Admin
Administrator
Posts: 377
|
Post by Admin on Jul 25, 2013 11:44:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 25, 2013 13:13:03 GMT
Let's all sing a chorus of "Nanny-State Authoritarianism" together.
Oh, I forgot, that song has yet to be written but we can say that "Kumbaya" would be inappropriate in a Nanny-State Authoritarian society. How about we all take up chewing tobacco and spitting on the streets of Paris when we visit France.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Jul 29, 2013 23:00:28 GMT
Let's all sing a chorus of "Nanny-State Authoritarianism" together. Oh, I forgot, that song has yet to be written but we can say that "Kumbaya" would be inappropriate in a Nanny-State Authoritarian society. How about we all take up chewing tobacco and spitting on the streets of Paris when we visit France. It's an interesting thing that most anti-smokers don't realize (especially in the UK) is that smokers contribute more to the economy than they take out of it. Smoking costs the UK (mainly the NHS service) around £5 bil per year, yet it makes approx £8 bil a year in revenue .. I make that a £3 bil a year gain, and that figure doesn't take in account the fact that smokers live an average of 5 years less than non-smokers. I just wish they would leave us alone .. lol who am I kidding.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 30, 2013 12:55:10 GMT
What I find more interesting is that all of the "secondhand" smoke illness statistics I've every read, when we follow the linkages for the statistical studies, have been based upon a 1991 study on smoking that was discredited by the scientific community based upon peer review. Basically the statistics are an extrapolation of a lie.
If we really address the issue of secondhand smoke it's because some people don't like the smell and not because there's scientific evidence that secondhand smoke actually causes illness. Now I can understand people not liking the smell of secondhand smoke but it would be nice if people were actually honest about it.
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Jul 30, 2013 14:30:19 GMT
It probably be so bad, but smokers bring this on themselves by littering with their bad habit. How many have sat down on a park bench, look down, and the grounds are littered with cig butts? It's nasty...and it's stinky. You can go by a front door entrance to a building and even though no smokers are standing there at the moment, you have to go through a smelly area to get in....and it permeates the skin and clothing. Not to mention.....I've seen far too many people dying of strokes, etc......brought on by years of smoking.
Recently, we went in to a Chili's restaurant that we had been in before. The only thing we hated about that Chili's is that it had a smoking section in the bar, but it was so open to the rest of the restaurant that everyone had to share that smoky air while they ate. But that time, there was no smoke; they had changed to a smoke free restaurant. While we were not the ones who had complained, evidently enough people did that they changed the rules. It was wonderful....and I asked to speak to the Manager on the way out an thanked him profusely for making the change!!
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Jul 30, 2013 22:45:49 GMT
It probably be so bad, but smokers bring this on themselves by littering with their bad habit. How many have sat down on a park bench, look down, and the grounds are littered with cig butts? It's nasty...and it's stinky. You can go by a front door entrance to a building and even though no smokers are standing there at the moment, you have to go through a smelly area to get in....and it permeates the skin and clothing. Not to mention.....I've seen far too many people dying of strokes, etc......brought on by years of smoking. Recently, we went in to a Chili's restaurant that we had been in before. The only thing we hated about that Chili's is that it had a smoking section in the bar, but it was so open to the rest of the restaurant that everyone had to share that smoky air while they ate. But that time, there was no smoke; they had changed to a smoke free restaurant. While we were not the ones who had complained, evidently enough people did that they changed the rules. It was wonderful....and I asked to speak to the Manager on the way out an thanked him profusely for making the change!! So let me get this right, you support a smoking ban because it is smelly and there are butts on the floor .. ok I know lets ban fast-food places as well, they stink and the litter is all over the place, they also cause obesity which can lead to diabetes, and heart disease .. that would include your Chili's as well.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Aug 7, 2013 16:52:35 GMT
I'm sorry, but smoking is an indefensible and filthy habit, and I am appalled and ashamed at the number of people (mainly females)in my age group who take up smoking. And whether it is carcinogenic, or just unpleasant and smelly, no one has the right to impose their second-hand smoke upon the public. If people want to fill their lungs with carcinogens, there shuold be special sealed rooms where they pay admission to go and smoke for a set period of time. These rooms could be cleared out periodically, and the smoke filled air chemically cleaned (if that is possible). It would be expensive, but what price do we consider reasonable for a lesser incidence of lung cancer?
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Aug 8, 2013 12:07:58 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23515135The problem is that smokers gradually become more and more publicly vilified, but the activity is not (yet!) illegal, so they should be free to do it. The pub smoking ban in the UK was far more draconian than was ever necessary - there could have been provision for indoor smoking areas or smoking rooms allowed, with enforced ventilation and air quality standards, and so on. Now French ministers are talking about “general mobilisation against tobacco” and banning people from smoking outside as well, and it's only a matter of time before more countries follow the same line - it's getting ridiculous. Now I certainly take the point about mess around doorways and so on, but the reason for that is that people can't smoke anywhere once they go through the doors, and remedies for it can be as simple as decent provision of ashtrays and covered outside areas where smokers can go in the rain. It's as if persecution against smoking and smokers is acceptable, though - all they are doing is exercising their legal right to choose to smoke. what's next - banning eating of food containing garlic indoors (and in French parks) in case someone finds the smell 'offensive'?!
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 1, 2013 0:00:03 GMT
I'm sorry, but smoking is an indefensible and filthy habit, and I am appalled and ashamed at the number of people (mainly females)in my age group who take up smoking. And whether it is carcinogenic, or just unpleasant and smelly, no one has the right to impose their second-hand smoke upon the public. If people want to fill their lungs with carcinogens, there shuold be special sealed rooms where they pay admission to go and smoke for a set period of time. These rooms could be cleared out periodically, and the smoke filled air chemically cleaned (if that is possible). It would be expensive, but what price do we consider reasonable for a lesser incidence of lung cancer? So is over eating and indefensible and filthy habit, perhaps we should create special sealed rooms for that as well .. even better stop offering medical services for the obese. While we are at it lets ban cars as well, those exhaust fumes are really bad for your health - recombu.com/cars/articles/news/exhaust-fumes-now-linked-to-kidney-damage-claims-researchOh hell lets just ban everything that is bad for you!!!
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 2, 2013 8:07:36 GMT
I'm sorry, but smoking is an indefensible and filthy habit, and I am appalled and ashamed at the number of people (mainly females)in my age group who take up smoking. And whether it is carcinogenic, or just unpleasant and smelly, no one has the right to impose their second-hand smoke upon the public. If people want to fill their lungs with carcinogens, there shuold be special sealed rooms where they pay admission to go and smoke for a set period of time. These rooms could be cleared out periodically, and the smoke filled air chemically cleaned (if that is possible). It would be expensive, but what price do we consider reasonable for a lesser incidence of lung cancer? So is over eating and indefensible and filthy habit, perhaps we should create special sealed rooms for that as well .. even better stop offering medical services for the obese. While we are at it lets ban cars as well, those exhaust fumes are really bad for your health - recombu.com/cars/articles/news/exhaust-fumes-now-linked-to-kidney-damage-claims-researchOh hell lets just ban everything that is bad for you!!! Over-eating is a habit which is bad primarily for the over-eater. He/she will live a shorter and less pleasant life, but that habit will not directly affect your or my state of health. Motor exhaust fumes are indeed a problem, but at least the only effects of vehicles are not self-gratification and carcinogens. Motorised transport has become necessary for society to function, and I hope you are not an American who drives a enormous SUV or 'truck', because your protests about vehicular emissions could then be regarded as a little hypocritical. I must assume you drive (if at all) a very small, light vehicle, and I commend you for that.
