Anyone managed it??

I left aviation for 18 months and came back a few years ago - everyone had given up. (except all the charter crews - thank god for them!!)

Gave up August 2002, never relapsed - touch wood(bine):ok: :E

Ozzy

Just to prove what a awkward old twat I am, I am smoking ciggies two at a time today, feckem and their luvvie nation this and national that bloody day.
Just waiting for the National day of nothing to do with anything whatsoever day.
:rolleyes:

PS Its great fun to walk though a designated no smoking area with a unlite ciggy in ones gob, been pulled twice." Oh yeh! who is smoking? not I boss, hee hee, watch em seeth with impotent rage.

:E

Tony Draper,

I could not have said it better myself.
Thank you.

WISH I'D THOUGHT OF THAT!!

Two people have said to me today - " you know its national no smoking day "

and??

I quit last autumn but restarted around xmas. I continue to meet life's most interesting people through smoking. I'm sure I'll stop someday but in the meantime, life's just too long. ;)

I think the anti's have a point though - I was in NYC last weekend where you've now to step outside for a ciggy. Iit's far easier to abstain if the only option's to freeze your nips off.

As for the holier-than-thou brigade - bunch of freeloaders, one and all. How about a tax on passive smoking? :E

Crepello, I second that!

Git outta my face freeloader , that's my smoke! And I'll quit smoking when the exhaust from your auto is safe enough to be with in the same room. :O

And I'll quit smoking when the exhaust from your auto is safe enough to be with in the same room.

I think your point would be valid if everyone took their car into the pub with them and left the engines running all evening on moderate throttle.

Not many 'autos' in our local. Lots of filthy smokers polluting the air, though. Makes my eyes sting and my clothes stink (my kids actually put my coat out into the garden one Saturday morning after it had spent the previous evening hung up in the pub). And it makes me feel ill. No bunch of people have the right to impose that on others, not to mention the health implications. I just wish TB had the balls to impose no smoking rules in all public places.

A closer analogy is if were to piss on the smokers regularly during our evening in the local. They impose the residue of their smoking on me, why shouldn't I impose the residue of my drinking on them?

I've no objection to smoking - just so long as it's not imposed on me. It should be restricted to consenting adults in private.

SSD

SSD, that's just my point. I can't even go outside for a safe smoke without being poisoned by exhaust fumes these days.

And I wouldn't try pissing on the smokers in your local if I were you, whether or not they are filthy and need a shower. After all, they've already bent over backwards letting you share their local.

Your last analogous insinuation is really slanderous. It should be restricted to consenting adults in private Neither I, but especially any partner I have had has ever used a cigarette in an unsuitable manner. The only smoking done was after it was all over, and any ladies out there reading this should know that there are never any traces of smoke when I'm in action...! :p

Neither I, but especially any partner I have had has ever used a cigarette in an unsuitable manner. There was a certain WJ Clinton, President as I recall, who used a cigar on an intern in an unsuitable manner before she drew breath on something else belonging to him. I do believe he smoked afterwards as well, I mean he smoked the cigar of course....I don't think he inhaled though:8 :E

Ozzy

As Bill might have said, "Swallowing is probably OK but inhaling...do we have any data on this at Langley or elsewhere?!" ;)

any ladies out there reading this should know that there are never any traces of smoke when I'm in action...!

Oh dear, Airship. Touch of back trouble, then? :) Or just knackered from all that smoking;)

SSD

. . . it`s the smell of all that greasy bar food while I`m trying to enjoy a pint and fag that p*sses me off - their cholesterol must be horrendous . .

In the not too distant future, a complete ban on smoking in public places will be imposed in NZ - it will encompass 'private" clubs, as well, (e.g. RSA, equivalent of British Legion). I, for one, think it is a great idea - I may go back to frequenting bars!!
Spoken as a former 30 a day man - gave up 15 years ago. None so righteous as the converted, of course....

. . will there also be std checks on sheep ?
been swallowing that for years as well

" have you got a light boy " who sang that about a lifetime ago ?
probably dead of lung cancer now bless him

I must admit, it was a refreshing experience to have been sitting in a bar the other night over here and not leaving smelling of smoke. Now, I'll admit, I am partial to a sneaky ciggie when having a beer or 3, but I didn't really notice the difference until the other day. And I really do like in the UK JD Wheatherspoon's pubs that have the smoking and non smoking sections. Very good idea.

. . . admit the minimum the loss of an intellect is scary

Were you thinking of giving it up, WTD? I had my last one on April 31st last year and used the nicotine patches which I found really helpful. I also got a "Quit Kit" from the local pharmacist when I explained what I wanted to do. Contained all sorts of useful bits of info as well as stickers, fridge magnet and biro ... all little reminders to help you along.

Interestingly, I have found that where the "quit smoking" adverts on T.V. had little or no influence on my decision to give up, they have been far more effective as reinforcement material. Now that I don't smoke any more, I find I pay more attention to the ads and feel pleased that I gave up.

Good luck if you're thinking of doing it. It's very hard but if I can do it (from 60 a day) I'm sure you can too.

I gave up my 30+ a day habit in 1991, and I've never been back. But that was my choice, for my own reasons. I will still defend the rights of those who haven't opted to make that choice, to live their lives as they see fit.

IMHO, passive smoking belongs in the same basket as global warming, Y2K, AIDS, SARS, etc etc. In other words, it's a crock.

As reynoldsno1 says, New Zealand is set to ban smoking in bars around Christmas time.
My personal opinion is that this will be the most widely ignored piece of legislation ever passed in NZ. If anyone is stupid enough to try and enforce it, the response will be civil disobedience the like of which this placid wee nation has never seen.
It will immediately precede the demise of the current minority socialist control-freak Government, assuming they make it that far, which, on current polls, is far from being a given.
One in four New Zealanders smokes; one in two pub patrons do. The maths isn't hard to follow.
Non-smokers, and reformed smokers like myself, don't go to the pub to avoid tobacco smoke. We go to socialise with our mates.

Light up! It may be stupid, but it's democracy in action.
:ok:

bunch of freeloaders, one and all. How about a tax on passive smoking?

You must laugh your heads off when non-smokers die of lung cancer, eh?


Me, I don't like going out because I hate coming home stinking worse than a homeless tramp thanks to smokers.



For what it's worth, I am not anti-smoking, I just get :mad:ed off with the "I'm killing myself and I don't care who I take with me" brigade signified by the retard quote above.

Would it bother you guys to watch someone close to you die a painful death due to lung cancer and to watch them gasp for every breath, someone will do that for you one day. I've watched it happen and will never forget it, yet I still believe in live and let live. It's the ones you leave behind that pick up the pieces, unless you don't have any one worth wanting to stay for. :(

Judging from the theories of those that support such legislation; it would seem then they should also whole heartedly support taxes on fastfood, chocolate, soft drinks etc, as the current info suggests obesity is rapidly appearing killer number one. Lets not stand on the sidelines my fine upstanding citizens lets really get funky with each others liberties!:mad:

Cigarette smoke smells foul.

Cigarette smoke has been proven to cause lung cancer.

Cigarette smoke leaves a stink in my nostrils for a day afterwards.

Cigarette smoke makes my clothes smell bad for days afterwards.

Cigarette smoke makes me choke (literally have difficulty breathing).

Cigarette smoke leaves a room/house/pub smelling bad for days.

Cigarette smoking achieves absolutely nothing. It is truly pointless.

Cigarette smoking causes fires.


There's loads more.

Anyone have any positive things to say re cigarettes ?

Thought not.

I rest my case.

Squire, don't be dumb all your life.

Does someone eating a burger near me affect me? No

Does someone eating a chocolate bar near me affect me? No

Does someone drinking Coke etc, near me affect me? No


Does someone smoking a cigarette near me affect me? YES


If your liberties include giving others cancer, I know where you can stuff them..... :mad:

AC and eal401, you have said it all, now off to the stinking pub for lunch, will change into clean clothes when I get home, feel like getting some out of the dirty washing basket, they smell better than the ones I am wearing will do when I get home.
I really don't care if people want to smoke, just wish it did'nt smell so bad. :ugh:

Cigarettes!!, nasty filthy smelly things, should be totally banned, I, however, smoke a pipe and therefore am perceived as being nice, and a sort of cuddly, older person who is allowed to indulge their one weakness. If only they knew!!!!
regards Den
:E

Anyone have any positive things to say re cigarettes ? I could make a start by saying how much they appear to help me remain the kind, considerate, compassionate and generous human-being that I am today. That whenever I have stopped, an extremely ugly personality emerges. The one who becomes irritated by the smallest inconvenience, who flies into a rage because he is surrounded by pea-brained idiots. While I don't actually turn green, you still wouldn't like to be near me when I'm angry. Another reason is that my actions help retard the day when the masses rise up to bring down the government who is taxing them to death. This day of reckoning would be tomorrow if all smokers stopped today. Finally, it gives all the non-smokers here a valid reason to vent off a bit of steam which may otherwise express itself in other forms. Like mugging old ladies, roughing up the kids or jumping the queue at the cash dispenser. ;)

I am sick and tired of you extremist non-smokers!
Never heard of a National No Smoking Day and if my country has one I could not care. I smoke anywhere where silly laws do not prohibit it and if other people do not like it, so what!

Whats good about smoking.....

*I look cool and The birds love it!

Watergate,

I find your statement to be extremely provocative in so far as it addresses no particular issue other than to illustrate your evident contempt for your fellow human beings.

Do you never get annoyed when some one drives badly?
Do you never make a choice to avoid exposure to something you wish not to be exposed to?

Denmark has a reputation of liberal attitudes regarding the sex industry but it is not imposed on people that do not wish to be exposed to it (if you'll forgive the pun!).

I am a non-smoker and anti-smoking. Always have been and always will be.
Something to do with a Father that encouraged me at 8(?) to have a proper drag (not a mouthy puff) on his Rothmans King size in the workshed one day. He knew what he was doing, I didn't thought I would die, turned green grey etc...but never smoked since. (Except for lighting Gitaines on a camp site in France once to keep the mozzies away:E).

Anyway, I whole heartedly believe that smoking is a singulary anti-social habit and I detest the way my clothes smell when I have been in a pub or bar for an evening and object even more to the fact that while there, I am obliged to inhale your used up, second hand fumes.

Your attitude will serve to accelerate the day when you will have nowhere left to go. I do not think that is a necessarily good thing to happen as you do have the freedom to do as you wish. However, do it by yourself or with like minded people and do not expect those of us who do not appreciate or like your habit to have to put up with it ad infinitum. :*

If something offends me on TV I can switch off.
If something is bad for my diet I can choose not to eat or drink it.
In neither case is my freedom of choice nor anyone else’s compromised.
You smoking near me does compromise my freedom of choice NOT to be exposed to your habit.

I accept that many many people are so addicted to smoking they really can not give up and many smokers do not wish to stop either. There are many though who are addicted yet would love to give up for health and financial reasons.

Having a no smoking day helps to highlight the issues involved and stimulates debate on the subject.

There will be many many acrimonious debates/arguments going on with people of your persuasion.
There will also be many more going on with people who will maybe give up thus improving their life expectancy; their unborn baby's life expectancy; the quality of life of those around them from a financial and smokeless perspective.

In a democratic society, it is the will of the majority that is, normally, imposed on the whole population. These statistics http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/smoking/smoking.htm#EU%20STATISTICS%20ON%20SMOKING
would suggest that smoking is not something practiced by the majority of people in the EU. Why then should the majority of people put up with it? Clearly it is “accepted” but no longer encouraged and certainly not desired by the majority.
There are many things not prohibited by law but common decency and a sense of social responsibility means that these things do not compromise the general publics sensibilities. Why do you consider smoking to be above the influence of common decency and immune to generally accepted social responsibility?

Maybe, when the tax issues have been sorted and mega tabacco power empires have had their influence curtailed we will end up with a National Smoking Day. I bet we will get extremists from the antitabacco league protesting against that then too :rolleyes:

In a democratic society, it is the will of the majority that is, normally, imposed on the whole population. These statistics ... ...which show quite clearly that there are more smokers as a % of the population in the EU countries than people who voted for most of the governments in place. So perhaps the simplest solution is for smokers everywhere to vote for "the smoker's party", which once in government will be able to enact new legislation. These measures would obviously include a €5 income tax rebate inside every packet, non-smoker entry to pubs and restaurants by invitation only and a complete ban on non-smokers from all other public places. :confused: :{ :p :)

Whats good about smoking.....

*I look cool and The birds love it!....

Ha! You look like a prat and you've proved how stupid you are by allowing yourself to be conned by the tobacco companies. They've always known it's an addictive killer, but have cynically marketed it among the naive by associating it with cool scenarios.

It worked when the public didn't know any better, but you've got to be pretty stupid to still fall for it these days when the facts are so well known. Cool it is not. And the only birds who'd love it are smokers themselves - no one else would get near you for the foul stink:yuk:

SSD

I love it.
:D
I knew my post would bring out the "preachers of eternal health". My post was meant to be provogative.
Actually I AM a considerate smoker. Let me stay that way but spare me for having to listen to the whining of the "extremist non-smokers international lobby".
It uses billiards of words to explain how unhealthy it is to be both a smoker and a passive smoker. I know very well that smoking is not exactly healthy for me, but that goes for thousands of things in life. Personally I find the pollution of everything from the atmosphere to our food much more dangerous to my life. As for passive smoking I compare it with the hazards for me having to inhale the fumes from cars because people want the luxury to be able to drive to work etc. instead of using public transport.
Life is dangerous - you die from it!
The smell then. Well after a day in the city nobody smell of roses anyway.
:ok:
Watergate - the smoker

:rolleyes:

Very well, I'll strip the subtlety and (attempted) humour from my point: It's far easier to quit smoking when you're no longer welcome at bars and restaurants. It also sends a powerful social message.

Cards on the table: I smoke in moderation when I'm drinking, usually only at weekends. I don't smoke in restaurants, in churches or in the shower. I extinguish for kids, singers (seriously), pregnant mothers and skinheads in football jerseys. It's not a trait I admire and I'll quit eventually - have done once, will do again. But for now, I'm enjoying smoking - responsibly - in good company.

My closing remark was with tongue firmly in cheek, possibly the mark of a cynic but not that of a retard. eal401, you complain about smoke, yet you proffer your little insults like a man with Tourette's. Chill, brother. Cigarette? ;) :E

I see smoking as the ideal solution to the problem of the aging population. Children should be taught how to smoke properly at school.

Seriously though, I can't believe that anyone really thinks that banning something will help. Prohibition has never yet been effective in stopping anything. As far as I can tell, it has the reverse effect. Banning smoking in public will give the habit even more kudos in the eyes of our rebellious youth. Looking back to the days when I was I spotty teen, I devoted much of my time trying to acquire alcohol, cigarettes, and sex - largely because The Man said that I wasn't allowed any of these things.

Just come back from Florida which largely appears to be a non-smoking state now in the bars and restaurants. As a light smoker who enjoys the pleasure of a ciggie after a meal or with a few beers I found it to be a slight nuisance but tollerated it nonetheless.

On a positive note, with Florida being a warm place, going outside to smoke is not as bad as it sounds because just the other night I was chatting up a burd who smoked and the break from our barside seats to withdraw for a ciggie outside on the beach was actually quite intimate and romantic so it just goes to show...... :)

As for the national no smoking day:

Is my hand up?

No?

Well that's because I just don't care. :p

VFE.

All true, AC; but so what? If people want to make this stupid choice, surely it's their right to do so?

eal401, are you also going to lobby for the outlawing of the internal combustion engine? I would hazard an educated guess that the emissions from such are a far greater cause of pollution and death than those from burning tobacco.
To claim that there is no alternative to pollution-creating fuels is not a valid argument; the world could run on ethanol or hydrogen tomorrow if there were any public demand for it, or if politicians the world over had the balls to stand up to the vested interests of the oil cartels, and the intellect to counter the bad science which supports them.

The argument that smoking places an unfair strain on the resources of health systems could be equally accurately applied to the ingestion of alcohol, caffiene, sugar, red meat, and saturated fats, along with any number of other foolhardy pursuits. Surely the mark of an informed and liberal society is its willingness to tolerate most of the silly excesses of its members.

No-one is going to die from passive smoking in ordinary life, or at least no more than they are going to die from a hundred and one other causes which could be attributed to the choices of other people.

Other people drink too much, and then drive or become violent; this could kill you. You're here reading this forum, so it obviously hasn't yet, despite what the stats may say about such a risk.

Other people carry out manufacturing which deposits dioxin and synthetic oestrogens into the air and groundwater. This could kill you or at least seriously f**k you up.

Other people insist on the fluoridation of public water supplies. This constitutes a genuinely serious risk to your health and that of your family. The profit motive, supported by incomplete and therefore bad science, and backed up by the irrational fears of the ignorant and poorly informed, is no excuse for the mass poisoning of entire populations.

Other people create toxic waste, muck about with the genome, play silly b u g g e r s with atoms, string high tension wires all over the countryside, fill the airwaves with EMR, dig holes on fault lines, drive badly, promote the use of hydrogenated vegetable oils, and spray horrendously poisonous chemicals all over food crops and the people who will eat them...and you're worried about being next to someone smoking in the pub??!

Next time you spread margarine on your sandwich, think of me, and fear me. Because the next time you urinate after eating it, excreting trans fatty acids which will find their way into my water supply, I'll be after you. I'll have you ostracised, and I'll have your filty habit banned. There Will Be No More Eating Of Margarine!!! It will not be your choice. Your choice affects me, and I have the right to control your life and your decisions.
Not a margarine eater? Don't even think about starting that car:hmm: :ooh: :* :confused: :yuk: :E

All you smokers don't seem to be getting the message. WE DON'T WANT TO STINK LIKE YOU DO. What I eat and my car does not make you stink. Your cigarettes have got to be the worst smell on earth, if they could make cigarettes that smelt nice, there would not be a problem, you can and probably will smoke yourselves to death. As far as I am concerned, you all smoking reduces the amount of taxes we all pay, so in a way you all fund your own medical care. I have the right not to pong, you have the right to smoke. Friends I have that smoke are considerate of us non stinkers, and don't smoke in confined places, it works fine. I just can't be doing with the, I will do what I like, sod you brigade.

No, I think dog muck, raw sewerage and my old flying instructors breath smells far worse than any cigarette smoke I've ever smelled mate.

Deary me.

VFE.

" have you got a light boy " who sang that about a lifetime ago ?
probably dead of lung cancer now bless him

Red - It was Fred Wedlock and he's still alive doing gigs in the West Country

VFE, dog muck, raw sewage, and your FI's breath, (bet he smokes) don't usually sit next to me in the pub. Did'nt think stinkers had any sense of smell. Mate. :p

He doesn't smoke but moans about those who do. Kinda ironic really. *chortle chortle* :D

So if some fit burd sat down next to you in the pub and sparked one up whilst giving you the come on you'd frown, throw a wobbler and immediately tell her to stub it out whilst chucking the chance of a great ride down the pink slope out the window, right? :)

Case rested.

VFE.

Fit bird!!! Nothing kinky about me VFE, nice smelling fellas, yes. You got the gender wrong. What was that about case rested? :D

Classic response!

Touche.

VFE.

Red - It was Fred Wedlock and he's still alive doing gigs in the West Country
I think you will find it was Allan Smethurst, aka The Singing Postman, who sang it in his native East Anglian dialect... and why can I remember all this crap, but not my mobile phone number?

