Blowing Neighbours smell away

[Steve Walker]

I'm not going to search now, but there have been, over the years, a number of cases in our local paper of someone on a night out being asked for a cigarette and when they have refused or have said that they don't smoke, they've been beaten up.

It is difficult to separate those from just the random attacks of drunken yobs, but if they just wanted a fight, they'd not have asked for the cigarette first, would they?

So's music, but you can't inflict your music on your neighbours at night on a regular basis without the intervention of the authorities.

SteveW

[Steve Firth]

The question (quoted above) was "Could you name someone who as (sic) died from passive smoking?" Perhaps you could leave the goalposts where you found them?

[Steve Firth]

Yup. I got stared at long and hard in company "personnel" meetings when I asked if I could take 15-20 minutes off every hour to go and stand outside and read a paper/chat with my mates/stare at girls as the smokers appear to have free licence to do, or failing that to get paid

30% more per day than the smokers. The addicts of course claim that they do just as much work as the n a) As long as they don't impact on my health/sensibility. b) As long as they get their "fix" entirely in their own time.

As far as (b) goes, in a work environment smokers should clock in/out for all tobacco breaks.

I still find the stench of working next to a smoker unacceptable, but it seems that not much can be done about that, although workers with BO are told by their superiors to clean themselves up.

[Steve Firth]

My first real job was in the epidemiology department of a major teaching hospital. The association between smoking and the diseases it causes is not, as the smokers like to believe, some untested, unproven claim. The epidemiological link is cast iron solid. As solid as observations that variola virus causes smallpox.

The tobacco companies have been sponsoring bullshit publication and "research" since Doll published "Smoking and Carcinoma of the Lung" in

1950. This gives the addicts something to cling to, to bolster their hope that smoking isn't going to kill them.

[Steve Walker]

The difference is that smoking is highly addictive (any regular smoker that stops will experience cravings/withdrawal symptoms); serves no useful purpose and is afflicted on averyone around.

Drinking is far less addictive (those who succumb generally have addictive personalities anyway and can become addicted to a whole range of things - even exercise - the rest suffer no effects on doing without); in small quantities it can have health benefits and certainly does no harm; it's only afflicted on those around by those who overindulge - which we do have laws against, but somehow fail to enforce.

SteveW

[damduck-egg]

You don't have to got that far back when even characters in children's entertainment were depicted smoking. The Lady Penelope Character in Thunderbirds was one example and this caused a bit of controversy when the series became popular again about 10 years ago.

G.Harman

[charles]

it has a sedative effect (which you need to drink lots of coffee as an antidote) and acts as an appetite suppressant.

[Steve Firth]

Anyone who needs to take 15 minutes per hour off work to get a drink has a problem. So does someone who needs to spend the same amount of time smoking.

I've no objection to someone who smokes like most people drink. Do you know anyone who has one to three cigarettes in an evening and who has abstinences between cigarettes of several days or even weeks?

[Dave Plowman (News)]

The same can be thought of alcohol if you co to many town centres of an evening.

Hmm. Interesting the way you bend addiction to rule out a drug you use and turn it to others.

You'll find plenty of 'authorities' who disagree with this statement: likely just as many as on passive smoking.

Indeed. The snag with the smoking laws is most reasonable people think them unfair as well as not actually doing what was wanted.

[Fuschia]

And where did I say alcohol is harmless? Alcohol certainly has great dangers and has to be controlled.

What I said is that it's a non sequitur. Look it up if you need to. Alcohol is not relevant to the discussion on passive smoking, and has no bearing on whether passive smoking is unpleasant and/or dangerous.

By all means let's talk about alcohol in another thread, but that's not what the OP was complaining about.

[Tim Streater]

Nothing wrong with wine. I had a glass yesterday. I'll probably have another glass next Sunday too.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

He wasn't 'complaining' at all. Just the usual troll.

[mike]

Surely multinational drug companies would be in favour of smoking because they could then sell anti-cancer drugs to the people who became ill.

Which multinational drug companies are in favour of keeping people in tip-top health and therefore without need of expensive pharmaceuticals?

[stuart noble]

You must be made of money.

[dennis]

That's cr@p, smokers can go into smoke filled rooms, just not the ones in pubs, etc. It has been decided, based upon the evidence that some smokers continue to deny, that its dangerous for staff to be in smoke filled rooms. Therefore it is incompatible with pubs and other places where people work. Its the same with anything else that is proven to be dangerous, employers have to protect their staff. It normally comes down to the employer to enforce it, but in public places there also has to be a ban to stop non employees doing whatever it is that's dangerous. An employer can just sack anyone that continues to endanger themselves or others, they can't sack the public or ban them from public places so its left to the authorities to ban and enforce. Its quite simple, you never have the freedom to harm others, luckily for smokers!

[Kathy]

Passive or active, tobacco smoke causes illness. It is also, as you have acknowledged, polluting and frequently unpleasant. No matter how many times you scream that it is your right to be a unpleasant polluter, you do not have the right to pollute other people's airspace.

[mike]

In what way are Joe Jackson's views on smoking any more "balanced" than Gary Glitter's views on the age of consent?

[Tim Streater]

A meaningless question as perfect health for all doesn't and won't exist.

[The Medway Handyman]

Afraid not - in the case of passive.

It may be unpleasant to some, but polluting?

I don't scream (do you?)

[charles]

[Snip]

you just need to look at the colour of the ceilings of rooms (particlarly bars) to see the effect of tobacco smoke. Or - just exhale through a hankie.