| Author |
The Smokers Thread |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
Bravo Mr Scots! I must applaud your eloquance. However, if you were to establish a dedicated dwelling for the noble task of consuming cigars and cognac, and thereby keeping Cuban peasants in the manor to which they've become accustomed, which non-smoking neighbourhood would be required to put up with the passing emissions? Perhaps you could build such a place next to a wind farm? 
| |
|
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
On 2007-07-20 04:52:12, scotsboyuk wrote:
On 2007-07-17 19:43:41, mweb6161 wrote:
Maybe they are not accomodating smokers to ANY degree scots, this is ultimatly a health issue NOT a matter of personal liberties.
Allowing you lot to puff yourselves to death in some dank, fog ridden little room is not going to relieve the pressure on the NHS or the damage you cause to yourselves in the long term.
Heres my crumb of comfort though, seeing as smokers pay so much in tax i believe you all ought to get anti-smoking remedies FREE on prescription or free psychiatric counselling for those dumb enough NOT to want to give it up  .
I disagree. Fatty foods are a health risk and they put strain on the NHS through people developing heart disease and so on. We don't ban fatty foods do we? Alcohol is a health risk as it can cause liver damage, again putting strain on the NHS. Alcohol is allowed to be consumed. Cars are a health risk since they emit pollution and have the potential to kill or seriously injure should there be an accident. That puts pressure on the NHS and we don't ban cars. Too much salt in food can be a health risk, but we don't regulate the amount of salt people are allowed to put in their meals.
There are lots of things that can harm us, but are we to regulate and ban them all? I say no! We are individuals capable of reasoning for ourselves. I'm not going to tell someone who likes skydiving he can't do it because there is a risk he might be killed or injured, it's his personal choice if he knows the risks involved.
Smoking has the potential to damage the health of others and I take that on board. If we had dedicated smoking clubs or rooms then people would be aware of the risks involved and they could choose to work in or attend such places themselves. The government should not be telling us how to live our lives.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-07-20 04:09 ]
I agree that this is a health issue and not an issue of personal liberties.
In your argument Scots you refer to fatty foods, alcohol, cars and salt but all of these have some benefits and can be used in reduced quantities with no ill effects. In the case of cars, and I believe we can include all internal combustion engines in this broad definition, all western and developing economies would collapse if they were banned. You know this. Smoking though has no redeeming features. Every cigarette or cigar is doing you damage. All the psychological benefits you derive can also be gained from other rituals and behaviors. Do you not agree?
|
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
On 2007-07-22 15:08:38, carkitter wrote:
Smoking though has no redeeming features. Every cigarette or cigar is doing you damage. All the psychological benefits you derive can also be gained from other rituals and behaviors. Do you not agree?
no redeeming features? you forget the Billions in £££$$$ tax generated by tobbacco which injects huge amounts of cash into the worlds economy.
Also every form of life has its varied level of risk attached. some where you are at risk of instant death some where you reduce your life expectancy, whether they have any benefit at all is totally irrelavent, as its purly down to individual choice, or in this case a lack of it.
jump out of a plane with a parachute? bungee jump? Motor Racing? smoking in designated smoking rooms? whatever flicks your switch! there are plenty of activitys that impose a risk on 3rd parties!!!
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
I agree that this is a health issue and not an issue of personal liberties.
There is a health issue yes, but there is also an issue of personal liberty too in my opinion.
In your argument Scots you refer to fatty foods, alcohol, cars and salt but all of these have some benefits and can be used in reduced quantities with no ill effects. In the case of cars, and I believe we can include all internal combustion engines in this broad definition, all western and developing economies would collapse if they were banned. You know this. Smoking though has no redeeming features. Every cigarette or cigar is doing you damage. All the psychological benefits you derive can also be gained from other rituals and behaviors. Do you not agree?
What one considers a redeeming feature depends upon one's point of view. For instance I enjoy the ritual and relaxation a fine cigar brings me. I can't experience the ritual through other means since it is unique to smoking cigars. For example, I enjoy the taste of a cigar and combining that taste with different beverages and foods to enhance the flavour of each. One can't simply replace that.
As for the relaxation aspect of it yes I could relax through other means, but the point is I don't want to. Are we to be told how we may and may not relax?
If cigars and tobacco damage my health that is my choice to make. I don't want to live in a country where the government dictates what you may or may not do with your own body. I am all for consideration and I do not wish non-smokers to have to breathe in my smoke; I will refrain from smoking where people object to it and I would be quite happy to make use of a dedicated facility for smokers. What I want to know is why the government will not allow this? They allow smoking outside in the street where it can be breathed in by passers by, why not a dedicated room where the only people breathing in the smoke would be people who were doing so by choice?
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-07-23 01:35 ] |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
@scotsboyuk
Redeem
One entry found for redeem.
Main Entry: re·deem
Pronunciation: ri-'dEm
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English redemen, from Anglo-French redemer, modification of Latin redimere, from re-, red- re- + emere to take, buy; akin to Lithuanian imti to take
1 a : to buy back : REPURCHASE b : to get or win back
2 : to free from what distresses or harms: as a : to free from captivity by payment of ransom b : to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental c : to release from blame or debt : CLEAR d : to free from the consequences of sin
3 : to change for the better : REFORM
4 : REPAIR, RESTORE
5 a : to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby b (1) : to remove the obligation of by payment (2) : to exchange for something of value c : to make good : FULFILL
6 a : to atone for : EXPIATE b (1) : to offset the bad effect of (2) : to make worthwhile : RETRIEVE
synonym see RESCUE
'To offset the bad effect of' is the meaning I intended. No matter how good the taste or how well it accompanies food, that cannot offset the harm it causes you. There is no recommended level of tobacco fume exposure. A Doctors advice is simply to give up.
"If cigars and tobacco damage my health that is my choice to make."
Actually that's wrong. Cigars and Tobacco damage your health regardless of whether you choose that they do or not. Sorry to be pedantic and quibble over choice of words, but this is a common misconception among smokers - that they are in control of the situation. It's when you start to give up that you realise it's the cigarettes/cigars and the tobacco companies that are in control. They're feeding you an addictive poison knowingly and that's why Governments now feel duty bound to intervene.
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-07-23 14:25 ] |
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
On 2007-07-22 14:44:19, carkitter wrote:
Bravo Mr Scots! I must applaud your eloquance. However, if you were to establish a dedicated dwelling for the noble task of consuming cigars and cognac, and thereby keeping Cuban peasants in the manor to which they've become accustomed, which non-smoking neighbourhood would be required to put up with the passing emissions? Perhaps you could build such a place next to a wind farm?
Ahh thats the word!! Eloquence!!
Can one learn to speak eloquently?
|
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
On 2007-07-20 18:32:06, scotsboyuk wrote:
...Another point to make is that one can't smoke in one's own home if there is a council official there who objects! In one's own home! It's madness! Utter madness! Goodness knows how we got into this bally nonsense, but someone has to stand up and put a stop to it! When Churchill was invited to lunch with the King of Saudi Arabia he was told that alcohol and smoking would not be permitted at the lunch, to which Churchill replied "I must point out that my rule of life prescribed as an absolutely sacred rite smoking cigars and also the drinking of alcohol before, after, and if need be during all meals and in the intervals between them." Huzzah and double huzzah I say! That's the sort of attitude we need more of these days!
This paragraph is contradictory. You begin with an objection to a visitor in your home being able to dictate the rules, then finish with an anecdote of your former Prime Minister doing exactly that to a foreign Head of State no less! And you applaud this attitude! I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. 
@786KBR
Only if your teacher is 'enry 'iggins
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-07-23 13:22 ] |
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
here we go! @carkitter: cut-n-pasteing definitions of a single word shows your complete lack of understanding of the matter.
please go right back to square one, and simply put yourself in the position where by your country banned cars in public and were only available to use in private conditions like racetracks.
now just forget the fact that the likelyness of this happening is zero. please also forget that this is a fundemental form of transportation. i'm highlighting only the pleasure from car driving.
assuming you were an avid car driver and enjoyed nothing but to get in your car and go for a jolly good drive on the public roads, this would be a disaster for you surely. wether you agree with the fact that youre putting yourself, and others, at risk each time you drove.
now. how would it feel? like a civil liberty has been taken away? a freedom of choice has been removed? this is the point i am trying to make, regardless of risk; which is measurable in all activities, those choices have been removed on a massive level for smokers. |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
@scotsboyuk
Redeem
One entry found for redeem.
Main Entry: re·deem
Pronunciation: ri-'dEm
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English redemen, from Anglo-French redemer, modification of Latin redimere, from re-, red- re- + emere to take, buy; akin to Lithuanian imti to take
1 a : to buy back : REPURCHASE b : to get or win back
2 : to free from what distresses or harms: as a : to free from captivity by payment of ransom b : to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental c : to release from blame or debt : CLEAR d : to free from the consequences of sin
3 : to change for the better : REFORM
4 : REPAIR, RESTORE
5 a : to free from a lien by payment of an amount secured thereby b (1) : to remove the obligation of by payment (2) : to exchange for something of value c : to make good : FULFILL
6 a : to atone for : EXPIATE b (1) : to offset the bad effect of (2) : to make worthwhile : RETRIEVE
synonym see RESCUE
'To offset the bad effect of' is the meaning I intended. No matter how good the taste or how well it accompanies food, that cannot offset the harm it causes you. There is no recommended level of tobacco fume exposure. A Doctors advice is simply to give up.
Who is to judge what each person considers an acceptable compromise? You do not consider the taste and relaxation it affords to offset the potential health risks, but I do. As I said before it is a subjective issue; I consider the ritual, the taste and the experience of smoking to be worth the potential harm I cause myself.
Does the thrill of jumping out of a plane offset the risks? Does breaking the land speed record offset the risk of driving a car faster than the speed of sound? What is unacceptable to one person may not be acceptable to another. Personally I don't try and judge that.
"If cigars and tobacco damage my health that is my choice to make."
Actually that's wrong. Cigars and Tobacco damage your health regardless of whether you choose that they do or not. Sorry to be pedantic and quibble over choice of words, but this is a common misconception among smokers - that they are in control of the situation. It's when you start to give up that you realise it's the cigarettes/cigars and the tobacco companies that are in control. They're feeding you an addictive poison knowingly and that's why Governments now feel duty bound to intervene.
I started smoking cigars in full knowledge that they are bad for my health and I continue to smoke them knowing that they are bad for my health. The choice to start smoking was mine to make and in fact I didn't start smoking until relatively late on, around 19 or 20. I obviously wasn't addicted before I started so there was no compunction on me; I made the choice myself.
I don't think most smokers do think they can just stop smoking easily, I don't think most people are that naive. Where I think there is misunderstanding is in assuming that all smokers necessarily want to give up smoking. Personally I do not; I enjoy smoking and I shall jolly well continue to enjoy it.
As for it being addictive I think there are various things that are addictive, but we don't necessarily interfere with people's ability to use them. Alcohol can be addictive and yet one can go into a shop and buy as much alcohol as one has money for. Painkillers can be addictive and, despite a limit on how many you can buy in one shop, one can buy as many as one likes by visiting different shops. Goodness, even computer games can be addictive and yet we don't regulate how long people are allowed to play them.
There seems to be a misconception amongst non-smokers that every smoker is gasping for a puff if they go more than five minutes without tobacco. Some people are highly addicted, but there are others who smoke socially and who may not smoke at all except in certain situations. Personally I do enjoy a smoke each day, but I have been known not to smoke for extended periods e.g. if I am staying with someone who doesn't allow it.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-07-24 03:14 ] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-07-23 14:20:13, carkitter wrote:
>
This paragraph is contradictory. You begin with an objection to a visitor in your home being able to dictate the rules, then finish with an anecdote of your former Prime Minister doing exactly that to a foreign Head of State no less! And you applaud this attitude! I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.
