Thread: Anti - anti-smoking rant

Originally Posted by tonycraigo

Unfortunately the polititians have never had a good smack to the head or a strop to the bottom.

The rod was spared and the child was spoiled.

I quite agree with you Sir..

Nice topic.=))
I'm a smoker for about 27 years.
I like to smoke, I like all beautiful things connected with smoking.
I smoke pipes and very rarely cigarettes (when the amount of whiskey or brandy become great ).
20 years ago I heard: "You smoke, because the tobacco companies make advertising and want money". Ok. As I see today, anti-tobacco company absorbs a lot more money. I see, people don't smoke less.
But they began to smoke low-grade tobacco - the prices are very high, and every year the situation becomes worse.
Next. The situation in pubs, bars and restaurants. People don't want to smell tobacco smoke. Hmm ...What about 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years ago? Without anti-tobacco company all was good.
And I don't want to smell some kinds of perfume, I don't want to see some kinds of people. Let's ban these. It hurts my health, I'm nervous.
Maybe, need to make good tobacco products, as it was many years ago. Without chemical additives and other ...
About medical records. There is no conclusion about the death of, where a doctor wrote "died from smoking' - it's a fact.
Yes, maybe, smoking contribute to the death. But carbon dioxide on our streets contribute to the death too.
So. I don't agitate to smoke. All above is only my opinion ...but very hard opinion.

How about an air purifier like Oreck makes to neutralize the tobacco smoke? I have these in my house because I have dogs.

It just bothers me how self-important people on both sides of the argument can be. The main problem is that a large number of people are not willing to see things from the opposing point of view.

On another note, certain terms being thrown around so loosely shows that even on a gentlemanly forum, some people show no regard for the feelings of those they are degrading. It's shameful.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

In the UK, people who smoke are becoming few and far between, hardly anyone smokes nowadays.
Why should a minority dictate terms to the majority of folk who want to enjoy an evening in the pub and don't want to come home with clothes stinking like an ashtray?
Both my parents were smokers, both died prematurely from lung cancer after a long debilitating illness. I sat with my mother as she died, fighting to breathe.
Smoke if you want, just do it in the middle of a field and make sure you don't encourage youngsters to copy you.

+1 don't encourage youngsters.

My Dad was a lifetime smoker and died of cancer. My Mom was a
lifetime smoker and had serious lung problems before the flu turned
into pneumonia over a weekend and stole her final breath.

Nicotine is a serious drug that makes quitting hard if not
impossible. It was the sedative for the masses and
is now being replaced by Xanax, Prozac and a multitude
of new expensive drugs.

If you can quit, good. If you cannot I understand how
difficult it is to quit. The aroma of a good pipe or cigar
still evokes fond memories -- it is hard to temper those
positive memories with the problems that take a lifetime
to surface.

Originally Posted by Jeltz

Jimbo if it meant that my children's generation were free from smoking related illnesses then I would gladly shave with a fusion for the rest of my days.

But here's the rub: even if all tobacco were eliminated from the world today, all future generations would still be subject to some form of death or illness. "Smoking related illnesses" still occur in non-smokers. Maybe to a lesser degree? (I'm not convinced that there is a direct cause/ effect relationship). But the fact is that no amount of legislation is going protect any of us from the grim reaper.

Ben Franklin is quoted: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Therefore we can ban or restrict anything and everything we might find unhealthful, offensive, or otherwise. And some of us might find a bit of assurance, or safety in that, but only temporarily, because at some point illness and death will find all of us. But, as a result, all of us, and all future generations, risk loosing essential liberties, and that probably forever.

History teaches us, if nothing else, just how hard it is for man to obtain liberty. All of the sacrifice involved. The history of man is one of despotism and enslavement. It just amazes me, especially amongst Americans no less, just how quickly some are willing to toss hard won liberties aside. Unbelievable.

Nope smoking related illnesses only occur in people who have smoked or been exposed to 2nd hand smoke hence the term smoking related. What you mean is that non smokers can also get lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease etc. but when they do they are not smoking related.

It saddens me when I see a school yard of kids playing to know that although we are fully aware of the problems that smoking causes a proportion of those kids will die a painful, preventable death due to tobacco use. But hey they've got to die from something why not let it be smoking! It is far more important that people have the right to continue feeding their addiction than we protect future generations from temptation.

In the past heroine was legal and you could buy a gift pack containing cocaine from Harrods, but times change. We have tossed those liberties aside without problem, currently there are newly manufactured drugs being developed which governments are banning as they are defined as dangerous, again most would feel that is not a problem but because the people using tobacco are ordinary people not teenage stoners it isn't regarded in the same way. I am certain that if it was discovered today it would never be allowed to gain a foothold as a legal recreational drug.

My father has heart problems and breathing difficulties and my father in law is on permanent oxygen due to smoking, their former little pleasure has not yet killed them but it has killed their ability to enjoy their twilight years. They knew they should quit but neither thought it would happen to them, but that's part of addiction its known as denial.

IMO governments should be working towards phasing out the legality of tobacco, but that would cost votes and lose revenue.

Personally I am always trying to be reasonable about things.
Smoking indoors around other people is a nuisance and a health issue. Smoking outdoors or by yourself or among other smokers is not.

I think our Belgian law is a reasonable compromise, banning smoking in actual public enclosed places, and allowing it where it is just not an issue or where people are voluntarily in a private setting. I agree with a previous poster who said that we should be careful in how we say things. Noone wins anything when things are polarized to black and white.

I think the disagreement partially is about where the line is drawn. Heroin is a derivative of many things that have medical benefits and continue to be used today. It was created and distributed. Government and society nowadays generally agree that its societal costs outweigh its benefits. We tried the same thing in America with alcohol. No bingo. Society didn't agree.

Now smoking seems to be going that way (for the last several years). More and more people in positions of power are agreeing that its costs outweigh its benefits. You say smoking is bad, of course it is. Should people do it? Probably not, it causes harm. What doesn't? I disagree with you on the smoking issue because once ground is lost on one of our liberties (yes, the freedom to smoke is a liberty) then me, and a lot of people like me, believe that the rest of our hard-fought liberties are sure to follow. This I will fight tooth and nail.

Train-related deaths only occur to people in trains or exposed to trains. Should we protect future generations by outlawing trains? How about cars? Even electric cars are capable of killing people (if they ever get going fast enough).

You say smoking is bad, it ought to be outlawed. Fair enough. I'm sure that's the only point you're trying to make. I, and many others, aren't really talking about smoking. We're looking at this as a more general statement. We hear "I say X is bad for you, you can't do X anymore." X can be anything!

I agree with restrictions. Let's eliminate the chances of people being exposed to smoke in public places that don't want to be exposed to smoke. The thought of my freedoms being taken away from me one-by-one is painful enough. Even more painful, though, is when it's being done by people who assert that they simply know what's best for me.

One thing that concerns me greatly is people of my niece’s age. She is 16 and most of her friends smoke their attitude is that if something is legal then its fine, after all it it was properly bad for you it wouldn't be legal right? They are well educated but still the message doesn't get home, its just more adults telling them to do as I say not as I do.