one way of phrasing that, and possibly rather a naive one.I mean, I think it's arguable that allowing smokers to continue smoking at the expense of their health/longevity but at considerable gain to the tax payer is (depending how you look at it) in some was pretty closely analogous to not spending a huge percentage of the NHS budget on some hugely expensive wonder drug that will cure some nasty disease or other.Either way, the people involved are likely to die rather earlier but there will be a lot more money swishing around the health service to save the lives of other members of the public (say by paying for childhood vaccinations or similar).In some ways it's fairer to let the people who want to choose to exchange a short term buzz in whatever the weather throws at them for a (statistically) shortened life do so if it's going to line the public purse and they don't inflict the vile smell on the rest of us, than to refuse treatment of an expensively cureable disease on budgetary grounds.I offer no comment on the moral ins and outs of the above.
Quote from: Ben6789 on 08/05/2007 13:20:02I heard that cigs contain trace, very trace, amounts of chemicals were present in the atom bomb.So does sea water. Not sure what significance you place upon that?