Smokers getting a rough ride?

Dutchology · 06-12-2006 01:40PM

Backtoblack wrote:

Oh ffs, you lot are just crying out for addiction help! We bored with your weak will and endless excuses and bravado about your (pathetic actually) smoking - we're not dropping off like flies - we're sick of giving a **** about people that don't give a **** about themselves or the high PRSI that we're all landed with to pay for your endless chest infections and your cancer treatments etc etc.
People need to learn how to reform and grow up a bit to keep people interesting in debates relating to addictions and selfishness!
Yawn. new topic!

Addiction help? That's what the helpline is for, and I'm sure we can give them a ring if we so desire, which we don't! Obviously we don't want to quit smoking, if we did, we'd try. If you're so sick of giving a damn about us, or the taxes paid by each and every one of us, including the smokers, then give up on us, let us rest in peace (please excuse the morbidity...)

Decided not to book myself in for that facial after all - it turns out I haven't had any complaints on how I look, and if I need one that badly, well there's an idea for what I want for Christmas! Lol... (sweetheart, don't take that seriously, I'd hurt you...)

New topic? Find another thread that you haven't read and dive right in there with arguments that have already been hung out to dry... Isn't that how this works? :rolleyes:

Fighting Irish · 06-12-2006 01:46PM

This thread wasn't meant to be about smokers vs. non smokers

Its about how all smokers get punished because parents/government are too lazy to help prevent young people from starting to smoke.

rubadub · 06-12-2006 01:46PM

Mirror wrote:

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.

I am trying to say it was more likely to have to change your clothes from incosiderate smokers than incosiderate drunks. I have met a higher % of incosiderate smokers who would freely stink up my clothes thinking it is their right, than drunks who puke and piss all over the place thinking it is their right. I was in no way saying smokers would be pissing on you, just as people drinking will not stink up your clothes with smoke:rolleyes: .

Before the smoking ban there were very few people who would go outside the pub to be considerate to those who did not smoke. It took an actual law to be in place before they would do this. There are many other things people can do if they choose to, with no laws in place. If you are working in a small office with many people there is no law in place to say you must go outside the room to have a fart or big belch, most would though, common consideration.

Mirror wrote:

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.

In the last few years it has not gone up much at all, dunno if it even has gone up the same as inflation or drink. My point was that you don't know how good you have it, allowed to freely enjoy the most addictive drug known to mankind while others sit in jail for smoking drugs from other plants. And believe me, if I could enjoy any drug I wanted, in the same price range as cigarettes and rised in price the same way, I would be very happy and not whining at all.

Mirror wrote:

We are not native Americans, are we?

You were making out that it was not an intoxicant, I was saying that it can be, simple as that. If I had not mentioned native americans I would have expected somebody to say "name one person who gets high on tobacco", and I would have said native americans. I know many people who smoke to the point of intoxication, I have done so myself, I do not see any reason to smoke it otherwise, the only enjoyment is getting rid of the withdrawl symptoms from not taking it. People are stressed by the withdrawl symptoms, therefore they presume the cigs are actually giving them stress relief, vicious circle of abuse.
There is not some weird genetic makeup in native americans anybody can get intoxicated from nicotine, try looking at www.erowid.org for trip reports from users if you do not believe a word I say.

Mirror wrote:

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.

You were mentioning reasons drugs were banned, which you said included potential harm to others. People still smoke in front of kids, should that not be banned by your logic? is it not just easier to ban them completely like every other drug.

If tobacco was only discovered today would you think it should be legal?

rubadub · 06-12-2006 01:59PM

Dutchology wrote:

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

I just found it incredibly hard to believe!, from my own experiences I have never been in a pub where 50%+ of people who were drunk were pissing & puking all over other people. When it was legal I did find most smokers did stay inside stinking up the place and peoples clothes.

Dutchology wrote:

Passive smoking? Where?:

The home, incosiderate people poisoning defenceless children, "ahh but sure I'll keep doing that coz its legal, fuk em"

Dutchology wrote:

Each "argument" put forward has been picked apart piece by piece, as will what you come up with next.

No it hasnt, each one has been avoided and dismissed because you already know the answers, they are almost rhetorical questions since I and you know the answers, all you can come up with is "its legal" "we are not talking about that so you cannot make any discussions about directly similar things"

Dutchology wrote:

*agrees with Mirror* we are not Native Americans.
- an intoxicated state from the use of tobacco? We'd better not drive then, or operate heavy machinery! :rolleyes:

Yes you should not if you are intoxicated, shock horror, irish people can get high on tobacco too :rolleyes:

Dutchology · 06-12-2006 02:49PM

rubadub wrote:

And believe me, if I could enjoy any drug I wanted, in the same price range as cigarettes and rised in price the same way, I would be very happy and not whining at all.

You have previously referred to smoking other plants... Tell me rubadub, do you have an addiction we should know about?

rubadub wrote:

The home, incosiderate people poisoning defenceless children, "ahh but sure I'll keep doing that coz its legal, fuk em

Now this is something I feel very strongly about - smoking in an enclosed space where there are children. Parents should care enough about their children not to smoke in their homes. It is one thing to slowly kill yourself by smoking cigarettes, but it is not right to do the same thing to children. This issue should not even need to be brought up, and I would hope that any of the smokers contributing to this thread would not be stupid enough to smoke where there are children. And please do not apply this reasoning to non-smoking adults, as they can avoid the outdoor smoking areas, and our homes if they have such distaste for what we are doing.....;)

humanji · 06-12-2006 02:56PM

Fighting Irish wrote:

This thread wasn't meant to be about smokers vs. non smokers

Its about how all smokers get punished because parents/government are too lazy to help prevent young people from starting to smoke.

Quiet you!

Dutchology · 06-12-2006 02:57PM

Fighting Irish wrote:

This thread wasn't meant to be about smokers vs. non smokers

Its about how all smokers get punished because parents/government are too lazy to help prevent young people from starting to smoke.

Agreed, though this has become a debate in which I'm enjoying participating in...

megadodge · 06-12-2006 04:02PM

I find it rather ironic that those who enjoy poisoning millions of innocents are calling those who don't want to be poisoned "Nazis" !

Adam · 06-12-2006 04:33PM

rubadub wrote:

I am trying to say it was more likely to have to change your clothes from incosiderate smokers than incosiderate drunks. I have met a higher % of incosiderate smokers who would freely stink up my clothes thinking it is their right, than drunks who puke and piss all over the place thinking it is their right. I was in no way saying smokers would be pissing on you, just as people drinking will not stink up your clothes with smoke:rolleyes: .

Before the smoking ban there were very few people who would go outside the pub to be considerate to those who did not smoke. It took an actual law to be in place before they would do this. There are many other things people can do if they choose to, with no laws in place. If you are working in a small office with many people there is no law in place to say you must go outside the room to have a fart or big belch, most would though, common consideration.

The ban has been in place for 2 years now, isn't it time you let this go? And we were the first country in the world to enforce a ban, yet you whine about it like we were so far behind all these other "civilized" countries...

rubadub wrote:

In the last few years it has not gone up much at all, dunno if it even has gone up the same as inflation or drink. My point was that you don't know how good you have it, allowed to freely enjoy the most addictive drug known to mankind while others sit in jail for smoking drugs from other plants. And believe me, if I could enjoy any drug I wanted, in the same price range as cigarettes and rised in price the same way, I would be very happy and not whining at all.

Well according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, its heroin actually. And it was non-smokers that turned up this argument about the legality of it, it's legal, deal.

rubadub wrote:

You were making out that it was not an intoxicant, I was saying that it can be, simple as that. If I had not mentioned native americans I would have expected somebody to say "name one person who gets high on tobacco", and I would have said native americans. I know many people who smoke to the point of intoxication, I have done so myself, I do not see any reason to smoke it otherwise, the only enjoyment is getting rid of the withdrawl symptoms from not taking it. People are stressed by the withdrawl symptoms, therefore they presume the cigs are actually giving them stress relief, vicious circle of abuse.
There is not some weird genetic makeup in native americans anybody can get intoxicated from nicotine, try looking at www.erowid.org for trip reports from users if you do not believe a word I say.

Erowid is a pile of balls, I don't care what a pack of pot heads have to say. And I found one reference to nicotine intoxication. Snuff. 'S'nuff said.

rubadub wrote:

You were mentioning reasons drugs were banned, which you said included potential harm to others. People still smoke in front of kids, should that not be banned by your logic? is it not just easier to ban them completely like every other drug.

These terms you use... "people" and "kids"... What you mean is parents still smoke in front of their children don't you? I mean I know I don't go down to the local playground to blow smoke at kids. So your issue there is with inconsiderate parents. Because I never smoke around children, and even if and when I have kids myself, if I smoke I'll be doing so outside.

rubadub wrote:

If tobacco was only discovered today would you think it should be legal?

How am I meant to answer that? Do you mean if I could decide? Sure! If you mean based on the democracy based system we live in, impossible to know. It would dependly highly on who discovered it and how, and how the public reacted to it. But that is completely hypothetical bullshít because it's already here, why speculate? To form another rough around the edges argument?

Erin Go Brath · 06-12-2006 04:51PM

If tobacco was discovered today it would be probably be banned like cannabis etc. It just became so mainstream throughout the years that it became acceptable. Its just in recent years that health lobby got it banned in public places. It could be banned completely in another 50 years who knows.

Backtoblack · 06-12-2006 05:40PM

Dutchology wrote:

Agreed, though this has become a debate in which I'm enjoying participating in...

So dutchology..what's with the hollandaise?
Dutch gold? or are you a bit of a Hash-head?
It has to be of the above or something equally as classy & cool!

Adam · 06-12-2006 05:47PM

Backtoblack wrote:

So dutchology..what's with the hollandaise?
Dutch gold? or are you a bit of a Hash-head?
It has to be of the above or something equally as classy & cool!

She's Dutch, go figure :rolleyes:

Here's a new line of fire! If smoking ever gets outlawed entirely in this country, do you think everyone will quit? I won't. I'll have no qualms about turning to the black market. Smokers?

Backtoblack · 06-12-2006 06:02PM

Mirror wrote:

She's Dutch, go figure :rolleyes:

Here's a new line of fire! If smoking ever gets outlawed entirely in this country, do you think everyone will quit? I won't. I'll have no qualms about turning to the black market. Smokers?

Sure you already get your hash from the black market and your cds and your dvds..... Why should you suddenly suffer "qualms" on this one?

Adam · 06-12-2006 06:15PM

Backtoblack wrote:

Sure you already get your hash from the black market and your cds and your dvds..... Why should you suddenly suffer "qualms" on this one?

I do? I wasn't aware of that...

cornbb · 06-12-2006 06:15PM

ireland.com wrote:

Cost of 20 cigarettes to rise by 50 cents from midnight, raising €112m

...

Minister for Health to restrict sales of cigarette pack sizes less than 20

More antismoking measures in the budget. Note how it says "raising €112m", not "causing x amount of smokers to quit". Says it all really :rolleyes:

Adam · 06-12-2006 06:17PM

cornbb wrote:

More antismoking measures in the budget. Note how it says "raising €112m", not "causing x amount of smokers to quit". Says it all really :rolleyes:

Here here!

Dooom · 06-12-2006 06:22PM

Backtoblack wrote:

Sure you already get your hash from the black market and your cds and your dvds..... Why should you suddenly suffer "qualms" on this one?

Lolzor. Actually, that does make perfect sense.

/goes off to find the black market

rubadub · 06-12-2006 06:39PM

Dutchology wrote:

You have previously referred to smoking other plants... Tell me rubadub, do you have an addiction we should know about?

Now this is something I feel very strongly about - smoking in an enclosed space where there are children. Parents should care enough about their children not to smoke in their homes.

The plants I do smoke are not addicitve.
Yes, parents should care enough, but many do not. All drugs should be taken in a responsible manner, many are not and that is part of the reason they are banned. Mirror mentioned potential for harm against other people as a reason that some drugs are illegal. Well since it is still legal to smoke infront of children is this not reason enough for it to be illegal? or banning smoking around people who are not old enough to legally smoke directly. I remember hearing woman in work saying she would never smoke in front of a child, the definition of a child was anyone under 10, second they hit 10 no problem, poison them.
I am talking of common courtesy here, not just legalities, like I mentioned farting in a packed room, you should not have to implement a law to enforce common decency, unforutnately some selfish people make these laws necessary.

Terry · 06-12-2006 07:04PM

rubadub wrote:

The plants I do smoke are not addicitve.

Really?
what plants are these?
It can't be cannabis, because that is addictive and harmful, despite what the stoner websites and paraphanalia tell you.
Who are you to judge tobacco smokers? We are not the ones breaking the law. you are the criminal in this case. the one supporting (albeit indirectly) criminal gangs who have no problem killing people.
Here's a ladder. Come down off your high horse.

rubadub · 06-12-2006 07:07PM

Mirror wrote:

The ban has been in place for 2 years now, isn't it time you let this go? And we were the first country in the world to enforce a ban, yet you whine about it like we were so far behind all these other "civilized" countries...

let what go? the fact I am claiming I had to have to change my clothes from inconsiderate smokers than inconsiderate drunks. I am not whining about the price of my drugs (legally available or not), I am not whining that I am not allowed enjoy one of my drugs in certain places. (alcohol in public places). The main thing I am whining about is the hypocrisy of the drug laws in this country, and the hypocrisy of people who think their imposing drug abuse should be tolerated by all around them.

Mirror wrote:

Well according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, its heroin actually.

Really? are they talking of illegal drugs? or do they actually have a list or something or somehow describe it explicitly as being more addictive than nicotine. I have studied numerous toxicology textbooks and many medical journals and texts which state nicotine as the most addictive. Most would also regard crack cocaine as more addictive than heroin too. I am not saying the withdrawl symptoms are worse on tobacco than heroin.

Mirror wrote:

Erowid is a pile of balls

So you think they are lying? Go to a medical library and you could find numerous books confirming you can get intoxicated on tobacco. I never once said the average person out there is getting messed up on tobacco, I was simply stating it can happen, I do not see that as grounds for making it illegal.

Mirror wrote:

What you mean is parents still smoke in front of their children don't you? I mean I know I don't go down to the local playground to blow smoke at kids. So your issue there is with inconsiderate parents. Because I never smoke around children, and even if and when I have kids myself, if I smoke I'll be doing so outside

Good, I am glad to hear it. The drug still has the potential to harm children though, that is all I am saying, which was one of the reasons you were saying some drugs are banned. Like most drugs the few inconsiderate users mess it up for all the others.

Mirror wrote:

How am I meant to answer that? Do you mean if I could decide? Sure!

Yep, that is what I meant. It is just that I hate all the point blank "shut up it is legal and thats that", and "shut up thats illegal you cannot compare them". I hate peoples preconcieved ideas about drugs because of their legality, which is mainly due to some polictical reason (rather than health reasons). That was why I brought up the glue sniffing/smoking scenario, a few years ago it would have been perfectly legal to do both in a pub, so people would have to admit to being hypocritical if they were to object to one and not the other. People love to weasel out of arguments about drugs which are really about morality by dragging in legality.

If you mean based on the democracy based system we live in, impossible to know. It would dependly highly on who discovered it and how, and how the public reacted to it.

Impossible to know!? you just put it through the drug trials new drugs must go through, how on earth would it pass? they reckon paracetomol would not be legal if it had been discovered today.

rubadub · 06-12-2006 07:23PM

julep wrote:

Really?
what plants are these?
It can't be cannabis, because that is addictive and harmful, despite what the stoner websites and paraphanalia tell you.

Among a few plants I smoke is lettuce which, like cannabis, has never been proven to be non-addictive either, so some people could consider it addictive with the same logic they determine cannabis to be addicitive. Seeing as a negative cannot be proven in this case.
Or you could use the non medical definitions of addicition, such as it meaning "like", just like how my sister is addicited to coronation street, or my granny is addicited to apple tart, she says she could give up at any time, but keeps on eating them.

Lettuce is also been proven to be harmful when smoked, yet is perfectly legal, bizarre. Only an idiot could think inhaling burning plant matter is not harmful. Maybe lettuce is legal since when lettuce is eaten it is not harmful, just like cannabis.

I also smoke salvia divinorum, perfectly legal and also never proven to be addicitive, kids are allowed smoke it which I do not think is right, do you? it is legal for them to do so after all, and the law seems beyond reproach in your book. And I do also smoke cannabis, only in international waters of course.

julep wrote:

We are not the ones breaking the law. you are the criminal in this case. the one supporting (albeit indirectly) criminal gangs who have no problem killing people.

Yep back to legality over morality.
Many tobacco smokers are breaking the law, I see it in many pubs I go to, thousands are smoking in illegal beer gardens all over the country. Many smokers smoke illegally imported cigarettes also supporting the exact same criminal gangs who have no problem killing people. I do not buy from criminal gangs, cannabis can be grown.

Terry · 06-12-2006 07:33PM

firstly, lettuce is not an intoxicant. cannabis is.
secondly, ever worry about the stink you put on other peoples clothes when you smoke weed?
legality over morality, as opposed to your morality over legality?
what's moral about smoking an illegal and harmful substance?

your arguements just strike me as that of someone who was caught with a bit of weed by the cops and is never going to let it go.
cannabis is illegal, tobacco isn't. get over it. your hippy arguements won't wash with me. long live the establishment.

rubadub · 06-12-2006 08:05PM

julep wrote:

firstly, lettuce is not an intoxicant. cannabis is.

Well at least we do not have another person thinking it is illegal since it is harmful. And what is wrong with intoxicants, there are thousands of intoxicants which have irrefutably been proven to be potentially damaging to health.

Do you think all subtances that can cause intoxiction should be illegal?

Do you drink alcohol? if it was made illegal tomorrow would you view people who brewed there own illegal beer were as "bad" as cannabis eaters?

secondly, ever worry about the stink you put on other peoples clothes when you smoke weed?

On the rare occassions that I do smoke, I do so outside and it is very small amounts, maybe 3 small drags at most, about 1/10th of a gram at most, this gives off very little smoke, even if it was inside it would never be enough to stink up my clothes let alone others sitting near me. I would not smoke inside since I do not like any off smells no matter how small. I have used a vapouriser indoors before which doesnt give off a smell, it is also far better healthwise. I also eat it.
I realise the extreme addicition tobacco users suffer, standing out in the pissing rain outside my office, hopefully that would put off young people from even thinking of starting off on that drug. If it is cold or raining I just don't bother smoking, due to its unaddictive nature this is very easy to do. I have seen people who cannot do without their "joint", but this is tobacco mixed with cannabis, this is what I would consider to be extremely addicitive, mixing a useless addictive drug with one that does give a user pleasure is asking for trouble.

what's moral about smoking an illegal and harmful substance?

I am saying many argue about things simply due to legality, claiming it is bad to take some illegal substances partly because they are harmful yet have no problem with legal harmful substances.

Surely if you think it is morally wrong to ingest harmful substances then this should be the case if they are legal or not.

cannabis is illegal, tobacco isn't.

so A is bad, B is good, don't care about the reasonings behind the legality, the law is unquestionable.

your arguements just strike me as that of someone who was caught with a bit of weed by the cops

Nope, hope I never will, it is a disgusting waste of taxpayers money dealing with such things, just like cracking down on barely illegal beer gardens is, but thats the law.

Dutchology · 06-12-2006 08:15PM

julep wrote:

Here's a ladder. Come down off your high horse.

*pats julep on the back*

rubadub wrote:

I do not buy from criminal gangs, cannabis can be grown.

Did you know that what you're doing is illegal? I'm sure you do *removes julep's ladder* jump down from there instead

rubadub wrote:

let what go? the fact I am claiming I had to have to change my clothes from inconsiderate smokers

Yes, please do let that go. It's over now. We aren't allowed to smoke in the pubs anymore, rightly so, so if you don't count the smell of alcohol off your breath, the weed and lettuce (:rolleyes:) off your clothes, and the sweat from your pits, you can go home smelling fresh as a daisy!

Backtoblack wrote:

So dutchology..what's with the hollandaise?
Dutch gold? or are you a bit of a Hash-head?
It has to be of the above or something equally as classy & cool!

Darling, I neither drink Dutch Gold, nor smoke Hash, you're confusing me with rubadub!

Mirror wrote:

She's Dutch, go figure :rolleyes:

Terry · 06-12-2006 08:16PM

sorrty. i edited your post by mistake. i think it's fixed properly now.

anyway, the answer to all of the above questions is yes.

rubadub · 06-12-2006 08:31PM

julep wrote:

anyway, the answer to all of the above questions is yes.

Fine, so you drink yourself and think if it was illegal that drinkers are as bad as cannabis users. So your real problem is simply that I am breaking the law.

Thats fine, I also record the news the odd time on the TV, I am probably going to hell for that illegal act too :rolleyes:

rubadub · 06-12-2006 08:39PM

Dutchology wrote:

Did you know that what you're doing is illegal?

I sure do, I don't grow it myself, I am given it by a person who does.
It is illegal for me to smoke it, I know it is illegal, so what? Does my smoking affect you in a bad way?

Do you think I should go to prison for smoking 0.1g of cannabis in my garden at the weekends reaching just threshold effects? Would you like your taxes paid housing me in prison.

Thank christ some judges out there throw such crazy cases out. Do you do anything illegal yourself? record stuff off the TV, rip cds to mp3s, drop cigarette butts on the ground in public, even tipping ash in public places is technically illegal.

Terry · 06-12-2006 08:46PM

rubadub wrote:

Does my smoking affect you in a bad way?

And there we have it, folks.

Does my smoking affect you in a bad way?
Does anyones?
you don't know me. i'm nowhere near you. does my smoking affect you in a bad way? no. it doesn't.

if that's your attitude, then what the hell are you arguing about?

Dutchology · 06-12-2006 08:56PM

rubadub wrote:

I sure do, I don't grow it myself, I am given it by a person who does.
It is illegal for me to smoke it, I know it is illegal, so what? Does my smoking affect you in a bad way?

It is legal for me to smoke. Does my legal smoking affect you in a bad way?:rolleyes:

rubadub wrote:

Do you think I should go to prison for smoking 0.1g of cannabis in my garden at the weekends reaching just threshold effects? Would you like your taxes paid housing me in prison.

No I would not, however my taxes certainly aren't going towards tobacco smokers ending up in jail for smoking their "drug of choice"!

rubadub wrote:

drop cigarette butts on the ground in public

Something else that I dislike, even as a smoker. There are ashtrays and litterbins provided for that and they should be used. This is something else that has been covered earlier on in this thread.

Dutchology · 06-12-2006 09:02PM

julep wrote:

And there we have it, folks.

Does my smoking affect you in a bad way?
Does anyones?
you don't know me. i'm nowhere near you. does my smoking affect you in a bad way? no. it doesn't.

if that's your attitude, then what the hell are you arguing about?

that's what we've all been wondering!

Smokers getting a rough ride?

Comments