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
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I sometimes see this, but because I've never had to stand outside the hospital, it has never bothered me.
Yup.
I see the fucking Nazi nannies who run this country now want to up the legal age for buying fags to 18 (just to be like America)
Tbh that doesn't really bother me hugely (although being 19 I guess that's partly because it doesn't affect me).
Although, I'm getting very fed up of the whole anti-smoking obsession. Every Friday and Saturday night enormous pressure is put on the NHS and the police almost entirely because of alcohol. And whilst it's easy to condemn binge drinking when you have an awful hangover it should be pointed out that regular binge drinking is not only unhealthy but something that also puts a lot of pressure (as well as costing a lot) to the NHS and police. Yet cutting smoking is the government's number one priority and alcohol doesn't seem any great priority at all...
It's obvious that something is seriously wrong when children are regularly and legally exposed to advertisements for alcohol but advertising tobacco solely to adults (which is also a legal product) is completely banned.
Any of the smoking adverts I've just go on about how bad they are but I've never seen any alcohol adverts that show the same thing. (apart from the drink driving ones)
Well I'm not calling for government funded anti-alcohol adverts in addition to the government funded anti-smoking ads that we have - I don't see why the taxpayer should have to pay for either. (Although, if private charities such as Cancer Research and the British Heart Foundation put on anti-smoking ads I've no problem).
Tobacco companies cannot advertise any of their brands - TV advertising, radio, magazine, billboard, etc is all banned. Since tobacco is a legal product like alcohol tobacco companies should imo be able to advertise it to adults. (At the moment alcohol companies seem to get away with advertising to children whilst tobacco firms are in the unique position of not being able to advertise a legal product to their adult customers).
... because it would be cheaper in the long run?
Alcohol labels have warnings on them and usually the units on the label... There are posters up all over the place that warn about alcohol and spiking... There have been programs on television warning about drinking.
Alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as tobacco and the effects are completely different. Your arguement doesn't really have a great deal to do with banning smoking in bars, but you have made a point.
Most people go into bars to drink, being able to smoke is a bonus and can be took outside for the three minutes during which you can have a fag. Binge drinking is a problem, but not the same problem as smoking in bars.
In the long run they are doing you a favour weather you see it now or in 20 years time.
Try asking any of the organisations supporting smoking bans to name anyone and they can't.
It's not all about people dying, it's general comfort and health..as an asthmatic second hand cigarette smoke makes my throat tighten and makes me wheezey. Not to mention watery eyes, nasty smell etc.
So saying that nobody has died from passive smoking is not a valid argument against the smoking ban.
Go and tell that to Fiona Castle, she'll be delighted to hear from you.
I'm sure she wouldn't, but she wouldn't be able to prove you wrong either.
Because a bunch of senile old fools really know a lot about night life...
And To Lord Wakemen: Personal choice goes both ways mate.
You really do come across as a bit thick when you make such stupid comments. :rolleyes:
Peers are not acting as an authority on 'nightlife' but fulfilling their role of speaking out against bad legislation from the Commons.
What the fuck has the age of peers or nightlife got to do with their report? :rolleyes:
the best thing smoking advocates can say is its their right to smoke, that is their right to harm themselves!!!
however they will always evade the fact that they may be harming others.
thats a fact.
The simple truth is, that statistically, Roy Castle had the same chances of contracting lung cancer as somebody rarely or never exposed to ETS. Roy Castle didn't die because of passive smoking, he died because he was unlucky enough to get lung cancer.
Being a none smoker and not being exposed to ETS, makes you no more immune than being a none smoker and being regularly exposed to it. People get cancer all the time, most with no identifiable reason. Roy Castle was no exception to this.
i think not.
You got any proof of this?
Whether ot no passive smoking causes lung cancer, it does still cayse harm.
(Anyone takes this serious, perhaps they need to start smoking. lol)
LOL. I think some non smokers have said that it does make them cough and tightens their chest/throat.
http://www.data-yard.net/2/11/jnci.htm
You got any proof of this?
Whilst passive smoking doesn't have a neutral or positive effect on the recipient, it has never been proved that it is any more harmful than all the other nasty things that are in the air.
Yet most people don't know this hence why passive smoking is singled out as being worse than AIDS, the bubonic plague, the Nazi party and Chris de Burgh put together.
However, I think it should be the premises deciding and not the Government.