Goafer Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I love that picture. Not gonna thank though, cos Oxigen has been one of the least self centred throughout this thread. It wasn't the self centred bit it refers to TBF.
ipaul Posted February 4, 2011 Author Posted February 4, 2011 It wasn't the self centred bit it refers to TBF. That's what the bold function is there for
Oxigen_Waste Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 It wasn't the self centred bit it refers to TBF. At least I'm self righteous about things that don't really matter.
Nolan Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I haven't even bothered reading the thread, and won't as these threads have happened before and are generally always the same. I will throw out that I think this is rather BS (huh I just noticed I broke a nail, I can fold the tip at a right angle). I don't feel like going into more than that, because. Agree to disagree.
MoogleViper Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I just think its rather ironic that people go around drinking, acting like morons and causing trouble, fighting, drink driving, etc but everyone bitches at the smokers. Everyone who drinks in excess is an utter plonker, full stop. All of which are illegal. So that argument doesn't really stand up. 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 You know somebody who has been around second hand smoke and not been affected by it? Let's contact the media, because that's clearly proof that second hand smoke has no affect on people. Hey there's also some guy who smoked 40 a day and lived til he was 80. Clearly proof that smoking doesn't have any adverse effects on health. Fucking idiot.
jayseven Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 *skip to the end and read thread properly tomorrow* gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay *will probably wish he'd read the whole thread first* GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY
Magnus Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 *skip to the end and read thread properly tomorrow* gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay *will probably wish he'd read the whole thread first* Nah, this sums up the discussion in this thread pretty well.
ReZourceman Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 The Nazi party apparently discovered the link between smoking and lung cancer. So yes, the Hitler comparison is fine since he was justified in his hatred of smoking. In the context of smoking, Hitler did good IMHO. Shame about the Jew thing. Nah, this sums up the discussion in this thread pretty well. Yeah I read the first few pages and applauded some and face palmed others. Skipped to six and all thats really happened is....expected degeneration. But yeah, good idea. The concept of "smoking" is absolutely pathetic, its one of those staggering things about humanity that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
Cube Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 its one of those staggering things about humanity that doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Just like Comedy Rainbow?
AndyWylde Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Wow. Can't believe some people are so against smoking. For those who have never smoked - you will never understand why people do it unless you've smoked yourself, and i don't mean tried a few puffs and decided you didn't like it. I started smoking due to stress, work was fucked up, my gf at the time was cheating on me and the bitch was still living with me, i was in a fair bit of debt etc etc I was with a lad at work who lit up a Silk Cut, which is a very very light cigarette, so out of the blue i said can i try one? I didn't like the taste, but i liked the buzz and calming effect it had on me. A few days later i bought myself a pack, a few weeks later i needed something stronger so i upgraded to Marlboro Light, then eventually i went onto Marlboro Reds. To me it was like the first time i tried beer/lager/whiskey and this is for most people too... I hated the taste of all of those, but the more i had them the more i started to like them, i'm not an alcoholic btw. Eventually smoking started to have adverse effects on me, my blood pressure climbed and my anxiety went crazy, not the best thing to happen when your already under a lot of stress. I found quitting quite easy to be honest. My gf had finally moved away and i lost my job in the end, to some people that would be a disaster but it was the best thing that happened to me because it gave me time away to sort myself out. I havn't had a smoke in about 2yrs and i have a pretty decent job finally, all in all life is good. Anyway, smokers can smoke wherever they want aslong as their not breaking the law. To everyone moaning about them smoking near entrances or places you have to pass - just shut the fuck up and deal with it. There's far worser things to contend with in life than having to pass through second hand smoke for 2 seconds. As for banning it all together - that's ridiculous.
Ryuk Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) I agree with andy tbh, people need to put up or shut up, its the outside for crist sake, if you don't want to smell someone's smoke then don't stand next to them period! I can actully see it becoming illegal to smoke full stop which in my opinion is a joke, its already the law your not allowed to smoke in the bus shelters or in pubs etc. Edited February 4, 2011 by Ryuk
Beast Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I never get that about alcohol either. If you don't like it, don't drink it. The first time I tried Guinness, I loved it. The first time I tried Pedigree or Banks', I hated it so I don't drink them. In saying this, I can go up to an ignorant* smoker who's smoking in an entrance and start blowing shit in his face since it's not against the law, but it would be rude. As I said, I don't necessarily mind when there's nowhere else, like some pubs, but when there's a perfectly good smoking shack being unused, it gets on my nerves. Second-hand smoke does cause problems, me among many other people, dead and living, are proof. Fair enough that it may be for two seconds but why should I pass through smoke making my clothes and hair stink when they have a shelter out back or somewhere? I know that sometimes there isn't a shelter, in which that case, I put up as I always had to, but when there is, it confuses me. It would be nice for people not to smoke since it would benefit other people as well as themselves. A thing that made me so sure I'd never touch a cigarette (and why I'm so against smoking) is seeing a dying man on his death bed, struggling so much just to breathe. Hearing his breathing rattling like someone was invisibly strangling him or something. Unable to talk to say what he wanted and didn't want, struggling to muster the breath to say even one word. Getting out of breath just walking a couple of steps and even that is a struggle. It's not a pretty sight and this was caused by smoking. It's a filthy habit, it stinks and it's really effective to your health. Fair enough if you were from the old days and you had no warnings but today, warnings are everywhere and yet you ignore them and carry on smoking. I'm not saying all will be like the man I just told you about but there is a chance you would be, is having a fag really worth that? I would never wish any of that on my friends or family who smoke! *I am not saying all smokers are ignorant but I am talking about specific people who are quite rude.
AndyWylde Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Again, it can cause serious harm in prolonged exposion. Much like car fumes. Exhaust fumes from chimneys. Pretty much everything. Shall we ban fossil fuels because you're a such a princess and can't have your little circle of balance disturbed? You're the cause of most of the world's problems, you and people like you, with this self-righteous self-centered attitude. We're a flawed race, so there must be tolerance for our nature in the way we govern ourselves. We must compromise to achieve a scenario where the majority is pleased with the overall structure of life. In this particular case there's no evidence to believe that standard exposure to second hand smoke causes any health hazards that go beyond slight discomfort. Therefore, since the first hand smokers seem to be getting something out of it and it's not really harming anyone in any meaningful way, we, as a society must tolerate this habit, since it's considered a legal habit by the laws that govern us. So far, we have no reason to believe it damages you more than passing by someone listening to loud music on the street, and therefore it must remain a liberty the majority shall have to endure since there's quite literally no harm being done. It's a nuisance, yes... I don't like it either, but it's their legal right to enjoy a smoke in an enviorenment where they won't be harming anyone who doesn't want to be harmed. So far I haven't found evidence of a single case of a second hand smoker having health problems without it being tied to prolonged exposure, so why should we disrespect a minority in such a way? If it bothers you that much you're the one with a problem, since most people seem to be somewhat ok with it. Uphold the will of the majority, but never disrespect the minorities, that is the rule of democracy. And I happen to believe in it. Brilliant post, should be the end of it all really
Cube Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Brilliant post, should be the end of it all really Exactly. It's extremely disrespectful to people who physically have problems with breathing while near people smoking, hence why it should be banned from busy areas.
Caris Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Hitler was a great man, and to be compared to him would surely be an honour Post of 2011, I love this.
EEVILMURRAY Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Yerrr I know but I'm more tired than I thought I was when I started. Alright I'll try. I just find it hideously authoritarian. It's unnecessarily restrictive and people should be allowed to smoke outside if they want to. If someone is THAT bothered about inhaling secondary smoke then they should just man the fuck up, quite frankly. A fleeting moment of my/someone's displeasure at someone else's smoke doesn't warrant a ban on smoking. Can I piss on you then? Sure you'll be a little wet and your clothes will smell (smoke doesn't do that apparently) but it won't take long, I'll only do it for 2 seconds so you're not getting it all. A fleeting moment of relieving my bladder. Smoking in crowds? I'm assuming you'll be on the move, as it's illegal to smoke in many buildings e.g football grounds etc. So how would passing through smoke for all of 2secs affect you? Now add that to the 2 seconds you got an hour ago, and the five seconds you'll get standing next to that smoker in a minute. Add it all up over the years, congratulations. You've got cancer. It's hardly harmful. Studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from it. If you don't believe the Wiki, let Geneva guide you. "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability" http://www.who.int/tobacco/framework/WHO_FCTC_english.pdf But yes, we should ban fossil fuels. Force people to find a green energy source, or else they will DIE. C'mon he's just one man. At least give him some weapons. I started smoking due to stress, work was fucked up, my gf at the time was cheating on me and the bitch was still living with me, i was in a fair bit of debt etc etc Some pr0 advice here. just man the fuck up, quite frankly. just shut the fuck up and deal with it.
Debug Mode Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 This will only move the smokers indoors and have a more profound second hand smoke effect because of course, smoking outside is well ventilated, inside not so much. E-cig's for the win. SMOKE 'ERRY WHERE 'ERRY DAY. And the only 2 people to give me shit about it changed their minds when I told them what it was.
Cube Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 They are banning smokers from smoking in busy areas and parks. They are not banning smokers from everywhere outside.
nightwolf Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 They are banning smokers from smoking in busy areas and parks. They are not banning smokers from everywhere outside. I can understand that, but what bothers me is people going on about how it effects others, you realise how much it costs people in this country alone for those who shovel burgers and fatty foods down them right? Hardly anyone complains about that, because they don't see it, until the tax man comes along. I don't particularly care as it is, really I can understand both sides, there are benefits but on the other hand people should be allowed to smoke outside as they please. *shrug* it's a lose lose situation, someone is always going to be unhappy.
Pit-Jr Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 People smoking outdoors is the absolute LEAST of New York's problems.....
jayseven Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 Sobered up, and read the thread. Other places in the US already have a similar legislation, and if you look at it as an anti-littering campaign then it is totally understandable. Smoking has rapidly become some mad form of anti-social behavior in the last decade, and what gets me most is the anti-smokers who have put up with it for so long are suddenly so rabid and trigger-happy about just openly shouting at smokers. In my opinion, the reaction a non-smoker has is greatly oversized in comparison to the act of smoking. Threads like this piss me off because everyone starts generalising. One smoker has smoked right next to you? BAN ALL CIGARETTES AND PUT THE FUCKER IN JAIL. The next smoker that walks past also deserves a look of contempt because he is clearly morally, psychologically and spiritually related to the first smoker and you clearly have a right to immediately cast an opinion of disproval on his character. I just think there are much, much, much bigger and important things to waste your emotions on than the dilemma of whether to shake a fist or not. Is living in a society where people smoke really making you hate life/the world/people that much? Sidenote: Thing about laws is that they should come with an attached "... this is illegal because..." so that an individual can fight the claim. If I'm smoking on the beach and there's nobody near me for 300 metres, and I've got a stubby (portable ashtray), is someone right to come all the way over to me and fine me £31? If the law is in place for health reasons and environmental reasons and I'm not going against either cause of the law, then should the law be upheld just for the sake of it? A minor question.
Supergrunch Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 (edited) It's hardly harmful. Studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from it. So it's really a question of selfishness for the most part. Perfume might damage someone if he's allergic to a component. The probability of it happening is infinitely small, but then again so is the prob that second hand smoking will affect you in any meaningful way. Constant exposure may lead to some complications, but that's really up to the victim. In your later posts you take it as a given that constant exposure is bad for you, but here you just say it “may lead to some complications,” and that generally “tudies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from [secondhand smoke].” Thus your below claim holds no weight, you’re clearly considering both types of passive smoking here. When we're talking about second hand smoking on the street, it's quite obvious it's going to be incidental. Moreover, saying there “may [be] some complications” but otherwise “virtually almost no problems” is vastly different to your later claim, made once people have posted studies: it can cause serious harm in prolonged exposion. Furthermore, your statement that “studies have concluded that virtually almost no problems have arisen from [secondhand smoke],” is simply incorrect. Your conclusion that incidental exposure to secondhand smoke is largely unproblematic derives not from studies showing this, but from the lack of studies showing the opposite, as is clear in (for instance) this post: 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. A lack of studies finding problems is a very different thing to studies that find no problems, which is what you initially claimed existed. Thus your conclusion that incidental exposure is essentially unproblematic is just as speculative as claims that it is in fact bad for you, which you seem to think can be disregarded for this reason: that is hardly an excuse to violate someone's liberty in such a way, especially since it's mostly speculation and heresay. By contrast, I think speculation is entirely worthwhile, and actually agree with your later speculation – it’s likely that incidental exposure is somewhat negligibly bad for you, and so it may be that it’s draconian to ban people smoking on the street, although merely banning people from smoking in parks and crowded public places (what they are actually doing) is somewhat more debateable. Crucially, I’m not saying incidental exposure isn’t bad, I’m suggesting it’s potentially reasonable to suppose its effects are minimal. But I’m not completely comfortable that decisions are being made on this kind of evidence, although unfortunately these kinds of decisions have to be made. 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? So yes, I largely agree with your ultimate claims. This is totally independent from your argumentation, however, which was definitely flawed, and is partially what lead to the response you’ve been getting. And it’s not the smoking legislation that I was debating, it was the validity of your earlier claims. Edited February 4, 2011 by Supergrunch
Nintendohnut Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 If the government banned smoking entirely nobody would even care about this in 50 years. By then all the people who currently smoke will be old or dead (probably from cancer, if not just old age) and hardly any people would start. It would be similar to the drug problem currently - there's a black market in it, but it's not wide-spread and only happens in small areas. Just a thought. I often think how odd it is that cigarettes, which have been shown to kill hundreds of thousands every year and cause cancer in many more, are still legal when other addictive drugs that ultimately do cause problems, but which for the most part are less serious (such as Cannabis), are illegal. It's strange when you think about it - I suppose it's all about the money involved.
Ramar Posted February 4, 2011 Posted February 4, 2011 I often think how odd it is that cigarettes, which have been shown to kill hundreds of thousands every year and cause cancer in many more, are still legal when other addictive drugs that ultimately do cause problems, but which for the most part are less serious (such as Cannabis), are illegal. It's strange when you think about it - I suppose it's all about the money involved. One three letter word, tax.
Recommended Posts