Today I'm happy about......

[Gary the Enfield]

He beat a girl with tremendous legs ....

He beat a girl, with his legs ?? B'stard.


Well done Kinty, full of admiration.

Mummy .... photo of those legs please. .... I KNOW you took some.

Sadly I didn't.

I was too occupied, as the standard of Kint's groupies was exceptional... he brought a colleague - a hot American girl who had done a year at Cambridge, and the one person I know who lives nearby is a burlesque dancer.

When's Mr Kint next gig?

[mrkint]

He beat a girl with tremendous legs ....

He beat a girl, with his legs ?? B'stard.


Well done Kinty, full of admiration.

Mummy .... photo of those legs please. .... I KNOW you took some.

Sadly I didn't.

I was too occupied, as the standard of Kint's groupies was exceptional... he brought a colleague - a hot American girl who had done a year at Cambridge, and the one person I know who lives nearby is a burlesque dancer.

Aye. cracking talent on display. The comics weren't bad, either.

[TANGODANCER]

Well done buddy. Takes some guts and glad it came off well.

[Bijou Bob]

Well done Kinty, a new career beckons??

[mrkint]

not quite. Just for a laugh. well that's point, innit.

I'm now playing in Balham on Wednesday at the 3 monkeys if anyone fancies it. Free entry, all good etc. Presence of Burlesque dancer not yet confirmed.

[Gary the Enfield]

not quite. Just for a laugh. well that's point, innit.

I'm now playing in Balham on Wednesday at the 3 monkeys if anyone fancies it. Free entry, all good etc. Presence of Burlesque dancer not yet confirmed.

I shall await developments........

Actually I know I can't. Balham's too far for this North London suburbanite on a school night, even for a flash of your lady friend's well toned thigh.

[TANGODANCER]

I guess I should be well happy because today is six weeks without a cigarette. Still get a few cravings despite the electronic cig, but I haven't given in or flicked a lighter in that time..

Wow, well done TD. What made you quit? You've been one of the staunchest champions of smoking since I've been on this site.

Okay, this is a bit long:

I'll always be a champion of folks rights to smoke if they want to GTE. They should have equal rights and somewhere to go to do it. They're not social lepers because they like to smoke. Have it as you will, but the rules are made by non-smokers in positions of power excercising their will over others. Nothing will convince me otherwise. I've been a life-time smoker so I'm not doing a "road to Damascus" thing and becoming hypocritical. Decision to quit was mine to make and that's how it should be, albeit a somewhat forced one. If you want to smoke, smoke. If you don't, dont. Let's just not have one side playing bully boys with the other. That said, the real fly in the ointment is money, as ever.

Not to start a big debate, but since you asked, in my case, finance was one big reason for quitting. We both smoked and eventually it priced us out of the game. Working folk have few real pleasures that don't affect their jobs and the government are total con merchants with the whole smoking thing. They know people will carry on smoking so they hammer the health card whilst keeping on raising the cost of tobacco because it's a giant source of tax revenue. Win-win. They already smacked the pub trade for six and if total no-smoking ever does come in, the tobacco industry and all those involved in it will be out of work. Quite how the government are going to explain the loss of jobs and tax revenue for that is yet a mystery. With the amount of shxt we're in economically right now, I can't see it ever happening. It's a total cash-cow.

It's been known for years that tobacco was the government's second biggest source of revenue after income tax. The amount they cream off it is disgusting and the whole thing a giant scam. Just for interest sake, two of us have stopped smoking at a cost of £30 per week outlay from our house. That's on rolling tobacco as packet cigarettes are well beyond the budget and have been for years. Times 52 weeks that's £1560 per year we won't be spending on tobacco. Imagine all the smokers in the country stopping and the loss figures on tobacco would be quite staggering. It will be claimed, no doubt, that the NHS will save a fortune on lung-cancer treatment. Really, I mean really? We'll ignore the liver and kidney damage from alcohol usage and all the drug related treatments, shall we, and pretend there are no illnesses that aren't smoking related?

ps: Right now my own figures aren't totally correct because we buy electronic cig fluid. Not sure how long that will last, but the government will get their money back from us on ever-increasing costs of electricity and food bills anyway.

Well, you asked.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Top ranting Sir Now move yourself along to the angry thread

[TANGODANCER]

Top ranting Sir Now move yourself along to the angry thread

But, but...I'm happy...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I wonder what % of all the cigarettes smoked in the UK actually have UK duty paid on them.

Anyway, that's by the by - I watched 2 grandparents die horribly of lung cancer and I will be pleased when anybody makes the decision that the habit is too expensive to bother with.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Well done, kinty! I don't fully understand the judging system as regards purity. However, the important thing was that you stood up and did it - not that you won.

[BWFC_Insane]

For years and years and years non-smokers were forced to suffer through smoke filled pubs, restaurants, cafes, offices etc etc. I don't think it's anything like "bully boy" tactics to suggest that perhaps smokers should be able to smoke in places where it won't pollute everyone elses lungs at the same time. I mean is that not entirely reasonable?

As for taxation, tobacco is taxed highly because the health costs of it (financial and otherwise) are absolutely massive. Sure other things are harmful, but smoking is a contributor directly and indirectly to a vast array of diseases both directly and indirectly. Unlike alcohol where there is a relatively low number of the population who will drink themselves to long term harm as a direct result, there was a much larger proportion of the population prepared to smoke themselves into a hospital bed. Sure there are all the indirect results of alcohol, but responsibly consumed it can even have health benefits.

The same cannot be said for smoking.

Which is why it is taxed so highly.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

For years and years and years non-smokers were forced to suffer through smoke filled pubs, restaurants, cafes, offices etc etc. I don't think it's anything like "bully boy" tactics to suggest that perhaps smokers should be able to smoke in places where it won't pollute everyone elses lungs at the same time. I mean is that not entirely reasonable?

As for taxation, tobacco is taxed highly because the health costs of it (financial and otherwise) are absolutely massive. Sure other things are harmful, but smoking is a contributor directly and indirectly to a vast array of diseases both directly and indirectly. Unlike alcohol where there is a relatively low number of the population who will drink themselves to long term harm as a direct result, there was a much larger proportion of the population prepared to smoke themselves into a hospital bed. Sure there are all the indirect results of alcohol, but responsibly consumed it can even have health benefits.

The same cannot be said for smoking.

Which is why it is taxed so highly.

Incorrect.

[Montreal Wanderer]

For years and years and years non-smokers were forced to suffer through smoke filled pubs, restaurants, cafes, offices etc etc. I don't think it's anything like "bully boy" tactics to suggest that perhaps smokers should be able to smoke in places where it won't pollute everyone elses lungs at the same time. I mean is that not entirely reasonable?

As for taxation, tobacco is taxed highly because the health costs of it (financial and otherwise) are absolutely massive. Sure other things are harmful, but smoking is a contributor directly and indirectly to a vast array of diseases both directly and indirectly. Unlike alcohol where there is a relatively low number of the population who will drink themselves to long term harm as a direct result, there was a much larger proportion of the population prepared to smoke themselves into a hospital bed. Sure there are all the indirect results of alcohol, but responsibly consumed it can even have health benefits.

The same cannot be said for smoking.

Which is why it is taxed so highly.

Incorrect.

Brilliant rebuttal. Succinct.

[Prufrock]

Aye, there's one condition it think that smoking helps with. Can't remember what, and I don't have it, but still. I don't know any smoker who doesn't accept the idea that non-smokers shouldn't have to be around smoke, but that isn't the same as deliberately discouraging people, which has been the aim of successive governments. I don't think it's the govt's job. Ensure people are aware of the risks? Sure. Try to provide a duty system that means smokers pay for the extra burden they are likely to put on the NHS (99% of all lung cancer cases are snoking related, acc Ben Goldacre)? Sure, and I think the same about alcohol. After that, it's up to people to choose.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

For years and years and years non-smokers were forced to suffer through smoke filled pubs, restaurants, cafes, offices etc etc. I don't think it's anything like "bully boy" tactics to suggest that perhaps smokers should be able to smoke in places where it won't pollute everyone elses lungs at the same time. I mean is that not entirely reasonable?

As for taxation, tobacco is taxed highly because the health costs of it (financial and otherwise) are absolutely massive. Sure other things are harmful, but smoking is a contributor directly and indirectly to a vast array of diseases both directly and indirectly. Unlike alcohol where there is a relatively low number of the population who will drink themselves to long term harm as a direct result, there was a much larger proportion of the population prepared to smoke themselves into a hospital bed. Sure there are all the indirect results of alcohol, but responsibly consumed it can even have health benefits.

The same cannot be said for smoking.

Which is why it is taxed so highly.

Incorrect.

Brilliant rebuttal. Succinct.

I hope that the Insane one will have a wee think about it. The social cost of alcohol is huge and affects the full spectrum of ages. Doesn't hit the headlines in the same way as cancer, but the cost is just as high if not higher than smoking. Difference being, if they tried to ban drinking from bars and restaurants there would be a riot. Rightly so.

[Montreal Wanderer]

For years and years and years non-smokers were forced to suffer through smoke filled pubs, restaurants, cafes, offices etc etc. I don't think it's anything like "bully boy" tactics to suggest that perhaps smokers should be able to smoke in places where it won't pollute everyone elses lungs at the same time. I mean is that not entirely reasonable?

As for taxation, tobacco is taxed highly because the health costs of it (financial and otherwise) are absolutely massive. Sure other things are harmful, but smoking is a contributor directly and indirectly to a vast array of diseases both directly and indirectly. Unlike alcohol where there is a relatively low number of the population who will drink themselves to long term harm as a direct result, there was a much larger proportion of the population prepared to smoke themselves into a hospital bed. Sure there are all the indirect results of alcohol, but responsibly consumed it can even have health benefits.

The same cannot be said for smoking.

Which is why it is taxed so highly.

Incorrect.

Brilliant rebuttal. Succinct.

I hope that the Insane one will have a wee think about it. The social cost of alcohol is huge and affects the full spectrum of ages. Doesn't hit the headlines in the same way as cancer, but the cost is just as high if not higher than smoking. Difference being, if they tried to ban drinking from bars and restaurants there would be a riot. Rightly so.

Fair enough but not succinct!

[Lord Kangana]

I fail to see any redeeming feature for smoking though. I'm pretty certain the scientific community would broadly agree with this. Alcohol, when approached correctly, can be beneficial. Lets be careful not to confuse the two.

[thebish]

As for taxation, tobacco is taxed highly because the health costs of it (financial and otherwise) are absolutely massive. Sure other things are harmful, but smoking is a contributor directly and indirectly to a vast array of diseases both directly and indirectly. Unlike alcohol...

hmmm... I may be wrong - but that sounds like a total bag of tit...

here's some statistics on the health and social costs in the UK of alcohol...

NHS - crime - working days....

Alcohol abuse costs Britain at least £20 billion a year, according to a Government report out today.

The study found that 17 million working days are lost to hangovers and drink-related illness each year - costing employers £6.4 billion.

One in 26 "bed days" in the NHS is taken up by alcohol-related illness, it added, with an annual cost to the taxpayer of £1.7 billion. The cost of clearing up alcohol-related crime is a further £7.3 billion a year.

Drink leads to a further £6 billion in "social costs", the study added. Authors of the long-awaited report - which will form the basis of ministerial attempts to tackle drink-related problems - believe even these figures to be conservative.

The report said there are 1.2 million incidents of alcohol-related violence a year. Four out of 10 visits to hospital casualty wards are drink-related, rising to seven out of 10 at weekends between midnight and 5am.

Between 800,000 and 1.3 million school children are affected by parents with drink problems, it added.


just so that we know what figures you are using for smoking - could you post your equivalent stats?

these stats were published today - 13th July 2103 by the government

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Aye, there's one condition it think that smoking helps with. Can't remember what, and I don't have it, but still. I don't know any smoker who doesn't accept the idea that non-smokers shouldn't have to be around smoke, but that isn't the same as deliberately discouraging people, which has been the aim of successive governments. I don't think it's the govt's job. Ensure people are aware of the risks? Sure. Try to provide a duty system that means smokers pay for the extra burden they are likely to put on the NHS (99% of all lung cancer cases are snoking related, acc Ben Goldacre)? Sure, and I think the same about alcohol. After that, it's up to people to choose.

Do you feel the same way about, say, car seatbelts?