What Annoys You More


His offspring now owe 530k


If you can show some data that said him smoking contributed to his prolonged life, it should be considered.

Best of luck there.


lolno, we should get an extra $530k.


Some may have figured they quit long enough ago that they can classify themselves as a non-smoker. That’s probably the most common, non-contextual, reason for it.


Mr grandfather went to 93. Also a pack a day guy since he was 15.

He did give it up when he was about 80, but then took it back up again when he was about 90. I remember having a crack at him about it and he said “I’m 90, what’s it going to do, kill me?”


They don’t all come through emergency. The most expensive patients in a hospital are patients with head and neck surgery, they come through the “elective” route. In 2 years of working in the area I’ve had 1 patient who wasn’t a smoker.

Also a lot of my vascular patients don’t come through emergency and a lot of their problems are smoking related too

Not that you care, you just like to be perverse.


At least 87.7% of ex-smokers will die earlier than non-smokers due to being smokers once. Unless the non-smokers were actually at least partially passive-smokers. Statistics for ex-passive smokers get a little more complicated.


My aunts would panic at my grandfather wanting a second beer when he was 90.
They would get a sanitised version of, ‘ffs, Auntie Mary…’

Anyway, if you elected me king of smoking ten years ago, when I asked you to, there’d be no tobacco smoking in this country at all now.


No, it goes into reverse once you pass the allocated span.


Very reasonable point.
Two counterpoints.

  1. I was asked what I saw, and am pretty obviously not in a position to say what I…don’t see?
  2. This discussion, and all my responses to it, come from the idea that smokers shouldn’t get healthcare. I don’t think it’s quite fair that you should call my reaction to that, ‘perverse.’


You’re argument started that way, but has evolved beyond that.

(I do agree that everyone should get healthcare regardless of the care)


Merely extensions.
Arguments tend to get silly when brought beyond a certain point, particularly when based on a ridiculous premise.


I liked the bit where a fire started by dropping the thing smouldering in your mouth had nothing to do with that initial smouldering thing.

Because as a non smoker I almost always have things smouldering in my mouth.


Yes, you mentioned that.
And non-drinkers don’t hurt their back carrying slabs.


this is going to be one of those threads


Let’s cut it short then.
Who here thinks smokers should not get health care?


Yep. Before I drank i’d never ever seen a box before, much less picked one up.

Whereas as a non smoker, I often light an object a litle bit on fire and put it into an orifice in my body.


And presumably as a non-smoker you’ve never used fire.


As far as I can see it was literally only
1 person.

Most of us don’t want you to die choking on your own sputum.


I’m arguing against that one person. Who hasn’t replied since.
W.T.F. are the rest of you doing?