AndyWylde Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I can't even remember the last time i saw someone walking down the street smoking to be honest. I see people sneaking off at work for a crafty one everyday, but they have their own little section in the car park. It seems smoking is very un-fashionable these days, rightly so. But all this fuss about second hand smoke, do some people on here actually receive a lot of second hand smoke? The last time i can remember inhaling it was 3yrs ago at a bus stop. I told the lad to fuck off outside the shelter (he was then hit by the bus, but that's just bad luck) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It's not their right to do it in a public place where they can harm others. God damn it, no they can't. Read the damn studies, will you? How is passing through a crowd of smokers for a few minutes prolonged exposure? This applies to you too, Dazz. Also, yes, Dohnut was right, that was affection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happenstance Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I take no bullshit from sites like smoke-free. It states without sources, that's as unreliable as it gets, not to mention biased (smoke free, yeah, that sounds really impartial). As for wikipedia, it's only reinforcing my point... it arises problems in spouses/close relatives of smokers. But the victims made a conscient choice to be exposed to this smoke, it wasn't involuntary. Except for kids, whose parents were irresponsible. But those will still exist with this new law, since you can still smoke at home. Basically, my point that second hand smoke you catch on the street (ie involutarily) does not pose an active threat to you. To quote myself: All problems that studies have demonstrated arise from second hand smoke are cases of prolonged exposure. Which doesn't apply here... at all. Funny, you say that smoke-free (which is an NHS site) has no sources, its not like you have provided any either. Im not the only one in this thread to provide links either, Grunches probably being the best (Havent actually checked it). Anyway, im going to bed in a minute so i'll just go over my point again. Im perfectly happy with this ban. I dont agree with Oxigen that the amount of smoke you can get while on the street is not harmful, especially to those who may be more affected by it. I myself have started coughing quite badly when standing near a smoker in a bus station, easily proof enough for myself. There is also hygiene issues that it passes onto others, many times ive come home to complaints that I stink of smoke even though I dont do it myself. Im not gonna argue this all night, I dont really need to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 There are a lot more of these studies now being posted for you to ignore as well, Oxigen. Can you post the ones that you mentioned, about passive smoke not being harmful, please? Just so we can see both sides rather than lots of proof on one side and you just calling it all bullshit :p Read all the ones they posted. They're all specifically about prolonged exposure cases. And for the most part they're cases which this measure will do nothing to help, such as spouses and children. I'm sure there are some pour souls who suffered prolonged exposure on the streets and paid a price they had no chance to avoid... But their number is infinitely small. It happens, but it's no reason to shut it down. Also, this measure is obviously not about health reasons... it's about quality of life! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If someone has a smoking addiction that's so bad that they can't wait until they're in a quiet area, or away from a area where groups of people go to (i.e. a bus stop) then they need some serious help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diageo Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 God damn it, no they can't. Read the damn studies, will you? How is passing through a crowd of smokers for a few minutes prolonged exposure? This applies to you too, Dazz. Also, yes, Dohnut was right, that was affection. How much is prolonged exposure exactly. Why should I have any exposure if it's proven that exposure leads to problems. Even the smallest amount of exposure is still involuntary exposure to hazardous smoke, which is still potentially harmful, even if not large harm, maybe a bit of a sore throat for 30 minutes, that's still harm. And with the amount of healthier and even cheaper alternatives, smoking in public really is just selfish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Funny, you say that smoke-free (which is an NHS site) has no sources, its not like you have provided any either. Im not the only one in this thread to provide links either, Grunches probably being the best (Havent actually checked it). Anyway, im going to bed in a minute so i'll just go over my point again. Im perfectly happy with this ban. I dont agree with Oxigen that the amount of smoke you can get while on the street is not harmful, especially to those who may be more affected by it. I myself have started coughing quite badly when standing near a smoker in a bus station, easily proof enough for myself. There is also hygiene issues that it passes onto others, many times ive come home to complaints that I stink of smoke even though I dont do it myself. Im not gonna argue this all night, I dont really need to. I don't need to provide anything. The ones you lot gave out all proved my point. Prolonged exposure. None of them (didn't realy check 100%) mentioned a single shred of evidence towards standard exposure. And if you coughed that bad near a smoker I'm surprised yo have no problems with car exhausts and all that. I mean, are you fat or have you got respiratory problems or something? Because that's not very normal... It's not their right to do it in a public place where they can harm others. God damn it, no they can't. Read the damn studies, will you? How is passing through a crowd of smokers for a few minutes prolonged exposure? If someone has a smoking addiction that's so bad that they can't wait until they're in a quiet area, or away from a area where groups of people go to (i.e. a bus stop) then they need some serious help. That I agree with. But that's not our problem to judge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I can't even remember the last time i saw someone walking down the street smoking to be honest. I see people sneaking off at work for a crafty one everyday, but they have their own little section in the car park. It seems smoking is very un-fashionable these days, rightly so. But all this fuss about second hand smoke, do some people on here actually receive a lot of second hand smoke? The last time i can remember inhaling it was 3yrs ago at a bus stop. I told the lad to fuck off outside the shelter (he was then hit by the bus, but that's just bad luck) I actually do and funnily enough, it was this week. On Monday when I entered the swimming baths, there were a group of five girls smoking and talking loudly outside the only door you could get through (the path was blocked off due to new steps being built). They see me and they split, two girls on the left and three on the right. One of them was pregnant too. I held my breath and walked on. Otherwise, I see them in the park on my run. Of course, I avoid them (as I do whenever I can). It's not so bad when it's an open space but it's when it's more confined that it affects me and I have to face away from the wind when speaking to my best mate (who's a chain smoker). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 How much is prolonged exposure exactly. Why should I have any exposure if it's proven that exposure leads to problems. Even the smallest amount of exposure is still involuntary exposure to hazardous smoke, which is still potentially harmful, even if not large harm, maybe a bit of a sore throat for 30 minutes, that's still harm. And with the amount of healthier and even cheaper alternatives, smoking in public really is just selfish. It's just as selfish as wanting them to stop just so you'll have a slighlty lower chance of being mildly disturbed for a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 How much is prolonged exposure exactly. Why should I have any exposure if it's proven that exposure leads to problems. Even the smallest amount of exposure is still involuntary exposure to hazardous smoke, which is still potentially harmful, even if not large harm, maybe a bit of a sore throat for 30 minutes, that's still harm. And with the amount of healthier and even cheaper alternatives, smoking in public really is just selfish. Basically, he's said what I wanted to say to you Oxigen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supergrunch Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Read all the ones they posted. They're all specifically about prolonged exposure cases. And for the most part they're cases which this measure will do nothing to help, such as spouses and children. I'm sure there are some pour souls who suffered prolonged exposure on the streets and paid a price they had no chance to avoid... But their number is infinitely small. It happens, but it's no reason to shut it down. Also, this measure is obviously not about health reasons... it's about quality of life! Yes, the studies are largely of prolonged exposure. But that's probably because cases of incidental exposure are extremely difficult to test, meaning that there's no reason that incidental exposure shouldn't have a negative effect, although of course this won't be as bad as prolonged exposure, and may even be negligible. But arguing that lack of studies means there is no effect is flawed reason; the null hypothesis should be that incidental exposure is still somewhat undesirable. So you can't really legislate based on this sort of argument. Note also that your original claim didn't explicitly specify incidental exposure, hence the response you're getting. (I don't really know where I actually stand on the New York issue, but I'm tending towards thinking it's unreasonable. But not because incidental passive smoking definitely isn't bad for you.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If someone has a smoking addiction that's so bad that they can't wait until they're in a quiet area, or away from a area where groups of people go to (i.e. a bus stop) then they need some serious help. Something I agree with. Why would you want to smoke in the first place when you know it tastes and smells disgusting, it's beyond me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goafer Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I don't need to provide anything. The ones you lot gave out all proved my point. Prolonged exposure. None of them (didn't realy check 100%) mentioned a single shred of evidence towards standard exposure. OK so the evidence for non prolonged passive smoking being harmful can be disputed. It's still not evidence that passive smoking cases zero harm though is it? How you can argue that passive smoking is completely unharmful is beyond me. Not all of the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke are absorbed by the smoker, so some gets breathed out. I don't care if I'm exposed to it for an hour or a second, I don't want that shit in my lungs, especially when the only purpose for it is someone else's pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heroicjanitor Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If it's an addiction then I won't tell them to stop, but they could at least stand downwind of me. Letting smoke drift in my face is just plain rude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 How you can argue that passive smoking is completely unharmful is beyond me. Not all of the harmful chemicals in cigarette smoke are absorbed by the smoker, so some gets breathed out. I don't care if I'm exposed to it for an hour or a second, I don't want that shit in my lungs. Q. F. F. T! (Quote. For. Fucking. Truth! lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbob Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Smokers are addicted to Nicotine, not cigarettes. There are many healthier ways to get a nicotine fix without harming others. True, and i can't agree more. There are better ways to get the nicotine, you've nailed that lid. I'm iffy on the whole decision on smoking outdoors. First, we ban smoking indoors (which i agree on). I hated going into a pub and coming out within 5 minutes honking of smoke. With the outdoors, well that is where we sent the smokers and now we are taking that away from them. Jeez, i can see the sneaky smokers hiding in dark areas having a smoke, just like school kids do. Yes i hate the smell of smoke, and hate it being breathed out towards me. And now, the only place the smokers can go to smoke is at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 It's just as selfish as wanting them to stop just so you'll have a slighlty lower chance of being mildly disturbed for a short period of time. Can I put a paper bag over people's mouths while they're standing next to me at a bus stop? They won't even have to put up with the smell on top of the inability to breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr-Paul Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I take no bullshit from sites like smoke-free. It states without sources, that's as unreliable as it gets, not to mention biased (smoke free, yeah, that sounds really impartial). That's an NHS site. I don't think they'd be allowed to post that without actually having evidence to prove it. And no, they're not going to post all the scientific evidence there as it is a site for the general public. In general, you believe what they say. And they're the experts, who are you really to question what hundreds of people in the medical profession have researched, because it "doesn't effect you much"? Sorry if I'm coming across as angry, it just seems you are ignoring all evidence thrown your way, saying whatever you think and the study you have are clearly much more valid than those who actually have researched it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Smokers, PLEASE, can one of you tell me why you started, wanted to start and carry on when you know it tastes and smells disgusting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cube Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 With the outdoors, well that is where we sent the smokers and now we are taking that away from them. Please read the article. This isn't about banning them outdoors, it's about banning them from parks and busy places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Just to update my stance here. I'd rather smoking be illegal than just banned. I honestly don't see what benefit you can get from smoking that would outweigh all of of the negatives. The only reason I can think of for someone smoking is it apparently relieves stress... well my stepmum smokes and she's more frequently stressed about having money to buy the cigarettes than anything else. I really don't see the point in smoking when all it does is harm you and potentially others. So yeah, I say make it illegal altogether and we can forget all about it within 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 the null hypothesis should be that incidental exposure is still somewhat undesirable. Absolutely true. But that's hardly cause for prohibition, don't you agree? I mean, get off your scientifically impartial-self and level with me, don't you think it's an extreme measure to an issue that isn't that pertinent? Note also that your original claim didn't explicitly specify incidental exposure, hence the response you're getting. Well, why would I specify? When we're talking about second hand smoking on the street, it's quite obvious it's going to be incidental. I don't really know where I actually stand on the New York issue, but I'm tending towards thinking it's unreasonable. But not because incidental passive smoking definitely isn't bad for you. That's not my reasoning either... I was just defending that that is hardly an excuse to violate someone's liberty in such a way, especially since it's mostly speculation and heresay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killer kirby Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 While we're at it we should ban junk food. I hate fat people. They smell, take up space - I don't even want to look at them. They're even forcing the NHS to invest in new load bearing ambulances. Most intelligent post in this thread. Fuck fat people. I would prefer standing under a bus stop with someone smoking minding their own business, then a drunk man trying to yell at anything and everything. Fat people who just keep eating shit and you can fucking hear that awful chewing noise and the heavy breathing of moving a part of their body. Was about to point this out. Of course secondary smoke is harmful! It's obvious! If it makes you choke, how is it not? Why you'd want to inhale smoke in the first place is beyond me though... My father has been smoking for all my life, I am not fazed by it.I have never smoked in my entire life. I have sucked in plenty of second hand smoking and I am fitter and more healthier then 70% of the people in town that I live in. Should I also mention a bartender I know who lives close by and he told me how he has been working in a a pub full of smoking people for more than 40 years and he still has not had any problems effect him with second hand smoking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Smokers, PLEASE, can one of you tell me why you started, wanted to start and carry on when you know it tastes and smells disgusting? You really need an answer to that? Obviously it's because it's good and enjoyable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aimless Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Passive smoking doesn't particularly bother me, I just hold my breath or move out the way just as I would with any other pollution or bad smell; I always walk on the opposite side of the street to the fishmonger's. That said smoking is a ridiculous habit, it's essentially popularised self-harm. I look forward to the day no one's getting suckered into it and it becomes something for future generations to look back on with disbelief, so in that respect I don't particularly oppose the ban as I see it as merely hastening the inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts