Time to ban cigarettes?

Mazeire

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

i dunno, probably about the same as I'd feel if it was proved conclusively that these things had a direct link to the 9/11 attacks.

No no sorry i didn't mean it that way. What I meant was if they were banned for what ever reason do you think you could manage without the nicotine and the psychological effect of having something in your hand?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

oh yeah, it wouldn't be as easy as quitting yellow m&m's or anything as I'm still addicted to nicotine but i've only been using the e-cig for a year and I've already noticed my cravings going down.
this time last year I wouldn't go to tesco without a packet of cigarettes in my pocket so I could have a smoke on the walk up, nowadays I'm happy to go half the day without vaping. Obviously if i have my e-cig I'll use it because I enjoy it, but there's been several times when I was just out and didn't have it and it's a lot easier to deal with as I've steadily reduced my nicotine intake over the course of the year.
had to go about 2 days without smoking/vaping over the weekend, cos i got a tooth extracted on friday.. no bother at all, the main problem was just having it sitting on my desk mocking me while my jaw ached.

IzzyWizzy

dark crystal wrote: »

I reckon there's a fair amount of paranoia in this section of your post.

Anyone walking in a park, or living in a city will encounter many pollutants on a daily basis.
Not just the city, either. Agriculture is responsible for around 14% of greenhouse gases every year. A cow emits as much methane as a car every day - should we ban cows too?

As for smoke coming through your apartment door - where exactly are you living?? Who smokes directly outside your door to the extent their smoke invades your home?

Eh....there's nothing paranoid about complaining about something that causes a very fast physical reaction. I'm not worried that smoke will give me cancer years from now. I care when being exposed to smoke means my eyes sting, my nose runs and my head hurts NOW. I'm well aware that this severe allergy is my issue and not experienced by most people, but don't tell me what is and isn't bad for me.

And of course smoke can go through apartment doors. A floor in a smallish apartment block (studios and one beds) is just like a normal house with normal doors. Of course smoking in your flat bothers the neighbours. That's why smoking is banned in the entire building. That was one of the reasons I wanted to live in this building. But of course, there's always at least one smoker who thinks their 'right' to smoke is more important than everyone else's right to be in their own apartment block without smelling their stink.

CoolHat wrote: »

1, How can smoke bother you in a park? its open space. Someone would need to be within a few feet of you, puffing away, in order to "bother" you. Smoke isnt some airborne contaminant that travels great distances. Its not like I can be 30 foot away from you and smoking and it "effects" you.
2, you cant walk down a crowded street without smelling smoke? so every smoker you passes by blows it in your face or you get a whiff as you quickly pass by for all of 1 second
3, so ... smoke ... travels into your apartment? :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

God help you on halloween night :pac:
No wait, you dont have an issue with halloween night, right? why? because its all lies you are saying I was thinking you were perhaps a hypochondriac. But I dont think so. I think you are a person who has such anti smoking hatred that they will say mass to try and justify their views.

That's a smoker's viewpoint (whether you are one or not). That anyone who complains about it is on some sort of mission against smoking. Why the hell would I care if it didn't affect me? I'll address your points:

1) Have you ever been to a big city? Parks get crowded on hot days. You're surrounded by people just a few feet away from you. Of course you're going to be bothered by their smoke. Same thing with outdoor restaurant areas. 30 feet? I'd love to know where you live that you can ever be 30 feet away from other people.

2) Yes, the street I walk down to work reeks of cigarette smoke. It's not just me, everyone else at work comments on it as well. A lot of people smoking on a crowded street results in a nasty, smoky atmosphere. The smoke doesn't just disappear when someone exhales it, does it? My other issue is with the number of people who think it's OK to hold out a cigarette at arm's length (so they don't burn their own clothing, naturally), so other people have to dodge it and constantly look out for it if they don't want a nasty burn. Remember I'm talking about CROWDED streets here. Not some village main road. 5 people in a row on the pavement kind of crowded.

3) Yes, see above. The fact that this is news to you shows your ignorance. Smoking is banned in many apartment blocks for this reason.

Go ahead and think what you like. Just don't delude yourself that the majority of people don't strongly dislike smoking and aren't bothered by it. Most people merely tolerate it, just like they had to in pubs and clubs until recently. Most people would be more than happy if smoking outdoors at pubs, restaurants and on the street was made illegal. For their own health and comfort. Most people, including me, couldn't care less about the person who chooses to smoke. That's why I always laugh when smokers complain that people tell them to quit out of concern. It's not concern. It's not wanting to breathe in smoke, sit next to people with nasty stale smoke on clothes which lingers for hours, do extra work while smokers are on their hourly fag break or having to get the next bus because the smoker has just lit up a fag and can't get on the one that's just pulled up. If your smoking doesn't affect or inconvenience me, smoke 500 a day for all I care.

Lando Griffin

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

Eh
1) Have you ever been to a big city? Parks get crowded on hot days. You're surrounded by people just a few feet away from you. Of course you're going to be bothered by their smoke. Same thing with outdoor restaurant areas. 30 feet? I'd love to know where you live that you can ever be 30 feet away from other people.

2) Yes, the street I walk down to work reeks of cigarette smoke. It's not just me, everyone else at work comments on it as well. A lot of people smoking on a crowded street results in a nasty, smoky atmosphere. The smoke doesn't just disappear when someone exhales it, does it? My other issue is with the number of people who think it's OK to hold out a cigarette at arm's length (so they don't burn their own clothing, naturally), so other people have to dodge it and constantly look out for it if they don't want a nasty burn. Remember I'm talking about CROWDED streets here. Not some village main road. 5 people in a row on the pavement kind of crowded.

3) Yes, see above. The fact that this is news to you shows your ignorance. Smoking is banned in many apartment blocks for this reason.

Go ahead and think what you like. Just don't delude yourself that the majority of people don't strongly dislike smoking and aren't bothered by it. Most people merely tolerate it, just like they had to in pubs and clubs until recently. Most people would be more than happy if smoking outdoors at pubs, restaurants and on the street was made illegal. For their own health and comfort. Most people, including me, couldn't care less about the person who chooses to smoke. That's why I always laugh when smokers complain that people tell them to quit out of concern. It's not concern. It's not wanting to breathe in smoke, sit next to people with nasty stale smoke on clothes which lingers for hours, do extra work while smokers are on their hourly fag break or having to get the next bus because the smoker has just lit up a fag and can't get on the one that's just pulled up. If your smoking doesn't affect or inconvenience me, smoke 500 a day for all I care.

Where is this smokers utopia you talk about?

cosmicfart

Banning smoking is daft. Smokers should just be taxed out of existence until every single smoke they light up costs the equivalent of a heart transplant.

Alcohol should be banned to as its the cause of and solution to all of lifes problems, except mine, as I dont drink so in essence its just the cause of lifes problems to me. Banning alcohol wud be great, people wud go back to bathing their kids in alcohol, which is very good for cleanliness.

urs Sincerely,

Heroin Addict /former banker/now claiming the dole as im also entitled it.

dearg lady

good god, there's some amount of anger here towards smokers!
tbh, I think MOST people whingin about smokers are overreacting, when smokin in open areas, there won't be a smell of smoke on a non smokers clothes, or cause them difficulty breathing or anything like that.
I accept there's a small minority who would have unusually strong reactions who may find it a problem, even in open spaces, but I don't see whay a blanket ban should be instigated just because of this.
There's all kind of things that people are allergic too that are widely available. the onus is on the individual with the issue to keep themselves from situations which make them uncomfortable.

As another poster said, if there's someone blowing smoke in yer face, it's cos they're a d*ck in general, not cause they're a smoker.

Temptamperu

http://i52.tinypic.com/4q4fa0.jpg
:pac:

IzzyWizzy

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

Go ahead and think what you like. Just don't delude yourself that the majority of people don't strongly dislike smoking and aren't bothered by it.

Don't worry, I'm fully aware that I'm a lower form of existence because I smoke. Everytime I light up I may as well be denying the holocaust.

Mazeire

IzzyWizzy wrote: »

That's a smoker's viewpoint (whether you are one or not). That anyone who complains about it is on some sort of mission against smoking. Why the hell would I care if it didn't affect me? I'll address your points:

1) Have you ever been to a big city? Parks get crowded on hot days. You're surrounded by people just a few feet away from you. Of course you're going to be bothered by their smoke. Same thing with outdoor restaurant areas. 30 feet? I'd love to know where you live that you can ever be 30 feet away from other people.

2) Yes, the street I walk down to work reeks of cigarette smoke. It's not just me, everyone else at work comments on it as well. A lot of people smoking on a crowded street results in a nasty, smoky atmosphere. The smoke doesn't just disappear when someone exhales it, does it? My other issue is with the number of people who think it's OK to hold out a cigarette at arm's length (so they don't burn their own clothing, naturally), so other people have to dodge it and constantly look out for it if they don't want a nasty burn. Remember I'm talking about CROWDED streets here. Not some village main road. 5 people in a row on the pavement kind of crowded.

3) Yes, see above. The fact that this is news to you shows your ignorance. Smoking is banned in many apartment blocks for this reason.

You know you could solve all this with one simple action for yourself:
Move, walk away, walk down a different street, leave the person there and get the bus yourself. Whatever.
As much as you don't need the smoke, people who have gone outside for a bit of peace and quiet don't need a judgemental pus in their face either.
In relation to your "apartment block", it sounds like you are living in a georgian conversion which I do myself, and yes I do sympathise with the smell and the noise issues that arise BUT I have no more right to tell my neighbours how to live behind their doors than they have the right to tell me. So they deal with my smoing, I deal with the horrible curry smell and the crap music.

Freddie59

i'm coming at this from a non-smoker's perspective. Just a little perspective first. I'm 52; youngest of six. All before me (my Mam & Dad included) were HEAVY smokers. My Dad was an 80 a day man up to the time he died, aged 78. He started smoking at 26.

All of my siblings - bar the eldest - have now given up because of health reasons (high blood pressure; enlarged arteries, etc).

I was exposed to passive smoking for years at home and in a lot of pubs in my early 20s (you couldn't see your hand in some of them for the smoke). Any ill-effects? Apart from blood pressure (stress induced - not a this point).

Some smokers - but not all, and I stress that - are inconsiderate. They're probably among the worst for littering.

But a complete ban - nah. Won't work. It will drive it underground, resulting in dubious 'imports' of extremely questionable quality, which would make the health effects of the real ones miniscule in comparison.

I do think they should be banned while driving though (along with drinking coffee, shaving, makeup, etc)

My two cents.:)

Ray Palmer

Can't be done. The government rely on the money to keep the place running.

The same way they can't ban petrol cars that casue much more dangerous issues. Try staying a confined room with a car exhaust plugged into the room.

There are inconsiderate smokers and non-smokers a like only one has the air of smugness and righousness.

Freddie59

Ray Palmer wrote: »

There are inconsiderate smokers and non-smokers a like only one has the air of smugness and righousness.

Wouldn't necessarily agree with that sentiment.

Da_Doc

CoolHat wrote: »

Ah yes cause Google knows all right.
Sure take this for example. Google tells me that as of last year 22.2% of people smoked in Ireland. But lets round it off to 20%.

- As of the recent census. There is 4 million live in Ireland.
- So that's roughly 800,000 people that smoke.
- Some people smoke 20 smokes a day. Some people smoke 40 smokes a day. Average in my experience of being a smoker and seeing other people is average 20 smokes per day.
- We roughly pay €3.50 on tax on each pack.
- 800,000 packs x €3.50 tax = €2,800,000 (daily smokes)
- €2,800,000 x 7 days = €19,600,000
- X52 weeks = €1,029,600,000

So what is it?
you're right?
Im wrong?
or is google a load of crap?

www.revenue.ie/en/about/publications/tobacco-market.pdf

Much easier way to do it is read this. Your right revenue from cigarettes to the exchequer of over a billion.

This is a report by the revenue and it states that the tax generated by cigarettes would be a substantial fiscal loss. "While it may be desirable from a public health perspective to abolish smoking, the €1bn in excise revenue from tobacco would be a significant loss from the fiscal perspective "



Im an ex-smoker and delighted to be so, feel so much better every day, havnt got sick since i quit in February whereas I used to get colds at least every second month. If people want to smoke let them smoke but Im actually surprised the amount of people posting here that seem to be quite happy smoking. I smoked for ten years and the amount of times i tried to quit and failed. I really hated myself for smoking.

Cú Giobach

4leto wrote: »

What I really can't understand. When I took up smoking you were free to smoke anywhere now it is truly an ostracising addiction and definitely more a pain then a pleasure so why are young people still taking up the insidious things.

Because it's defiantly not "an ostracising addiction", (especially not among the very people you mention), the ban has actually resulted in quite the opposite and created many more situations for people to meet and start conversations and relationships with people they wouldn't otherwise come across, unless engaging in this nefarious activity.

People can go on and on about the negative effects of smoking but there is one overriding factor to it that will keep people smoking just as they have been doing since time immemorial, that is, it is nice.

I'd love to know what exactly turned so many Irish into complete ****. Something definitely happened, I just don't know what.

Da_Doc

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Because it's defiantly not "an ostracising addiction", (especially not among the very people you mention), the ban has actually resulted in quite the opposite and created many more situations for people to meet and start conversations and relationships with people they wouldn't otherwise come across, unless engaging in this nefarious activity.

Actually thats one of the only things I miss, the craic in the smoking area. I still go out to the smoking area sometimes with my girlfriend or mates who smoke but very rarely as now Im usualy watching the seats or minding the drinks. Always good fun talking to randomers outside, whereas inside people are usually in their own groups.

starlit

yes

Cú Giobach

Da_Doc wrote: »

Actually thats one of the only things I miss, the craic in the smoking area. I still go out to the smoking area sometimes with my girlfriend or mates who smoke but very rarely as now Im usualy watching the seats or minding the drinks. Always good fun talking to randomers outside, whereas inside people are usually in their own groups.

I usually feel sorry for the people left sitting on their own, you know the way people come back into the bar all chatting and laughing then there is the quiet time as it takes a while for conversation to build again and just as it gets going, all off out again.

My favourite nights are where the people from a few different pubs next to each other all join up outside, ahhh the craic.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

All raising the price or banning it will do is drive it underground. In theory, if it is banned and everyone who smokes is buying it on the black market then that's going to make it easier for kids to start smoking because it'll be completely unregulated. If you wan't to get people to stop smoking then ban smoking while driving, smoking in parks/beaches, smoking on the street (not advocating any of this by any means btw, just saying). If you want people to stop smoking or not start then making it more expensive or illegal isn't going to do much.

Of course if you just want to bitch and moan from your highhorse then that's another thing...

IzzyWizzy

Mazeire wrote: »

You know you could solve all this with one simple action for yourself:
Move, walk away, walk down a different street, leave the person there and get the bus yourself. Whatever.
As much as you don't need the smoke, people who have gone outside for a bit of peace and quiet don't need a judgemental pus in their face either.
In relation to your "apartment block", it sounds like you are living in a georgian conversion which I do myself, and yes I do sympathise with the smell and the noise issues that arise BUT I have no more right to tell my neighbours how to live behind their doors than they have the right to tell me. So they deal with my smoing, I deal with the horrible curry smell and the crap music.

I'm not judgemental. I've said a billion times I couldn't care less what you do as long as it's not inconsiderate. Go and smoke crack for all I care, as long as I'm not smelling the fumes.

I'm in a modern apartment block. I've been living in apartments for 8+ years and most of the time, you can easily smell smoke in your flat from other apartments. If there were no rules against smoking, I'd suck it up and ask my landlord about ways to keep it out, but my block is a non-smoking block, full of no smoking signs, and people still insist on doing it. You, as a smoker, probably see it as a right. I see it as an anti-social nuisance, just like loud music, stomping around all the time or dropping litter everywhere (and I've never met a smoker who didn't think it was OK to f*ck the butts on the ground or on shared balconies). I don't think comparing tobacco smoke, which is a known irritant and known to contribute to serious diseases, to a curry smell, is logical or fair, but hey, you're not my neighbour.

I'm getting tired of posting about this now. It's just so amusing that smokers label people who don't like smoking as smug and self-righteous, as if we're taking some sort of moral high ground. I don't think I'm better than you. I just find your habit disgusting, annoying and inconsiderate and my life would be better if it were banned. I'm not making any judgements about you as a person. I'm not interested in you, I couldn't care less about you. I'm just thinking about myself. Like you are. We're never going to agree, so this is pointless. The bottom line is, smokers think it's their right to smoke, non-smokers (especially asthma sufferers) think it's their right to breathe clean air. These views are never going to be compatible.

Mike 1972

xsiborg wrote: »

i just find it crazy that you exaggerate an issue to ridiculous levels, and then expect others not just to understand, but also to accomodate your unreasonable demands.

you live in London, one of the most air polluted, smog covered cities in the world, i would think cigarette smoke would be the least irritant to your various medical conditions.

LOL exaggerate you say ?

Tigerbaby

lets ban all non-smokers from smoking areas I say. let them sit inside and feel all high and mighty.

RayM

I don't think cigarettes should be banned... not because I give a damn about smokers' rights or their freedom of choice, but because it would be utterly counter-productive. If cigarettes were banned (but obviously still widely available on the black market), the perception of smoking as some kind of edgy, illicit habit would probably make it appear even more attractive to kids.

The argument that smoking is a personal choice - and therefore sacrosanct - is seriously disingenuous. And misanthropic. Even when you ignore the obvious (and unless you're a hermit, unavoidable) risks posed by second-hand smoke, smokers aren't merely harming themselves; they're potentially causing huge harm to others too. Every smoker whose addiction (a far more apt word than 'choice') results in heart disease, emphysema, lung cancer, throat cancer, oesophageal cancer, etc, has a family who have no choice but to suffer the pretty fucking horrible consequences of the smoker's choice. The writer (and metastatic oesophageal cancer sufferer) Christopher Hitchens said of the lifestyle that caused his terminal illness that, while he burned the candle at both ends, it "gave a lovely light". I somehow doubt that his wife or his son and daughters agree that the pleasure he obtained through his choice was somehow worth it.

It would take a very brave government to put long-term public health before short-term fiscal gain, but I think cigarettes should only be available via prescription - sold completely unbranded and only in pharmacies. And to prevent black market sales from flourishing, they should be available tax-free to all registered addicts. Treat it not like an enjoyable leisure activity, but like the serious health problem it actually is.

SilverScreen

Why yes, ban cigarettes and give the criminals another market to make money in. Brilliant thinking!

Dermighty

Stinicker wrote: »

If anything we should be increasing the amount of carcinogens in Cigarette and throw in more arsenic so that smokers would die off sooner. The dole queue would automatically almost halve be reduced by 90% or more.

FYP

xsiborg

Mike 1972 wrote: »

LOL exaggerate you say ?

London ranks among worst European cities for air pollution
Air quality study judges UK capital to be 'below average' for its lack of action on tackling deadly soot particles




London ranks as one of Europe's unhealthiest major cities, having done little to tackle deadly particles from diesel vehicles, according to a major air quality study published on Wednesday.

The home of the 2012 Olympics ranks "below average" in a soot pollution league table by German environment and consumer groups, coming behind Glasgow, Copenhagen and Stockholm. Berlin is judged to have Europe's cleanest air and only Düsseldorf, Milan and Rome are judged to have worse air than London.

The survey, which comes after Barack Obama last Friday put off legislation to force US cities to clean up air pollution, shows that bad air quality in Europe causes nearly 500,000 premature deaths a year across all countries, and costs up to €790bn a year to address. It supports two major official air quality studies published earlier this year in Europe and Britain.

The 17 cities were judged on the action they had taken to reduce soot in the air between 2005 and 2010 when new European limits for particulate matter (PM10) came into force.

London was ranked low because of the "backward steps" it has taken to address air pollution since 2005. It has tightened its low emission zone for heavy goods vehicles and promoted some cycling and walking, but it has halved the size of its congestion charging zone, scaled back plans for new hybrid buses and sharply increased public transport fares. Nine criteria including traffic management, the shift to sustainable public transport and public information were taken into account.

"With less than a year to the Olympic Games, London is doing less to deal with its dangerous air pollution levels than other major European capitals. The government and the mayor of London can no longer ignore the biggest public health crisis since the great smog of 1952," said James Grugeon, chief executive of Environmental Protection UK, an NGO that is part of a coalition of environment and health groups campaigning to raise awareness of air pollution and put pressure on government to meet minimum EU air quality laws.

"It's shameful that Londoners are still forced to breath dirty air. Urgent action is needed by both the mayor and UK government to help Londoners breathe more easily - and this will also help tackle climate change," said Jenny Bates, London campaigner for Friends of the Earth.

"The mayor seems to have crippled the potential of existing measures to improve London's air quality," said Simon Birkett, head of the Campaign for Clean Air.

as recently as September 2011...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/07/london-worst-european-cities-air-pollution

Mike 1972

xsiborg wrote: »

London ranks among worst European cities for air pollution

xsiborg wrote: »

London, one of the most air polluted, smog covered cities in the world.

LOL exaggerate you say ?

xsiborg

ok Mike, ya got me, cant edit my post now, point still stands though that air quality in london is still pretty contaminated, besides the addition of smoke, perhaps Izzy should wear one of them SARS masks that were used a while back, i mean purely for practical purposes, there are ways to adapt, ykno? it's not an ideal solution, but then it's not an ideal world we live in, for every Izzy, theres someone else will complain about something else, like greenhouse gasses, animal rights, etc, etc, etc...

if we are to accomodate them all, then surely the sooner we die from our own smoke related illnesses, the better? or... as Izzy would contend- they "have" to drive their car, they "have" to sit next to smokers in the park, they "have" to avoid the back streets to work so that they can complain about the smokers on their way to work, they "have" to live in a building where smoke comes in under the door...

so, by that same token, I "have" to smoke! of course i can choose not to, but it's something I enjoy, in the same way as others enjoy going to the gym, doing pilates, hell even going for a sunday drive in their cars, to the park, where they can stop off and go in and sit next to someone enjoying a cigarette, just so they can complain about how the smoker is contaminating "their" air space...

Mike 1972

xsiborg wrote: »

even going for a sunday drive in their cars, to the park, where they can stop off and go in and sit next to someone enjoying a cigarette, just so they can complain about how the smoker is contaminating "their" air space...

Do exhaust fumes kill 50% of people who are exposed to them ?

colly10

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Do exhaust fumes kill 50% of people who are exposed to them ?

I doubt anyone has ever died from passive smoke where all passive smoke was outside. Do you think that someone exhaling smoke on the street affects the athmosphere as much as exhaust fumes?
If you had to stand beside a smoker outside all day every day or a car exhaust I'd imagine you'd live alot longer by choosing to stand beside the smoker.

And 50% of smokers die young, not 50% of people exposed to smoke