NHS lottery if you're fat or smoke

NHS lottery if you're fat or smoke - Telegraph:

But under these guidelines, they don’t even get to clap eyes on the patient, let alone assess them. What is really worrying is that this is contrary to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines on treating, for example, arthritis. It clearly states that obesity should not be a barrier to referral for joint replacement surgery, and yet the CCG is doing precisely that.

You know Pat Nurse posted something not too long ago that fits right in with what I'm thinking right now .

And although I'm not in love with the addiction angle he paints a very different picture than the one the NHS is painting.

I love it when a doctor shows compassion and care for the people he treats.

Bhutan New tobacco Act will benefit 19

kuenselonline » Blog Archive » New tobacco Act will benefit 19:

Judges throw more light into retrospective active application of the law
While the amended Tobacco Control Act might have come in a bit too late for 63 people already sentenced under the previous one, it stands to benefit 19 others.

Judges have further clarified that the amended law will apply ex post facto or retrospectively for those whose cases remain undecided.

Of the 84 people who fell prey to the previous Act between 2010 and 2011, five have appealed to higher courts following judgments from the lower ones and 14 cases are still under trial .

“Cases still under trial and pending will benefit from the amended tobacco Act,” a judge said.

For the rest, judges said since their cases have already been decided, there was no appeal and no retrospective application of the new law.

Their only appeal, judges said, was to the King who had the authority to grant amnesty, pardon and reduction of sentences.

New law can’t be applied retroactively 

 Some lawyers said retroactive application of law could not be entertained in the country just as it was considered unacceptable internationally.

As many as 25 nations across the globe including Australia,  Japan, New Zealand, Sweden, United Kingdom and the US have prohibited to apply laws retrospectively, most of them by the Constitution.

“It’s illegal,” a lawyer said. “Just as you can’t have the penalty increased or made more severe as the law changes, you can’t reduce it or have it made milder.”

National Council’s Kuenlay Tshering said there was no question of the new Act being applicable retroactively when it, like any other statutes, was adopted after the Parliament’s passing of it.

“Anyone, or criminals serving prison term can’t have their prison term shortened following amendments in a law,” he said.

A former judge who today runs Sayang Law Chambers, a private legal firm, Shera Lhundup said while the judiciary had no authority to decide whether to apply the new law retroactively, it should have been the Parliament that should have made it clear if the new Act should be applied  so.

Another legal expert agreed the courts generally did not give a statute retroactive application unless it was intended by the legislature and its intent expressed clearly in the law.

:(

I feel sickened by the idea that this was a long hard fight for the people of Bhutan and that it makes no difference to all the people who have already been sentenced under the tobacco control act.

And so many people only get information thirdhand,me included.

I wonder if the King will be inclined to show these poor people mercy.

What Can £10 Buy

It can help pay for someone not to go to jail for trying to find the truth.

Smoker Rekindles Legal Challenge

He launched his challenge after he was ordered to pay £1,250 in fines and costs for lighting up at the Bangor Castle HQ of North Down Borough Council in 2007.

His application for leave to seek a judicial review was adjourned on Monday after the court heard that all the necessary legal documents were not yet ready for the case.

Mr Carter wants the judicial review on the basis that the information which led to the introduction of the smoking ban was incorrect.

Smoker's Supreme Court bid is rejected

The 57-year-old has been involved in a four-year legal battle to quash his conviction for lighting up at the front of Bangor Town Hall in October 2007.

He was prosecuted under the Smoking (NI) Order 2006 because it was a no-smoking area. A fine and costs of £1,250 in total were imposed on him at the time.

Mr Carter represented himself in an attempt to judicially review the legislation. He claimed his rights to privacy and freedom from torture and discrimination were breached. A panel of judges dismissed his case last year.

He then applied yesterday to have his case reopened. Failing that, he also sought leave to apply to the Supreme Court.

