Jump to content

50 years ago today the dangers of smoking & cancer were shown to the public


Recommended Posts

The point being made in the opening post is that the dangers of smoking have been well known now for 50 years. That would suggest that the vast majority of smokers in the UK took it up knowing the dangers that they were putting themselves in when they chose to spend a lot of money burning tobacco.

 

Similarly the dangers of passive smoking have been well know for 10 or 15 years now, so anyone taking up smoking in the last few years has also scant regard for the health of their friends, family or anyone else for that matter.

 

Foolish doesn't really come close to describing it.

Ah, so there was no point of discussion here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point being made in the opening post is that the dangers of smoking have been well known now for 50 years. That would suggest that the vast majority of smokers in the UK took it up knowing the dangers that they were putting themselves in when they chose to spend a lot of money burning tobacco.

 

Similarly the dangers of passive smoking have been well know for 10 or 15 years now, so anyone taking up smoking in the last few years has also scant regard for the health of their friends, family or anyone else for that matter.

 

Foolish doesn't really come close to describing it.

 

If that is the case than why did governments continue allowing tabacco sales?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similarly the dangers of passive smoking have been well know for 10 or 15 years now, so anyone taking up smoking in the last few years has also scant regard for the health of their friends, family or anyone else for that matter.

 

No, the dangers have been estimated using guesses as controlled experiments are not allowed on humans so no real data exists.

 

Have a read of this as its a good example of exactly that and how it gives a false idea based on no real evidence;

 

The headline: "Fewer premature babies born after smoking ban in Scotland."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17262897

 

It all sounds plausible until you get to this bit;

 

"The investigators believe both are linked to the smoking ban, even though these rates started to go down some months before the ban was introduced and smoking incidence started to creep up again shortly after the ban."

 

So, even though the data doesn't show any proof the investigators are still convinced its due to not smoking in public, and that's bad science and bad reporting at its best.

 

 

@ mayfya

 

The same reason its not completely banned now and that is because it is a good source of Government income from the heavy tax on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. 20 years ago today my father died with lung cancer, he'd smoked all his adult life and no-one could convince him that smoking would cause his death.

 

Sounds like my grandfather. Hopefully I shall live long enough to die the same death.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what about the costs on the NHS to the rest of the people who don't smoke, is that fair?

 

I'd like to see some costings.

 

If a man dies younger he foregoes many years of care.

 

Precisely why I don't invest in a pension. 72 for me to retire when I die at 66? Thy's jokin! The amount of tax paid on tobacco is enormous, the only costings I have seen done by the nhs themselves. 8Bn tax, 2Bn cost./year.

 

Smokers contribute massively to the state and society as a whole.

 

If everybody paid the tax smokers pay on tobacco the UK would have been in surplus for past 40 years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if in 50 years or so, we'll still see this debate and same posts every 50 days or so.

 

But what about the costs on the NHS to the rest of the people who don't smoke, is that fair?

 

I'd like to see some costings.

 

 

When I could be bothered to look at the info last time, and the time before etc, I think we found that the tax revenue from tobacco was more than 5 times what it costs the NHS per year to treat smoking related diseases. And if people live 5 years fewer, then you can add 5 years worth of pensions per person off the benefit bill too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person wants to smoke that is their choice,they know the risks..and they dont need people to tell them what they are doing wrong,life is full of bad things that can happen to you..You may get knocked down by a bus tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a person wants to smoke that is their choice

I am not a lover of the cigs to be honest and i can and have frowned on the partakers of this.Is there no difference to these than the full blown addicts of heroin and other such substances.My only crib is that the smoke smells vile and i could just throw up when i smell it.Is it anti social to smoke, i notice its anti social to smoke fags and can smell just as bad to none smokers.

 

I've borrowed this, and changed a few words. For entertainment purposes. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. 20 years ago today my father died with lung cancer, he'd smoked all his adult life and no-one could convince him that smoking would cause his death.

 

Sounds like my grandfather. Hopefully I shall live long enough to die the same death.

 

From what I read, Lung Cancer isn't really a pleasant way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.