Smoking area...
Marnok.com
Is that wise?
LionBar
> ...right next to the food storage (fridge)?
>
> Is that wise?
>
>
>
You are concerned the food is going to die of lung cancer?
Lord Turkey Cough
"Marnok.com" <wizar...@pottermarnok.com> wrote in message
news:u7Wdna9xN9aG2sLb...@giganews.com...
> ...right next to the food storage (fridge)?
>
> Is that wise?
Yea, it you have a had a fag and you fancy a bite to eat it
is right next to you. Sunds like a sound idea. (no pun intended)
>
>
Vic =^,,^=
>
> Is that wise?
>
Yet another way to create tension and possible rows perhaps?
Vic
Bryan
>
> Is that wise?
>
the clock on your pc is telling the wrong time...
Marnok.com
"Bryan" <bhenders...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WdI7i.2268$gH6....@newsfe18.ams...
strange
...testing...
Andy
"Vic =^,,^=" <nos...@goaway.com> wrote in message
news:5c8vtcF...@mid.individual.net...
yep, being a non-smoker myself I used to always hate going into restaurants
and cafe's and finding out they had the smokers area next to all the lovely
fresh food! - and the non smoking area was miles away from the food - who
thought that up. Thankfully here in Ireland it has been banned totally for
some time now. - Your turn next UK :-)
Andy
"LionBar" <s...@gmail.no.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20c957c0a...@nntp.dsl.pipex.com...
the toxins in the smoke travel into the food and the non-smoker eats the
food and ingests the toxins and dies of lung cancer due to somebody else's
dirty fecking habit and un-consideration for others! :-)
Vic =^,,^=
"Andy" <an...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:f3nkba$io2$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> "Vic =^,,^=" <nos...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> news:5c8vtcF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Marnok.com" <wizar...@pottermarnok.com> wrote in message
>> news:u7Wdna9xN9aG2sLb...@giganews.com...
>>> ...right next to the food storage (fridge)?
>>>
>>> Is that wise?
>>>
>>
>> Yet another way to create tension and possible rows perhaps?
>>
>
> restaurants and cafe's and finding out they had the smokers area next to
> all the lovely fresh food! - and the non smoking area was miles away from
> the food - who thought that up. Thankfully here in Ireland it has been
> banned totally for some time now. - Your turn next UK :-)
>
>
Andy
One of the best things ever implemented the smoking ban. Even smokers here
in Ireland are saying that it was the right decision. Everyone adheres to it
and go outside whatever the weather and don't moan, they have to be
commended about that. - Some pubs and that sales dropped for a while when it
was first introduced (as people said it would) but then after a while it
picked back up and got level again or business even got better. So don't
worry you UK lot at first it may be a bit of a change to get used to but
believe me once its been in place for a while you will all look back and say
what a good Idea it was in the end.
Andy.
LionBar
Do the toxins travel by bus or by plane?
Andy
oh yeah, plane deffo....
Colin
> So don't worry you UK lot at first it may be a bit of a change to get used
> to but believe me once its been in place for a while you will all look
> back and say what a good Idea it was in the end.
Why do you keep referring to the UK? Public places in Scotland and Wales
have been smoke free for some time, it's only Englandshire that still allows
it.
Bryan
that's your birthday? mine is the very next day..
it is great having the smoking ban we got it last year up here and going to
the pub is so much better now! :-)
Andy
"Colin" <nob...@nowhere.non> wrote in message
news:f3nnkc$25s9$1...@energise.enta.net...
sorry I get me UK mixed up with me England / Scotland / Wales :-(
never was good at geography!
Andy.
W. Wots
As a smoker I have to say that, at this moment in time, my biggest wish is
that every smoker in the country manages to quit the habit just so that we,
the ex-smokers, can sit back smiling as we count how much we've saved by
quitting whilst all the non-smoking smug bastards count how much it has cost
them in extra income tax.
flopsy
They started it in my work place yesterday. Gawd, when I'm back on
Monday, I'll have bloody 12 hours to go without. Not even allowed to
smoke in the car park!! :'(
--
Flopsy O-\O
Vroom Vroom
Julian
"W. Wots" <Wots...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:kpK7i.96453$Ch.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Yes, it's about time those sad fuckers paid for their own
hip replacements and colostomy bags.
