Adventure Game Studio

Here's to those who smoke but who can no longer smoke in pubs & other work and public places in England & throughout the UK! Being a smoker, who could have constant ciggys behind the bar where I work, it is going to take some adapting too! Or, I could just quit I guess ;) Anyone else? In theory now far more non-smokers will go to the pub. Although now will pubs smell more of sweat & BO? :P

Anyway, to celebrate, we made a smoking-ban movie for fun; Smoking Kills [12mins]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQZ_5uVhsNk

plenty of scenes of mild wanton violence  ::)

So anyway, goodbye cigarette!

Hello health.

and talking of smoking, don't forget to smoke some crack!
http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=31716.0

We've had the ban for a while now. Smokers just stand outside the pub, and nobody seems to care anymore.

As a non-smoker, I find sitting in a pub without smoke far more enjoyable.

Quote from: LimpingFish on Tue 03/07/2007 19:44:40
As a non-smoker, I find sitting in a pub without smoke far more enjoyable.

Having worked in Greece, at piano bars, and pub like places (playing piano again), I can honestly say that I miss the smell of the smoke, even if I had never smoked in my life.

You know, I never particularly minded the smoke in pubs... I just hated the way it made my clothes and hair smell afterwards.

But I actually LOVE the smell of... and this'll make me sound weird... erm... you know when you're christmas shopping and it's raining, so you've got an umbrella, and it's getting dark so all the christmas lights are refecting and shining off the wet on the road, and everyone has bags of presents, and someone walks past with a cigarette and for some reason it smells different because I guess the air is wet, and cold, I dunno... but I love that smell.

And I don't smoke....

.... erm anyway.

I always found it funny how people complain about other people giving them lung disease while they're sitting trying to get liver disease ...

Anyone see a correlation between the smoking ban and all this rain we've been having? Looks like someone up there is getting His revenge on all the smokers that have to stand outside now.

Rain in the UK? Who woulda thought?

Quote from: Erenan on Tue 03/07/2007 22:58:58
Rain in the UK? Who woulda thought?

It's been exceptionally rainy. Several people have died.

Thank you for your compassion.

Quote from: Zor on Tue 03/07/2007 22:20:00
I always found it funny how people complain about other people giving them lung disease while they're sitting trying to get liver disease ...

Those people are choosing to get liver disease though. See the difference? :P

Quote from: Hudders on Tue 03/07/2007 23:02:40Thank you for your compassion.

Sorry, I forgot. It wasn't meant to be rude. But in my defense... were you also making a joke about the rain or not?

Quote from: Erenan on Tue 03/07/2007 23:10:24

Quote from: Hudders on Tue 03/07/2007 23:02:40Thank you for your compassion.

Sorry, I forgot. It wasn't meant to be rude. But in my defense... were you also making a joke about the rain or not?

Yes I was. Don't worry about it.  ;)

Pubs now smell of mold and urine. I'm serious without the smell of smoke to cover it up the locals round here smell horrible.

Maybe that's just Wiltshire though?

Heh, the local where we gig has set up a massive gazebo that connects to the side of the bar from the outside.

There is a smoking ban in New York State also. One day a couple of years ago, a friend and i were walking by some bars where i use to live. There were cigarette butts all over the ground. At least if you can smoke in a bar, you can use an ashtray. It was disgusting to see.

The last time i went to a bar, i was there to see a co-worker performing in his band. After every song, all the smokers were outside smoking and throwing their discarded cigarettes on the ground. Didn't seem like there was anybody that was gonna clean up that mess. Maybe these establishments should provide a place to put them.

I would write more, but i have a cigarette to light up.  ;)

Pubs here have little metal ashtray-box-things affixed to the outer walls.

Although, it seems smokers would rather let their deathsticks fall where they may, as most pubs also have a carpet of used smokeables on the footpath outside.

We've had the ban for a short while in Finland. I don't smoke myself, but I don't mind people smoking around me, I'm used to cigarette smoke. I do like the fact that my clothes and hair don't smell of smoke anymore after a night out (but then again, it wouldn't matter much NOW because I got a washing machine recently). My favourite bar has had a small, separate room for smokers since the place was opened, and it has worked fine, I have never heard anyone complaining about it. Going there for the first time was definitely weird though, I had never been to a smokeless bar before. It took me a while to figure out what was missing.

There has been discussion about bars starting to smell of sweat, piss and crap after the ban, but I haven't noticed it myself. Perhaps I go to too fancy places?

Also, the day m0ds stops smoking is the day Hell freezes over! ;)

I am enjoying not feeling my lungs seize up.

I'm just back from the pub. I was there about 2 hours before I even realised "Oh, smoking ban in effect." There was really no difference - perhaps because they've been phasing smoking out for a couple of months anyway - but now I think about it, I don't reek of smoke like I usually do when I get back.

Non-smoker, by the way, so I'd usually only notice if people were actually breathing smoke into my face. (I'll have to see what the weekend nightbus is like...) Used to be pretty anti-smoking if I was with my nan, but for me I don't much care.

I always love when this debate about smoking arises! (not that it's really arisen here)

I love hearing [some] smokers trying to explain how they have the right to smoke in public.  It just cracks me up.  But then again, I suppose if you're dumb enough to intentionally inhale poison into your body, I probably shouldn't expect you to be able to grasp the concept that you don't have the right to smoke around me. ;)

If I'm at the table next to a smoker, and I'm not smoking, I'm having no effect on the smoker.  If that smoker is blowing smoke all over the place and forcing those around them to inhale it than (s)he IS effecting me (and others) and that's just rude.

Actually I find it embarassing for the whole human race that in this day and age people still smoke.  It boggles the mind.

In my opinion if you absolutely have to smoke (for whatever reason you might think makes sense) you should be made inconvenienced to step outside to a designated smoking zone where your cancerous activity slowly rots your lungs away and not mine.

Just my opinion.

Oh ... and I used to smoke.  So please don't use the "you don't know the addiction..." excuse :)

edit
Oh and m0ds ... nothin' but love.  You should quit smoking.  It's better for you :)

Am I allowed to feel (slightly) offended that you somehow feel equating smoking to being dumb is valid?

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 00:54:15
Am I allowed to feel (slightly) offended that you somehow feel equating smoking to being dumb is valid?

Smokers aren't necessarily idiots, but you have to admit that starting smoking is a bit of a stupid thing to do?

Quote from: AGA on Wed 04/07/2007 00:57:49
Smokers aren't necessarily idiots, but you have to admit that starting smoking is a bit of a stupid thing to do?

So is tons of other stuff... For example speeding, driving drunk, drugs, eat junk food (most of which can lead to death, and much much sooner than smoking, plus the death of others as well).

I guess, we're all (EDIT:not necessarily though)  idiots ;)

Darth: Don't assume everybody's as strong as you, who quit smoking. Why would someone be forced to be completely uncomfortuable, when (s)he is an addict actually?

(And just to remind people, no, I don't smoke. My wife did and fortunately she quit when pregnant to our first son. THAT smoking I don't miss. Having the person you love smell SO bad, and having her waking up to have the first smoke in minutes, is nothing but... ugly)

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 00:54:15Am I allowed to feel (slightly) offended that you somehow feel equating smoking to being dumb is valid?

You are certainly entitled to be offended.

However, smoking is a dumb thing to do.  I really don't think anybody with a brain-stem would deny that?  No person on the planet looks "cool" when smoking.  It doesn't help your health or those around you.  It gives you bad breath, makes your hair/clothes stink, stains your finger nails, causes early aging in your skin, yellows your teeth, damages your lungs and to top it ALL off it contains addictive substances that make you crave more and more of them and ignore the above consequences.

