Puff Puff - Over 18's only now

[Püke Fyst]

Originally Posted by Keerin

Marathon runners will run miles and miles on concrete, so should these people not get NHS treatment either?

Nope, if smokers should be denied NHS treatment then they shouldn't treat any self-inflicted injuries or illnesses, shouldn't treat people for pneumonia if they'd been well warned to wrap up warm before going outside, and certainly shouldn't treat people who injure themselves by not bothering to read instructions, smokers get picked on because we can't deny that we're smokers.
i would agree that someone who looks after themselves should be further up the waiting list than someone who doesn't, but completely denying treatment is wrong.

[The Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by Keerin

Just because something grows naturally does not mean that it is natural to consume it. Tobacco for example, when chewed (different preperation method than smoking tobacco) is sweet and is not reported to have any effect on the health of the user, other than spitting lots, whereas smoking tobacco tastes quite bad, doesn't smell nice and has well known, well researched effect on the human body which has been well documented and are well known.

To be honest, im not sure what you were trying to say here but i just want to point out that smokeless tobacco, chewed tobacco, still contains carcinogens and still causes cancer. The difference is that the lungs are not really at risk but the mouth, larynx, stomach are.

[Keerin]

I agree with you rick in that no-one should be denied acces to the NHS , or should get better/worse treatment. I don't think I've ever stated that I was in favour of that. Smoking, eating fatty foods, not exercising, getting drunk every night. these things are all perfectly legal and if somone thinks that people who do these things should not be allowed access to the NHS, or denied the same treatment as anyone else then they are morons because it is all legal, and like brian said, we live in a free country where you are free to be healthy or unhealthy or anything inbetween.

You are also right that cancers etc only have statistical links and no conclusive proof, but they know hat it is a mutation of the cells and they know what triggers them. it is just not 100% conclusive yet.

Aside from cancers, proven effects of smoking are things like lung problems, COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, of which around 90% of elderly smokers in hospital suffer from), heart (narrowing of veins and arteries) and skin conditions, impotence and erection problems.

[Keerin]

Originally Posted by The Pumpkin

To be honest, im not sure what you were trying to say here but i just want to point out that smokeless tobacco, chewed tobacco, still contains carcinogens and still causes cancer. The difference is that the lungs are not really at risk but the mouth, larynx, stomach are.

Aye, your forgetting that it causes oral diseases which are exclusive to tobacco. Like Rck said, there are no "proven links", just statistical figures.

[humndislocation]

It's not a case of denying smokers treatments just to be a cunt to them. What I'm saying is, if you have two lung cancer patients, one of whom is a smoker, and one isn't, and you've got magical fun happy instant cure expensive treatment 2000, you should probably give it to the non-smoker.

I think it's only fair that if it comes down to a choice between someone with a self-inflicted illness, and someone who is ill through no fault of their own, it should be the second to get treated.

Except maybe if the non-smoker is 70, and the smoker is 30 or something.

[The Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by Keerin

Aye, your forgetting that it causes oral diseases which are exclusive to tobacco. Like Rck said, there are no "proven links", just statistical figures.

What? I only mentioned chewing tobacco because you mentioned it and said the only consequence of it is "spitting lots". Unless you meant it doesnt have a passive effect on anyone else other than the individual chewing it, in which case would be true enough. Im not arguing, im just confused as to what you mean.

You say there are no proven links, but after having a quick look just now ive seen at least 4 scientific journals saying otherwise. It all depends on where you get your information from. Googling it for instance wont get you far, the chances are you'll either get a tobacco company sponsored study which says 'no proven links' or a government sponsored study saying the opposite. Ive just been reading medical journals, which it appears are unbiased. Smokers are always going to say theres no substantial proof and that its all just 'statistical' without really knowing what 'just statistical' means. In my opinion its clear that there are links to smoking and cancer.

A ban on smoking altogether simply just wont happen. Banning it in public places and raising the legal age is probably the only effective way to deal with it as far as i can see, unless the government forces tobacco companies to alter cigarettes in some way, like i dunno cutting out the amount of tar or something. I dont even know if this is possible but it might be an idea.

[Keerin]

Sorry, I'm an arse! I did mean passively sorry.

And I did have a suspicion that there was more than just statistics to the smoking/cancer link but I wouldn't even know where to start looking re: medical journals etc.

[Rebelius]

some things which are "just statistics" can be pretty conclusive.

[The Pumpkin]

Originally Posted by Keerin

Sorry, I'm an arse! I did mean passively sorry.

And I did have a suspicion that there was more than just statistics to the smoking/cancer link but I wouldn't even know where to start looking re: medical journals etc.

haha no worries, i thought thats what you meant

Well, i can appreciate that. I only have access to those kinds of journals cos im an honours year microbiologist But i think its a problem, it can be hard for the public in general to get the right factual information because theres so much shite out there, its hard to form an opinion without access to the truth.

[Keerin]

see my g/f is a nurse, so i know of facts but i have no way of proving them because its either something she knows fro the wards or something she had to learn in uni.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by Keerin

You would not be able to prove it was through parkour. Illnesses caused by smoking are easily spotted as being such. Also a major part of parkour is conditioning your body to handle the concrete. Marathon runners will run miles and miles on concrete, so should these people not get NHS treatment either?

Would be good to see what kind of stuff folk do to condition their bodies and protect their joints, sounds interesting Can you pop up a couple of links please?

[Rebelius]

Bruce Lee was a big believer in conditioning the althlete's body, not just their skills. I'm sure any books on Jeet Kune Do will probably have a fair bit about conditioning in them.