The lunch was being held by Churchill, which made him the host. It is the host's prerogative to decide upon the etiquette of the occasion, and thus it was down to Churchill to decide. The other point that should be made is that the King of Saudi Arabia was apparently gracious enough to accept his host's decision and not to inconvenience his host.
If someone is in my home then I am the host and I make the rules of the house. It should be up to me to offer not to smoke in front of a guest; I should not have to seek the permission of a guest to smoke in my own home if I want to.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
carkitter
Joined: Apr 29, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Auckland, NZ
PM |
Obviously you weren't addicted before you started, but no doubt there was some compunction, either on the part of peers, media advertising or conforming to a family tradition perhaps?
On 2007-07-23 14:20:13, carkitter wrote:
>
This paragraph is contradictory. You begin with an objection to a visitor in your home being able to dictate the rules, then finish with an anecdote of your former Prime Minister doing exactly that to a foreign Head of State no less! And you applaud this attitude! I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.
The lunch was being held by Churchill, which made him the host. It is the host's prerogative to decide upon the etiquette of the occasion, and thus it was down to Churchill to decide. The other point that should be made is that the King of Saudi Arabia was apparently gracious enough to accept his host's decision and not to inconvenience his host.
I'm confused. In your earlier post it's said that Churchill was invited - that makes him the guest, no? The conditions imposed are I believe consistant with some Arab laws, I'd hardly expect a guest to impose them on a host (when in Rome... and all that) especially if Churchill was anything like Albert Finny's portrayal in 'The Gathering Storm'... loved that movie.
If someone is in my home then I am the host and I make the rules of the house. It should be up to me to offer not to smoke in front of a guest; I should not have to seek the permission of a guest to smoke in my own home if I want to.
Agreed.
I've tried to ignore the posts about thrill seeking behaviour, but in response to that I must say that Skydivers follow safety proceedures, Bungy Jumpers wear harnesses, Racing Motorists use helmets, seatbelts, flame proof undergarmets even. After all, why take the risk if you won't live to score chicks with the story afterwards  .
Smoking is a different sort of risk taking behaviour... the risks involve long unpleasant illness' at some unspecified time in the future and there is no safety equipment (except maybe the filter) to minimise the risk.
I must say, a discerning smoker such as yourself, is infinitely preferable to the great number of those who leave thier used butts discarded all over the place. I'd happily put up with a small amount of smoke to have lunch with such an eloquent and accomplished debator. I'll bet the King of Saudi Arabia felt the same way. 
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-07-24 08:09 ] |
chrisfirst
Joined: Nov 20, 2003
Posts: 266
From: London
PM |
OK, things geting violent now...
Boxer shot over club smoking row
The shooting is being investigated by Operation Trident detectives
A former British heavyweight boxer was shot when he asked customers at a club to stop smoking.
James Oyebola, 47, is critically ill in hospital after being shot in the head and leg at Chateau 6 in Fulham Road, in south-west London.
Three men were seen running away after the 6ft 9ins tall former fighter, from north-west London, was shot.
Police said Mr Oyebola was involved in an altercation about smoking before being shot in the rear garden area.
A search of the area was undertaken by police, including armed officers, following the shooting in the early hours of Monday.
It is a horrible crime to happen anywhere but over nothing - an incident such as smoking - these people need to be caught
DCI Scott Wilson
The shooting is being handled by detectives from Operation Trident, which investigates gun crime in the black community.
Det Ch Insp Scott Wilson said police believe the three black suspects, aged between 19 and 25, ran from the club in separate directions.
"The altercation takes place, someone pulled out a gun and shots are fired, I can imagine it was over in 20 seconds," DCI Wilson said.
"It is a horrible crime to happen anywhere but over nothing - an incident such as smoking - these people need to be caught," he said.
In a statement Oyebola's family thanked friends and fans for their "unprecedented show of support for James's well being".
Mr Oyebola's former manager, Frank Maloney, described the boxer as a "gentle giant" and said he had done a lot of work in the community to get youngsters into boxing and sport.
"I was absolutely devastated, struck dumb when I heard the news," he told BBC London.
The British Boxing Board of Control paid tribute to the former heavyweight champion, turned manager.
General secretary Simon Block said Mr Oyebola was "one of nature's gentlemen" and the shooting was a "cowardly and gutless attack".
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6912900.stm
This message was posted from a P2000 |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-07-24 09:04:52, carkitter wrote:
Obviously you weren't addicted before you started, but no doubt there was some compunction, either on the part of peers, media advertising or conforming to a family tradition perhaps?
Not at all. In fact I was decidedly against smoking before I started. I started smoking of my own free will.
I'm confused. In your earlier post it's said that Churchill was invited - that makes him the guest, no? The conditions imposed are I believe consistant with some Arab laws, I'd hardly expect a guest to impose them on a host (when in Rome... and all that) especially if Churchill was anything like Albert Finny's portrayal in 'The Gathering Storm'... loved that movie.
I'm sorry I I got the situation wrong, but from what I understand Churchill was the host. He says so himself. Churchill being the host had the right to set the etiquette and tone of the luncheon.
I've tried to ignore the posts about thrill seeking behaviour, but in response to that I must say that Skydivers follow safety proceedures, Bungy Jumpers wear harnesses, Racing Motorists use helmets, seatbelts, flame proof undergarmets even. After all, why take the risk if you won't live to score chicks with the story afterwards .
A skydiver can use all the safety features he likes, but there is still the risk they will fail. The safety features don't remove the risks entirely. The same is true of smoking; one can say that one only puffs and doe snot inhale, but of course it still harms one's health.
Smoking is a different sort of risk taking behaviour... the risks involve long unpleasant illness' at some unspecified time in the future and there is no safety equipment (except maybe the filter) to minimise the risk.
Whether their is safety equipment or not is not the point. The point is that if someone take up smoking with full knowledge of the risks involved then that is their right to do so. If someone decides to eat a fat laden breakfast everyday of their lives knowing full well that it may increase their chance of heart disease then that is their choice too, and so on.
BY all means educate people on the dangers of smoking, but at the end of the day it is up to the individual.
I must say, a discerning smoker such as yourself, is infinitely preferable to the great number of those who leave thier used butts discarded all over the place. I'd happily put up with a small amount of smoke to have lunch with such an eloquent and accomplished debator. I'll bet the King of Saudi Arabia felt the same way.
I must agree with you here, littering is a foul thing. I myself am guilty of it on occasion and I always regret it. There really is no excuse for putting a little effort into finding a suitable vessel to dispose of one's butt or ash.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
yes i read this on the way home last night. its terrible news.
but interefering with the wrong people for whatever reason can land you in trouble but shouldnt end up with this extreme.
I would be more inclined to look at this one at the angle of gang culture and possibly the issues with gun crime in the british black communities which has been in the news a lot as well.
a needless loss of life, and if it wasnt for the smoking ban, he wouldnt have asked the question that ultimatly led to the confrontation that ended his life.
[addsig] |
joebmc
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Kent
PM |
On 2007-07-25 10:27:53, batesie wrote:
a needless loss of life, and if it wasnt for the smoking ban, he wouldnt have asked the question that ultimatly led to the confrontation that ended his life.
I can see these assaults become more common (maybe not shootings).
When in a pub/club you tend to drink and as smokers know a pint and a cigarette go hand in. But with the smoking ban in place smokers will have to stand out side the venue, more than likely intoxicated with other intoxicated people which often leads to trouble (fighting…etc).
More people will get injured, more people in A&E, more money spent buy the NHS (probably more cost than dealing with lung cancer patients). Especially now with 24 hour drinking in place too.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: joebmc on 2007-07-25 12:19 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-07-22 14:44