So yeah ... you are dumb if you smoke.  Sure, you might have "smarts" in other things but have a lack of common sense which I would equate to being dumb.

I was "dumb" for a long time.  I smoked for many years until I realized how stupid/moronic it is and I simply quit.

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 04/07/2007 01:24:44Darth: Don't assume everybody's as strong as you, who quit smoking. Why would someone be forced to be completely uncomfortuable, when (s)he is an addict actually?

Meh ... I see what you're saying.  I just don't agree.  It segways into another problem I see in the world today.  Everybody making excuses for their inability to do what they should.  Will power is a dying concept.  "Addiction" is a buzz-word that people use to rationalize lack of will power.  If you know something is bad for you, quit doing it.  Don't make excuses, don't whine, just quit.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/07/2007 01:48:42
Meh ... I see what you're saying.  I just don't agree.  It segways into another problem I see in the world today.  Everybody making excuses for their inability to do what they should.  Will power is a dying concept.  "Addiction" is a buzz-word that people use to rationalize lack of will power.  If you know something is bad for you, quit doing it.  Don't make excuses, don't whine, just quit.

So you actually think that there isn't a chemical addiction in smoking (and drugs, and alcohol)?

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 04/07/2007 02:03:05So you actually think that there isn't a chemical addiction in smoking (and drugs, and alcohol)?

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/07/2007 01:48:42... and to top it ALL off it contains addictive substances that make you crave more and more of them and ignore the above consequences.

Chemical addiction or not ... if you know it's something you shouldn't be doing, you should stop doing it.  Chemical, mental, physical, or whatever type of "addiction" excuse people want to use doesn't change the fact that you're doing something dumb.

Yes, eating too much chocolate can be bad for you, but if you exercise regularly you can work off the effects of eating the chocolate.

Yes, driving a car too fast can be bad for you, but if you pay attention it's no more deadly/dangerous than driving the speed limit.

Smoking?  There's nothing good that comes from it and no way to balance out the ill effects.  It's stupid.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/07/2007 01:48:42
So yeah ... you are dumb if you smoke.  Sure, you might have "smarts" in other things but have a lack of common sense which I would equate to being dumb.

So I'm dumb and I lack common sense. Huh.

Smokers choose to accept the risk because they, for whatever reason they prefer, enjoy a cigarette. That's what it's like for me. I know it's bad for my health, and I know it's not the biggest chick magnet there might be, but I accept that and light up another cigarette.

Car exhaust is bad for your health. Eating a lot of sugar strips the glazing off of your teeth. Eating junk food increases the chance of becoming obese, which is one of the major causes of heart failure. Drinking alcohol kills off brain cells, which don't grow back.

I hardly ever drink, I eat sensibly and I exercise.

But based on one bad habit you're saying I lack common sense?

The difference between what you're saying and real life is that it's not such an easily peggable situation. Smokers smoke because they want to - they know of the risks. A lack of common sense can be attributed to smokers who continue to argue that smoking doesn't pose a health risk - because they're dumbtards.

But I think it's hardly fair to call somebody dumb simply due to a bad habit.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/07/2007 02:15:40
Smoking?  There's nothing good that comes from it and no way to balance out the ill effects.  It's stupid.

In my case, there actually is. Smoking is one of the few things which can calm me down if I have a panic attack, or if I get a bad case of ADHD (which is more often than I'd like to admit).

I hardly drink.

I eat well and healthy.

I get a fair amount of exercise.

I like jumping in front of moving trains.

Wouldn't that one [deadly] thing seem to indicate a lack of common sense on my part?

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 02:22:23The difference between what you're saying and real life is that it's not such an easily peggable situation. Smokers smoke because they want to - they know of the risks. A lack of common sense can be attributed to smokers who continue to argue that smoking doesn't pose a health risk - because they're dumbtards.

I would completely disagree with that.

Knowing something is bad, and doing it anyway is, to my way of thinking, a lack of common sense. (ie: dumb)

Smokers that continue to argue that smoking doesn't post a health risk are simply ignorant "dumbtards".

You can rationalize it anyway you want.  I don't dislike you because you smoke (I don't dislike you at all).  As you said, it's your choice but it is still a dumb thing to do.

I used to be all "ARGH! Smokers! What's the deal?!" and then I saw stand up from Bill Maher [sadly I had a life lesson learned from a damned comedian...] and he said "Not everyone wants to live forever." and I realized that he was right. He went on to say that grown ups want to have fun and they known the consequences of their actions. Every once and I while I feel myself slipping back into old Eric and I think to myself "Not everyone wants to live forever."

As far as this ban is concerned, maybe if people keep banning legal recreational drugs in public it will help spark an actual debate on the legality of one drug over another?

Here in Aus, smoking is also banned in pubs [actually it is now in NSW not sure about all the other states], has been banned for years in all other indoor places of business and restaurants.

In pubs for the last few years, each year they've made the smoking sections smaller, and it was known that from July '07 it was going to be totally banned years in advance, giving the venues time to create outdoor beer gardens etc.

Most pubs smoking section was in the same room as the poker/slot machines, The more interesting thing about the no smoking, will be how it will effect the gambling, most people who sit at a machine and gamble constantly, also smoke, and wont want to have to leave their machine and go outside for a smoke. I'm wondering if these people will quit smoking, or get someone to look after their machine for 5 mins. I'm sure the gambling companies will be a bit pissed off, or probably just create all weather machines that can sit out in the beer garden.

My local wont change much, the only difference will be no smoking in the pokies room, which was closed off and well ventilated previously so the rest of the pub wont really change. I've always gone outside for a smoke at pubs and at home anyway, the thing that is the worst in a smoky room for me is getting sore eyes.

I agree it is pretty stupid to smoke, will power can help you quit if you want, I've quit other drugs (illegal & prescribed) and that was tough enough (ie few days of physical pain and illness + 3 months to start feeling normal again [the prescribed being the tougher]) nicotine and caffeine are still left for me to quit at some stage, I guess you just have to be in the right frame of mind to be able to use will power correctly (cause yes, will power is just imaginary, but the power of the mind can be strong)

smoking is stupid, yes, but it doesn't effect your intellect.

Banning Alcohol would probably do so much more for the world, I enjoy having a few beers, and never been an alcoholic, but I wish it was as easy to quit smoking as it is for me to go without alcohol.

Smoking has been banned in Swedish pubs and similar for 1 1/2 years now or so, and although the debate was fierce before it actually kicked in, people immediately got used to it and accepted it.
I'm only really bothered by smoke if there's lots of it in a small space. Outdoors I can even go for a cigarette myself, and I don't blame people who smoke as long as they don't exhale in the faces of other people.
We all do things that are bad for us (except for those creepy health gurus who are hellbent on living until they are a hundred and ten) and it hasn't got much to do with intelligence.

Also, a lot of clubs around here smelled badly of body odours after the ban, but then some understood the benefits of air circulation and various chemical inventions, so now some dance floors even have this nice scent of lemon or firtree or whatever.

"I don' t mind smoke as long as they don' t exhale in the faces of the people"

That' s a common sentence told by the smokers. It has a problem... smoke doesn' t just annoy us (US=non smokers) When is exhaled in our face. Smoke "pursuits" us like if it had rational intelligence and sticks in our clothes and our hair.

It' s true, make the test. Put 10 people in a circle, 9 of them smokers, one non smoker, and make one of the people to light on one. Smoke will move to cause maximun annoy.

Now, let' s talk seriously. I am not going to enter in health issues. Everybody can do what they want with his body. My complain is about the annoy smoke provoques. Smoke is really annoying for the non smoker for two reasons: a) Our smelling sense is better b)We are less used to it than smokers, ergo, we are more molested for it than smokers are.

And the worst of it, it' s not necessary to enter in a Pub which receives you with a hit of "fog" in the face to end with that sticky smell in your skin/hair/clothes. You can notice it if a single person is smoking in the other side of a 5X5 room.

Extremelly inteligent people smoke. Smokers are not (at least for smoking) stupids. But smoking is a bad decission. The problem is that smoking is not like drinking too much of sniffing coque sometimes. Smoking is a vicious that moves out of the body of the person who has the vicious and annoys a person who has choosen not to suffer it.

I wouldn' t even mind if a person or two in every pub smoke. I would stand that mild aroma in my clothes. Tobacco smells quite good when it' s a real/non-treated plant, and not too bad if comes in little doses after adding the artificial ingredients it has when coming in cigarrette shape. The problem is that not one or two people smoke. The problem is that "lighting one cigarette" is allowed, the people react as a mass and many many people smokes. You can' t put a line. The pitty is that even non regular smokers become smokers in weekend and 50% of the people can be smoking inside of a small/non ventilated pub.

Result: I haven' t gone outside in weekends for 5 years, just because it makes me feel sick (literally), and filthy. I needed to take a shower after going outside (normally at a nasty hour, awaking my parents) and it made me breath weird the next day in the morning, and all that after choosing the "no smoking" path when I had the oportunity to decide. It' s a bit unfair, to be honest.

Smoking outside would be a little sacrifice for an individual, and it would help a lot to improve the conditions in pubs, for everybody. Here the situation is so bad that even smokers can' t be in pubs for a long time, because the air is un-breathable, the eyes scratch and they cough.

So... remember. Smoking is a right you have. You can do it in open places, because in that way you want annoy anyone who hasn't chosen having smoke in their lives. If you smoke in closed spaces, you are trespassing the result of your vicious to someone who hasn' t chosen to have smoke in their live. It' s not like drink too much, it' s more like puking in someone' s trousers. You don' t need to take the decission of smoking outside bacause of your health, because of the law of because of the penalty. You can choose to smoke outside because you can probably helping a friend to spend a more pleasent time.

Hey I always wondered this, and sorry it might be a bit off-topic, but can some of you smokers tell me how many cigarettes you need to smoke before you get addicted?

A good friend of mine recently started, she's not yet addicted though, but I worry for her as she has got a bit of an addictive personality. I think she's just doing it to try and fit in...

Thanks.

Quote from: Zor on Wed 04/07/2007 08:27:49
A good friend of mine recently started, she's not yet addicted though

She's probably already addicted. She just hasn't realised yet.

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/07/2007 02:15:40
Yes, driving a car too fast can be bad for you, but if you pay attention it's no more deadly/dangerous than driving the speed limit.

Ahem... This is a tad ignorant, I find...

Plain facts (taken from lovely Brittish telly ;D): hit someone at 30 mph (miles per hour) and they have 80% chance they'll live. Hit them at 40 and they have 80% chance they'll die. Now, I won't go chassing proof that the above facts are indeed real, but they do seem reasonable enough, even if not at the 30 or 40 limit, but different numbers, or... faster, slower.

Assume you're doing 70 mph on a motorway (note: miles uk same as miles us?). You need around 120 meters in order to stop. Doing 80 mph you need 200. Do the math.

Speeding is bullshit in all cases. And yet I've not seen 1 person to not do it!

voh: Of course smoking calms you. I calm myself by bitting my fingernails (nice example compaired to smoking but I'm obsessed with it, so I guess it's a bad habbit of mine). I bet that you can find something else to calm you instead of smoking...

But basically what eric says is true 100%: Not everyone wants to live forever and lead a totally healthy life. Heck I love fat! It might kill me later on, but I still can't resist pure fat!

I just don't see the point in 100% banning. As I wanted to post and didn't due to lack of time, a bar is a bar and a pub is a pub. Smoking IS a social behaviour, like it or not. Killing the sociality of it... don't know... Yeah it's bad, yeah 2nd hand smoke is worst, yeah smoke goes around not only to the way that the smoker blows, yet: When people come to my place and want to smoke (Greece, not UK), even with 2 kids, I don't send them off the house. I just open the window, and am sure that they won't smoke a dozen, but 1-2. I try to respect their decision, or whatever else we want to call it. In the end, having 2 ciggarets in the house 3 times a year, is definately not bad for your health. Ask anybody. (Of course I don't mean having people twice a week and turning the house into the smoking refuge).

Smokers are left optionless (apart from going out). I just can't stop compairing it to... drinking. We assume that after 21 a person is mature enough to control their drinking? Bull! how many people die of drinking, and car crashed because of alcohol etc? why not bad alcohol all together? Cause in both cases (smoking, and drinking) I see innocent people dying. What's the difference. In both cases I might get either hit by a car, or by cancer later on in life.

I wonder what else will happen in the future. Which things will start to get banned. (yes a bit paranoid, but hey this is AGS, might make a good adventure game for the future, where everything is like a hospital and life is pretty much banned from any kind of fun!... hmm... done before huh? ;))

Arguing about the health risks of cigarettes seems irrelevant considering the crux of this thread is about smoking bans in establishments that typically sell alcohol. 
As a smoker, I do not feel as though it's my "right" to smoke wherever I want, I simply feel as though the choice should be left up the business owner or proprietor, they do have the right to chose whether or not they wish to be in the company of smokers.

Quote from: Zor on Wed 04/07/2007 08:27:49
Hey I always wondered this, and sorry it might be a bit off-topic, but can some of you smokers tell me how many cigarettes you need to smoke before you get addicted?

A good friend of mine recently started, she's not yet addicted though, but I worry for her as she has got a bit of an addictive personality. I think she's just doing it to try and fit in...

Well, unless she's smoking one per two weeks or month it's fair to say that yeah, she's on the road to addiction fast, or already on it. I started with a cig from time to time, "quit" for a couple of years (quotation marks because I don't feel I was addicted at that time) and returned to it smoking a pack a week, now that's definitely when I can guarantee I was addicted, as it became two packs a week, then 3, then 4, then one a day.

I'm a considerate smoker, by the way. I don't smoke in restaurants, I always ask my non-smoking friends if it's okay to smoke (and thankfully I've got the kind of friends who'll tell me no if they feel it isn't) and whenever I feel that it might be inconveniencing to somebody else I move outside.

Not so in pubs, however, but that's because until the ban becomes effective in the Netherlands, I still see it as a part of going to one. Even when I didn't smoke it was fine with me, because sure, I'll smell of smoke and need to shower and wash my clothes, but after a sweaty night in a busy pub, I'll have had someone spill beer over me, so the clothing needs a good washing anyway.

I support the smoking ban, because yeah, smoking's bad. We (the smokers) don't have the right to push that upon others, but I still think it's ignorant to call smokers dumb.

I think nobody has said that smokers are dumb. Smoking is a bad decission. I should had my driving license when I was 18, but I didn' t. I took a bad decission. Am I dumb? No. Well... maybe, but not JUST because of the driving license issue.

And, again, some of you (smokers) go on telling "Smoking is unhealthy, we know, but don' t go in that direction. Non smokers do unhealthy things as well". Well... I never talked about health. I just can' t care for your health if you, the main interested, don' t. It is just the smoke which annoys me. I could even stand the smell while people smokes, but it is sticky and lasts for DAYS.

Simple physics dictates that there is more energy to dissipate in a crash the faster you go, in proportion to the SQUARE of your speed. So for every 1.4x increase in speed, you double the damage done in an accident.

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 04/07/2007 10:31:02

Quote from: Darth Mandarb on Wed 04/07/2007 02:15:40
Yes, driving a car too fast can be bad for you, but if you pay attention it's no more deadly/dangerous than driving the speed limit.

Ahem... This is a tad ignorant, I find...

Why is that ignorant?  When I was a kid, the speed limit on most major U.S. highways was 55 mph.  Now it's 70mph (I've seen some places where it's 80mph). Speeding is just a concept.  The speed limit will continue to increase as time goes on.  People aren't better able to be hit by a car now than they were 20 years ago.  Do I go flying through a school-zone at 50mph?  Of course not, and those that do are idiots.  Do I go 80mph on the highway?  Hell yeah.  But I can guarantee you that the majority of accidents on U.S. highways are caused by morons going 45mph while talking on their cellphones.  Not the guy like me going 10 over the speed limit.  The problem is, when asked what caused the accident the moron who was talking on his cellphone not paying attention and going too slow will, of course, blame it on somebody/thing else rather than admit his own fault.

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 11:41:20I'm a considerate smoker, by the way. I don't smoke in restaurants, I always ask my non-smoking friends if it's okay to smoke (and thankfully I've got the kind of friends who'll tell me no if they feel it isn't) and whenever I feel that it might be inconveniencing to somebody else I move outside.

My favorite kind of smoker.  Sadly, the rarest kind it would seem.

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 11:41:20I support the smoking ban, because yeah, smoking's bad. We (the smokers) don't have the right to push that upon others, but I still think it's ignorant to call smokers dumb.

Perhaps I should clarify.  If a rocket scientist smoked, I would consider him/her dumb.  It's not ignorant.  I'm not saying they know nothing.  But they are doing a dumb thing, thus I consider them dumb.  I should further clarify that I am dumb.

Quote from: Zor on Wed 04/07/2007 08:27:49A good friend of mine recently started, she's not yet addicted though, but I worry for her as she has got a bit of an addictive personality. I think she's just doing it to try and fit in...

I love the mentality "I smoke to fit in" ... now that is totally ignorant.  Tell your friend straight up that smoking to fit in is rediculous.  Tell her over and over that she looks stupid when she smokes.  Putting your health at risk simply to "fit in" is just the kind of bullshit mentality the breeds further stupid behavior.

Quote from: MrColossal on Wed 04/07/2007 04:05:04I used to be all "ARGH! Smokers! What's the deal?!" and then I saw stand up from Bill Maher [sadly I had a life lesson learned from a damned comedian...] and he said "Not everyone wants to live forever." and I realized that he was right. He went on to say that grown ups want to have fun and they known the consequences of their actions. Every once and I while I feel myself slipping back into old Eric and I think to myself "Not everyone wants to live forever."

I get the point of what he said ... but it's a silly way of saying it.  Nobody, whether they want to or not, will live forever.  So you don't want to stick around for 20 more years?  Fine, pollute your lungs.  If you're that stupid, that's your choice.  However, do it in cramped and uncomfortable "zones" so those of us that don't want your cancer don't have it forced on us.

Quote from: Nacho on Wed 04/07/2007 12:00:42I think nobody has said that smokers are dumb.

I did :)

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 02:22:23
Smokers smoke because they want to - they know of the risks

What's the effect of nicotine on the human body?
(without looking it up on the internet ;) )

Quote from: Misj' on Wed 04/07/2007 14:52:27

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 02:22:23
Smokers smoke because they want to - they know of the risks

What's the effect of nicotine on the human body?
(without looking it up on the internet ;) )

It's not the nicotine that'll get you. It's the tar and the other crap that's in there.

I'll quote the wiki article: "Subjectively, users report feelings of relaxation, calmness, and alertness. It is even reported to produce a mildly euphoric state. By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence."

I, as a smoker, agree to a certain extent. The relaxation and calmness I feel, the rest not so much.

The truly bad stuff in cigarettes is the tar, pretty much. Think of it as waterproofing your lungs :P

Quote from: Hudders on Wed 04/07/2007 15:32:44
It's not the nicotine that'll get you. It's the tar and the other crap that's in there.

Quote from: voh on Wed 04/07/2007 16:00:33
I'll quote the wiki article: "Subjectively, users report feelings of relaxation, calmness, and alertness. It is even reported to produce a mildly euphoric state. By reducing the appetite and raising the metabolism, some smokers may lose weight as a consequence."

I, as a smoker, agree to a certain extent. The relaxation and calmness I feel, the rest not so much.

The truly bad stuff in cigarettes is the tar, pretty much. Think of it as waterproofing your lungs :P

The reason why I asked is, because most smokers really have no idea what nicotine does. (oh, and you cheated :P - you looked it up on the internet ;) ). Contrary to popular belief, the tar is not the only bad thing in there. Nicotine itself isn't very good for you either...it's a neurotoxin. Works perfectly for killing insects, was great in rat and mouse poisons...and in humans...well, it also works quite well to be honnest. Although some of the 'lesser' symptoms are more often observed: uncontrolled and/or over-active movements (yes, there are some diseases where this is advantagious).

to quote wikipedia: "The LD₅₀ of nicotine is 50 mg/kg for rats and 3 mg/kg for mice. 40–60 mg can be a lethal dosage for adult human beings.[6] This makes it an extremely deadly poison. It is more toxic than many other alkaloids such as cocaine, which has an LD₅₀ of 95.1 mg/kg when administered to mice." - Yes, I know...you'd have to smoke quite a lot before you fall down and die. But the lesser effects of the neurotoxin are 'interesting' enough.

No, there's more to smoking than only cancer, and 'concrete lungs'. Nevertheless, hardly any smoker knows about this...that's why I always find it 'funny' when they say "they know of the risks".

Misj'

Ps.: Wiki "Every year many children go to the emergency room after eating cigarettes or cigarette butts. Sixty milligrams of nicotine has the potential to kill an adult, which is about the amount of nicotine in three or four cigarettes or half a cigar, if all of the nicotine were absorbed." - It's a good thing you don't absorb all of the nicotine. Although I'd think most people would stop smoking (after their third or fourth cigarette ;) )

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 04/07/2007 10:31:02
Plain facts (taken from lovely Brittish telly ;D): hit someone at 30 mph (miles per hour) and they have 80% chance they'll live. Hit them at 40 and they have 80% chance they'll die. Now, I won't go chassing proof that the above facts are indeed real, but they do seem reasonable enough, even if not at the 30 or 40 limit, but different numbers, or... faster, slower.

And yet less than 1% of pedestrians that are hit by a car actually die. Which tells us that most people are smart enough to brake when they see danger, and therefore that crashes do not happen at the speed you were travelling beforehand. So basically, the government propoganda is misleading people into blindly obeying the speed limit instead of watching where they're going and adjusting speed appropriately.

Quote
Assume you're doing 70 mph on a motorway (note: miles uk same as miles us?). You need around 120 meters in order to stop. Doing 80 mph you need 200. Do the math.

Yes, you need more space. But who will stop safely, someone driving at 70 mph an inch from the bumper of the car in front, or someone doing 80 mph but leaving a safe gap between them and the next car?

The numerical speed you are travelling at is meaningless; the safety of your driving depends on far more factors than just how many MPH you're doing. I'm sure that most people that manage to be involved in a 43-car pileup (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/6268572.stm) weren't speeding, they were following too close.

QuoteI just don't see the point in 100% banning. As I wanted to post and didn't due to lack of time, a bar is a bar and a pub is a pub. Smoking IS a social behaviour, like it or not.

I'm interested to see how the ban pans out. I've been against it so far, because most of my mates smoke and I can see myself being left inside the pub "guarding the table" while they all go outside for a fag. But we'll see what happens.

I'm pretty indifferent to the smoking ban but, I'd just like to say that a lot of people in Ireland thought it'd be the end of the world when the smoking ban came in. But it wasn't. And now most pubs over there have nice outdoor seating areas with heating and stuff, which is way nicer than sitting in a dark pub anyway.

In Brighton, one of the pubs close to where I work has been forced to make an outdoor seating area with heaters. It's really nice, it means you can sit outside all night, still be warm, and be able to hear each other speak and be in nice clean(ish) night air. It's cool. So yeah, the side-effects of the smoking ban are actually kinda good.

Heated outdoor seating areas FTW...!!!!

CJ:

If people are clever enough to hit the breaks when they are about to hit someone (which actually takes something less than a sec to do, if I remember correctly), then samewise, people will go to see a doctor when they think they have cancer. Not to mention that the assumption that the Brittish goverment is making "propaganda" for speeding, and people are following it blindy, thus they are NOT watching where they are going, is somewhat... weird.

And yes, distances are also important, but speed is also a factor. And speed is 5-6 inches (how much is an inch?) from your eyes, and there to see, while the "safe" distance, is somewhat more vague... no? There are tons of factors on which a crash on a motorway may happen. Fog, speeding, distance, cell phones, etc... Everyone doing any of those (except fog) is dumb...

We are taking the arguments further and further away. I have no problem in disucssing speeding or whatever else really, but the point that I was trying to make (probasbly unsuccesful) is that same as smoking there are many things that all humans do that are dangerous for them, and theyr surroundings. Noone is free of all, everyone is guilty of something, therefor everyone is dumb, according to Darth.

I just fail to see the enormous harm done with 2nd hand smoking, that needed such dealing as banning smoking everywhere. Nothing else. Of course, it's not the end of the world, and since I don't smoke, and noone in my family does, I don't realy care about the ban at all! But while debating I still feel that smokers are treated badly!

Not to mention that taxes in the uk are ENORMOUS in fags, thus the uk goverment has made zillions of £ in the meanwhile. I am surprised that they ban smoking, but I guess, it's not about stoping smokers from smoking, but stoping 2nd hand smoking (and of course keeping taxes as they are).

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 04/07/2007 22:28:52
If people are clever enough to hit the breaks when they are about to hit someone (which actually takes something less than a sec to do, if I remember correctly), then samewise, people will go to see a doctor when they think they have cancer.

But people do hit the brakes all the time, every single day, when they drive a car. If people were incapable of slowing down when necessary, they'd be having accidents every time they drove down the road.

QuoteNot to mention that the assumption that the Brittish goverment is making "propaganda" for speeding, and people are following it blindy, thus they are NOT watching where they are going, is somewhat... weird.

I'm not claiming it's some big government conspiracy, more just simplistic thinking. The only reason they go on and on about speeding is because it's the easiest thing to measure and therefore the easiest thing to fine people for. When people crash nowadays, almost the first words out of their mouth are "I wasn't speeding" because they've been led to believe that it's the only thing of importance when driving.

Of course the speed that you drive at is vitally important, and if you go faster than a speed that is safe, it is dangerous. But the speed that is safe depends on all sorts of factors like road, weather and traffic conditions, and can't simply be defined by a speed limit.

QuoteAnd yes, distances are also important, but speed is also a factor. And speed is 5-6 inches (how much is an inch?) from your eyes, and there to see, while the "safe" distance, is somewhat more vague... no?

But if you see a speed of 70 MPH on your speedometer, does that automatically mean you are driving safely? You may be able to see your speed easily, but it means nothing. A safe distance is more vague yes, but it comes naturally with driving experience and you shouldn't even need to think about it.

QuoteThere are tons of factors on which a crash on a motorway may happen. Fog, speeding, distance, cell phones, etc... Everyone doing any of those (except fog) is dumb...

But if you crash in fog, it's only because you were driving too fast that you couldn't see where you were going. Rather than blindly obeying the 70 MPH speed limit when the road is foggy, you should slow to a speed that enables you to see the road clearly enough to be able to stop if necessary. Fog doesn't cause accidents, bad driving does.

QuoteNot to mention that taxes in the uk are ENORMOUS in fags, thus the uk goverment has made zillions of £ in the meanwhile. I am surprised that they ban smoking, but I guess, it's not about stoping smokers from smoking, but stoping 2nd hand smoking (and of course keeping taxes as they are).

I'm sure if people do stop smoking, we'll see alcohol taxes rise to compensate. At the moment I'm quite happy with smokers subsidising the rest of us, so it'd be a shame if people do start to quit.

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 04/07/2007 22:28:52
Not to mention that taxes in the uk are ENORMOUS in fags, thus the uk goverment has made zillions of £ in the meanwhile.

I don't know about the public healthcare system in the UK, but here in Finland the government uses at least twice the amount of money on treating illnesses caused by smoking than they collect in "tobacco tax".

Personally I welcomed the ban. It's nice not to feel (and smell) like hell in the morning after a night out. Of course the feeling like hell part can be arranged with sufficient amounts of alcohol, but a few hours of cigarette smoke diving (which pretty much describes spending an evening at one of our local drinking establishments before the ban) is enough to make me severely nauseated and give me a splitting headache.

QuoteI, as a smoker, agree to a certain extent. The relaxation and calmness I feel, the rest not so much.

And that relaxation and calmness you feel is a direct result of giving into your craving for a cigarette.  The symptoms of craving an addiction (cigarettes for example) runs the gambit from sweats to anxiety attacks to nervousness to just a general feeling of unwellness.  Don't kid yourself, cigarettes aren't happy, helpful implements of joy; you get hooked on them and the various additives and nicotine are designed to make you stay there, whether you want to or not.

I smoke while I drive and I drove all the way to Brittens 300 mile away and guess what Im alive !!! And to my belief so is M0ds

I'm loosing you more and more...  ???

CJ: As I mentioned, there are lots of stuff that play important role in driving. Speeding is one of them. somehow you seem to be trying to put arguments that the speed shouldn't be a factor, that the goverment is advertising that speeding is dangerous because it's the only thing they can put tickets one (which again is weird. I simply can't believe that, since in London, I've never in the 3 years seen an officer with a speed gun, and all cameras take the speed after you passed them, which gives the perfect warning to NOT speed at that part of the road. Try driving in Geneva, where every road and every corner is full of cameras, which take the speed, while going towards it, and come back about tickets ;). Not to mention that if you overdo it in Geneva, the ticket is not a fixed ammount of money but % from your anual salary. Talk about ouch! and money making this way. And now that I think about it, the goverment should go on and on about parking, since this is where the big money is I reckon, and not speeding ;D. but I guess these money go to the councils...)

Now one by one:

QuoteBut people do hit the brakes all the time, every single day, when they drive a car. If people were incapable of slowing down when necessary, they'd be having accidents every time they drove down the road.

I'm not saying that people don't slow down. but imagine this: Driving at a road and a kid appears in front of you. Usually there is NO TIME to hit the breaks. Speed plays an important part.

QuoteOf course the speed that you drive at is vitally important, and if you go faster than a speed that is safe, it is dangerous. But the speed that is safe depends on all sorts of factors like road, weather and traffic conditions, and can't simply be defined by a speed limit.

UK has variable speed limits, which do take into account weather, traffic, and other anomalities (but mainly the two I mentioned, at least to my knowledge).

QuoteBut if you see a speed of 70 MPH on your speedometer, does that automatically mean you are driving safely? You may be able to see your speed easily, but it means nothing. A safe distance is more vague yes, but it comes naturally with driving experience and you shouldn't even need to think about it.

Still speed is much easier to control, and of course, the goverment is also advertising against drinking and driving, talking in cell phones and driving, safe distances...

Either way, two questions:

1. Why is this discussion happening? I just said to Darth that people do all sorts of stupid thing in their everyday life...
2. Are you really trying to prove that speeding is fine, and that there are other things at fault, but not speeding, and additionally that there should be no speed limit?

I know that some people say that cigarettes make them calm and relaxed. For me, it is the opposite. Nicotine is a stimulant that always causes me to go into panic mode. That is one reason that i smoke only when i have had a few beers in me. It seems to even it out.

I used to take 3 smoke breaks a day at work, and for the last couple of years, take none. I would go back into work and feel really really anxious and shitty, causing me to have to take a valium to calm myself down.  I am not a regular smoker, but drinking beer has always made me crave cigarettes. That is the only time i smoke now.

I guess that is why i drink at home...no bans on smoking in your own place...yet.

Smokers lungs.

(http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/9839/smokers20lungjz1.jpg)

Yeah, but it was the removal of the lungs for the photo that REALLY killed them ;)

Prohibition never works, so they shouldn't ban smoking, just as alcohol, hash and heroin should also be legal. But certainly users of these drugs inflict the consequences of their consumption of them on others.

I think the "Nobody wants to live forever" argument is silly, just as much as someone who says that they know the risks. The main risk is not that you're going to die - everyone is going to die (although with smoking, you can have a good indication about how that may be) -  but it's the discomfort, pain and trouble that's going to happen before that.

My uncle smoked until the last 15 or so years of his life, and although he wasn't even that old, he still had problems in the end. He had emphysema(sp), and he had to hook up a machine to himself every night to clear out the fluid from his lungs. Even bending down to pull up his socks caused a loss of breath, and he suddenly developed asthma. He couldn't even venture out at night in winter. He suffered from (and survived) 2 heart attacks, but the third took him.

There is no excusing the fact that smoking is an incredibly stupid thing to do. No one wants to live forever, but I don't think anyone wants to live like that either. What's the solution? When all that starts happening, just take a leap off the roof  ::)?

I suppose the "complete banning" of smoking will come down to whether it's a person's right to harm themselves. Otherwise, it'll just slowly get banned from all public places.

I'm against bans, but welcome to help.

How about governmental support for nicotine patches and gums, cheaper psychological aid, and so on?

Restrictions never improve anything. Plus, many non-smokers don't know a thing about this hard addiction/disease, therefore have no idea, what stupid bans and pressure may do.

I do know.

But about choosing to smoke: I know helluva lot of people who didn't have a choice. Not at start.
Do they now? Hard to tell. Very little of people can simply quit. And there's no other help around, even if they tried to find any.
Actually, every one of us risks his life any day. And death is often very close even if we don't know about it. Compared traffic/death rate and crime in my home city, smoking sounds like sleeping on an angel's lap to me. I'm not saying that it's safe or anything, but I've escaped too many times by few lucky centimeters from drunk driver speeding at me...

How can you start smoking because you have no choice, increator?

Or did you write that sentence wrong?


Everybody has a choice, to start smoking, and also to quit smoking. My boyfriend chose to start smoking because it gave him an excuse to slip out for cigarette breaks at work. He chose to stop smoking because his uncle died of cancer.

Simple: To avoid bullying. To stay in the "pack".
In some schools or army.

In Estonia, cases like this occur in most of russian schools. In russia, I think that's a standard. My father started smoking in 4th grade... Today, he doesn't have a choice, though he's been fighting for 46 years. And won for some durations, too.

But you can research for more yourself.
Taking a smoke or getting yourself beaten up, abandoned and bullied for rest of your time in place doesn't really sound like two fair options to anyone.

Quote from: Babar on Thu 05/07/2007 13:28:01
I think the "Nobody wants to live forever" argument is silly, just as much as someone who says that they know the risks. The main risk is not that you're going to die - everyone is going to die but it's the discomfort, pain and trouble that's going to happen before that.

You could use that statement to try and convince someone to not skydive, base jump, bungee jump, fly a stunt plane, join the army, climb Mt Everest, become a teacher in a depressed neighborhood, become a police officer in a depressed neighborhood, volunteer for the fire department, etc.

Smart people can know the risks for something and still take the chance. I would never smoke for various reasons but those are my reasons and are in no way anyone elses and I should never expect them to be. There are thousands of ways people can harm themselves on a daily basis, we can't ban them all. Should we start regulating how much Burger King or BBQ Ribs someone can eat in a week? That's some fatty food right there and that can lead to all sorts of health problems!

Being a teacher, policeman, or firefighter will most likely benefit the world in substantial ways. Skydiving, basejumping, etc., is risky, and therefore I would very strongly advise against doing those things for people who have families to support. Smoking benefits no one (and you can argue that it calms you down or whatever, but I don't buy that argument, personally), and it actually harms the world. Cigarette smoke is a bad thing. I live in California where it is illegal to smoke in restaurants. I don't like going to bars even without smoke all over the place, but when I do go to support my brother's band, I'm grateful that I can breathe. I don't want to live in a smoking culture. That would make me  :'(.

In the end, why do we all care if smokers do something stupid? At what point did we all become the conscious of the "dumb" (although I don't think at all smokers are dumb)? Stupid or not stupid for you, for me, for anybody, they still have a right to do it. They fancy doing it. We can hyperanalyse anything (as we always do), but the fact still remains, it's a choice, it takes willpower to quit, and either way the goverment is not exactly battling smoking, but 2nd hand smoking which is a total other thing (to answer SSH here). They are not trying to help people quit. They are trying to reduce all arguments against cigarettes! Cause the last stand was the 2nd hand smoke, and now that is history as well!!!! yay! no more problems with smoking. Those who smoke will keep on smoking. Those who don't can start whenever. Those who were annoyed won't be anymore. win-win!

If it benefits no one, why do people smoke? I don't buy the arguement that they smoke because they are stupid or that they were ALL pressured into doing it and none of them enjoy it and it's only because they are addicted.

Why don't we just strongly advise against smoking since we won't ban other risky behaviour. You can get cancer from alcohol and other health problems, do we want to ban that too? How about banning marathon work schedules or requiring people to sleep 7.5 hours a day by law because lack of sleep can lead to health and societal problems. Do I hate smoke filled rooms and smoker's cough and the smell and all that of smoking? Yes, but that means nothing in regards to what other human beings do with their bodies.

I think its because the effects can affect people around who have no intention of smoking.

No, I agree. But it isn't a ban at all, as Nikolas said. It's just a new rule about where you can and can't smoke. My stance is where things lie right now: that people should be required to go outside so that people who don't want to breathe the smoke don't have to. Personally, I'd be happier if no one in the world smoked, used drugs, followed too closely on the freeway, stole, or murdered, because these are all stupid and bad things to do, in my opinion. But I understand that not all stupid or bad things should be illegal. It's stupid and bad for me to lie to my wife (usually). But should I go to jail or pay a fine if I do? Of course not. That's silly. For smoking inside pubs or restaurants? Sure. That seems fair to me.

I didn't start calling it a ban... I don't think of it as a 100% ban (like drugs), but let's face itL forcing someone not to smoke at:
* your office (perfect sense)
* restaurants (perfect sense)
* bars/pubs (not exactly reasonable)
* your home (WOW! Why?!?!?!?!!)
is pretty absolute. Especially when people are starting to complain that the streets out of pubs and bars are getting smokey and dirty. In a little while they will also ban the street smoking? That is 100% then!

Everybody would be happier without murders, drugs, alcohol, smoking etc, but we all know from sci-fi that this would lead to no good. (and I really believe so, actually)

I didn't say you called it a ban. I was saying that you already made the point I was about to make. But whether it's unreasonable not to allow smoking inside pubs is open for debate. Like I said, my brother's band plays at bars, and I wouldn't go support them at their shows if the room was full of smoke, and I'd be surprised if they would even bother to play at bars if the room was full of smoke. People don't and shouldn't have the right to smoke wherever and whenever the hell they please, but everyone deserves the right not to have to breathe other people's smoke. Is it so much to ask for people to go outside? No, I don't think so. And in a few years, no one will even care any longer. They'll get used to it and forget that they ever complained in the first place.

And I would never, ever, ever allow anyone to smoke in my home. Not in a million billion years.

And my point was that we can't and needn't ban everything. All the same, I can't see how nobody smoking, drinking, murdering, etc. of their own volition would be a bad thing.

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/07/2007 15:55:28
Do I hate smoke filled rooms and smoker's cough and the smell and all that of smoking? Yes, but that means nothing in regards to what other human beings do WITH THEIR BODIES.

Smoking only annoys me because smoke moves out the bourdary of the body of the smoker jumping into the bodies of non-smokers. Thing that alcohol, heart attacks for marathon runners, or not sleeping enough doesn't do.

Smoking is not a "normal" vicious that only affects the person with the vicious. If you drink, you can get pissed till fainting without molesting anyone. Smoking is more like shouting aloud. It annoys lots of people in a radio of 2/5 meters... and the worst of it is that the "annoy" is still there after the person with the "vicious" is away! I see differences between this "bad habit" and some others.

QuoteYes, but that means nothing in regards to what other human beings do with their bodies.

I used to hold the opinion that hey, it's fine with me that people ingest whatever they want into their bodies no matter how damaging it might be - it's their choice after all. After watching a close family member being suffocated to death by cancerous tumours, whose last written words (being unable to talk for about a year due to a tracheotomy) were 'morphine' in agonised handwriting, my stanced changed. When I see people I know or care about putting addictive yet 'socially acceptable' poisons into their bodies without the slightest of concerns as to the health risks it really does upset and fustrate me, because I am terrified that I will have to witness someone else experience such an agonising and futile end to their life.

Bill Hicks once said "what buisness is it of yours what chemicals I put into my body if I do not harm another living being" (or something to that effect). Sorry Bill, but it's a complete fallacy to think that you can perform an act that will harm only yourself, because the effects of anything you do will be felt by the people who care about you.

And that's fine Adam, as long as you don't expect other people to share [or support forcing them to share] those feelings.

QuoteDriving at a road and a kid appears in front of you. Usually there is NO TIME to hit the breaks. Speed plays an important part.

But how can a kid "appear in front of you"? They had to appear from somewhere, and if the road is lined with parked cars or something then you should slow down appropriately so that you can stop safely if necessary.

You seem to be implying that people should just drive around town everywhere at 30 mph, and if a kid steps out into the road then just slam on your brakes and hope for the best. But how about paying attention to the road, driving at 40 mph where it's wide and open, and then slowing to 20 mph where there are kids, parked cars, etc?

QuoteUK has variable speed limits, which do take into account weather, traffic, and other anomalities (but mainly the two I mentioned, at least to my knowledge).

Variable speed limits cover about 1% of roads and can only take into account traffic levels. They're just dumb, computer-controlled, limits.

Are you trying to say that people are incapable of driving at a safe speed? If your speedometer was broken, would you instantly crash because you'd be incapable of judging a safe speed for yourself?

QuoteAre you really trying to prove that speeding is fine, and that there are other things at fault, but not speeding, and additionally that there should be no speed limit?

What I'm trying to say is that yes, speed is very important and that driving too fast is dangerous. But, "too fast" does NOT mean exceeding whatever the speed limit happens to be -- it means driving at a speed where you are unable to stop within the distance that you know to be clear.

QuoteIf you drink, you can get pissed till fainting without molesting anyone.

I'm not so sure about that, just ask AGA.

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/07/2007 19:19:17
And that's fine Adam, as long as you don't expect other people to share [or support forcing them to share] those feelings.

I'm not sure what you mean. Is it unreasonable of me to suggest that self destruction hurts the people around you in varying degrees of severity?

I didn't say it was unreasonable. I totally accept what you say and understand it. I was saying that what would be unreasonable is if you then took that experience and said "There should be a law."

As far as smoking is concerned, there are laws, the socially [if arbitrary] number of 21 [in the US at least] years of age was chosen as a start date for a human to be able to make decisions, good or bad, for their body in regards to smoking. If someone decides to smoke and does not feel they have to or does not care to take into consideration the people around them that may be affected by that decision, that's their fault.

You might not be talking about the ban on smoking when you posted but I was equating your post to the topic. There in the confusion lies?

Raise the tax on it, ban it in public places, more advertising to demonstrate the detrimental health effects.  Whilst making tobacco outright illegal is not something that I think is sensible, there must be a stronger emphasis on getting people to quit, and hammering home the disgusting and unhealthy habit it is.  I would also like to see more research done into second-hand smoke...whilst I do not necessarily buy into the "second-hand-smoke causes cancer" bandwagon, I know that for me personally the smoke causes my asthma to worsen, and my allergies flare up if I am in a heavily smoky atmosphere, such as a bar, pub and even a train station full of stressed smoking commuters.

In fact, now that smoking is banned in public places isn't this the ideal time to legalise cannabis, and use the tax revenues from that to make up for the shortfall from tobacco?

In the US alone, about 50,000 people die every year from alcohol related accidents. Cigarette smoking kills about 400,000 people annually.

In the entire history of mankind, there has never been record of a single mortality caused by marijuana.

I abhor cigarettes personally, but I can see the up side. Employees that smoke get more breaks, and now that public smoking is restricted in many places, there are additional social benefits. For instance, I see a lot of guys meeting girls outside of bars when someone needs a light or a cigarette. It's quiet enough to hold an actual conversation and no friends around to interfere.

Quote from: MrColossal on Thu 05/07/2007 20:08:09
I didn't say it was unreasonable. I totally accept what you say and understand it. I was saying that what would be unreasonable is if you then took that experience and said "There should be a law."

As far as smoking is concerned, there are laws, the socially [if arbitrary] number of 21 [in the US at least] years of age was chosen as a start date for a human to be able to make decisions, good or bad, for their body in regards to smoking. If someone decides to smoke and does not feel they have to or does not care to take into consideration the people around them that may be affected by that decision, that's their fault.

You might not be talking about the ban on smoking when you posted but I was equating your post to the topic. There in the confusion lies?

Even if you take out the emotional attachment, smoking in a public place is still a nusiance and a health risk to me. If someone decides to smoke and does not feel they have to or does not care to take into consideration the people around them that may be affected by that decision, saying to myself "oh well, it's their fault they're doing this to themselves!" does not make the fact that I'm going to cop a lung-full of nicotine, tar, carbon monoxide, cyanide, arsenic, radium, polonium, yadayada go away in a puff of, er, smoke. So yes, I do think a ban on smoking in public places is a good thing.

I don't personally have any issues with legalising what are currently illegal drugs.  The current system creates criminals out of people who need help, not criminalisation, encourages black market production and dangerous compounds, and could be blamed for some gang violence.  As long as there is again tax revenue on it, and enough education about the dangers of excessive usage.

this thread got me thinking, there are all these adverts about giving up smoking, and the health risks, but there is no real strong campaign preventing people from smoking in the first place (surely starting to smoke is a lot harder than giving up), something like this aimed at young children would be ideal although i think kids who grow up around parents who smoke around their children (which in my opinion should be made illegal as they don't really have a choice in the matter, whereas anyone going to a pub or club does) are far more likely to smoke because by the time they're teenagers they're pretty much already addicted to nicotine without even having lit up once.
four members of my family recently gave up smoking and found it quite easy due to the fact they wanted to give up, i think many smokers just make excuses not to and convince themselves beforehand that it's going to be impossible for them.
but for me this ban is semi-pointless and creates a worse problem, which is people smoking in the streets, the other day in town i had a bloke standing next to me at the traffic lights smoking away, and then later a group of young girls walked past me blowing their smoke around. i would much rather smoking was limited to certain indoor areas than done outside.

Quotei think kids who grow up around parents who smoke around their children (which in my opinion should be made illegal as they don't really have a choice in the matter, whereas anyone going to a pub or club does) are far more likely to smoke because by the time they're teenagers they're pretty much already addicted to nicotine without even having lit up once.

Whilst not necessarily wrong, I don't think I'm addicted to nicotine, despite living for 19 years with two parents who smoke.  I'm just more tolerant towards the smoke from one particular brand.

i have relatives who smoke often, however whenever they do they go outside as there are usually many children around. My main concern against smoking is that hospitals get clogged up with them quite often and people who have other problems may be left out, and smokers asked for what they got.

Quote from: Pumaman on Thu 05/07/2007 19:28:22
But how can a kid "appear in front of you"? They had to appear from somewhere, and if the road is lined with parked cars or something then you should slow down appropriately so that you can stop safely if necessary.

they're playing, the balls slips on the road, a kid chasses the ball. Is that impossible to happen? Trying to cross the road somewhere, and they drop something, thus they stop. Etc... there are many ways for a kid to appear in front of you when you least expect it. Because in all honesty, when driving in town do you keep your eyes open all the time in case something pops in front of you? You do assume that there is some common sense, or a parent around to hold kids... But sadly this is not always the case. And then again you keep refering to my examples

QuoteYou seem to be implying that people should just drive around town everywhere at 30 mph, and if a kid steps out into the road then just slam on your brakes and hope for the best. But how about paying attention to the road, driving at 40 mph where it's wide and open, and then slowing to 20 mph where there are kids, parked cars, etc?

No I'm not implying that. the 30 number was again an example. A406 has a 50 MPH limit, other roads 40 etc. Not everything is a flat 30.

I'm not either implying that people should not pay attention but drive under the speed limits.

I'm just saying that in most cases (not every case of course) speed limits do make sense. The have to do with the road, the traffic, the % of someone falling in front of your car by accident, etc... And yes, where is wide and open (A4 for example (the continuation of M4, coming from Reading etc)) has a 40 MPH limit, not 30. When it goes into picaddily circus it goes to 30. Doesn't it make sense? Going out of the city around Ealing it goes to 50 and then the top (70).

QuoteVariable speed limits cover about 1% of roads and can only take into account traffic levels. They're just dumb, computer-controlled, limits.

You have certainly been more than me in the uk, but my experience from around London is that they take weather into account, traffic, accidents, blockage in lanes (and indicate at some points which lane is closed, M1, and M25 for example) and (can't remember what else. Could be that). What else would you like a semiautomatic system to take into account?

QuoteAre you trying to say that people are incapable of driving at a safe speed? If your speedometer was broken, would you instantly crash because you'd be incapable of judging a safe speed for yourself?

Not exactly. I'm saying that speeding can be dangerous as other things in life and yet we do it.

I'm saying that in most cases the speed limits do make sense. You seem to dissagree.

QuoteWhat I'm trying to say is that yes, speed is very important and that driving too fast is dangerous. But, "too fast" does NOT mean exceeding whatever the speed limit happens to be -- it means driving at a speed where you are unable to stop within the distance that you know to be clear.

Ok, but instead of having everyone deciding what is too fast, which is hugely dangerous, believe me (I've driven in Syria... brrrrrr), the state sets the rules. And I have to say that I find most rules reasonable in the UK (regarding speeding, let's go into everything else please).


Don't assume that everyone has the same common sense that you may have, and that when seeing a school, they will hit 20 MPH. They may miss the school, they may never've been there before, they may disregard the school, assuming that no kid will jump, but bottom line is that a sign with a big 20 in front does make sense. Can you suggest that the state should take out that 20 MPH sign, and leave it to the judgement of all drivers?



Regarding smoking, Adam brought something to my mind.

Father in law (remember I was looking for a tablet for him in another thread?). He has had cancer in lungs (left with one), 4ple bypass, and heart condition. That thing started at the age of 48 :'(. He is 60 and still alive. Completely lucky. Truth is that I don't know how long he will last. Both his daughter started smoking after the problems of their father, and his wife has never quit. I can really NOT explain that. I mean you get you own father 3 times in the hospital with plenty of chances to DIE and still you don't quit!

I have no idea what I would do if it was my father, although I love him dearly. Still I don't talk to my mother in law about it, only because I know it will have the opposite effect. And I know this is killing her... MY wife quit 4 years ago, thankfully! She does miss it but hey, we can't have everything in life.

Loosing someone from whatever cause will affect everybody around, but it is an illusion to think that by not smoking we will never lose them. Maybe a bit later, but we will in the end. About suffering and everything that Adam mentions, I really see what he means, but there is a weird balance in my head:

Father in law needs desperately to go on a diet. alternative is... death
Father in law won't go on a diet. Food is the one thing that really brings joy to his life.

What to do? Either way he has a really bad health. Deprive him of "all" happiness? To get a few more... days/weeks/months/maybe years? Give him all he wants and "kill him early"?
I just don't know, and it's a sincere question.

BOYD: I think that you're right. Extensive smoke in you environement may addict you, or make you more likely to take up smoking in the first place

Quote from: Nikolas on Thu 05/07/2007 21:38:27
Ok, but instead of having everyone deciding what is too fast, which is hugely dangerous, believe me (I've driven in Syria... brrrrrr), the state sets the rules.

And yet in Germany there are a lot of motorways with no speed limit, and as I recall they have a better safety record than those in the UK.

Anyway, I realise that we're wildly off topic for this thread so I think we can just jump ahead and reach the same conclusion that speed limits are a useful guide but shouldn't be blindly obeyed.

QuoteWhat to do? Either way he has a really bad health. Deprive him of "all" happiness? To get a few more... days/weeks/months/maybe years? Give him all he wants and "kill him early"?

If it was me, I'd like to die fat and happy. I've had several elderly relations who have languished in a nursing home or hospital for a few years, with zero quality of life, until their inevitable death. Today's health service seems so hell bent on proving that they CAN keep people alive, they don't seem to stop to think about whether they SHOULD.

Quote from: Pumaman on Fri 06/07/2007 20:12:41
Anyway, I realise that we're wildly off topic for this thread so I think we can just jump ahead and reach the same conclusion that speed limits are a useful guide but shouldn't be blindly obeyed.

Thanks and I agree :D

QuoteIf it was me, I'd like to die fat and happy. I've had several elderly relations who have languished in a nursing home or hospital for a few years, with zero quality of life, until their inevitable death. Today's health service seems so hell bent on proving that they CAN keep people alive, they don't seem to stop to think about whether they SHOULD.

The only problems I see is that:

a. My wife will suffer from an early death of her father. He is 60-61 years old. He could have an extra 20 years, that's a hell of a lot of years to miss your father... :-/
b. With better health he might have a more peaceful death (what Adam was saying). Going of old age, seems to be the "best" death. But having an extra heart attack, or cancer, or whatever else seems wildely more suffering than old age death... As Adam said, I don't think I could bare the look of him asking for morphine, by writing, and he is my father in law, not my real father, imagine his daugthers, wives, etc...

It is a very delicate balance here, cause I really see your point and I do agree as well... Fading out of life for a few years, without anyone to care for you around, is really awful as well.