Just watch them whinge like stuck pigs when they're charged
£100 to park their wheelchairs in a hospital carpark.
Bryan
"W. Wots" <Wots...@anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:kpK7i.96453$Ch.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
no, no keep puffing away please.. :-) just not indoors..
Fallen
We'll soon make it back as you all stop wasting our tax keeping you
morons alive. Sooner they ban smokers from getting any kind of NHS help
for a smoking related illness the better. If you wanna commit slow
suicide don't cop out at the end and come crying to mummy for help.
Fallen.
Beck
> restaurants and cafe's and finding out they had the smokers area next to
> all the lovely fresh food! - and the non smoking area was miles away from
> the food - who thought that up. Thankfully here in Ireland it has been
> banned totally for some time now. - Your turn next UK :-)
Actually I am a smoker and I welcome the ban. I don't want my stinky,
cancer inducing smoke to affect others, so the more places I cannot smoke
the better.
The only place that does piss me off is at airports. Already have to be
there 3 hours before a flight, to not be able to smoke for that time plus
another 4 on a flight, I might aswell fuckng give up totally. lol
Marnok.com
"Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
news:465feba3$0$84105$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
Give up flying, you big-footed carbon fiend!
Ŧ๏หყ
> W. Wots wrote:
> >"Bryan" <bhendersonNOS...@freenet.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:ZmJ7i.3$PQ...@newsfe11.ams...
>
> >>"Vic =^,,^=" <nos...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> >>news:5c931pF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>>news:f3nkba$io2$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> >>>>"Vic =^,,^=" <nos...@goaway.com> wrote in message
> >>>>news:5c8vtcF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>>>>news:u7Wdna9xN9aG2sLb...@giganews.com...
>
> >>>>>>...right next to the food storage (fridge)?
>
> >>>>>>Is that wise?
>
> >>>>>Yet another way to create tension and possible rows perhaps?
>
> >>>>yep, being a non-smoker myself I used to always hate going into
> >>>>restaurants and cafe's and finding out they had the smokers area next to
> >>>>all the lovely fresh food! - and the non smoking area was miles away
> >>>>from the food - who thought that up. Thankfully here in Ireland it has
> >>>>been banned totally for some time now. - Your turn next UK :-)
>
> >>>On the day of my birthday! Best pressie ever :-D
>
> >>that's your birthday? mine is the very next day..
>
> >>it is great having the smoking ban we got it last year up here and going
> >>to the pub is so much better now! :-)
>
> >As a smoker I have to say that, at this moment in time, my biggest wish is
> >that every smoker in the country manages to quit the habit just so that we,
> >the ex-smokers, can sit back smiling as we count how much we've saved by
> >quitting whilst all the non-smoking smug bastards count how much it has cost
> >them in extra income tax.
>
> We'll soon make it back as you all stop wasting our tax keeping you
> morons alive. Sooner they ban smokers from getting any kind of NHS help
> for a smoking related illness the better. If you wanna commit slow
> suicide don't cop out at the end and come crying to mummy for help.
>
> Fallen.
More than 90% of cancer patients are non-smokers. A 20 a day smoker
contributes approx £1400 a year in *extra* tax.
In a nutshell, you're talking out your arse.
flopsy
My Hubby and I both smoke and we're close to divorce courts when we
travel to America!
flopsy
Yeah, they should keep our tax and give us our own hospital from the
proceeds......It'd be like BUPA. lol
Andy
"Beck" <beck@none> wrote in message
news:465feba3$0$84105$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
yeah, give up...
Andy
<Flopsy>; "o)" <vac...@vacant.co.uk> wrote :
>
> Yeah, they should keep our tax and give us our own hospital from the
> proceeds......It'd be like BUPA. lol
>
> --
> Flopsy O-\O
> Vroom Vroom
>
>
excellent logical Idea - a hospital service paid from tax paid by smokers.
Smokers and ex-smokers to go to their own designated hospital to treat them
and non-smokers to go to the normal hospitals. I like it.
Andy.
Andy
<Flopsy>; "o)" <vac...@vacant.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mn.099e7d76c...@vacant.co.uk...
