The smoking topic.

[Dog-amoto]

I used to smoke a couple of years ago - gave up - feel much better now. My senses of taste and smell are better, I can exercise more easily and for some reason, I don't get anywhere near the amount of colds I used to (before they used to last for weeks, now it's a few days)

 

But we are in a nanny state nowadays. I am happy that I quit smoking, but I wouldn't (couldn't be bothered) try to force my views onto somebody else. As long as I'm not eating, I don't mind people smoking around me.

[Ellmeister]

I've tried to get my mummy to quit lots of times and she says she can quit whenever she wants. But can she?

 

Do you smokers actually find it really addictive or is it addictive but you don't feel it is?

[ReZourceman]

Smoking is made of anti-lolz.

[Twozzok]

I've tried to get my mummy to quit lots of times and she says she can quit whenever she wants. But can she?

 

Do you smokers actually find it really addictive or is it addictive but you don't feel it is?

 

I'd say it's more psychologically addictive, like it gets into your daily routine.

[jayseven]

Shiekah; in response to your quoting me earlier; you didn't even retort the entire post, you missed my points.

 

In response to your latter arguing; you're a very hypocritical thinker, and a very biased one. You need to be more objective and able to take other perspectives before anyone will take your own seriously at all.

 

And you need to realise that second hand smoke at the scale you keep talking of is surely more of an irritation than a serious detrimental health problem?

 

I think the smoker's main argument is that if we want to get a piercing, or a tattoo, or have a cigarette, or a sex change, then why not? It is our choice as individual, alive people to live our lives how we please.

 

Alcohol's been banned before. Alcohol is a drug. As you say, recreational use is fine so long as nobody gets hurt and everyone is responsible. Oh, I'm sure you've been 'responsible' every single time you've gotten drunk, and never drank before the legal age, urinated in public, drank outdoors, or broken any of the rules of society.

 

Smoking is harmful. We get it. But... so what?

[thirtynine.]

I'd say it's more psychologically addictive, like it gets into your daily routine.

Yeah if I dont wake up and go to uni, i dont need a fag till like 3pm because im breaking my routine/habbit, If i do something i dont normally do I dont generaly smoke. I could give up whenever I want, and I know everyone who says that is usually deluded, but I smoke because at the moment I genuinly enjoy it, when I dont anymore I will quit.

 

Also, jayseven see you in the smokers corner at the n-e meet up :P

[Sheikah]

Shiekah; in response to your quoting me earlier; you didn't even retort the entire post, you missed my points.

 

In response to your latter arguing; you're a very hypocritical thinker, and a very biased one. You need to be more objective and able to take other perspectives before anyone will take your own seriously at all.

 

I'll ask you to look up the term hypocrite, I've done nothing hypocritical. If I smoked myself then told people it's bad to smoke, that would be hypocritical. Fact is, I don't.

 

And you need to realise that second hand smoke at the scale you keep talking of is surely more of an irritation than a serious detrimental health problem?

 

Passive smoking results increases the likeliness of getting cancer, this is scientific fact.

 

I think the smoker's main argument is that if we want to get a piercing, or a tattoo, or have a cigarette, or a sex change, then why not? It is our choice as individual, alive people to live our lives how we please.

 

So now you are making me out to be anti-piercing, sexist or whatever? No, clearly I have not said anything bad about the other stuff, there's no problem to health with those anyway. The only reason I disagree with smoking is just because it is such a waste of life and health.

 

Alcohol's been banned before. Alcohol is a drug. As you say, recreational use is fine so long as nobody gets hurt and everyone is responsible. Oh, I'm sure you've been 'responsible' every single time you've gotten drunk, and never drank before the legal age, urinated in public, drank outdoors, or broken any of the rules of society.

 

But as has already been mentioned, alcohol is actually beneficial in reasonable quantities and certainly not a problem to health. Smoking on the other hand has no evidence to say the same, plus the nicotine in cigarettes make them addictive. Sure some people are alcoholics, but the vast majority of people are not addicted to alcohol. There are clear differences, which is why it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be when comparing alcohol and cigarettes.

 

Smoking is harmful. We get it. But... so what?

 

Asbestos is harmful, they banned that. You do realise when I say I think in the future it will be banned that I am just reasonably guessing something which I believe may happen? I am not saying I am personally going to force a smoking ban on the entire world.

[rokhed00]

Thanks for that, you've basically confirmed I don't need to waste any more time talking to you. If you'll discard animal testing so easily and say it's for the deluded, I have no reason to continue talking to you about moral issues. You are one nasty piece of work.

 

thank heavens for that, I was getting sick of your arrogant know it all attitude anyway.

[Sheikah]

Ha ha, the irony. You bluntly speak about everything as if you're always right; it's a waste of time even talking to you.

[rokhed00]

Ha ha, the irony. You bluntly speak about everything as if you're always right; it's a waste of time even talking to you.

