it is a certainty that smokers will be paying for your recent bonus,because smokers are the ultimate tax vehicle

just as we never had the debate about carbon caused global warming, we have never had the debate of just what these 19,000 smoking related DISEASES ARE, that smokers get their full cost and burdon and guilt laid on us

this is despite smokers often getting refused treatment in hospitals

so my question is how many smoking related diseases are also drink related?

is it fair that we get all the blame and all the tax burden?

will smokers ever wake up and rebel?

will govt ever declare the real causes of death?

have you read the messages on smoking packages?
which is more objectionable?

will the smokers party hold the balance of power in the senet?
why this taboo on tobacco?
please explain

It won't just be tobacco taxes that go up. With this Government's wasteful attitude towards money many people will be paying a lot more tax for a long time. Maybe smokers live shorter lives than most so they need to pay a bit more to make up for the years they could be alive. Just a thought.

OK...1- I am a smoker
2- Yes, smoking does cause health problems for some smokers, perhaps even as much as 50%, perhaps.
3- Beyond that, virtually ALL the ills allotted to smoking are statistically based, and we ALL know what THAT means.
4- Non smokers don't like the smell, and there lies the reason all the rest has happened, they'll believe anything bad about it because it stinks, that's human nature for you.
5- I blame the tobacco companies, if they hadn't tried to pretend it was harmless, and gone to such insane and ultimately ridiculous lengths to deny it, it would never have got to the current state of affairs, they brought the wrath of the Moralists down on all our heads.
6- Governments are like seagulls, and are just as quick to spot an opportunity, whenever there's a pile of moving money, in go the snouts, if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor. Once it became so un-PC to smoke, they knew they could feed like there was no tomorrow, and are.

im reading from a packet of tobacco [the 'health' warning]
listing the causes of death
it reads smoking 19.019...alcohol..2,831..motervehicle 1731

BUT hang on a minute suicides are 3 times the rad deaths[are the 9000 suicides all smokers?]
isnt drinking and smoking interelated?

the warnings miss an important point[attributable]

see that if we attribute heart attacks as smoking RELATED, they all go into the figures as smoking..[attributable to smoking],

same with all the lung diseases..[asbestosis is a lung disease [all lung diseases at attributable to smoking..[all cancer is smoking related]

we saw a massove shift of the tax burden under mr howhard from tax cuts to the rich, to gst, ciogarete tax on smokers[but not wine drinkers..now rudd is more of the same [tax maybe on alcopops [yeah right]..but not on wine

tax on petrol..[but with the price falling we see a huge gap in the tax take..govt revenue is reduced by 200 bil...lol..[why..look at the reduced exise take on cheaper gas]so lets tax the smokers[no media will get behind the smokers cause

this fraud must eventually see a polical party defend the rights of smokers...but more likely will be some party stooge[front]to get preferances..[we are told we are being sold a poisen..[yet govt does nothing to make smoking safer]..a tax isnt going to cure an addiction

did anyone hear about the china [providence] where GOVT demanded they smoke MORE of the local product..[because its local TAXED smoke is unsmokable]..its so typical of the govt revenue raising system

to add to the injury we are vilified and decieved by the real facts[take that picture of gangreen toes ,or deformed teeth [are we really expected to believe smoking did those..[give the names of the people photographed[proove these photo's of cow arteries are really smokers]

i just spent over 300 buying my smokes today[the plan is to not spend a further penny,..i plan to overdose on em]..how many i need to smoke to od?

I am neither a smoker, or drinker, probably why I can live on the pension, but I do agree with you OUG.

It's worse than that. When we had a pack of hounds, baying in pursuit of bad doctors, killing their patients, the doctors got smart. They dragged the red herring of smoking related diseases across the trail, & off the hounds went, baying their heads off.

Then the pack picked up the control freaks, keen to stop anyone doing their own thing, & the bull sh1t mounted. It was only then the pollies stepped in, with their tax grab. Like the mongrels they are, they are always in the rear.

I am still no better off. I am into old sports cars. With their high compression engines they require real petrol, not the cr4p that comes out of our pumps today. With their greenie fawning policies, they have made this hard to get, & tax it as heavily as your tobaco. Whats more, I can't grow it in the back yard.

I guess if a tax rise on cigarettes is going to make 130,000 people give up then the rest better pay more to keep the money coming in.

Funny thing with alcohol. I mean you don't smoke a pack of 25 then go beat your wife and kids aye.

Oh and stopping smoking will stop 35,000 children taking up smoking (newspaper this morning)... probably another 35,000 will not get to a doctor or eat very well since mum and dad have to pay more for tobacco.

I smoke, I'm annoyed.

Just remember, nobody forces you to smoke. Like many things in life, they are your own personal choices.

As for smoking, I would like to see it banned in ALL PUBLIC PLACES. Why should I have to put up with someone elses smoke in my face.

If you wish to polute your own private air space, that's in your home, then go ahead, but please don't make the rest of us share your habits.

As for taxes, once again, it is your choice to smoke, just as it is your choice to buy an expensive car or buy take out and pay the tax.

Rehctub"As for taxes, once again, it is your choice to smoke, just as it is your choice to buy an expensive car or buy take out and pay the tax."

You are right, no steak this week, have to save my money for cigarettes.

What if "they" decided people were getting too unhealthy and started taxing meat heavily to discourage it and to stop the more sensitive members of society having to look at fat people as well as the lack of sleep over the poor animals and their suffering?

rehctub<<As for smoking,I would like to see it banned in ALL PUBLIC PLACES.>>well guess what..[check the law]..you allready got your wish...mate how thick are you wasting breath on a non/issue FOR YOU

i dont drive a car[presuming you do]..i hate your smoke from your car as you drive past my house..[or if your one of these stinky woman who reek of foul/perfumes[or a derolict who quote simply dont bathe[or a garlic eater,but you dont complain about them eh?

<<..put up with someone elses smoke in my face.>>you dont have to..[you dont mind laws telling anyone they cant do something..[but what about others telling you you cant?..[even if you never wanted to]..i dont like to see you holding hands with ya boyfriend,..but i dont bother making laws to prevent you..[dont issue punitive taxes[and sprout lies tying to get you to go out with girls not toyboys]

<<..don't make the rest of us share your habits.>>please explain just where i asked you to share anything..lol..mate buy your own'fags'..dont try to bludge mine

<<As for taxes..it is your choice..>>..people like you who dont care to pay tax..are quite conternt to have us pay..your tax..for you]..if your a tax-payer/pensioner/student..you just got a bonus..[WE ARE GOING TO PAY-OFF FOR YOU

<<..buy an expensive car or buy take-out and pay the tax.>>you miss presume..i dont drive cars..[nor buy takeout]..but yeah putting a tax on them sounds fine to me..[but not ever more tax on me]..

but..im not going to post any opinion on it..BECAUSE AS A NON car driver or a non junk food buyer..ITS NONE OF MY BUISNESS..[nor govts],..we get a tax..BUT NO REPRESENTATION by govt/or media nor say in govt/process

you didnt comment on drinking..[so]assume you are that drunk that urinates on my fence or spews his booze up on my footpath[or kicks the dog,and breaks bottles on my lawn]..but clearly you think they are just fine

its no mind to you..the tax is brought in BY LIES..[2/3rd of smokers never get sick]..only one quater of people are able to get cancer

I thought that would happen!!

I agree with reccers. And guess what? Post whatever rationale you like...

I will still hold the same opinion.

5- I blame the tobacco companies, if they hadn't tried to pretend it was harmless, and gone to such insane and ultimately ridiculous lengths to deny it, it would never have got to the current state of affairs, they brought the wrath of the Moralists down on all our heads.

You're kidding! That line is generations old and a well worn one at that. I really thought you could have posted a better argument than that one.

As for smoking in public places.

Sure, the law states that you can't smoke within 3 meters of an entrance to a building. Well, despite that fact that many smokers turn their noses up at the laws, it does not stop them from taking the last frantic drag, hurling their littering butt on the pavement, then exhailing as they enter the centre.

I recon an on the spot $1,000 fine for littering would be a good one. Lets let the perpitrators pay to clean up their mess. Why should we continue paying for this clean up from other tax payers dollars.

As for grog taxes, I don't have a problem with taxing grog however the 'alco pop tax' puzzles me as 'alco pops' is one way of the young ones measuring their consumption, but that's a whole new thread.

And finnally, there are some benefits to us non-smokers, as the more taxes you lot pay the less chance we have of being taxed for our meat and other stapple foods. Thanks guys, you're great!

p.s. OUG, save your gay lesso ramble for someone who gives a toss. I am as straight as they come and don't need the guidance of some mythical superiour being thank you.

Just keep puffing guys, it makes my lifestyle a little more affordable and LESS TAXED!

we all maKE STUPID ASSUMPTIONS[re the club]..i dont smoke filters, but have picked up thousands]..but as for your tax paying to clean them up your dreaming..[where they do get picked up no one is getting a single cent]

but you raise a good point[what say kids could get 5 cents per butt]in a week you couldnt find a butt anywhere..[well the gays could find butt anywhere,but we are talking here about cigarette butt's now[re the club]so lets focus on what is fair here

i note you offer no opinion on drunks and vandls[nor wife beaters nor child molesters[so must assume you condone that,you keep generalising about smokers[not one here has breathed THEIR smoke into YOUR face]

maybe you did that pre your holier than thou stance..[the worst are reformed smokers..[who being now'saved'build up their frail exteem[ego]by attacking their former mates

[reformed smokers are so biased one needs to wonder how those decieved into quitting ever had the strength to quit,..only by becoming evangelisers over their still smoking mates

i smoke knowing docters will have no sympathy on me when[if]..i ever get sick..[i pay my tax knowing that tax is going straight into the media pay racket..to call me and you idiots and sell us lies ever more proffitable lies about both smoking and global warming

just so govt can get ever bigger and demand ever more tax from its people to give ever more of it to their mates[i note you dont mind breathing in micro particulate from the diesal fumes[the 2 de highest cause of cancer[the first is wood smoke][but your free to be ignorant]and breath in the benzine[lead replacement, in your auto's fuel[the 3 rd biggest cause of cancer[and asbestosis[the 4th]

In rehctub we see the smug self-righteous moralists who have made life unpleasant for a lot of people, but just see what happens when they get their precious toes stood on, the howls can be heard to China, lol. Suddenly we're all expected to support THEIR freedoms, well Jacky, when a Gov' feels it can walk all over you, they DO, and the more they get away with it, the worse they become, it's in the nature of the beast.
Enjoy your freedom, it is dying fast.

I must admit I always thought it was strange that people were allowed to smoke in places like restaurants where other people were eating or even in hospitals at one point.

The rights of a smoker to smoke does not outweigh the rights of a non-smoker to be free of passive smoke.

There has to be a way that both can be accommodated without detriment to the health of others. Smoking is a personal choice.

I would rather taxes go up on tobacco than on food (GST) as this would have greater impact on those who can ill afford it. At least a tax on tobacco might encourage some people to quit but if not then I guess it is like anything else we have to budget to live within our means.

Maybe we should also tax junk food (McDonalds etal) as I am sure the cost to the health system is just as high with obesity.

Taxes are about choosing the least of the evils to tax and sometimes not even that. If you are going to factor in tax cuts (which may or may not happen) then they have to be paid for somewhere.

They need to raise government revenue, given the stimulus. What would have them raise taxes on? Baby food? Sin taxes are far more palatable.

Personally, I would prefer to see some of the exemptions on fortified wines lifted rather than taxing cigarettes harder. Put an end to 2 buck plonk. The evidence is good that would have a major impact on alcohol related problems, whereas raising cigarette taxes is unlike to do much beyond revenue raising.

In rehctub we see the smug self-righteous moralists who have made life unpleasant for a lot of people

Hey, I had nothing to do with the anti smoking laws, but think yourself lucky I didn't as you would have to put it out before you left the comfort of your own home.

As I say, keep puffing guys, every little drag helps make my wallet a bit heavier as the more taxes you pay the less I have to.

Just remember, life is all about 'personal choices'. If you don't like the taxes, THEN QUIT!

It's not 'rocket science'!

This animal welfare stuff is dead set like a turd that won't flush. Just keeps popping up everywhere you look.

Give it a rest.

In answer to your pointless question on taxing meat. All I can say is I would simply find something else to sell, but preferably something that doesn't need to be lit or that offends others.

I'm all for increases in taxes on tobacco. The government needs to get money from somewhere, especially if they are forking out huge stimulus packages. Here's why:

1) Tobacco smoke is unhealthy, even in the minutest portions. Meat, red wine, etc, are only unhealthy when consumed to excess. Burning timber may produce unhealthy smoke, but it also keeps people warm - a health benefit.

2) Tobacco smoke is unnecessary. Sadly, in order for our society to continue functioning, diesel and petrol are both necessary. I don't see hydrogen-powered trucks delivering pallets of cigarettes to Woolies anytime soon.

3) I see a lot more cigarette butts lying around than broken bottles or chunks of discarded steak. Perhaps a fine ($1,000 sounds nice) for every butt dropped, along with any other type of litter, would be good. Especially those people who smoke in cars and throw their still-lit cigarette ends out the window.

4) It's a reach, but I'd say that cigarette butts cause more deaths among sea creatures than meat patties and broken glass. Where I live, storm water eventually washes out into the Barrier Reef, where plenty of fish get to eat all sorts of junk that goes down drains.

5) Other social problems DO exist. But we can't tax the equipment used by child molesters because, sadly, they are given their equipment free of charge at birth. And wife beaters? What will we tax for them? Cricket bats? Why should those people who are using these for healthy purposes (like playing sport) pay extra because someone MIGHT use them for unhealthy purposes? Like I said - cigarettes have only one purpose, and that is unhealthy.

Finally, a note on the assertion that smoking is already banned in all public places. Can you point me in the direction of the relevant legislation? As far as I'm aware, you can still legally smoke in the middle of the street, in car parks, in public parks (as long as you aren't near a playground) and so on.

Otokonoko
At this stage one can't smoke within 3 mt of an entrance to a public building. This doesn't stop them from taking their last frantic drag, huling their buts or scrunching them into the pavement then exhailing as they enter the building.

Unfortunately I would have to say the majority of smokers I have seen have little or no regard for others and or public property while engaging in their unhealthy habbit.

The next level of bans is about to be rolled out and can't happen quick enough for me.

And by the way, guess who you have to complain to about illigal smoking. The police! Another waste of a valuable resourse.

So in essence they can tie up resourses like;
Ambos, Police, Medical assistance's, doctors, specialists, etc, etc, all the the expense of someone in need of 'non self inflickted' medical assistance.

So I guess at $14-$20 a pack now, their kids must be missing out big time. Poor buggers, they may not even get a feed if the taxes increase because most smokers won't give up, they will simply make someone else go without just so they can continus with their habbit.

we smokers KNOW we vare REVILED/hated despised..[even your blessed nurses and docters say they HATE us,going by the latest advert to bring in the new tax

but its fine YOU hating us
BUT
[WHEN YOUR DOCTER HATES YOU YOU DIE]
19,000 of us die each year...get it?

HOW MANY ARE MURDERED..[because of a few butts
because some retard blew smoke in their face

tax us all you like ...[BUT WE ARE THE ONES DYING]
oh its not called dying..[read the orbituaries,..
..its PASSED AWAY PEACEFULLY,..

ie .. drugged to their eyeballs..[MURDED]

we represent 5/6 ths of ALL THOSE
...''passed away''.. peacefully..

GET IT?

murder , drugs..[no autopsy],
passed away
peacefully

by docters and nurses passing us away

[;..like that docter that says he cant opperate]..
so pump the smokers full of drugs...[and pass them away

peacefully

how do they sleep[at night] as we get pawssed AWAY [peaceFULLY}

spend some of that tax take
on verifying these 19,000 deaths are legit
not some crazy docter getting revenge for a bit of smoke in his face[or standing on a cig butt and cutting his foot][or murdering the whole barrier reef,]...may you non smokers pass away peacefully...lol

you note the numbers arnt falling ..lol
when will YOUR NUMBER come up

when you too ...are pased waway peacefully...
[you too ..will become..[statisticlly at least] ...a smoker...lol

I'm not entirely sure where your last post was leading, OuG. Are you saying that doctors and nurses hate smokers and, consequently, deliberately kill them? That's a bit far-fetched, don't you think? Even to say that they neglect smokers is a bit of a push. Undoubtedly there are some doctors who do, but there are also doctors who neglect women, fat people, children, men, gay people . . . the list goes on.

My nanna died of lung cancer, and I'd hardly say her death was peaceful. She was in extreme pain (though she still had it in her to disconnect the oxygen long enough for the occasional cigarette) and I doubt there was much room for peace there. No doubt the doctors gave her plenty of drugs to ease the pain. Is this murder? No. You put them in a no-win situation: you would condemn them if they refused to treat smokers; you condemn them if they used drugs to ease the pain of an inoperable cancer patient.

But back to the issue of tax. Cancer patients are expensive to the health system (even if it is only the cost of the drugs that make them 'pass away peacefully'). Cigarette butts cost money to clean up (and yes, people are paid to clean streets). Careless smokers occasionally cause fires (costing us a fair bit in fire services). All of this in the pursuit of a completely unnecessary and unhealthy pastime. So why shouldn't the government raise taxes to pay for the costs of smoking and to discourage the habit?

Anyway, I'm over this toppic. It will always be 'us against them' and in any case, it remains a 'personal choice', so if you choose to smoke then you know the consequences don't you.

otoko my point was most of the 'dead' people are smokers...[going from the statistics]its well over half..[yet when you read the orbituaries 9 out of ten say died peacefully...lol..[ie thus they had been given drugs]maybe they died FROM the drugs..[no one is checking!

then i recall the latest advert about not smoking[..where the docter says i cant operate,..where healthy young acters are ACTING sick...[we all know the power of advertising..

[so think of the docters getting the subliminal message..they cant do nothing..[but drug em..[so thus use the drugs to'ease'..the suffering and empty a bed for the next non smoker they can serve

mate you seen the pictures they put on cigarette packets[a gangerenous foot from some mountain climber..[yellowed DEFORMED teeth[as if smoking deforms teeth]..some close up of a cold sore etc etc

[its all subliminal yet in ya face at the same time

read the CAUSE of death is not being recorded properly...[in usa EVERYday the equivent of 5 jumbo jets[fully loaded dies EACH DAY, from adverse reaction to perscribed drugs

[perscribed by a docter..[one in ten hospital deaths are adverse reaction]..YET THEY DONT REVEAL THEMSELVES in the causes of deaths

i can only presume that they become'smokers'[statisiclly]..to build up the stats..[dying peacefully is code for dying in hospital..[druged to the eyeballs]

THE LEAST WE SHOULD DO IS autopsy..[BEFORe claiming the statistics have any believability]

the adverts are a clear egzaduration..[why are the death statists deemed so trustworthy?...[its not a science opinion its a docters word[NO AUTOPSIES ARE CONDUCTED..[unless suspitious death is reported..

[but no one is suss]

HOW COME CANCER DEATHS HAVNT FALLEN..[in fact increased]..used to be EVERYONE smoked from ww1 to late nineties,..yet the cancer deaths still keep going up[something strange [dont you think?]

think..smoking CAUSES heart disease..[so ALL heeart attacks become smoker death's..[smoking causes pluricy/lung cancer so all lung DISEASES become smoking DEATHS

[if its been said to be caused by smoking..THEY ALL END UP IN THE SMOKING death statistics REGARDLESS of their real cause

First of all, G's & Grl's, we are all primed (white lines in the sky called chem-trails)
Than we take in fluoride and Chlorine in our water,than you meat-eaters get sodium NITRITE (which keeps the meat red.)
Shall I go on?
Yes.. the tobacco factories lace it with god knows what to keep you hooked.
Go for chop-chop when you can,I'd say! Or grow your own.
My father gave me changed (tobacco) genes and as a true bacteria with virus helpers/keepers/cleaners, I developed a resistance to tobacco caused illnesses and can live with less oxygen like we all have. Just look at the dropped total worldwide oxy figures over the past 100years. It's all in the immune system. If you are weak anything can get you!

Rechtub yklus: "Anyway, I'm over this topic. It will always be 'us against them' and in any case, it remains a 'personal choice', so if you choose to smoke then you know the consequences don't you."

How come everyone is so much nicer to drug addicts and alcoholics and wants to help them? But at least no one is alone in the "us" and "them" groups. But I do not flick my butts in public nor smoke around non-smokers. I don't drive and I recycle.

I do that earth hour thing too.. all lights out - I probably ruin it by letting the kids run around with torches for an hour. Oh and I refuse to use cloth nappies these days.

But back to smoking - Because there is no advertising I come across Dunhill Essence by accident. Skinny little smokes. Once you smoke them you just can't go back to the fat ones. My theory was that since they seem to have half the tobacco I'd somehow be better off.

When I die it better be because of something, and even better if it was because of something I enjoyed for a long long time.

Because smokers tend to die earlier than non-smokers so they are probably less of a drain on the public purse than those that left to slowly decay in nursing homes for years on end.

Maybe smokers should be subsidised rather than penalised for performing a valuable public service?

I'd be more impressed by the moralistic anti-smoking brigade if the approach they take on tobacco was repeated across the board, like for alcohol, it's responsible for far more problems than any other drug, yet no-one bans that, do they? There are many pass-times and habits that would be banned if treated the same as smoking, so take away the sanctimonious rationale and what are you left with? "It smells bad" is about all!
Bah Humbug!

Hey Max,

I think it’s time to get down off your soapbox man. I really don't think you would more impressed if the "brigade" (ie doctors) were calling for a ban on alcohol as well. There’s a ton of data out there that shows how bad smoking is for you and what risks are associated with it, just as there is with alcohol. The fact is that alcohol is a least as tightly regulated as smoking, if not more so. There are regulations for the sale and consumption of alcohol within licensed premises, and penalties for public consumption of alcohol in unlicensed areas, as well as laws relating to public intoxication and being under the influence and in charge of a vehicle. Advertising standards have changed quite a bit in regards to both products also. The fact that alcohol and nicotine are both legal, albeit tightly regulated deflates your argument somewhat. Prohibition was tried eighty years ago, to no avail for obvious reasons. Banning cannot work and taxation is about the only avenue available, although I must admit that overboard taxation will increase the value of the illegal tobacco trade.

I know why most of you choose not to listen. The fact is that all smokers are in various stages of addiction to nicotine. Addicts tend not to listen to what is happening to them, it’s uncomfortable. Nicotine is a powerful drug and neurotoxin that, like most neurotoxins, affects neurotransmitter receptors in the nervous system (esp. brain) and gives you a temporary sensation that is pleasurable. The addiction proper kicks in after a prolonged use, when the excitatory affect of nicotine changes the behaviour and number of these receptors in the brain to maintain normal function and so they give a sensation of displeasure until the drug is returned to the system. This happens with many addictive drugs, such as opiates (opiate receptors), only they tend to give more of a rush as the receptors that they affect have slightly different functions in the brain.

(cont'd)

Nicotine by itself depresses the immune system leaving you more vulnerable to infections (esp. respiratory), smoking damages the cilia in your lungs, whose normal function removes dust and fine particles from that lodge in your lungs from the air we breathe every day.

Passive smoking increases risks of heart disease
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/340/12/920

Here’s some more data on the risks asscociated with smoking from the UK:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/bmj;321/7257/323

The vast majority of lung cancers are able to be directly attributable to smoking. So are risk factors for SIDS and other diseases, such as stroke, heart disease etc.

I could produce tons of data and links (and end up looking like OUG), but since you have a computer all you really all you need to do is go to Google Scholar and type in “smoking risks” (or smoking lung cancer, heart disease etc) and see what you get.

And all you can say is that all you can say is that the only argument against it is "It smells bad".

No, it’s a serious public health issue and deserves to be treated as one.

Bugsy, you can do the same for Global Warming, & get just as much bull sh1t.

Hasbeen, medical science is not bull sh1t.

In fact, I suspect you will be relying on it before too long.

Bugsy, Statistics are NOT medical science, and can be and are tailored to prove whatever interest-groups want. The actual science of what tobacco does is real enough, but it only has a "possibility" of causing harm, except in the most mechanical of ways, such as smoke damage to the lungs and throat. I believe you'll find that the particulate pollution from diesel engines is far more prevalent and harmful, yet which is everyone crying about?

oh dear cant we just tell bugsy is a boozer..[maTE you into sport too?,..hows them drunk footballers cant remember raping a woman..eh?

thats what booze does mate[rots ya brain]..you may have read the reports about booze killing 3000 people..[but when you read the full numbers you rerad in the side notes the number has been modified[due to the benifit's on one drink[so the real number was factored down[read the 1999 drug deaths numbers,the final figure was factored down by over 1000]

but the key word in your rave is ATTRIBUTABLE...once we attribute any REAL cause of death to smoking it joins into the DEEMED deaths rate as a contibutary cause..[so many drunks may die of booze but because they suicided[or died in a road death they missed being attributed to the REAL CAUSE of their death]

we dont heaR OF BOOZERS BEING TOLD in govt adverts BY DOCTERS THEY CANT OPPERATE..[INSTEAD THEY JUST GET SOME SMOKERS LIVER]..a smoker[or worse a deemable[attributable smoker]..likely murded by their docter to get their liver or kidneys,for all we know[as previously revealed.. NO AUTOPSIES WERE CONDUCTED to get the numbers

[as long as the doc said..she/he died from smoking..thats the recorded cause of death]

how many you think died from the act of smoking..lol..[go to any hospital on any friday or saturday night arround midnight..[and get high on the fumes of the drunks in hospital for attacking each other]

drunken rapist footballers have their own tv time

have huge advertising budgets and a huge lobby..[and bloggers]
its time that boozers paid mate..[sure prohibition dont work[but the tax needs to be greatly increased on all booze,if only to compensate for the damage it does.

See how easy it is for you to rationalise the evidence away? It's just statistics.

"Statistics are NOT medical science", superficially this is a true statement, but a lot of medical science IS statistics. Statistical analyses are not just used to win an argument, in medical science they are used to find the truth of what is having an effect on our health and what is not. This is true from pharmacological double blind trials through to observational data on lifestyle choice. The idea that statistics can be "tailored" to prove whatever the "interest groups" want is nonsense. The interest groups in this case being almost the entire medical profession. You know, the guys that have been entrusted to improve everyones health? The effect of tobacco smoking on peoples health is a strong one, and the effects of smoke, carbon monoxide (irreversibly binds to haemoglobin btw, deoxygenating your blood) and a range of other constituents in cigarette smoke is well known.

The next time you feel the need to denigrate statistics as mere debating points, why don't you take a look at some real medical literature. Some of the peer reviewed stuff is very good. The Cochrane Collboration is a great source of meta-analyses and have saved more lives than you could possibly imagine.

Yes, many things in life are mere possibilities. You know, if you drive home from the pub blind drunk tonight there chances are that you won't crash, as there are far more drunk drivers than ones that actually crash. Yet it makes sense to make laws against it as it endangers public safety.

You may think that people get upset just because they think smoking is irritating (in the chemical sense, i.e. an irritant to the eyes and nose and throat), but you wouldn't go into a bar and deliberately open up a jar of formaldehyde and expect non-formadelhyde lovers to tolerate it.

You may think that restrictions on where you can smoke are a restriction on your freedom to enjoy your drug of choice. But we endeavour to restrict many activities that impact public health.

For gods sake Bugsy, give it up. You are letting facts get in the way of a good argument.

bugsy<<carbon monoxide..(irreversibly binds to haemoglobin]..>>as usual the bugsy delusion knows no bounds

quoted from wikipedia
<<Carboxy-haemoglobin can revert to haemoglobin,>>..HARDLY IRREVERSABLE...lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_poisoning

<<Carbon monoxide is produced normally in the body..establishing a low background carboxyhemoglobin saturation...

