I HATE SMOKERS!
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology - for the layman like you.Originally posted by SexyChin:Where is your proof?
Mine got source one.
Yours is just plain blabbering.
So please don't try to be patronising especially when you THINK know something when you ACTUALLY don't. Ask any statistician if there is irrefutable proof that smoking causes cancer in terms of your so called sources. Any good statistician or epidemiologist in their right mind will tell you that those studies are just show a strong association but still cannot be truly proven that smoking causes cancer . Political groups and media exploit the associative linkage and call it a causal link to implement health programs and increase taxes on a substance they call dangerous but refuse to ban.
Remember to also ask them for confounders and effect modifiers. I am sure you are going to have some fun with that when they tell you there are other missing variables. I know the famous study by Hall that shown the association with smoking and lung cancer (note association NOT cause).
And by the way , I refuse to have some result of some experiment on mice to be applied to me as an individual. Give me your source ( the full article with data methods and analysis) and I guarantee you that I can take it apart in terms of its weaknesses. -
Smoking is lame. End of story.
-
As far as I am concerned , cigarettes and cigars are legal substances . Freedom of choice ....respect that.Originally posted by karn123:Smokers are lame. End of story. -
Not even thinking of law at the point when I said that but thanks for pointing out how cig revenues prevents laws from banning such a harmful substance.Originally posted by fymk:As far as I am concerned , cigarettes and cigars are legal substances . Freedom of choice ....respect that.
I do respect smokers who smoke privately and do their best not to harm others. -
If govt got no tax from all the cigarettes, GST probably will be 10% and more whinings will be heard.
-
if no ciggys,Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:If govt got no tax from all the cigarettes, GST probably will be 10% and more whinings will be heard.
less money pumped into healthcare.
healthcare takes a shit load in our annual budget. -
See, now you ppl dun just complain abt this. Without we smoking, your life will be more pathetic thsn now.Originally posted by OO_OO_OO:if no ciggys,
less money pumped into healthcare.
healthcare takes a shit load in our annual budget.
-
less money pumped into healthcare, lower budget, gst stays at 3%Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:See, now you ppl dun just complain abt this. Without we smoking, your life will be more pathetic thsn now. -
even if there were no smokers, e govt will still raise GST if they wan 2.... mee siam no hum oso let them say until gt hum...Originally posted by OO_OO_OO:less money pumped into healthcare, lower budget, gst stays at 3% -
ok so we should all thank smoker... lets sign a petition to tell president to make a smokers' day and make it a public holiday.... yay!!!!!
-
i cannot stand it when a smoker walks into an air-conditioned room.
but its ok if i were the smoker.
-
Same for me. I don't mind if smokers are considerate and smoke privately. But if a smoker smokes openly in a crowded public place (like a bus stop), I can feel irritated. Of course, smokers have the right to smoke, but they should practice their rights considerably.Originally posted by karn123:I do respect smokers who smoke privately and do their best not to harm others.
People who are considerate deserve our respect and their rights. If you are not considerate, please don't talk about your rights. (This applies to anything, not only smoking.) -
Lucky to say, the majority of smokers are quite considerate. Please do not discriminate all smokers because of a few black sheep. (This applies to anything, not only smoking.)Originally posted by autumncs:Same for me. I don't mind if smokers are considerate and smoke privately. But if a smoker smokes openly in a crowded public place (like a bus stop), I can feel irritated. Of course, smokers have the right to smoke, but they should practice their rights considerably.
People who are considerate deserve our respect and their rights. If you are not considerate, please don't talk about your rights. (This applies to anything, not only smoking.)
-
so come here kpkb thinking can help ar?Originally posted by ICanOnlyHope:COS DONT KNOW WHERE HE/SHE HIDING. Cannot find him/her. Not nice to knock on doors also. How to tell him/her? SO POST HERE LAH! INTERNET RIGHT? A LOT OF PPL SEE HERE RIGHT? TOP FORUM RIGHT?
-
Hmm... Black sheep becomes black because they smoke too much?Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:Lucky to say, the majority of smokers are quite considerate. Please do not discriminate all smokers because of a few black sheep. (This applies to anything, not only smoking.)
Ok.... lame joke... -
The government shouldn't have banned smoking at public places. Now that smokers can't smoke at coffeeshops, they of course have to smoke at home. Non-smokers should hang out at coffeeshop instead.
-
wah rao ..
ple ish smoke at home riao you ish still must complain -
Smoke at home also want to complain, then you say smoke where?
-
Chinese temples???Originally posted by NUS_Superst@r:Smoke at home also want to complain, then you say smoke where?
People burn incense there anyway.... -
There is no doubt that smokers are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic ailments compared to non-smokers and consume more of a nation's healthcare. Smokers should be made to pay more for their medical treatment. Non-smokers should not have to subsidize their medical fees.
If you choose to smoke, you pay A class fees -
u sure u dun have any friends or relatives smoke? You like them to all die poor?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is no doubt that smokers are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic ailments compared to non-smokers and consume more of a nation's healthcare. Smokers should be made to pay more for their medical treatment. Non-smokers should not have to subsidize their medical fees.
If you choose to smoke, you pay A class fees -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is no doubt that smokers are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic ailments compared to non-smokers and consume more of a nation's healthcare. Smokers should be made to pay more for their medical treatment. Non-smokers should not have to subsidize their medical fees.
If you choose to smoke, you pay A class fees -
It is as good as proposing to make those who are classified as obese pay A class rate then? Diabetes, hypertension and heart disease affects those who are obese, not to mention the poor nurses who have to break their backs moving their fat arse in bed.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is no doubt that smokers are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic ailments compared to non-smokers and consume more of a nation's healthcare. Smokers should be made to pay more for their medical treatment. Non-smokers should not have to subsidize their medical fees.
If you choose to smoke, you pay A class fees
Smokers pay A class rate, Fat people pay A class rate and those who drink alot pay A class rate
. FAIR! -
Well, in some countries, companies actually discriminates against smokers and they are more likely to hire non-smokers. Here are the reasons given by employers...
In USA
"In our smoking cessation program, staff are required to have been tobacco-free for at least six months, because this relates directly to fitness for the job: how can you give smoking cessation advice credibly with a pack of cigarettes in your pocket? Many US hospitals and other health care providers have such a policy."
"In recent years, US employers (for example police and firefighters) have decided not to hire people who use tobacco, because of their belief that their staff need to be tobacco free to operate optimally, and to save money on health costs and pensions. Many have offered cessation help."
"My employer does not hire smokers. I am pleased that we have this policy because it shows commitment and integrity in support of our public health positions. It is also good to be employed in a smoke-free workplace where my fellow employees do not smell of tobacco and are not sick from tobacco."
"The US Constitution and federal and state civil rights legislation protect against discrimination based on race, gender, age, and disability. There are cogent reasons why some employers might wish to refuse to hire smokers. I don't condone or condemn such hiring policies, but I support the employer's right to adopt a policy to hire only nonsmokers if the employer so chooses."
In UK
"It is a requirement of their job that our staff be non-smokers for the duration of their period of employment with us. Since we lobby for public health and against tobacco they could not expect to convince others of the merits of our case if they weren't convinced enough themselves not to smoke or to give up."
"The stance I've taken and publicized in job advertisements is in view of the nature of the work involved, employees are required to be non-smokers. Interestingly we get applications from smokers who seek the job as a cessation aid."
"We had a firm that, as part of an international organization, had a non-smoking policy. It was challenged in a lawsuit, but the conclusion was that the owner of the firm sets the rules for the company not the employees."
(Extracted from https://www.srnt.org/pubs/nl_02_05/policies.html)
In such scenarios, the best solution for smokers is to kick their habit and stop smoking, for the sake of their own employability, their own health, and other people's health.
If smokers cannot kick the habit, maybe they can consider looking for a job in a tobacco company, which is the least likely place that discriminates against smokers. Haha. -
Are you sure it's not the other way round? Without any ppl smoking, there will be a loss of significant tax from tabacco and there will be little subsidy on healthcare and normal ppl like you will then kpkb.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:There is no doubt that smokers are more likely to suffer from a range of chronic ailments compared to non-smokers and consume more of a nation's healthcare. Smokers should be made to pay more for their medical treatment. Non-smokers should not have to subsidize their medical fees.
If you choose to smoke, you pay A class fees