Is the sight of a smoker offensive, Bad people ?

delop

Didnt realise I was immature, maybe I am, Just wanted to start a Civil Discussion, because I was shocked by incident ,but there seems to be very few moderates....

I asked for Scientific proof that repeated outdoor passive smoking can damage your health but havent seen it provided

I spend a lot of time Traveling with my Job, Was in the Azores this summer and everyone in that country smokes, and you can smoke everywhere, apart from the cinema but there is an intermission 1/2 way through the moveie to do so :-) ( That did annoy me, unnecessary I thought)

But I do wonder how some of the posters here manage when they go on holidays, Do you come back suffering from all sorts of ailments when you visit France or Spain, or do you bycott these countries untill which time as they see sense? This I would be very interested to know..

And please Izzy try not to resort to name calling, Its just a friendly discussion, Im all for open debate, and would like to think im considerate of others feelings, Im not trying to justify anything, I was just very suprised thats all...

r3nu4l

Delop, I explained how outdoor passive smoking adds to the build up you are just unwilling to accept it. If I can't convince you that's fine.


As for the original question inthe thread title:

Sight of a smoker offensive? No
Bad people? No, unless they are criminals or the like

On another note, has anyone ever asked for a smoking forum? To allow people debate these issues as well as discussing the merits of cigarellos over cigarettes, best cigar, ten uses for old ashtrays etc? I'm not being facetious, I'm serious. Despite my abhorrance of smoking I would back this providing it wasn't simply a place for people to say 'smoking is so cool kids'.

Ste.phen

Step 1: New "Cigarette" Age Card to be made, to be more secure than existing age card; is needed for purchasing cigarettes after a given date (say Jan 1st some year for the sake of argument)

Step 2: Retailers to lose cigarette license if they sell to someone (anyone) without an age card, zero tolerance

Step 3: People born before after 1990 don;t get these cards. ever.

Step 4: Tourists can pick temporary cards up from the airport.

Step 5: Hefty fines for people who illegally supply cigarettes/cards to people.

People importing cigarettes for personal use need the card too, yay.

This is my own idea, and I like it for 3 reasons:
a) existing smokers can still smoke if they want
b) no legal way for teenagers to become smokers
c) tourists can smoke if they want to.

If the loss of tax revenue is likely to be "too high", just charge loads for the cigarette licenses.

Mod: split this into a new thread if people actually reply to it directly

delop

r3nu4l wrote:

Delop, I explained how outdoor passive smoking adds to the build up you are just unwilling to accept it. If I can't convince you that's fine.
.

That was a good Explanation, I just assumed it was your opinion, Sorry for the misunderstanding, :-) but what I was looking for was like something from the british medical journal, Im not trying to reinforce my point, I was just genuinely interested if a study had been done...

RE: Smoking form, no need for it, dirty habbit ;-) Its a dying game, no pun intended ;-) Personally I have to give up, not good for me, And it just feels compared to other countries its no longer comfortable to smoke here, so thankfully that will make it easier for me to stop, i.e attitudes have changed, and mine should too...

Ill stop posting here now as i think its frustrating/annoying people, and there is enough of that to go around :-(

pbsuxok1znja4r

I don't understand, is the thread title calling me a bad person?

Smokers are second class citizens. Genetically inferior, it's been scientologically proven.

coffee_cake

Igy wrote:

Step 3: People born before after 1990 don;t get these cards. ever.

So noone gets the cards, ever?
That's an iffy step

r3nu4l

Actually, I was hoping that PubMed would reveal a bit more than it did about outdoor passive smoking, the problem is that air monitoring systems have moslty been designed for indoors or for detecting pollutants other than those from cigarettes.

As a former laboratory scientist (molecular biologist) I know that it can be very difficult for scientists to get grants to perform studies that may have no outcome on way or the other, funding bodies usually prefer it if you can say, this study will definitely show xxx or yyy. If the premise is 'We know from our knowledge of cancer biology (oncology) that outdoor passive smoking should cause cancer but proving this is going to be very difficult because of all the factors involved so our study may be inconclusive' then getting a grant is going to prove extremely difficult if not impossible.

Conducting experiments under controlled conditions ismuch easier and more likely to get a grant. Therefore scientists are often reluctant to put in proposals for studies that have a lower chance of getting funded. Sad but true!

MikeHoncho

Smoking in work place - illegal.
Smoking outside in designated smoking area - not illegal
Prolonged exposure to passive smoke - harmfull
Walking past 2 people smoking outside for 1 second - not harmfull
Getting worked up into a tizzy for no reason - annoying

Fighting Irish

Igy wrote:

Step 1: New "Cigarette" Age Card to be made, to be more secure than existing age card; is needed for purchasing cigarettes after a given date (say Jan 1st some year for the sake of argument)

Step 2: Retailers to lose cigarette license if they sell to someone (anyone) without an age card, zero tolerance

Step 3: People born before after 1990 don;t get these cards. ever.

Step 4: Tourists can pick temporary cards up from the airport.

Step 5: Hefty fines for people who illegally supply cigarettes/cards to people.

People importing cigarettes for personal use need the card too, yay.

This is my own idea, and I like it for 3 reasons:
a) existing smokers can still smoke if they want
b) no legal way for teenagers to become smokers
c) tourists can smoke if they want to.

If the loss of tax revenue is likely to be "too high", just charge loads for the cigarette licenses.

Mod: split this into a new thread if people actually reply to it directly

:rolleyes: Pointless, the exact same thing is done with drink in Ireland and 100% of underage people(who have wanted to drink) have been able to get drink

Ste.phen

Haha. first off, the 'before' was a typo in my original post.

@Fighting Irish, I don't think it's pointless, as time goes on it would become harder and harder as fewer and fewer people are legally allowed buy cigarettes

daiixi

cornbb wrote:

I'm a smoker, I can see your point. But there's a difference between being confronted with a physical cloud of smoke, which would clearly be offensive/unhealthy, and a mere smell of smoke which has been dissipated by the wind. I can't get why people get all hot and bothered about the latter...

Because it smells, gets in my lungs and makes me feel ill. Cigarettes and their smoke make me sick. It's that simple. Even that small gust of smoke makes me feel ill. And I used to smoke more than a carton a week. In Australian terms that's more than 200 a week and I loved it. My body however decided that it didn't. So while I have no problem with you smoking, I don't particularly want to participate.

cornbb

scouser.tommy wrote:

Smokers are second class citizens. Genetically inferior, it's been scientologically proven.

Care to back that up? Or even to explain where the word "scientologically" came from?

Igy wrote:

Step 1: New "Cigarette" Age Card to be made, to be more secure than existing age card; is needed for purchasing cigarettes after a given date (say Jan 1st some year for the sake of argument)

Step 2: Retailers to lose cigarette license if they sell to someone (anyone) without an age card, zero tolerance

Step 3: People born before after 1990 don;t get these cards. ever.

Step 4: Tourists can pick temporary cards up from the airport.

Step 5: Hefty fines for people who illegally supply cigarettes/cards to people.

People importing cigarettes for personal use need the card too, yay.

This is my own idea, and I like it for 3 reasons:
a) existing smokers can still smoke if they want
b) no legal way for teenagers to become smokers
c) tourists can smoke if they want to.

If the loss of tax revenue is likely to be "too high", just charge loads for the cigarette licenses.

I'm all for ways of stopping people from smoking. But two quick things:
1) Making drugs illegal does not make them go away. Illegal drugs = a market for criminals. For example, I would argue that the criminalisation of marijuana has caused more problems than marijuana would on its own were it legal. Banning tobacco would absolutely not solve anything, I think even the government must be smart enough to realise this, or else they would have banned them ages ago.
2) The idea of introducting extreme measures such as "smokers cards" in order to stamp out smoking is extremely disturbing. Should we be forced to wear some sort of smoker's star of david? Should we be thrown in ghettoes with giant extractor fans?

My solution: tighter controls on the sale of tobacco to under 18s and strict penalties for businesses who break this rule or adults who supply tobacco to under 18s. Adult smokers should be allowed to make their own choices.

Smokers hate feeling like they're being lectured to, patronised or marginalised, we're a stubborn bunch you know

nesf

r3nu4l wrote:

Actually, I was hoping that PubMed would reveal a bit more than it did about outdoor passive smoking, the problem is that air monitoring systems have moslty been designed for indoors or for detecting pollutants other than those from cigarettes.

As a former laboratory scientist (molecular biologist) I know that it can be very difficult for scientists to get grants to perform studies that may have no outcome on way or the other, funding bodies usually prefer it if you can say, this study will definitely show xxx or yyy. If the premise is 'We know from our knowledge of cancer biology (oncology) that outdoor passive smoking should cause cancer but proving this is going to be very difficult because of all the factors involved so our study may be inconclusive' then getting a grant is going to prove extremely difficult if not impossible.

Conducting experiments under controlled conditions ismuch easier and more likely to get a grant. Therefore scientists are often reluctant to put in proposals for studies that have a lower chance of getting funded. Sad but true!