 

 

Life experience > text books.

[Sheikah]

Life experience doesn't teach you jack. If you smoke cigarettes all your life you might well think there is nothing wrong with them; if you educate yourself on their effects on the global population you have a much greater understanding.

[rokhed00]

Life experience doesn't teach you jack. If you smoke cigarettes all your life you might well think there is nothing wrong with them; if you educate yourself on their effects on the global population you have a much greater understanding.

 

You keep telling yourself that if it helps justify your boring little life.

[Sheikah]

Yes...my boring little life at University doing well and having fun? What's your life like? Probably not half as interesting. Debating whether to watch Trisha or Jeremy Kyle...

[jayseven]

Yeah if I dont wake up and go to uni, i dont need a fag till like 3pm because im breaking my routine/habbit, If i do something i dont normally do I dont generaly smoke. I could give up whenever I want, and I know everyone who says that is usually deluded, but I smoke because at the moment I genuinly enjoy it, when I dont anymore I will quit.

 

Also, jayseven see you in the smokers corner at the n-e meet up :P

 

I agree - with uni I feel the need to smoke with every break. When I'm at home over teh same time... well ok I'm normally asleep 'til a fair bit past midday, but still!

 

I'll ask you to look up the term hypocrite, I've done nothing hypocritical. If I smoked myself then told people it's bad to smoke, that would be hypocritical. Fact is, I don't.

Then I ask you to read my post properly... I said hypocritical thinker. Try again?

 

Passive smoking results increases the likeliness of getting cancer, this is scientific fact.

What freaking doesn't? Maybe Light bulbs, microwaves, laptops, fizzy drinks, oral sex, mobile phones, red meat (or anything with sodium nitrate, amiright?), hydrogenated oils -- hell, exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer so quick! Ban everyone not wearing suncream. Oh, and not getting enough sun is CANCER too.

 

Oh, don't we all already have cancerous cells in our bodies, anyway?

 

Hell, if you ask heather mills, milk gives you cancer too.

 

So now you are making me out to be anti-piercing, sexist or whatever? No, clearly I have not said anything bad about the other stuff, there's no problem to health with those anyway. The only reason I disagree with smoking is just because it is such a waste of life and health.

So no, I'm not? What i'm trying to do is highlight things which you may indeed be ok with that also cause physical harm, and relating them to smoking. Tattoos and piercings can lead to infections. Infections lead to amputations. Think on that if you're serious enough.

 

 

 

But as has already been mentioned, alcohol is actually beneficial in reasonable quantities and certainly not a problem to health. Smoking on the other hand has no evidence to say the same, plus the nicotine in cigarettes make them addictive. Sure some people are alcoholics, but the vast majority of people are not addicted to alcohol. There are clear differences, which is why it is not as clear cut as you make it out to be when comparing alcohol and cigarettes.

But isn't the 'reasonable quantity' like a glass of red wine a day? Oh yeah, everyone does that, don't they? It's not like there's binge-drinking occuring every day, every night all across the country. I highlight in particular your "alcohol is... certainly not a problem to health" and laugh heartily. You can highlight one part of the body's benefit but, as The Bard says, that does not mean other parts suffer. You don't have to be drinking enough to be defined by a doctor as an alcoholic for alcohol to be causing detrimental effects, you know.

 

Smoking can be beneficial in other ways besides health! That's the point. Smoking can lead to social interaction, to relaxation, to alone-time, whatever. What is clear to me is that you are missing my points, which is why you keep saying that I'm not making any.

 

Your point is smoking is bad, and health is not worth the trade off. I made the point to say that health and live is not unvaluable to the government, and thus they do not necessarily ban everything that is bad for you, or allow everything that is good thanks to politics and the economy.

 

My point is that I know it is bad and I don't care because it's not as bad as you make it out to be and I rather enjoy smoking, actually.

 

Asbestos is harmful, they banned that. You do realise when I say I think in the future it will be banned that I am just reasonably guessing something which I believe may happen? I am not saying I am personally going to force a smoking ban on the entire world.

 

Do you realise I never said anything contrary to what you want me to realise? Do you realise you've mentioned asbestos lots of times? What about the use of lead in tin and alluminium and oil for decades? C'mon dude, mix it up a little :P

[rokhed00]

Yes...my boring little life at University doing well and having fun? What's your life like? Probably not half as interesting. Debating whether to watch Trisha or Jeremy Kyle...

 

Nah, I'm not a student.

[jayseven]

Life experience doesn't teach you jack. If you smoke cigarettes all your life you might well think there is nothing wrong with them; if you educate yourself on their effects on the global population you have a much greater understanding.

 

Hey now, to some extent I am enjoying the debate with you, but you need to, like, not say silly things like "life experience teaches you nothing" because, like, that's wrong?

[nightwolf]

You learn from life experinces. Every tells you that...silly silly boy.

[Sheikah]

I agree - with uni I feel the need to smoke with every break. When I'm at home over teh same time... well ok I'm normally asleep 'til a fair bit past midday, but still!

 

Then I ask you to read my post properly... I said hypocritical thinker. Try again?

 

Which makes no sense, unless you justify how I am 'thinking' hypcroticially then you are wrong.

 

What freaking doesn't? Maybe Light bulbs, microwaves, laptops, fizzy drinks, oral sex, mobile phones, red meat (or anything with sodium nitrate, amiright?), hydrogenated oils -- hell, exposure to the sun increases the risk of skin cancer so quick! Ban everyone not wearing suncream. Oh, and not getting enough sun is CANCER too.

 

Microwaves - you shut the door

Oral Sex - check your partner isn't a hobo off the street first

Mobile Phones - absolutely no conclusive proof

Red Meat - proof not certain

Exposure to the sun in hot countries - you can't exactly ban the sun, that's why clever people use sun cream.

 

So yeh, pretty much all of your examples don't apply. But you can bet your last pound on the fact that if something unecessary to survive that could easily be controlled was proven to greatly increase the risk of cancer, it would either be banned or have campaigns against it like smoking.

 

Oh, don't we all already have cancerous cells in our bodies, anyway?

 

I dread to think who taught you that...

 

Hell, if you ask heather mills, milk gives you cancer too.

 

Who would listen to anything Heather Mills has to say?

 

So no, I'm not? What i'm trying to do is highlight things which you may indeed be ok with that also cause physical harm, and relating them to smoking. Tattoos and piercings can lead to infections. Infections lead to amputations. Think on that if you're serious enough.

 

They do not cause you physical harm, if they are applied properly. If you are infected, that's the fault of the tattooist for not having clean equipment. That is not comparable to something which endangers your health without fail.

 

But isn't the 'reasonable quantity' like a glass of red wine a day? Oh yeah, everyone does that, don't they?

 

Actually no, you can drink a couple/few beers a day and be fine.

 

I highlight in particular your "alcohol is... certainly not a problem to health" and laugh heartily.

Then you are laughing at your own stupidity, for I never said that. I said in reasonable quantities it is beneficial, which is fact. Do not twist my words again.

 

You can highlight one part of the body's benefit but, as The Bard says, that does not mean other parts suffer. You don't have to be drinking enough to be defined by a doctor as an alcoholic for alcohol to be causing detrimental effects, you know.

 

In reasonable quantities there is no proven danger to health, but a proven advantage. In normal quantities it is broken down and removed from the body with little consequence, just like toxic ammonia produced by the body is converted to urea and excreted as urine.

 

Smoking can be beneficial in other ways besides health! That's the point. Smoking can lead to social interaction, to relaxation, to alone-time, whatever. What is clear to me is that you are missing my points, which is why you keep saying that I'm not making any.

 

By standing outside in the pissing rain? Real social interaction, that.

 

 

Do you realise I never said anything contrary to what you want me to realise? Do you realise you've mentioned asbestos lots of times? What about the use of lead in tin and alluminium and oil for decades? C'mon dude, mix it up a little :P

 

Maybe I am mentioning lots of times because people keep bringing up the same situations, which are easily solved by mentioning asbestos.

 

You learn from life experinces. Every tells you that...silly silly boy.

 

Now relate that to what he was talking about. Life experience regarding cigarettes does not make you more knowledgeable about their effects on everyone, statistics and treatment etc. Yes, people tell you learn from experiences, but that quote does not apply here.

 

I know a fair bit of smoking related diseases, statistics and risk groups from lectures, he probably knows nothing. He is just playing the fact he has/does smoked.

 

 

Hey now, to some extent I am enjoying the debate with you, but you need to, like, not say silly things like "life experience teaches you nothing" because, like, that's wrong?

 

Again, you have taken that out of context. I am obviously talking about in this debate about cigarettes, where actual knowledge of the effects of cigarettes beats a single experience. Given that a single experience may lead a person to base their thoughts on that alone, it is very biased.

[jayseven]

Which makes no sense, unless you justify how I am 'thinking' hypcroticially then you are wrong.

Ok, they way you are arguing is to put forward one thing, then counter the response by saying it's irrelevant, implying that the resondee missed your point. As I keep repeating, I get your point. You are hypocritical because you keep missing the point of my posts, because you're focusing on your own single perspective and are completely unwilling to see any other factors involved besides health. More than anything, it's annoying :P

 

 

Microwaves - you shut the door

Oral Sex - check your partner isn't a hobo off the street first

Mobile Phones - absolutely no conclusive proof

Red Meat - proof not certain

Exposure to the sun in hot countries - you can't exactly ban the sun, that's why clever people use sun cream.

 

So yeh, pretty much all of your examples don't apply. But you can bet your last pound on the fact that if something unecessary to survive that could easily be controlled was proven to greatly increase the risk of cancer, it would either be banned or have campaigns against it like smoking.

 

As I see, you did take my list seriously, and as always your phrasing is interesting. "pretty much all" isn't the same as "all of them", so you're agreeing with my point, that there are a multitude of things that can increase the risk of cancer? Right? This is one of my points in this post. I can understand what you say about the bannage and the campaininations - there are frequently protests against mobile phone masts near schools, for example, but many get the go ahead. Wealth over health? I have no idea.

 

But you're right. We don't have proof. If it was proven inconclusively that cheese, or tuna, or watching tv increased risk of cancer, would you not find yourself going "hmmm... what if it's a risk I'm willing to take?"

 

I dread to think where you were educated.

I dread it when I think too :P That was utterly wrong of me! Source was stupid, I apologise. I think it was actually trying to infer something along the lines of "cancer cells are not themselves in cigarettes", or something, so never mind. Sorry!

 

Who would listen to anything Heather Mills has to say?

Heh, I did say "if you take this seriously", which you did. I wasn't being completely serious with that, you know.

 

 

They do not cause you physical harm, if they are applied properly. If you are infected, that's the fault of the tattooist for not having clean equipment. That is not comparable to something which endangers your health without fail.

Ok, so my health has been endangered. Guarenteed. Yup. But that is not all there is to my life. I was born with worse health than other 'normal' people. My 'health' has gotten worse over the years due to things entirely unrelated to smoking, but you know what? I'm still here, enjoying plenty of other factors of life. There is no guarentee how your life will unfold. Sure, you can do things to increase or decrease the chance of something else happening, but currently I am choosing not to in some respects of my life - not all, just some. I pay taxes on each pack of tobacco I buy, on each pint of alcohol I buy. I pay for the right to destroy myself. I pay for the right to choose, ok? I pay my way. I[/i] pay. Passive smoking... well what do you think about some of the anecdotes? Like thirtynine said, someone went and stood downwind of him and gave him a dirty look. Is this acceptable to you? How badly was the downwind-fellow's health affected? Enough to justify their malicious gesticulation towards another, free and sentient being? It's hard to justify even arguing about such a silly moment between the two of them, let alone either party feeling too bothered about it.

 

 

Actually no, you can drink a couple/few beers a day and be fine.

Yes, daily units and all that, right? Ok then, let's step it up. Is there a line? Does health work in stages? Or is it more like progressive phases of degredation? I would like to compare drinking 2 pints instead of 20 a day to smoking 2 cigarettes instead of 20. If 20 is bad, then 2 is better. Your two pints a day will be beneficial to your health, and my two cigarettes a day will be beneficial to my social life :P

 

 

Then you are laughing at your own stupidity, for I never said that. I said in reasonable quantities it is beneficial, which is fact. Do not twist my words again.

My man, twisting words is precisely what this is about. If you word something in a way which leaves a hole, then, as EEVILMURRAY would say, "prepare to be ploughed!". Ahem. No, I don't mean that really; I just mean that the way you've been phrasing your arguments is part of the reason why you've had so many heated responses.

 

You actually said

But as has already been mentioned, alcohol is actually beneficial in reasonable quantities and certainly not a problem to health.

Alcohol is the subject of this compound sentance - that is, you have two statements conjoined by the word "and", and typically speaking one would assume that both sentances apply to the subject in question, thus;

 

Alcohol is beneficial in reasonable quantities,

and;

Alcohol is certainly not a problem to health.

 

You see what I did there? What you should have said, now that you say you meant otherwise, was something that placed "reasonable quantities" in the subject position.

 

In reasonable quantities, alcohol is beneficial and certainly not a problem to health.

I also find the contrast between 'reasonable' and 'certainly' a bit tricky. You are certain that some sort of amount of alcohol is good, but you are inferring that you do not know what the amount is precisely. If you do not know the precise amount, are you not in danger of endangering yourself?

 

 

In reasonable quantities there is no proven danger to health, but a proven advantage. In normal quantities it is broken down and removed from the body with little consequence, just like toxic ammonia produced by the body is converted to urea and excreted as urine.

Reasonable, normal, little. These are vague terms. I really don't think there's any argument about whether small amounts of alcohol should be banned -- hell, i doubt anyone here is actually seriously suggesting we ban alcohol at all. The comparison has been drawn because the large majority of people who drink do not just drink in reasonable quantities, which doesn't make your point false, just a bit irrelevant, really.

 

By standing outside in the pissing rain? Real social interaction, that.

It's statements like these from you which suggest that you are taking your own opinion as fact - confusing the two together, if you will. It's these sentances which prompt others to think that you're being ignorant. Using rhetoric and sarcasm like this just makes it appear that you can't find fault in what I said. I could be sitting in the sun, you know :P

 

Maybe I am mentioning lots of times because people keep bringing up the same situations, which are easily solved by mentioning asbestos.

