The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Too many damn smokers in the world, i think i have made a topic on this a while ago but i will do it again.
Walking home today with my mates, as i am waiting for them i see them asking loads of people for "fags".
So i ask them why they smoke, what is the point in it?
Them being them, they just say shut up.
But its true, what the hell is the point in smoking?
You waste your money on something that is very bad for you and could end up killing you.
One of my mates managed to get 3 fags, he was extremley annoyed at me after i hit the first fag out of his hand and onto the floor.
Then i done exactly the same to the other 2, he he he, he was more annoyed then i have seen him for a while.
You would think my mate would of learned his lesson after he got caught smoking on school grounds on Friday and they phoned his parents up. But the fool just doesnt learn.
I walk home with about 5-6 people, all of them smoke, normaly i try not to walk with them because the smell of smoke is just awfull, and it stays in your clothes, then other people think that you yourself smokes.
Just last week this lady pulled up at the middle school next to my high school to drop off her son, he must of been about 11-12, he got out the car smoking. His mum was smoking and his dad too, now thats upto their family but i think that, that is just pure wrong. There should be a law to how old you have to be before it is legal to smoke.
When you are walking down town you always get that person who is in front of you smoking, and the smoke is just drifting back right into you face and you just want to tap them on the shoulder and tell them to put it out.
But because it is 100% legal you cant really do that.
But it should be a law, you are not allowed to smoke in public places or near anyone who wishes not to be in the company of any cigarette smoke.
Your views on smoking, the law and the age limit.
Walking home today with my mates, as i am waiting for them i see them asking loads of people for "fags".
So i ask them why they smoke, what is the point in it?
Them being them, they just say shut up.
But its true, what the hell is the point in smoking?
You waste your money on something that is very bad for you and could end up killing you.
One of my mates managed to get 3 fags, he was extremley annoyed at me after i hit the first fag out of his hand and onto the floor.
Then i done exactly the same to the other 2, he he he, he was more annoyed then i have seen him for a while.
You would think my mate would of learned his lesson after he got caught smoking on school grounds on Friday and they phoned his parents up. But the fool just doesnt learn.
I walk home with about 5-6 people, all of them smoke, normaly i try not to walk with them because the smell of smoke is just awfull, and it stays in your clothes, then other people think that you yourself smokes.
Just last week this lady pulled up at the middle school next to my high school to drop off her son, he must of been about 11-12, he got out the car smoking. His mum was smoking and his dad too, now thats upto their family but i think that, that is just pure wrong. There should be a law to how old you have to be before it is legal to smoke.
When you are walking down town you always get that person who is in front of you smoking, and the smoke is just drifting back right into you face and you just want to tap them on the shoulder and tell them to put it out.
But because it is 100% legal you cant really do that.
But it should be a law, you are not allowed to smoke in public places or near anyone who wishes not to be in the company of any cigarette smoke.
Your views on smoking, the law and the age limit.
Page:
Icarus wrote:
> Darling wrote:
> . He wouldn't be in pain because the doctors will give him
> morphine. Now seriously, what are the chances of ALL 5 rooms being
> taken up by smokers?
>
> Only 5 rooms in hospitals? No wonder we complain aobut waiting :)
He he he, it was just an example.
> Darling wrote:
> . He wouldn't be in pain because the doctors will give him
> morphine. Now seriously, what are the chances of ALL 5 rooms being
> taken up by smokers?
>
> Only 5 rooms in hospitals? No wonder we complain aobut waiting :)
He he he, it was just an example.
Darling wrote:
. He wouldn't be in pain because the doctors will give him
> morphine. Now seriously, what are the chances of ALL 5 rooms being
> taken up by smokers?
Only 5 rooms in hospitals? No wonder we complain aobut waiting :)
. He wouldn't be in pain because the doctors will give him
> morphine. Now seriously, what are the chances of ALL 5 rooms being
> taken up by smokers?
Only 5 rooms in hospitals? No wonder we complain aobut waiting :)
good point!
Clazon wrote:
> if you read what i wrote, i said:
>
> THE ONLY 3 CASES EXEMPT FROM THE FREE SERVICE ARE SMOKERS (if looking
> for treatment for smoking disease related problems), THE OBESE (if
> looking for treatment with over weight related problems) AND THOSE
> WHO ARE HEAVILY DRUNK OR DOPED (if looking for treatment having been
> injured in their bad state).
Yeah sorry, if you read my later post, I re-worded it better.
Another arguement is that heavy smokers more than pay for their own healthcare in the tax they pay on cigarettes. A packet of cigarettes minus tax would probably be less than 50p. As they are 4.80 a pack these days, that equates to a lot of money a year.
> if you read what i wrote, i said:
>
> THE ONLY 3 CASES EXEMPT FROM THE FREE SERVICE ARE SMOKERS (if looking
> for treatment for smoking disease related problems), THE OBESE (if
> looking for treatment with over weight related problems) AND THOSE
> WHO ARE HEAVILY DRUNK OR DOPED (if looking for treatment having been
> injured in their bad state).
Yeah sorry, if you read my later post, I re-worded it better.
Another arguement is that heavy smokers more than pay for their own healthcare in the tax they pay on cigarettes. A packet of cigarettes minus tax would probably be less than 50p. As they are 4.80 a pack these days, that equates to a lot of money a year.
EL ® ö B ì Ñ wrote:
> Darling wrote:
>
> OK how would you feel if your mum got lung cancer and the doctors
> said..'ooooh no sorry can't see you til Friday because theres an
> outbreak of tonsilitis and chicken pox' or 'you have to wait until
> we
> have no patients before we'll cure your cancer'
>
> As i said its not a nice thing to think because its my mum, but for
> example;
> You dad has falled down a ladder and is in serious pain, but they
> cant do anything for at least 5 hours because there is no surgery
> rooms free.
> The people in the surgery rooms all are in there because of the bad
> effects smoking has had on them.
> Now, your dad has done nothing wrong, but has to wait in pain for
> someone who damaged their own health to get better.
>
> You would feel a little angry about that no?
Not really. He wouldn't be in pain because the doctors will give him morphine. Now seriously, what are the chances of ALL 5 rooms being taken up by smokers?
> Darling wrote:
>
> OK how would you feel if your mum got lung cancer and the doctors
> said..'ooooh no sorry can't see you til Friday because theres an
> outbreak of tonsilitis and chicken pox' or 'you have to wait until
> we
> have no patients before we'll cure your cancer'
>
> As i said its not a nice thing to think because its my mum, but for
> example;
> You dad has falled down a ladder and is in serious pain, but they
> cant do anything for at least 5 hours because there is no surgery
> rooms free.
> The people in the surgery rooms all are in there because of the bad
> effects smoking has had on them.
> Now, your dad has done nothing wrong, but has to wait in pain for
> someone who damaged their own health to get better.
>
> You would feel a little angry about that no?
Not really. He wouldn't be in pain because the doctors will give him morphine. Now seriously, what are the chances of ALL 5 rooms being taken up by smokers?
Icarus wrote:
> Though you could argue those are one off "instant" moments,
> while smoking is a long term thing with plenty of chances to get out
> of.
Again this brings us back to the start of the medical healthcare.
Should they be made to wait because it is their own fault?
But then again (as some one said) if you forget to turn the lawnmower off at the wall and you put your fingers in it and it turns on and chops your fingers off, that is also your fault, so should you be made to wait?
But yes, it is a long term thing and you could of stopped yourself at any time, no need to wait till it is too late.
> Though you could argue those are one off "instant" moments,
> while smoking is a long term thing with plenty of chances to get out
> of.
Again this brings us back to the start of the medical healthcare.
Should they be made to wait because it is their own fault?
But then again (as some one said) if you forget to turn the lawnmower off at the wall and you put your fingers in it and it turns on and chops your fingers off, that is also your fault, so should you be made to wait?
But yes, it is a long term thing and you could of stopped yourself at any time, no need to wait till it is too late.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Clazon wrote:
> harsh, but fair. i think people with fatty problems should pay for
> their help on the NHS. smokers the same and finally those who were
> in
> an unreasonable (doped up, heavily drunken) state when found. i dont
> care what anyone says, they are the only 3 types. people who are
> involved in car accidents, people who slip when chopping the vedge
> and lose a finger dont have to pay either or anything, etc.
>
> Ok, so by your reasoning, someone who drives at 41mph in a 40 zone,
> in their car, should have to pay for medical treatment, should they
> crash. Where as someone driving under the limit should get it free?
if you read what i wrote, i said:
THE ONLY 3 CASES EXEMPT FROM THE FREE SERVICE ARE SMOKERS (if looking for treatment for smoking disease related problems), THE OBESE (if looking for treatment with over weight related problems) AND THOSE WHO ARE HEAVILY DRUNK OR DOPED (if looking for treatment having been injured in their bad state).
> Clazon wrote:
> harsh, but fair. i think people with fatty problems should pay for
> their help on the NHS. smokers the same and finally those who were
> in
> an unreasonable (doped up, heavily drunken) state when found. i dont
> care what anyone says, they are the only 3 types. people who are
> involved in car accidents, people who slip when chopping the vedge
> and lose a finger dont have to pay either or anything, etc.
>
> Ok, so by your reasoning, someone who drives at 41mph in a 40 zone,
> in their car, should have to pay for medical treatment, should they
> crash. Where as someone driving under the limit should get it free?
if you read what i wrote, i said:
THE ONLY 3 CASES EXEMPT FROM THE FREE SERVICE ARE SMOKERS (if looking for treatment for smoking disease related problems), THE OBESE (if looking for treatment with over weight related problems) AND THOSE WHO ARE HEAVILY DRUNK OR DOPED (if looking for treatment having been injured in their bad state).
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> You cannot judge people in this way - you CANNOT say "ok, this
> person knew they were damaging themselves, therefore they have to pay
> for their healthcare". Where will it stop?
>
> Someone is pulling grass out of a lawnmower, but doesn't unplug it
> first. The mower chops their fingers off. That's their fault for
> not unplugging it though.
Very true points yes, i guess this is why the goverment have so many problems about stopping it.
> You can't have selective healthcare like that.
Yer, guess you cant, didnt think of it like that.
> You cannot judge people in this way - you CANNOT say "ok, this
> person knew they were damaging themselves, therefore they have to pay
> for their healthcare". Where will it stop?
>
> Someone is pulling grass out of a lawnmower, but doesn't unplug it
> first. The mower chops their fingers off. That's their fault for
> not unplugging it though.
Very true points yes, i guess this is why the goverment have so many problems about stopping it.
> You can't have selective healthcare like that.
Yer, guess you cant, didnt think of it like that.
Though you could argue those are one off "instant" moments, while smoking is a long term thing with plenty of chances to get out of.
Darling wrote:
> I do understand that smokers cause the illness themselves and i
> understand where your coming from but that will also mean people who
> have a disease due to a fatty diet shouldn't get seen to til last
> either, after all they chose to eat all that fried food so why should
> they get seen to like people who have other diseases?
This is the point I was getting at, although I probably worded it wrongly.
You cannot judge people in this way - you CANNOT say "ok, this person knew they were damaging themselves, therefore they have to pay for their healthcare". Where will it stop?
Someone is pulling grass out of a lawnmower, but doesn't unplug it first. The mower chops their fingers off. That's their fault for not unplugging it though.
Someone is driving at 40mph on a 40mph road, but it is icy. The person crashes and loses both legs. That was their fault for not driving more slowly to suit the conditions though.
Someone runs across the road without looking. They are hit by a bus and are now in a coma. That's their fault for not looking though.
You can't have selective healthcare like that.
> I do understand that smokers cause the illness themselves and i
> understand where your coming from but that will also mean people who
> have a disease due to a fatty diet shouldn't get seen to til last
> either, after all they chose to eat all that fried food so why should
> they get seen to like people who have other diseases?
This is the point I was getting at, although I probably worded it wrongly.
You cannot judge people in this way - you CANNOT say "ok, this person knew they were damaging themselves, therefore they have to pay for their healthcare". Where will it stop?
Someone is pulling grass out of a lawnmower, but doesn't unplug it first. The mower chops their fingers off. That's their fault for not unplugging it though.
Someone is driving at 40mph on a 40mph road, but it is icy. The person crashes and loses both legs. That was their fault for not driving more slowly to suit the conditions though.
Someone runs across the road without looking. They are hit by a bus and are now in a coma. That's their fault for not looking though.
You can't have selective healthcare like that.
Page: