Why do I have to breath cigarette smoke.

Wibbs

grumpytrousers wrote:

Remember - that's where the passive smoking stuff comes from - the output of lungs, cos it's that smoke that's been thru the chemicals in the filter that cause the 'harm' not the result of tobacco burning itself..

To be fair passive smoke is both the output of the lungs and the smoke given off by the tobacco itself. Passive smoking, as Morningstar pointed out has very little to no evidence to support the health hazards that are routinely trotted out by the anti smoking brigade.

I've posted many links to back this up on other similar threads along with refutation of the links between primary smoking and disease. As I've said before, smoking is not particularly good for you, especially if you are a heavy smoker(ciggies in particular), but the health threat is vastly overrated IMHO. When you see a 30 yr study into Lung cancer in the US that found that although the smoking rate had gone down massively, lung cancer rates had stayed the same, you have to ask questions. Blanket statements about this and other health issues help no one.

rubadub, nicotine is a drug, as is caffeine, alcohol and many others that people imbibe on a regular basis*. Your cup of tea or coffee in the morning while your co-workers light up outside is a drug. Your vodka and red bull is a mixture of two drugs. Most of society and others around the world and throughout history have used/abused drugs in one from or another. To compare nicotine to crack cocaine or other such nonsense without recourse to a sliding scale is frankly stupid(no quotes about how nicotine is more addictive than heroin please, it's old hat). You may say other drugs only damage the primary user. Ok, but how many people are damaged by "passive" drinking. Whole sections of our society are affected by it even if they only have the odd pint themselves. Many crimes are perpetrated by heroin addicts. That's a passive effect too. Many might argue that passive drinking is one of the biggest problems in our society today. Check out your local casualty dept at the weekend and see how many people affected by primary and secondary alcohol are in there. I suspect you'll find few passive smokers.

It's all down to societies perception of the drugs de jour. On other threads of this nature, I've seen people post that they only smoke marijuana, but tobacco's bad for you. If you said that 20yrs ago the reaction would have been the complete opposite one to today's. Marijauna has quite a few dangers according to some, yet people are open minded enough with that drug that they can see at least some possible health benefits(pain relief, treatment of glaucoma, etc). Tobacco, on the other hand is just "evil". Any discussion on the possible health benefits is proscribed(alzheimers, parkinsons, ulcerative colitus, OCD, MS etc)

To the OP I would say that, yes, I do understand your discomfort at having to breath a smell you percieve to be distastful. I wouldn't be too happy if I had the smell of slurry coming through my window. I just think your response to it is an over reaction. A reaction probably more to do with what Morningstar has said on the matter, than the smell of smoke itself.

*BTW rubadub, I do agree with your post before about the public perception about drugs in general.

DublinWriter

This thread is almost as bad as the one started by that guy who gave up cigs, but wanted to buy his newspapers in a newsagent that didn't stock tobacco products as a point of principal.

*sigh* I'm just waiting for the enforced muesli eating law to come out.

FFS, how can you 'smell' cigarette smoke coming from a car driving by outside when you are sitting in a room in your house? If you genuinely can do this, then I'd seriously consider appling to Customs for a job as a sniffer dog.

Tar.Aldarion

DublinWriter wrote:

This thread is almost as bad as the one started by that guy who gave up cigs, but wanted to buy his newspapers in a newsagent that didn't stock tobacco products as a point of principal.

heh heh that was briliant,the newsagents are pushing cigarettes on customers lmao

jay567

ok i havent bothered readin the entire thread so sorry if im repeating. But listen to urself, moaning that u cant sleep cause someones smoking in THEIR garden. I dare u to ask him to stop.
If u cant sleep close the window, if its to hot, stop moaning and buy airconditioning.

Sorry for being so direct, but ppl like u wind me up something terrible! get a life and think about something else.

cornbb

grumpytrousers wrote:

Remember - that's where the passive smoking stuff comes from - the output of lungs, cos it's that smoke that's been thru the chemicals in the filter that cause the 'harm' not the result of tobacco burning itself...

Eh???

rubadub

Wibbs wrote:

rubadub, nicotine is a drug, as is caffeine, alcohol and many others that people imbibe on a regular basis.

Yep I have made many, many posts stating this

Wibbs wrote:

Your cup of tea or coffee in the morning while your co-workers light up outside is a drug.

I know, I point this out to people too, some get very upset over the use of the word "drug" it since drug use is so stigmatised and drug users are so stereotyped.

Wibbs wrote:

Most of society and others around the world and throughout history have used/abused drugs in one from or another.

And many of those durg users will stigmatize those who use drugs other than their particular drug of choice. My favourite bit in trainspotting, when begby says "ye wouldanee catch me poisoning me body with that shlte" while lashing down a pint

Wibbs wrote:

To compare nicotine to crack cocaine or other such nonsense without recourse to a sliding scale is frankly stupid(no quotes about how nicotine is more addictive than heroin please, it's old hat).

Old hat? most people can't believe it when they find it out, most do not have a clue, do you think the majority of people know that fact? I find most are ignorant to it. If somebody forced me to smoke either pharmaceutically pure crack or pure nictoine, I would go for crack, from what I read it gives you a far more pleasant effect, and is less addictive. The illegalization of drugs is a pretty recent event.

I agree with your all your comments on "passive drinking", I think the law is hypocritcal and that if other drugs are illegal, so it should be. How can they reason that one drug should be illegal, and then ignore all those reasons while considering other drugs. People have disrespect for the law, and law enforcers when such hypocritical laws are in place.

Nicotine is a useful drug, as is cannabis. Smoking of the 2 drugs is damaging to health, I find it bizarre that prerolled joints are prescribed in the US, it can be eaten or vapourised.

Boggle

Glue sniffing is perfectly legal, yet has a stigma attached, if your neighbour was sniffing glue out the back and the smell was getting into your house you would find people had more compassion. Even though it is legal and the smell of the glue does you relatively little harm. But glue sniffers viewed are nasty little scumbags, whereas some people still view smoking as sophisticated

What the fup comment is that? As far as I know, sniffing glue isn't relatively safe - you'd want to get that idea out of your head.

Passive smoking is not bad smell only you don't become addicted to the cigarette because of the smell, but because of the nicotine it contains(listening to you guys it's like smelling smelly socks)and anyway how exactly do you people assess the fact that the quantity of smoke I inhale is okay, especially that there is a distance. I never said what distance.Moreover you can't compare my experience to a once off, I am talking about regular daily passive smoking.
Why should I run upstairs to close the windows everytime the man wants his fix.

Because it's a liberal society and "only TERRORISTS hate freedoms!!"

Listen, the problem with living in a neighbourhood like that is that you do have to put up with living in close quarters to other people. If you find that you dislike other peoples "weaknesses" then you are left with 2 options: Respectively ask the neighbour if he wouldn't mind not smoking near your window or move away. I would be pretty surprised if the neighbour would continue to smoke in an area where he knows it affects your sleep... think its called "respect for others" or something.

Another question, what if you had a family living next door with a peculiar diet and you disliked the smell of their cooking. Would you still consider yourself to have a right to "clean air"?

grumpytrousers

cornbb wrote:

Eh???

Oh sorry; what I was trying to say that as I understand the 'dangerous' smoke referred to when people discuss passive smoking is the 'Second Hand Smoke'. This is, I believe, smoke that's already been thru somebody elses system; i.e. the smoke that has been ingested by drawing on the cigarette through a 'filter' which is packed with chemicals etc, all of which go into the smokers lungs and most of which come out again. Harmful chemicals and all.

I think that while the primary smoke - that which rises from the end of a lit cigarette may be unpleasant for people, I'd have thought that it's not as 'dangerous' as the exhaled smoke in that it's not been through the filter and another persons body. The aroma is merely that of any other kind of leaf burning and you really would want to be exposed to very considerable quantities for that to have any effect...

If I'm wrong here, please do set me straight; but my point remains that both primary and secondary smoke from the OPs neighbours ciggie must be well friggin miraculous if they can BOTH find their way to his bedroom window...

jay567

(I would be pretty surprised if the neighbour would continue to smoke in an area where he knows it affects your sleep...)

Ok now im starting to belive this thread is just a joke? its bad enough not being allowed to smoke in certain areas. But now this is just pushing it to a whole new level. Its the mans house, how could anyone have the cheek to request that they dont smoke in their own house!!!!!!

Boggle

He's smoking in his back garden - he might just smoke over the other side of the garden if he was asked. Then again if your a pr1ck to your neighbour then why would he?

cornbb

grumpytrousers wrote:

If I'm wrong here, please do set me straight; but my point remains that both primary and secondary smoke from the OPs neighbours ciggie must be well friggin miraculous if they can BOTH find their way to his bedroom window...

I agree with you there... I'm sure any smoke which has been outdoors and through someone else's garden has been dissipated way too much to be more than a slight odour and annoyance.

Not sure about the other point though. The carcinogenic property of cigarettes comes from the burning carbon matter in the plant plus whatever other chemical ****e they add to the tobacco. If anything the filter and the smokers' lungs should cleanse the smoke a little.

Wibbs

rubadub wrote:

Old hat? most people can't believe it when they find it out, most do not have a clue, do you think the majority of people know that fact? I find most are ignorant to it.

TBH rubadub, I was disagreeing with the idea. If you compare the physical/mental withdrawal symptoms of heroin to nicotine, there is no comparison. Heroin is by far the harder drug to shake off. Most smokers take a fair while to become addicted to nicotine, while heroin use tends to ramp up pretty quickly. Also people tend to increase their dosage more rapidly with heroin. Heroin users would also die much much younger than tobacco smokers, even if you believe everything that's said about smoking. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges IMHO

If somebody forced me to smoke either pharmaceutically pure crack or pure nictoine, I would go for crack, from what I read it gives you a far more pleasant effect, and is less addictive.

I would too as pharmaceutically pure nicotine would kill you stone dead if you didn't watch the dosage. Alkalide poison and all that. Then again, crack cocaine has a very rapid take up rate to addiction when compared to nicotine.

I agree with your all your comments on "passive drinking", I think the law is hypocritcal and that if other drugs are illegal, so it should be. How can they reason that one drug should be illegal, and then ignore all those reasons while considering other drugs. People have disrespect for the law, and law enforcers when such hypocritical laws are in place.

You won't hear me disagreeing with on that score(me agreeing with rubadub? wonders never cease:)).

rubadub

Boggle wrote:

What the fup comment is that? As far as I know, sniffing glue isn't relatively safe - you'd want to get that idea out of your head.

I was saying that if your neighbour was sniffing glue and the smell was wafting up into your house it would cause you relatively little harm, just like tobacco smoke. Yet many would find the smell annoying/irritating. Both are drugs that are legal to use/abuse

rubadub

Wibbs wrote:

Heroin users would also die much much younger than tobacco smokers, even if you believe everything that's said about smoking. Comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges IMHO

It is apples and oranges at the moment, a lot is down to the fact that it is illegal. There was a documentary on UK TV about a year back showing heroin addicts, who were not your typical junkies that people would stereotype. They included successful doctors, who ran their own practice and used pure heroin everyday without any real ill-effect or large doses. There were solicitors and housewifes, all leading normal lives. Just like some people enjoy a glass of wine everyday, if alcohol was illegal you would only notice the hardcore users, the winos on the street, and think all alcohol users are like that.

Most "overdoses" are deaths from contamination not the actual drug, when there is a real overdose it is due to the user expecting his usual low grade crap full of filler, if heroin was supplied and regulated like nicotine there would be far less fatalities.

Yes the withdrawl from heroin or crack is more physically demanding, there is a far greater uptake of first time nicotine users than heroin users, i.e. if you try smokes you are more likely to become hooked than if you try heroin. The ramping up is due to tolerance and desired effect. Not many people smoke tobacco to get high, most tobacco sold commercially is not very potent, people continue smoking the same amount convincing themselves they do it cause it "feels good", rather it "feels bad" not to do it.
If tobacco was illegal and class A it too would command a high price, leading to hardcore users robbing grannies for there next fix. If it was illegal far, far fewer people would start in the first place, what is the point?, the buzz off it is only slight, the perfect taxable drug.

Wibbs wrote:

I would too as pharmaceutically pure nicotine would kill you stone dead if you didn't watch the dosage. Alkalide poison and all that.

Sort of like the pure heroin, if it is administered in regulated doses like cigarettes or those tiny nicotine tablets there is no problem. If nicotine was illegal it would be unregulated crap full of filler, you would have the same overdose problems as you would with heroin, users injecting/smoking their regular dose expecting it to be the usual 10% purity.

Wibbs wrote:

(me agreeing with rubadub? wonders never cease:)).

you must be on the glue
damn bats, they're everywhere

Feownah

Ever since the introduction of the smoking ban I feel as though non-smokers have manifested into a group of sneering, jeering, higher moral ground bullies! Now as you can probably tell...i'm a smoker. At the beginning I didnt want the smoking ban to be enforced as I would no longer be able to sit inside a cosy pub and enjoy a drink and cigarette with my mates, or savour a cigarette with my tea after a tasty meal in a cafe..boo hoo poor me.

But I'm over that now and accept the fact that I should be catapulted out into the cold Irish air and smoke with shivering hands...again boo hoo poor me. I actually now AGREE with the smoking ban. BUT im getting really peeved of with when I tell people I'm going OUTSIDE for a cigarette they look at me as if I had a profound disease , and in a chorus bellow comments like 'she's a dirty oul smoker', 'you should give up them oul filthy things', 'theyre bad for you ya know'. All you non-smokers please realise how irritating and condescending this is and stop picking and annoying the feck outa smokers!

Wibbs

rubadub wrote:

Yes the withdrawal from heroin or crack is more physically demanding, there is a far greater uptake of first time nicotine users than heroin users, i.e. if you try smokes you are more likely to become hooked than if you try heroin.

I would disagree. If you're medically administered an opiate like morphine as pain relief, you will become dependant in nearly all cases. Heroin as a stronger opiate would increase that addictiveness. With smoking the uptake is a lot lower. How many people know weekend smokers, people that smoke other peoples ciggies, yet never buy their own and become addicted. I myself can think of four people off the top of my head that fall into that category. In fact they would make up 50% of the "smokers" I know. I've not heard of too many weekend heroin addicts. Maybe at the start, but not after years, sometimes decades of exposure to the drug.


One of the problems I have with regards to the addictiveness of nicotine. If a person is a heroin addict and I give them medical heroin/morphine, their cravings disappear. Studies on the efficacy of nicotine patches however show only a slight effect above placebos. That would suggest to me at least that nicotine is not as physically addictive as commonly accepted, certainly not as addictive as heroin. I would contend that smoking is as much a psychological dependancy as a physical one. Allen Carr and the rest would doubtless agree on that.

If nicotine was illegal it would be unregulated crap full of filler,

Sadly, if you smoke cigarettes, that's true even for an legal drug. If you ever take apart your average ciggie, the quality of the tobacco is very very low. The amount of additives they add beggars belief. Pipe and cigar tobacco on the other hand is generally of a much higher quality. It may go some way to explain the disparity in death rates between cigarette smokers and pipe and cigar smokers. there's a large difference and it not just down to non inhalation. Many pipe smokers inhale and their nicotine levels are much higher than cigarette smokers, yet they live much longer. In fact if you're a pipe smoker and you don't inhale some studies have found you may live longer than non smokers(possibly due to the protective effect of nicotine on certain neurological illnesses).

Feownah wrote:

But I'm over that now and accept the fact that I should be catapulted out into the cold Irish air and smoke with shivering hands...again boo hoo poor me. I actually now AGREE with the smoking ban.

If after saying all that, why do you agree with the smoking ban as it's currently implemented? I certainly don't. Especially as I enjoy(amazing but true) a legal drug. A legal drug that I and many others pay huge amounts of money into the government coffers(bad pun) as tax. As rubadub has pointed out the hypocrisy that surrounds all drug use is stupid to say the least and this particular issue gathers it's fair share of bull****.

Wibbs

rubadub wrote:

you must be on the glue

Glue? GLUE? Sir, how dare you. Best antique furniture polish for me. I don't see bats on that stuff. I see eagles....