Forums > Social Chat > Should smoking be banned?
Login/Join to Participatemember
121 posts
Location: york, uk
121 posts
Location: york, uk
Posted:
The Royal College of Physicians and 17 other medical colleges have called for a ban on smoking in public places in the UK today. Do you think it should be banned? I am of the opinion that it should be banned in public places, as i dont think i should have to breath damaging smoke against my will. I dont think we should have an outright ban, just where it impacts on other peoples health. Whatcha think?
The Royal College of Physicians and 17 other medical colleges have called for a ban on smoking in public places in the UK today. Do you think it should be banned? I am of the opinion that it should be banned in public places, as i dont think i should have to breath damaging smoke against my will. I dont think we should have an outright ban, just where it impacts on other peoples health. Whatcha think?
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's worth looking at Allen Carrs book ('Easy way to give up smoking') before deciding about using quitting aids and substitutes; he argues quite convincingly that they can really hinder the quitting process.
It's true however that quitting should not be a matter of will, and the the best way to ensure that you're not trying to quit using willpower is to get a good understanding of the mental habits that lead you to smoke in the first place (as explained in the book).
Sorry for disagreeing with you on the aids part Mike, I know you're a medical professional and that the profession as a whole supports the use of patches etc, but, in my opinion, Carr knows his stuff, having helped many for whom the medical approach or willpower approach has failed (including me
)
Quote:
Don't be afraid to use quitting aids. It's an addiction, not a contest of will. Buy the patch, buy the gum, take pills, it doesn't matter, just do whatever it takes.
It's worth looking at Allen Carrs book ('Easy way to give up smoking') before deciding about using quitting aids and substitutes; he argues quite convincingly that they can really hinder the quitting process.
It's true however that quitting should not be a matter of will, and the the best way to ensure that you're not trying to quit using willpower is to get a good understanding of the mental habits that lead you to smoke in the first place (as explained in the book).
Sorry for disagreeing with you on the aids part Mike, I know you're a medical professional and that the profession as a whole supports the use of patches etc, but, in my opinion, Carr knows his stuff, having helped many for whom the medical approach or willpower approach has failed (including me
) "You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Custom Bug: That's completely rubbish and you can't believe that. Have you ever smoked cannabis through a bong? I'm guessing you know the effect. The theory you've quoted says that as this smoke is cold and causes no damage to tissue then the THC can't get into the blood. Is this your experience? Have you also ever known anyone to become passively stoned?
It's statistically hard to conclusively prove passive smoking studies due the fact that you can't measure passive smoke intake, whereas you can measure the amount smokers smoke. However there is plenty of conclusive proof that there are effective carcinogens in cigarette smoke. A carcinogen does not need help from skin damage to have an affect or to be absorbed into the blood. The surface of the lungs is designed to be a easily permeable barrier between air and blood, so anything in the lungs has an easy ride into the system.
Philip Morris
I'll quote for those who don't want to link to it. (Oh, nice site isn't it. I built it )
Side note to Lightning - I used to work in the same institute as one of the people that did some research on the skin damaging effects of smoking. As he used twins in the study used to have lots of twins coming into the centre. Then at the end of the study he had a big party for all the twins. That was a freaky event to walk through!!!
Custom Bug: That's completely rubbish and you can't believe that. Have you ever smoked cannabis through a bong? I'm guessing you know the effect. The theory you've quoted says that as this smoke is cold and causes no damage to tissue then the THC can't get into the blood. Is this your experience? Have you also ever known anyone to become passively stoned?
It's statistically hard to conclusively prove passive smoking studies due the fact that you can't measure passive smoke intake, whereas you can measure the amount smokers smoke. However there is plenty of conclusive proof that there are effective carcinogens in cigarette smoke. A carcinogen does not need help from skin damage to have an affect or to be absorbed into the blood. The surface of the lungs is designed to be a easily permeable barrier between air and blood, so anything in the lungs has an easy ride into the system.
Philip Morris
I'll quote for those who don't want to link to it. (Oh, nice site isn't it. I built it
)Quote:
Philip Morris International believes that the conclusions of public health officials concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant measures that regulate smoking in public places. We also believe that where smoking is permitted, the government should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in non-smokers.
Side note to Lightning - I used to work in the same institute as one of the people that did some research on the skin damaging effects of smoking. As he used twins in the study used to have lots of twins coming into the centre. Then at the end of the study he had a big party for all the twins. That was a freaky event to walk through!!!
