If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Smoke, Lies And The Nanny State
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Smoke, Lies And The Nanny State.
An excellent piece just published... extremely interesting. A refreshing and eloquent challenge to government and establishment beliefs on smoking. If only the media had the courage to publicise these holes in the arguments of the govt and anti-smoking lobby...
An excellent piece just published... extremely interesting. A refreshing and eloquent challenge to government and establishment beliefs on smoking. If only the media had the courage to publicise these holes in the arguments of the govt and anti-smoking lobby...
0
Comments
</sarcasm>
Have you read it?
Do you think vested interests do not exist on the other side? Smoking cessation clinics are a nice little earner for a doctors surgery. Pharmaceutical companies make millions from the NHS doling out nicotine patches. And one of the worst kept secrets are the lavish hospitality junkets enjoyed by medical professionals courtesy of the pharmaceutical companies. Jackson, like Forest are very open about their links - but I'm not sure the same can be said for their anti-smoking foes. Anyway it would be nice if you took the time to read it first and say something vaguely constructive instead of instantly dismissing anything questioning the establishment line as tobacco company funded propaganda.
I cannot fucking wait for the smoking ban.
Its like Esso funding the anti climate change argument. It just doesn't wash.
And for the record I don't agree with the smoking ban. :thumb:
take a rattle with you. might take your mind off of the smoke.
If Joe Jackson didn't need the money from the tobacco companies then he shouldn't have took it. If it had been free from tobacco company money it would have been much more credible.
Oh such a big clever man. :yeees:
Yeah its my problem that smoke irritates me isnt it. Dickhead.
He hasn't taken any money from tobacco companies. Forest have published his essay and Forest is funded by tobacco companies and the subscriptions of its members (who are ordinary people, smokers and non-smokers, who believe in freedom of choice).
Cancer Research UK persuades people to give up smoking. The biggest financial beneficiaries of more people giving up smoking are pharmaceutical companies selling nicotine patches/gum/etc. And Cancer Research UK gets its money from the pharmaceutical companies... If you think vested interests on the other side do not exist (to an even greater extent imo) you're somewhat naive.
I read up to him saying smoking was the friend of mindkind and decided from that point on it wasnt worth bothering with.
Well it is. It's not my problem. I smoke in pubs and I like smoking in pubs. (I also happen to like restaurants and even a pub that are non-smoking - and I can accept that, if there are other places I'm allowed to smoke). There's something called freedom of choice that you don't get. There's no reason why we can't have properly ventilated smoking areas in establishments catering for smokers.
Next you'll be complaining about people sat outside in a pub garden smoking. :rolleyes: I wonder how long it is before the anti-smoking nuts get their way and ban smoking in outside areas of pubs and restaurants.
Yeah. If you don't like an introduction why bother to carry on reading? Very academic, you must be an excellent student. :rolleyes:
DO NOT insult my academic ability you fucking prick. Smoking is not my friend end of. Freedom of choice, fuck off i have the freedom of choice not to be smoked out. Outside smoking fine inside, bothers me. Im going to leave now before you piss me off anymore, dont ever insult my academic ability again.
Ok, my apologies. I'm with you. What I'm trying to say is though, if there is any link between pro smoking material and tobacco company money then nine out of ten people will discount it, regardless of the quality of the essay.
I don't need any convincing about the smoking ban. I do think it is a bad idea. I'm now a non smoker but believe people should have the choice. After all we are a free country. :thumb:
Very true.
Tbh I do accept that the anti-smokers have won. Even though, I think most people are pragmatic and like yourself oppose a blanket ban. Not making any allowance for a separated and well ventilated area is unreasonable...and banning smoking in a room that exists for the purpose of smoking such as a cigar room or shisha bar is just absurd.
Er sorry to cause offence. I hope that's not a threat.
poorly implemented ban and people have the right to kill themselves, just not ruin the health of others around ie in a well ventilated area or outdoors
it is when you are on private property
1. The article seems to completely ignore COPD, smoking doesn't just impact on prevalence of heart disease and lung cancer which incidentally is higher in smokers than non-smokers.
2. Smoking cessation is not a "nice little earner" for GPs. If it was then I wouldn't be having trouble getting them to do it.
Why not? I quite like this idea. That means I wouldn't have to breathe anyone's smoke in unless I decided that I wanted to talk to a friend of mine when he smokes. (incidently, he is very considerate about where he cmokes)
Not necessarily.
If you're causing him harm through your smoking it's not his fault, just because it's private property. If someone causes you harm through slapping you or something 'on private property' it still isn't your fault / your problem exclusively. Though they're different in that smokers don't intend to cause harm and the slapper does, they both cause harm to the other person through no fault of their own.
I think it's a really bad attitude to say to an asthamtic it's their problem if they get ill from breathing in second hand smoke, and if they don't want to suffer they should go home. Surely it's the same if there is no entry ramp, poor guy in a wheelchair, he should just go home.
Which is probably why people with more experience in law and legislative matters than both of us have said that pubs and indoor places have to be smoke free zones.
In one or two places in America they have already banned smoking in places such as beaches and parks. That is as preposterous as pointless. NOBODY can smell, inhale or be bothered by somebody smoking outdoors unless they are within a couple of metres of them and the wind is blowing the wrong way.
This is becoming worse than Nazi Germany.
Aladdin, what would you advocate would be the best way to proceed?
What harm has he suffered ?
In my experience those folk of which you speak say things like that because it will guarantee future income for members of that cult.
None, but because of a medical condition he is unable to enter the premises.
Oh ffs not this again...
If it was up to you to decide on policy, what would you decide? Would you take into account external damage that happens when someone does something undesirable, for example driving a 4x4, smoking, playing music loudly.
I think he's talking a load of shit. Yes, the dangers of smoking are put forward in such a way to stop people from doing it and the infomation is biased. But we all know that. He's just as bad by swinging it completly the other with with rediculous arguements such as 'Nicotine isn't bad, its an naturally occuring substance found in tomatoes'. What the fuck?
The main point of the smoking ban is that it's not to stop smokers doing what they love but to protect people who don't want to smoke from having to endure it. Take pubs for instance. Without the smoking ban smokers can smoke freely but non smokers have to put up with it. With the smoking ban, smokers and non smokers can enjoy a drink together and the smokers pop outside for a quick fag. You might argue that its not fair that the smokers have to go outside but why is it fair for the non-smokers to endure the smoke? The latter seems the closest thing to pleasing everyone , smokers can still smoke but please don't do it around people who don't like it. It seems a question of consideration to me.
The smoking ban in Wales works very well, I've heard no-one complain about it. Even my smoking friends comment on how nice the pubs are now they don't reek of smoke, and my smoking boyfriend is happy to go outside for a fag and says how nice it is that I don't smell of smoke after I come in from the pub. Additionally, I have no problem with places where smokers can all smoke together, I doub't anyone would, but how can you put that in legislation without everyone finding a loophole and it going back to the way it was
Or you can please everyone and make the smoking ban voluntary.
Pubs or clubs will be able to choose to be a smoking venue or a non-smoking venue. Customer demand will then dictate if we need more smoking venues or less, if a pub or club wants to stay in business it will have to respond to its customers and not the views of government.
:thumb: