h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think the smoking ban is so unbelievably stupid, on top of everything else that's going on, some non-smoker is getting upset because the people enjoy one or two little luxuries that are now dying out, one of them being smoking, and they're now saying, "By gosh, this doesn't fit into my right wing plan for the world at all. This small trivial thing must be stopped, because I've got nothing better to do than waste my time on stopping people I've never even met from smoking".

Not only are we losing the right to free speech but now smokers are being told what to do, basically, we're a Nanny state, being molly coddled and taken care of by the rich fat cats in parliament. I don't even know these people, and they're telling smokers that they're not allowed to?

Plus, I think it's unfair to segragate smokers like this, smoking is an addiction, it's a flaw in human bio-chemistry and mentallity, and you shouldn't be so prejudice against them, they're only smoking, it's not like they're cooking up and jabbing needles in them after a meal at a restaurant. It's only a cigarette.

The other thing that gets me is, with the new drinking laws in place, do they really expect smokers to go out for a drink until the early hours of the morning, getting drunk and not smoke. Nearly all the smoker's I've met have told me they cannot have a drink without having a cigarette, the two go hand in hand and it's going to affect pubs and restaurants because if a smoker can't smoke in a place like that, LIKE THEY NORMALLY DO they're going to be that avid about it, they'll not bother and stay at home so they can enjoy a drink and a cigarette in peace.

Also, it's very obvious that this is just a little jab at the working class. You're not allow to smoke in public, unless your at home or in private clubs, where the suits and yuppies are laughing at them, knocking back they're spirits and wine and choking on the foul stench of nasty cigars (which in this coutry are basically cigarette run offs, I've seen how it's done). The smoking ban applies only to the working class citizens who enjoy smoking, not to the arrogent suits who despise smoking and spit their dummies out when they can't have their way.

I'm ashamed of this country and no longer feel like a British citizen anymore. Flankly I don't want to be. Thanks for the mess you've made guys, you go over there and enjoy your "clean air", I'll stay here with people worth knowing and tollerate they're addictions (I don't smoke by the way), at least they're not as selfish, stuck-up and pompous as you suits!

So much for free will...

I for one object to people smoking near me. It smells disgusting, and it's dangerous to health. I don't appreciate having someone standing near me releasing poisonous smoke.

And it really drives me mad when people smoke in front of kids.

<>

Not 100% proven.

"Plus, I think it's unfair to segragate smokers like this, smoking is an addiction, it's a flaw in human bio-chemistry and mentallity, and you shouldn't be so prejudice against them, they're only smoking, it's not like they're cooking up and jabbing needles in them after a meal at a restaurant. It's only a cigarette."

Can someone please explain why there is a difference between the addiction to smoking form addiciton to other things? Rather than the wolley and arbitrary "just because it is illegal".

"<>

Not 100% proven."

Well heres the thing if you take it to a deep philosophical level *NOTHING* can ever be proven 100%, the best we can ever get is beyond a reasonable doubt.

Not for the first time I mention that as far as I am aware pretty much every major study, not conducted on behalf of the tobbacco industry has concluded that second hand smoke *is* harmfull to others. THe degree of harm may be open to debate but not that it causes harm.

Quick experiment for you Mr D, next time you are around a severely Asthmatic non-smoker go and smoke 3-4 cigarettes next to them blowing smoke in their face and observe the effect on their health.

I smoke cigarettes.

Sometimes I don't smoke any at all, for days.

Other days I chain smoke. All day.

I don't feel that I have any RIGHT at all to inflict this disgusting personal habit onto anyone else.

I've never understood the concept of 'smoker's rights'. The right to pollute the air around others? The right to cause asthma attacks? The right to just be totally selfish and do whatever YOU want to do because you have a nasty dirty habit?

Sorry.

Smoker do not have any rights, imho. And I'm speaking as a smoker.

I used to be a non-smoker. In fact, I was a non-smoker until I was about 35 years old. And it was totally disgusting to me to have to eat in a restaurant and have people blowing their cigarette smoke all over me. I totally hated it. Put me off my food.

And I still hate it. I hate it when I go out for breakfast and someone is smoking next to me. Like - get outta here!

I hate it when I book a table for a romantic birthday dinner at a very expensive restaurant and find some moron smoking a cigar at the next table.

The point being - smoking is RUDE AND INTRUSIVE SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR. Non-smokers are just going about living their lives, not intruding on anyone. But smokers intrude - and big time.

When I smoke, I tend to smoke at home. If I ever feel a need to smoke elsewhere, I ask permission first. Well, of course I would, and so should anyone else who partakes of a habit that is annoying to most others.

Can anyone answer the question of how smokers came to feel they have the 'right' to inflict their habit onto others?


az

...and you may or may not be able to smoke? Not any more. Which is the whole point.

I am a smoker. Yes, it stinks. Yes, it causes a reaction in people with respiratory problems, no argument there from me !

I NEVER smoke in a restaurant, that's just not polite. However, I often grab lunch in a greasy-spoon type cafe and I will walk quite some way to find one that allows smoking. I don't begrudge the cafes that don't allow smoking their right to do so; they just don't get my money. But I have a choice, until March 26th.

Non-smokers have choice. Smokers have none.

There are a lot of people in this country who just like to complain. I had friends at college who spent almost every weekend at some rally or other - the protests were about a bewildering number of issues. I don't think they really felt so strongly about any of them, they just liked walking down a street chanting with lots of others. (Very similar to some threads here btw )

I am sure, if the Government announced they were banning blue trousers on the basis of years of research showing blue trousers cause dermititis, the polls would be manipulated, vocal spokespeople would stand up and denounce blue trousers, MP's would think they should go along with the polls - and we would have 37 threads here on Hootoo debating the evils of blue trousers.

<<"<>

Not 100% proven."

Well heres the thing if you take it to a deep philosophical level *NOTHING* can ever be proven 100%, the best we can ever get is beyond a reasonable doubt.>>

I wasn’t being deep and philosphical, I was merely pointing out that you shouldn’t take everything you read as hard fact just because it’s got science in it.

<>

May I draw your attention to this article on an independent ‘passive smoking is harmful’ study: http://www.cato.org/dailys/9-28-98.html

<>

What the f***?! It’s muppets like you who behave like us smokers do it purely to harm others that really piss me off. Why would I do that? There’s a BIG difference between ‘normal’ passive smoking and deliberately blowing smoke at people. Or are you too stupid to realise this? <steam.

"What the f***?! It’s muppets like you who behave like us smokers do it purely to harm others that really piss me off"

Where have I suggested that exactly Mr D? Someone said about how it is harmfull, you stated that it isnt proven.

I stated it was, and the degree of harm was at question, then (perhaps a little sacastically) suggested an easy way in which anyone can quickly see how passive smoking *can* be harmfull. I take it you are to bastardise your quote "not to stupid to realise" that I was not saeriously suggesting that you actually do that experiment. I was making a point.

I dont actually on a personal level have that much againts people smoking, most of my pals do it and whilst I find it unpleasant hey thats life. Truth is if I wasnt so badly asthmatic then at least in the "Bob Marley" sense I would almost certainly smoke myself.

It really bugs me when smokers like to pretend out of self interest that them smoking doesnt have an effect on others when it does. I know. It is people pretending that whom are "f*cking muppets" in my eyes and that makes me .

<<...and you may or may not be able to smoke? Not any more. Which is the whole point.>> (SWL)

The whole point of what?

I don't have any RIGHT to smoke in public places where it will upset or offend or whatever others who don't smoke.

I've always known this.

It's always been annoying to me that many other smokers don't also know this.

THEY ARE BEING F***ING RUDE AND INTRUSIVE. Also selfish and inconsiderate. And well, plenty of other things I could think of.

<>

What? Non-smokers are simply not smoking. And, as a smoke-filled environment is neither natural nor necessary, they prefer a non-smoke-filled one.

I truly do not get this. Where do smokers get off thinking they have any right at all to inflict the nastiness of their dirty habit onto others and then complain when - finally - the law votes in favour of those not actively upsetting other people's lives?

The mind reels . . .


az

az - don't get me wrong - I agree that smokers can be inconsiderate and that smoking is vile, smelly etc etc. The point is that in the UK, 20 million people smoke - a practice that is entirely legal and has no PROVEN health consequences for most non-smokers.

When the guvmint runs TV ads stating definitively that "passive smoking kills", this is a LIE.

On the basis of a LIE and dubious research a trucker can't smoke in his cab, a smoker can't duck out of the rain into an empty bus shelter and 40 smokers in a bar staffed by smokers can't smoke, IN CASE a non-smoker MIGHT come in !!

Smokers do not have the right to inflict their habits on others - agreed

Do non-smokers have the right to dictate to smokers when they are entirely unaffected?

Forget the health issues. Forget the tax issues. This is fundamentally about choice. Non-smokers have won the right to deny smokers choices entirely !!

I just lit a fag

nee naw nee naw

thought police are on the way. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.



*lights a cigar*

*ducks under stairs* to hide fag and puffs quicker making a red hot poker

*Obligatory smoke detector goes off*

Gotcha

*jumps to ceiling and smashes smoke detector to the floor* and drops fag ash on highly flammable petrol stained carpet...hence burning house down.


Damn, you lot are right smoking is bad for you

Okay, FB... maybe I overreacted there... but I never said passive smoking wasn't harmful, I just used a bad turn of phrase to say that the massive harmful effects that people harp on about have yet to be proven by a completely unbiased study.

Mr.D, still waiting to see the official reports of someone dying of passive smoking, its been around for ages but havent seen anybody leave this world because of it.

If it does exist so us the proof....but can they, yep you guessed it NO

Smoking in public is antisocial behaviour and should be treated as such. That's all.





By the way, I liked the points made in posts 134, 136, 138, and 185.

Blue Shark: "It's a filthy, antisocial habit that affects my quality of life. Your right to smoke does not mean you have a right to make me smell like an ashtray."

Woodpigeon: "Because you feel you have a "right" to blow carcinogens into other people's faces doesn't make it acceptable to do do."

azahar: "Smoking is RUDE AND INTRUSIVE SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR."

TRiG.

>Mr.D, still waiting to see the official reports of someone dying of passive smoking, its been around for ages but havent seen anybody leave this world because of it.<

Roy Castle. Who used his last years to start nailing the coffin shut on smoking. Good bloke.

And I repeat again that there is no evidence that the bar and pub trade will suffer as a result of this ban. Both the Irish and New York models indicate that the reverse tends to be true.

Well, Roy Castle died of lung cancer, which he *personally* blamed on working in smoky bars and clubs. There's a difference between him and his family being personally convinced it was second-hand smoke whot dun it, and it being proved to be smoking wot dun it.