I stink like a Bloody Ashtray!!

[robmiller]

Less harmful but not harmless. Over 750 people a year die form proven passive smoking related disease.

And lots of people die from industrial emissions, and car/truck/bus exhausts, and zillions of other things. People die, and (forgive me if this sounds callous) 750 people a year is not very many (it's like 0.15% of deaths, which—considering virtually everyone is exposed to second-hand smoke—is not even a drop in the ocean).

 

[Slam62]

Do they not already?

Yes but it should be doubled or trippled or something.

Smoking is a pointless anti social habit and has no plus sides for either the smoker or people who are near them.

It does make money for tobacco companies however which provides employment oh and the for the doctors and nurses of course.

 

[Zip]

And lots of people die from industrial emissions, and car/truck/bus exhausts, and zillions of other things..

But in this Day and age we NEED these things to live our lives and get places and such and help people in ways.

You dont NEED Cigarettes to live and they certainly dont help anyone at all really apart from shareholders in the companies

 

[freebooter]

But still, even if 100% of the smoke was able to get out, you're still taking in a hugely diluted form; couple that with the fact that you'll breath this hugely diluted smoke once or twice a week (rather than a higher amount of a concentrated form 20 times a day) and it's surely logical to conclude that it is far less harmful

The harm/risk from cigarette smoke is not linearly related to the amount of smoke. A smoker on 10 a day has far higher than 50% of the risk than a smoker on 20 a day.

As a smoker I support the ban and any other measures that reduce the acceptability of smoking. If they could stop all smoking in films etc by beautifull/handsome actors and make it compulsory for all the scum characters that no one wants to emulate that would be great if unlikely.

It should always be portrayed as what it really is: drug addiction with no benefit to the smoker.

 

[wozzizname]

I rarely go to pubs simply because I hate the amount of smoke in most of them, so I for one will be cheering when the ban comes in. If someone has a nicotine addiction why can't they wear a nicotine patch or chew some of the special gum, instead of kippering my clothes and hair when I go out. It also takes me hours for my eyes to stop watering after being exposed to large amounts of fag smoke.
Those people arguing for personal rights should bear in mind that freedom to do what you want needs to be balanced by consideration for others, including the right of the non-smoking majority to enjoy a smoke free environment.

 

[Pez]

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I wondered around giving people a disease that kills them slowly, would they say 'oh, well I guess he has a right to do that, it is a democracy after all'.

Would they hell.

Bring on the ban.

 

[Amp34]

Hmm, I wonder what would happen if I wondered around giving people a disease that kills them slowly, would they say 'oh, well I guess he has a right to do that, it is a democracy after all'.

Would they hell.

Bring on the ban.

There are a few people that have done that. The most recent on I have heard about is the man who gave about 10 women he slept with HIV. He was sent to prison for a very long time, same with the woman that did a similar thing to blokes.

 

[-Ad-]

I dont smoke but live and let's live man...

EDIT
Dont kisss ladies that smoke...regardless of how hot they are or wanna sex me....it is very revolting.

Yup agreed, although the last one i kissed tasted ok. I must have been more hammered than i thought

 

[Pez]

There are a few people that have done that. The most recent on I have heard about is the man who gave about 10 women he slept with HIV. He was sent to prison for a very long time, same with the woman that did a similar thing to blokes.

So why are smokers not subject to the same locking away?

 

[Amp34]

So why are smokers not subject to the same locking away?

Because smoking is ingrained in our society and smoking around others doesn't guarentee (sp) they will become ill from it. Knowingly having sex with somebody without protection when you have HIV is pretty certain to kill them.

Yup agreed, although the last one i kissed tasted ok. I must have been more hammered than i thought

Kissing someone after they have had apple or peach schnaps, mmm...

 

[AJUK]

Yup agreed, although the last one i kissed tasted ok. I must have been more hammered than i thought

LOL. We have all been there.

I used to go out with a bird that smoked those menthol fags, minty on the outside, nicotiney on the inside.

 

[Toxicseagull]

humpf @op im in the same situation a hell of a lot of the time, girlfriend of 2 years smokes and has done since she was 12. in a group of about 20 mates about 17 smoke. then ive smoked 4 2 years without any filters.
its messed up, i constantly spit out large lumps of solid phlegm even tho i havent smoked since i started going out with my girlfriend of two years (weird no?)

i dont mind it unless its blown directly in my face, but is that really the first time its happened to you or is it just this one time that its got to you?

just think, their wasting a load of money a year on something that disappears when its used and kills them. their loss.

nto gona get into the whole "rights thing" about smoking, both groups have points which they will endlessly repeat until blue in the face (or coughing)

 

[-Ad-]

Kissing someone after they have had apple or peach schnaps, mmm...

