The guys at work all smoke dope, alot of them are in their mid 50's its custom to them like if a bloke goes to the pub after work to have a beer. These guys drive the mining dump trucks monsters trucks where everyone looks like an ant when in the drivers seat, not one of them have ever had an accident the driving required is dangerous too, as they climb the hill where the road is very narrow one wrong turn and its a 300foot drop to there deaths they been doing this for years. Plus they can work 14-18hr days without a yawn seen :cool:

Thing is they beaten this drug test, when ever theirs one coming up they head down to the chemist grab a bottle of this medcine pregnant woman take , drink the bottle , test day comes up and they all show up clean results. :)

Besides there boss knows, yet turns the other cheek cause they such good safe drivers, its just company policy setup by the main bosses. Not long ago when i started up, my position is "bum boy" :oops: I startup the trucks do the checks for them etc., but this knew chap turned up 3 week into the job comes in a bit tired from a night on the booze, heads out and crashes his truck just on the start of the climb lucky for him. First accident in 17 yrs. Guy doesn't smoke dope. :smug:

:roll:

I'm not sure that I entirely follow the logic of that.

Not every smoker, be they a part timer or convinced 40 a day chuffer, will get cancer or a terminal smoking related disease or even require treatment for a smoking related illness of any other sort; that's the luck of the draw.

Many people do things that can and do cause themselves harm; extreme sports people for example. They do some crazy stuff and yet when they end up as a cagoule full of purée on the rocks below they expect to get the same treatment as everybody else. Like most smokers they know that there is a good chance of damaging themselves by continuing their indulgence, yet by what you are saying, unless I'm mistaken, they too ought to be denied free treatment on this country's medical system because they knew they might very well suffer because of something they chose to do? Now that hardly seems fair, especially when everyone in the UK pays for their free nhs treatment, whether they use it or not, straight out of their wages in the form of National Insurance contributions. And as has already been mentioned, smokers pay even more due to the massive duty levied on tobacco products by our government.

I know my comparison is not necessarily a direct one but I think it bears out a certain amount of weight in contradiction of what you say above.

We've had a similar law here in Utah for more years than I can remember.

On the other hand, "In your own homes"? That's a bit extreme.

The anti-health reputation of smoking I consider to be pretty much beyond doubt. No doctor with a sane mind will tell you that it leaves your metablism and your body unaffected if you do it regularly, and not only rarely. The soldiarity principle come sinto play where you for example have an accident when doing sports. Sprts is good, but you could have an accident. But smoking never is good, and accumulates damage that increases your risk of suffering certain types of cancer, getting your limbs or your lungues removed, etc.

Smoking is consuming poison, and if you take it intentionally, then deseases caused by that are no accident, but your very own responsebility.

I fail to see the logic in your reply to me that you fail to see the logic in my argument! :lol:

Fair enough!

Why should I have to pay tax to the council to repair smoke damage to a council house!

What about these kids on skateboards and they come flying off and break bones and chip teeth, and extreme sports people, they intentionally are damaging themselves, should they be forced to pay for their own medical costs too? I am paying for any future costs, every time I buy a delivery of cigars or a pack of menthol cigarettes, I am paying. I'm just one 19 year old girl who smokes, there are millions of others like me who all pay with every purchase of ciggies. Don't know what its like in other countries, but I consider myself paying up ready. Though I don't plan on smoking all my life.

I have every right to smoke in the comfort of my own home. If my neighbours don't like the idea of me smoking too bad. There is a brick wall between us that partitions us. Smoke may stick to walls, it doesn't magically phase through them. Besides, my neighbours irritate me and my family enough with their partys that go on, and that punk 18 year old spoilt brat of theirs, he has his music going till all hours he does. Not super loud, but loud enough.

It is in terms of ill effects, yes. Though being near a smoker is not an accurate sample of what smoking is like.

It is a fact, but, its a trade off. I once thought exactly like that. But what non-smokers don't realise is how enjoyable smoking is. I am not ashamed to admit I don't regret starting to smoke for a second. I accept it would be better if I hadn't, but smoking can be very enjoyable, both for light and heavy smokers. I enjoy it because I like doing it the mechanics, inhaling/exhaling, I like how it feels, and the rush I get off it. Its a bad habit I know, but its delivers satisfying feelings both to the light and regular smoker.

Too much exposure to smoke makes me poorly as well, but not to that extent obviously. Which is why I agree with the public ban, because you have multiple people all smoking and that is not good.

I am quite pro-smoking, I like it, and its something I get enjoyment from. Much like people enjoy expensive food loaded with cholesterol and people who enjoy boxing etc... risks, but, since I only smoke 3 cigarettes and 2 cigars a week. I am neither stinky, nor are my teeth in bad shape. I would never encourage anybody to take it up. In fact, I would probably try to talk them out of it. But I like my light smoking and that is that. I know what it can do to me, and I know its pricey, but I only live once, and as long as I am not being inconsiderate of others, no prob in my view.

Also, smoke related diseases, its so up in the air and inspecific. Non-smokers can get lung cancer too, even without over-exposure to 2nd hand smoke. Besides, I have been paying in my view into the UK's NHS for the past 3 years with every purchase of cigars or ciggies I have made, for treatment of any (heaven forbid) smoking related illness I may get.

Read what I answered to jumpy. If you do sports, you do not intentionally try to hurt yourself. Concerning risky sports, there are those who do in fact argue that if you do parachute jumping, or inline skating, you should add a bit more to your treatmeent costs than if you would have had an accidnet from a less risky sport. However, a parachute jumper tries to survie at all cost, and me (inline skating) tries not to have an accident. We try to reduce the risk involved. A smoker is not after a positve health effort (smoking never does any good for you). You cannot compare the two.


I never said people should be forbidden to smoke in their own four walls. but I indicated that parents act irresponsible if they smoke in their home while raising kids. Kids are defenseless against the misbehavior of their parents, and many of their body tissues are far more sensitive while they are still young, which also is true for the lungs. They cannot evade passive smokingand are more vulnerable to it than adults, and amongst adults, females are more vulnerable to the toxic effects of smokingk, than males. Let's face it, pregnant women are recommend to drink no alcohol, and stop smoking. And I would like to see parents not smoking, too.

I prefer to trust the scientists here doing the chemical analysis of blood and urine from passive smokers. Obviosuly, as already illustrated be the example of the children I gave two or three postings earlier, you underestimate the effects of passive smoking. Which most smokers do, and even most non-smokers. Most addicts and junkeys and alcoholics spend much time in playing it down and saying they are in control. They aren't. it's part of what in psychology is called "cognitive dissonance".

It is learned behavior. It is no instinct of ours to start smoking. That's why cigarette companies are so eager and desperately try by aggressive advertisment to turn people before their 18th-20th birthday into addicts (they even have increased the ammount of addiction-raising nicotine in cigarettes over the last couple of years to compensate for youth protection laws). Beyond that age, the probability of people ever starting to smoke drops dramatically, and that is not good for the profits. Once you are an addcit (speaking as a ex psychologist here, your metabolsim is constantly affected, and starts complaining if you don't carry on taking your drug. You feel negative symptoms, you are cold, you feel angry, you feel tired or think you need to "relax". You opick up a filter, and consume your drug. Your body feels relieved. but for the most it is no additional pleasure, but the avoidance of unpleasurable feelings that are caused from being an addict, a junkey. Also, smoking has a social function today, it is considered to be social, and it is learned by the example of others you see smoking. It gives fingers something to do, it helps to avoid brakes in communication. It fulfills the purpose that the playing with malas has in certain Asian and islamic socieites: it gives your fingers something to do.

In your first posting in this thread, you also wrote:

"then which means my home will be decisively free of passive smoking related unwellness "

which I perceive a bit as self-contradictory when considering your defending of your light smoking. But that is your own business, so however, I have not much problems with what you said in the last passage above.

As I said, I do not demonize smokers. I only want them to respect their responsebility to do it not at the costs of those who do not wish to smoke, neither actively nor passively. Like you do not wish to loisten to that little punk's loud music in the neighbouring appartment (now I had two house wars because of that in the past, in another city... i hate such things).

Well speakig personally, I had no intention of smoking at all. But when I turned 16 and legal, I got curious, there must be something in it. when I tried it, I didn't find it nearly as bad as I had believed, in fact, the reverse. So did it some more, stands to reason doesn't it? You try something and you find you have a taste for it, you do it more. true, smokers have to smoke to feel normal, yes. I don't get that, for me its purely enjoyment based, I like the mechanics of smoking with inhaling and exhaling and seeing the smoke and so forth, for me its more of a visual and sensational thing as in feeling the smoke in my lungs then out and so on, than just plain addiction satisfaction. I don't believe I am THAT addicted, or else Iw ould be smoking everyday. As it stands I can easily go through weekdays without the urge to smoke. I don't even get urges, and I am reasonably confident, I could stop smoking as easily as I started.

Also when I said home, I mean Wales as a whole. Not my home specifically, I am glad smoking is banned in public places. :)

Oh come one Skybird, be fair. Leaping out of a plane at 20,000 feet!? If that is not throwing yourself in harms way I don't know what is. Also I, as a smoker am after a positive health effort, I don't do it very much, as I said before 3 cigarettes, and 2 cigars a week. I also exercise regular and eat right. I also don't drink alcohol at all, and I walk to everywhere nearby. I consider myself pretty healthy, despite the smoking.

Though in all honesty, I am seriously considering making this my last year as a smoker. When my Liz died, I ended up smoking a full pack of cigarettes in my upset. I found it comforting, but its not something I envisioned when I started and it could have wrecked my delicate routine.

Should be fun in my local when the ban comes into affect everyone who comes in smokes includeing the bar staff,in fact I have not seen a non smoker in there yet,it's going to be a vey lonely pub very soon.:rock:

No doubt.

I can understand a law to prohibit smokers at restaurants, but a plain ole pub??

No way, Jose :nope:

You know, last time I checked, it was legal to smoke cigarettes and cigars. So in my opinion, this is a double standard and should be argued in court (again). :yep:

Is it legal to place someone's health in jeopardy because you want a cigarette?
The council house thing is ridiculous, but bar workers shouldnt have to deal with smoke.

My argument is not health related. We all should know its bad for you.

Oh, and if you want to work in a bar, you should expect to deal with smoke or go work somewhere else. :know:

Smokers who should take it outside, where their choices won't adversely affect someones health. It's ridiculous to expect someone to to breathe smoke for eight hours. I don't see how this can be anything but a health argument :-?

Compare the numbers of people dying of smoking-related deaseases and suffering amputations, cancer-treatements and such - to the number of parachuters killed or having accident. Also compare the seriousness of smoker's deseases, and the seriousness of prachaturers's suffering - which are not about lung-extractions, cancer therapies and limb amputations, but for the most deal with sprains, and occasionally broken feet or legs.

It does not compare, in no way. The more spectacular appearance of the sports does not mean that it is the same threat level like smoking, in general. If you nwant to complain about a sports, poick inline skating, or skiing. Accidents with skaters had exploded in numbers in Germany since some years, most do overestimate themslves, or have not properly learned it, especially how to brake :lol: Skaters are a common sight in hospital. when a parachuter has a mishappening and gets his foot broken, it is in the national news.

The news does not hold many reports on it.

Again, I'm just saying the laws present a double standard.

And it's quite unrealistic to expect a person who smokes and frequents his local pub to go outside when he wants to smoke, because as a smoker, I can emphatically tell you that smoking and drinking go quite well together at the same time. :know: You can't separate the two. :yep: :cool: