No Smoking

[howie]

Well that argument cuts both ways Dave. If such a large proportion of the populace smokes then it follows that smoking related deaths and illnesses will follow suit, so based on numbers even more reason for a total ban. Not sure how popular a decision this would be for any future goverment, but touching on the erosion of personal rights and health issues, why are we forced by law to wear a seatbelt but still allowed to cough ourselves into a early grave. If I want to end my days going through a windscreen then because there,s no profit to be made this is strictly forbidden. Yes I agree that a black market would emerge, but at least the majority of youngster and non smokers would not be tempted into becoming addicted to smoking, and as far as foreign visitors are concerned then its when in Britain do as the British do.

[davenewellhome]

But it never is "when in Britain do as the Brits do" is it, its more like "when in Britain do what you like 'cos the Brits are too scared of being called racists, or anti your religion or whatever to do anything about it". The seatbelt legislation is not that good a one to choose actually because nobody stops you driving the car which is the really dangerous thing.

 

The problem with smoking is its been part of our (and the rest of the world's) culture for centuries. I certainly wouldn't like to be the one who banned it in any country. What would be your reaction if the government declared alcohol illegal and closed all the pubs? Alcohol causes many deaths and lots of diseases are related to over- indulgence.

 

Yes the governments take a big slice of revenue from smokers, I don't deny that but all any government can do is try to educate people away from the foul, poisonous habit. If that means banning it in public places then I'm all for it.

 

D.

[Mel B]

 

If people didn't smoke the government wouldn't get as much revenue. Is part of the reason the revenue high to try to discourage people from smoking?

 

If people didn't smoke the government wouldn't NEED as much revenue to pay for the health care, social care etc of those that suffered from smoking related illnesses or pay benefits, social security (or whatever it's called) to those that have lost the income of the main wage earner.

 

If there weren't as many people getting ill from smoking related illnesses the NHS might not be as stretched as it is?

 

Just some thoughts on the subject, whether or not they are true you can decide for yourselves.

[Brian Kirby]

You're right Howard, it is about government revenue.  It's just that they are as hooked on the revenue as the smokers are on the smoke! 

I can't believe there is anyone living in this country who remains unaware of the risks of smoking.  Some inveterate risk takers may smoke just to see if they can get away with it; but I suspect most started smoking when they were kids, either because they had been told it was a silly thing to do (what do kids do when you say that?) or because their parents or friends smoked. 

Then, having started, they find it difficult to stop, so just resort to increasingly silly reasons for continuing.  They all know it's killing them, but they suspend reason.  They resort to stories about Aunty Nelle, who smoked 50 a day until she was 90, and then died falling off her horse. 

Proof in an instant: smoking doesn't kill you!  They ignore the discomforting fact that for every Aunty Nellie who died falling from a horse, there are several tens of thousands of Aunty Nellies who die from their 50 a day long before they reach 90.  It merely reflects the inability of most people to understand statistics, coupled with the impact of smoking addiction on your reasoning power!

And we let these people vote!  No wonder we're in such a mess!  :-)

[Guest peter]

Not too many smokers posting in this thread I see. They are too busy minding their own business and not preaching to others. But plenty of self righteous ex or non smokers trying to save all the smokers from themselves. Well...as a casual smoker I couldn't give a hoot what they say. I've recently had a full M.O.T and lung function and blood oxygen tests with the result that my blood oxygen is at the level of a 35Yr old. Not bad for a 45 Yr smoker of 61 and I guarantee I would run most of you non smokers over 50 off your feet. Dare I mention that I also like a drink or three. So just back off and find someone else to pick on you moralistic bullies. >:-)

[Bazza454]

Brian Kirby - 2007-06-22 7:32 PM

You're right Howard, it is about government revenue.  It's just that they are as hooked on the revenue as the smokers are on the smoke! 

I can't believe there is anyone living in this country who remains unaware of the risks of smoking.  Some inveterate risk takers may smoke just to see if they can get away with it; but I suspect most started smoking when they were kids, either because they had been told it was a silly thing to do (what do kids do when you say that?) or because their parents or friends smoked. 

Then, having started, they find it difficult to stop, so just resort to increasingly silly reasons for continuing.  They all know it's killing them, but they suspend reason.  They resort to stories about Aunty Nelle, who smoked 50 a day until she was 90, and then died falling off her horse. 

Proof in an instant: smoking doesn't kill you!  They ignore the discomforting fact that for every Aunty Nellie who died falling from a horse, there are several tens of thousands of Aunty Nellies who die from their 50 a day long before they reach 90.  It merely reflects the inability of most people to understand statistics, coupled with the impact of smoking addiction on your reasoning power!

And we let these people vote!  No wonder we're in such a mess!  :-)

Brian,

I usually enjoy your posts, most are well thought out and very articulate, but on this one you're off the wall.

You're not seriously suggesting that the reason UK PLC is in such a mess is because the Government allows smokers to vote?

[Guest peter]

Brian Kirby - 2007-06-22 7:32 PM

You're right Howard, it is about government revenue.  It's just that they are as hooked on the revenue as the smokers are on the smoke! 

I can't believe there is anyone living in this country who remains unaware of the risks of smoking.  Some inveterate risk takers may smoke just to see if they can get away with it; but I suspect most started smoking when they were kids, either because they had been told it was a silly thing to do (what do kids do when you say that?) or because their parents or friends smoked. 

Then, having started, they find it difficult to stop, so just resort to increasingly silly reasons for continuing.  They all know it's killing them, but they suspend reason.  They resort to stories about Aunty Nelle, who smoked 50 a day until she was 90, and then died falling off her horse. 

Proof in an instant: smoking doesn't kill you!  They ignore the discomforting fact that for every Aunty Nellie who died falling from a horse, there are several tens of thousands of Aunty Nellies who die from their 50 a day long before they reach 90.  It merely reflects the inability of most people to understand statistics, coupled with the impact of smoking addiction on your reasoning power!

And we let these people vote!  No wonder we're in such a mess!  :-)

Response deleted. Decided it was not worthy of one.

[Vic]

Again, as a smoker I can obviously see why folks wish to live in a smoke free society. Yes, it is a filthy habit and should not be inflicted upon those who do not smoke. But, on the other hand, many of those who advocate the wish to be free from smoke probably drive cars. Pumping their filthy emissions into the atmosphere without care. I'm sure that many of those who say smoking should cease enjoy the luxury of central heating at home, regardlesss of their 'carbon footprint'. I fine it odd that , as a smoker I may be denied medical care because my habit is self imposed. The reason I find it odd is, in my job, working in a Crown Court, I see many drug users. Those with heroin habits, pot smokers, crack cocaine users all having public money thrown at them in the aim of removing their habit. So in essence, if I go to a hospital with a chest complaint, I'll be asked if I smoke. If I say yes, then, it's sorry mate, it's your fault. If I go to the hospital and say I have a chest complaint through smoking weed or using cocaine it's a case of, 'come in mate, you have a problem caused by society's neglect. Let's see how we can help you'.

[Dancer]

Good lad Peter.

But, I think there could be an element of truth buried there. Not just aimed at smokers or bigots.

I've also checked the laybys near us, seem clear at the moment.

[Guest peter]

Dancer - 2007-06-22 9:53 PM

Good lad Peter.

But, I think there could be an element of truth buried there. Not just aimed at smokers or bigots.

I've also checked the laybys near us, seem clear at the moment.

That's because I'm in the layby near Brian's house waiting to polish his Halo. (lol)

[davenewellhome]

I find it strange that some smokers see non smoker's contributions to this thread as preaching. Surely its a discussion and as such will have contributors with opposing viewpoints?

 

Where did I say you should give up smoking Peter? All I ask is to be able to breathe clean fresh (well nearly) air, especially in the pub while I enjoy a drink or three.

 

We went to our local last night for the regular darts knockout, out of eighteen people in the bar (including the landlord) only four don't smoke, that's my wife and myself, the landlord and one other. I did enjoy tugging a few chains about it being a non smoking environment next week. One said I'd be on my own, I said fine, at least I'll win the darts and not stink like an ashtray when I go home. ;-)

 

D.

[Brian Kirby]

Bazza454 - 2007-06-22 9:30 PM

Brian Kirby - 2007-06-22 7:32 PM

And we let these people vote!  No wonder we're in such a mess!  :-)

Brian,

I usually enjoy your posts, most are well thought out and very articulate, but on this one you're off the wall.

You're not seriously suggesting that the reason UK PLC is in such a mess is because the Government allows smokers to vote?

You are very kind Barry, and to some extent the comment was tongue in cheek, hence the smiley. 

However; how should one describe those who choose to indulge in an activity despite it being proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, to damage their health in the long term.  All this risk for immediate, fleeting, gratification.  I am not arguing with them/you, nor bullying them/you, as Peter assumes, I am musing aloud with other, similarly puzzled, people. 

Continuing in this musing aloud vein, I know people do strange things, and even risk death for momentary pleasure, but paradoxically, most want to continue living as long as possible, and wish to retain their health, and with that their enjoyment of life, throughout their respective lifespans. 

And yet, these same folk continue to risk destroying their future wellbeing for such fleetingly small pleasures.  All the excuses in the world cannot compensate for the fact that life without smoking is as least as enjoyable as life with smoking.  In respect of one's sense of smell, and taste, the pleasures are actually enhanced when one stops.  However, to prove that, one needs the will to stop smoking.  This, to me is the crux of the problem.  The addiction subsumes the will.

Peter boasts of his fitness.  Why?  Because he knows that what he is doing when he smokes, is damaging.  What he can't know, is what he might be capable of if he ceased smoking.  Whether or not he could run the rest of us off our feet while continuing as a smoker is a, an untested assertion and, b, meaningless, because whether or not we smoke we all have different levels of fitness.  It is also cites popular misconception, because fitness has nothing to do with healthiness: those who are fit may be unhealthy, and conversely those who are unfit may be very healthy.  However, by believing this, he justifies continuing to smoke, and thus is content.  Do I want him, or Vic, or you, to stop?  Absolutely not.  Puff on, it is your choice!

However, in return for this magnanamous largesse on my part you'll just have to put up with the rest of us musing on about this schism in your psyches.  We're not really talking to you, you see, just talking about you.  But we're doing it in the open, so that you can tell us when we get it wrong.

Regarding smokers rights to a vote: well there are classes of people who are banned.  Do you fall into one of those classes because you smoke?  Well, lets put it this way - all the world is strange, except for thee and me; and even thee's a little strange.  Go in peace.  :-)

[Bill]

Why can’t they use some of the vast revenues from cigarette taxes to build smoking rooms every 100 yards or so along urban roads, and then – and only then – ban smoking in the streets, where it really gets up my nose, both literally and figuratively.

 

As a libertarian I believe smokers (or anybody else) have a right to do as they please, but only to the extent that they do not annoy others. A favourite quote from a newspaper column some years ago ran: “Other peoples’ right to smoke ends where my nose begins”.

 

As for the argument about exhaust fumes, I can only say that neither petrol, diesel nor gas turbine exhausts cause me even one per cent of the annoyance cigarette smoke causes me. How do others feel?

 

[Bazza454]

Bill - 2007-06-23 1:46 PM Why can’t they use some of the vast revenues from cigarette taxes to build smoking rooms every 100 yards or so along urban roads, and then – and only then – ban smoking in the streets, where it really gets up my nose, both literally and figuratively. As a libertarian I believe smokers (or anybody else) have a right to do as they please, but only to the extent that they do not annoy others. A favourite quote from a newspaper column some years ago ran: “Other peoples’ right to smoke ends where my nose begins”. As for the argument about exhaust fumes, I can only say that neither petrol, diesel nor gas turbine exhausts cause me even one per cent of the annoyance cigarette smoke causes me. How do others feel?

Probably the reason why they can't use the vast tax revenues that cigarettes generate to build "smoking rooms" is because the money is already being spent by the NHS looking after the smokers.

[martin r c]

Kept me amused for ages this post. Oh I smoke. but only small cigars. and never in the car or motorhome. and starting to feel embarrised lighting up if no one else is smoking.

I think the ban is understandable. but it does p155 me off how the goverment we elected ,keeps banging on about it,as it,s the worst sin in the world to smoke.

Remember ,it is a legal product to buy.

If they put half the effort into antisocial behavior ,muggings, drug use and all the other things in my view that are more important, this country would be a better place.

 

Had my say -- so there >:-)

 

martin

[michele]

puff puff puff I personally think that people who drink are a pain and I think it's high time the govnerment got a handle on that with all these related illness getting admitted to hospital drubken brawls tut tut tut ....discusting the lot of you ...where the hell does it stop then..So you like a drink that equals a pub come watering hole .I want to smoke so give me a tent . I pay me taxes why should I not be entitled to health care just like the next person health is health wether or not you inflict it yourself perhaps when you need a hip replacment because you fell over whilst pissed you should not all spend the bit I and many chuffers put in the pot .

I only want to pay for people who SMOKE or have dared to live a life .

Not drinkers in any form 1 glass whats the difference its all alcohol

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:D :D :D

[Bazza454]

Probably my last note on this thread (which I believe has been an excellent discussion) is an old Yorkshire saying -

" I only smoke when I make love - then you can smell burning rubber".

[davenewellhome]

"I only want to pay for people who SMOKE or have dared to live a life .

Not drinkers in any form 1 glass whats the difference its all alcohol"

 

Well Michele the difference is that smoking has been long proved to be dangerous to those who practice the habit and those around them. Drinking 1 glass of red wine a day has been proved to be beneficial to long term heart care! Drinkers also pay huge sums of tax so what's your beef?

 

As is all too often the case, smokers who cannot find a reasonable and sensible argument for carrying on the disgusting habit in public try to divert attention by bringing up other issues like drinking, fumes from cars etc.

 

D.

[chigman]

I`d rather breath in cigarette fumes than traffic fumes any day but no one says anything about traffic fumes so they must be alright for you then *-) I am a smoker and like most people I dont like it when someone is smoking and i`m on the next table eating,but come on,if we are going to ban smoking from public places,lets ban the whole lot..ciggies,traffic fumes,bonfires ect,it`s all smoke at the end of the day which people are breathing in but it will never happen eccept for smoking coz thats the one that the government has been pushing,which then brain washes everybody into thinking it`s the biggest evil ever and so thats the one that has to go. :-S

 

As a side note,drink and drugs should be the ones at the fore for being banned,coz they are the ones that bing crime and misery to the community,not smoking.The govenment are a bunch off (it's not nice to insult people)s i`m affraid and couldn`t run a p**s up in a brewery. :-D

[howie]

I,ve got a hangover so allow me muddle along.

What helped me give up smoking was the introduction of those low strength ciggies some years ago. Tried on many occasions to kick the habit but lacked the will power to succeed. Like smoking fresh air for the first few days but I soon realised that the lack of a "buzz" so to speak did,nt really bother me and simply going through the motions was enough to keep me happy.

The effect on my health and well being was almost immediate. Gone was the wheezing and bouts of coughing, and the taste and sense of smell returned as well.

Made the effort to cut down gradually and then simply packed it in full stop. The only thing that dissapointed me was that these low strength ciggies were the same price as normal ones and quite often more expensive.

What an opportunity missed if the goverment of the day had really been serious in trying to help smokers. Not only could they have made price concessions, but even given grants of some sort to manufacturers to produce brands with increasingly lower levels of nicotine until giving up was achievable for anyone.

Self defeating for the makers of cigarettes maybe, but i,m sure some sort of near harmless substitute could be made if they really put their minds to it and might even strike a happy medium for most people concerned.

I,m not preaching at anyone here, but there,s never been a smoker where giving up as not crossed their minds, and deep down, whatever the sentiments expressed so far, I simply don,t believe they they cannot accept that smoking kills and that subjecting others to the dangers involved is in any way acceptable.

[davenewellhome]

"if we are going to ban smoking from public places,lets ban the whole lot..ciggies,traffic fumes,bonfires ect"

 

After you with scrapping your motorhome sir!

 

D.

[Mel B]

Smoking kills people who DO NOT smoke. If a smoker wants to kill themselves by smoking that it up to them. When it then kills other poeple through no fault of their own that is another matter entirely and that is the difference between smoking and the other personal 'habits' that people have.

 

If standing next to someone in a pub who is drinking caused a non-drinker to die (I'm not on about drink driving etc, that's another matter entirely), I would agree that drinking too should be banned, the simplyematter is that it DOES NOT.

 

You cannot escape the fact that everytime a smoker light up a cigarette in company they pump chemicals into the atmosphere which the other people end up inhaling. Pubs are one place but htere are many other places where not only adults frequent but children as well, such as cafes, restaurants, shopping malls etc, the younger children are not aware of the potential health threat this poses to them and they cannot do anything about it to get out of harms way.

 

As for parents who smoke, do you realise that when you've popped outside for a quick ciggy, thinking you're being really good by not smoking in the house, or have opened the window, the chemicals are still on you, so the next time you give your child a cuddle some of these chemicals could still be hanging around on you and you could inadvertently be inflicting them on your own child, if the smell is there some of the chemical residue must surely be too. My opinion, if you don't like it they just ignore it, no doubt some people will want to find fault with this, if that's what you want to do, be my guest, it's not my life I'm damaging, you all have to live with your own conscience, and the greater or lesser effect that your smoking has on others around you no matter how considerate or not you are.

:-|

[chigman]

davenewell@home - 2007-06-24 2:34 PM

 

"if we are going to ban smoking from public places,lets ban the whole lot..ciggies,traffic fumes,bonfires ect"

 

After you with scrapping your motorhome sir!

 

D.

 

No certainly not coz I aint got one yet. (lol)

 

It`s just that smoking seems to be the easy target and gets blame for everything,but I think on the whole traffic fumes are far more deadly to the masses.Just look at the amount of asthma that is about now days along with other breathing difficulties.As mentioned in an earlier post i made,I am a smoker but I`m not trying to make excuses here but,if your going to ban one you have got to ban all of them because they are all as bad for us as each other.

[Brian Kirby]

Vic - 2007-06-22 9:53 PM ...........But, on the other hand, many of those who advocate the wish to be free from smoke probably drive cars. Pumping their filthy emissions into the atmosphere without care. I'm sure that many of those who say smoking should cease enjoy the luxury of central heating at home, regardlesss of their 'carbon footprint'. ...............

With apologies for the deletions, but I couldn't resist another bite at this cherry!  Anyhow, I doubt if Vic really believes his own post! 

Still, somehow, claiming it is unfair for motorhome drivers to object to smokers, does seem a bit dubious.  In that we all, smokers and non-smokers alike, drive, so adding to pollution, he is, of course dead right. 

It is also quite correct that all vehicle exhaust fumes are respiratory irritants, and in addition diesel fumes are carcinogenic. 

It is also true that gas central heating systems add to atmospheric CO2 (though less so than the oil/solid fuelled variety).  However, it is more than a little disingenuous to claim either activity is carried on careless as to its undesirability.

So, we all pollute.  But then, unless we all stay at home or walk everywhere, and reject all forms of space heating, what are the practical alternatives? 

For the defence, therefore, me Lud, I would respectfully submit that at present the vast majority of us has no realistic alternative but to continue contributing to atmospheric pollution when we work, travel, heat, or light our humble shacks.

This is to be contrasted with the attitude of the  - by definition wealthy - for how else can he continue his expensive passtime - smoker, who wishes to continue freely to pollute the air other mortals must perforce breathe, merely because he chooses to do so.  This is pure indulgence: it is whim.  There is no compulsion upon him to do so.  It is an entirely voluntary activity, in which he elects to partake of his own free will.

I therefore submit, with cringing humility, that this argument is unmitigated bo**ocks!  :-)

[davenewellhome]

"I want to smoke so give me a tent "

 

You seem to be comparing smoking with going to the pub. The big difference here is that pubs are provided by the breweries as businesses to make money. Who should provide you with a tent to smoke in? The Government? Why, they don't provide such facilities for any other group of people so why should they for smokers? Most pubs are providing a covered area for smokers outside anyway.

 

There is no law against you smoking outside, just don't drop your fag ends on the ground or you'll get done for littering.

 

D.