wrote in message
oups.com...
On 12 Sep, 18:49, "David \(Normandy\)"
wrote:
I quit over ten years ago at the same time as the Mrs. Not had a smoke
since
and certainly no desire to do so.
I'd given up several times for varying durations prior to the successful
giving up. The key to success seemed to be one of mental attitude. The
first
few failed times there was an attitude of "I'm trying to give up
smoking" -
which just seems to cause internal strife. The successful attitude was "I
don't smoke". and "I'm a none smoker". If you take that attitude you've
already won. Never torment yourself saying "I'd love a smoke" - if you do
it's be thin end of the giving up wedge. Just move on. It gets easier.
Eventually you'll regard cigarettes as objects of contempt.

David thank you very much. I don't know what to say - especially on
this forum, if you know what I mean. I'll get there, especially with
nice advice like you've just given me. Thank you again ))


We can't have too many smokers giving up. Otherwise something else will get
clobbered for tax.

mark

On 13 Sep, 14:13, Anne Jackson wrote:
I've been saying that for years... Can you imagine the wailing and
gnashing of teeth if everyone's income tax was to rise by five pence
in the pound? ;-)

That wouldn't happen coz more and more people are healthier,
especially in Scotland now and less tax money is being spent on
keeping the addicts alive with breathing apparatus, nose tubes,
artificial larynx, esophageal speaker box, oxygen etc..., innit
dd&tc

On 13 Sep, 15:06, Martin wrote:
The concept of somebody, who is terrified of "chemicals" in food, smoking
overwhelms me.

As much I as do have problems with artificial chemicals in general, my
main worry is the use of chemicals in small back gardens by naive and
ridiculous people. However what has most overwhelmed me was the
realisation of somebody I thought I knew but who turned out to be a
****.

"Martin" wrote in message
The concept of somebody, who is terrified of "chemicals" in food, smoking
overwhelms me.
--
During an argument about fluoridation of the water supply, a heavy smoker
said to me: "I'm against it (puff). There are all those studies (puff) that
show (puff) that fluoride causes cancer (puff)."
Graham

On 13 Sep, 16:05, "graham" wrote:
During an argument about fluoridation of the water supply, a heavy smoker
said to me: "I'm against it (puff). There are all those studies (puff) that
show (puff) that fluoride causes cancer (puff)."

LOL!!

"Anne Jackson" wrote in message
...
The message from contains these words:

It was proved, some years ago (in a 'Panorama' programme, IIRC)
that a lifelong smoker pays much more into the Treasury funds
through taxation on cigarettes than even the most expensive,
worst possible scenario, cancer treatment costs. Sorry to shoot
down your argument, but the loss of bar takings, and the number
of bar staff made unemployed by the no-smoking legislation in
Scotland is _way_ above all the predictions. Ergo, more
'job-seekers allowance' is being paid out.

The number of bankruptcy cases filed by publicans is going to be
mind-blowing... so, somebody somewhere is going to pay.

People aren't going to be forced to stop smoking by government
legislation! Instead they are going to the off-licence and the
chip shop/pizzeria/kebab place, and eating and drinking at home,
where they can smoke in peace...and their non-smoking pals are
joining them!

Strange people, the Scots, it seems{:-) Smoking was banned in bars here
this year and the bars have not suffered. Indeed, some have seen an
increase in business.
Graham

On 13 Sep, 16:09, Anne Jackson wrote:
I'm treating this seriously, although you posted 'tongue in cheek'
because as far as I am concerned it is a _serious_ subject, Helene.
It was proved, some years ago (in a 'Panorama' programme, IIRC)
that a lifelong smoker pays much more into the Treasury funds
through taxation on cigarettes than even the most expensive,
worst possible scenario, cancer treatment costs. Sorry to shoot
down your argument, but the loss of bar takings, and the number
of bar staff made unemployed by the no-smoking legislation in
Scotland is _way_ above all the predictions. Ergo, more
'job-seekers allowance' is being paid out.

Off course. I was being a bit silly (but also it's therapy for me to
kid myself, know what I mean ;o)

I know of pubs that still let people smoke. I would like to still see
a choice, even though I've made a decision. My decision is personnal,
and I suppose is the case for all quiters. Don't worry about bursting
my bubble either - that's what conversation is about. In France this
summer it was funny to see that everybody was really pleased to tell
me that they also had a ban on smoking in public, however it is not
applied in restaurants, cafes and bars ... g

The number of bankruptcy cases filed by publicans is going to be
mind-blowing... so, somebody somewhere is going to pay.
People aren't going to be forced to stop smoking by government
legislation! Instead they are going to the off-licence and the
chip shop/pizzeria/kebab place, and eating and drinking at home,
where they can smoke in peace...and their non-smoking pals are
joining them!

Yeah. It's better at home anyway - I get to smell all that nice smoke
for free ;o)

In France this
summer it was funny to see that everybody was really pleased to tell
me that they also had a ban on smoking in public, however it is not
applied in restaurants, cafes and bars ... g

Smoke has prevented us from eating at French cafes and restaurants in the
UK. There has also been occasions we've stepped through the door at a pub in
England and been hit in the face with a cloud of stinking smoke, so we've
just turned around and gone out the door again. The impact on pub /
restaurant / cafe's works both ways.

Only last week we were in a nice French cafe having a couple of coffees
wondering whether to have lunch there. Some bloke walked in and stood near
us puffing on a cigar. We left.

David.

On 13 Sep, 16:33, "David \(Normandy\)"
wrote:
Smoke has prevented us from eating at French cafes and restaurants in the
UK. There has also been occasions we've stepped through the door at a pub in
England and been hit in the face with a cloud of stinking smoke, so we've
just turned around and gone out the door again. The impact on pub /
restaurant / cafe's works both ways.
Only last week we were in a nice French cafe having a couple of coffees
wondering whether to have lunch there. Some bloke walked in and stood near
us puffing on a cigar. We left.

My friend Rob opened a pub last year and made it non smoking. At first
we were all like 'is he mad?'. But he was right - people slowly came
and now it's packed. It is a pub like any other - however the beer is
just that little bit better because there's no smoke ;o)

http://www.southmanchesterreporter.c...tep_ahead.html

On Sep 13, 4:51 pm, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "graham" contains these words: "Martin" wrote in message
The concept of somebody, who is terrified of "chemicals" in food,
smoking overwhelms me.

During an argument about fluoridation of the water supply, a heavy
smoker said to me: "I'm against it (puff). There are all those studies
(puff) that show (puff) that fluoride causes cancer (puff)."

You know the funniest thing about life? Nobody, but NOBODY gets out
of it alive!

Another thing - smoking is a matter of choice, fluoridation of the
water supply _isn't_! I think I should be left to choose the mode
of my demise...? YMMV.

As a non-smoker, I respect the right of smokers to smoke, they take
the decision to do so and the responsibility. If a smoker came to my
house, they would be welcome and I know they would be considerate of
me, so when are you coming AnneJ?

What I don't understand is the lobby that goes on about anti-chemicals
because of risk to health, if a smoker stands on the soap box
expounding the healthy way forward for eating veggies without
chemicals, what does that say about them, do they know the number of
carcinogenic chemicals they are putting into their body? I do, they
can puff away to their hearts content but don't lecture me on the use
of chemicals as I don't lecture them on self-induced absorption of
chemicals from smoking.

Judith

On Sep 13, 5:07 pm, Anne Jackson wrote:
Many years ago, when I put an advert in the 'personal column'
of our local paper for 'a tall, dark, handsome millionaire'
(I kid you not!) I _did_ stipulate that 'sanctimonious
non-smokers need not reply'. That's how I met Bill! G

You didn't!!!!!!!!!:-))))))))))

Judith

On Sep 13, 4:51 pm, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "graham" contains these words: "Martin" wrote in message
The concept of somebody, who is terrified of "chemicals" in food,
smoking overwhelms me.

During an argument about fluoridation of the water supply, a heavy
smoker said to me: "I'm against it (puff). There are all those studies
(puff) that show (puff) that fluoride causes cancer (puff)."

You know the funniest thing about life? Nobody, but NOBODY gets out
of it alive!

Another thing - smoking is a matter of choice, fluoridation of the
water supply _isn't_! I think I should be left to choose the mode
of my demise...? YMMV.

It is all to do with choices - I drink wine, you smoke, I get tutted
at by my husband if I ask for a third glass!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I enjoy my
wine and I shall continue to gulp it - we would make a good couple
Anne, the smoker and the wine drinker!!

Judith

On Sep 13, 2:13 pm, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "Mark" contains
these words:





wrote:
On 12 Sep, 18:49, wrote:
I quit over ten years ago at the same time as the Mrs. Not had
a smoke since and certainly no desire to do so.
I'd given up several times for varying durations prior to the
successful giving up. The key to success seemed to be one of
mental attitude. The first few failed times there was an attitude
of "I'm trying to give up smoking" - which just seems to cause
internal strife. The successful attitude was "I don't smoke". and
"I'm a none smoker". If you take that attitude you've already won.
Never torment yourself saying "I'd love a smoke" - if you do it's
be thin end of the giving up wedge. Just move on. It gets easier.
Eventually you'll regard cigarettes as objects of contempt.

David thank you very much. I don't know what to say - especially on
this forum, if you know what I mean. I'll get there, especially with
nice advice like you've just given me. Thank you again ))

We can't have too many smokers giving up. Otherwise something else
will get clobbered for tax.

I've been saying that for years... Can you imagine the wailing and
gnashing of teeth if everyone's income tax was to rise by five pence
in the pound? ;-)

The Treasury would be in a very bad way if everyone stopped smoking
and drinking , the revenue is ginormous even set against smoking
induced disease treatment.

Judith

On Sep 13, 5:48 pm, Anne Jackson wrote:
The message from "
contains these words:

On Sep 13, 5:07 pm, Anne Jackson wrote:
Many years ago, when I put an advert in the 'personal column'
of our local paper for 'a tall, dark, handsome millionaire'
(I kid you not!) I _did_ stipulate that 'sanctimonious
non-smokers need not reply'. That's how I met Bill! G
You didn't!!!!!!!!!:-))))))))))

I DID! BG

No wonder you have TWO businesses!!!, greedy girl

Judith

On 13 Sep, 17:07, Anne Jackson wrote:
Many years ago, when I put an advert in the 'personal column'
of our local paper for 'a tall, dark, handsome millionaire'
(I kid you not!) I _did_ stipulate that 'sanctimonious
non-smokers need not reply'. That's how I met Bill! G

Brilliant )) I lost a tenner betting on a friend who said she could
have an article in The Sun newspaper within minutes. She did - she
told the journalist that she had caught her breasts in her grand
mother's mangle. Not sure what's got to do with smoking, but hey, it's
a free country, innit Anne ;o)