I wouldn't really have a problem with this fact if there were any scientific proof regarding passive smoking, but there isn't unfortunately. Even if there were, why do criminals get human rights and smokers not? The whole thing stinks worse than a smokers pub, if you ask me.
You might be making a joke here in which case I apologise in advance ... but to answer in seriousness, smokers do have human rights. We still have every right to smoke in places where our smoke doesn't cause a health risk to others. It can't really be claimed as a human right to expose people in enclosed public places to carcinogenic chemicals
I agree with Chris here, personal experience is not the sole basis on which to make an argument. I have no personal experience of apartheid South Africa, but I can still argue strongly against it. Age should not be an issue....
Yeah, i was being melodramatic, tis true. But it is also true that there is very little scientific evidence to prove that second hand smoke causes cancer. My real point is that in a country where one in three people die of cancer irregardless of whether they smoke or not, why barrage the general public with antismoking sentiment, particularly when the real causes such as pollution and prolonged drugtaking (for medical purposes allowing us to live beyond our natural lifespans) are to blame? It's all part of the hypocrisy of society and governmental control we live under, and i get tired of it all. Like it matters whether we die at sixty or sixty five or eighty or eighty five. I only smoke joints, but i put rolling baccy in them, and i will roll the dice and see how long i last. When my turn comes you won't find me complaining about it, because we have ALL the information, noone can know any more about the dangers of smoking, it's about time we as a society sat back and appreciated that everyone is aware of what they are doing and have made their choice. Anyway, rant over!
The world seems to be dominated by this "nanny culture." Don't you realize, all of us are too stupid to make our own choices? We have to listen to the governments, health practitioners, latest popular gurus, current fad culture ... don't drink this, don't smoke that, never eat those! It's sooooo annoying! Most of the time, I'll admit, if I see an anti-smoking/drinking/or anti-drug commercial it really just makes me want to go out smoke, drink, and do drugs in order to do the opposite of what "they" want us to do. I mean, yeah, I might not make the best decisions all the time about what I do; but I'm nearly 29 years old ... I should be entitled to do what I want (as long as it doesn't hurt someone else) and make whatever informed or ill-informed decision that I want. Yes, encourage people to not binge drink to the point they kill themselves, encourage people to not drink or do drugs and then get behind the wheel of a car, and encourage people to not drink while pregnant, and last but most importantly encourage people to think for themselves and be nice to their fellow human beings; but don't shove it down their throats as that never accomplishes anything but making the people you are trying to 'target' want to gag! *just my 2 pence worth*
Isn't this the point with the ban? Your choice to smoke in enclosed places in which people have to work can cause harm to others. ... there's plenty of evidence that second hand smoke has effects on instances of cancer in other mammals and I believe the scientific consensus is that there are risks to humans. "Passive" exposure to these carcinogenic compounds probably has harmful effects and given this probability it would seem prudent to err on the side of caution.
sorry, think you misunderstood me ... or maybe i took a snippet out of context and right now my brain is not working well as i've been up for close to 2 1/2 days with 2 hours of sleep. I don't like having people smoke around me when in an enclosed space. Bars/coffeeshops, well ... personally as long as I'm not eating, it wouldn't bother me too much. I was just commenting on the whole "nanny culture" thing in general. Setting up guidelines is one thing; but well if someone wants to open a bar to cater to those that smoke, then they should be allowed ... just as if someone wants to open one that is smoke-free, then they should be allowed. Certainly there shouldn't be open-air bans, I think that is a bit stupid, and that is where that "nanny" thing comes in. I mean, what's next, is there going to be a ban on the amount of perfume/cologne one can wear? That certainly bothers my senses and for someone who is asthmatic (which luckily i'm not) could harm their health as well. I honestly don't think they should outright ban smoking in public places. They should create a separate smoking area people can either eat/drink in or adjorn to in order to get their nic fix. Preferably such an area should have good ventilation/extraction fans and thus any working staff that has to go in there won't have their health affected. Of course, if the staff smokes themselves then they aren't being put at any additional risk, are they? And well, even if second-hand smoke were to be shown to not directly cause cancer, it does affect those that have severe respiratory disorders, and is not the best thing for children (whose lungs are still developing) to inhale even in small quantities. But well... that just my opinion (which is hopefully cognizant enough to make sense).
Prove that it's worse than any other kind of pollution and i might agree with you. I still think people should stop thinking that avoiding a bit of smoke in the air means they'll live forever, which is what is promoted by government health watchdogs. Anyway, nuff said.
Fair point, you could make the case that the same level of protection is not being afforded to carpark attendants and others whose jobs mean they are exposed to potentially harmful agents. I used to work in an incredibly dusty factory where hundreds of cardboard boxes were handled every day. There was a thick layer of grime over everything - I hate to think what that was doing to my lungs. There are some kinds of potential harm which receive more priority than others.
Sure, or ban all bonfires and fireworks for the mass of smoke they cause on festival days and nights. Mind you, looks like fireworks might be banned soon anyway, sheesh..!
I worked in a place like that back in the states. It was a plumbing/heating supply warehouse, and I did data entry in the back. The place was right next to a railroad track, and the brake dust from the train would get into the place like crazy. I'd clean my desk and within less than 2 days there would be a thick layer of black dust. People always talked about going home and blowing there noses and black stuff would come out. I'd hate to think all that was inhaled during the 6 months I worked there.
Ciggerettes are getting more and more expensive. Some ciggerette brands like Marlboro 20's are over five pounds in some parts. I remember trying American spirit once. Comes in the original packaging that camel used before they got filters put on. American spirit are good but are way to strong. Whilst in Prison on Remand I had to put up with Red Bull Tobacco. It is dead cheap shag of tobacco. at only £1.54 for 12.5grams, it is awful. Plus the bull brand papers stink when you burn them. Does anyone remember when Amber Leaf was like 1.79?
Aye, I be in Praha and yeh, I suppose I get around a wee bit. However, this trip has a purpose, which is why I am smoking so much.... because I am stressed!:nopity:
