Smoking

Remove all ads!

Even bag ladies, hustlers, drifters were cute as babies, most august Darkthrone.

@Drew
Yes, I know. They want. Smokers would not necessarily oppose such legislation...

Shame, really, it isnt orchestrated to be an equally big issue. Which is a matter of curiosity to me.

 

You snobbish bastard.

 

@Barmy: I find your comment particularly ironic, after you said this:

in the other thread.

 

Haha... snared. Can't get out of that one!

A house stinking of fag smoke isn't nice to walk into. But smoking isn't for the 'underclasses' at all. It's more the term the 'underclasses'.. who does he think he is? The bloody Queen? He sounds like what we call around here, as a Charlie Ronce!

 

And I suppose tha' that, me English china, is cockney slang for a ponce, if I'd no' be mistaken.

No-one calls me a Charlie Ronce to me Chevy Chase! Way to upperclass!

 

It's simple, really. People can't tell by tasting, smelling, or looking at their water that chemical runoff is contaminating it. They can, however, tell when someone is lighting up 3 feet away from them. The first step to addressing a problem is noticing it. I'd like to point out that Californians, even California republicans, who see the results of industrial pollution on a daily basis, are almost universally pro-environment. In Iowa, on the other hand, even the democrats tend to defend big business from accountability and place "economics" ahead of environmental facters.....and their democratic Governor is in bed with bio-tech and big Pharma. Sparsely populated Iowa doesn't really feel the negative consequences of poor environmental policy, so most Iowans aren't terribly concerned about it (much to my own chagrin). Heavily populated California, however, does feel the negative consequences of poor environmental policy.

 

Noticing? Each and every one of us knows about chemical contamination. No rock big enough to live under to have missed that fact. But as we know that isnt enough. So few who can be bothered to take control of their *own* lifes in such essential matters, but all of them can demand of others to change and no longer pollute their lifes, if you please. Who cares about the matter of degree?

The rationalization: Hey, I am sufficiently delusional and will make it a question of personal choice!

Right.

How word-defyingly pitiable.

Whatever. I guess smokers will have to endure the sanctimonious (policy-makers) and the malleable (rest).

 

Smoking is a bad habit.

People get into it because it is emotionally beneficial. The same as people who go out and get drunk.

The people who do it, in this day and age (with the public bans) etc. only hurt themselves, and no-one else.

People who smoke hate to hear sanctimonious bull**** about how harmful it is. WE KNOW!

End of really. Is there anything else to add? That's the entire argument wrapped up in 4 sentences.

 

Well not really as passive smoking is for me the main reason I support the ban. Why should everyone in a barhave to inhale the smoke because a minority want to fill their lungs with crap.

To the smokers here - I'm trying to get my mum to cut down, I do A level Biology so I can rant about what smoking is doing to her body but it seems she couldnt give a ****, what can I do or say to make her feel otherwise? Is there anything that gave you the motivation to cut down and eventually stop?

 

I'd support a ban of smoking in each and every public place. But, I don't have any say in what people choose to do in their own homes; none of my business.

Frankly though, the argument that there are other environmental factors around that can harm you when discussing secondhand smoke really has little merit if you believe that the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" has any degree of truth. The fact that cell phone radiation, water contamination, and city smog can also affect my health does not comfort me in any way when I'm having an allergic reaction in a public place thanks to your smoking habit.

They're similar in that they're social activities...except when a man has a beer, his beverage does not spray everyone in the room with a lingering alcohol mist. If a woman at a bar takes a shot of tequila, others around her do not have to carry around a pungent ethanol odor in their hair and on their clothing (well...unless it's a really wild party, I suppose).

This would be true only if everyone followed public bans like a saint and private homes were monitored to ensure that 0.0% of smoke reached the non-smoking family members. I can't count the number of times I've seen parents smoking up the house or car when their children are present.

Edit: Removed a generalized statement.

[ May 29, 2007, 03:48: Message edited by: War Nerve ]

 

3 words... public ****ing ban!

Can. Not. Smoke. In. Public. Rooms.

Can. Only. Smoke. Outside.

Hence.. only harmful to the smoker.

You must get a nosebleed being that high on that frigging horse.

 

Man, do you think we could discuss this without borderline insults, Barmy?

It's a rather sensitive subject for me (for *many* personal and familial reasons which I won't bother you with) as it seems to be for you. While your spelled-out explanation of what a "public ****ing ban" means is appreciated, the city I live in had a vote on the ban and it did not come to pass. Therefore, as long as I continue to have breathing problems and a burning sensation in my eyes as I'm trying to eat a hamburger, I'm going to say how I feel about smoking...maybe even without being called a snob.

Yeah, I know you were referring to areas with the ban in place regarding harmful effects and I'm not going to argue that taking a brief inhale of smoke blowing in the wind from someone 10 yards away actually causes physical harm...but public ban or no, unless the smoker lives and works alone, there's often someone who will at least be *affected* by it.

 

You mean to say that each and every one of us actually feels the negative effects of chemical contamination? I never have......but I have felt the negative effects of cigarette smoke. Smoking is done publicly and those who don't like or have reactions to it can't help but notice it. Whether it's right or wrong, people are going to act to solve what's in front of them before they move to adress what does not have an immediate, adverse effect..

You know, you do an awful lot of generalizing. I find it rather bizarre that you are levying accusations of hypocrisy at basically all non-smokers instead of actually discussing the issue. In my experience, people that do that do so because they don't actually have a case.

 

My suggestion would be to move to Bhutan - smoking there is completely illegal

Just reading through a list of smoking bans on Wikipedia, I was really surprised by the number of places which are introducing bans of various extremes. By the looks of it, within the next twelve months we'll be seeing smoking been banned in any indoor workplaces in a fair number of countries across the globe.

Here in New Zealand smoking is banned in all public places, including bars, cafes etc - one of the best moves the current government has made. To be honest, it is one of the biggest differences I notice when travelling overseas to similar countries, such as Australia. Walking in to bars is always a real shock.

 

One thing I'm a complete hypocrite in. Smoking while driving, I think it should be illegal and carry a harsh fine. It's dangerous having to move the wheel with a fag in your hand. Ash can fall off and drop on your legs, making you jump and move the wheel. Or you can drop your fag at a bad time.. you can't just leave it, it'll leave a burn mark somewhere! But if you're travelling at high speed, you need to concentrate on the road, not where your fag just went.

However, because it's legal I smoke in the car all the time!!

 

about the Bhutan smiking ban, it is a great examble.

i have been to Bhutan and almst everyone i met, smoked like hell, smuggled in cigarettes of course, so it does'nt really work that great you think?

 

@BA - good point, lad. I've actually seen *worse* than cellphone/cigarette distractions that drivers inflict upon themselves (applying makeup/shaving, eating 'complicated' food that takes your attention away from the road, reading ) on rare occasions, but smoking while driving seems harmless (sorry) enough, until you stop and think about it.

And the fact that you disapprove of it to the extent of thinking it should be out-and-out illegal, yet still do it implies to the strength of the addiction...people tend to do things they know are wrong, and really disagree with, and HEARTILY do NOT want to do, but are unable to overcome the psychological compulsion...

 

It's not so much the psychological compulsion, it's just the fact that it's legal. It's nice to have a cigarette when you're driving. I have a cig because I know I can get away with it. If it was illegal I wouldn't do it, no matter the 'psychological compulsion'. It's a bit like cannabis, if that was made legal I'd smoke that as well, because it's illegal I rarely touch it!

 

One of the funniest things I've seen, was walking along one day and this guy comes along on a bike, while puffing a way at a smoke with one hand. Ash falls on his leg, he quickly tries to brush it away with his other hand and ends up riding straight into a fence!