Which is pretty much my main problem with this whole passive smoking thing. Your average person seems to consider it up there as a serious risk to their life when a) no study has even remotely shown any serious consequences to passive smoking outside of conditions akin to "working in a smoke filled environment" and b) people really suck when it comes to estimating risk factors (Lung cancer is most likely not going to kill you, even if you smoke). Breathing in a few breaths of smoke while walking into work is not something that you can reasonably object to on health grounds. Objecting to working in a smoke filled workplace is reasonable. It is reasonable to ask smokers to not smoke in doorways or under open windows but I don't think you can complain if they are 5/6 feet away from a doorway.

Plus there are far more dangerous things out there to be worried about tbh. Oh and arguing that it's "distasteful", "annoying" or "disgusting" is a bit pointless really. I could simply state that I object to ugly people walking around with their faces/bodies on show and ask that they should be covered for the sake of my peace of mind. A subjective and stupid argument but it follows the same logic as the smoking is distatseful one etc.

bottlerocket

IzzyWizzy wrote:

I That goes for smokers, that goes for violent drunks, people who play their music really loud, .

Yep, someone beating the shi1t out of you is the same as someone smoking near you. Outdoors. In Irish weather. :rolleyes:

I'm a smoker but I do always try to take non-smokers into consideration, within reason. But come on, non-smokers already got all of the inside and now some want the outside as well?? Get real, there's a compromise to be had somewhere.

There definitely is a shortage of shelters, this leads to smokers standing near doorways. To be honest, I'm not gonna stand in the rain so a non-smoker doesn't have to breathe smoke FOR 1 SECOND as they walk past and I don't think it's reasonable to expect me to. Equally, if there is somewhere to go, I'll happily go there.

FFS, I don't drive and I'm sick of not being able to breathe clean air anywhere I go, should I expect people not to drive near me?

DonkeyStyle \o/

kwalsh000 wrote:

i stopped looked at them for doing this and would walk to a bin and spit or stop and start coughing in front of them, giving them dirty looks.

Did it work?

Black Swan

Oh, I've got an idea for a new product that could help the relations between smokers and nonsmokers when they encounter each other outside. You could make this little silk windsock, like at the old WWII airports, and smokers could ensure that when they puffed out their smoke, it was going down wind from a nonsmoker? Quick, someone! Rush to the patent office!

DonkeyStyle \o/

Old, but worth re-posting...
http://www.nicosphere3000.com/

madhitchhiker

DonkeyStyle \o/ wrote:

Old, but worth re-posting...
http://www.nicosphere3000.com/

:rolleyes: wish every smoker would buy...for world peace!:D

Ickle Magoo

Is the sight of smoker offensive? No
Is the smell of a smoker offensive? Yes
Is walking through the horribly smelly haze at a doorway going to kill me? No
Does it make my eyes smart & my clothes smell? Yes

It's not a crime, it doesn't make smokers bad people but it is annoying & smelly & when I push my pram past a doorway of smokers & they breath out & it goes into my baby's face - even if it is a quirk of the direction of the wind, I wish the smokers would stand well away from the doorway so it is much less likely to happen...I don't think it's too much to ask. If folks want to smoke then they are well within their rights to do so, if I wanted to smell like they do & open myself to the risks that a smoker does, then I would choose to smoke.:)

Hail 2 Da Chimp

Why is it so hard for these chumps to just stand away from the door? I hate those jerk-holes who not only smoke outside the door but flick ashes when your walking past, its caught by the wind and ends up on my jeans... :mad:

kwalsh000

Yup DonkeyStyle, it worked the majority of the time. Plus the fact i worked there made them move away or put the cig out when i did this.

crybaby

i work in a basement office in a building, the smokers area is fairly close to the office so when the lads go out for their smoke, the smell always drifts in. its just annoying, i smoke aswell but not in work so i have sympathy for your cause but you have to accept that what we're doing basically smells fairly terrible

DonkeyStyle \o/

kwalsh000 wrote:

Yup DonkeyStyle, it worked the majority of the time. Plus the fact i worked there made them move away or put the cig out when i did this.

Actually what would be brilliant is if one day you brought in a bag containing a dead smokers black lungs with big mad tumours hanging off it... whip it out of the bag and slap them around with it.

Sinfonia

Since they banned smoking indoors, every nightclub smells like farts.

Fighting Irish

Igy wrote:

Haha. first off, the 'before' was a typo in my original post.

@Fighting Irish, I don't think it's pointless, as time goes on it would become harder and harder as fewer and fewer people are legally allowed buy cigarettes

When i was 14-15-16 years old, i could get alcohol whenever i wanted, so yes it would be pointless

Fighting Irish

SumGuy wrote:

Since they banned smoking indoors, every nightclub smells like farts.

True, i went to Rubys in Waterford last week and the smell of farts and BO is ****ing discusting