That's tough I suppose especially not being allowed to smoke outside in the
car park, that's harsh for smokers. - One thing that I have always wished
owners of restaurants and cafe's or anywhere where food is prepared I have
always wished that the employees they take on were non-smokers because if
you go to eat somewhere and get served by someone who has just come in from
outside where they have been smoking they reek of fags when they serve you
still, so you have the nice aromatics of the food in a restaurant but then
you can smell the fags off the waitress as well. Not nice for non-smoking
diners at all!
Andy.
Ŧ๏หყ
As I smoke like a trooper standing in a chimney, I'd be in line for a
private room with a particularly dirty personal nurse.
Andy
"T???" <anthony...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1180703455.6...@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
yeah, a really faggy nurse! :-) and nicotine air conditioning!
Andy.
Fallen
Did you think that putting together 2 unrelated sentences somehow
counted as an argument?
>More than 90% of cancer patients are non-smokers.
>
You know why you get to say the sentence? Because cancer 'patients'
include massive amounts of people with skin cancers the size of a
pinhead. 'Thirty' percent of cancer 'deaths' are smoking related. It
doesn't cost much to cut off a bit of skin, it costs a fair bit more to
keep some fuckwit alive for years because they couldn't wrap their head
around the fact that inhaling tar somehow damaged their lungs.
>A 20 a day smokercontributes approx £1400 a year in *extra* tax.
>
>
Ahh, yet another person who read an article once and couldn't be arsed
to read any others.
Smokers cost the NHS £2 billion a year. That's just cold hard cash. That
doesn't include the waiting spaces taken up by fuckwits like you who are
killing themselves when they could go to people who didn't decide
sucking down poison for a laugh made them look cool.
Smoking is most common in the elderly and the poor and those two
particular groups of people are funded by the state. When you get your
money from the state then give it back to buy cigarettes it doesn't
count as 'extra' money for the treasury.
How about we also throw in the cost of helping the crybabys who turn up
at their GP whinging about being unable to stop smoking. £500 for every
year their lives are extended. Let's add on the cost of prescription
drugs that smokers take, £5000 a year. Particularly ironic because the
very act of quitting saves smokers ridiculous amounts of money yet they
still want handouts to 'cope'.
Smoking breaks, smoking rooms, sick days etc. cost the UK economy more
'billions' every year because we have decided that for someone reason
people who have taken up a voluntary addiction have some kind of right
to waste employers time and money.
Every idiot smoker who wants to champion their own cause rolls out the
NHS direct costs vs treasury income argument.
>In a nutshell, you're talking out your arse.
>
Tell ya what. Go private. If by the time you're 70 your medical bills
came to less than £1400 a year I'll pay them myself.
While I'm at it, if you have children and you smoke, they should be
taken away from you. Last time I checked committing slow suicide and
then forcing your kids to watch you cough up your lungs for five years
and call them all Susan because of the drugs you're on was not one of
the classic parental duties.
Fallen.
ThePunisher
>
> As a smoker I have to say that, at this moment in time, my biggest
> wish is that every smoker in the country manages to quit the habit
> just so that we, the ex-smokers, can sit back smiling as we count how
> much we've saved by quitting whilst all the non-smoking smug bastards
> count how much it has cost them in extra income tax.
Are smokers exempt from this 'extra income tax' then?
--
ThePunisher
Crazy Ivan
"ThePunisher" <thepu...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1A18i.3204$sM1...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
I think he means that smokers who give up will save more money than the
extra tax they would have to pay as that tax would be paid by non smokers as
well.
W. Wots
"ThePunisher" <thepu...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1A18i.3204$sM1...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
I was wondering who'd ask that, no of course they aren't, but the saving
they (smokers) would make would far outweigh any income tax increase.
For example, if I were to quit my saving would be £205 pounds per month and
I can't see any Chancellor of the Exchequer raising personal taxes by an
amount even close to that.
Tobacco tax is somewhere in the region of 80%, which means that on every
packet of the cigarettes of my choice I pay £4+ in tax, which is why tobacco
tax brings in over £10 billion a year.
Finally, in the event that *every* smoker in the land were to quit, (some
hope), being retired, but not of state pension age, my tax increase would be
minimal, and if, as a previous poster suggested, the majority of smokers are
the elderly and the poor so would theirs.
I'm tempted to say 'put that in your...' but I won't :-))
W. Wots
"Crazy Ivan" <qwe...@qwerty.com> wrote in message
news:oeadnXsP2p3...@bt.com...
Thank you, I'd have thought that was obvious but obviously not :-)
W. Wots
Having just re-read this post I'm going to re-do the last paragraph;
Finally, being retired, (but not of state pension age, therefore not a
burden on the state yet), my tax increase would be minimal, and if, as a
previous poster suggested, the majority of smokers *are* the elderly and the
poor then their income tax increases would also be minimal, leaving the
burden of meeting the shortfall on non-smokers would it not?
Just one more thing, if 'one in five deaths are smoking related' doesn't
that mean that the odds favour smokers as four in five deaths are
non-smoking related? :-))
Baldoni XXV <baldoniXXV
Let me assure you that the tax that may be lost due to this law causing
a shortfall in tax revenue will be made up elsewhere. For years the
Governments of this country encouraged smoking when it suited them.
Smoking related illness is a most terrible thing though so I would be
happy if it had some affect on smokers packing it in. Smoking is like
taking a slow poison.
--
Count Baldoni
BALDONI REX ROMANORUM
Baldoni XXV <baldoniXXV
The Government have weighed up the cost of revenue made off tobacco and
the cost of treating smoking related illness. There are also
contributing factors as the biggest selling tobacco is not on sale in
shops in this country. Victims of passive smoking will soon be able to
make claims for illness due to environments that are smoked filled.
Baldoni XXV <baldoniXXV
I do not know exactly how much a packet of fags cost today but going
back a few years you could buy a packet on a ship on the high sea for
50p, when they would have cost about £4 in the shop.
flopsy
lol We'd have first class service. And with a smile. :')
Janet deJanet
> Your turn next UK :-)
Actually we've had it in Scotland for a year now. You Brits should
learn your geography. ;-)
Baldoni XXV <baldoniXXV
My old man caught me smoking when I was 11 and locked me in tthe
bedroom with 20 B&H. He would not let me out until I smoked the full
packet. I must say I thoroughly enjoyed the experience and have smoked
60 a day ever since. lol
Dom Robinson
says...
of a bus!
--
Dom Robinson Gamertag: DVDfever email: dom at dvdfever dot co dot uk
/* http://DVDfever.co.uk (editor)
/* 1132 DVDs, 347 games, 314 CDs, 110 cinema films, 42 concerts, videos & news
/* antibodies, steve hillage, burning crusade, sega psp, norah jones, kylie
New music charts - http://dvdfever.co.uk/music.shtml
Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=DVDfeverDom
Andy
"Janet deJanet" <an...@google.gov.uk> wrote in message
news:2007060209563716807%anon@googlegovuk...
I liked the Old days when England used to be called the UK :-)
Andy.
flopsy
I was 11 when I started too. Not in company either, by myself, under
this huge tree we played around.
ThePunisher
> "ThePunisher" <thepu...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1A18i.3204$sM1...@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
>> W. Wots wrote:
>>>
>>> As a smoker I have to say that, at this moment in time, my biggest
>>> wish is that every smoker in the country manages to quit the habit
>>> just so that we, the ex-smokers, can sit back smiling as we count
>>> how much we've saved by quitting whilst all the non-smoking smug
>>> bastards count how much it has cost them in extra income tax.
>>
>> Are smokers exempt from this 'extra income tax' then?
>
> I was wondering who'd ask that, no of course they aren't, but the
> saving they (smokers) would make would far outweigh any income tax
> increase.
Yes, but smokers are such weak minded fools that they'd soon find some other
stupid damaging addiction to waste their money on.
--
ThePunisher
Andy
I used to know someone who gave up smoking and started eating (sucking)
packets of polo mints and boiled sweets then they fretted about all the
weight that they were starting to put on but I used to say to them look on
the positive side that you are not killing yourself any more with bad toxic
substances and you are not affecting anyone else the way they were when
smoking and they saved a lot of money - hell they are 30 stone now but hey!
(not really!)
Andy.
Ŧ๏หყ
> Ŧ๏หყ wrote:
> >On 1 Jun, 09:14, Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
> Did you think that putting together 2 unrelated sentences somehow
> counted as an argument?
I wouldn't have posted the totally 'related' sentences otherwise.
> >More than 90% of cancer patients are non-smokers.
>
> You know why you get to say the sentence? Because cancer 'patients'
> include massive amounts of people with skin cancers the size of a
> pinhead. 'Thirty' percent of cancer 'deaths' are smoking related. It
> doesn't cost much to cut off a bit of skin, it costs a fair bit more to
> keep some fuckwit alive for years because they couldn't wrap their head
> around the fact that inhaling tar somehow damaged their lungs.
No. I get to say that sentence because for 15 years I had maintenance
contracts for 23 hospices - including childrens.
> >A 20 a day smokercontributes approx £1400 a year in *extra* tax.
>
> Ahh, yet another person who read an article once and couldn't be arsed
> to read any others.
I didn't read any article. In addition to smoking, I can also do sums.
> Smokers cost the NHS £2 billion a year. That's just cold hard cash. That
> doesn't include the waiting spaces taken up by fuckwits like you who are
> killing themselves when they could go to people who didn't decide
> sucking down poison for a laugh made them look cool.
£2 billion a year eh! Even if that figure is true, national and local
govt piss that up the wall on a weekly basis. With approx 7 million
smokers in the UK, their fag tax of £1500 comes to about £10.5
billion.
Fuckwits like me? I do wish you'd keep your assumptions in check; I've
never been to hospital. Nor has my Father or Grandfather. However, my
Great Grandfather did - when he snuffed it from smoking aged 97.
The myriad of obesity related problems are the No1 drain on the NHS
closely followed by age related and general illness.
> Smoking is most common in the elderly and the poor and those two
> particular groups of people are funded by the state. When you get your
> money from the state then give it back to buy cigarettes it doesn't
> count as 'extra' money for the treasury.
The elderly are funded by the state? The elderly funded the state!
Young women are the largest group of smokers and have been for some
years. Regardless of social background and endless anti-smoking
campaigns in schools and on TV etc. A certain corroboration of this
can be seen on the show this group's about; you do actually watch Big
Brother, don't you?
> How about we also throw in the cost of helping the crybabys who turn up
> at their GP whinging about being unable to stop smoking. £500 for every
> year their lives are extended. Let's add on the cost of prescription
> drugs that smokers take, £5000 a year. Particularly ironic because the
> very act of quitting saves smokers ridiculous amounts of money yet they
> still want handouts to 'cope'.
Yes, you're in the realms of fantasy here. £500, £5000, smoker’s
drugs?
> Smoking breaks, smoking rooms, sick days etc. cost the UK economy more
> 'billions' every year because we have decided that for someone reason
> people who have taken up a voluntary addiction have some kind of right
> to waste employers time and money.
Oh dear, yet more billions! You're mad for these numbers aren't you.
Would you like to name *any* company, large or small, that still has
smoking rooms/breaks? The most common cause for time off work is the
same as it always has been - skanking a day off with a bullshit
excuse.
> Every idiot smoker who wants to champion their own cause rolls out the
> NHS direct costs vs treasury income argument.
As does every pop-eyed non-smoker but not as good as the smokers £10
billion one.
> >In a nutshell, you're talking out your arse.
>
> Tell ya what. Go private. If by the time you're 70 your medical bills
> came to less than £1400 a year I'll pay them myself.
Er...cheers.
> While I'm at it, if you have children and you smoke, they should be
> taken away from you. Last time I checked committing slow suicide and
> then forcing your kids to watch you cough up your lungs for five years
> and call them all Susan because of the drugs you're on was not one of
> the classic parental duties.
Yes, if any child had the misfortune of you being its father, an
astonishingly mind numbingly dreary, pontificating and highly-strung
peculiar imbecile, it would certainly top its self long before I
did....or take up smoking - *billions* of 'em.
Fallen
>On 1 Jun, 19:57, Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ŧ๏หყ wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 1 Jun, 09:14, Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>><snip>
>>
>>Did you think that putting together 2 unrelated sentences somehow
>>counted as an argument?
>>
>>
>
> I wouldn't have posted the totally 'related' sentences otherwise.
>
>
Ahh, I see what you did there. Excellent counter argument.
>>>More than 90% of cancer patients are non-smokers.
>>>
>>>
>>You know why you get to say the sentence? Because cancer 'patients'
>>include massive amounts of people with skin cancers the size of a
>>pinhead. 'Thirty' percent of cancer 'deaths' are smoking related. It
>>doesn't cost much to cut off a bit of skin, it costs a fair bit more to
>>keep some fuckwit alive for years because they couldn't wrap their head
>>around the fact that inhaling tar somehow damaged their lungs.
>>
>>
>
>No. I get to say that sentence because for 15 years I had maintenance
>contracts for 23 hospices - including childrens.
>
>
And my curtains are dark blue. We are just swapping pointless personal
trivia right?
>>>A 20 a day smokercontributes approx £1400 a year in *extra* tax.
>>>
>>>
>>Ahh, yet another person who read an article once and couldn't be arsed
>>to read any others.
>>
>>
>
>I didn't read any article. In addition to smoking, I can also do sums.
>
>
If only you'd made it to long division.
>>Smokers cost the NHS £2 billion a year. That's just cold hard cash. That
>>doesn't include the waiting spaces taken up by fuckwits like you who are
>>killing themselves when they could go to people who didn't decide
>>sucking down poison for a laugh made them look cool.
>>
>>
>
>£2 billion a year eh! Even if that figure is true, national and local
>govt piss that up the wall on a weekly basis. With approx 7 million
>smokers in the UK, their fag tax of £1500 comes to about £10.5
>billion.
>
>
Yes, you said that already. Is your reply to my counterpoint to simply
state the first point again in a different way?
>Fuckwits like me? I do wish you'd keep your assumptions in check; I've
>never been to hospital. Nor has my Father or Grandfather. However, my
>Great Grandfather did - when he snuffed it from smoking aged 97.
>
>
"Fuckwits like you" = smokers. Not particularly necessary to assume
anythign as you already stated it.
>The myriad of obesity related problems are the No1 drain on the NHS
>closely followed by age related and general illness.
>
>
Oh dear me, I didn't think it was allowed to folow one old chestnut with
another. Straight from 'We pay more tax than it costs the NHS' to 'Other
things cost more'. That's old chestnut overload.
>>Smoking is most common in the elderly and the poor and those two
>>particular groups of people are funded by the state. When you get your
>>money from the state then give it back to buy cigarettes it doesn't
>>count as 'extra' money for the treasury.
>>
>>
>
>The elderly are funded by the state? The elderly funded the state!
>
>
Oh My God! You're right! Oh wait, that doesn't change a single thing I
said. *whew*
>Young women are the largest group of smokers and have been for some
>years. Regardless of social background and endless anti-smoking
>campaigns in schools and on TV etc. A certain corroboration of this
>can be seen on the show this group's about; you do actually watch Big
>Brother, don't you?
>
>
So just to get this straight. You "had maintenance contracts for 23
hospices" and you watch Big Brother. Welll why didn't you say so? I mean
I was just going by the dozens of official organisations that carry out
studies and publish statistics. I didn't know we had our own Big Brother
watching maintenance worker in our midsts to tell us the real facts
about the prevalence of smoking in different socioeconomic groups . Now
I feel really daft!
>>How about we also throw in the cost of helping the crybabys who turn up
>>at their GP whinging about being unable to stop smoking. £500 for every
>>year their lives are extended. Let's add on the cost of prescription
>>drugs that smokers take, £5000 a year. Particularly ironic because the
>>very act of quitting saves smokers ridiculous amounts of money yet they
>>still want handouts to 'cope'.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, you're in the realms of fantasy here. £500, £5000, smoker’s
>drugs?
>
>
Again, I feel so daft. I have no idea why I trust these various
agencies. I will know next time to do a quick group shoutout in case
there's another plumber who watches a popular reality show and thus is
an expert on the breakdowns of various anti-smoking drug costings.
>>Smoking breaks, smoking rooms, sick days etc. cost the UK economy more
>>'billions' every year because we have decided that for someone reason
>>people who have taken up a voluntary addiction have some kind of right
>>to waste employers time and money.
>>
>>
>
>Oh dear, yet more billions! You're mad for these numbers aren't you.
