Yes, it's probably not 'cool' to ridicule the cerebrally-challenged, but seeing as some Manc twat (I say that, but he only actually admits to being a Manchester United fan, so he could be from Cornwall for all we know) has decided to throw sweeping generalisations around, I claim the right to reply in equal manner.
Attention smokers: I hope you burn in hell
Why, fuck you very much, Paul, nice to meet you too. Interesting use of spiteful hatred in your opening gambit, duly noted.
I hate smokers. Not like I hate paedophiles or Liverpool fans, but right up there with war criminals and boat shoes.
See, we have a problem already. Once we encounter some lads' mag moron equating paedophiles with Liverpool fans, and smokers with war criminals, there is obviously going to be a poor argument to follow. We'll go with it though. After all, he is entirely entitled to his opinion as long as it is based in fact.
Unfortunately, he further loses touch with reality by relying on his confirmation bias to regurgitate one-sided equations pushed by vested interests, not that he would have noticed that salient point (he could have investigated further, but then why should he? He hates smokers so anything that backs up his bigotry isn't worth casual checking).
That's about 5.5 per cent of the entire NHS budget. I'm not sure how many children with leukaemia that would treat, but I'm guessing you'd still have change left over to help a few adults who had acquired a disease accidentally rather than deliberately and systematically.
Ah, thinking of the chiiildren, I see.
5.5% of the budget you say, Paul? Wow! Quite shocking. Except that if you had engaged brain before employing keyboard you could have avoided some embarrassment.
According to national statistics, the population at the last census was just shy of 61 million, 11.7 million of whom were kids. Smoker prevalence is 21% of adults which equates to 17% of the population as a whole.
Let's revisit your idiot argument about kids with leukaemia again, shall we? Smokers pay, according to official statistics (and I'm being conservative here), more than twice that £5bn cost in tobacco duty alone. This doesn't take into account national insurance contributions or savings in pension payouts. On the basis of such truths instead of prejudicial vagaries, 17% of NHS users costing only 5.5% of the NHS budget (using the inflated BHF figure and ignoring any contribution from smokers whatsoever) looks like a bona fide bargain once the incontrovertible facts are looked at, doncha think Paul? In fact, it's a massive profit.
Just think of how many kids with leukaemia have benefitted from smoker contributions, eh? I know it doesn't fit with your knuckle-dragging bullshit stats, but then, that's why you're a bread and circuses chimp and I'm not.
What is quite funny about your nonsense piece, Paul, is that the evidence was there for you but you just didn't have the mental capacity to see it. Remember writing this?
The survey reports that in the UK, 21 per cent of adults smoke.
A maths lesson for you. 21 minus 5.5 equals? Come on Paul, it's not difficult. I know 21 presents a problem when relying on fingers and toes, but use some initiative, sunshine.
OK, I have replied with a sweeping generalisation, as you did, you may even have spotted it if you weren't picking fleas out of your simian navel at the time, now for the spiteful hatred by return.
Just my opinion, and all that, but you sir, are a rancid, shallow fucktard who deserves to be fisted up the ringpiece with a sandpaper and broken glass-encrusted glove, for using sick kids to justify your selfish and puerile dislikes. Just stick to talking about overpaid men in shorts in future, eh?
