- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Blowing Neighbours smell away
Loading thread data ...
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
that's true.. you can choose not to go into smoke filled rooms. in the other case they are taking away your freedom.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
not if your job depends on it.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Like many people I suffer badly from cigarette smoke. It makes me cough and my eyes and ears itch terribly. I object to being subjected to that. Fortunately I do not suffer for asthma like many people for who cigarette smoke can actually be life threatening without waiting to get cancer. For you to equate that with a dislike of vegetarians simply underlines your selfishness and your scorn for the wellbeing of others.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Was this the result of an autopsy - or just your guess. Did it say on the death certificate : Lung Cancer caused by passive smoking?
- or are you just guessing or suggesting that Lung Cancer is *only* caused by inhaling cigarette smoke?
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Please point out the many scientific articles which support you claim.
(Letters from his wife to the Daily Mail do not count as such)
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
I believe that you are a f****it. Is that good enough for you?
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
And if he believed that fairies lived at the bottom of the garden?
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Oh dear :-((
Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious weed.
Why can't they just admit that they are wrong, pack up their vile habit and stop polluting the air WE breath and the pavements with their dog ends?
.- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Oh dear :-((
Another smoker trying to justify their addiction to the obnoxious weed.
Why can't they just admit that they are wrong, pack up their vile habit and stop polluting the air WE breath and the pavements with their dog ends?
.- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Tobacco is still a legal drug.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
That's why we have a smoking ban, you can't go into smoke filled rooms because of your job anymore.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Well that's the firemen out of a job.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Having analysed the various passive smoking arguments, "Keith" made the following contribution to the discussion:
Rather like 'TMH', if the best you can come up with is a personal insult, then you have lost the argument.
When you have an IQ lower than your shoe size, it's usually best to keep quiet.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
No. They wear breathing apparatus. Rather difficult for performers to do that.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
I had some respect for you up to that point.
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Roy Castle?
Most of the people I know who don't want anyone smoking near them are not overly concerned about passive smoking, they just can't stand the odour, the sore eyes, the sore throat and the smelly clothes they end up with from being around smokers.
As a smoker you won't have the experience, but I frequently recoil from the smell of tobacco smoke and look round to find someone smoking 20 or
30 feet away! It's a foul odour that travels considerable distances. My wife is an ex-smoker (she promised her father a month before he was diagnosed with terminal liver cancer and other than one lapse, she has stuck to it), she frequently comments that she's amazed how she could ever have smoked, as she too can't stand the smell.During the summer when it is hot we naturally like our patio door and windows open to get a breeze. At night we sleep with our bedroom window open. Our neighbours have a young child so they go outside to smoke and we end up suffering their smoke. We either have to put up with it or close the windows and struggle to sleep 'cos of the heat.
The selfishness of smokers has always amazed me. I have worked with and been friends with a number and two things stick out. Firstly, in the days when you could smoke in pubs, the whole group had to sit and suffer in the smoking area, even if there was only one smoker with us, otherwise they'd whinge and moan so much that they'd ruin the evening. Secondly, every time one of the smokers tried to give up, the others would smoke in front of them and each time they lit up, they'd offer them one - as if they couldn't stand letting one get away!
However, I do think that the coucils that are trying to ban smokers from lighting up in the street, parks, etc. are going too far; similarly with the existing ban on smoking in company vehicles; and also the hospitals and companies that ban employees from smoking in their own cars in their car-parks.
SteveW
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
Ah, the defence that all smokers resort to in the end. The difference is that all the above serve useful purposes and the pollution is an unfortunately necessary byproduct of that function, whereas smoking simply prevents the addict's withdrawal symptoms as the previous fix wears off.
SteveW
- Vote on answer
- posted
12 years ago
,
It certainly did and I'm all for re-introducing it. However, it did not solve the problem of pubs, restaurants, etc. and the idea of smoking and non-smoking areas in those just didn't work - in another post in this thread, I have commented that a group of us (mainly non-smokers) used to go out together and if even one smoker was with us, we'd all have to sit in the smoking area, as otherwise the smoker would winge all night to the extent of ruining everyone elses' night out.
SteveW