KiwiNZ: compassion?

MikeSkyrme:

KiwiNZ:

nathan: sad story, 30 year old mother of 8 kids, no teeth, didn't really eat food, scared of going to the doctor, partner convicted of a violent home invasion, smoked 30 cigarettes a day, 1 of the kids born with buggered teeth with no enamel coating, but its someone else's fault

A lot failed

What failed?

vexxxboy:

MikeSkyrme:

mjb:

mattwnz: Smoking isdalso addicative, and tax payer money is spent to get people off it, by subsiding drugs to help people give up

To be honest, smoking should continue to be allowed (as in, not banned), as it helps to control the population.. I do wonder if the guvmint can support the ACC and retirement costs of all those that wouldn't die early from smoking related illnesses.

Don't forget to also add in the cost of the reduced tax revenue figure should smoking be banned completely...

this is the big fallacy with banning smoking. ie: reduced tax revenue, when in fact we spend more on health care due to smoking than we take in taxes from smoking. 

SaltyNZ:

MikeSkyrme:

KiwiNZ:

nathan: sad story, 30 year old mother of 8 kids, no teeth, didn't really eat food, scared of going to the doctor, partner convicted of a violent home invasion, smoked 30 cigarettes a day, 1 of the kids born with buggered teeth with no enamel coating, but its someone else's fault

A lot failed

What failed?

Contraception?

MikeSkyrme:

vexxxboy:

MikeSkyrme:

mjb:

mattwnz: Smoking isdalso addicative, and tax payer money is spent to get people off it, by subsiding drugs to help people give up

To be honest, smoking should continue to be allowed (as in, not banned), as it helps to control the population.. I do wonder if the guvmint can support the ACC and retirement costs of all those that wouldn't die early from smoking related illnesses.

Don't forget to also add in the cost of the reduced tax revenue figure should smoking be banned completely...

this is the big fallacy with banning smoking. ie: reduced tax revenue, when in fact we spend more on health care due to smoking than we take in taxes from smoking. 

As I dive further off topic, I will just add:

From NBR, March 2012:

Smoking related healthcare spending: $250M.
Tax revenue for the same period: $891M.

Since this time, tax levels have been raised, the annual take (taxwise) from tobacco products is expected to be circa $1.4 Billion.

Ropata:

MikeSkyrme:

vexxxboy:

MikeSkyrme:

mjb:

mattwnz: Smoking isdalso addicative, and tax payer money is spent to get people off it, by subsiding drugs to help people give up

To be honest, smoking should continue to be allowed (as in, not banned), as it helps to control the population.. I do wonder if the guvmint can support the ACC and retirement costs of all those that wouldn't die early from smoking related illnesses.

Don't forget to also add in the cost of the reduced tax revenue figure should smoking be banned completely...

this is the big fallacy with banning smoking. ie: reduced tax revenue, when in fact we spend more on health care due to smoking than we take in taxes from smoking. 

As I dive further off topic, I will just add:

From NBR, March 2012:

Smoking related healthcare spending: $250M.
Tax revenue for the same period: $891M.

Since this time, tax levels have been raised, the annual take (taxwise) from tobacco products is expected to be circa $1.4 Billion.

This is the point exactly. Who is really addicted to smoking? And if this is the case then all unhealthy foods should be taxed as well. Adding to all that is that the total death toll from sweet mary jane is zero. ZERO. In fact the only reason i can think of for it still being illegal is purely political and commercial. How dare people grow their own medicine whose only side effects are hunger, relaxation and sleep when you can buy a drug at massive profit margins with long term terrible side effects. I dare someone to debate this. 

gzt: Let's face it. The only reason Coca-Cola does not want a warning on their product is because they know it will cause some of their customers to think twice about using it.

crackrdbycracku:
Buy a house that was consented, inspected and approved by a council; the house then gets built buy a 'professional builder'; then you get told it is leaky, uninhabitable and will need to be repaired, often by the council which originally approved it. It is entirely your responsibility as the home owner.

What do you all think? 

SaltyNZ:

MikeSkyrme:

KiwiNZ:

nathan: sad story, 30 year old mother of 8 kids, no teeth, didn't really eat food, scared of going to the doctor, partner convicted of a violent home invasion, smoked 30 cigarettes a day, 1 of the kids born with buggered teeth with no enamel coating, but its someone else's fault

A lot failed

What failed?

Contraception?

qwerty7:

gzt: Let's face it. The only reason Coca-Cola does not want a warning on their product is because they know it will cause some of their customers to think twice about using it.

There is no reason at all they should have a warning on their product in my opinion. Maybe a little small print on the back just for cover your a** bs but.. At the end of the day she died because she had poor diet.