Which Is The Worst Cigarette Butt Grot Spot?

[Lost Login]

The analogies you use are extreme and over simplistic. If people congregate now to smoke in a pub and tomorrow it is made illegal to do so, yet remains legal to smoke at home or on the street - then that does constitute a breach on civil liberties on a specific group of people.

 

A closer analogy to driving that might constitute a breach of your civil liberties might be: that in order to curb global warming the government decide to ban all driving at weekends, but say, as you only work weekends, then in order to get to work you are forced to walk 20 miles as you cannot drive or even get a bus on a Saturday or Sunday. Wouldn't you argue that instead we should all be allowed to drive for five days, rather than ban all driving at weekends? Wouldn't you consider that the rights of weekend workers were being unfairly affected - or would you just blindly accept it?

 

Civil liberties are extremely important and are very relevant to this argument. It is down to people like you that blindly acccept such changes who have sold out many of our civil liberties over the past five years.

 

Since you seem to understand simplistic analogies so well, try this one. It is always easy to run downhill, but sometimes it is best to stop and look back, if only to realise how far you have to climb back to get back to where you started from.

 

Yes my analogy are simple and extreme. It is a public internet forum which does not lend itself for long comlicated and coplex issues. In my view the civil libities issue is a complete red herring. I have not argued for or against smoking and there are plenty of valid issue that both sides can be put.

 

I am not sure what your argument is. That it is an infringement not to be able to do something in public that you can not do at home or that they are potentially making something illegal to do in public but will still be able to do at home? There are many things that I can do at home that I am not allowed to do in public equally they have brought in laws making something illegal to do in public but are still able to do at home. e.g the new laws on drinking in public.

 

Anything that stops you doing something is by definition stopping your civil libity to do something. Wether that law has long been in existence or newly enabled. Society makes a decision what those things should be and the boundries lie. If anybody disagrees thety can have changed or they have the "civil libity" to break the law and face the consequences.

 

In respect to your argument on cars my view on the issue would be based on many facts not simply "oh it is a curtailment of a civil libity and we can not have that". If it was going to stop global warming I might be in favour if it was not then I might be against. I weigh up the arguments and do not rely on dogma. In fact what you argue does exist already in the UK with pedestrianisation.

 

Finally you have no idea about me and to state that it is that because of people like me our civil libities have been eroded over the past five years is ridiculous. I may be for or against their errosian but if I am against then I can stand up and argue or protest. If I feel strong enough I may even break the law accepting the consequences if i do so. But in doing so I would argue the facts and reason of my case not witter on about about the infringement of my civil libities. I will leave you with this thought if you were arguing the case for freedom of speech and expression would it be better to put a detailed arguement together for all the advanatges or stand up and say we must have otherwise it is a curtailment of civil libities. It may be but it does not argue the cause.

[Albert Tatlock]

The civil liberties argument is a load of old shite, and carries about as much weight as pissheads demanding the right to drive around drunk.

 

The fact of the matter is that passive smoking causes, real, appreciable harm to people who don't smoke, and who don't want to smoke.

 

I don't have a right to foist my weaknesses onto smokers, and they don't have the right to foist theirs upon me.

 

Here's some friendly help for fucking idiots.

I take your point. Perhaps we should take things much further to protect people. Perhaps we should assess all members of this forum upon joining and even annually, to ensure that we are not talking to criminals (not forgetting that criminals include speeders).

 

Again, you go around in circles. No one is asking you to share a pub with a smoker, only that there will be a certain percentage of pubs for them to go to - well away from you - and your car

[Mr. Sausages]

Nicely put Albert - although I fear the forces of self-righteous intolerance are already at the door and unwilling to listen.

 

At least the estimated £40,000 a day net* contribution we make via our taxes is doing some good.

 

 

 

* In the UK, tobacco revenue was reported recently as (IIRC - no time to Google) £9 billion, with £2.5 billion going back into the NHS to pay for the treatment of smoking-related disease. We usually mirror UK stats, and I also heard the IOM earns £55k a day from smokers.

 

This belief that smokers are somehow doing society a favour is a really naive argument. It they ban cigarettes they'll just tax something else to maintain the revenue, and then they won't have to pay as much to clean up the streets, or treat smoking related illnesses.

[Albert Tatlock]

Yes my analogy are simple and extreme. It is a public internet forum which does not lend itself for long comlicated and coplex issues.

What? !!!

[Lost Login]

Yes my analogy are simple and extreme. It is a public internet forum which does not lend itself for long comlicated and coplex issues.

What? !!!

 

Ok I miss spelt Complex as coplex just as I have miss spelt liberties. It does not take away from the fact that an internet foum where the average post is a few paragraphs does not lend itself to complex discussions on the finer points of an argument.

[Albert Tatlock]

Yes my analogy are simple and extreme. It is a public internet forum which does not lend itself for long comlicated and coplex issues.

What? !!!

 

Ok I miss spelt Complex as coplex just as I have miss spelt liberties. It does not take away from the fact that an internet foum where the average post is a few paragraphs does not lend itself to complex discussions on the finer points of an argument.

I meant what?!!! in the sense that this forum does give you the chance to put quite complex arguments as you get the time to think about things, as can be seen in many threads - it's not exactly a quick fire chat room.

 

The only things that stop complicated and complex arguments from developing on here are peoples brains, having forthright opinions and, in this case, complete indifference toward the rights of 30% of the population.

[Shadey Burger]

What I do mind is the piles of butts outside buildings where there is a bin provided. It is a filthy habit, your clothes smell and your breath smells not to mention what harm it does to your insides. Some of my colleagues who smoke absolutly stink when they come back into the office and i find it offensive having to sit next to them and so I tell them the truth that they stink hoping it will embarrasse them into quitting!

[Lost Login]

What I do mind is the piles of butts outside buildings where there is a bin provided.

 

That is the laziness of society as a whole and also the disregard of many people for the enviroment. It is not soley smokers but it does offend me when I see a smoker wind down his car window so he can throw out a butt just as I get annoyed when I see cans or paper wrappers getting thown out. There is a good book by Carl Hiason (probably missspelling) called Sick Puppy where the central character gets really wound up by this behaviour and takes his revenge. Sometimes I feel likewise especially when you see a door of a parked car open and the rubbish be dropped on the floor when there is a bin a couple of feet away. But the chances are if you say anything if you are lucky you only get the verbals so like the majority I stay stum.

[Lost Login]

The only things that stop complicated and complex arguments from developing on here are peoples brains, having forthright opinions and, in this case, complete indifference toward the rights of 30% of the population.

 

I would not say there is indifference towards the "30% of the population" I would say that people many are very strong in their views and just as the 30% might argue many of 70% may pay little consideration to the 30% the 70% may argue the 30% have in the past paid little consideration to the 70%

[Albert Tatlock]

I would not say there is indifference towards the "30% of the population" I would say that people many are very strong in their views and just as the 30% might argue many of 70% may pay little consideration to the 30% the 70% may argue the 30% have in the past paid little consideration to the 70%

That is generalising e.g. murderers are people, therefore all people are murderers.

[Lost Login]

I would not say there is indifference towards the "30% of the population" I would say that people many are very strong in their views and just as the 30% might argue many of 70% may pay little consideration to the 30% the 70% may argue the 30% have in the past paid little consideration to the 70%

That is generalising e.g. murderers are people, therefore all people are murderers.

 

I do not believe it is but for effing sake if it is I was only responding to your generalisation in the first place.

[Lonan3]

The fact of the matter is that passive smoking causes, real, appreciable harm to people who don't smoke, and who don't want to smoke.

 

Here's some friendly help for fucking idiots.

 

In 1992 the American Environmental Protection Agency published a report that was said to demonstrate the link between passive smoking and ill health in non-smokers. In 1996 however a US federal court ruled that the EPA had completely failed to prove its case. It was found not only to have abandoned recognised statistical practice, but to have excluded studies which did not support its pre-determined conclusion, and to have been inconsistent in its classification of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) compared with other substances.

In 1997, the National Health & Medical Research Council in Australia was found guilty by a federal court judge of acting improperly in preparing its draft report on passive smoking because it didn't consider all the relevant scientific evidence and submissions.

In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not 'statistically significant'. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer has been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people's tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people's eyes, it is no risk at all.

In July 1999, in its draft Approved Code of Practice on Smoking at Work, the United Kingdom's Health and Safety Commission declared that, 'Proving beyond reasonable doubt that passive smoking ... was a risk to health is likely to be very difficult, given the state of the scientific evidence.'

In January 2003 a coalition of anti-smoking charities claimed that 12 million British workers (half the workforce) are worried about passive smoking, despite the fact that only three million (according to anti-smoking sources) are estimated to experience tobacco smoke at work.

[Stu Peters]

Governments and quangos seem to misrepresent 'statistics' with impunity though these days.

 

Bit like the revelation a couple of weeks ago in the Department for Transport's OWN figures that actually, only 4% of accidents involving injury are caused by people exceeding a posted speed limit (and those include joyriders and drunks). Yet we've all been whipped into a frenzy by 'speed kils' and 'kill your speed and not a child' campaigns over the last 20 years.

 

Fact is, it's easier to get a conviction and a fine out of a generally law-abiding working man or woman - who will hold their hands up and cop for an automated conviction - than it is to clamp down on the 30% of drivers in the UK who don't have road tax, a licence or any insurance. The latter category knows how the system works and are no strangers to social reports, paying a quid a month and getting slapped wrists.

 

Back on thread...I KNOW that smoking is bad for me (although I'm with Lonan3's post in that I think the risk of passive smoking is unproven) and I really DON'T want to inflict it on people who find it offensive. But I DO think we smokers should have a right to 'smoking dens' once the new laws come in.

[Max Power]

I think you need a lesson about the effects of pure opium on an entire society.

 

Erm....no I don't, I was pointing out a medical fact, not a social one.

There are many people addicted who recieve morphine on a daily basis with no ill effects and live fruitful normal lives.

I am all too aware of the problems of misuse of this and any drug.

[Lost Login]

Back on thread...I KNOW that smoking is bad for me (although I'm with Lonan3's post in that I think the risk of passive smoking is unproven) and I really DON'T want to inflict it on people who find it offensive. But I DO think we smokers should have a right to 'smoking dens' once the new laws come in.

 

I find it difficult to believe that these days educated individuals can argue that the risk of passive smoking is unprove. There is plenty of evidence, research and trials out there and of it is fairly easily to obtain summaries of although I would recommend that the ASH and Forrest sites are ignored as they are peddling their own agenda either for and against and are not exactlty neutral on the issue. There are also studies by both sides which are bisaed and poorly set up and researched.

 

To update Lonan there is much more recent research and he could look at a study by the University College London reported in New Scientist in 2004

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4998

 

or alternateively BUPA gives a succinct impartial overview pointing out areas of weakness in somew quoted research

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/h...70503smoke.html

 

Finally the BMA are convinced and that is good enough for me.

 

Having said all that I do agree that I find it hard to disagree that if a group of smokers want to set up a private smokers club then they should be allowed to. I presume it would have to be staffed and run by the members though.

 

Believing that their should be a right to a smoking area in a premise, enclosed or otherwise is more difficult to argue the merits for as I believe that the legislation is partly intended to protect workers, so who is going to work in this area i.e. serve, clean etc. In addition I think the horse has now bolted and if smokers had wanted this to be agreed the smart thing would have been for years ago to see the issue coming and campaign for it to be compulsory for there to be smoke free areas in pubs or resatuarants. They might have also grabbed the moral high ground. If that was already in place the new legislation may not have been introduced or would have had less support. Similarly pubs arguing arguing that they could fit better ventilation is too little too late. If they had done so before the issue might not have arisen. now it has I can not see there being any turning back