Asbestos solves all! :P People are bringing it up perhaps because we don't know why exactly you're comparing asbestos to smoking. Doesn't mean we disagree with the comparison, just that you're relying on others knowing what you're talking about -- thinking egocentrically, as it were.

 

 

Now relate that to what he was talking about. Life experience regarding cigarettes does not make you more knowledgeable about their effects on everyone, statistics and treatment etc. Yes, people tell you learn from experiences, but that quote does not apply here.

Depends on your definition of knowledge. You did not specify what you were talking about when you said "life experience teaches you jack shit", so quit changing your own meaning after the fact.

 

What I've 'learned' from smoking is in your eyes useless. I'd draw a comparison to a multitude of other useless things that teach you more useless stuff, but of course to you that would be irrelevant.

 

You are right - smoking does not automatically mean you become the wikipedia entry for Cancer. But! That wasn't the point anyone was making!

 

I know a fair bit of smoking related diseases, statistics and risk groups from lectures, he probably knows nothing. He is just playing the fact he has/does smoked.

I've forgotten whether he is me or Rokhed, but I'd like to point out that you saying "nothing" again is wrong, and will lead to further useless posts from all parties involved.

 

Again, you have taken that out of context. I am obviously talking about in this debate about cigarettes, where actual knowledge of the effects of cigarettes beats a single experience. Given that a single experience may lead a person to base their thoughts on that alone, it is very biased.

Sorry to say but if you had placed it into a context at the time, it wouldn't have been an issue. "life experience teaches you nothing" doesn't implicitly or explicitly align itself to merely one topic. If you were implying that experience of smoking teaches you nothing about smoking, then you should have said "smoking experience" not "life". Do you see what I mean? You just confuse people otherwise.

 

You are right about background information being most excellent knowledge of cigarettes. Was that not one of my first points about education as a preferred means of control? The amount of attention smoking gets currently would not be the same once cigarettes are banned. People in future generations will not be so immediately informed about smoking if there are no "quit smoking" adverts around, do you see what I mean? I'm trying to say that education is a very powerful device, as it has surely helped put you off of smoking.

 

But you can't preach to those who have already chosen another religion, you know? They're just not going to listen. Educating people still gives them choice, which is why I like it

[rokhed00]

Depends on your definition of knowledge. You did not specify what you were talking about when you said "life experience teaches you jack shit", so quit changing your own meaning after the fact.

 

The original statement

 

Life experience > text books.

 

Was actually to do with drug use, not smoking, but 'somebody' decided to twist things to suit their needs.

[Sheikah]

Ok, they way you are arguing is to put forward one thing, then counter the response by saying it's irrelevant, implying that the resondee missed your point. As I keep repeating, I get your point. You are hypocritical because you keep missing the point of my posts, because you're focusing on your own single perspective and are completely unwilling to see any other factors involved besides health. More than anything, it's annoying :P

 

It's not that, it's that a lot of what people say is stuff that's either untrue or still not really justified for the effects of smoking. Someone discarded my reply as irrelevant before when I said the benefits of alcohol in reasonable quantities when they said there were none, so it's definitely not just me doing it.

 

 

As I see, you did take my list seriously, and as always your phrasing is interesting. "pretty much all" isn't the same as "all of them", so you're agreeing with my point

 

No, look at your list again. The last one, the sun, in hot countries is proven to cause cancer. That is why I said pretty much all. In fairness, most people apply suncream when going abroad to hot countries, and there's really nothing else you can do about a big fiery ball in the sky.

 

This is one of my points in this post. I can understand what you say about the bannage and the campaininations - there are frequently protests against mobile phone masts near schools, for example, but many get the go ahead. Wealth over health? I have no idea.

 

There is a mountain of difference between a mobile phone mast, which has no proof to cause cancer, and cigarettes - cause of the #1 most common cancer in the UK.

 

 

Like thirtynine said, someone went and stood downwind of him and gave him a dirty look. Is this acceptable to you?

 

The fact they were both standing still suggests some form of waiting for something, in which case smoking in any situation like that I find very rude. It basically marks out an area of no-go if you don't like smoke, which most people probably don't.

 

 

Yes, daily units and all that, right? Ok then, let's step it up. Is there a line? Does health work in stages? Or is it more like progressive phases of degredation? I would like to compare drinking 2 pints instead of 20 a day to smoking 2 cigarettes instead of 20. If 20 is bad, then 2 is better. Your two pints a day will be beneficial to your health, and my two cigarettes a day will be beneficial to my social life :P

 

Except that cigarettes are smaller (so here goes ) so that example is largely irrelevant.

 

 

My man, twisting words is precisely what this is about. If you word something in a way which leaves a hole, then, as EEVILMURRAY would say, "prepare to be ploughed!". Ahem. No, I don't mean that really; I just mean that the way you've been phrasing your arguments is part of the reason why you've had so many heated responses.

 

You actually said Alcohol is the subject of this compound sentance - that is, you have two statements conjoined by the word "and", and typically speaking one would assume that both sentances apply to the subject in question, thus;

 

Unfortunately you forgot to take into account common sense. That alone would have immediately told you that the sentence was referring to both small quantities being no danger as well as beneficial. Obviously I was not suggesting that drinking large amounts of alcohol can never be a danger, that is ridiculous to even think of.

 

 

I also find the contrast between 'reasonable' and 'certainly' a bit tricky. You are certain that some sort of amount of alcohol is good, but you are inferring that you do not know what the amount is precisely. If you do not know the precise amount, are you not in danger of endangering yourself?

 

Like I've said, 2 or 3 bottles of beer. There are guidelines, but really I think it's quite obvious if people drink too much.

 

Reasonable, normal, little. These are vague terms. I really don't think there's any argument about whether small amounts of alcohol should be banned -- hell, i doubt anyone here is actually seriously suggesting we ban alcohol at all. The comparison has been drawn because the large majority of people who drink do not just drink in reasonable quantities, which doesn't make your point false, just a bit irrelevant, really.

 

Then this is a problem that people alone must address. The situation is this- you can buy alcohol to drink sensibly, but like with anything - a kitchen knife, a sledgehammer, a machete; they can be used incorrectly. With cigarettes, you are harming yourself no matter what. In more ways than one, too.

 

It's statements like these from you which suggest that you are taking your own opinion as fact - confusing the two together, if you will. It's these sentances which prompt others to think that you're being ignorant. Using rhetoric and sarcasm like this just makes it appear that you can't find fault in what I said. I could be sitting in the sun, you know :P

 

You provided your opinion - that is boosts social interaction, I provided my opinion that it can also alienate you. A lot of social interaction goes down in pubs, and since most people don't smoke you'll probably be outside talking to less people than you could if you were inside. In fact, if I saw someone smoking I wouldn't want to be close enough to talk to them. Not in a nasty way, just I dislike cigarette smoke.

 

 

Asbestos solves all! :P People are bringing it up perhaps because we don't know why exactly you're comparing asbestos to smoking.

 

I've said it many times, it's simple. It's a substance that was banned for causing cancer, despite having a use, and no one exclaimed that the government was fascist or removing our rights. Sure people didn't get actual pleasure from it, but the point still stands - that is, the government has in the past banned harmful things (which someone said, far back, they would only ban to the extent so people could just not harm others).

 

Depends on your definition of knowledge. You did not specify what you were talking about when you said "life experience teaches you jack shit", so quit changing your own meaning after the fact.

 

Rokhead had already posted previously how his life experience with drugs/cigarettes meant he knew more. I was obviously referring to that life experience, since he mentioned once again how his life experience was better than a broader knowledge.

 

What I've 'learned' from smoking is in your eyes useless.

 

What can you learn from smoking? I honestly have no idea. It's like saying I learned something from eating a KitKat chunky.

 

 

I've forgotten whether he is me or Rokhed, but I'd like to point out that you saying "nothing" again is wrong, and will lead to further useless posts from all parties involved.

 

 

Ok then, he knows what smoking feels like, but from his posts he doesn't seem like someone who knows anything about the global stats, the diseases and implications they cause, etc. So not really that much, if a bit more than nothing.

 

The original statement

 

 

 

Was actually to do with drug use, not smoking, but 'somebody' decided to twist things to suit their needs.

 

1. Cigarettes are drugs

2. Your sentence was too vague for anyone to really know what you were directly referring too

3. It makes no difference, your own experience with drugs isn't the same as researching the effects of drugs on thousands of people.

[Wesley]

 

By standing outside in the pissing rain? Real social interaction, that.

 

 

Everything you've talked about so far actually does make sense, with use of fact or straight up logic. I don't agree with what you're saying, but I can still understand how most of it is quite true.

 

This however... this is where you're not getting the whole point of the argument people who smoke are trying to make.

 

Sometimes it's not about your health, it's about doing something that can bring joy, whether stress relief or social interaction, into your life.

 

If you can't admit that then there'll be no conclusion to this at all for you.

[jayseven]

It's not that, it's that a lot of what people say is stuff that's either untrue or still not really justified for the effects of smoking. Someone discarded my reply as irrelevant before when I said the benefits of alcohol in reasonable quantities when they said there were none, so it's definitely not just me doing it.

Well even if it's not just you, you're still doing it. I'm not debating anything with those guys.

 

No, look at your list again. The last one, the sun, in hot countries is proven to cause cancer. That is why I said pretty much all. In fairness, most people apply suncream when going abroad to hot countries, and there's really nothing else you can do about a big fiery ball in the sky.

Yeah, I know, so maybe the point is banning stuff isn't always the right thing to do? Educating people about the dangers of the sun enables them to enjoy it safely, right?

