Smoking ban UK

[voh]

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

[Misj']

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

The reason why I asked is, because most smokers really have no idea what nicotine does. (oh, and you cheated - 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 )

[Pumaman]

Plain facts (taken from lovely Brittish telly ): 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.

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 weren't speeding, they were following too close.

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.

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.

[Meowster]

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...!!!!

[Nikolas]

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).

[Pumaman]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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).

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.

[tube]

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.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

I, 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.

[SinSin]

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

[Nikolas]

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 . but I guess these money go to the councils...)

Now one by one:

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

[Domino]

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.

[Candle]

Smokers lungs.

[SSH]

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.

[Babar]

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.

[InCreator]

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...

[Meowster]

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.

[InCreator]

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.

[MrColossal]

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!

[Erenan]

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  :'(.

[Nikolas]

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!