However, Lord Justice Girvan dismissed his request and ruled that no certifiable point of public importance had been identified to warrant taking the case to the Supreme Court.

But what you don't know and what I am a bad enough writer not to explain to you is contained in these blogs 

http://patnurseblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/one-law-for-all-another-for-smokers.html

http://captainranty.blogspot.com/2012/01/help-wanted.html

http://underdogsbiteupwards.blogspot.com/2012/01/smoke-war-another-in-need-of-help.html

http://f2cscotland.blogspot.com/2012/01/bid-for-court-hearing-on-smoking-ban.html

Please donate,I did.
It's quick and easy and can be done here through Paypal.
It was quick and easy and it makes me feel better knowing I supported someone who I will never meet or ever know.

http://smokersjustice.co.uk/

Further restrictions on smoking

Further restrictions on smoking | Breaking News:

 

An expert said yesterday Sri Lanka had the potential to introduce legislation calling for the total ban on tobacco consumption by those born after 2000.
 
Singapore National University Professor A.J. Berrick told a seminar on tobacco consumption that academics had submitted a research paper on the possibility of stopping tobacco consumption altogether by restricting the access to tobacco by individuals born after 2000.

Deputy Solicitor General Vijitha Malalgoda said there were practical difficulties in introducing such legislation but said it was a step in the right direction as it could make a significant impact on the reduction of tobacco consumption in the country.
 


Here we go again.

Let elderly smoke inside

Let elderly smoke inside:

Alberta's smoke-free legislation exempts in-patients or residents of group living facilities and permits designated smoking rooms.

If there aren't any accommodations, it is not because of the anti-tobacco legislation, it is because these old-age homes are making decisions that make the lives of their staff easier while torturing old people by kicking them outside to smoke.

There is nothing wrong with a dedicated smoking room well in sight of staff who can monitor potential problems.

That letter is in relation to this letter.

Truthfully I don't have much to say except again how grateful I am that both my elderly smoking parents live with me and not in some home where they would be forced out doors to smoke.

Senator looks to clear air in bars, restaurants, public places

Senator looks to clear air in bars, restaurants, public places | The Crimson White:

State Sen. Vivian Davis Figures said Tuesday, Jan. 10, she will introduce legislation and a constitutional amendment to ban smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants but not private clubs, according to a Tuscaloosa News article.

Figures, D-Mobile, has proposed various anti-smoking legislation in her 13 years in the State Senate. Now she wants to introduce a constitutional amendment to curtail exposure to secondhand smoke.

The state of Alabama does not have a statewide smoking ban. Instead, the Alabama Clean Indoor Air Act, passed in 2003 with the help of Figures, generally forbids smoking in public places and public meetings unless they are designated as smoking areas, enclosed and well-ventilated. The Act bans smoking in locations such as hospitals, schools, most retail establishments, elevators, buses, taxis, restrooms and polling places.

It's discouraging knowing how property rights keep getting trampled,year after year.
A constitutional amendment eh?
She hasn't been too sucessful in the past with this sort of thing.

Smoking areas needed

Smoking areas needed:

I recently had the opportunity to stay with my parents in a seniors home in Edmonton.

I smoke, so I would join the smokers out-side.

I was appalled that these senior citizens do not have a shelter to smoke in. I am talking about seniors in wheelchairs and walkers.

They pay enough money to be afforded a shelter. Most of these seniors are unable to quit smoking at this time in their lives. It is one of the few enjoyments they have left.

I can understand that they are not allowed to have a cigarette in their suite; it would be far too difficult to evacuate all those seniors should there be a fire.

As it got colder and windier, there were fewer people smoking and I heard rumours that they were smoking in their rooms.

I never know exactly what to write about these things,I read them and I'm sickened and disgusted at how we treat our elderly.
In so many ways I am glad my elderly parents who both smoke live with me.
I hate the idea of them being treated like unwanted,unliked people because they choose to smoke.