Actually i think she had been drinking those. Lol

I used to go out with a bird that smoked those menthol fags, minty on the outside, nicotiney on the inside.

I bet that was a shock..... mmmmmmmmm the taste of nicotine, tar, and death

 

[The Running Man]

And lots of people die from industrial emissions, and car/truck/bus exhausts, and zillions of other things. People die, and (forgive me if this sounds callous) 750 people a year is not very many (it's like 0.15% of deaths, which—considering virtually everyone is exposed to second-hand smoke—is not even a drop in the ocean).

how many children get brought up in harmful environments which will shape their future, outlook on life, and most likely their medical outcome?

and then tell me, how many die or suffer from paedophilia attacks each year?

should smoking be banned in the home? it would seem logical to protect the children would it not?

besides, you mention a "status quo" - in a fast moving democracy we should always be challenging the status quo, looking to do things better, to benefot more lives. If we were to remain stagnant we would not have evolved intot he nation we are today (for better or worse..)

just because smoking is the status quo doesnt mean it should remain so in such circumstances. 12 year old marriages used to be the status quo in the 10th century, but they arent any longer, infact they would be very much frowned upon?s

 

[robmiller]

how many children get brought up in harmful environments which will shape their future, outlook on life, and most likely their medical outcome?

and then tell me, how many die or suffer from paedophilia attacks each year?

should smoking be banned in the home? it would seem logical to protect the children would it not?

besides, you mention a "status quo" - in a fast moving democracy we should always be challenging the status quo, looking to do things better, to benefot more lives. If we were to remain stagnant we would not have evolved intot he nation we are today (for better or worse..)

just because smoking is the status quo doesnt mean it should remain so in such circumstances. 12 year old marriages used to be the status quo in the 10th century, but they arent any longer, infact they would be very much frowned upon?s

I didn't justify smoking by saying that it was the status quo, please read my post. The natural situation is that people smoke; if you want to change the status quo you must justify that change. It's up to anti-smokers to justify banning smoking, not smokers to justify smoking.

 

[Meatball]

Don't get me started on cigarettes. I have to get a coach to College there and back every Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. The bus driver is allowing people to smoke on the bus even though it strictly says everywhere "no smoking on the bus" There are no Windows and within minutes the whole coach is full of smoke. It's really not fair . I've reported it to the transport office but nothing as happened, didn't look to bothered by it either

 

[Von Luck]

I didn't justify smoking by saying that it was the status quo, please read my post. The natural situation is that people smoke; if you want to change the status quo you must justify that change. It's up to anti-smokers to justify banning smoking, not smokers to justify smoking.

It's addictive, it's proven to harm people who smoke and those around them, it's disproportionately more common amongst the poorest sections of society who can least afford to waste money on it.

The justification for a ban has been overwhelming for years - thankfully the government has finally grown a pair and is doing something about it. The onus is now on individuals who are pro-smoking to attempt to argue against a ban.

 

[badgermonkey]

But still, even if 100% of the smoke was able to get out, you're still taking in a hugely diluted form; couple that with the fact that you'll breath this hugely diluted smoke once or twice a week (rather than a higher amount of a concentrated form 20 times a day) and it's surely logical to conclude that it is far less harmful
.

Hang on hang on.

A couple of posts ago you stated quite definatively that you think second hand smoke is completely harmless.

Now you're saying it's just less harmlful than actually smoking, thereby admitting that it IS harmful in some way or other.


Inconsistancy prevails against those who want us to suffer

 

[tenchi-fan]

Smoke-free in Irish pubs and offices. Woo!

I like visiting my gran's house but when I leave every one says "were you smoking" or "I didn't know you smoked."

I hope some day smoking will be eradicated altogether!

 

[Muban]

An interesting point of note. Since the smoking ban has been introduced in Scotland, people who don't go to pubs and clubs are generally exposed to more second hand smoke than they were before the ban.

I used to be a smoker and even when I was it appears I had a lot more consideration for non smokers than many others. There are smokers out there who, even if it was proven that smoking badly damaged non smokers couldn't care less if it killed someone else. So thinking of it in those terms you are always going to have smokers who complain about the ban no matter how reasonably it is put into place.