nany state based on morals

IM0

can all those who oppose things which others do with their time money
please **** off to a hut somewhere. its NONE of you business what people spend their money on and its not up to you to police it!

those against

gambling
prostitution
drinking
smoking

ect, get in the sack!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGtZQEaixmY

HondaSami

Well said OP, Im off to spend my hard earned money on an Indian take away.

I like to gamble, smoke and drink on the odd occasion. If men/women want to pay for sex then off with them.

Nodin

HondaSami wrote: »

Well said OP, Im off to spend my hard earned money on an Indian take away.

You treat that woman with respect.

ejmaztec

IM0 wrote: »

can all those who oppose things which others do with their time money
please **** off to a hut somewhere. its NONE of you business what people spend their money on and its not up to you to police it!

those against

gambling
prostitution
drinking
smoking

ect, get in the sack!!

I object to sacks in the strongest possible terms.:mad:

feelgoodinc27

Fine so long as your responsible for yourself and don't come looking for taxpayers money when your lungs and/or liver pack it in, or you lose all your money.

IM0

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Fine so long as your responsible for yourself and don't come looking for taxpayers money when your lungs and/or liver pack it in, or you lose all your money.

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

Mince Pie

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Fine so long as your responsible for yourself and don't come looking for taxpayers money when your lungs and/or liver pack it in, or you lose all your money.

So no tax revenue comes from alcohol or cigarettes?

SB2013

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

So you want all the freedoms while accepting none of the consequences. Let me know when you find that fantasy world and I'll join you.

sesswhat

Sure a bit of a gamble on property never hurt anyone...

HondaSami

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Fine so long as your responsible for yourself and don't come looking for taxpayers money when your lungs and/or liver pack it in, or you lose all your money.

Is it ok if the taxpayer's lungs/liver packs in?

orestes

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

Even if smoking didn't give you cancer (even though pretty much all evidence points that it increases your chances of getting cancer) it would still be stupidly bad for your body, it screws with pretty much everything (heart disease, blood pressure, yada yada yada). It is without a doubt one of the stupidest things you can do to your body. If you think smoking doesn't damage your health, you're living in a fantasy world. And I'm a pretty heavy smoker saying that.

Boombastic

SB2013 wrote: »

So you want all the freedoms while accepting none of the consequences. Let me know when you find that fantasy world and I'll join you.

Can you repeat that louder please? the sack is muffling your words :pac:

Mr Whirly

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

Fine so long as your responsible for yourself and don't come looking for taxpayers money when your lungs and/or liver pack it in, or you lose all your money.

Everyone pays taxes, it's a give and take system. Get over it.

Siuin

Some good points made in the OP!



Now if you excuse me, I'm heading off to have sex with an underage traffiked Eastern European. After all, my money, right?

FYI smoking and drinking are all well and good till OUR health services have to deal with the consequences. Personally I'd rather not have a bunch of drunk morons clogging up our A&Es on a regular basis.

Death and Taxes

Mince Pie wrote: »

So no tax revenue comes from alcohol or cigarettes?

Insufficent to meet the cost of alcohol/tobaccco related illnesses, fact.

Boombastic

Siuin wrote: »

Some good points made in the OP!



Now if you excuse me, I'm heading off to have sex with an underage traffiked Eastern European. After all, my money, right?

FYI smoking and drinking are all well and good till OUR health services have to deal with the consequences. Personally I'd rather not have a bunch of drunk morons clogging up our A&Es on a regular basis.

What do you mean by the bolded bit? They already do

RaRaRasputin

You forgot militant vegetarians/ vegans/ health freaks / abortion specialists etc etc etc

Morals rule this country

IM0

Siuin wrote: »

Some good points made in the OP!



Now if you excuse me, I'm heading off to have sex with an underage traffiked Eastern European. After all, my money, right?

oh to amsterdam! enjoy!!

feelgoodinc27

Mince Pie wrote: »

So no tax revenue comes from alcohol or cigarettes?

Some sure but healthcare be expensive. As it stands the healthcare system is this country isn't exactly fantastic, people on trolleys and inadequate resources for people with cystic fibrosis just 2 examples. Preventative healthcare, i.e. taking responsibility for your health, would free up resources that will continue to be under increasing strain.

Siuin

Boombastic wrote: »

What do you mean by the bolded bit? They already do

I know- that's what I was saying.

1ZRed

Everything closing at 2AM annoys the obsolute **** out of me

Restrictions on when I can buy alcohol is thick as fuk as well. I'll drink when I want to

Mr Whirly

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Insufficent to meet the cost of alcohol/tobaccco related illnesses, fact.

If someone smokes 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax they will contribute (very) roughly 130,000 euro in tax. Surely that should cover it? Not to mention the people who never get ill because of it still contributing.

orestes

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

You forgot militant vegetarians/ vegans/ health freaks / abortion specialists etc etc etc

Morals rule this country

I think you're mixing up morals and laws.

starlings

Is the sack in the 'nany' state, or is it an autonomous island of homeopaths, somewhere off Australia?

Boombastic

Mr Whirly wrote: »

If someone smokes 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax they will contribute (very) roughly 130,000 euro in tax. Surely that should cover it? Not to mention the people who never get ill because of it still contributing.

What about the people who don't smoke and still get cancer? They don't contribute as much :mad:

RaRaRasputin

Siuin wrote: »

Some good points made in the OP!



Now if you excuse me, I'm heading off to have sex with an underage traffiked Eastern European. After all, my money, right?

But many of them are, like your good Irish ones, catholic and probably use the host as an effective protection against anything evil. What could be safer than that?

Mr Whirly

Boombastic wrote: »

What about the people who don't smoke and still get cancer? They don't contribute as much :mad:

If they survive they should have to contribute a lung.

feelgoodinc27

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

There is not a single type of cancer. Smoking is an established risk factor for not only cancer but also cardiovascular disease, the no.1 killer in the western world and also preventable in the majority of cases.

Boombastic

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

There is not a single type of cancer. Smoking is an established risk factor for not only cancer but also cardiovascular disease, the no.1 killer in the western world and also preventable in the majority of cases.

Get in the sack

RaRaRasputin

orestes wrote: »

I think you're mixing up morals and laws.

If smoking, drinking and gambling are illegal I am bound to agree with you, apart of the prostitution bit the rest is as legal and a moral issue as the things i mentioned above and which people love to go on about using the moral/ tax paer/ whatever card

orestes

RaRaRasputin wrote: »

If smoking, drinking and gambling are illegal I am bound to agree with you, apart of the prostitution bit the rest is as legal and a moral issue as the things i mentioned above and which people love to go on about using the moral/ tax paer/ whatever card

But they aren't illegal (apart from abortion, and that's looking like it's gonna change soon too) so morals don't rule the country, laws do, that was my point.

Custardpi

I've always wondered about the actual balance between smoker's tax contributions & the extra money they cost the health system through increased lung disease, etc, do they really not end up paying for themselves? What if you include the fact that they're less likely to avail of things like a state pension, over 70's medical cards & free transport (due to being dead), would that not tip the balance in their favour in terms of net cost/contributions to the state? It'd be interesting to read any articles by people who've done the maths on this.

IM0

feelgoodinc27 wrote: »

There is not a single type of cancer. Smoking is an established risk factor for not only cancer but also cardiovascular disease, the no.1 killer in the western world and also preventable in the majority of cases.

ah the language of the the new religion. statistics!!

all hail statistics!!

you have a 50% chance of everything in life, stuff will or wont happen
regardless of what statistics will have you believe


again life is risky, no one lives forever

again, if I place a rock in my garden that I believe keeps tigers away does that mean there are no tigers in my garden because the rock is keeping them away?

RaRaRasputin

orestes wrote: »

But they aren't illegal (apart from abortion, and that's looking like it's gonna change soon too) so morals don't rule the country, laws do, that was my point.

yes i agree with you, but i was referring to the common boards law makers

ashers22

oops, sorry I forgot it was progressive to not give a shít.

feelgoodinc27

IM0 wrote: »

can all those who oppose things which others do with their time money
please **** off to a hut somewhere. its NONE of you business what people spend their money on and its not up to you to police it!

those against

gambling
prostitution
drinking
smoking

ect, get in the sack!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGtZQEaixmY

HondaSami wrote: »

Is it ok if the taxpayer's lungs/liver packs in?

Mr Whirly wrote: »

Everyone pays taxes, it's a give and take system. Get over it.

If the OP wants to take full responsibility, including financial, for what they do fine. Most people pay tax sure but why would you want to add to the burden of a system that can't even properly look after those who need help through no fault of their own.

HondaSami

I'm sure it's friday, the weekend is for having fun, nothing wrong with having a few drinks, smokes, and sex with strangers.

Boombastic

People who get knocked down by cars shouldn't be treated either, I mean if they're not going to look where they're going, tough sh1t really

HondaSami

Boombastic wrote: »

People who get knocked down by cars shouldn't be treated either, I mean if they're not going to look where they're going, tough sh1t really

And fat people don't forget them. Everyone should be skinny.

heyjude

Mr Whirly wrote: »

If someone smokes 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax they will contribute (very) roughly 130,000 euro in tax. Surely that should cover it? Not to mention the people who never get ill because of it still contributing.

But you are ignoring the fact that nobody has smoked 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax, but they may very well have to use hospital/medical services that will have to be paid for at todays rates. Tax rates on cigarettes 50 years ago may have been just a few pence a pack, so a single day in hospital now or a single prescription of certain drugs may account for a years worth of tobacco taxes paid then. You also forget about the loss in productivity caused by smokers missing more days off work during their working lives and the possibility that smokers may have to give up work early and go on disability payments. Medical expenses aren't the only issue.

Mr Whirly

heyjude wrote: »

But you are ignoring the fact that nobody has smoked 20 a day for 50 years at the current rate of tax, but they may very well have to use hospital/medical services that will have to be paid for at todays rates. Tax rates on cigarettes 50 years ago may have been just a few pence a pack, so a single day in hospital now or a single prescription of certain drugs may account for a years worth of tobacco taxes paid then. You also forget about the loss in productivity caused by smokers missing more days off work during their working lives and the possibility that smokers may have to give up work early and go on disability payments. Medical expenses aren't the only issue.

Fair enough but you're forgetting about the ones who never get sick/ quit before it has any major implications to their health, have health insurance, don't undergo any treatment, get sick or killed by something else first and so on.

Mince Pie

I would imagine that drinkers and smokers contribute a little more to the coffers than the obesity epidemic. So I'll keep on keeping on enjoying my glass of vino and ciggie whilst eating a fairly decent diet.

gollyitsolly

Its all about freedom really,isnt it? Free to consume what you want.

Why do people obsess about obese/fat people so much? Leave them alone. Look at the amount of money they put into the economy. They spend vast amounts on food,bigger clothes,bigger chairs,bigger beds,toilet rolls.

What do skinny health obsessed people contribute? They hardly eat,dont drink ,dont smoke?

Who wants to lie in a coffin looking fit and healthy?

The goody brigade get my goat.

wendell borton

What are morals?
To me i don't give a **** what an indivual does to theirself just as long as it dosen't harm any one else. Must of the actions mentioned by the op do have knock on consequences for others.

DEFTLEFTHAND

You're not allowed to divulge certain info about tobacco, such as the 'moderation theory'. The extremists like to shout over anything that goes against their views.

sock puppet

IM0 wrote: »

point me to irrefutable evidence that smoking is the cause of cancer in 100% of cases, and not to a study that shows that people who died also smoked, very different things

How strange. It seems like tobacco PR rep from the 1970s has somehow found their way on to boards.

Siuin

The basic problem with the OP's assertions is that he's under the false impression that every man is an island. No, you're not. You're part of a wider society on which negative actions can have negative consequences. You have your individual rights, but when they have such negative consequences for wider society, that society has the right to enact laws which will balance out your rights with their well-being as a whole in a way that is reasonable.

IM0

Siuin wrote: »

The basic problem with the OP's assertions is that he's under the false impression that every man is an island. No, you're not. You're part of a wider society on which negative actions can have negative consequences. You have your individual rights, but when they have such negative consequences for wider society, that society has the right to enact laws which will balance out your rights with their well-being as a whole in a way that is reasonable.

dont patronise me please :rolleyes:

and at least give examples and make some points to debate about

Siuin

IM0 wrote: »

dont patronise me please :rolleyes:

and at least give examples and make some points to debate about

You're complaining about being patronised and then put a rolleyes at the end? Hypocritical much?

What I said is pretty clear without needing to go through every single example you gave. Your argument is "it's my money, I'll do what I want with it". My argument is "well, it may be your money but you belong to a wider society which is affected by the decisions you make, therefore your rights are subject to the well-being of the community as a whole." I don't need to spell out the negative consequences of gambling, prostitution, drinking, smoking- if you want to screw up your own life and health, that's your problem, but I agree with the government's decision to put restrictions and extra levies on behaviours which are detrimental to greater society.

Boombastic

Siuin wrote: »

You're complaining about being patronised and then put a rolleyes at the end? Hypocritical much?

What I said is pretty clear without needing to go through every single example you gave. Your argument is "it's my money, I'll do what I want with it". My argument is "well, it may be your money but you belong to a wider society which is affected by the decisions you make, therefore your rights are subject to the well-being of the community as a whole." I don't need to spell out the negative consequences of gambling, prostitution, drinking, smoking- if you want to screw up your own life and health, that's your problem, but I agree with the government's decision to put restrictions and extra levies on behaviours which are detrimental to greater society.

Get in the sack

IM0

Siuin wrote: »

You're complaining about being patronised and then put a rolleyes at the end? Hypocritical much?

What I said is pretty clear without needing to go through every single example you gave. Your argument is "it's my money, I'll do what I want with it". My argument is "well, it may be your money but you belong to a wider society which is affected by the decisions you make, therefore your rights are subject to the well-being of the community as a whole." I don't need to spell out the negative consequences of gambling, prostitution, drinking, smoking- if you want to screw up your own life and health, that's your problem, but I agree with the government's decision to put restrictions and extra levies on behaviours which are detrimental to greater society.

well youre trying to put words in my mouth, if you want to avoid that happening in future, look at the words you use.

and ok now were getting somewhere, the problem is most modern life is based on statistics, the problem is not so much what the statistics say, but more the for example lets use smoking, people of die of lung cancer smokers and non smokers alike, but please tell me you can see the difference between dying while doing something [smoking for during life] and dying, but then looking retrospectively at a life and saying they smoked, and putting 2 and 2 together and getting 46 until someone debunks what has been said, and suddenly a new truth comes to light that actually they were wrong.