Great Britain: 17,000 blinded by fags (Smoking, that is)

The Sun (U.K.) ^ | September 7 ,2005 | EMMA MORTON

[Stoat]

17,000 blinded by fags

By EMMA MORTON

 MORE than 17,000 Britons have gone blind because they SMOKE, it was revealed yesterday.

 

The shock statistic shows the link between fags and sight loss is as strong as that between cigs and lung cancer.

The cigarettes cause a form of blindness called Age-Related Macular Degeneration, known as AMD.

Smoke destroys cells in an area at the back of the eye named the macular. And smokers do not absorb nutrients from food essential for good eyesight.

Cigarette puffers are four times more likely to develop AMD or lung cancer than those who shun the weed.

And even social smokers who only indulge on nights out run double the risk of blindness than people who never light up.

The alert follows research by medics from Manchester University.

Study leader Simon Kelly, a consultant opthalmic surgeon, said: “An important health message needs to be conveyed. We would like to see labelling on cigarette packets.”

AMD victim Pauline Edwards, 50, was told she had the eyes of an 80-year-old — and was going blind.

The ex-nurse, of Salford, Greater Manchester, used to smoke up to 40 fags a day.

She said: “I woke up one morning and the walls in my bedroom seemed wobbly. I was very, very frightened.”

[R. Scott]

I sometimes wonder (foil hat firmly in place) if our “esteemed” politicians aren’t in league with criminal organizations. They learned what will happen if a wanted commodity is banned when the 18th Amendment was enacted. It seems that more than a few public officials and politicians made money from the illegal sales of booze. Shortly after prohibition was repealed recreational drugs were banned – and more than a few public officials and politicians may well be making money from their sale – gotta keep the “War” on drugs going. If they can succeed in forcing tobacco into the same situation, there will be even more money to be made.
Of course, not all politicians or bureaucrats who back this “war” are making money from it – some are just using it to further their careers.

[Stoat]

Agreed; "spot on" as our British Friends say. Whenever there's money to be made, corruption will exist at some level, human nature being what it is.

Given that fact, would it not be most beneficial to focus not so much on the potential for corruption but the greater good of humanity?

Assuming we can all agree that it's in society's best interest to prevent five year olds from being given heroin in exchange for their milk money, would it not then be most appropriate to strive toward that goal rather than to entirely forsake that goal only because there is a potential for abuse and corruption at some levels of Government?

(putting flame-resistant Stoat Coveralls on upon realizing that I am treading upon the foundations of Libertarianism)

[Gabz]

Interesting.

I started wearing glasses when I was 14, before I started smoking. Now, at nearly 45 the eye doctor has informed my sight has improved so much I no longer need them to drive, as did the DMV when it removed the corrective lens restriction on my license.............and I have only needed them to drive for years.

[R. Scott]

Given that fact, would it not be most beneficial to focus not so much on the potential for corruption but the greater good of humanity?

As if school kids can’t exchange their lunch money (and allowance) for heroin now.
Why not prohibit alcohol again?
Why not prohibit tobacco (some do favor it)
Why not make private ownership of motor vehicles, firearms and blades, swimming pools, mop buckets etc. illegal?
Why not ban gangsta rap, sexually oriented advertising and fast food?
Why not ban the sale of clothing that might lead to some kid being shot for his shoes or jacket?
It would all be for “the greater good of humanity”.

[Just A Nobody]

UNBELIEVABLE!!!

I would ask what will they come up with next, but I feel I would not like the answer. This is disgusting. Thanks for the ping.

[Gabz]

Unbelieveable and disgusting are 2 excellent ways to describe this...............

[Gabz]

Don't give them any more bright ideas..........

[R. Scott]

They are thinking all the time.

[The Foolkiller]

The California Legislature on Tuesday became the first legislative body in the country to approve same-sex marriages, as gay-rights advocates overcame two earlier defeats in the Assembly.

The 41-35 vote sends the bill to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The bill's supporters compared the legislation to earlier civil rights campaigns, including efforts to eradicate slavery and give women the right to vote.

"Do what we know is in our hearts," said the bill's sponsor, San Francisco Democrat Mark Leno. "Make sure all California families will have the same protection under the law."

---

Too bad smokers don't.

[The Foolkiller]

Ann has a beautiful face, but God, I wish she'd eat more.

[The Foolkiller]

As Squeezer always says, Gabz-they just keep churning them out. How can I get grant money to do a 'study'?

[Stoat]

As if school kids can’t exchange their lunch money (and allowance) for heroin now.

Actually no they cant.  It's illegal for them to do so because Society recognizes that it's highly detrimental to people to a FAR worse degree than alcohol. (which is also illegal for children to consume)

Why not prohibit alcohol again?

Because it's not nearly as dangerous as heroin and can be (and is) enjoyed by billions of people all over the world in moderation without their becoming addicted and ruining their lives.  As with anything, there are those who seem unable to use it in moderation but our society has made a choice that is it willing to accept the level of mayhem that alcohol produces.  Some cultures have made different decisions.

Why not prohibit tobacco (some do favor it)

Why not make private ownership of motor vehicles, firearms and blades, swimming pools, mop buckets etc. illegal?
Why not ban gangsta rap, sexually oriented advertising and fast food?
Why not ban the sale of clothing that might lead to some kid being shot for his shoes or jacket?

Of course not, same rationale as above. 

It would all be for “the greater good of humanity”.
 

I fear that my post has been misinterpreted, possibly because I failed to state my position clearly enough.  I am, of course, not advocating the wholesale and mindless illegalization of anything that could be conceivably detrimental as you seem to infer, only  a reasoned and balanced approach to lawmaking.  Again, given the fact that human beings are, by nature flawed and therefore there is always potential for abuse and corruption anytime a profit is to be made, would this be a valid rationale for dispensing with a system of laws altogether, merely because there is a potential for corruption? Prohibition was repealed because it was a wildly unpopular law and it created far more problems than it solved.  It did not, as it's proponents had suggested at the outset, address the greater good of humanity.

 

[swarthyguy]

Better than going blind from that other thing, i guess.

But, then again, come to massachusetts, you can't smoke one in a bar, but you CAN marry the fag you shag.

[GOP_Raider]

Double entendre, always funny.

[Stoat]

Too bad smokers don't

Agreed.  If any other population demographic were treated in the manner that smokers (and Christians) currently are, there would be a massive and unrestrained hue and cry throughout the 'mainstream' press over the horrific injustices that are being inflicted.  Smokers and Christians are currently among the groups that are regarded as "okay to discriminate against in the most brutal manner possible"

[Gabz]

I know - I just don't like to encourage them.

[retrokitten]

17,000 blinded by fags

Don't they know how to do the Three Stooges hand in front of those/parallel to the face block over there?

[Stoat]

Ann has a beautiful face, but God, I wish she'd eat more.

I would be delighted to cook her a nice steak-and-pasta dinner, but I know that I am only one of millions of admirers who would do so.

 

"sigh"

[Gabz]

It's not that we don't - it's that we can't (meet that level of political clout) ...smokers are politically incorrect, and don't have buckets of money coming in to support our efforts.

[Revolting cat!]

God doesn't smoke!