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.
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 see that.
But what I fail to see is the relevancy to the subject matter.
Currently I can`t foresee a time when I would be making decisions for others, other than when they had asked me to.
I suspect I would find myself on a slippery slope if I made a habit of sticking my nose into other people`s business based on the desires of some.
That is not somewhere I have a desire to be.
I find myself in agreement with your summation.
I would also give exception to certain private clubs (certainly smoking or cigar clubs) to allow smoking in their premises, if only the bar and any other area that has staff working there is segregated and protected from smoke.
And certainly smoking outdoors never to even being considered for a ban.
*snigger*
You're right, there are interests there. However, are you seriously suggesting that the links between smoking and illness are a giant conspiracy? :eek:
Because of this, people have been doing much better, independent studies in recent years that do show a clear link between second hand smoke and an increase in the risk of illness. Although, I still believe the risk is so small, it's not worth worrying about unless you're in a room visibly filled with smoke for a few hours a day, every day.
As for the smoking ban: I think it should be up to the buildings owner as to allow smoking or not within that building. Don't like it (either way), go somewhere else.
No. And Jackson does not suggest that, Forest do not suggest that - I don't think I've heard anybody suggest that links between smoking and illness are some kind of massive conspiracy...
But is the idea that the risks have been exaggerated a conspiracy? Is the view that smoking in itself doesn't guarantee an early death some massive conspiracy? Looking at the facts it doesn't seem to be so.
My favourite line from the piece is below – I thought it rang true.
Doh!
Godwin's law = you're out of here.
and on the second page of a thread about smoking! Must be a record.........
lol.
Disillusioned - if the anti-smokers are winning the 'arguement' now then fair enough, smokers have been winning it for the last god knows how long. It gets to the stage where people are blinded by their own addiction and they'll take any straw to clutch as credible. Yeah I know a lot of anti-smokers dont support the ban either, freedom of choice n all that, but i dont buy that at all in this situation; smokers can choose to have a cigarette outside and not effect anyone else, or not smoke.
If freedom of choice should be apparent in this particular situation where one persons 'gain' is hurting someone else, why shouldnt it be prevailant in the choice to steal and hurt people?
Unfortunately this guy does it well!
Page 9:(7)" Bias. Virtually all ETS studies are produced by groups with an avowed antismoking
agenda, and are mostly financed by pharmaceutical companies, which have a vested interest in
getting us all off fags and onto nicotine patches and antidepressants."
Which is rather ridiculous of him........
someone getting robbed (on private property) has the choice to run or fight back, or not leave their house in the first place. That doesn't make the person doing the damage to them in the right, does it?
people would go to a karting track to do karting, fumes are a side effect of this that they've chosen to put up with; people don't go to a pub or restaurant to inhale smoke when theyre not smokers - its not a direct effect of the intention of the 'establishment' (which might be eating, or drinking etc). Smoking is just something people happen to do.
You get madder by the day
fixed
however smoking is NOT a prerequisite to going to a drinking establishment (a pub), fumes ARE a prerequisite to going to a karting track (sticking to your example).
Or stodd behind them (walking) when the wind's really strong.
(Admittedly the show dresses things up for humour - but they have a damn fine research team and a healthily skeptical viewpoint)
I don't agree with the smoking ban because I don't think the risk requires this level of legislation, though I would've been in favour of making it a legal requirement to hve a certain standard of ventilation in a building in order to smoke.
I thought it was pretty obvious that the risks were grossly exaggerated though? Same with the aids crisis in the 80's. Same with speeding on the roads. Same with illegal drugs compared to legal drugs. Same with pretty much anything the government forms a campagn around.
Oh and gotta say, I found that quote about tobacco being fine because it's natural to be quite funny too. Heroin all round then, eh?
I would point out that I think non-smokers are much more sensitive to the smell than smokers. I'm not just saying that, I hold my breath walking past smokers cos it really is bad. Some cigarrettes actually I can't tell so much. But most of them smell really horrid. My mum smokes lites or something and they don't smell so much.
That sounds about perfect.
Any non smoker (perhaps a smoker too) who goes to a busy pub knows when they get home their throat will be so sore, and the next morning they'll struggle talking because of all the smoke fumes. Maybe smokers are used to it, but it *does* affect non smokers and since they make up the majority of the population then it's a vote winning policy. If everyone smoked, sure, cut taxation on cigarrettes.
But they are bad for your health, and I can't be doing with those who say 'my grandma smoked til she was 107 and she was fine'. The health risks are undeniable. They may be exaggerated - I don't know personally - but smoking isn't going to make you healthy.
So is every case of a smoker living to an old age a lie? Of course smoking does pose significant health risks but it is evidently not the only factor when looking at life expectancy. France, Italy, Spain, Holland, Israel and Japan for example all have a higher proportion of smokers than Britain yet higher life expectancies. (Indeed, Japan has the highest life expectancy in the world yet the Japanese are amongst the heaviest smokers in the world).
Yes but in each and every one of those countries, a smoker has a lower average life expectancy than a non-smoker. No it's not the only factor in looking at life expectancy, but it's a fact that smoking always reduces the average life expectancy. If these countries had a similar level of smoking to the UK, then they would be even further ahead.
I haven't smoked for 2 months (go me!
However you stamp your feet and throw your toys out of the pram about wanting to smoke in publics (my heart bleeds for you, really... Only Tibetans have even been so oppressed by a government as those poor smokers in Britain :rolleyes: ), passive smoking does do damage. I never realised it before, but since I've quit, if I go out I to smokey places then the next day my chest is knackered.
I don't think the ban should be in shisha places, shisa knackers your lungs and airway too so you should all be able to smoke there, but myself and countless people I know prefer to knacker our livers instead. It isn't hard work to peel your arse off your seat and step outside for ten minutes to have a fag does it? Even if it didn't cause harm, it still makes you stink and most considerate people would take that in t account if their friends disliked it.
The ban's coming, like it or not, and I for one can't wait! Those poor smokers being forced into doing something they don't like- they might know how I fucking feel now, seeing as I can't go into pubs without having an asthma attack because of some dickhead with his Lucky Strike.