If anything, increasing overall social acceptance will make smoking less attractive to kids. After all, who want's to do somthing that doesn't piss anyone off?
Oh come on, are you taking the piss? Everyone knows smoking kills, most people probably think it's more deadly than it actually is thanks to the propaganda campaigns run at our expense. Let's face it, next to no-one is going to be under any illusions about the dangers of smoking, and if they are then that's not exactly going to be alterable by a slight change to the legal age of purchase.
Everyone knows smoking is harmful to your health. Anyone who doesn't has obviously been living under a rock for 300 years. I remember a time when Facism was socially unacceptable. But now it seems to be in vogue again. Unfortunatley. And the only reason smoking is becoming socially unacceptable in Britain is because the "I run marathons on my time off" brigade are the moral majority. And at the end of the day, nobody likes those kinds of people. ******: "I run marathons on my days off..." Me: "Really? I used to sit on my arse in a pub and have a smoke, but now because of the likes of you and your self righteous horse **** about healthy living I can't. Oh yeah, and great idea villifying someones freedom to choose what to put in their bodies by making it socially unacceptable to smoke in public, perhaps you would like to make it socially unacceptable to be black, asian or jewish in public, we can get you a little red arm band with "I'm a member of the "I know what's best for you and you'll damn well do as I say and like it" brigade"... Of course, failing that you could always make it illegal through the court of law, I mean ****, why not just go the whole hog and line up everyone that has alternatives views, lifestyles and cultures than yours and have them all shot, you ****ing arsehole of a sham. Sitting there proclaiming yourself to be oh so ****ing liberal, but anything that comes along you don't like, you try and ban it outright. ******: "Yes, but I'm healthy and you're not!" Me: "So, I could club you to death with dick right here and right now and I'd be alot more healthier than you. You could try and run away from my ass whooping and attempt to escape across that busy road only to be hit by a bus, taxi, mpv, hgv, take your ****ing pick. And while you're living your life to the fullest know this, everytime you jump out of a plane, everytime you white water raft, everytime you run of those gormless ****ing marathons, you're taking your life in your hands. The same way I do everytime I light a smoke up." Yeah, we can make smokers go to one area to smoke together. We'll call them "ghettos", we'll organise big cattle trains to ferry them back and forth. And get them some spiffy sew on star badges that read "Der Raucher" Maybe you're right. But dig this... If I walked into a pub and sat down, started drinking, chatting and decided I was then going to start swinging a medieval mace around my head instead of lighting a cigarette up, would you get up and move out of the way, or would you sit their like a gormless idiot, make those irratating little coughs that non-smokers do when someone is smoking around them, or would you get out of the way before my medieval lump of pig iron came crashing down on the top of your skull. I don't particularly like being electrocuted. So I don't subject myself to situations where I might be electrocuted. Smoker: "Coming to the bar for a pint tonight?" Non Smoker: "But of course, then I'm going to complain the entire time I'm out about everyone smoking around me, even though, of my own free will, I chose to subject myself to the surroundings which lead to me having to inhale everybody elses smoke." Smoker: "Tickety-boo, but you get the first round in." Non Smoker: "And while we're on the way, I really really hate seagulls. Can we go to the rubbish tip or the docks so I can be surrounded by them and do nothing but piss and moan about the fact I, of my own free will, have gotten myself into a situation where I'm surrounded by creatures I can't stand." Increasing the age limit is only going to make smoking cooler. Anyone can say "yeah, I got these cigs because I look 16" now. But it's going to be "yeah, I got these cigs because I look 18 (or 21)". And if we know anything about children, having been one and had the misfortune to look after relatives children, they all want to grow up to quickly, it's why pre-teen girls dress like Christina Augegegielilgeilega, or quite simply whores and why pre-teen boys think acting like an "I don't give a ****" rapper are socially acceptable. So by making cigarettes more adult only orientated, it's only going to make children desire them more.
Perhaps you ought to stop smoking, aye. It is making you agitated (or is it because you are trying to quit?). I'm sorry, but your logic is flawed. Non-smokers do not object to smokers undermining their own health; after all, to each his poison and all that. Non-smokers object to smokers undermining the non-smoker's health by smoking in their presence. I know, I know. Non-smokers do not have to subject themselves to a smokey pub environment. Perhaps they could congregate in non-smoker ghettos or camps instead. We could run them there by trains --well, you get the idea. Your argument runs both ways. I think your comparison with ethnicity or alternative lifestyle is flawed also. As far as I can tell (the arguments of supremacists notwithstanding) nobody experiences any harm/threat to their health from being in the presence of a black or Asian or Jewish person. Generally nobody is affected by alternative lifestyles either. However, there is such a thing as socially appropriate/considerate behaviour and if you walk around naked, or wield maces in pubs you may indeed find yourself subject to law enforcement, rather than that people discreetly get out of the way. Of course a really wild, out-there idea would be to accept that the world isn't perfect, that people are different and that nobody has special entitlements, and we could all be, like, a bit considerate when someone wants to light up. Many pubs and restaurants have a smoking and no-smoking area. Everybody happy, right? If people are prepared not to act like self-righteous dicks but co-operate with each other a bit, perhaps we don't need smoking laws. As for the 18 limit: let's accept that it is not effective, but at least creates some consistency with drinking and driving laws.
Whether people already know how dangerous smoking is is irrelevant. My point was that increasing the age gives the message that it's more dangerous than you think. I never said that the difference would be great, or have any great effect. I suppose that increasing the limit will make cigarettes more attractive to some kids but probably less attractive to those that weigh in their health against their social acceptance when choosing to smoke. You can argue it either way so I guess the only way to find out whether this will cause more kids to smoke than not is to look at the statistics in a year or two's time. It's nice of you to generalise non-smokers as also being the kind of people who are particularly concerned about their health. Some of us just don't like breathing smoke. Anyway, I agree that it's not nice to stigmatise somebody because they chose to smoke. If I smoked I wouldn't appreciate someone pretending to cough when they were near me or giving my evil looks. However the difference with smoking is that it does affect those around you unlike most other lifestlye choices (such as running marathons) that we make. There's no reason why non smokers should be forced to move out of the company of a smoker at their own discomfort (as in your swinging mace analogy). Nexxo seems to have nicely argued against the other points in your post so I'll leave it at that.
Tried, failed, three new years in a row (the inevitable new years resolution) so this year I didn't bother. I know that, but subjecting yourself to something you don't agree, approve of or is going to affect your health is moronic to me. Well pubs and clubs have always been smoking enviroments, perhaps it should be up to the owners of pubs and clubs what they do with their establishment and the smoking issue. Instead of having it forced upon us under the proclomation "we're only doing it for your benefit" by the government. And they never do anything for anyones benefit. Only for profit. If people benefit from their profitable actions, bully for them. I know. My point was just to be as ridiculous as possible. Because that is what the smoking ban is. Three people sitting on a bench, a smoker, a non-smoker and a man sporting a mace. The smoker and mace wielding maniac decide to start their habit at the same instance, which way does the non smoker slide on the bench? A: Towards the smoker. B: Towards the mace wielding maniac. I think in the interests of science, we should carryout such an experiment just to see how much non-smokers really disapprove of smoking when faced with such a situation. That was my point. Except I'm not as good as simplifying things. True, but people are people.
The entire point of my rant was how dare someone go into an enviroment willingly, knowing that there will be people in their doing something they don't like or approve of and then try and have it shut down or banned. It's fascist moralism.
Such arguments will never be resolved and is evident in This Thread Don't really think we want to have this again. Neither Smokers, or non-smokers, or non-smoker who have no problem with smoking will ever agree with each other. Yes it's fascist to put a ban in place, but its also very inconciderate for people to smoke around others. No win situation. One person will have to lose, and unfortunately it has to be you. It's not about people going of their own will, it's people lighting up of their own will around other people. I fail to see what profit could be made by implementing smoking bans
Aye how then would you justify the situation where 10 non smokers are sitting in a nice clean smelling pub and then one smoker turns up, lights up stinks place out for rest of night. According to your sentiments its the smokers who should rule and be allowed to do what they wish, be allowed to subject others to health risks and the stink. If you want another inane comparison 1 person walks into a bar with a gun and starts shooting people, should we as a society allow this? Last time I checked smokers where a minority and I live in a democracy with majority rule so its not even slightly fascist.
It's also very inconciderate for non-smokers to go into places where smoking is socially accepted and has been for generations and proclaim they want it banned because they don't like it or their health might be affected by it. It's the equivilant of me walking into a nuclear power plant, proclaiming I don't like nuclear energy and it's a danger to my health and demanding the place be shut down. The smoking ban is one, in a long line of self righteous, moralist, cabinet seat winners for whatever government and whatever moralist agenda is the hot topic at the time.
So you're saying that because a pub is traditionally a haven for smokers I shouldn't be allowed to stop smokers smoking there? I personally think the idea of tradition is flawed. It's not good enough argument to say that's the way it should be done because that's the way it's always been done. The environment of a pub or similar place should be determined by the things that most people want that environment to be. Why should we satisfy the minority of smokers in a pub over the majority of non-smokers? With something like smoking it's unfortunate that you can't satisfy both. In theory it would be fine to go with Nexxo's idea of sorting it out without having to resort to laws. Pub owners I'm sure can work out whether or not they receive more custom by not allowing smoking at all or allowing smoking throughout. This would work out to various local tastes and allow the majority of people to get along. But there is this secondary goal that the government have when they ban smoking in public places. They not only want to make things nicer for us (or not at all if you share aye's cynicism) but they want to reduce the cost of treating smoking related illnesses. Most people agree that it would be better if everybody chose not to smoke as we would all be healthier for it. The government are managing to reduce the number of smokers by making it less socially acceptable (by banning it public places) and increasing the awareness of its dangers by increasing the age limit and playing all these stop smoking ads on TV. If they didn't do this and everybody just did what they liked we would probably maintain the same number of smokers. Influencing people's individual behaviour in this way is facism in a way but to argue against it you have agree that the benefits of smoking outweigh the costs of the healthcare associated with it. I'm not sure if even aye could do that.
No. I don't think smokers should rule. But if you walk into an enviroment where smoking is an accepted norm and then get offended by it, demand that everyone who smokes be treated like the scum of the earth and criminals because of their lifestyle choice, you're a fascist moron.
The reason it has become so accepted, was because at the time, smoking was even marketed as being a healthy, everyday thing to do. We didnt even see surgeon general warnings on cigarette packets until 1965, and even then it was in iddy biddy print. Now we are much more aware of the dangers, although somewhat exagerated by TV propaganda, we are starting to see that smoking really is not good for anyone. I fail to see what smoking even does for you, sure as hell doesn't get you drunk or high, so why bother with it? Why bother smoking something that clearly tastes like it's turning your body into a **** heap, and then eminating its fumes around the room for others to breathe whats left over, when it doesn't benefit you at all? And please don't say it eliminates stress cos i'll just have to electronically slap you I've heard, in my science classes, of a fair few throughout time that have been shut down or these reasons. But Nuclear factories have become a lot cleaner as weve progressed. Certainly a lot cleaner than factories that rely coal and oil to generate electricity, would you rather we go back to those far more pollutant, health endangering methods? Because once we lie under clouds of Acid rain you might want to retract that statement..
Yes. Bully for you. Do you think then since you don't agree with tradition, we shouldn't remember the men and woman who fought wars to allow you the freedom to come up with the proclomation that tradition is flawed. Or perhaps you want to ban Christmas to, because tradition is flawed. I don't know what pubs you drink in, but any that I do, the majority are smokers. Agreed. But like I said, people are people. So why aren't they allowed to make the decision to allow smoking in their establishments or not? The cost of treating smoke related illnesses is covered by the original amount of taxation on tobacco in the UK. So? Being healthy isn't one of my top priorities. Because, well, what use is it. In reality what? To live a longer life? That's it. The ban hasn't made me, or any of my smoking friends stop smoking. Nor have the continual adverts on TV. Nor did the pictures of diseased lungs we were shown when we were in school. And? Isn't the right as a human being, being allowed to do what you like? Provided it doesn't harm anyone else. And if we're going to pick at this statement, perhaps everybody would just like to stop breathing, because here's a little secret... Smoke, smoking and second hand smoke isn't the only thing in this world that will kill you *shock / horror* I know, I know, the worlds a craaaazy place. It's called "conditioning". It's the reason we buy crap we don't need. Because adverts tell us to, making us believe we'll feel better about ourselves if we do. Healthy living is just another part of this. The benefits of smoking outweigh the costs of healthcare associated with it? I'll take that. No, but I'll make a damn good go of it.
It does get you high. Nicotine is a feel good drug. And that's another thing that gets me, non-smokers, who smoke weed. Why bother? Because it's my choice... No. I think we should use green energy. Solar, wind, water.
Ive smoked cigarettes and cigars on mroe than one occasion and have never been high as a result, at least cigars have a reasonably nice taste =S Also, i've smoked weed on more than the odd occasion, but that does actually do something for me (sorry if this goes agaisnt the drugs use rule mods but at least let me have it to prove a point) Weed gets you high as a cloud, a ciggy makes you feel like a bag of grot. But even if weed was legal i wouldn't smoke it around people that disapproved, i would happily go out back and sit down. People who do not do anything unhealthy have the right to be wherever they please and keep their bill of health. If someone wants to ruin their health, and in doing so the health of others around the, they should do it somewhere else this directly contradicts your statements of "why bother with green living" discussed in a previous thread, i don't believe for a second you would use green energy mr. screw the next generation (that was a friendly jab btw)
Since when? Certainly not in my lifetime has anyone said smoking was good for you? Anyone who believed that when they said it back in the 50s and 60s is dead now. Everyone knows it's bad for you, and some people choose do it anyway. Obviously it has some attraction, and just because you and I don't understand what that attraction is, doesn't mean that it's not real. And aye has a point, who are we to tell people they can't smoke in an enviroment where smoking is customarily allowed? I tend to think that this is another case of democracy crossing the line and interfering with basic rights. I think I'm going to put that in my signature
Meh. Aye has the right idea basicly. Been very tempted to jump in to this thread, but there really is no point because all the same arguements are being gone over and personally I found a very satisfactory conclusion to all these arguements in the last thread about it. Nexxo's thing about common sense and personal responsibility(I think I saw one of those in this thread ) is basicly spot on I think. Of course given the attitudes of even the no doubt well educated and intelligent people in this forum, what hope does the general (stupid) population have at being sensible and grown up? edit: ok ok, one little arguement then Frankly dude, I think you've been smoking them in the wrong orifice or something if you've never felt a nicotine rush from a few cigs or a cigar.
Aye, try to have some objectivism. Just because you took up smoking doesn't mean that all those quit smoking campaigns and stuff they tell you as a kid doesn't work. It just doesn't work on you or the people you know. It's not as if those campaigns encourage anyone to smoke. You're welcome to argue they are a waste of money though as that remains to be shown. Also I'll clarify my position on traditions. You will probably find that most traditions have some sort of rational thinking behind them. We honour people that fought in wars because it lets everyone know our appretiation of them and also alleviates our survivor's guilt. We celebrate Christmas because we enjoy it. We eat with knives and forks because it makes it easier to cut food up. But when you use tradition as the sole argument for doing something in particular such as smoking, that argument won't have a leg to stand on. You say that smoking makes you high but personally I've not found the effects as pleasant as smoking the slightly more illegal green stuff. Most smokers I know have admitted they don't smoke to get high but simply because they are addicted.
I smoked weed for years but stopped because of the paranoia I developed from smoking. The way that nicotine and cannabis affect you is different because of the chemical makeup of each plant. Personally, now, I would rather smoke nicotine than cannabis. Simply because I used to smoke weed like Bob Marley (while listening to him incidently) and realised to late the damage it can do (although not everyone gets damaged, in the same way not every smoker will die young (although they might develop cancer)). I agree that people who want to be healthy have the right to be. But walking into an unhealthy enviroment is not the way to go about protecting their health. And when did I become responcible for their health? Surely their health should fall into their priority, not mine (having ssaid that, I don't smoke around children, I don't smoke in non-smoking friends houses and if asked to, I will put out a cigarette (dependant on location)). I know. I just wanted the last word But given an alternative between fossil and green, I would choose green. But I won't go out of my way to be green. In the same way I won't go out of my way to pollute.