Your premise which seems to be if one unfortunate aspect of society is allowed, then all other assualts upon the human condition must follow, is not something with which I can readily concur, but we all find our way to Hell in our own fashion, and you are entitled to your opinions.
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Nov 2, 2013 10:52:57 GMT
Over-eating is a habit which is bad primarily for the over-eater. He/she will live a shorter and less pleasant life, but that habit will not directly affect your or my state of health. As is the case with smoking out of doors in the open air. Now if the argument was that there should be a specific offence of deliberately blowing smoke directly at another person (treated as a kind of assault) I wouldn't disagree (not would I disagree about increasing penalties for those who throw their cigarettes on the floor instead of using bins/ashtrays), but generally smoking in the open air is not going to be harming anyone other than the smoker themselves, and in a free society it should be up to them to decide for themselves as long as they are made aware of the risks. Otherwise we will end up living in a society where the government closely regulates everything that people are allowed to do, and bans anything that they consider to be 'unacceptable risky' or 'potentially damaging' - apart from that being an appalling thing to even contemplate for a society, as was proved in the US in the 1920's not only do such ideas not actually work, all they achieve is to promote and fund organised crime.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 2, 2013 11:32:24 GMT
Over-eating is a habit which is bad primarily for the over-eater. He/she will live a shorter and less pleasant life, but that habit will not directly affect your or my state of health. Motor exhaust fumes are indeed a problem, but at least the only effects of vehicles are not self-gratification and carcinogens. Motorised transport has become necessary for society to function, and I hope you are not an American who drives a enormous SUV or 'truck', because your protests about vehicular emissions could then be regarded as a little hypocritical. I must assume you drive (if at all) a very small, light vehicle, and I commend you for that.
Your premise which seems to be if one unfortunate aspect of society is allowed, then all other assualts upon the human condition must follow, is not something with which I can readily concur, but we all find our way to Hell in our own fashion, and you are entitled to your opinions.
I'm from the UK and drive a dual fuel car (Petrol (gasoline) and electric), and as the other comment points out smoking in the open air has no effect on anyone but the person doing it. There is also the cost application, I don't know the figures for the US but in the UK smoking achieves something around £9 billion pounds income for the government in taxes etc, smokers cost our National Health Service around £8 Billion a year, add to that-that smokers tend to live shorter lives and you also have the savings on pensions etc. Obesity costs the NHS around £4 Billion a year with little to no income gained by the government because of it. I understand, though do not agree, with the ban on smoking in clubs, bars etc there are ample ways to remove smoke from the area concerned and if the workforce have objections then perhaps they should seek employment in an area that would not bring them into contact with smokers in the first place. Alcohol is another item that seems to be basically ignored, it has a far greater impact than any other substance, in fact alcohol is the third leading cause of disease burden in developed countries.
|
|
|
Post by cenydd on Nov 2, 2013 11:54:19 GMT
I understand, though do not agree, with the ban on smoking in clubs, bars etc there are ample ways to remove smoke from the area concerned and if the workforce have objections then perhaps they should seek employment in an area that would not bring them into contact with smokers in the first place. The smoking ban was unnecessarily draconian, in my opinion. The previous situation was bad, and did need to be addressed, but an outright ban was the wrong way to do it. There could have been tough measures introduced to include pubs having to have non-smoking sections covering at least half of the floor area which were fully isolated from smoking areas, minimum ventillation and air quality standards in both smoking and non-smoking sections, and so on (and if pubs couldn't meet those, then they would have to be entirely non-smoking). That would have allowed an element of choice - if you want to have smoking inside your pub, you have to meet these standards. It would have solved the problem without there needing to be a draconian ban on all smoking in all places.
|
|
|
Post by Leo on Nov 3, 2013 12:31:47 GMT
Over-eating is a habit which is bad primarily for the over-eater. He/she will live a shorter and less pleasant life, but that habit will not directly affect your or my state of health. Motor exhaust fumes are indeed a problem, but at least the only effects of vehicles are not self-gratification and carcinogens. Motorised transport has become necessary for society to function, and I hope you are not an American who drives a enormous SUV or 'truck', because your protests about vehicular emissions could then be regarded as a little hypocritical. I must assume you drive (if at all) a very small, light vehicle, and I commend you for that.
Your premise which seems to be if one unfortunate aspect of society is allowed, then all other assualts upon the human condition must follow, is not something with which I can readily concur, but we all find our way to Hell in our own fashion, and you are entitled to your opinions.
I'm from the UK and drive a dual fuel car (Petrol (gasoline) and electric), and as the other comment points out smoking in the open air has no effect on anyone but the person doing it. There is also the cost application, I don't know the figures for the US but in the UK smoking achieves something around £9 billion pounds income for the government in taxes etc, smokers cost our National Health Service around £8 Billion a year, add to that-that smokers tend to live shorter lives and you also have the savings on pensions etc. Obesity costs the NHS around £4 Billion a year with little to no income gained by the government because of it. I understand, though do not agree, with the ban on smoking in clubs, bars etc there are ample ways to remove smoke from the area concerned and if the workforce have objections then perhaps they should seek employment in an area that would not bring them into contact with smokers in the first place. Alcohol is another item that seems to be basically ignored, it has a far greater impact than any other substance, in fact alcohol is the third leading cause of disease burden in developed countries. My thanks to both you and Cenydd for your reasoned responses, and as I said in my previous post, I commend you for driving an environmentally responsible vehicle. In view of the fact that I respect your respective points of view on most issues, I think it would be better if I were not to discuss the topic of smoking further. I am not convinced that it is possible to avoid breathing second-hand smoke out of doors, and I have frequently had to hold my breath when passing a smoker on the street. I suspect smokers do not notice the acrid air, but people who have never smoked certainly do. I have no idea what the scientific community has to say about these occasional intakes, so I will give no opinion other than to say it is quite unpleasant. The issue is not a major one with me, and both of you are people whom I respect, so I don't want to get into an argument upon this subject. I can easily see your point of view, but I have other opinions.
|
|
|
Post by fugazi on Nov 3, 2013 17:05:53 GMT
I'm from the UK and drive a dual fuel car (Petrol (gasoline) and electric), and as the other comment points out smoking in the open air has no effect on anyone but the person doing it. There is also the cost application, I don't know the figures for the US but in the UK smoking achieves something around £9 billion pounds income for the government in taxes etc, smokers cost our National Health Service around £8 Billion a year, add to that-that smokers tend to live shorter lives and you also have the savings on pensions etc. Obesity costs the NHS around £4 Billion a year with little to no income gained by the government because of it. I understand, though do not agree, with the ban on smoking in clubs, bars etc there are ample ways to remove smoke from the area concerned and if the workforce have objections then perhaps they should seek employment in an area that would not bring them into contact with smokers in the first place. Alcohol is another item that seems to be basically ignored, it has a far greater impact than any other substance, in fact alcohol is the third leading cause of disease burden in developed countries. My thanks to both you and Cenydd for your reasoned responses, and as I said in my previous post, I commend you for driving an environmentally responsible vehicle. In view of the fact that I respect your respective points of view on most issues, I think it would be better if I were not to discuss the topic of smoking further. I am not convinced that it is possible to avoid breathing second-hand smoke out of doors, and I have frequently had to hold my breath when passing a smoker on the street. I suspect smokers do not notice the acrid air, but people who have never smoked certainly do. I have no idea what the scientific community has to say about these occasional intakes, so I will give no opinion other than to say it is quite unpleasant. The issue is not a major one with me, and both of you are people whom I respect, so I don't want to get into an argument upon this subject. I can easily see your point of view, but I have other opinions. All is good with me Leo, and at the end of the day we wouldn't be here if everyone agreed with everyone else. It is good to see opposing points of view .. hopefully we all learn something along the way.
|
|