Doe's any one know???

No figure can be truly accurate. For example, lung cancer is natural disease, it's not exclusive to smokers but every smoker who gets it will be put down as getting from smoking when a proportion of those would have gotten it anyway.

Also, because Health Professionals and the Government want to demonise these activities you'll usually see the term "smoking related diseases" which is an easy way of inflating your numbers because instead of showing diseases directly caused by smoking in individuals it allows them to lump in anything that just associated with it to anyone. So even people who have never smoked in their life but get cardiovascular disease can be included in the figures of people who died of a 'smoking related disease'.
 
skullblits said:
Shud'nt we give Drinkers the same Crap They give us smokers??

Im pritty sure drinking costs More than smoking. and destorys peoples life's More ways than smoking ever could
Click to expand...

Well smoking is pretty disgusting. Its bad for you and anyone around you and there is literally no point to it other than you thought it was cool because you weren't allowed and now you're addicted. Many people drink responsibly. You can give people who abuse it the same crap, by all means, but it ain't all bad like smoking pretty much is. This makes smoking an easier target.
 
estebanrey said:
No figure can be truly accurate. For example, lung cancer is natural disease, it's not exclusive to smokers but every smoker who gets it will be put down as getting from smoking when a proportion of those would have gotten it anyway.
Click to expand...

It is quite accurate. You take two groups of say 10,000 people. One is a set of smokers and the other is the control (non-smokers).

The following figures are made up just make the point;

Lets say 50 of the non-smokers get lung cancer and then 500 of the smokers get lung cancer. You can assume that 450 of them are likely to have gotten their cancer from smoking.
 
Dimple said:
What does ainit mean?
Click to expand...

I shall attempt to translate

skullblits said:
I think drinking cost's Way more than smokers do.
Click to expand...

I wish to posit the theory that the consumption of alcohol is a significantly higher financial drain on society than the consumption of cigarettes.

skullblits said:
Drinker's cost loads to the police
Click to expand...

As an example of this, the policing of anti-social behaviour due to the consumption of alcohol can have severe economic implications for law enforcement agencies.

skullblits said:
Should'nt we leave the smokers alone for abit, and ban drinkings adverts and bring out some Silly ainit drinking adverts?
Click to expand...

I suggest that as a solution for this situation, we sideline our efforts to reduce the consumption of cigarettes, and instead focus on a campaign against the consumption of alcohol, perhaps a prohibition on its promotion and some frivolous televised commercials denouncing it?
 
Last edited:
I do not smoke. I do not like smokers sharing their smoke with me.

I like cocktails. I like when other people share their cocktails with me.

Therefore, smoking is worse than alcohol.
 
I can quite easily buy alcohol in Tesco for £2.00

I can not buy a smoker for so little. In fact, I am not allowed to buy a smoker at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom