Smoking ban

The new ban on smoking in the workplace just came into effect here and I think it's great. No more smelling of smoke and getting cancer. Hopefully it'll encourage people to give up. What do you think?

There are more laws coming which make it illegal for shops to display ciggarettes for sale, they have to be hidden from view.

this poll is incomplete..

smokers should have a place of relative safety as an alternative to not smoking indoors.

dave, may i ask, do you, or did you smoke? your question/answers sound like a non-smoker posted them.

As far as I know outdoors is pretty safe.

I've smoked to see what it's like, never got hooked though...

Edited for you Jon.

Only 1/4 of people smoke here.

Alien_Sniper said:
As far as I know outdoors is pretty safe.

I've smoked to see what it's like, never got hooked though...

no... its not, by any means.

i used to smoke, did so for over 27 years, our workplace kicked us out the back door of the plant, no cover from rain, or snow, no heat, nada.

i would never force anyone to breathe my smoke, but was very upset that i was suddenly and violently discriminated upon.

alternatives were eventually provided, but i was shocked and dismayed that they were not taken into account PRIOR to implementing the actions of banning.

and i am so glad you didn't take it up, its harder to quit smoking, than anything i have ever attempted..

[edit] thanx dave :smile:

smoking area would have sufficed

I personally think smoking in general is a moronic thing to do. It doesn't accomplish anything except give you an addiction to something that's killing you, in a very painful way I might add.

Also, showing favor to those individuals is rather unfair, and I don't want to hear "life isn't fair". It's also pretty rude to smoke in front of anyone you please, in my opinion.

Orph, the way you feel about people on cell phones is about how I feel on smoking. Except smoking doesn't have as immediate effects, but more permanent ones (in general).

However, the US is a country of double standards. So, I wouldn't be surprised if they revoked some of these laws. I just think it would be best for everyone if all the corperations were honest, as the government should be. There wouldn't be any difficulties.

I'm babbling, no need to read this post, even though you're finishing it now ... yells "look over there" and runs

smoking is a bad habit, even smokers admit to this.. but discrimination, no matter the good intentions, is still wrong.

i quit on 10/10/96 and will always be glad i did so, but i have a smokers mentality, and a sensitivity toward it.. i would oppose any method that forced people to stop smoking.

I pester anyone I care about to give up. :smile:

You forgot how cool smoking is crono. :rolleyes:

Orph, why did you quit?

Yeah, I think it's completly awesome that you can't see my moms lungs in an xray and that the male side of her family is more prone to have heart attacks because they've all been smokers .... real cool A_S.

The :rolleyes: was for sarcasm...

Alien_Sniper said:
Orph, why did you quit?

the site of an emphysema ward my friend, actually its members

i found i was more attached to my health, than my cigs.

I would never be one of those people who intentionally coughed when passing by a smoker, because they probably already get enough sh** for smoking, which I think is dumb. It's just another form of discrimination to me.

Do you not think polluting other peoples air is an infringement of ones basic human rights? I don't really mind breathing a bit of smoke, I just think it's completely ignorant of people especially those who do it around children as childrens lungs aren't fully developed and are more susceptible to damage.

A_S, ah.

I was actually talking about the smokers who're dicks and blow it in your face.

To be honest, if you're not around the smell of smoke a lot you can defiantly pick it up .... and it doesn't smell pretty, like flowers and my girlfriend .... But nasty, like old men farts and spoiled broccoli.

Leave Jon and his intestinal problems out of this. The risk of a healthy grown person getting cancer from passive smoking is surprisingly low, it was hyped up a lot.

Who's talking about a grown person getting cancer?

I said it smells bad and its rude (in the last post that is)

Just a random point pertaining to smoking. :smile:

I think it smells alright, but I don't like to smell it because you know it's doing damage.

Glad they've finally passed a decent law for once.

I smoke, and I'm always happy to move away from folks if they dont appreciate it, and never randomly light up unless I feel it is permitted and know so. Passive smoking doesnt actually cause that high a number of deaths (still too many, admittedly) but i've encountered so much ignorant and rude hostility from non smokers on topics like this before (on other forums also) I tend not to say much... for fear of reprisals by the "clean" :/

hmm, I dont think my view on smoking effects my view on an individual. However, at times I think that that person will regret doing those thing at some point ... and sadly, you can't reverse smoking effects without a spare lung lol.

i think, even non-smokers should be decent enough to want a safe area for smokers.

i have found though, that non smokers tend to lean far into the extreme when it comes to smokers rights.

in there minds, there is no such thing as discrimination, against a person, whom is being self destructive.

in fact, the plant i mentioned, had to be forced into providing accommodations, because the main boss, was a non-smoker, and couldn't fathom why anyone would stand in the cold rain to begin with. it never dawned upon him at all... that was the bigger crime IMO

....Then why wouldn't you extend that mentality into other area's, Orph?

Such as this: Does it make the police immoral for pulling over drivers who don't wear seatbelts, since that can be self-destructive?

It's not the same exact situation, but, still. I think that you shouldn't smoke at your workplace, I don't think you should force your workers, who really don't have a choice in their own eyes, to potentially damage themselves further. However, I would hope that an encouragement towards quitting would be best ... but I know that doesn't happen.

But as you guys are saying all this I find the exact opposite happens. People give me s**t for NOT smoking. Also if I ask someone to really think about what they're doing they lash out at me. I've never met anyone who smoked and wasn't touchy about the subject ... well personally anyway.

crono, i drive for a living, its unwise to make comments about the subject offhandedly.

seatbelts are a law, yes, but they kill almost as many people as they save, not a very good comparison on your part, cause cigarettes always kill, given a person doesn't die from another cause first.

i have my subjects, i chose them poorly by manys opinions, but i fight them to the end.

i think all work places should be smoke free, but if accommodations are not provided for, the workplace is being negligent in their duties, afterall, most hired the employee's knowing they smoked beforehand.

even if the point escaped the employers notice, is no excuse to discriminate.

anywhos' as usual i can see both viewpoints having merits.. its just smoking has so few thats the problem.

I smoke occationally, I'll admit it. I mostly either do it outside, or in my own car. I only light up in front of friends if they don't mind- if they do, I put it out immediatly.

I think that it should be banned in public buildings and such (like in my dorm- which it is (banned, that is)), since it makes them reek for everyone. Hell, I don't even like the way my own hand smells after smoking.

Monqui said:
I smoke occationally, I'll admit it. I mostly either do it outside, or in my own car. I only light up in front of friends if they don't mind- if they do, I put it out immediatly.

quit then, i know its not what you want to hear, or secretly you might agree, but the benefits far outweigh the alternatives.

i miss my cigs, i would miss my ability to breathe far more.

my only concern? is that i die of another incident, and miss out on years of enjoying them. as absurd as it sounds, i truly enjoyed smoking, i was never addicted to them, not in a way anyone would comprehend anyways.. quitting was not hard because of any withdrawal process, in fact there were none of note... i miss them like one would a favorite meal, or soft drink.. anywhos thats a different subject entirely, and could be considered promotional toward cigs.. which i strongly advise against..

i need to crash for the night guys, i have a run up to south bend indiana to do in the morning..

night all, be good

Monqui said:
I smoke occationally, I'll admit it. I mostly either do it outside, or in my own car.

Hell, I don't even like the way my own hand smells after smoking.

the first bit seems strange to me. being a comparitively heavy smoker for my size, the one place that i would single out where i find smoking annoying is in a car. whether it's me or someone else thats doing the smoking. and as they banned using mobile phones while driving, they should do the same with smoking. but thats another matter.

as for the second bit of the quote, you'll always find an alternative if you quit. Orph did.

*scratch*scratch*

:biggrin:

crono, i drive for a living, its unwise to make comments about the subject offhandedly.

seatbelts are a law, yes, but they kill almost as many people as they save, not a very good comparison on your part, cause cigarettes always kill, given a person doesn't die from another cause first.

i have my subjects, i chose them poorly by manys opinions, but i fight them to the end.

i think all work places should be smoke free, but if accommodations are not provided for, the workplace is being negligent in their duties, afterall, most hired the employee's knowing they smoked beforehand.

even if the point escaped the employers notice, is no excuse to discriminate.

anywhos' as usual i can see both viewpoints having merits.. its just smoking has so few thats the problem.

I think you completly missed what I was saying

If you didn't notice we were agreeing.

? posted by Monqui
the first bit seems strange to me. being a comparitively heavy smoker for my size, the one place that i would single out where i find smoking annoying is in a car. whether it's me or someone else thats doing the smoking. and as they banned using mobile phones while driving, they should do the same with smoking. but thats another matter.

as for the second bit of the quote, you'll always find an alternative if you quit. Orph did.

*scratch*scratch*

:biggrin:

I don't think holding something is quite on par with focusing your attention away from safe driving by carrying on a conversation with someone who's not even really there...

But mabye that's just me :razz:

I don't do it as a true regular habit though- it's more of a "I just failed a test, I need to unwind" kind of a thing- I, on average, mabye have 4-5 a week... (sometimes more, depending on what I'm doing (i.e. at pool halls, I smoke like a chimney. Mostly because all my friends who go out and play pool with me do it too. I'm a sheep, what can I say.))

And I totally know what orph is talking about with the not being quite addicted, but not wanting to give it up. I can go days without it, with no real ill physical side effects (cravings, headaches, that whole bit)- but it just feels... weird, I suppose is a good word... to think about going long periods of time without doing it.

It smells bad, it's addictive, annoying, disruptive, and it gives you and others around you cancer.

Smoking: Always a solid choice.

but discrimination, no matter the good intentions, is still wrong.

Orph, after some of our other discussions round here, that seems a bit meaningless coming from you...

Smoking in a car isn't just 'holding something', you still have to find the box, open the box, take out of box, find lighter, use lighter, then finally 'just hold'. I don't think theres any reason to not ban smoking while driving given that they have banned mobile phones while driving. You say that talking on the phone takes your concentration away from driving - how much more concentration does it take than talking to somebody who is sitting behind you? (not that I don't think it's a bad idea to ban mobile phones while driving - doing so obviously makes people crash more, I'm just trying to say that they banned mobile phones while driving here, and they don't seem to require much more concentration than smoking does, so why not ban that as well)

It's all well and good saying there should be a place set aside for smoking, but for most small companies, this isn't really practical is it. They are hardly going to build an extension for workers to smoke in, and it makes just as little sense to set an existing room aside, because that room could otherwise be used for something that helps the company. I think it's much easier to just make a workplace a 'no smoking area', then tell people this when they apply to work there.

I certainly don't dislike a person just because they smoke, not at all, but I do wish they would quit. I don't know if they have the same kind of anti-smoking advertising in america as they do here, but ugh... I honestly don't understand why somebody would continue after seeing things like that. I understand that it's not jsut a case of deciding not to smoke anymore, and that's it - my step dad has been trying to quit, and it has been very hard for him - but the way I see it, the dubious benifits of smoking are totally meaningless compared to the potential consequences. Not to mention the amount of money that has to be spent treating smokers in hospitals - the non-smoking public have to pay for all that as well as put up with the general nastyness of smoking itself.

seatbelts are a law, yes, but they kill almost as many people as they save

Erm, what? Wheres the figures for this? I don't believe this for one second.

figures jeff? i advise, don't challenge me on this one, cause i know i am right this time :wink:

seatbelt do in fact kill, very often in fact, much more frequently than airbags and other safety devices.

if it truly means that much to you, google search it out, or just be wise this time and take my word for it..

call it job related experience, it goes with the territory of my profession.

for the record, i use my seat belt.

I'm a strict non-smoker myself, but I don't mind others smoking...it's their choice.

What I do mind however, is inconsiderate smokers - it really doesn't take that much effort to blow the smoke in the opposite direction, or go outside etc (depending on the social circumstances).

If they want to kill themselves, then so be it, just don't take me down with you :wink:

if you choose to smoke, dont expect people to pay for places for you to go and bloody do it. if nobody smokes, it would be fine to outlaw it entirely, but people have become addicted to it, its become a macho symbol & god knows what. You couldnt ban it if you wanted to.

KoRnFlakes said:
if you choose to smoke, dont expect people to pay for places for you to go and bloody do it. if nobody smokes, it would be fine to outlaw it entirely, but people have become addicted to it, its become a macho symbol & god knows what. You couldnt ban it if you wanted to.

i won't even comment on your first statement, but the same driving force, that keeps us using fossil fuels will keep us a smoking world. you could easier ban it and succeed, than fight the companies producing them.

Maybe in the US, but not here in the UK! I think smoking should definitely be phased out- a good place to start would be to up the smoking age, to try and stop kids from taking it up.

Why smoke? It's bad for the health and for the wallet.

I think anyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking tends to hurt others... I think this law sounds like a good thing.

Common misconceptions

Everyone who smokes is addicted, and doesnt enjoy it - not true
Everyone who smokes is filthy and inconsiderate - not true

This should be a discussion on the social issue and tackling smoking in youngsters, and preventing passive smoking not an "i hate smokers thread"..

Also, many seem to forget (UK this applies to) that smoking tax (about ?3.50 of a ?4.50 odd box is tax) goes straight to the NHS, and in total for the whole country it adds up to around ?7/8bn in extra cash for the health service. But stop! I hear you cry, this is all money that will probably used to treat cancer, which is caused by smoking.

Maybe so, but in small numbers. The idea that smoking causes everybody guaranteed cancer, passive or otherwise is absurd. As I said before, the figure is only in the thousands for those who die from passive smoking, so trying to portray it as an evil force out to destroy "the norms" is just unfair and uninformed.

Raising the price won't affect things either, smoking is usually taken up at an early age in areas like mine (lower/middle class) - price doesnt bother anyone who is a smoker (any age), they will still buy cigarettes. Tackling smoking is about educating people to the effects it has on your body, and limiting peer pressure/media pressure to smoke. Also one might consider who smokes, and why - looking at working conditions and poverty lines will probably reveal some very interesting findings.

Banning smoking outright in public will only get smoking voters disaffected and angry, and lose a hell of a lot of revenue for the government. For a Government who like to be seen as pro civil liberties and pro-business, you need much more thoughtful and directed policies than "ban" or "raise prices". Like pretty much everything they do, it would be a case of fill the cracks but never maintenance the underlying problem.

Why smoke? It's bad for the health and for the wallet.

I think anyone can do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Smoking tends to hurt others... I think this law sounds like a good thing.

Bad for the wallet, because of high taxes. Every government who taxes cigarettes (or other products for that matter) to death, only exacerbates illegal trade problems in that area.

Give me one legitimate reason that smoking should be considered a respectable choice, much less a positive one.

It's just a part of culture (in many societies, not just ours) - it may have a new spin on it now with media and business involvement, but tobacco smoking always has been and always will be an indulgence and luxury for some. It's been going on for years.

Remember also, "smoking" does not equate to cigarettes in the context of this topic. Cigars, pipes and whatever else are all forms of smoking, common no doubt in Ireland. To dismiss an entire element of culture would be foolish, to say the least.

I never said it was or wasn't respectable, the respect is about accepting freedom of choice and diversity of lifestyles, sir.

Orpheus said:
but discrimination, no matter the good intentions, is still wrong.

I'm not even gonna touch the hypocrisy of that statement from you. Oops. Too late.

Cash Car Star said:

Orpheus said:
but discrimination, no matter the good intentions, is still wrong.

I'm not even gonna touch the hypocrisy of that statement from you. Oops. Too late.

there is a distinct difference between discrimination, and prejudiced.. and it would be best if you didn't touch this.

one thing you need to keep uppermost in your mind about me, i am never a hypocrite , i believe in everything i say i do.

assuming, you were commenting on one of my past unpopular comments.. otherwise, disregard this entire post :biggrin:

don't quote me on this but, i heard someplace that lung cancer from smoking was not an issue till the advent of pesticides..

there have been cases of very old people, who have smoked their entire adult lives with no serious ill effects, whether this is due to chemical free tobacco or not, i dunno.

something to consider i suppose

All the more reason to quit.

two of my grandparents died of cancer caused by smoking.

Leperous said:
Maybe in the US, but not here in the UK! I think smoking should definitely be phased out- a good place to start would be to up the smoking age, to try and stop kids from taking it up.

this my friend, is just another case of educating the young.

upping the minimum age to purchase? gimme a break, i was 7 years old, cigarettes were .45 cents a pack, and i got them from a vending machine.. which are still very popular in motels and such.

i think another "scared straight" type of lesson would do more good.

bottom-line though, it is my belief that children of parents who smoke are more likely to become smokers.. the lesson, needs to begin at home to have any chance of succeeding.

KoRnFlakes said:
two of my grandparents died of cancer caused by smoking.

2 of your grand parents died of cancer AND smoked.. just because they did one, doesnt necessarilly mean both.

i know many people, who have lung disorders, and no one in their house smokes.

? posted by KoRnFlakes

two of my grandparents died of cancer caused by smoking.

2 of your grand parents died of cancer AND smoked.. just because they did one, doesnt necessarilly mean both.

i know many people, who have lung disorders, and no one in their house smokes.

Hmm, I think it's safe to say that if they had cancer and smoked, then smoking at least contributed to it.

Orpheus said:

KoRnFlakes said:
two of my grandparents died of cancer caused by smoking.

2 of your grand parents died of cancer AND smoked.. just because they did one, doesnt necessarilly mean both.

dont bloody presume things fgs. they had intensly bad black lungs, they were told it was certainly caused by smoking.

Kage_Prototype said:

? posted by KoRnFlakes

two of my grandparents died of cancer caused by smoking.

2 of your grand parents died of cancer AND smoked.. just because they did one, doesnt necessarilly mean both.

i know many people, who have lung disorders, and no one in their house smokes.

Hmm, I think it's safe to say that if they had cancer and smoked, then smoking at least contributed to it.

i'm sure you are right, but caused?

i never doubt smoking contributes to cancer, but i also know that its not just smoking as well, so to assume that it caused it is rather short sighted IMO.

i smoked 27+ years total, i quite almost 7 years ago, i think cancer could be in my future even though i quit, but i don't think smoking would cause it. i used to work in fiber glass products, its far more likely that it will be my root cause if i get cancer.

anyways, as an ex-smoker, i am a bit over-sensitive when it comes to blame, and effect, when it comes to cigarettes.

KoRnFlakes said:
dont bloody presume things fgs. they had intensly bad black lungs, they were told it was certainly caused by smoking.

korn, you are much to close to the topic to remain objective, calm down and come back when you can comment better.

no one is saying anything horrible about your kin.. but there is always a possibility the doctors were mistaken about the origin.. after all did anyone tell the doc what profession each had?

anywhos, go calm down till you can reply objectively.

i know many people, who have lung disorders, and no one in their house smokes.

Completely irrelevant. You are saying 'well they smoked and died of lung cancer, doesnt mean smoking caused the cancer' - I would be more inclined to go with what qualified doctors with years of experience say than with the guesswork of somebody who knows little or nothing about it. I think it is very disrespectful to contradict Korn on this.

Orph, your definition doesn't mean you aren't being hypocritical. You are a hypocrite because in one situation you apply one piece of logic, and in another completely comparable situation, you apply something completely different. Whether you believe what you say or not doesn't matter, if I go round saying 'kids should share their toys', then tell my kids never to let go of their own, I am being a hypocrite whether I think what I am doing is right or not.

'Smoking is part of our culture so we should keep it'

Great logic, Gwil! I suppose we should keep class A drugs, teenage pregnancy, obesity, alcoholism, etc, etc, etc! Wonderful!

As for the seatbelts thing, do you seriously think that seatbelts do more harm than good!? Do you even know why they made seatbelts compulsorary in the US? I'm not going to look up figures, you look up the cicumstances surrounding the introduction of this law in your country, and you will find that... supprise supprise, seatbelts save lives. Can you give me one good reason why they would make such a law in virtually every 1st world country if it was not of massive benifit in terms of saved lives?