i see that the smoking ban has been hailed as the reason for a dramatic fall in heart attacks in scotland this last year, where do they get the proof for this? the implication was that it was not smokers that benefitted but the passivesmokers, so in past years the majority of heart attacks were not caused by bad diet, lack of excercise or dubious lifestyle and excessive drinking, no, it was passive smoking that caused it, just how much smoke did they unwillinglly inhale while ersing their nightly quota of ten pints followed by a pie or kebab?
now of course, theres the smoking ban, so they're much healthier, no nicotene in their lungs, no smelly clothes, the popyulation of scotland will live forever
of course there are smokers who have given up due to the ban, says a lot for us when they ban smoking in pubs so you give up, because as we all know, you just can't just stop going to the pub, why don't they try to ban drinking in pubs for a year, or have pubs where you can smoke but not drink, and then compare the two.
i have another theory about a stat released the same day, all these bornagain non smokers have taken up a healthy lifestyle, long walks in thecountry, a wee climb up the nearest munro, but the frustration of not having the wee fag and a cuppa when you stop for a breather is obviously getting too much for some and they take their frustrations and anger out on the wildlife, hence in the last year a 27% increase in the deaths of birds of prey.
so the message is clear
"stop smoking, climb a hill, kill a fecking eagle!!!"
who says we're not still top of the food chain?


