National No Smoking Day is...

[Sima 0]

Got a source, it's very questionable though, I'll admit.

 

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page22.asp

 

Same as the only real statistical evidence of passive smoking is Roy Castle.

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sima

[Renton 22436]

Do all cancer sufferers get banged up now?

 

No. I'm not sure I'm with you though. If you want to extend your analogy from drink driving, it should be should it be illegal to give someone cancer? Yes, I would have thought.

[Sima 0]

Do all cancer sufferers get banged up now?

 

No. I'm not sure I'm with you though. If you want to extend your analogy from drink driving, it should be should it be illegal to give someone cancer? Yes, I would have thought.

 

Yeah and how are you supposed to determine who gave someone cancer and when? Get rational ffs.

[Renton 22436]

Got a source, it's very questionable though, I'll admit.

 

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page22.asp

 

Same as the only real statistical evidence of passive smoking is Roy Castle.

 

FOREST, aye, that's pretty questionable, the same is true of ASH.

 

As for passive smoking, I'm fairly sure there is some observational evidence out there, but anyway, the mechanism is fairly obvious.

[Sima 0]

In theory yes, but you could inhale the same fumes walking through a city centre for half an hour every day.

[Renton 22436]

Do all cancer sufferers get banged up now?

 

No. I'm not sure I'm with you though. If you want to extend your analogy from drink driving, it should be should it be illegal to give someone cancer? Yes, I would have thought.

 

Yeah and how are you supposed to determine who gave someone cancer and when? Get rational ffs.

 

I wasn't taking the anology literally, were you? The point is, passive smoking is highly likely to damage other peoples health, which is why it should be illegal to inflict the habit on other people in public places. This isn't true of drinkers; not unless they break the law anyway.

 

I wasn't advocating people suing individual smokers because they contract cancer.

[Renton 22436]

In theory yes, but you could inhale the same fumes walking through a city centre for half an hour every day.

 

That's true, nothing's perfect.

[Isegrim 10017]

Got a source, it's very questionable though, I'll admit.

 

http://www.forestonline.org/output/page22.asp

 

Same as the only real statistical evidence of passive smoking is Roy Castle.

I think the number is coming from this:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/backgrou...oking/86599.stm

 

Don't know if there are newer surveys regarding the NHS. IIRCin other countries it is considered to be more than 50% of health costs...

[Sima 0]

It would be nearer 50% of course if there wasn't that high tax

[Renton 22436]

I used to work in a place where they had one of those perspex boxes for people to smoke in. That was fucking rank, I had to hold my breath just to get a paper out of it.

 

It amzes me people will rather face that than give up.

[Sima 0]

 

 

I wasn't taking the anology literally, were you? The point is, passive smoking is highly likely to damage other peoples health, which is why it should be illegal to inflict the habit on other people in public places. This isn't true of drinkers; not unless they break the law anyway.

 

I wasn't advocating people suing individual smokers because they contract cancer.

 

So drinking is kept legal because it leads to more crime?

 

I used to work in a place where they had one of those perspex boxes for people to smoke in. That was fucking rank, I had to hold my breath just to get a paper out of it.

 

It amzes me people will rather face that than give up.

 

Yeah, the lengths people will go to eh? to satisfy an addiction?

 

You're coming across very ignorant here tbh

Edited March 14, 2007 by Sima

[Guest alex]

I think the ban is fair but the levels of taxation probably aren't. Smokers are always an easy target in Budgets though and are a massive source of revenue. I hope the ban reduces the levels of smoking though because, although I'm all for freedom of choice, I think it's a pretty horrible drug in terms of the direct effects on users (not to mention those who breathe in other's smoke passively in pubs etc.

[Renton 22436]

 

 

I wasn't taking the anology literally, were you? The point is, passive smoking is highly likely to damage other peoples health, which is why it should be illegal to inflict the habit on other people in public places. This isn't true of drinkers; not unless they break the law anyway.

 

I wasn't advocating people suing individual smokers because they contract cancer.

 

So drinking is kept legal because it leads to more crime?

 

Erm, no. That's some screwed up reasoning, I'm merely saying drinking within the law doesn't directly harm other people.

 

Prohibition of alcohol is an impossibility any way.

[Renton 22436]

 

 

I wasn't taking the anology literally, were you? The point is, passive smoking is highly likely to damage other peoples health, which is why it should be illegal to inflict the habit on other people in public places. This isn't true of drinkers; not unless they break the law anyway.

 

I wasn't advocating people suing individual smokers because they contract cancer.

 

So drinking is kept legal because it leads to more crime?

 

I used to work in a place where they had one of those perspex boxes for people to smoke in. That was fucking rank, I had to hold my breath just to get a paper out of it.

 

It amzes me people will rather face that than give up.

 

Yeah, the lengths people will go to eh? to satisfy an addiction?

 

You're coming across very ignorant here tbh

 

How? I used to smoke btw.

[Guest alex]

Aah, the puritanical fervour of the convert

[Sima 0]

 

 

I wasn't taking the anology literally, were you? The point is, passive smoking is highly likely to damage other peoples health, which is why it should be illegal to inflict the habit on other people in public places. This isn't true of drinkers; not unless they break the law anyway.

 

I wasn't advocating people suing individual smokers because they contract cancer.

 

So drinking is kept legal because it leads to more crime?

 

Erm, no. That's some screwed up reasoning, I'm merely saying drinking within the law doesn't directly harm other people.

 

Prohibition of alcohol is an impossibility any way.

 

Medicinal purposes aside, no more of an impossibility than prohibtion of smoking

[Sima 0]

 

 

How? I used to smoke btw.

 

No-one more over-zealous than a convert tbh

[Renton 22436]

Aah, the puritanical fervour of the convert

 

 

Hope I'm not coming across like that (probably am), but I'm not on a massive downer about individual smokers, I just think the pub ban will benefit everyone. In Scotland, a lot of people have reported it has helped them give up. Apparently the Bingo halls have suffered worst like, not that I'm remotely bothered by that.

 

I think Luke had a point though, when you have to study the effects of smoking the habit just looks like complete madness. It's amazing how many smokers think "it won't happen to me" though, yet still reckon they will win the lottery. And let's be honest, smoking doesn't give you much in terms of pleasure, for most people who are addicted it is simply a need to satisfy a craving, which strikes me as being pretty pointless. Unlike alcohol and other drugs.

[Renton 22436]

 

 

I wasn't taking the anology literally, were you? The point is, passive smoking is highly likely to damage other peoples health, which is why it should be illegal to inflict the habit on other people in public places. This isn't true of drinkers; not unless they break the law anyway.

 

I wasn't advocating people suing individual smokers because they contract cancer.

 

So drinking is kept legal because it leads to more crime?

 

Erm, no. That's some screwed up reasoning, I'm merely saying drinking within the law doesn't directly harm other people.

 

Prohibition of alcohol is an impossibility any way.

 

Medicinal purposes aside, no more of an impossibility than prohibtion of smoking

 

You reckon? I disagree. Not that anyone is advocating an outright ban on either mind, but I reckon pubs will survive without smoking on the premises, I doubt they'd stay open without alcohol.

[Guest alex]

Aah, the puritanical fervour of the convert

 

 

Hope I'm not coming across like that (probably am), but I'm not on a massive downer about individual smokers, I just think the pub ban will benefit everyone. In Scotland, a lot of people have reported it has helped them give up. Apparently the Bingo halls have suffered worst like, not that I'm remotely bothered by that.

 

I think Luke had a point though, when you have to study the effects of smoking the habit just looks like complete madness. It's amazing how many smokers think "it won't happen to me" though, yet still reckon they will win the lottery. And let's be honest, smoking doesn't give you much in terms of pleasure, for most people who are addicted it is simply a need to satisfy a craving, which strikes me as being pretty pointless. Unlike alcohol and other drugs.

I was kidding really. And I agree with the bit in bold. I have the occasional tab still when I drink but I probably smoke about 1-2 a month, if that. They wouldn't be as 'bad' imo if you got more out of them but they do just satisfy a craving. I wish wor lass would give up. She reckons I should smoke less weed and drink less though and she has a point.

[ewerk 31596]

Anyone know if there is much difference between smoking roll ups and ordinary cigarettes? I'd heard that roll ups were less damaging as they don't contain the chemicals used in pre-rolled to keep the cigarette lit.

[Sima 0]

What did you mean by prohibition btw? Just in public places?

 

Hope I'm not coming across like that (probably am), but I'm not on a massive downer about individual smokers, I just think the pub ban will benefit everyone. In Scotland, a lot of people have reported it has helped them give up. Apparently the Bingo halls have suffered worst like, not that I'm remotely bothered by that.

 

I think Luke had a point though, when you have to study the effects of smoking the habit just looks like complete madness. It's amazing how many smokers think "it won't happen to me" though, yet still reckon they will win the lottery. And let's be honest, smoking doesn't give you much in terms of pleasure, for most people who are addicted it is simply a need to satisfy a craving, which strikes me as being pretty pointless. Unlike alcohol and other drugs.

 

You could argue that drinking is just as pointless as smoking tbh, only far more expensive.

[Guest alex]

Anyone know if there is much difference between smoking roll ups and ordinary cigarettes? I'd heard that roll ups were less damaging as they don't contain the chemicals used in pre-rolled to keep the cigarette lit.

I reckon roll-ups with a filter would be safer than normal tabs.

[Gemmill 47120]

I don't know how they're gonna handle the ban when it comes in at my workplace. They did a survey recently, and of the people on site they reckon they've got 50% smokers, and that 25% of them have no plans whatsoever to stop smoking. But the company has no plans to provide smoking facilities on-site which means a 5 minute walk to get off-site, but they don't plan on allowing people smoking breaks.

 

At the minute we've got a smoking room downstairs (which is a fucking putrid place btw), but that'll be gone and these pasty, unfit wheezing mongs will have to trudge 10 minutes up the bank and off-site to satisfy their addiction. Oh dear.

[Isegrim 10017]

We should have a separate Smoker's forum. This thread stinks.