Smokers getting a rough ride?

Fraggle Rocks wrote:

Well i reckon with amount of tax put on a box of fags, most smokers are well paid up by the time they need medical help. Hell, they'll probably be paying for your treatment when you're old and infirm and dying with as little dignity as the smokers!

excellent - round of applause Fraggle Rocks!

rubadub

Mirror wrote:

1. It has nothing to do with luck. It is a legal drug, as are many.

The majority of recreationally used drugs are illegal. Most in the medical profession would regard tobacco smoking to be one of the most harmful recreational drugs out there. So yeah I do think it is luck, and strange, the fact that it is still legal. A single person got drunk and took a threshold amount of magic mushrooms, killed himself and they were banned overnight! by the same logic it is extremely lucky it has not been banned after causing millions of deaths over the years.

Mirror wrote:

1. Are people who receive morphine for pain lucky?

Yes, a lot of doctors are reluctant to prescribe morphine so I do think people are lucky to get prescribed it, my own father was denied it and was in extreme pain after an operation recently, having to make do with alternatives which he considers to have worse side effects (he works in the pharmaceutical industry). They are lucky it is still legal after all the bad press its analogue drug, diamorphine, gets.

If people were allowed go into a newsagent, buy morphine, then head to a pub and smoke it in a crack pipe under a nice heater out the back, then yes I would think they are lucky. Others take their drug of choice in their own home in fear of the law.

Mirror wrote:

2. You're probably right, we would kick up a fuss. My point was, you can't use that as an argument because you non-smokers kicked up a fuss and as such we are not allowed smoke in the pubs! Jeez.

At the time most polls showed the majority of smokers were in support of the ban. Most appear to be considerate of others wishes and do not inflict their habit on others, just like most drunks are considerate enough not to spill, puke or piss their drug all over peoples clothes.

most drunks are considerate enough not to spill, puke or piss their drug all over peoples clothes

I cannot help but say - oh no they are not - hands up those of you who have been unfortunate enough to have one drunk or another "spill, puke or piss their drug" all over your clothes *puts hand in the air*

Anyway, this thread is not about glue sniffers, alcoholics or morphine. It is about cigarettes. The ones that WE smoke. Not in "your" space, but outside in the cold. I probably wouldn't end up in hospital with chest infections if I didn't have to stand in the rain to enjoy my cigarettes! We stay out of the way, "shunned" by society, so leave us be. Allow us to kill ourselves in peace, and eventually rest in peace..... *sighs audibly and puts on the winter woollies to have another smoke*

rubadub wrote:

The majority of recreationally used drugs are illegal. Most in the medical profession would regard tobacco smoking to be one of the most harmful recreational drugs out there. So yeah I do think it is luck, and strange, the fact that it is still legal. A single person got drunk and took a threshold amount of magic mushrooms, killed himself and they were banned overnight! by the same logic it is extremely lucky it has not been banned after causing millions of deaths over the years.

Yes, a lot of doctors are reluctant to prescribe morphine so I do think people are lucky to get prescribed it, my own father was denied it and was in extreme pain after an operation recently, having to make do with alternatives which he considers to have worse side effects (he works in the pharmaceutical industry). They are lucky it is still legal after all the bad press its analogue drug, diamorphine, gets.

If people were allowed go into a newsagent, buy morphine, then head to a pub and smoke it in a crack pipe under a nice heater out the back, then yes I would think they are lucky. Others take their drug of choice in their own home in fear of the law.

At the time most polls showed the majority of smokers were in support of the ban. Most appear to be considerate of others wishes and do not inflict their habit on others, just like most drunks are considerate enough not to spill, puke or piss their drug all over peoples clothes.

Smoking does not have and side effects associated with hallucinogenic drugs such as magic mushrooms, does not impair your judgement as alcohol does etc. etc. etc.

Other drugs are banned not for the harm they cause to the user, but for the potential harm which can be caused to others around the user, or harm caused to the user due to an unclear thought pattern, doing things that he/she would not do under normal circumstances.

On top of which, cigarettes are still around and always will be I believe because of the amount of revenue generated from the taxes placed upon them. I can't find any figures but I'm sure they are more than notably large!

I too am in support of the ban, I like to enjoy a cigarette when I want one, rather than breathing in the smoke every minute I'm in the pub. But I don't agree with the last part of the statement, since when are drunks known for their consideration? If anything, that point supports my earlier argument, that drinking impairs your judgement and you are likely to get pissed/puked on by a drunk!