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes Roy Castle died of lung cancer, and just like you say there was NO evidence of what caused it. It might have been smoke, it might not, no one knows for sure including him and his wife. Cancers are perfectly capable of appearing without traceable cause. And if it was so clear cut there would be evidence.
And it doesn't mean that it does either.
So does bran, saccarin, hell even some house hold cleaners have carcinogens, car fumes, etc,etc etc....but it's the smokers who are greatly at risk, not the passive smokers, and isn't that what this thread is about?
Oh and the thing about starting to smoke was actually sarcasm
Quote:
Roy Castle would have an opinion on this.......Of course, it's impossible to say whether smoke was the main causal factor involved
Yes Roy Castle died of lung cancer, and just like you say there was NO evidence of what caused it. It might have been smoke, it might not, no one knows for sure including him and his wife. Cancers are perfectly capable of appearing without traceable cause. And if it was so clear cut there would be evidence.
Quote:
Just want to make it clear that the claimed lack of conclusive evidence that second hand smoke causes lung disease does not mean that it doesn't
And it doesn't mean that it does either.
Quote:
Secondly, the smoke contains carcinogens, they may be made worse with heat, but that doesn't mean they're safe without it
So does bran, saccarin, hell even some house hold cleaners have carcinogens, car fumes, etc,etc etc....but it's the smokers who are greatly at risk, not the passive smokers, and isn't that what this thread is about?
Oh and the thing about starting to smoke was actually sarcasm
Let's relight this forum 
GOLD Member
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
playing the days away
7,263 posts
Location: The Middle lands, United Kingdom
Posted:
Dom, I think you've miss understood what I was saying. It wasn't that if it's cold it can't pass through the membraines and enter the blood stream, it was that the healing process to damage caused by hot smoke burning the sensitive tissues causes major additional problems compared to cold smoke inhalation. Of course you are still ingesting the particles, but it's no where near as bad. Yes I know folks who have gotten passively stoned, but they haven't had their lungs burnt in the process and I'm sure of the ones who are complete none smokers all(or most) deposits have been naturally cleaned out by their imune system with all the other general sh1t that builds up in them day to day.
Oh and yes, it is a nice site well done...good use of colours
I think I'm not doing well in getting my general point across and replying to the question "Should smoking be banned"....I don't think it should be banned as it would eventually push the cigarrette trade under ground making it far worse than it is now. I think more non-smoking venues should be promoted raising their awareness and popularity. Then EVERYONE would have a choice where to go, you would avoid the whole issue of (non)smokers feeling like they couldn't go somewhere because of bans or purely smokey venues. The non smokers would be happy and so would the smokers. Landlords would be able to decide what can happen on their own property without losing business too.
I think an outright ban in public places would cause more problems than it would be trying to solve. It would only keep non smokers happy just as only smokers are happy now. It wouldn't work for both sides and that's what should be aimed at. Not persecution of one side purely to appease the other.
Much like cannabis smoking in Holland, it can only take place in certain venues in public and your own home. It doesn't reject anything, it merely serves to keep all sides happy.
Dom, I think you've miss understood what I was saying. It wasn't that if it's cold it can't pass through the membraines and enter the blood stream, it was that the healing process to damage caused by hot smoke burning the sensitive tissues causes major additional problems compared to cold smoke inhalation. Of course you are still ingesting the particles, but it's no where near as bad. Yes I know folks who have gotten passively stoned, but they haven't had their lungs burnt in the process and I'm sure of the ones who are complete none smokers all(or most) deposits have been naturally cleaned out by their imune system with all the other general sh1t that builds up in them day to day.
Oh and yes, it is a nice site well done...good use of colours
I think I'm not doing well in getting my general point across and replying to the question "Should smoking be banned"....I don't think it should be banned as it would eventually push the cigarrette trade under ground making it far worse than it is now. I think more non-smoking venues should be promoted raising their awareness and popularity. Then EVERYONE would have a choice where to go, you would avoid the whole issue of (non)smokers feeling like they couldn't go somewhere because of bans or purely smokey venues. The non smokers would be happy and so would the smokers. Landlords would be able to decide what can happen on their own property without losing business too.
I think an outright ban in public places would cause more problems than it would be trying to solve. It would only keep non smokers happy just as only smokers are happy now. It wouldn't work for both sides and that's what should be aimed at. Not persecution of one side purely to appease the other.
Much like cannabis smoking in Holland, it can only take place in certain venues in public and your own home. It doesn't reject anything, it merely serves to keep all sides happy.
Let's relight this forum
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
My feelings that people defending smoking by quoting carcinogenic properties of bran, saccarin, car fumes etc are weakening their case.
All foods contain some toxins, but not eating isn't an option if you want to survive. Also, what you eat does not impinge on others in the way smoking does.
Car fumes have been dealt with earlier in this thread, my opinion is that there is a lot of scope for restricting cars as well as smoking.
I know the question for you is whether passive smoking is harmful, but the actual subject of this thread is whether people think smoking should be banned in public places, and reasons for supporting the ban are not solely dependant on passive smoking being proved harmful.
For many, the fact that it COULD be harmful is enough grounds (as I mentioned b4, for many, many years the smoking/cancer connection was not 100% scientifically proven, yet medical authorites felt confident in encouraging people to not smoke, and those who did quit for health reasons, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, have now been proved right).
For others, the sheer fact that they find second hand smoke deeply unpleasant is sufficient grounds for them to support a ban, even if it was determined that second hand smoke is not carcinogenic, my personal choice still would be for a ban/restriction on smoking in public buildings.
Also, as several people here have pointed out, the fact that smoking causes a coughing response, sore throat and sore eyes, is enough to suggest that second hand smoke is toxic.
My feelings that people defending smoking by quoting carcinogenic properties of bran, saccarin, car fumes etc are weakening their case.
All foods contain some toxins, but not eating isn't an option if you want to survive. Also, what you eat does not impinge on others in the way smoking does.
Car fumes have been dealt with earlier in this thread, my opinion is that there is a lot of scope for restricting cars as well as smoking.
I know the question for you is whether passive smoking is harmful, but the actual subject of this thread is whether people think smoking should be banned in public places, and reasons for supporting the ban are not solely dependant on passive smoking being proved harmful.
For many, the fact that it COULD be harmful is enough grounds (as I mentioned b4, for many, many years the smoking/cancer connection was not 100% scientifically proven, yet medical authorites felt confident in encouraging people to not smoke, and those who did quit for health reasons, despite the lack of conclusive evidence, have now been proved right).
For others, the sheer fact that they find second hand smoke deeply unpleasant is sufficient grounds for them to support a ban, even if it was determined that second hand smoke is not carcinogenic, my personal choice still would be for a ban/restriction on smoking in public buildings.
Also, as several people here have pointed out, the fact that smoking causes a coughing response, sore throat and sore eyes, is enough to suggest that second hand smoke is toxic.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The proposed smoking ban in public places came up on 'Question Time' last night, and it was interesting that several of the people who opposed it took it to be a sly attack by the medical profession on smokers, rather than its intent being to protect non-smokers; as a result, though their arguments made sense, they had no relevance to the actual question.
I thought the saddest comment was from a woman who said that a ban was draconian and excessive because 'we should surely be permitted some pleasure in life'- I've heard this often from smokers and wonder why it is that the rest of their lives are so devoid of pleasure? (before anyone replies to this, I don't actually believe that all smokers lives are as devoid of pleasure as they often claim; but either they are, in which case they should question the value of smoking, or they aren't, in which case their argument fails)
She also pointed out that she always asked her companions before lighting up, and that, as adults, this was a far better approach than a ban. I thought it was a little naive of her to suggest that all, or even a majority, of smokers would adopt such a polite approach. It certainly wouldn't be feasible in a pub/club situation.
There seems to be some confusion on this thread about whether the ban applies to indoor public spaces, or to outdoors as well. All my posts have been written with the assumption that it is the former.
I believe that the reason the ban is being seriously considered is due to the fact that employers are responsible for ensuring a safe working environment, and the fear that employees may be able to take it to court if they are adversly affected by smoke whilst at work.
If this is the case then I assume the ban would apply to public buildings i.e. indoors.
The proposed smoking ban in public places came up on 'Question Time' last night, and it was interesting that several of the people who opposed it took it to be a sly attack by the medical profession on smokers, rather than its intent being to protect non-smokers; as a result, though their arguments made sense, they had no relevance to the actual question.
I thought the saddest comment was from a woman who said that a ban was draconian and excessive because 'we should surely be permitted some pleasure in life'- I've heard this often from smokers and wonder why it is that the rest of their lives are so devoid of pleasure? (before anyone replies to this, I don't actually believe that all smokers lives are as devoid of pleasure as they often claim; but either they are, in which case they should question the value of smoking, or they aren't, in which case their argument fails)
She also pointed out that she always asked her companions before lighting up, and that, as adults, this was a far better approach than a ban. I thought it was a little naive of her to suggest that all, or even a majority, of smokers would adopt such a polite approach. It certainly wouldn't be feasible in a pub/club situation.
There seems to be some confusion on this thread about whether the ban applies to indoor public spaces, or to outdoors as well. All my posts have been written with the assumption that it is the former.
I believe that the reason the ban is being seriously considered is due to the fact that employers are responsible for ensuring a safe working environment, and the fear that employees may be able to take it to court if they are adversly affected by smoke whilst at work.
If this is the case then I assume the ban would apply to public buildings i.e. indoors.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Sponge
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
Posted:
I wouldn't mind stepping outside to finish my fag or going in a designated area or even putting it out when asked, so I'm not against a ban. But right now, I miss my nicotine and will satisfy my craving.
I wouldn't mind stepping outside to finish my fag or going in a designated area or even putting it out when asked, so I'm not against a ban. But right now, I miss my nicotine and will satisfy my craving.
Monkeys monkeys and bananas
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Smoking is clearly affecting others around you.
Most airports you can't smoke, Pizza-hut you can't smoke. I can't smoke in work. I accept it, get over it move on, it's not the end of the world. The intention is good natured, not to try and control you but to consider those around you.
Even if it is an in intentional stab at smokers (which I doubt) is it good. All you have to ask a smoker is 'Would you like your kids to smoke' Anyone I know would say know no. So if your put out and have to go outside, but it creates an environment where your kids will see smoking as somewhat less socially unacceptable it's worth it.
Have a nice w/e
I don't see what all the fuss is about. Smoking is clearly affecting others around you.
Most airports you can't smoke, Pizza-hut you can't smoke. I can't smoke in work. I accept it, get over it move on, it's not the end of the world. The intention is good natured, not to try and control you but to consider those around you.
Even if it is an in intentional stab at smokers (which I doubt) is it good. All you have to ask a smoker is 'Would you like your kids to smoke' Anyone I know would say know no. So if your put out and have to go outside, but it creates an environment where your kids will see smoking as somewhat less socially unacceptable it's worth it.
Have a nice w/e
I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
why do we continually get back to the notion that a smoking ban would be an overall ban? we're talking about banning smoking in public venues only. smoking is never going to be completely outlawed. and banning it in public places isn't going to cause cigarrette trade to go underground. i'm sorry, but i find that to be a ridiculous notion. california has been smoke-free in public places for a number of years now, and it hasn't caused an uproar, it hasn't made the smokers unhappy, it did actually please both sides, it didn't cause cigarrette trade to go underground. it just made smokers go outside to smoke. and guess what? it actually made some clubs more popular because they had to change some of their environment (i.e. create a patio with djs playing on it, a nice chill area on the balcony, etc.)
Quote:
I think I'm not doing well in getting my general point across and replying to the question "Should smoking be banned"....I don't think it should be banned as it would eventually push the cigarrette trade under ground making it far worse than it is now. I think an outright ban in public places would cause more problems than it would be trying to solve. It would only keep non smokers happy just as only smokers are happy now. It wouldn't work for both sides and that's what should be aimed at. Not persecution of one side purely to appease the other.
why do we continually get back to the notion that a smoking ban would be an overall ban? we're talking about banning smoking in public venues only. smoking is never going to be completely outlawed. and banning it in public places isn't going to cause cigarrette trade to go underground. i'm sorry, but i find that to be a ridiculous notion. california has been smoke-free in public places for a number of years now, and it hasn't caused an uproar, it hasn't made the smokers unhappy, it did actually please both sides, it didn't cause cigarrette trade to go underground. it just made smokers go outside to smoke. and guess what? it actually made some clubs more popular because they had to change some of their environment (i.e. create a patio with djs playing on it, a nice chill area on the balcony, etc.)
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
GOLD Member
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
HOP Mad Doctor
13,925 posts
Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted:
Hey, I don't care what people do, as long as it's not "herbal cigarettes."
As long as they quit, I don't care if they take Zyban, use the patch, use yoga, reiki, accupuncture (which I believe can actually be a great help), or sacred ooki-bookie leaves from south-central Ora Porga. I just want them to quit.
Quote:
Sorry for disagreeing with you on the aids part Mike, I know you're a medical professional and that the profession as a whole supports the use of patches etc, but, in my opinion, Carr knows his stuff, having helped many for whom the medical approach or willpower approach has failed (including me )
Hey, I don't care what people do, as long as it's not "herbal cigarettes."
As long as they quit, I don't care if they take Zyban, use the patch, use yoga, reiki, accupuncture (which I believe can actually be a great help), or sacred ooki-bookie leaves from south-central Ora Porga. I just want them to quit.
-Mike
Certified Mad Doctor and HoP High Priest of Nutella
A buckuht n a hooze! -Valura
Sponge
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
883 posts
Location: Stevenage
Posted:
A ban in public places would still hit the selling of cigarettes in the UK and the govt taxes so much on them that they'd have to find something else to tax us all for, ahh well, whatever happens we'll adapt.
A ban in public places would still hit the selling of cigarettes in the UK and the govt taxes so much on them that they'd have to find something else to tax us all for, ahh well, whatever happens we'll adapt.
Monkeys monkeys and bananas
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
50 A DAY????? oh my goodness...
Quote:
Borrowed it from my mum, so cheers)
50 A DAY????? oh my goodness...
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
SILVER Member
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
(...trusty steed of the rodeo midget...)
403 posts
Location: the state of flux, Ireland
Posted:
Its about time the Irish goverment actually grew a set of b**ls, and brought this law to the fore.
Personally I can't wait for the day when I can come out of the pub and not retch the next morning at the smell of stale smoke from my clothes.
As for people being asked to not smoke and being cooperative: I myself was once on a bus on the way home from work when a punter asked if anyone minded that he was lighting up.
I said that I did mind actually, and so, reasonably enough he stood on the seat next to me and tried to bash my brains in with a beer bottle
Its coming, its the law, tough shite, live with it.
We've had to live with your stinking habbit for long enough.
thank you and goodnight
EDITED_BY: squarefish (1070231415)
Its about time the Irish goverment actually grew a set of b**ls, and brought this law to the fore.
Personally I can't wait for the day when I can come out of the pub and not retch the next morning at the smell of stale smoke from my clothes.
As for people being asked to not smoke and being cooperative: I myself was once on a bus on the way home from work when a punter asked if anyone minded that he was lighting up.
I said that I did mind actually, and so, reasonably enough he stood on the seat next to me and tried to bash my brains in with a beer bottle
Its coming, its the law, tough shite, live with it.
We've had to live with your stinking habbit for long enough.
thank you and goodnight
EDITED_BY: squarefish (1070231415)
member
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
1,591 posts
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada.
Posted:
Wait ireland has a government? I thought they were just a little province of england.
(We need a running away or ducking emoticon to represent my evasion of all the angry irish in this thread throwing objects at me)
Wait ireland has a government? I thought they were just a little province of england.
(We need a running away or ducking emoticon to represent my evasion of all the angry irish in this thread throwing objects at me)
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,136 posts
Location: Warwickshire, United Kingdom
Posted:
I thought they were just a little province of england.
no, that's scotland
I thought they were just a little province of england.
no, that's scotland
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,009 posts
Location: Bristol, UK
Posted:
Actually I do meet a lot of people from over that side of the Atlantic who think all of Ireland is part of the UK. On person on the board once assured me that the entire landmass was held under a British tyranny *cough*Ray*cough*
I hope that Ireland does stick with it and get that law put on the books, (The Republic that is, as opposed to Northern Ireland where the girls aren't as pretty and the accent is harder to understand)
Actually I do meet a lot of people from over that side of the Atlantic who think all of Ireland is part of the UK. On person on the board once assured me that the entire landmass was held under a British tyranny *cough*Ray*cough*
I hope that Ireland does stick with it and get that law put on the books, (The Republic that is, as opposed to Northern Ireland where the girls aren't as pretty and the accent is harder to understand)
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Carpal \'Tunnel
2,617 posts
Location: Berlin, Ireland
Posted:
don't worry Astar, your not the first American to make that mistake... 
don't worry Astar, your not the first American to make that mistake... I live in a world of infinite possibilities.
member
33 posts
33 posts
Posted:
So they ban public smoking in Califonia. All I want to know is what they think their going to
accomplish with this. They say their going for cleaner air, but if thats the truth, they are
far more insane than I ever would have imagined. SUVs put out more than 1000 times more pollution
than an entire carton of cigarrettes would in a day. If their worried about their kids getting
cancer, maybe they should ban radioactivity, or even more simple, monitor what they eat. Whats
in most grocery stores is pretty damn toxic. THATS messed up. Its messed up that mothers spoon feed
children this cancerous stuff. Its messed up that people can drive SUVs and pollute OUR atmosphere. Its
messed up that people treat animals like nothing..the list goes on. We are able to do all of these things
without consecences. But to smoke is a true sin.
So they ban public smoking in Califonia. All I want to know is what they think their going to
accomplish with this. They say their going for cleaner air, but if thats the truth, they are
far more insane than I ever would have imagined. SUVs put out more than 1000 times more pollution
than an entire carton of cigarrettes would in a day. If their worried about their kids getting
cancer, maybe they should ban radioactivity, or even more simple, monitor what they eat. Whats
in most grocery stores is pretty damn toxic. THATS messed up. Its messed up that mothers spoon feed
children this cancerous stuff. Its messed up that people can drive SUVs and pollute OUR atmosphere. Its
messed up that people treat animals like nothing..the list goes on. We are able to do all of these things
without consecences. But to smoke is a true sin.
There are no witholding taxes on the wages of sin.
~ It ain't a sin to crack a few laws, just don't break them. ~
~ I lost my reputation young, and never missed it. ~
~ She's the kind of girl who climbed the ladder of success, wrong by wrong. ~
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
On the good side it's an opportunity to see how well total bans work and what the pros/cons are.
A lot of people thought that the partial bans (on smoking in pubs etc) were unworkable and unenforcable.
This was seen to be untrue as the bans were very successful indeed.
As for problems with SUVs etc, maybe they will be tackled, especially with the possible rise in interest in all aspects of clean air that could occur now that smoking is being seen more as a drug problem than a lifestyle choice.
Of course, it's not just smoking that's being tackled, in the UK certainly, there's currently a lot of focus on food issues, energy issues etc.
Ultimately, I think you just have to face up to the fact that a majority of the population want to end the cycles of tobacco addiction, obesity and ill-health that have been the norm for some time now.
Nicotine addiction is the Wests worse drug problem, killing more people than all other drugs. Alcohol abuse is probably second.
If nothing's done, then the next generation of young people will wind up as victims of nicotine addiction, and so on.
If removing nicotine addicts from public display helps that cause, then I'm all for it.
On the good side it's an opportunity to see how well total bans work and what the pros/cons are.
A lot of people thought that the partial bans (on smoking in pubs etc) were unworkable and unenforcable.
This was seen to be untrue as the bans were very successful indeed.
As for problems with SUVs etc, maybe they will be tackled, especially with the possible rise in interest in all aspects of clean air that could occur now that smoking is being seen more as a drug problem than a lifestyle choice.
Of course, it's not just smoking that's being tackled, in the UK certainly, there's currently a lot of focus on food issues, energy issues etc.
Ultimately, I think you just have to face up to the fact that a majority of the population want to end the cycles of tobacco addiction, obesity and ill-health that have been the norm for some time now.
Nicotine addiction is the Wests worse drug problem, killing more people than all other drugs. Alcohol abuse is probably second.
If nothing's done, then the next generation of young people will wind up as victims of nicotine addiction, and so on.
If removing nicotine addicts from public display helps that cause, then I'm all for it.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
errrrrr what?
198 posts
Location: cloud 9, United Kingdom
errrrrr what?
198 posts
Location: cloud 9, United Kingdom
Posted:
should smoking be banned? skin up!!
should smoking be banned? skin up!!
I'll come back as fire and burn all the liars and leave a blanket of ashes on the ground.
I could write the new bridget jones diary only mine would be more bizarre, funnier, dirtier more unbelievabe and bloody true!
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
NYC
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
9,232 posts
Location: NYC, NY, USA
Posted:
Every time they ban something about smoking a small vocal minority screams "the sky is falling" but it never does.
"If they ban smoking on subways, noone will ride them"
"If they ban smoking on airplanes, nobody will fly"
"If they ban smoking in restaurants, nobody will go"
"If they ban smoking in bars, all of the bars will shut"
"If they ban smoking now, next they'll ban driving/eating/smiling/etc..."
It didn't happen then, it won't happen now (acutal line from the antismoking campaign in New York.) Years from now we'll look back and wonder how we didn't get rid of cigarettes sooner.
Every time they ban something about smoking a small vocal minority screams "the sky is falling" but it never does.
"If they ban smoking on subways, noone will ride them"
"If they ban smoking on airplanes, nobody will fly"
"If they ban smoking in restaurants, nobody will go"
"If they ban smoking in bars, all of the bars will shut"
"If they ban smoking now, next they'll ban driving/eating/smiling/etc..."
It didn't happen then, it won't happen now (acutal line from the antismoking campaign in New York.) Years from now we'll look back and wonder how we didn't get rid of cigarettes sooner.
Well, shall we go?
Yes, let's go.
[They do not move.]
BRONZE Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
5,814 posts
Location: Perth, Australia
Carpal \'Tunnel
5,814 posts
Location: Perth, Australia
Posted:
Over 500 babies a year are admitted to our local hospital with passive smoking related bronchitis. Thats not counting all the other illnesses caused. Im assuming they are doing the blood tests to back this up and I think if more parents were presented with figures that show that passive smoking produces detectable levels in their childs blood they might stop doing it around them. Our state is discussing making it illegal to smoke in a car with children present. Bring it on.
The butt thing pises me too. How the hell is it ok to drop a butt on the floor or bury it in the dirt.
Confused the hell out of me in London where there are no bins to put stuff in, including butts. So they have to be left there. ewwww
Over 500 babies a year are admitted to our local hospital with passive smoking related bronchitis. Thats not counting all the other illnesses caused. Im assuming they are doing the blood tests to back this up and I think if more parents were presented with figures that show that passive smoking produces detectable levels in their childs blood they might stop doing it around them. Our state is discussing making it illegal to smoke in a car with children present. Bring it on.
The butt thing pises me too. How the hell is it ok to drop a butt on the floor or bury it in the dirt.
Confused the hell out of me in London where there are no bins to put stuff in, including butts. So they have to be left there. ewwww
Is it the Truth?
Is it Fair to all concerned?
Will it build Goodwill and Better Friendships?
Will it be Beneficial to all concerned?
Im in a lonely battle with the world with a fish to match the chip on my shoulder. Gnu in Binnu in a cnu
newbie
2 posts
2 posts
Posted:
i think that smoking should be banned in restaurants and place food is being served but not in just drinking pubs and clubs, people who smoke
i think that smoking should be banned in restaurants and place food is being served but not in just drinking pubs and clubs, people who smoke
SILVER Member
Dirty Hippie
347 posts
Location: Norwich Norfolk, United Kingdom
Dirty Hippie
347 posts
Location: Norwich Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
if you ban smoking in public, then doesn't that mean more people will only smoke in the homes, and thats like where their family is and so there will be more passive smoking in the home. but i guess it does depend on what you are smoking, if you hotbox the entire house with your mates....
if you ban smoking in public, then doesn't that mean more people will only smoke in the homes, and thats like where their family is and so there will be more passive smoking in the home. but i guess it does depend on what you are smoking, if you hotbox the entire house with your mates....
for every minute angry, you loose 60 seconds of happiness
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
But Theo, thats their choice.
If for example you dont smoke and you dont want to inhale someone else's smoke, when you go to a public place, it'd be kinda nice if smoking was prohibited. you see?
But Theo, thats their choice.
If for example you dont smoke and you dont want to inhale someone else's smoke, when you go to a public place, it'd be kinda nice if smoking was prohibited. you see?
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
Unofficial Lord Of Confusion And Pirate Extrodinaire
1,363 posts
Location: Nuneaton
1,363 posts
Location: Nuneaton
Posted:
hmmm winds me up really.... why does it seem that all the most vociferous anti smoking parental 'think of the children' type then quite happily go round everywhere in a giant gas guzzling FAR MORE AIR polluting 4x4. I don't drive so why should i passive smoke their exhaust fumes.
and for the record yes i smoke,, but i sure as hell don't pump out as much noxious gas in a year as one of those does in a week.
Just my tuppence worth
hmmm winds me up really.... why does it seem that all the most vociferous anti smoking parental 'think of the children' type then quite happily go round everywhere in a giant gas guzzling FAR MORE AIR polluting 4x4. I don't drive so why should i passive smoke their exhaust fumes.
and for the record yes i smoke,, but i sure as hell don't pump out as much noxious gas in a year as one of those does in a week.
Just my tuppence worth
Some men see things and say why....
I Dream of things that never were and say Why Not....?
Oh No I'm going to get Shot Alive if he finds out - DA
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Smoking in the same room as children is irresponsible, even though it's socially acceptable.
Those who do smoke in the presence of their children will do so regardless of whether smoking is banned in public or not.
I think a lot of us are taking the long-term view on this, which is that the less smoking is seen as a normal everday choice and the more it is seen for what it is- a drug addiction, then hopefully future generations will have less smokers.
In the past, on this issue, it was generally smokers vs. non-smokers. Over the past few years I've noticed a significant change, which is that now many smokers are in support of these measures.
I suspect that this is down to several factors including-
1. recognition of the views/rights/opinions of non-smokers to clean air and a pleasant environment
2. more smokers facing up to the truth that they smoke not through choice, but because they are victims of an addiction
3. smokers taking advantage of the bans to further their own attempts to quit
4. being human, there is a tendency to 'follow the crowd'- clearly the majority and society in general, disaprove of smoking and, as a result, smokes are less liable to see their own smoking as a good thing and more likely to see it as a problem
5. with increasing debates and discussions on the issue, it is becoming clear that the arguments of pro-smokers are inconsistent and confused, whereas the arguments of anti-smokers are valid
6. the bans and anti-smoking measures are having an effect by helping many smokers to quit- ex smokers tend to have an understanding of smoking that addicted smokers cannot have. Additionally, the more smokers manage to escape the addiction, the more those left behind see that quitting is possible.
Written by: Theo_
if you ban smoking in public, then doesn't that mean more people will only smoke in the homes, and thats like where their family is and so there will be more passive smoking in the home. but i guess it does depend on what you are smoking, if you hotbox the entire house with your mates....
Smoking in the same room as children is irresponsible, even though it's socially acceptable.
Those who do smoke in the presence of their children will do so regardless of whether smoking is banned in public or not.
I think a lot of us are taking the long-term view on this, which is that the less smoking is seen as a normal everday choice and the more it is seen for what it is- a drug addiction, then hopefully future generations will have less smokers.
In the past, on this issue, it was generally smokers vs. non-smokers. Over the past few years I've noticed a significant change, which is that now many smokers are in support of these measures.
I suspect that this is down to several factors including-
1. recognition of the views/rights/opinions of non-smokers to clean air and a pleasant environment
2. more smokers facing up to the truth that they smoke not through choice, but because they are victims of an addiction
3. smokers taking advantage of the bans to further their own attempts to quit
4. being human, there is a tendency to 'follow the crowd'- clearly the majority and society in general, disaprove of smoking and, as a result, smokes are less liable to see their own smoking as a good thing and more likely to see it as a problem
5. with increasing debates and discussions on the issue, it is becoming clear that the arguments of pro-smokers are inconsistent and confused, whereas the arguments of anti-smokers are valid
6. the bans and anti-smoking measures are having an effect by helping many smokers to quit- ex smokers tend to have an understanding of smoking that addicted smokers cannot have. Additionally, the more smokers manage to escape the addiction, the more those left behind see that quitting is possible.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Smokers seem to be developing a fixation on 4x4 emmisions.
If you don't like them then I'd suggest getting together with like-minded people and doing something about it- the recent successes with tackling the public smoking problem shows that campaigns can work.
Personally I'd like to see less polluting cars on our roads too, but, given that we both agree their is pollution, I don't see that adding to it with cigarette smoke is the way forward.
Plus of coure, there's much more to the smoking issue than just clean air.
Written by: Pen Draven
hmmm winds me up really.... why does it seem that all the most vociferous anti smoking parental 'think of the children' type then quite happily go round everywhere in a giant gas guzzling FAR MORE AIR polluting 4x4. I don't drive so why should i passive smoke their exhaust fumes.
and for the record yes i smoke,, but i sure as hell don't pump out as much noxious gas in a year as one of those does in a week.
Just my tuppence worth
Smokers seem to be developing a fixation on 4x4 emmisions.
If you don't like them then I'd suggest getting together with like-minded people and doing something about it- the recent successes with tackling the public smoking problem shows that campaigns can work.
Personally I'd like to see less polluting cars on our roads too, but, given that we both agree their is pollution, I don't see that adding to it with cigarette smoke is the way forward.
Plus of coure, there's much more to the smoking issue than just clean air.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Unofficial Lord Of Confusion And Pirate Extrodinaire
1,363 posts
Location: Nuneaton
1,363 posts
Location: Nuneaton
Posted:
lol wouldnt call it a fixation,, they're just the biggest targets heh,, the same could equally be applied to any bike/car/bus/lorry/boat you get the idea
lol wouldnt call it a fixation,, they're just the biggest targets heh,, the same could equally be applied to any bike/car/bus/lorry/boat you get the idea
Some men see things and say why....
I Dream of things that never were and say Why Not....?
Oh No I'm going to get Shot Alive if he finds out - DA
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [smoking banned] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Should smoking be banned? [104 replies]
- Forums > Help with hidden cigarettes [47 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com