Smoker's rights

nesf

Ah yes, but read the full statement, Micheal Martin want's to change the ban for when the pubs serve food, to a total one! He want's to impose one on colleges by the end of the year as well as anywhere else at his discretion. Most of the proposals I can agree with, banning 10 boxs, imposing strict fines and banning ciggie machines, will all help stop under-age smoking. But I'm sorry, but he has no right to impose a blanket ban on smoking.

I found his statement funny, he goes on about all the smoking related deaths, am, if i'm not mistaken, isn't there more alcohol related deaths?? What about a blanket ban on that? Oh yes, drinking is still PC, I'd forgotten.

This move is pure discrimination. Any bill that effects the rights of an individual to participate in an exercise which is not harmful to others (i'll get back to this point), cannot, and should not be passed. But of course with the amount of misinformation these days every person is a doctor on the subject.

All the medicinal benifits are ignored, e.g. for ashmatics(sp??) with no reaction to cigarette smoke (like myself), smoking promotes deeper breathing, and can help the person's normal life. Also the passive smoking issue is amusing, look at all the people that go to the pub regularily, do you see them with smoker's coughs? And they are "apparently" a danger case.

"More and more people are fed up of going to the pub and coming home smelling of smoke"

I'm sorry, but I won't take that as a good enough reason to ban others from smoking. Shouldn't the "health" minister be encouraging ppl not to go to the pub? Oh yes I'd forgotten, the tax money made on drink...


I think this "The Public Health (tobacco) Bill" has no place in a democratic society. Whats next lads? A ban on alcohol in a few years? Who'd like to see that?

nesf

Quote from today's Irish Examiner:

"Being in a smoky atmoshpere for 30 minutes is the equivilant to smoking 100 cigarettes. Why haven't we seen these people become immediate junkies?"

He makes a good point.

Also with smoking one can only kill yourself, while alcohol can cause the deaths of others, or ruin the lives of entire families.

WhiteWashMan

YeeHaw!
porhibition lads!
whip out that moonshine!

lets face it, no smoker is going to go into a non smoking bar!
you will get non smokers going to a smoking bar.
ho hum, maybe we should all give up, get healthy, and save a lot of money.
would be nice...

LoLth

Actually, there was a non-smoking bar in Galway. It got lots of publicity. What wasn't publicised was the face that it went back to being a smoking bar because NO-ONE went in there.. including non-smokers.. the reason they went elsewhere was lack of atmosphere (no pun intended).

The Glenroyal in Maynooth has a no smoking section and it is always empty. even when people are jammed in the smoking side.

Great, have a no-smoking section yaaaay! But except for a legal requirement it's basically a waste of space. Moan and whine about smoke all you want, I don't blow smoke at people , especially non-smokers , on purpose. If you don't like the fact that I'm smoking, go sit in the non-smoker section.. make it worthwhile for pubs and bars to introduce them.

As for smokers rights.. all public gathering areas *must* have a non-smoking area. Why isn't this also enforced the other way? Pizza hut in Liffey valley is completely non-smoking!! WTF! It works both ways. I enjoy a cigarette after a meal, or while I'm waiting the 30 minutes for a waiter to turn up. To me, fair's fair. I don't smoke in cinemas, on buses, on trains, in no smoking sections, at work but somewhere should be provided for me to indulge in my habit in a place that's supposed to be meant for everyone. Didn't they ever hear of ventilation?

Catch_22

im a smoker have been for 8 years give or take, id be inclined to go further, ban em full stop. Make it illegal to smoke. It would be a ***** for smokers initially but if you couldnt get em you would get over it eventually. Smoking doesnt do anyone any favours.

Yes it would probably open up a black market, but i dont think it would last, smoking doesnt give enough of a thrill , buzz etc to sustain a black market of the level that cannabis, heroin etc would.

so in conclusion why not make pubs non smoking, if every pub was non smoking people will still goto the pub, its too ingrained in the culture not to.

my 2c

c22

C B

I posted something like this a few weeks ago but nobody took heed so here we go again.

Smokers deserve to be taxed for a number of reasons.
1. Public health information needs to be provided and those who shpuld pay for it are current smokers.
2. Smoking causes increases health expenditure and smokers should pay for this.
3. Smoking causes a degree of "unpleasantness" for third parties and these third parties (society at large) need to be compensated.

If taxation covers these three negative affects, why should smokers be stopped from smoking?

It isn't reasonable to demand that smokers pay extra tax due to the negatives and then not allow them inflict those negatives. It's a case of having our cake and eating it on behalf of the non-smoking community.

JustHalf

Some of the negative effects that smokers cause are of the nature that no person should believe that money can compensate - unless money matters a *bit* too much to them, in my opinion.

Let us suppose public smoking adversely affects my health. Will tax garnered from their habit really make me feel adequately compensated for any illness I suffer as a consequence? No. Frankly, I'd prefer to be healthy as opposed to being treated for free.

The argument that "if you don't like smoking in bars, well then don't go to them" doesn't really hold up very well. If people can't go to a bar to socialise, where are they going to go? It's unfair. Equally unfair is imposing a blanket ban.

Personally, I go to friends' houses/parties, but some people don't have that freedom - not only that, bars are a good place to meet people and to hold group gatherings.

The Sweeper

High ceilings, top grade air conditioning and excellent ventilation are the answer. I find that unless you're in an aulfellas pub the likelihood is that you wont be sitting beside someone who's lighting each fag off the previous and has two unopened packs on the table.

Some of the bigger bars in the city centre of Dublin have the right idea...

---

It's never too late to have a happy childhood.

nesf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by LoLth:

As for smokers rights.. all public gathering areas *must* have a non-smoking area. Why isn't this also enforced the other way? Pizza hut in Liffey valley is completely non-smoking!! WTF! It works both ways. I enjoy a cigarette after a meal, or while I'm waiting the 30 minutes for a waiter to turn up. To me, fair's fair. I don't smoke in cinemas, on buses, on trains, in no smoking sections, at work but somewhere should be provided for me to indulge in my habit in a place that's supposed to be meant for everyone. Didn't they ever hear of ventilation?</font>

I agree completely, in UCC for instance in the main canteen, there is a tiny smoking area. Now, because it's close to the door, it's always filled with non-smokers. I'm sorry but I like a cigarette after my meals, but I'm unable to do so because of there being no space to sit in the smoking section. Now I'm the kind of person who never smokes in a non-smoking area. I'll even refrain from smoking in a restaraunt if there is a very young child at the next table, out of consideration for the effect it might have on the child. But I can't stand this anti-smoking attitude some ppl have. I'm sorry but it's my choice if i smoke, I don't like friends and family members annoying me over it, never mind the government seeking to stop me altogether.

Micheal Martin wants to have a tobacco free nation within the next 3 years, I'm sorry but it's not his or any non-smokers choice. If the smokers want to quit then fair enough, but no-one has the right to stop them from smoking unless they own the property that the person is on. Public places are just that, now there is a good argument for non allowing drink to be consumed outside of pubs or one's home, for peace and noise reduction reasons, and also to limit non-drinking. But to stop someone smoking on the street? I'm sorry but there is no good argument to stop that. And if you argue the butts on the pavement, I'll merely point out that it's rare when an alternative is provided. Putting a recently quenched ciggie into a bin is a fire hazard.

I think this has far more important consequences than smoking though. If we allow the government that level of control over what we can do to ourselves, then whats next on the agenda?

Shiminay

Not too sure on a blanket ban - I'm not a smoker and I don't like the smell and smoke as a result of a smoker.

The ban with places serving food is a great idea.
My college used to be exclusivly non-smoking. Then, by popular request, it allowed smoking in the common room and most of the canteen. The canteen went from being a nice, clean environment to a smoke filled, smelly undesirible place, so I'd be all all for a blanket ban in schools and colleges too.

---

All the best!
Dav
@B^)
So Bob Hoskins was about to roll a spliff when in walks Dana with her 3 foot Bong
[honey i] violated [the kids]
When the Beefy King arrives, I shall be paying homage with Puunack The Receiver in a haze of green curry.

Miguel_Sanchez

Has anyone else noticed the non-smoker attraction that smoke has? If there's a non-smoker at a table with five smokers the smoke from the first cigarette that's lit will always drift right into the non-smoker's face.

I'd support a blanket ban everywhere except for a person's own home. I think you should be able to do what you like in the privacy of your own home as long as it's not harming someone else.

---

**** sympathy! I don't need your ****in' sympathy, man, I need my ****ing johnson!

Trojan

This has probably been said before, but my opinion is that there should be extremely harse laws about the amount of smoke allowed in a place, and that high-powered exactor fans to high specification must be installed to solve that problem.

I was at a pub opening in Swords (it was the new lounge in The Big Tree) last week, and we were talking to one of the co-owners who was there. He's a non-smoker and pointed out the 7 high-spec'd fans (best on the market he said in fact) just over the center of the room. There were also fans in all the corners, and they did a great job.

I am not terribly concerned about passive-smoking, but I really hate the stench of cigarettes off seemingly clean clothes, and it's unpleasant when you're eating too...

My .254 euros...

Al.

Kix

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jeff_Lebowski:
Has anyone else noticed the non-smoker attraction that smoke has? If there's a non-smoker at a table with five smokers the smoke from the first cigarette that's lit will always drift right into the non-smoker's face.</font>

Absolutely, it's spooky.

I'm a smoker but I'm generally all for repressive measures. Still, I'd hate to see a blanket ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants. If they bring that in then I'll probably never go out anymore.

I heartily support non-smoking areas and even non-smoking pubs, if people want them - though the experience is Galway is that they don't - just don't ruin it for everyone who still enjoys mixing their drugs.

Live and let live.

K

p

"But to stop someone smoking on the street? I'm sorry but there is no good argument to stop that."

Here's a question. If you were walking along the street and someone got an aerosol and started spraying it at you from abotu 3 metres would you find it annoying and offensive.

Well guess what, that's what smoking is like to me.

"I heartily support non-smoking areas and even non-smoking pubs, if people want them - though the experience is Galway is that they don't."

That was one single experiment. It doesn't mean that it's doomed everywhere.

I think that there's a damn lot of people who don't like being in smke filled areas. I would love a non-smoking pub, but due to people often having one smoking person in a group who can't sit down without a smoke for awhile they'd convince someone in the group to sit in the smoking area.

That's the problem. However I think non-smoking sections and proper ventillation in pubs would be excellent.

What i'd give to go out and not have smoke in my face all night.

- Kevin

[This message has been edited by p (edited 02-08-2001).]

nesf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by p:
"But to stop someone smoking on the street? I'm sorry but there is no good argument to stop that."

Here's a question. If you were walking along the street and someone got an aerosol and started spraying it at you from abotu 3 metres would you find it annoying and offensive.

Well guess what, that's what smoking is like to me.

</font>

Wtf? I hate these over-the-top, sensationalist images used by non-smokers. Have you ever been sprayed in the face with an aerosol? It has no resemblance to someone blowing smoke in your face.

Regardless I fail to see how someone spraying an aerosol in your face, and someone smoking a cigarette can have in common, the quantities, material involved, their behaviour in air of both, etc et al. In open air smoke is dispersed very quickly, for the most part.

Anyways I agree that proper ventalation would be an excellent solution, as it would not infringe on anyone's rights, as opposed to a ban.

Shinji

Crack down on where you can smoke at all, and then let people smoke whatever the hell they like in those places there.

I like this idea.

Victor

Well post more responsibly later, but ban 'er, ban 'em all.

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

chernobyl

Smoker's have no right with me, a system like cali would be great.

---

Ashley...if only

Ashley Lyn Cafagna

FreaK_BrutheR

I think that a pub should have the right to not allow smoking on their premises and vice versa. That is all. It worries me not a jot.

---

_ _ _ _ _________ _ _ _ _
<A HREF="http://homepage.eircom.net/~cullenm&quot; TARGET=_blank>

</A>
http://run.to/pile

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

nesf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by chernobyl:
Smoker's have no right with me, a system like cali would be great.

</font>

This i can't understand. Why would we have no rights?


I can sympathise with the contacts issue daveirl, I wear tham also, and it can be panful taking them out after a ngt out.


[This message has been edited by nesf (edited 02-08-2001).]

solo1

I don't smoke, so I'm one of those people who find smoke drifting towards them from three tables away.

I think people should be allowed the choice of whether they can smoke or not, as long as they keep it away from me, especially when I'm trying to eat something. It makes me feel sick.

I also feel that the situation cannot be related to that of alcohol, although I do not drink either. I would have no objection to someone drinking beer right in front of me at any time. Why would I? It doesn't impinge upon me in any way whatsoever. So that's a completely different case.

nesf

There was a letter in the irish examiner yesterday that read something like.. They should ban all smoking in public places and in bars like in California.

Now I'm sorry but wtf? I couldn't agree with that. Any other opinions?

JustHalf

Well, I'm going to respond in line with the title of the topic.

Smoker's have rights, as do non-smokers. These rights are one and the same. Both groups should respect the rights of the other.

A non-smoker should respect the right of a smoker to poison themselves. A smoker should respect the right of a non-smoker not to be poisoned by their smoke.

Personally, I'd ask for special consideration to be given to bars that declare themselves non-smoking: tax-incentives, ease of gaining a licence, etc. A ban is a tad draconian.

klong

i think, like JustHalf, that banning smoking in public places is draconian. perhaps pubs could have nights when people could smoke, others when they could not, or they could install powerful air conditioning systems which would blow away all the smoke [but not blow out the fags]

---

The Boss

Shinji

Indeed, blowing out the fags would break discrimination laws :P

I saw that this proposal has been watered down into a ban on smoking in pubs where food is served... Now that I'd support. I'm not a tobacco smoker myself but I've been known to like a cigar or whatever after a few pints, so I don't agree with stopping the whole kit'n'kaboodle; however, if I drop into a pub for lunch, not having a smoky atmosphere would be a bonus.

klong

yep- it'd be great to be able to see your fellow drinking partners instead of hearing voices through a fog of smoke.....
i myself prefer the comforting taste of tobacco in my dublin bay prawn et al.

---

The Boss

ConUladh

I'm a non-smoker, pubs don't bother me, anywhere I'm eating does but I'd agree with this part of what Catch22 is saying:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">if every pub was non smoking people will still goto the pub, its too ingrained in the culture not to.c22[/B]</font>

Come to think of it I find it most irritating when I'm walking down the road but a complete ban isn't feasible at this stage

LoLth

Well... Fat people bother me. They really bug me.

They are obese. They are unhealthy. They are a danger to others... if one falls on you you are much more likely to be injured. Their body mass exceeds the safety designs for most doorways and clearways on planes, in offices etc. They cannot move as fast as they should and therefore are a liability in times of emergency.

Fat is bad for your health.
Obese people tend to die younger.

People who eat too much fatty foods run the risk of heart disease. And push up the health bill.

BAN FOOD FOR FAT PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!!

wtf?

Smokers can be selfish sometimes and smoke when they know it is annoying or affecting someone else.
Non-Smokers can be just as annoying and whinge when they know the smoker has a right to smoke.

Smoker in pub first... non-smoker.. you don't like it, go somewhere else.
Non-smoker in pub first.. smoker arrives, should be willing to put it out if asked or they should go somewhere else.

As for the street. Someone deliberately blows smoke in my face (and they'd have to have some pair of lungs to do it from three feet away while in the open air!) then I would complain. It's rude and disrespectful.. even to another smoker. I and 9/10 smokers in Ireland do not walk down the street deliberatley blowing smoke at passers-by.

Ventilation is the best solution but perhaps the pubs are unwilling to pay the expense?

PS. Pub in maynooth college had a high ceiling so smoke was never a problem.

pps. the galway pub was not one example, there were two of them. Also, more recently there was a pub in dublin (I forget names but I saw a news report on RTE about it).
Castletown Inn in Celbridge used to have a no-smoking section. it's been dropped to two tables in the corner because no-one ever used it.

Ventilation would cost the pub less in the long run than the revenue lost due to tables being set aside for specific clientele.

Hobbes

I think they should ban them completly.

They were listing the toxins in one cigerette. Some of them are so toxic that you can't even dispose of the stuff normally without people in spacesuits.

Anyone who's a non-smoker who thinks smoking in pubs is fine is on drugs. I can tell you now I much prefer the non-smoking in pubs to smoking.

Then you also have the mindset of the cigerette companies that actually believe killing thier customers is good for the encomny.

red_ice

Your all just gelous coz smoking is cool and you know it

Na, i smoke, and i hate it...
Im good at giving up though, hey ive done it a thousand times

Red.

Victor

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:
it is a sociably accepted habit.</font>

No it is not, more than two thirds of Irish adults do not smoke.

Based on what has been said here, smokers haven't a clue as to what non-smokers think of them. I was out for a walk on Killiney Hill (big, airy, windy) and could smell the smoke from a smoker 50 metres away. Can you imagine what it's like for a non-smoker to then go to a smokey pub?

Why should I have to tolerate smelly cinema foyers, pubs and restaurants?

Smokers are generally the most inconsiderate sub-group of any given group. How about I go into a smoking area and yell at the top of my voice into a mobile phone? Or how about I take a leak (or worse!!) in the corner of the pub instead of using the toilet? How about I burn a newspaper in the pub? Or spread a fine layer of confetti everywhere. Or take an extra ten minutes off work every hour or so.

I never get a hangover from drinking, but have had many a headache from other people smoking.

I get a discount on insurance products for being a non-smoker, but still have to subsidize the public health system that ends up paying for many smokers, who don't or won't pay for their own health problem.

---

Kill, kill, kill the laser mice.

tHE vAGGABOND

just FYI - the actual law in california does not totally make it illegal to smoke in pubs..

it is illegal to smoke in all public buildings and illegal to smoke in a place where people work (it was aimed at offices and resturants really and passed 7 years before it became law, everyone forgot about it until one day it was announced you cant smoke in pubs or restraunts anymore)

so in pubs where the owner is the only staff member, that does not serve hot food, you can smoke away as the owner just signs a wavier. So the small bars, that you do find in the US here and there, people do smoke

Pub life has not chaged at all, people just go outside for a smoke, and there are big sand filled ashtray things on the street outside pubs and restraunts.

LoLth

right.

Smokers are more than happy to allow non-smoking areas.. even when they are the significant majority of the available floorspace.

All a smoker wants is the ability to indulge in their habit (which despite the analogies so far is *not* synonymous with urinating in public or on someone) without having some "I'm too pure to die" git whining about how we're all killing ourselves.

In public places, such as cinemas or restaurants, I have no problem not smoking if the people around me would prefer me not to. However, if on my own or with a group who doesn't mind, and if I'm not going to be bothering anyone else i would like the option.. hence my being annoyed with pizza hut.

For anyone to unilaterally declare all smokers disgusting or inconsiderate or as uncivilised and plain rude as Victor is trying to make people out to be, is talking out of their **** . Try not generalising and whining so much.

Vagga, I think hte same law or a variant should be brought in here. Let the barmen run a waiver system. Most bars have two rooms, let barstaff work in a smoke free side if they so wish. Or increase the air circulation ot keep the smoke away from everyone. I personally would have no trouble stepping out to a *sheltered* area to have a cigarette - note *sheltered*, ireland is not california and I've had to go out of the office to ahve a cigarette at 2am in the middle of winter, not nice - and would ahppily hold a cigarette butt until I reached some kind of ashtray IF I knew there was goign to be one soon!

As for taking smoke breaks from work. Yes, this is abused by and large. I personally take at most two smoke breaks and these are
a. at most 10 minutes
b. instead of coffee breaks
c. part of my recommended "eye" break for working on computers. Everyone is supposed to take those breaks. I just combine them

I personally cannot understand people who feel compelled to smoke on the bus or train. What? Not even enough willpower to last that long? On a train, many (not all though) have a smoking section, which should be used by smokers. Smokers should sit there. Non-smokers who do not like smoke should not, they've got the rest of the damn train.

I think the point is being missed here. Both groups should be taken into consideration, and as far as possible, both should be catered for. Otherwise, what's next?

Alcohol, mind affecting substance, drinkers can become violent, suicidal, homicidal, suffer from memory loss and have judgement impaired.

Food rationing to control cholesterol in glandular problem prone sections of the populace as their needs will increase the health bill.

Euthenasia for anyone who's intergenerational account hits zero balance after the age of thirty. (cost of the injection/pill/bullet to be covered by the next of kin at a vat rate of 20%)

the point here is *choice*. I willingly acknowledge people's choice not to have snoke forced upon them.

you should acknowledge my choice to ahve a smoke and not punish me for it by name calling, removal of base necesities (like shelter), barring from public establishments such as pubs which, if they could be arsed could afford to install a decent extractor fan to handle the excess pollutants.

nesf

I agree completely with LoLth's opinion on the matter.

I can't understand attitudes of smokers have no rights, and smokers are the bane of society. It's not like we go out to bother ppl. I don't see why ppl can gripe about smokers when a no smoking area is provided and respected. I think they just want the best of both worlds, regardless of the opinions of smokers.

swiss

Okay

First of all, I'm more than happy to allow smokers to smoke - away from me...

When I go out, and consume near lethal amounts of alcohol, destroying several million or so brain cells, that is my choice. Going out in smoky pubs & restaurants, breathing in what other people expel in the air - which is noxious, carcinogenic, poisonous, addictive, pollutant, and a serious threat to my life and the lives of others around me, well... that is *not* my choice.

Oh, apparantly I'm just a "I'm too pure to die" git, extolling the virtues of clean living, suggesting we live in a society worthy of trappist monks. If I brought smokers into a building filled with asbestos - I'd bet ye'd start objecting to being put in contact with carcinogens that materially damages lives.

I wear contact lenses when I head out each night. The next day my eyes usually look like they belong to a feral beast that's just been granted a human shape. The stench that comes off my clothes - if bottled - could be more effective than tear gas at dispersing crowds.

As for the suggestion that smoking aids asthmatics... WTF???? The idea that taking in a chemical cócktail of approximately 43 carcinogens is somehow counterbalanced by 'deeper breathing' supposedly aided by cigarettes is so ludicrous it belongs in the humor board. The fact is that the tar in cigarettes actually *diminish* lung capacity, and a raspy smokers cough hardly facilitates harmonious breathing.

Installing extractor fans in pubs/clubs is a great idea. Still then we all have to put up with the stink from smokers.

As for smokers wishing to smoke... can the majority of smokers honestly say, that if they could quit smoking tomorrow - with no physical or mental withdrawal symptoms, they would not take that option? Many of my friends who are smokers have tried to quit - on more than one occasion - most, sadly, unsuccessfully.

The bottom line is - if smokers want to shell out £30 a week or so to feed their habit - they are free to do so. Just don't make the rest of us pay for it.

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:what exactly would non smokers like?
lets see.
they want non of the above, which means that
a)they dont go to the same pubs as smokers.
b)all smokers give up..</font>

I wouldn't call myself openly anti-smoking. I mean like.. I don't have a coughing fit when someone smokes beside me , I don't make faces or look disdainfully at people who smoke and I don't move away when my boyfriend smokes in my company.

I also don't want cigarettes banned - that would be far to controlling. The decision to stop smoking is not one a government can make for the people, it is a personal decision for each and every individual.

So, as a non-smoker, what do I want? I want people to realise what they're doing. We all should know the dangers by now, but still people smoke.
Thanks in part to the horrifying ads on TV recently about drink driving, this has become more and more socially unacceptable. Something similar needs to be done about smoking.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by WhiteWashMan:it [smoking] is a sociably accepted habit. </font>

That's the problem (Sorry WhiteWashMan, I don't mean to be picking on your posts all the time ).
Smoking needs to become socially unacceptable. People need to realise the damage they are doing. Knowing the dangers is not enough.. we need to realise them - it needs to hit each and every one of us that smoking destroys lives.

Until cigarette smoking becomes socially unacceptable in Ireland, little can be done. If someone started injecting heroin beside you in the pub, you would - more than likely - look at them in horror, disgust and probably pity.

The same reaction does not occur when the person sitting beside you lights a fag. Just like the heroin addict is risking his/her life, so too is the nicotine addict, but we don't see it that way - we see smoking as an okay thing to do and that's why kids do it too.
We frown upon drug taking but killing yourself with cigarettes is okay. I'm sorry but that seems to me to be a case of double standards.

I'm sure that very many of you have been touched by cancer either directly or indirectly at some point in your lives. You probably don't need me telling you that smoking can kill but I'll say it anyway.. there's nothing to lose.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by nesf: Non-smokers who have never smoked, can't really raise their voices too high, they don't know where we(the smokers) are coming from.</font>

I'm not in that category. I used to smoke myself, but my dad has melanoma (a form of skin cancer) and I've seen and experienced first hand the destruction cigarettes can cause. It would have been utterly hypocritical and wrong of me to continue inhaling the substances that were killing my father, so I stopped. Yea it was hard at first and I hadn't smoked for 10 or 20 years like some people have. I realise it is difficult to give up smoking but sometimes reality hits you hard and the choice becomes a lot easier to make.

Of course cigarettes don't kill everyone who smokes them. My 86 year old granny has smoked for about 70 years and is completely cancer free. My dad, on the other hand, is 45 and will probably die from the disease which killed his parents before him.

You can compare smoking to alcohol and the destruction that alcohol can do to lives (which I am not for one moment disagreeing with) and you can claim that smoking doesn't destroy families, but if smoking doesn't destroy families, then cancer does.. trust me.

Before I posted this, I was trying to work out what it was I wanted to say and how I would say it in a non-emotive manner. I don't think that's possible really as it's something I feel very strongly about, so I just had to say it how it is.
I'm not asking anyone to stop smoking, I'm asking people to think about what they're doing.. not only to themselves but to people they care about. It's all well and good saying you only live once, but very few people really want to die young. If you're willing to take that gamble, then that's your choice but here's one last image for you.

I have a little 5 year old sister, the sweetest, prettiest thing you could meet, a blonde haired blue eyed child who just doesn't understand what's happening to her family.
Give it 10 years and that could be your daughter.
Do you really want that on your conscience?



[This message has been edited by androphobic (edited 03-08-2001).]

Miguel_Sanchez

I wanted to put up a 'what she said' post after that brilliant post from androphobic but I didn't cause I didn't want to make light of what she said.

Well put androphobic - one of the best posts I've read in a while.

[fist]de_psIRE

ah **** it, i couldnt be arsed makin my point, im tired


Try reposting when you don't sound like a rabid baboon then.


[This message has been edited by Castor Troy (edited 04-08-2001).]

nesf

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by swiss:
Okay

As for the suggestion that smoking aids asthmatics... WTF???? The idea that taking in a chemical cócktail of approximately 43 carcinogens is somehow counterbalanced by 'deeper breathing' supposedly aided by cigarettes is so ludicrous it belongs in the humor board. The fact is that the tar in cigarettes actually *diminish* lung capacity, and a raspy smokers cough hardly facilitates harmonious breathing.

</font>

It wasn't a suggestion, it is a proven, and also something i've experienced.

I'd appreciate it if you didn't throw around "facts" without backing them up, the conditions of tar reducing lung capacity, is only present where large volumes of cigarettes have been consumed, i.e. if you're a heavy smoker. Otherwise the act of "inhaling" strenghtens the lungs if you do not have proper breathing technique. You are insiting on specific conditions to the argument, by assuming that the asmhatic(sp?) in question is a heavy smoker.

Also form personal experience i have found that my lung capacity greatly increased after I started smoking. I have had asmtha for over 12 years, and it was recently agrievated by a bout of pneumonia, but since i started smoking in the last 2 years, my lung capacity has increased sufficiently that I can play sports fully again, so pls don't talk on an issues where you're attempt at counter argument is based completely on conjecture.

Oh and btw carcenogens(sp?) have absolutely nothing to do with astmha which is a non-cancer related lung condition, so I'm amused/confused as to why you bothered mentioning that point.


[This message has been edited by nesf (edited 03-08-2001).]

nesf

Androphobic, please accept my hearfelt sympathy over your father's condition. I have also suffered loss, due to cancer

If I may interject one point for all the health fanatics, you only have a large chance of developing lung cancer if there is a family history of cancer present, for a light-average smoker. If you don't have a family history of smoking you can smoke for years with no ill-effect. Androphobic's granmother, and my own at 92, are examples of this.

I do not use this as a defense or argument for smoking, I am merely posting this as a warning to ppl with cancer family histories. Don't smoke heavily, or if you can help it, don't smoke at all.

Of course if you smoke heavily, it doesn't matter if there is a family history or not.

JustHalf

Androphobic, I'm sorry to hear that. Cancer is bad; and I wish something good comes around to sort this out. I wish you hope.

Chubby, explain how this is a threat to democracy. Your post made little sense, and seemed to be primarily asterixes. Also explain how "ANTI-SMOKING LAWS ARE THE BEGINNING OF SUEING YR FIANCEE FOR BREAKING UP WITH YOU AND ****IN EVERY1 SEEING A COUNSELLOR AND OPRAH WINFREY ON THE TELLY 24/7." Anti-smoking laws are hardly the start of the trek towards Americanisation; then again, I could be wrong -- if so, explain your reasoning in a manner which is intelligible?

androphobic

I appreciate it very much but I'm not looking for sympathy.. just for people to think about it and realise it could be them.

P.S. Thanks Jeff

JustHalf

I think it was clear from your post that you were using it to make a point, and regretted having to.

Shinji

This thread reminded me of something I once heard - particularly the last post. I can't remember where I saw this, so if it was someone on the boards my apologies for stealing your parable


"You are a smoker. The by-product of your drug habit is stale smoke. This smoke is carried onto the clothes, hair and skin of those around you. It permeates them with the smell of burnt tobacco and when they inhale it inadvertendly, damages their health.

I am a beer drinker. The by-product of MY drug habit is urine. Given your defence of the rights of smokers, I take it that you would have no objections, then, if I were to liberally scatter the by-product of my habit onto your clothes, hair and skin?"

WhiteWashMan

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Shinji:


I am a beer drinker. The by-product of MY drug habit is urine. Given your defence of the rights of smokers, I take it that you would have no objections, then, if I were to liberally scatter the by-product of my habit onto your clothes, hair and skin?"</font>

it is legal to smoke. the law says i can smoke. the pubs say i can smoke. in fact the only people who dont want me to smoke, are non smokers (and my doctor) (and my mum) but that aside..
it is a sociably accepted habit.
pi$$ing on people, however, is not.
now ive been to a non smoking pub in wolves, and it was also empty. i went to several smoking pubs, all full.
yep, smoking stinks up your clothes, it makes your breath smell, it gives you spots, its bloody expensive, its unhealthy, it will kill you.
i might get hit by a bus.

so, we are allowed to smoke. what exactly would non smokers like?
lets see.
they want non of the above, which means that
a)they dont go to the same pubs as smokers.
b)all smokers give up
c)smokers dont smoke when they go out.

of course, if it was a joint, youd all be hollering for a drag. and please dont someone opo up and say 'oh, i dont take drugs, i wouldnt be interested', youre in the minority, and im talking majority rule politics

swiss

nesf - your point is taken that the actual inhalation of smoke may be beneficial to asthmatics.. I'm not a doctor, and so cannot conclusively verify the truth or falsity of such claims.

However, I find the assertion that the inhalation of *cigarette* smoke is beneficial to /anyone/ spurious. Whatever medicinal advantages smoking may bring are, in my opinion, more than offset by the very detrimental effect they have on a persons health. There are alternatives to cigarette smoking - I am sure.

Androphobic - I'm sorry to hear about your father. Oftentimes, the statistics we hear are, to us, just figures, and don't really carry across the real pain and suffering occasioned by those affected by cigarettes. I do feel that children are pressurised into smoking at an early age - which is why the anti - tobacco bill has raised the age at which a person may legally buy cigarettes to 18. Hopefully, if we combine that with - as you mentioned - a public information campaign specifically targeted at this group warning them of the dangers to themselves and others, we may finally see an appreciable reduction in the numbers who do smoke, and in particular those that are beginning to smoke.

nesf

Love the imagery LoLth.

A point smokers aren't born smokers, we were all non-smokers at some point, we do know what the other side of the coin is like.

Non-smokers who have never smoked, can't really raise their voices too high, they don't know where we(the smokers) are coming from.

Just a thought.

halkar

Drink driving is banned but still happens, what will happen if it gets totally out of hand? banned the drinking???...
Smoking is bad for my health your health and my pocket, but so is alchool, smokers stinks so does drinkers.. Why don't we just ban everything an live happily after...:-)
I am a smoker and I am sorry to my fellow non-smokers if I am causing so much grief, tourment, pain or whatever you call it , but as long as pubs, restaurants or wherever allows me to smoke I will smoke and I will not smoke where I see the sign says No Smoking, that is as far respect I can give..
As for banning on the streets.. What a joke... And someone said tax them... hahaha!! We are already taxed nearly 4 quid for a smoke think about it..:-)

androphobic

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by halkar:
Drink driving is banned but still happens, what will happen if it gets totally out of hand? banned the drinking???...
</font>

My point was about the actual advertisements.
For instance, look at the one with the nice music in the background and the guy in the car loses control and kills a little boy and the father comes running.. you know the one I mean?
I've heard a good few people say how much they hate that ad.. and that's the point of it, they're not meant to like it.. they're meant to realise the damage that drink driving can do and that it could be anyone.. and then maybe, just maybe, they'll think twice about driving home with drink on them next time they're out.

If a similar campaign was created about cigarettes, maybe there would be further realisation.

Yes, drink driving still happens but it will always happen. Underage sex is banned too but it still happens. Nothing, no matter what it is, will actually stop happening completely, but it could be minimised.

-andro.

Baz_

Di<kheads!!!

Now I don't normally curse or abuse people on the boards but when people (wwman and nesf) start saying/implying that my opinion doesn't count or I have a diminished say because I've chosen to not smoke or take drugs then the calm demeanour leaves me.

That's just bollix and you must know you were wrong when you typed it which in my opinion makes you a di<khead.

<anger vented>

I think cigs should be banned. plain and simple.