..Carbon monoxide also functions as a neurotransmitter..>>...MAYBE THATS WHY NON SMOKERS ARE A BIT SLOW...lol..[their co2 is less than 5 percent..[whereas smokers are at 9 percent]

<<Normal carboxyhemoglobin levels in an average person are typically less than 5%..cigarette smokers(two packs/day) may have levels up to 9%.[40]

Serious toxicity is often associated with carboxyhemoglobin levels above 25%,and the risk of fatality is high with levels over 70%....Still,no consistent dose response relationship has been found between carboxyhemoglobin levels and clinical effects.>>...

also WERE IT REALLY irriversably ..lol..BOUND,..the irreversabilty means WE ALL,..smokers..[9%, and non-smokers..5%]..ALL..WOULD SOON SUCCUMB to co2 poisening...lol..[..and for some reason we keep on breathing...lol]

<<carboxyhemoglobin levels are more guides to exposure levels than effects as they do not reliably predict clinical course or short- or long-term outcome>>...despite the spin non-smokers may seek to convince the gullable it aint so...lol

and i found plenty of ignorance on the search

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=carbon+monoxide+irreversibly+binds+to+haemoglobin&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

SO ITS NOT ALONE YOU..THAT ARE DECIEVED..thus become a deluded deciever

"For gods sake Bugsy, give it up. You are letting facts get in the way of a good argument.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 12 May 2009 7:30:25 PM"

Spot on!...and seconded!

nicoten gum-ADVERTS..ARNT WORKING

seems they..need to highlight the antisocial..[loner]..aspect of smokers into their adds to make em..work..[its not bad enough my tax is paying from them to travel arround and meet/sceme with each other..[and being called an idiot by them[..and lied to..[now they going to use phyc/WARFARE teqniques on us]

they are claiming to reduce the cravings..lol..[i need to light up every time i see one..[same as when i see a drinker/drinking..on a sit-com..makes drunks reach for their booze]..

these people who hate me..are living off my tax..[and now turn-bull into votes..wants me to support the health/costs of the rich..[who get to use the same docter..that will only say..;..i cant help you..]under their subsidised by us..elite 1 st class health/plan

New genetic research from the U.K.'s Medical Research/Council suggests that nicotine-replacement drugs like nicotine gum and lozenges could raise the risk of mouth-cancer.. Medical News Today reported..April 26.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147534.php

Researcher Muy-Teck Teh of the Institute of Dentistry,Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry at Queen Mary University London said..that nicotine appears to increase expression of the gene FOXM1 in the mouth;..increased levels of the gene is known to be associated with..some forms of cancer.

"Our study found that FOXM1 was enhanced...during the early progressive stages of mouth cancer...This mean..if..someone has increased levels of FOXM1 in their mouth,..it..could..indicate the early stages of mouth cancer,"said Teh..."We were surprised...lol..to find that nicotine increased the levels of FOXM1 in the cells...

We used the same amount of nicotine found in tobacco-replacement therapies such as chewing-gums..and the amount was enough to activate the gene."

Mouth cancer affects nearly 5,000 people in the UK each year and there has been a 17 per cent increase in cases during the last four years....[BET THEY ARE YET BLAMED ON SMOKING>>>LOL

ok how may deaths..[from non-smoking]..yet from nicoteen?]

this site contains a breakdown of the..ATTRIBUTABLE..CAUSES of death[includes 40,000 ATTRIBUTABLE to passive smoking]..attributaed are 440,000,..but the graph gives a clue of the other ATTRIBUTABLE causes creating our 19,000 death numbers http://www.nida.nih.gov/ResearchReports/Nicotine/nicotine3.html

WELL ,well poor kevin's god like numbers have fallen 5 percent...lol
just raising the issue of smokers taxes is worth 5 percent kevin
you idiot

the dumbed down voters now subconciously link you to smoking tax
the 5 percent fall is one nail..[and now that fool turnbull into votes has picked up the issue..[noting his numbers didnt go up]

go ahead and bring in the dammed tax you idiots [5 percent means 3 senet seat's for the dummy pro smoking party one of the two parties will create..[like family first was howhards brain child]

voters are stupid...[but read the numbers]

some of em know they are being screwed...yes we smokers are dumber,..but not as dumb as those who think tax..[hidden compulsory stealth taxes ,..will just be accepted endlessly to bail out these big buisness 2 party elites
\
how much more an anti carbon tax party?
after you bring in the new banker tax..lol

worse thing is the greens are a sell out as well[run by the public servants just like the other parties..[its time for the anti party party,letting people vote according to concious,but its not only the sheeple who sleep

just thought i would note the 5 percentage points mate
thats straight out..from smokers mate
and no media is going to just come out and say it

[just so both you idiots realise it]