I drink so rarely and so little (one or two glasses max) that it will in no way affect my liver. And I do not go out and get pissed and behave badly. My drinking will not affect others in any way whatsoever. I can't inflict 'passive drinking' on other people, but if you smoke in the same room as other people, you can affect their health. And I loathe peole who go out on the **** and behave like idiots.
I'm very glad you are a considerate smoker, and actually care about people who might not like your smoke. A lot of smokers wouldn't show this sort of consideration.
Because people who have to breath in the smoke have had no rights in the past. Its about people going into buildings and having a right to clean air for the first time.
I imagine big industry thought the same when chimneys had to produce less fumes, and toxic waste got banned from rivers, all to protect others; what an inconvenience for them, screw everyone else.It makes me want to flaunt the law just to spite it all..
Your attitude is entirely selfish , its not all about you!
Last edited by Dreadful Scathe; 2nd-July-2007 at 11:18 PM.
MODERATOR AT YOUR SERVICE
"If you're going to do something tonight, that you know you'll be sorry for in the morning, plan a lie in." Lorraine
I have nothing against responsible drinking. It's when people drink too much problems arise. And yes, this is a huge problem and cost tax payers lots of money every year.
Also, I have no problem with people smoking, as long as I don't have to inhale their smoke. But smoking does damage your health, and I don't think you can compare that to an occasional glass of wine or beer.
Please remember a crucial distinction - a moderate intake of alcohol is beneficial for health (a glass of red wine a day is beneficial for your heart and circulation whilst your liver is able to process small quantities of alcohol without any harm) whilst intake of cigarette smoke is harmful at all levels.
My understanding is that it is bingo halls that have actually been hit hardest by the smoking ban; people go outside for a fag in the intervals inside of playing (the higher profit margin) fruit machines.
I heard a rumour that in Scotland, compliance with smoking legislation is linked to alcohol licensing; in effect if you get caught allowing smoking in your pub/hotel, you risk losing your licence (and hence livelihood).
It does make me laugh, when smokers chew gum or use mouth spray in order to diguise the fact they have been smoking
Don't they realise that the smoke fumes are in their body, hair and clothes - a non-smoker can always tell - because they often don't say anything it doesn't mean they can't smell it, they are just too polite
AND .......... the worst smell in the world is STALE SMOKE .......... yuck
--ooOoo--
Age is a question of mind over matter, if you don't mind, it doesn't matter
Leroy (Satchel) Paige (1906-1982)
Mickey Mouse's girlfriend, Minnie, made her film debut, along with Mickey, in "Steamboat Willie" on November 18, 1928.
That date is recognized as her official birthday.
Firstly, you don't have a "right" to smoke. You have rights to life, liberty, security, to not be tortured or made a slave, to a fair trial, to not be punished without due process, and so on, but I can't see anything saying "right to smoke" in the European Convention of Human Rights. I guess they must have missed that one.
Secondly, even if you did, it'd be a balancing of an individual right against public welfare. So, for example, "freedom of expression" doesn't allow you freedom to make death threats.
So there's no infringement of any right. There's removal of privilege - but I guess that doesn't sound so good.
Again with the "right". Point out where this right is enshrined to me, OK?
Yes, you could argue that you have some rights to do what you want in your own home under Article 8 (right to respect for private life), but that certainly wouldn't apply outside, or in public places. If you were a naturist, your beliefs wouldn't allow you to parade naked outside, for example
So, once again:
You don't have a right to smoke. You never did. So it's not been removed.
Sorry, but the casual use of the word "rights" gets me going...
What "rights"?
Grrrr.....
Well, the government could indeed theoretically pass a "no public drinking" law - similarly, a drinking ban wouldn't be a violation of anyone's rights, because no-one has a "right" to drink alcohol.
But if you feel strongly about it, why not start a MJ temperance movement? In fact, as a starting point, you could follow Andy's lead and institute a ban on alcohol sales at your venues...
Thank you - at least another brave soul going against the crowd.I agree with Nebula (yes i am also a smoker) in everything she has said in this thread.
Nebula unfortunately this is just a taster of what will happen to smokers in general i think outside now. I think now that the ban is here you will be treated like lepers at every avenue and at every opportunity you will be dug at in one way or another. The habit has become unacceptable and will not be tolerated as it used to be.
i have a question about smokers being allowed to smoke in the house.
Is it child abuse to smoke in front of children. ?
I think it is and it should be made an abusive act.
If we all agree (and i think smokers do) then why do we not see it as abusive to adults for example: in a garden, im sitting enjoying my glass of wine, a smoker comes along, lights up and im getting wafts of that smokers fag all over me, is this not abusive to me. Just becuase your outside does not mean we can not still smell it, we stil inhale it and its still awful for somebody who is not smoking.
I would strongly recommend anybody who smokes to read Allen Carrs easy way to give up smoking, it really is a very good read, even if you dont give up and he tells you not to whilst your smoking it, it certainly will give you something to think about or use as toilet roll should you find it boring.
Including solvent abuse?
I do, I feel it would be irresponsible of me to put a woman into a dip or drop if I'd been drinking. I also find I have no need to drink to have a good time.
There is an ongoing attempt to tackle binge drinking and such. You might think it isn't as restrictive as the smoking ban, neither do I, but they are trying to make some ground.
er...no. There may be some short term feel good feelings but that does not make inhaling burning noxious fumes in your lungs "good in moderation". Your comparison is ridiculous, some races are genetically not able to handle alcohol and they should not drink it. No one can handle smoking with no ill effects so no one should smoke.....But thats not the issue here, freedom of choice is; you can still smoke; its the inflicting it on others that has to be banned.
In 1910 heroin was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute and cough medicine for children (here) - should this be reinstated? by your logic, parents have lost the right to administer this medicine to their children. A right they should never have lost. How DARE the government interfere. So really, your stance is: "heroin for kids" - and I'm not sure I can agree
Equally, I can just imagine you in a deep south U.S. state just after the civil war proclaiming "but I have the RIGHT to have slaves - how dare you take away my right"
I suspect that it's pure supposition on your part as to how long native americans smoked for and whether they suffered ill effects. Not to mention how much and how often they smoked, the extent to which a 'peace pipe' matched cigarettes and cigars as a danger to health.
Not that it's much of a guide but in western movies it's always the cowboys who have a permanent fag drooping from their lips; the 'indians' only smoke ceremonially. You don't see the young braves flicking their butts into the bushes before vaulting onto their horse to attack the white-eyes!
Oh, and while I think about it, the native american response to alcohol was largely to do with them being rounded up, forced to march hundreds of miles from their home country, and then herded together on 'reservations' where they couldn't get a livelihood from the land but were dependant on hand-outs from the local indian agency, which was almost invariably corrupt. I strongly doubt that the native americans was the only society in the world not to have discovered alcohol before Columbus landed.
Last edited by Barry Shnikov; 3rd-July-2007 at 09:58 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks