Smoke?.....

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Apr 16 2009, 08:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about a non-smoker's right not to have their breathing air filled with that ****?[/b]

Don't stand near a smoker then. Simple.

Don't want to breathe in smoke in a pub while working there? Work somwhere else.

Dont want to fall off a mountain? Don't climb it.

Hardly rocket science.
[/b][/quote]

you go to the pub for a drink not a cigarette, if you want a cigarette with your drink stay at home.

 

[Steve-o]

I agree with Hall on smokers in pubs. Smoking is a choice, yes, but you should make sacrifices for exercising your addictive habit. Yeah I said it! Addictive habit, sounds bad but that's what it is. Telling someone to go work somewhere else is total rubbish. Smoking got phased into the 'pub scene', so acting like smokers belong there is rubbish as well. If you want to exercise your right to do something totally unnatural to your body that might harm other people then do it outside. Fair enough, yeah?

BTW out of my close friends only 1 of the 9 doesn't smoke, so I don't discriminate against smokers. If anything I befriend them! Those sorry sods

 

[SaintsFan_Schweinsteiger_Webby]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 08:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Apr 16 2009, 08:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How about a non-smoker's right not to have their breathing air filled with that ****?[/b]

Don't stand near a smoker then. Simple.
[/b][/quote]

That's all very well, but smoke doesn't tend to stay in a lovely little bubble around the smoker's head - it drifts.

I was against the smoking ban at the time, but I've actually quite enjoyed coming back from the pub not smelling of smoke more than I thought I would.

The free country idea is also flawed. Surely non-smokers have just as much right not to breathe in smoke as smokers have to do the opposite? Aside from specific public areas for smoking, what other options are there to appease both sides of the argument?

 

[feicarsinn]

I don't mind it really. I've never smoked and I don't plan to, don't really see the point tbh and anyway im well too poor to pay 9 quid or whatever for a pack. A good few of my friends smoke but I couldn't care less as long as it's not in my face. Was a bit young to really be hangin round pubs before the smoking ban so I wouldn't know what it was like but people smoking in houses pees me off by golly

 

[Hall]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Because you're the one who doesn't want to smell it. It's a free country. He/she has the right to smoke wherever they want.[/b]

So by that logic, flashers should have the right to expose themselves wherever they want regardless of who wants to see it and we should all just put up with it?

What if I punched you in the face? Would that be your fault because you were standing near me? It's a free country, isn't it?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Not an excuse. I don't like heights, but I have to go up and expect the cladding on tall buildings for my work - It's called putting up with the work environment. Like it or lump it.[/b]

That's the nature of your work. Inhaling smoke doesn't have to be part of serving a pint or a plate of fish and chips.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Becaused that's the way it's always been. There have always been non-smoking places in the past, why should those who don't want it banned nor mind smoke have to be denied a choice?[/b]

That's the way it's always been? Won't even bother with that.

Because the smoke harms others, simple as that. Whenever something impinges on the health of others it has to be stopped.
By your logic, people should be allowed to drink drive and sober people should just keep off the roads if they want to stay safe.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>

Open the other eye[/b]

Can't, someone stubbed a cigarette out in it.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Apr 16 2009, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Because the smoke harms others, simple as that. Whenever something impinges on the health of others it has to be stopped.
By your logic, people should be allowed to drink drive and sober people should just keep off the roads if they want to stay safe.[/b]

Okay, ban cars that burn petrol or diesel. Ban coal and nuclear power stations.

Ban production of plastics, metals, ceramics and composite materials.

Ban aircraft.

Ban contact sports. Yes, including rugby.

Ban television. Takes up excercise time.

Ban excercise. Could cause injuries.


So where do you draw the line?

 

[Hall]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 09:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Apr 16 2009, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because the smoke harms others, simple as that. Whenever something impinges on the health of others it has to be stopped.
By your logic, people should be allowed to drink drive and sober people should just keep off the roads if they want to stay safe.[/b]

Okay, ban cars that burn petrol or diesel. Ban coal and nuclear power stations.

Ban production of plastics, metals, ceramics and composite materials.

Ban aircraft.

Ban contact sports. Yes, including rugby.

Ban television. Takes up excercise time.

Ban excercise. Could cause injuries.


So where do you draw the line?
[/b][/quote]

No, just use them responsibly, I don't want cigarettes banned altogether, smoke them in private by all means.

As for the bottom three, people do those voluntarily, passive smoking in an eatery or pub is no voluntary.

Things like power stations are necessary, smoking isn't and can be done in private, or outdoors away from others.

 

[Bullitt]

Is that necessary in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word? Or are they a means for convenience and pleasure through technology?


And.... Can you show me one piece of undenyable proof that passive smoking has even cause 1 person to become ill, ever? I think the answer is no. It's all ifs and buts.

Do you know who the chief sponsors of the anti-smoking proporganda are? The smoking-replacement product companies.

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 10:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Is that necessary in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word? Or are they a means for convenience and pleasure through technology?


And.... Can you show me one piece of undenyable proof that passive smoking has even cause 1 person to become ill, ever? I think the answer is no. It's all ifs and buts.[/b]

Roy Castle.

 

[Bullitt]

Oh look, that card is being played so soon. Smoking related was it? Or was he just really unlucky and got cancer perhaps?

Oh no, Cancer is a new phenominon. That's right.

"Roy Castle" , my arse. Fail.

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

Oh look, that card is being played so soon. Smoking related was it? Or was he just really unlucky and got cancer perhaps?

Oh no, Cancer is a new phenominon. That's right.

"Roy Castle" , my arse. Fail.[/b]

the man didn't smoke, spent years playing in smokey jazz clubs and dies from lung cancer, so no he got lung cancer as a result of passive smoking. FACT.

 

[shtove]

Mmmm. The argument is about freedom, and it applies to both sides.

The problem is government interference.

You should be able to go to the pub and not have smoke in your face and hair and clothes - to many the smell is disgusting. (I don't buy the secondary smoke health issues.)

You should be able to go to the pub and have smoke all over the place - the atmosphere is great.

No reason you can't have both situations on the same premises, without banishing people in to the wind and the drizzle.

Anyway, I'm an anti-nanny, government-hater. Saw a report today that Gordon Broon's Goons are proposing a ban on biros in schools: because "they can be adapted as peashooters".

An overwhelming assault on our right to bear arms. :lol: Stand up and fight.

 

[Bullitt]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Apr 16 2009, 10:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh look, that card is being played so soon. Smoking related was it? Or was he just really unlucky and got cancer perhaps?

Oh no, Cancer is a new phenominon. That's right.

"Roy Castle" , my arse. Fail.[/b]

the man didn't smoke, spent years playing in smokey jazz clubs and dies from lung cancer, so no he got lung cancer as a result of passive smoking. FACT.
[/b][/quote]

He also lived in central London during the Smog.... No it was most certainly the cigarette smoke. Completely proven.
*facepalm*

 

[An Tarbh]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Apr 16 2009, 10:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Apr 16 2009, 10:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh look, that card is being played so soon. Smoking related was it? Or was he just really unlucky and got cancer perhaps?

Oh no, Cancer is a new phenominon. That's right.

"Roy Castle" , my arse. Fail.[/b]

the man didn't smoke, spent years playing in smokey jazz clubs and dies from lung cancer, so no he got lung cancer as a result of passive smoking. FACT.
[/b][/quote]

He also lived in central London during the Smog.... No it was most certainly the cigarette smoke. Completely proven.
*facepalm*
[/b][/quote]

right so how come 8 million others didn't die from lung cancer, oh wait that's right they didn't all work in smokey jazz clubs as well.

 

[Bullitt]

Give over, the roy castle arguement holds less water then a rusty collinder.

Or was Roy Castle the only person in history to get lung cancer, eh?

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Apr 17 2009, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

right so how come 8 million others didn't die from lung cancer, oh wait that's right they didn't all work in smokey jazz clubs as well. [/b]

Correlation means causation? One of the bigger lies peddled by the banks at the moment. People who want to screw the taxpayer love this kind of stuff - pharma business, mega money medicos, climate change greenies, etc etc

 

[SaintsFan_Schweinsteiger_Webby]

I don't understand the idea that second hand smoke is utterly harmless. I'm not blessed with an especially scientific mind, but where are all the toxins supposed to magically disapppear to? They can't possibly all be taken in by the smoker, otherwise people would die from smoking related illnesses far quicker.

 

[candybum]

Im glad that in NZ, smoking is banned in bars and clubs lol

 

[Hall]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Apr 16 2009, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Apr 17 2009, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

right so how come 8 million others didn't die from lung cancer, oh wait that's right they didn't all work in smokey jazz clubs as well. [/b]

Correlation means causation? One of the bigger lies peddled by the banks at the moment. People who want to screw the taxpayer love this kind of stuff - pharma business, mega money medicos, climate change greenies, etc etc
[/b][/quote]

Carcinogens found in cigarette smoke contribute directly to DNA mutations that lead to malignant neoplasms. Fact. Unde-f***ing-niable FACT!

Then of course there's atherosclerosis and all the other associated problems that non-smokers should not get, but of course the ones that do tend to be exposed to second hand smoke.

So no correlation does not mean causation, but in this case it doesn't matter.

 

[shtove]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Hall @ Apr 17 2009, 10:12 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (shtove @ Apr 16 2009, 10:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Apr 17 2009, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

right so how come 8 million others didn't die from lung cancer, oh wait that's right they didn't all work in smokey jazz clubs as well. [/b]

Correlation means causation? One of the bigger lies peddled by the banks at the moment. People who want to screw the taxpayer love this kind of stuff - pharma business, mega money medicos, climate change greenies, etc etc
[/b][/quote]

Carcinogens found in cigarette smoke contribute directly to DNA mutations that lead to malignant neoplasms. Fact. Unde-f***ing-niable FACT!

Then of course there's atherosclerosis and all the other associated problems that non-smokers should not get, but of course the ones that do tend to be exposed to second hand smoke.

So no correlation does not mean causation, but in this case it doesn't matter.

[/b][/quote]
Sorry, Hall - it always matters. Iron rule of Life.

You can take things on faith, but that doesn't work out so well if you have bank shares, or base your decisions on the spiel of salesmen.

Health products are big business, and the producers have their salesmen all over the place, especially in government.

My view is that diet is the cancer key. I take that on faith. But I'm certain that diet makes or breaks your general health - unless you've got arthritis from playing rugby.

Eat lots of veggies - they're cheap and not so miserable ... honest!