>
>
I know! It's like they call to me.
>Would you like to name *any* company, large or small, that still has
>smoking rooms/breaks? The most common cause for time off work is the
>same as it always has been - skanking a day off with a bullshit
>excuse.
>
>
Uhm if the smoking breaks were official then they wouldn't be costing
anyone anything would they? Oh hang on, that was logic. Wait a minute,
I'm sure I can come up with something better. let me go watch 'I'm a
celebrity jungle warrior' for a bit and infer my answer from that.
>>While I'm at it, if you have children and you smoke, they should be
>>taken away from you. Last time I checked committing slow suicide and
>>then forcing your kids to watch you cough up your lungs for five years
>>and call them all Susan because of the drugs you're on was not one of
>>the classic parental duties.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, if any child had the misfortune of you being its father, an
>astonishingly mind numbingly dreary, pontificating and highly-strung
>peculiar imbecile, it would certainly top its self long before I
>did....or take up smoking - *billions* of 'em.
>
Aww, and I thought you loved me. Feel free to come back when you can
string a decent insult together without looking like you had a stroke
halfway through.
Fallen.
Julian
"Fallen" <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ftt8i.18315$F_4....@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
It reminds me of...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being_There#Plot_summary
Ŧ๏หყ
> Ŧ๏หყ wrote:
> >On 1 Jun, 19:57, Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >>Ŧ๏หყ wrote:
>
> >>>On 1 Jun, 09:14, Fallen <fal...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> >><snip>
>
> >>Did you think that putting together 2 unrelated sentences somehow
> >>counted as an argument?
>
> > I wouldn't have posted the totally 'related' sentences otherwise.
>
> Ahh, I see what you did there. Excellent counter argument.
It was nothing really, glad you finally understand.
> >>>More than 90% of cancer patients are non-smokers.
>
> >>You know why you get to say the sentence? Because cancer 'patients'
> >>include massive amounts of people with skin cancers the size of a
> >>pinhead. 'Thirty' percent of cancer 'deaths' are smoking related. It
> >>doesn't cost much to cut off a bit of skin, it costs a fair bit more to
> >>keep some fuckwit alive for years because they couldn't wrap their head
> >>around the fact that inhaling tar somehow damaged their lungs.
>
> >No. I get to say that sentence because for 15 years I had maintenance
> >contracts for 23 hospices - including childrens.
>
> And my curtains are dark blue. We are just swapping pointless personal
> trivia right?
Oh dear, seemed witty when typing it eh.
> >>>A 20 a day smokercontributes approx £1400 a year in *extra* tax.
>
> >>Ahh, yet another person who read an article once and couldn't be arsed
> >>to read any others.
>
> >I didn't read any article. In addition to smoking, I can also do sums.
>
> If only you'd made it to long division.
If only that was funny.
> >>Smokers cost the NHS £2 billion a year. That's just cold hard cash. That
> >>doesn't include the waiting spaces taken up by fuckwits like you who are
> >>killing themselves when they could go to people who didn't decide
> >>sucking down poison for a laugh made them look cool.
>
> >£2 billion a year eh! Even if that figure is true, national and local
> >govt piss that up the wall on a weekly basis. With approx 7 million
> >smokers in the UK, their fag tax of £1500 comes to about £10.5
> >billion.
>
> Yes, you said that already. Is your reply to my counterpoint to simply
> state the first point again in a different way?
As you are unable to grasp the point, then yes.
> >Fuckwits like me? I do wish you'd keep your assumptions in check; I've
> >never been to hospital. Nor has my Father or Grandfather. However, my
> >Great Grandfather did - when he snuffed it from smoking aged 97.
>
> "Fuckwits like you" = smokers. Not particularly necessary to assume
> anythign as you already stated it.
>
> >The myriad of obesity related problems are the No1 drain on the NHS
> >closely followed by age related and general illness.
>
> Oh dear me, I didn't think it was allowed to folow one old chestnut with
> another. Straight from 'We pay more tax than it costs the NHS' to 'Other
> things cost more'. That's old chestnut overload.
Well, thinking is your problem, isn't it. You branding facts as old
chestnuts doesn't lessen their value.
> >>Smoking is most common in the elderly and the poor and those two
> >>particular groups of people are funded by the state. When you get your
> >>money from the state then give it back to buy cigarettes it doesn't
> >>count as 'extra' money for the treasury.
>
> >The elderly are funded by the state? The elderly funded the state!
>
> Oh My God! You're right! Oh wait, that doesn't change a single thing I
> said. *whew*
Well, it changes the basis of your effort a bit. You said smoking is
joint most common with the elderly - it isn't. And from there, you
were unable differentiate between dole and pension money. State
pensions come from 45 years of tax contributions that helped fill the
treasury of today. Also, those who smoked will have put in that extra
'old chestnut' of 45 years worth of fag tax.
> >Young women are the largest group of smokers and have been for some
> >years. Regardless of social background and endless anti-smoking
> >campaigns in schools and on TV etc. A certain corroboration of this
> >can be seen on the show this group's about; you do actually watch Big
> >Brother, don't you?
>
> So just to get this straight. You "had maintenance contracts for 23
> hospices" and you watch Big Brother. Welll why didn't you say so? I mean
> I was just going by the dozens of official organisations that carry out
> studies and publish statistics. I didn't know we had our own Big Brother
> watching maintenance worker in our midsts to tell us the real facts
> about the prevalence of smoking in different socioeconomic groups . Now
> I feel really daft!
Yes, you mean the same official organisations that told us Iraq had
nukes etc - yawn.
> >>How about we also throw in the cost of helping the crybabys who turn up
> >>at their GP whinging about being unable to stop smoking. £500 for every
> >>year their lives are extended. Let's add on the cost of prescription
> >>drugs that smokers take, £5000 a year. Particularly ironic because the
> >>very act of quitting saves smokers ridiculous amounts of money yet they
> >>still want handouts to 'cope'.
>
> >Yes, you're in the realms of fantasy here. £500, £5000, smoker’s
> >drugs?
>
> Again, I feel so daft. I have no idea why I trust these various
> agencies. I will know next time to do a quick group shoutout in case
> there's another plumber who watches a popular reality show and thus is
> an expert on the breakdowns of various anti-smoking drug costings.
Glad to help alleviate the ignorance of an armchair Paxman blind to
the irony of posting his highbrow intelligence on a reality show
newsgroup.
> >>Smoking breaks, smoking rooms, sick days etc. cost the UK economy more
> >>'billions' every year because we have decided that for someone reason
> >>people who have taken up a voluntary addiction have some kind of right
> >>to waste employers time and money.
>
> >Oh dear, yet more billions! You're mad for these numbers aren't you.
>
> I know! It's like they call to me.
>
> >Would you like to name *any* company, large or small, that still has
> >smoking rooms/breaks? The most common cause for time off work is the
> >same as it always has been - skanking a day off with a bullshit
> >excuse.
>
> Uhm if the smoking breaks were official then they wouldn't be costing
> anyone anything would they? Oh hang on, that was logic. Wait a minute,
> I'm sure I can come up with something better. let me go watch 'I'm a
> celebrity jungle warrior' for a bit and infer my answer from that.
Sigh.... I've already told you - there are no work place smoking
breaks these days.
> >>While I'm at it, if you have children and you smoke, they should be
> >>taken away from you. Last time I checked committing slow suicide and
> >>then forcing your kids to watch you cough up your lungs for five years
> >>and call them all Susan because of the drugs you're on was not one of
> >>the classic parental duties.
>
> >Yes, if any child had the misfortune of you being its father, an
> >astonishingly mind numbingly dreary, pontificating and highly-strung
> >peculiar imbecile, it would certainly top its self long before I
> >did....or take up smoking - *billions* of 'em.
>
> Aww, and I thought you loved me. Feel free to come back when you can
> string a decent insult together without looking like you had a stroke
> halfway through.
You can piss off if you think you're latching on to me, you weirdo.
Try alt.unpopular.tedious.runt
Fallen
I left the whole thing because I just worked out how you reminded me of.
Me!
But not funny.
And, ya know, an idiot.
Fallen.
Julian
Julian
"Marnok.com" <wizar...@pottermarnok.com> wrote in message
news:u7Wdna9xN9aG2sLb...@giganews.com...
> ...right next to the food storage (fridge)?
>
> Is that wise?
>