La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Yes, and I'd happily back the full banning of them too. Why should kids be exposed to addictive substances in the home just because they're born to a smoker. Because nobody, even the State should have the ability let alone the right to tell people what they cannot do in their homes. Although I recognise the selfishness of parents smoking around their children, it is disgusting. But you cannot have state just issue laws about what people can and cannot with their bodies JUST IN CASE the smoke might reach the child. Look to alternative methods to educate people. And banning cigarettes is the same, people should be able to choose, as they do with this drug, whether they want to use it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Because nobody, even the State should have the ability let alone the right to tell people what they cannot do in their homes. Get a grip! Murder? Rape? Abuse? Making bombs? All fine provided it's behind closed doors? Although I recognise the selfishness of parents smoking around their children, it is disgusting. But you cannot have state just issue laws about what people can and cannot with their bodies JUST IN CASE the smoke might reach the child. Look to alternative methods to educate people. And banning cigarettes is the same, people should be able to choose, as they do with this drug, whether they want to use it or not. It's not just in case though is it, if you smoke in the company of a child, they will inhale it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Get a grip! Murder? Rape? Abuse? Making bombs? All fine provided it's behind closed doors? Sorry, I did mean in respect of people taking drugs in their home. When far more can be done to educate people and parents in the harmfulness of passive smoking the last thing that should happen is for the state to dictate place bans on peoples behaviour. It's not just in case though is it, if you smoke in the company of a child, they will inhale it. What sort of law would you be talking about? If you HAVE a child, you cannot smoke in your house or just a complete ban on people smoking in their homes. The latter is what I thought you meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Who cares? People are living too long anyway. What is the point of all this nanny health shit? Giving up smoking prolongs life...yipppeeee! More old people on more pointless pills to keep them alive when they could have just died of a 'smoking related' illness, I certainly do not want to be living when it pains me to walk, talk and I feel like Im being a burden to my family (regarless of them thinking it or otherwise). It is quite ridiculous that they actually employ someone to report this rubbish. Rubbish, you say? A friend of mine nearly died of throat cancer, the cause of which was attributed to passive smoking. He was 45 when he got it. There is a strong correlation between smoking and stupidity, and the comments in this thread are further evidence of it. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is a strong correlation between smoking and stupidity, and the comments in this thread are further evidence of it. That'll be a negative correlation of course. Shoite Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The anti-smoking business has become as big as the pro-smoking business - Come, come. Where are the huge multi-national companies that make money from "anti-smoking"? S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is a strong correlation between smoking and stupidity, and the comments in this thread are further evidence of it. That'll be a negative correlation of course. Shoite None so blind as those that WILL not see. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollag Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is a strong correlation between smoking and stupidity, and the comments in this thread are further evidence of it. That'll be a negative correlation of course. Shoite None so blind as those that WILL not see. S Sorry, couldnt resist it but Albert Einstein smoked, he was pretty smart, on the other hand Hitler didnt, he was the Anti smoking fascist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 There is a strong correlation between smoking and stupidity, and the comments in this thread are further evidence of it. That'll be a negative correlation of course. Shoite None so blind as those that WILL not see. S Sorry, couldnt resist it but Albert Einstein smoked, he was pretty smart, on the other hand Hitler didnt, he was the Anti smoking fascist. Einstein was unaware of the connection between smoking and ill-health. In his day, people thought smoking was good for you. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendytoy Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Sorry, couldnt resist it but Albert Einstein smoked, he was pretty smart, on the other hand Hitler didnt, he was the Anti smoking fascist. Nazi. The word you want is Nazi (sorry, couldn't resist it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 The anti-smoking 'industry' comprises all the taxpayer-funded anti-smoking jobs. Good job the tobacco taxes fund them so well (the irony). IIRC, of every £100 I spend on smokes, £80 is taxes and duties, and around 20% of that is spent on treating smoking-related illnesses. Nice earner. We have a number of people in the Isle of Man who make their entire living by telling us that smoking is A Bad Thing. I'm sure they're right, and if they help people to quit, it's money well spent. It just strikes me that it's more about the ability to create a righteous fuss with many anti-smokers. They don't smoke, so don't think anyone else should be allowed to, and revel in the chance to vilify those of us who do. There's NO reason why there can't be provision for smokers - just silly excuses. LDV - smoking in the home WILL be banned in time...after they've stopped us ALL smoking in our cars (you can't smoke in a company car now, which is a nonsense). I saw on Border News last night that patients in a Cumbrian hospital now have to carry their IV drips completely off hospital property to have a cigarette - where's the compassion in that? Forbes - I'm sorry about your friend. I've lost friends and family to cancer, but isn't there a chance that it's too easy a culprit when someone asks 'how did I get this'? Sorry to add a post AFTER the Nazi finale... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 It just strikes me that it's more about the ability to create a righteous fuss with many anti-smokers. They don't smoke, so don't think anyone else should be allowed to, and revel in the chance to vilify those of us who do. There's NO reason why there can't be provision for smokers - just silly excuses. LDV - smoking in the home WILL be banned in time...after they've stopped us ALL smoking in our cars (you can't smoke in a company car now, which is a nonsense). If smoking is the banned in the home, and I really am not sure whether it will be, it will be a set-up way too far for the government. It would be absolutely outrageous for them to legislate on such a thing. Besides, where do they expect people to smoke? I saw on Border News last night that patients in a Cumbrian hospital now have to carry their IV drips completely off hospital property to have a cigarette - where's the compassion in that? Yes it is shocking that you have to remove yourself from PROPERTY before you can have a fag. Why the hell can't you just got outside in the car park or round the corner from the door? You can't smoke on railways property, on hospital grounds, on a businesses property, on the 'property' of a public building, etc. You could be having a smoke on a railway platform with nobody about, causing no harm to anyone yet be be breaking a law and risking a hefty fine. But then I suppose if nobody is there then go ahead and light up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendytoy Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 It just strikes me that it's more about the ability to create a righteous fuss with many anti-smokers. They don't smoke, so don't think anyone else should be allowed to, and revel in the chance to vilify those of us who do. There's NO reason why there can't be provision for smokers - just silly excuses. I do understand what you're saying but I think it must just depend on which corner you're in because, as a non-smoker, all the righteous fuss I hear is from smokers bemoaning the theft of their rights and aggressively tackling non-smokers for occupying (so they think) some moral high ground. It's just not always the case. I don't smoke, as I said, but I don't for a second think that other people shouldn't be allowed to. I understand why people want to keep smoking, even through the throes of emphysema etc. I don't want to deny anyone anything just because it's not for me - that doesn't make sense? On that basis, I'd be calling for all sorts of things to be banned - gardening, jetskis, pilates.... I also agree that the place where people's personal habits and health legislation have intersected is characterised by all sorts of couldn't-make-it-up nonsense. The example you cite of the people on IV drips. People who've been fined for smoking in their vans because their van is their workplace. There will always be stories like this, just like there'll always be an apocryphal grandfather/mother who smoked 90 a day and lived to be 105 (claiming Everest on their 105th birthday etc). But forget about the big, bad nanny state for a minute. I don't understand why people want to try and disprove the link between smoking/passive smoking and cancer (apart from fear, denial...), particularly when it comes to the issue of smoking in shared spaces. Is it SO important to be able to satisfy your habit at the expense of other people's health, when, with a little consideration, you can just do it the expense of your own? In all the years that smoking was permitted in pubs and restaurants in so forth, were smokers surrounded by people queuing up to vilify them? The way I remember it, non-smokers just put up and shut up, or went somewhere else. Then things change, and overnight, toys fly thick and fast out of smokers' prams. It's not non-smokers saying 'we don't smoke so you shouldn't be allowed to', but smokers saying 'we smoke so you should share the consequences'. A mate of mine put it best. As a heavy smoker, he grumbled about the ban in pubs but said, 'it's far from ideal but if I oppose it, I'm basically arguing for my right to give us both lung or throat cancer. It might be my terminal illness of choice but it's not yours'. He quit, anyway - and says his health is x50 better (and yes, it's a real friend, not an urban myth). But I think ans hit the nail on the head back at the start with his 'baby' comment. Some (not all) smokers seem to live in a protracted childhood state where they don't understand why everything can't revolve around them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
%age Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I love smoking threads, they're brillo! sarahc I used the "brillo" retort in another thread and hadn't realised that it had been used earlier today by you. Of course it should be used sparingly but with effect, so my bad, as they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 15, 2009 Author Share Posted January 15, 2009 But I think ans hit the nail on the head back at the start with his 'baby' comment. Some (not all) smokers seem to live in a protracted childhood state where they don't understand why everything can't revolve around them. I disagree. The thread was about the pseudo-science and propaganda used to back the claim that the smoking ban has actually led to a reduction in smoking in the home, and children are less exposed to smoke at home on the island. Ans' reply did not add to that debate at all. All this claimed while people no longer have pubs to go to, off licence sales have increased and people spend more time at home drinking - AND whilst smoking prevalence remains much the same. It's wishful thinking and propaganda, and the studies bogus by their methods (using indicative levels of, and not time of exposure, and telephone surveys). The thread wasn't about smoking in pubs at all initially. If you want to believe it then do so. But then again the world is full of people that'll believe anything there told these days if it suits them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.