Dutchology wrote:

I cannot help but say - oh no they are not - hands up those of you who have been unfortunate enough to have one drunk or another "spill, puke or piss their drug" all over your clothes *puts hand in the air*

Anyway, this thread is not about glue sniffers, alcoholics or morphine. It is about cigarettes. The ones that WE smoke. Not in "your" space, but outside in the cold. I probably wouldn't end up in hospital with chest infections if I didn't have to stand in the rain to enjoy my cigarettes! We stay out of the way, "shunned" by society, so leave us be. Allow us to kill ourselves in peace, and eventually rest in peace..... *sighs audibly and puts on the winter woollies to have another smoke*

In light of the debate, I have to argue that. You would be less likely again to end up in hospital if you didn't smoke, as smoking lowers your immune systems defenses considerably. In other words, "put up and shut up", or just quit! It's only fair that we are out of the building, and it's up to us whether we want to stand outside to continue the habit.

Mirror wrote:

In light of the debate, I have to argue that. You would be less likely again to end up in hospital if you didn't smoke, as smoking lowers your immune systems defenses considerably. In other words, "put up and shut up", or just quit! It's only fair that we are out of the building, and it's up to us whether we want to stand outside to continue the habit.

True, true. I retract that particular part of the statement, as I do agree that we are entitled to pollute our own lungs, but not those of the non-smokers *slaps self on wrist for writing without thinking*, I was on a rant... still standing by the R.I.P...

rubadub

Dutchology wrote:

I cannot help but say - oh no they are not - hands up those of you who have been unfortunate enough to have one drunk or another "spill, puke or piss their drug" all over your clothes *puts hand in the air*

So you are saying "no", as in no, most drunk people DO actually piss, spill or puke their booze on you? please let me know your local so I can avoid it.

Mirror wrote:

that drinking impairs your judgement and you are likely to get pissed/puked on by a drunk!

more likely than 50/50, i.e. most? jesus lads, you have it rough, I have never been pissed or puked on, I have had drinks spilled that needed my clothes changed once or twice in my life, but almost every time I went to a smoky pub I needed to do that.

I think the majority (i.e. most) of the people who do get pissed or smoke are consideriate and do not spill drink on others or blow smoke in their face thinking it is their god given right to do so.

Dutchology wrote:

Anyway, this thread is not about glue sniffers, alcoholics or morphine. It is about cigarettes.

hmmm I'll take that to mean you wouldnt like the glue sniffer in your local,

Dutchology wrote:

Allow us to kill ourselves in peace, and eventually rest in peace..... *sighs audibly and puts on the winter woollies to have another smoke*

Exactly, I would love to be able to kill myself by smoking drugs without fear of arrest. I certainly wouldnt be going around sighing when they increase the price of them (like they do with pretty much everything, simple inflation), and I wouldnt be moaning about not being let burn my plant of choice in an enclosed public place either.

Mirror wrote:

Smoking does not have and side effects associated with hallucinogenic drugs such as magic mushrooms, does not impair your judgement as alcohol does etc. etc. etc.

Tobacco can in fact be hallucinogenic, I have seen people falling over and puking from smoking tobacco, native americans took it to excess. But most people using it don't, makes me wonder why they bother with such an apparently useless drug if you are not even getting high off it? oh yeah, the "enjoyment" i.e. staving off the withdrawl symptoms. Fair enough...

Mirror wrote:

Other drugs are banned not for the harm they cause to the user,

potential for harm to oneself is the main reason most drugs are not allowed into public use, why do you think there are so many drug trials carried out on all pharmaceuticals?

Mirror wrote:

but for the potential harm which can be caused to others around the user,

e.g. passive smoking... I wouldnt have as much of a problem with tobacco if people used it in another way, i.e. chewing it. I would still be upset at the hypocritical laws in place.

Mirror wrote:

harm caused to the user due to an unclear thought pattern, doing things that he/she would not do under normal circumstances.

Many drugs have the potential for this, people can get hallucinations from OTC cough medicine and hayfever tablets, at least these do have sound medical uses too, what is the excuse for tobacco? (on which you can also get into an intoxicated state)

FranknFurter

rubadub wrote:

..... at least these do have sound medical uses too, what is the excuse for tobacco? (on which you can also get into an intoxicated state)

Maintaining whats left of my sanity, counters some of the side-effects of my meds, and helps me to relax, thats the medical use it has for me.
Somones bound to say "but its a stimulant not a relaxant" .... well for me it relaxes me, I enjoy it and have for 19 years.

And on the drink spillage thing, as a wheelchair user, when I used to go to pubs and clubs I was regularly having drinks spilled on me as drunks would be making their way back from the bar, not because I was in anyones way, purely because they were drunk. :mad:
I have yet to have somone use my head as an ashtray, although somone *almost* did once, and guess what, she was DRUNK.

senordingdong

Backtoblack wrote:

You do have a good point on the Golden Arches - Tax them to f**k I say - McMurders and that evil, redhaired clown should be f**ked into jail with a number of other corporate psychos!

No they shouldn't.
When are people going to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions?

[Deleted User]

Mirror wrote:

In light of the debate, I have to argue that. You would be less likely again to end up in hospital if you didn't smoke, as smoking lowers your immune systems defenses considerably. In other words, "put up and shut up", or just quit! It's only fair that we are out of the building, and it's up to us whether we want to stand outside to continue the habit.

Perfect sense.
Smokers are deluded when it comes to the real cost to their health, their wellbeing and their wallet. And I know this to be true because I was deluded too when I smoked.
You could whack 20 quid on to the price of a packet of fags and smokers will still buy ’em. I would've smoked old rope when I was addicted.

rubadub wrote:

So you are saying "no", as in no, most drunk people DO actually piss, spill or puke their booze on you? please let me know your local so I can avoid it.

I found that fairly self-explanatory.

rubadub wrote:

more likely than 50/50, i.e. most? jesus lads, you have it rough, I have never been pissed or puked on, I have had drinks spilled that needed my clothes changed once or twice in my life, but almost every time I went to a smoky pub I needed to do that.

I think the majority (i.e. most) of the people who do get pissed or smoke are consideriate and do not spill drink on others or blow smoke in their face thinking it is their god given right to do so.

This I just don't get. What are you trying to say? I said that you are likely to get pissed/puked on by a drunk, meaning more likely than a smoker. And my main point really is that the fact you may get pissed/puked on is because they are drunk, and therefore are not considerate.

rubadub wrote:

hmmm I'll take that to mean you wouldnt like the glue sniffer in your local

You have a strange way of taking things. It's clearly meant as in it's not about them, stating no preference in either persuasion...

rubadub wrote:

Exactly, I would love to be able to kill myself by smoking drugs without fear of arrest. I certainly wouldnt be going around sighing when they increase the price of them (like they do with pretty much everything, simple inflation), and I wouldnt be moaning about not being let burn my plant of choice in an enclosed public place either.

The tax on cigarettes is not simple inflation, this is a well known point. And I certainly am not whining about not being able to smoke in the pubs, and Dutchology retracted that part of the argument. So what's your point again? And believe me, if you were addicted to something on which the price was continually going up, you would be whining about it.

rubadub wrote:

Tobacco can in fact be hallucinogenic, I have seen people falling over and puking from smoking tobacco, native americans took it to excess. But most people using it don't, makes me wonder why they bother with such an apparently useless drug if you are not even getting high off it? oh yeah, the "enjoyment" i.e. staving off the withdrawl symptoms. Fair enough...

We are not native Americans, are we?

And to answer your other unfounded argument, the body produces small amounts of nicotine naturally. Smoking increases the amount of nicotine in our bodies. If we then stop smoking, the nicotine levels drop and thebody can't produce enough. Hence the addiction, and hence the reason we continue to smoke.

rubadub wrote:

potential for harm to oneself is the main reason most drugs are not allowed into public use, why do you think there are so many drug trials carried out on all pharmaceuticals?

Which I clearly cover in the rest of my statement.

rubadub wrote:

e.g. passive smoking... I wouldnt have as much of a problem with tobacco if people used it in another way, i.e. chewing it. I would still be upset at the hypocritical laws in place.

The passive smoking issue is covered! We can smoke in our own homes, and outdoors. Thats it. So stay out of our homes, and out of our way on the street and your singing.

rubadub wrote:

Many drugs have the potential for this, people can get hallucinations from OTC cough medicine and hayfever tablets, at least these do have sound medical uses too, what is the excuse for tobacco? (on which you can also get into an intoxicated state)

I've explained the "use" of tobacco (yes it's not very useful, but once we're addicted it is to us), but use aside, it is still legal and it is within our rights to smoke it under the laws placed upon us.

And I have never been intoxicated from smoking, have never met anyone that has, and refuse to acknowledge the statement unless you provide proof, assuming it does not relate to native Americans which, as I've pointed out, we are not.

rubadub wrote:

So you are saying "no", as in no, most drunk people DO actually piss, spill or puke their booze on you? please let me know your local so I can avoid it.

Yes, that is what I am saying, I don't believe that I was being cryptic...

rubadub wrote:

more likely than 50/50, i.e. most? jesus lads, you have it rough, I have never been pissed or puked on, I have had drinks spilled that needed my clothes changed once or twice in my life, but almost every time I went to a smoky pub I needed to do that.

The pubs are no longer a haze of secondary smoke, we've covered this, however drunk people are still emptying the contents of their stomach in an unsavoury manner, but again, this thread is not about drunk people, so we can give that a rest.

rubadub wrote:

hmmm I'll take that to mean you wouldnt like the glue sniffer in your local,

... Nor is the thread about glue sniffers... I don't like to repeat myself, the thread is about smoking... why pick on the glue sniffers?

rubadub wrote:

I wouldnt be moaning about not being let burn my plant of choice in an enclosed public place either.

I repeat - I retracted that part of the argument, therefore the "moaning about not being allowed to burn my plant of choice" bit is irrelevant and has been quashed, as has everything else. Each "argument" put forward has been picked apart piece by piece, as will what you come up with next.

(I don't want you to take offence to anything I write, I'm just sarcastic this morning... it's early, I'm hungry)

rubadub wrote:

Tobacco can in fact be hallucinogenic, I have seen people falling over and puking from smoking tobacco, native americans took it to excess. But most people using it don't, makes me wonder why they bother with such an apparently useless drug if you are not even getting high off it? oh yeah, the "enjoyment" i.e. staving off the withdrawl symptoms. Fair enough...

*agrees with Mirror* we are not Native Americans.

rubadub wrote:

e.g. passive smoking... I wouldnt have as much of a problem with tobacco if people used it in another way, i.e. chewing it. I would still be upset at the hypocritical laws in place.

Gr. Arg. Covered it already. We smoke outside. Passive smoking? Where?

rubadub wrote:

Many drugs have the potential for this, people can get hallucinations from OTC cough medicine and hayfever tablets, at least these do have sound medical uses too, what is the excuse for tobacco? (on which you can also get into an intoxicated state)

- an intoxicated state from the use of tobacco? We'd better not drive then, or operate heavy machinery! :rolleyes:

OctavarIan

Fighting Irish wrote:

So the price of smokes is more than likely gonna go up again and also they're banning boxes of 10 smokes........I think us smokers are getting screwed because parents/government can't control the kids these days and stop them from smoking :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: Muck This

*arrives late*

Ok, I haven't read the entire thread (no time), but was the actual reason for this measure to do with the kids? Or is that just assumption? I would have thought the reason would be to help stop people hugely increasing the risk of getting cancer and dying.

OctavarIan wrote:

*arrives late*

Ok, I haven't read the entire thread (no time), but was the actual reason for this measure to do with the kids? Or is that just assumption? I would have thought the reason would be to help stop people hugely increasing the risk of getting cancer and dying.

According to an article in the Irish Times, Tuesday, October 3rd 2006 - "Anti-smoking campaigners have long sought a ban on packages of 10, because of their appeal to teenage boys." - whilst I disagree with the use of "teenage boys" as this also applies to girls, this statement says it all. I am sure that you can find many more references to the reasoning behind the ban.

From experience, youngsters may not be able to afford 20 packs each time they purchase cigarettes, and also the boxes are smaller and easier to hide. However there is nothing stopping them from pairing up, and collectively spending money on a 20 pack!?

Mirror wrote:

No, in light of the debating style of this thread, you have no real argument, as was my point earlier. When non-smokers get on to the topic of smoking they rarely have anything to say other than "i dont like it and you all smell bad..."

Regarding your previous post, I am 20, I don't smell, my fingers are not yellow, my skin is not grey, and I don't think I look like I'm aging (in fact if i was to walk in to a pub or two in Dublin I'd probably still get asked for ID) despite smoking for the last 6 years. I also lost my grandmother partially due to her smoking.

Also, we are not trying to convince you that smoking isn't bad, and never have, it is you who is trying to convince us that it is, which we already know.

Lastly, there was no personal insult intended in any of my posts, and I apologise if I caused offence, it was not my intention.

I bet you smell like last week's ashtray petal! Ugh!

And for the smokers:-- Would you mind keeping your smoking to your own homes? It bugs the crap outta me when people exhale in my face! "jeez"! :cool:

senordingdong wrote:

No they shouldn't.
When are people going to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions?

oh I'm sorry, so when the lower class of Enron employees lost their pensions and life's savings, they had a choice did they? They were responsible for that? hmmmm have I missed your point?

OctavarIan wrote:

*arrives late*

Ok, I haven't read the entire thread (no time), but was the actual reason for this measure to do with the kids? Or is that just assumption? I would have thought the reason would be to help stop people hugely increasing the risk of getting cancer and dying.

OMG OctavarIan, we're talking about something really important here - the smokers right to smoke - ... I mean clearly dying and cancer just doesnt' come in to it... thats just loike soooo trivial of you!!!!! :rolleyes:

Backtoblack wrote:

I bet you smell like last week's ashtray petal! Ugh!

Hope you didn't place to much on your bet because that horse didn't come in at all. He smells nothing like last week's ashtray my dear.

Backtoblack wrote:

And for the smokers:-- Would you mind keeping your smoking to your own homes? It bugs the crap outta me when people exhale in my face! "jeez"! :cool:

This has been covered. Read the thread. "jeez"!

cornbb

Backtoblack wrote:

I bet you smell like last week's ashtray petal! Ugh!

And for the smokers:-- Would you mind keeping your smoking to your own homes? It bugs the crap outta me when people exhale in my face! "jeez"! :cool:

Have you been reading this thread at all? If so, why don't you have anything original to contribute? Do you feel better about yourself now? Smokers are a nice easy target, aren't they? Where do you go to find smokers to exhale who your face? It must be pretty much any other country in the world, in Ireland you'd be lucky to find a smoker anywhere the wind isn't blowing the smoke away

Backtoblack wrote:

OMG OctavarIan, we're talking about something really important here - the smokers right to smoke - ... I mean clearly dying and cancer just doesnt' come in to it... thats just loike soooo trivial of you!!!!! :rolleyes:

Also covered. We are all aware of what we are "inflicting" on our bodies. Please present a new point....?

Dutchology wrote:

Also covered. We are all aware of what we are "inflicting" on our bodies. Please present a new point....?

Some non-smokers won't go out with smokers... there's a point for you.
I won't. But I'm sure you don't have that to worry about, you're probably all "hooked" up already!
And dutchy, what's with the inverted commas around your "inflicting" above?
You are in fact inflicting much harm to your body. Bet you could do with a nice expensive facial to sort out your yellow-tone half dead skin!

Backtoblack wrote:

Some non-smokers won't go out with smokers... there's a point for you.
I won't. But I'm sure you don't have that to worry about, you're probably all "hooked" up already!
And dutchy, what's with the inverted commas around your "inflicting" above?
You are in fact inflicting much harm to your body. Bet you could do with a nice expensive facial to sort out your yellow-tone half dead skin!

Right, I have to go, but I'll get back to you on this tomorrow. "Inflicting" was because I wanted to use another word but blanked on it and wanted to get the post up before I leave, so I'll think of it when I'm all fresh in the morning! Have a nice evening folks, whilst I go home and book myself in for this facial and desperately try to find a fellow smoker to "hook-up with".... ahem.... Should I even try to defend myself on that.... meh....

cornbb

News for you buddy: YOU'RE GOING TO DIE TOO!!!!

Not referring to anyone in particular, but I'd rather die a smoker than die from falling off my high horse after smelling too many of my own farts...

kizzyr

cornbb wrote:

News for you buddy: YOU'RE GOING TO DIE TOO!!!!

Not referring to anyone in particular, but I'd rather die a smoker than die from falling off my high horse after smelling too many of my own farts...

I wonder if you do actually fall foul of a smoking related lung cancer, COPD, emphysema etc if you'd actually say that.

Fraggle Rocks

kizzyr wrote:

I wonder if you do actually fall foul of a smoking related lung cancer, COPD, emphysema etc if you'd actually say that.

He'll probably find out in a few years. As well he knows.

@ Backtoblack

I smell grand thanks, how's yer pits?

Read the thread and then come back with something original for the smokers amoung us to pick apart, the non-smokers are dropping like flies around here and I'm enjoying the debate!

And I went out with a non-smoker for quite some time, it didn't bother her. Where are your statistics regarding smoker/non-smoker relationships coming from may I ask?

People need to learn how to form and structure their arguments in a debate... :rolleyes:

Fraggle Rocks wrote:

He'll probably find out in a few years. As well he knows.

I can't remember if you are a smoker or not, but it's a valid point either way. If I'm struck with lung cancer, sure I'll be pissed, but you won't catch me whining about it.

il gatto

I'm anti Coronation Street. It directly affects peoples intellect if they watch it. I'd like it banned, but I don't see that happening. I'm going to have a smoke and consider how I can tax the hell out of people who watch soaps and justify it on the grounds that it affects them in a negative way :rolleyes:

kizzyr

Mirror wrote:

I can't remember if you are a smoker or not, but it's a valid point either way. If I'm struck with lung cancer, sure I'll be pissed, but you won't catch me whining about it.

There is only one way to know if that will be the case or not and while I may be anti smoking I would never wish a death like that on anyone, it really is a horrendous way to die.