 

You never reacted to the bit of my post about what if TV was linked with cancer? I know it's preposterous, but it's theoretical. Sure, there's no conclusive evidence for anything in my list, but that doesn't stop some people from being deterred from them, does it? It's about being safe, right? Yes, the safest thing to do in regards to smoking is to not smoke, but just as I have my laptop on my lap, just as I eat red meat, I'm taking the risk.

 

 

The fact they were both standing still suggests some form of waiting for something, in which case smoking in any situation like that I find very rude. It basically marks out an area of no-go if you don't like smoke, which most people probably don't.

I can understand your thinking, but it's not up to the smoker to move if someone else hs moved into the smoke. Sure, it could be seen as considerate, but if someone walks and stands right where my smoke is, and has been, going, then surely they have a stake in the blame for breathing it in?

 

 

Except that cigarettes are smaller (so here goes ) so that example is largely irrelevant.

Yeah, ok :P They are smaller, but do you see what I mean about changing the values?

 

 

Unfortunately you forgot to take into account common sense. That alone would have immediately told you that the sentence was referring to both small quantities being no danger as well as beneficial. Obviously I was not suggesting that drinking large amounts of alcohol can never be a danger, that is ridiculous to even think of.

Actually, I didn't. I'm a commoner, and I have sense, and I can tell you that it's not my fault you implied something without reading it. I'm just the guy standing downwind :P

 

 

Like I've said, 2 or 3 bottles of beer. There are guidelines, but really I think it's quite obvious if people drink too much.

 

Then this is a problem that people alone must address. The situation is this- you can buy alcohol to drink sensibly, but like with anything - a kitchen knife, a sledgehammer, a machete; they can be used incorrectly. With cigarettes, you are harming yourself no matter what. In more ways than one, too.

Now, my point here is that there alcohol is a substance that relies on the consumer's responsibility to use correctly. Drinking alcohol could lead to liver disease, social disrupt and so on. Smoking cigarettes could lead to various diseases. I know you see nothing else in the world so evil as cigarettes, but I think you're being a bit naive when you act as if alcohol isn't a problem at all, nor that a comparison can be drawn between cigarettes and alcohol. You really cannot just look at health and death as the only factors involved in what I'm comparing. We're talking about banning cigarettes, right? I'm just trying to show you that not everything bad is banned, and you're refusing to see that alcohol is at all bad because of a little thing called 'responsibility'.

 

You provided your opinion - that is boosts social interaction, I provided my opinion that it can also alienate you. A lot of social interaction goes down in pubs, and since most people don't smoke you'll probably be outside talking to less people than you could if you were inside. In fact, if I saw someone smoking I wouldn't want to be close enough to talk to them. Not in a nasty way, just I dislike cigarette smoke.

Well the social interaction outside pubs tends to not include the non-smokers, so the last part of this quote doesn't matter. For sure, social interaction continues inside the pub, but taht does not devalue any social interaction outside, in the smoker's room :P Talking to less people doesn't automatically decrease the worth of a discussion, does it? This direction of our debate is going nowhere, as we're entering a realm of unquantifiable factors :/ We don't seem to be disagreeing on this much.

 

 

I've said it many times, it's simple. It's a substance that was banned for causing cancer, despite having a use, and no one exclaimed that the government was fascist or removing our rights. Sure people didn't get actual pleasure from it, but the point still stands - that is, the government has in the past banned harmful things (which someone said, far back, they would only ban to the extent so people could just not harm others).

Well there are suitable replacements for asbestos :P I think the point is about a "nanny state" telling us what to do, what's right and wrong. Right and Wrong are experienced and learned and judged and, most importantly, rarely black and white.

 

Currently we have a choice to smoke or not too. We're allowed to not want this to change, if we want

 

 

Rokhead had already posted previously how his life experience with drugs/cigarettes meant he knew more. I was obviously referring to that life experience, since he mentioned once again how his life experience was better than a broader knowledge.

But it wasn't obvious :P seriously! Argument aside; it wasn't clear. Honest!

 

What can you learn from smoking? I honestly have no idea. It's like saying I learned something from eating a KitKat chunky.

you can learn how superficial others can be. You can learn how to roll a cigarette (thus a joint). Taking up smoking made me want to learn more about taxation. Of course not everyone learns much from simply smoking, but as you said, that whole trail of thought was about drug use, so nyer :P

 

ok then, he knows what smoking feels like, but from his posts he doesn't seem like someone who knows anything about the global stats, the diseases and implications they cause, etc. So not really that much, if a bit more than nothing.

As you say, it seems that way, but it's not explicitly so. You should not be so quick to declare bias when you don't know what he does know or not Either way, ignorance of statistics doesn't mean much when he obviously knows the important facts about the harm smoking can cause to himself? Is knowing the statistics worth more?

 

 

1. Cigarettes are drugs

2. Your sentence was too vague for anyone to really know what you were directly referring too

3. It makes no difference, your own experience with drugs isn't the same as researching the effects of drugs on thousands of people.

 

The sentance was vague? You didn't know what he was talking about? So what lead you to say "life experience teaches you nothing", then?

 

Drugs aren't all the same, and if you just look at the risks of taking them and not the benefits - i.e. the trip - then you're overlooking the reason why anyone would take them. Surely knowing why someone does something is better than knowing why they shouldn't?

[Sheikah]

Everything you've talked about so far actually does make sense, with use of fact or straight up logic. I don't agree with what you're saying, but I can still understand how most of it is quite true.

 

This however... this is where you're not getting the whole point of the argument people who smoke are trying to make.

 

Sometimes it's not about your health, it's about doing something that can bring joy, whether stress relief or social interaction, into your life.

 

If you can't admit that then there'll be no conclusion to this at all for you.

 

 

Of course I can admit that there is a reason why people smoke. People don't smoke out of want to make themselves ill. Compared to the positives of smoking, though, the downsides are far greater; nothing can compare to the illnesses or grief of loss of another person dying, for the sake of a bit of a closer interaction with other smokers.

 

Cigarettes may give pleasure but so do many other things. It would be better for people to pick up an activity or something to take their mind off cigarettes. It may seem harsh that I think eventually they will be banned, but people would still retain a great deal of freedom in their life, just they wouldn't be able to smoke something which is frankly making them ill.

 

 

 

You never reacted to the bit of my post about what if TV was linked with cancer? I know it's preposterous, but it's theoretical. Sure, there's no conclusive evidence for anything in my list, but that doesn't stop some people from being deterred from them, does it? It's about being safe, right? Yes, the safest thing to do in regards to smoking is to not smoke, but just as I have my laptop on my lap, just as I eat red meat, I'm taking the risk.

 

You're not taking a risk because there's no evidence to say you are. With cigarettes we are talking about nasty carcinogens that are the number one cause of cancer in the UK. That is why I didn't think the examples were entirely relevant.

 

I can understand your thinking, but it's not up to the smoker to move if someone else hs moved into the smoke. Sure, it could be seen as considerate, but if someone walks and stands right where my smoke is, and has been, going, then surely they have a stake in the blame for breathing it in?

 

Maybe, but equally I don't think people should smoke in stationary situations. It just creates an unpleasant zone for non-smokers.

 

 

Actually, I didn't. I'm a commoner, and I have sense, and I can tell you that it's not my fault you implied something without reading it. I'm just the guy standing downwind :P

 

If you honestly thought that I did not think alcohol can ever be harmful in any quantity, I would have to reiterate that you do not have common sense. You're just being pedantic in interpreting the sentence.

 

Now, my point here is that there alcohol is a substance that relies on the consumer's responsibility to use correctly.

 

I think you have summed this up very nicely, as this is basically at the crux of the matter. There are many things in life that could turn dangerous if not used properly - alcohol is one of them. Common sense or self-control is required to make sure you don't jump over a train line to get to the other side quicker, or that you don't buy a kitchen knife to kill someone with.

 

My point really lies with the fact that cigarettes can never be said to be safe under any circumstance, which is why I believe they differ greatly from alcohol. Also their highly addictive quality means that many smokers smoke regularly, more regularly than they would drink. I also think that a lot of people who binge drink are actually doing so not really through addiction, but out of fun.

 

 

Currently we have a choice to smoke or not too. We're allowed to not want this to change, if we want

 

You were allowed to not want the public smoking ban, but it happened.

 

you can learn how superficial others can be. You can learn how to roll a cigarette (thus a joint). Taking up smoking made me want to learn more about taxation. Of course not everyone learns much from simply smoking, but as you said, that whole trail of thought was about drug use, so nyer :P

 

Is learning how to roll a joint a good thing? I don't think it's a great key skill to take home. It may have triggered interest in taxation, but you didn't learn that from the cigarette.

 

As you say, it seems that way, but it's not explicitly so. You should not be so quick to declare bias when you don't know what he does know or not Either way, ignorance of statistics doesn't mean much when he obviously knows the important facts about the harm smoking can cause to himself? Is knowing the statistics worth more?

 

If I use facts he rejects it, while if he knew the facts he wouldn't reject them. Pretty simple logic behind why I don't think he knows much about the subject.

 

The sentance was vague? You didn't know what he was talking about? So what lead you to say "life experience teaches you nothing", then?

 

The sentence was vague in the subject; I thought he was referring to cigarettes. In which case, he wouldn't really know much about the possible diseases/implications, at risk groups, etc. And life experience with cigarettes may just let you think they aren't much of a harm, seeing as they haven't done much harm yet.

[Paj!]

My friend's sister's friend's mum (phew) has just been diagnosed with lung cancer from passive smoking.

 

 

 

 

 

*leaves, waiting for people to think about their lives*