Smoking in a non-smoking area
I really do think that smokers have got to be the most filthy, inconsiderate and rudest bunch of people around. For example, whilst happily sat in the non-smoking area of my local pub last Friday night, a group of four twenty somethings sat on the table next to us and proceeded to light up and hid the cigarettes under the table. My partner and I glared across at them and questioned whether we were sitting in the non-smoking section of the pub which we knew we were. This of course made no difference and the youths continued to smoke.
So when I next went up to the bar to get a round a drinks in I checked with the manager and she confirmed that we were sitting in the non-smoking section. So I them told her about the people smoking next to us. She quite rightly dealt with the situation straight away and as you can imagine they weren't very happy about it. On another occasion I have seen a couple of young girls smoking in another non-smoking section of the pub which has leather sofas. They were flicking their ash behind the sofa and when they finished with their cigarettes were disposing of them in empty wine glasses that were on the table next to them.
About two months ago we had a young couple with a baby moved in to the house next door to us. Now all I seem to see on the road at the back of the house and the path on the front of the house is old cigarette butts. This is absolutely disgusting. Why do they do that? Can't they dispose of them somewhere properly instead of being so lazy.
Another incident I came across the other day was when I was on my way home from work. I was driving down the dual carriage way and noticed the car in front of me threw something out of the window, it looked like a clear piece of plastic wrapping. Then they threw a piece of paper out of the window. It was a this point that I expected to see them light a cigarette and of course they did. Why are these people just so dirty and don't seem to care about littering the place?
I think there should be fines put in place for smokers who smoke in non smoking areas and for those who do not properly dispose of their cigarette butts, likewise with people disposing of chewing gum. But that's a whole different story.
Comments from visitors
DSG,
You still have not answered my question. Are you happy to see parents smoke around babies?
I think your reluctance to give a clear answer demonstrates that you do know that passive smoking is probably harmful to health.
You still have not answered my question. Are you happy to see parents smoke around babies?
I think your reluctance to give a clear answer demonstrates that you do know that passive smoking is probably harmful to health.
-10
Click to rate 
Report
Kit,I meant older,stupider kids with a noticeable lack of brain cells,not babies. And as for the 2 pack habit,perhaps they could cut down on the cigarettes a little...
-4
Click to rate Report
DSG,
I have known quite a few people with a 2 pack habit. Do you have a problem with that?
Babies are generally not impressed by "coolness" and so will not be likely to copy their parents. Are you OK with parents who smoke close to their babies?
I am assuming that, as you think passive smoking is a myth, you approve of parents who do that and see nothing wrong with it.
I have known quite a few people with a 2 pack habit. Do you have a problem with that?
Babies are generally not impressed by "coolness" and so will not be likely to copy their parents. Are you OK with parents who smoke close to their babies?
I am assuming that, as you think passive smoking is a myth, you approve of parents who do that and see nothing wrong with it.
-2
Click to rate Report
P:S: Who smokes 40 cigarettes a day,Kit? Allen Carr? Those council estate scum? Tobacco company employees?
+1
Click to rate Report
Well,maybe perhaps you shouldn't smoke near children because of the fact that some children will think it's "cool" to smoke if they see their peers doing it. But I still think that passive smoking is just another myth,like global warming and the Millenium Bug.
+1
Click to rate Report
Actually, 60 was a mis-type; I meant to type 40. I have met people who do smoke more though.
DSG, perhaps you would like to answer my question?
If passive smoking is not harmful then why is smoking near children "a bad idea"?
DSG, perhaps you would like to answer my question?
If passive smoking is not harmful then why is smoking near children "a bad idea"?
+4
Click to rate Report
DSG,
Re-read the post. You are confusing and mixing up two paragraphs.
If passive smoking is not harmful then why is smoking near children "a bad idea"?
Re-read the post. You are confusing and mixing up two paragraphs.
If passive smoking is not harmful then why is smoking near children "a bad idea"?
-2
Click to rate Report
Kit,these people do not "make" the children breathe in smoke deliberately! Surely someone of your caliber would know that it is a bad idea to smoke near children. In your next sentence you suggest that if these people smoke 60 cigarettes a day, every day for 40 years,it adds up to huge amounts of poison. Who in their right mind smokes 60 cigarettes a day,for 40 years,whilst near children! You truly must live in cloud-cuckoo land if you think people smoke 60 cigarettes a day. What are the odds that IF someone DOES smoke 60 cigarettes a day,that children would be exposed to the excess cigarette smoke?
-5
Click to rate Report
DSG,
It is patently silly to the point of criminality to suggest that a controlled study is performed into the possible dangers of passive smoking. Look at my previous post to see why.
Can you please quote where I mentioned packaging? Can you also quote where I mentioned stickers?
Regarding the poisons in tobacco, there may be very little in one cigarette but if you multiply that by 60 a day, every day for 40 years it adds up to huge amounts of poison. How much poison do you think is a good amount to consume?
“Most of them are also smart enough to not smoke near children!” Many parents these days try not to smoke near their children but many do; I see it everyday. where I live.
I didn’t ask though, about whether parents are “smart enough” to smoke around their young children. I asked you your opinion of parents who smoke over their children. You didn’t answer.
How do you feel about parents who make small children and babies breathe in smoke by smoking close to them?
It is patently silly to the point of criminality to suggest that a controlled study is performed into the possible dangers of passive smoking. Look at my previous post to see why.
Can you please quote where I mentioned packaging? Can you also quote where I mentioned stickers?
Regarding the poisons in tobacco, there may be very little in one cigarette but if you multiply that by 60 a day, every day for 40 years it adds up to huge amounts of poison. How much poison do you think is a good amount to consume?
“Most of them are also smart enough to not smoke near children!” Many parents these days try not to smoke near their children but many do; I see it everyday. where I live.
I didn’t ask though, about whether parents are “smart enough” to smoke around their young children. I asked you your opinion of parents who smoke over their children. You didn’t answer.
How do you feel about parents who make small children and babies breathe in smoke by smoking close to them?
-1
Click to rate Report
P:SSS: Sorry about posting the same paragraph twice. It usually almost never happens on my laptop.
+3
Click to rate Report
"It is typical of you DSG to rehash a post from December that was in reply to a silly suggestion of yours and then ignore the rest of the post while homing in on one point." What silly suggestion? I was just suggesting that we do a proper test to see if passive smoking is harmful. " Look at the list of what tobacco smoke contains." Yes Kit, I have looked at the list and am about to ask you this: Have you considered the fact that these chemicals are in relatively small quantities and unlikely to do any harm? "I find it a nuisance"If you find smoke a nuisance, go somewhere else. It's not rocket science,you know! ""However, I do despise the massively influential and rich tobacco companies who have known the dangers of smoking for decades before most other people did but did everything they could to hide the evidence." People already know the risks of smoking,Kit! They're not going to be put off by drab packaging,or those "Smoking Kills" stickers. Most of them are also smart enough to not smoke near children!
-4
Click to rate Report
P:S: How exactly does the smoke curl around the child's mouth and nose? Does it have a mind of its own, hopelessly trying to suffocate the child with its carcinogenic fumes? Or perhaps the child's doing it on purpose,to try and feel like an adult early before any of it's friends? Hmm? P:SS: The last two sentences were meant to be satirical.
+2
Click to rate Report
"It is typical of you DSG to rehash a post from December that was in reply to a silly suggestion of yours and then ignore the rest of the post while homing in on one point." What silly suggestion? I was just suggesting that we do a proper test to see if passive smoking is harmful. " Look at the list of what tobacco smoke contains." Yes Kit, I have looked at the list and am about to ask you this: Have you considered the fact that these chemicals are in relatively small quantities and unlikely to do any harm? "I find it a nuisance"If you find smoke a nuisance, go somewhere else. It's not rocket science,you know! ""However, I do despise the massively influential and rich tobacco companies who have known the dangers of smoking for decades before most other people did but did everything they could to hide the evidence." People already know the risks of smoking,Kit! They're not going to be put off by drab packaging,or those "Smoking Kills" stickers. Most of them are also smart enough to not smoke near children!
-3
Click to rate Report
DSG,
“P:S: Kit,could you show me what "evidence" you have that proves passive smoking is harmful?”
It is typical of you DSG to rehash a post from December that was in reply to a silly suggestion of yours and then ignore the rest of the post while homing in on one point.
I said evidence not proof. It is not the same thing.
Can you show me proof that passive smoking is not harmful? Look at the list of what tobacco smoke contains. Can you tell me me, hand on heart, that you think it is likely it will do people anything but harm? It is unlikely to do them much good.
I find it a nuisance and very unpleasant to go through crowds of smokers huddling around the doors of offices, shops and pubs but I am not, at the moment, in favour of banning it in open unenclosed spaces, even though I don’t like it.
I am not virulently anti-smoking, few life long non smokers are; it usually the ex smokers who are the zealots. There is a limit to how much you can control an activity that remains legal. Whether it should remain legal is another discussion.
However, I do despise the massively influential and rich tobacco companies who have known the dangers of smoking for decades before most other people did but did everything they could to hide the evidence. I also have a very low opinion of parents who smoke while carrying their children or holding them on their laps.
How do you feel about that DSG? Does it not bother you to see a parent smoking while holding a child, with the smoke curling around the child’s mouth and nose?
“P:S: Kit,could you show me what "evidence" you have that proves passive smoking is harmful?”
It is typical of you DSG to rehash a post from December that was in reply to a silly suggestion of yours and then ignore the rest of the post while homing in on one point.
I said evidence not proof. It is not the same thing.
Can you show me proof that passive smoking is not harmful? Look at the list of what tobacco smoke contains. Can you tell me me, hand on heart, that you think it is likely it will do people anything but harm? It is unlikely to do them much good.
I find it a nuisance and very unpleasant to go through crowds of smokers huddling around the doors of offices, shops and pubs but I am not, at the moment, in favour of banning it in open unenclosed spaces, even though I don’t like it.
I am not virulently anti-smoking, few life long non smokers are; it usually the ex smokers who are the zealots. There is a limit to how much you can control an activity that remains legal. Whether it should remain legal is another discussion.
However, I do despise the massively influential and rich tobacco companies who have known the dangers of smoking for decades before most other people did but did everything they could to hide the evidence. I also have a very low opinion of parents who smoke while carrying their children or holding them on their laps.
How do you feel about that DSG? Does it not bother you to see a parent smoking while holding a child, with the smoke curling around the child’s mouth and nose?
-3
Click to rate Report
P:S: Kit,could you show me what "evidence" you have that proves passive smoking is harmful?
-4
Click to rate Report
And once again,I find myself repeating my paragraph to the anti-smokers out there: "To be honest,I don't see what all the big hoo-ha is about people smoking. These people already know the risks of smoking,so why bother to wean them off it? Leave them alone and let them die a cancer-related death,for could not give a d*mn about them. They chose to smoke,so let them.Another thing that winds me up is the myth that passive smoking kills. Let me repeat this message to any anti-smokers out there: There has NEVER been a recorded case of ANYONE dying from passive smoking,OK? And if you don't like being around smokers,move somewhere else,like your house,or the library,or if you're really desperate,move to Antarctica,where NO-ONE will have to cope with your anti-smoking bile."
+3
Click to rate Report
There is a woman on this thread who is actually having a debate with herself, can you believe that?
+6
Click to rate Report
Those in the know - 13-Dec-10 19:53
Grumpy, you are right in that I said that there is plenty of empirical evidence to satisfy the Surgeon General that it's safe enough to go out on a limb and condemn smoking. But I didn't mention STATISTICS in support of the same applying to passive smoking. You have wrongly inferred that yourself.
I did not claim that passive smoking kills. I REASONED that it must be harmful (I actually said that it would be illogical to assume that unfiltered smoke would have no effect on those inhaling it). There is a distinction here that you should familiarize yourself with. Reasoning is not the same as making a claim and that is NOT just playing with semantics.
I did not claim that passive smoking kills. I REASONED that it must be harmful (I actually said that it would be illogical to assume that unfiltered smoke would have no effect on those inhaling it). There is a distinction here that you should familiarize yourself with. Reasoning is not the same as making a claim and that is NOT just playing with semantics.
-1
Click to rate Report
DSG said "The dangers of passive smoking will only be statistically proven when someone does a single, large study of population groups from similar backgrounds, living in similar environments, with similar lifestyles, levels of wealth, healthcare provision, diets etc. There must be a proper control group of non-smoking households. Until the WHO pulls its finger out and organises such a study instead of cobbling together scare stories from research done by others, the jury remains firmly out."
You said, "That's rubbish. Most oncologists agree that smoking causes cancer and they are not shy about going on record. Now how is it that they aren't sued for such "outrageous claims" against an honest and wholsome product?"
DSG was referring to passive smoking, you were referring to smoking. How else is your reply to be "interpreted"?
You said, "That's rubbish. Most oncologists agree that smoking causes cancer and they are not shy about going on record. Now how is it that they aren't sued for such "outrageous claims" against an honest and wholsome product?"
DSG was referring to passive smoking, you were referring to smoking. How else is your reply to be "interpreted"?
0
Click to rate Report
grumpyoldwoman - 13-Dec-10 12:29
"anon, I have a distaste for anyone who tries to claim that statistics back up their argument when they don't."
You can't attribute that claim to me. I expect you inferred it for your own purposes.
"The evidence that smoking kills active smokers in no way proves that it kills passive smokers; you try to claim that it does."
I didn't make that claim either.
As you are attempting to improve yourself, you could pay more attention to the way you quote others. When "interpreting", you should take care to state as much, rather than attribute your own thoughts (heaven forbid) to someone else.
You can't attribute that claim to me. I expect you inferred it for your own purposes.
"The evidence that smoking kills active smokers in no way proves that it kills passive smokers; you try to claim that it does."
I didn't make that claim either.
As you are attempting to improve yourself, you could pay more attention to the way you quote others. When "interpreting", you should take care to state as much, rather than attribute your own thoughts (heaven forbid) to someone else.
-7
Click to rate Report