Us cool types like the smell, if you don't stay home.

I am not anti-smoking. I have had a few in my time, but never was more than a "social" smoker. Realised what they did for my health, and breath and didn't bother with them any more. However, I respect "no smoking" signs and had I smoked more regularly, would have respected non-smokers.

What p*sses me off is all those smokers who have no regard for others, i.e. the "I'll smoke where and when I like." Fortunately, there are those who'll respect the wishes of others, so it's not all smokers.

However, for those smokers on this thread and in the world who are the "do as I like" I sincerely wish you all get lung cancer and die in agonising pain, coughing your liquified lungs up in bloody chucks.

Have a nice day now.

So if some fit burd sat down next to you in the pub and sparked one up whilst giving you the come on you'd frown, throw a wobbler and immediately tell her to stub it out whilst chucking the chance of a great ride down the pink slope out the window, right?

Case rested.



Well you'd better wake it up again, VFE.

You smokers just don't get it, do you? No matter how fit the burd, if it stinks I would't want to go near it (and unlike maggioneato, I am male). I'd think "what a terrible waste", and move seats.

You really don't know how repellant your filthy habit is, do you? It is more than enough to put off the most red bloodied male from even the most gorgeous woman.

Thanks for paying all that extra tax, by the way:)

SSD

Thanks for paying all that extra tax, by the way It's a pleasure, er addiction SSD. :=

I appreciate you find it a repulsive habit Shaggy Sheep Driver but not everyone else does I'm afraid. There are actually porn sites dedicated to "seductive smoking" yanno. Take a look. If you get a floppy I would suggest you may wish to consider some kind of self analysis because maybe it ain't the cigarette or smell which repulses you in women who choose to smoke.

Just a thought.

VFE.

I’ve never been a smoker, which is probably why I’m fairly tolerant of the habit.

Pubs are very much ‘smokers territory’ in my book – I can see how well a pint and a smoke go together and I’m quite happy to take my chance on the passive smoking front if it means I can enjoy a good pint in great company. Restaurants are a different matter and I always try to make sure I’m in a smoke-free zone, especially if I’m with my kids.

As for this ‘smoking babes’ thing, well all I can say is that there is no escaping the side effects of a woman smoking – you can taste it when you kiss her and smell it on her hair and skin. I always found that a few beers cured the problem in the short term, but how many times can you be smashed when you go out and how many packets of mints can you reasonably expect her to munch? The bottom line is that I’ve never had a serious relationship with a woman who smokes – maybe my loss, maybe not, but it most certainly is a factor between smokers and non-smokers.

Biggles, I gave up 3 weeks and one hour ago - not that I'm counting or twitching you understand.

I'm getting a little anxious as to how long it is before, as a non smoker, I might expect a kiss??? Opposite sex of course - non of that strange stuff and I'm asking in a manly sort of way.:confused: :confused: :confused:

Regards
Rob

Rob, hate to say this but you've probably hurt your chances by losing the swaggering fag in hand and four bars on your shoulder image - maybe you should have lost the beard instead ;) :p

Never mind, you'll outlive all the addicted bad boys and be The Man at grab a granny nights at the Derby & Joan... :ok:

Well! Well! I have been visiting here for the past four or more years, and I cannot recall any other posting such as the above offering by eal401. Outstanding, eal401; outstanding.

What's the problem Davaar? The smoker's I directed my "wish" towards are those who do not care about a) themselves and b) those around them.

They have no respect for non-smokers, so why should I possess any for them?

I do respect smokers who are aware that not every person on the planet shares their addicition and act accordingly. I also respect those trying to quit to better their health and the health of family & friends.

The problem lies in your last full paragraph. If I have to tell you more, I am wasting my time.

The thing is Davaar , eal401 is right, smokers drown as their lungs fill up with fluid, bottles of the stuff drained by a pipe stuck in their sides. Tasty. The bit I just can't understand, as their smoking visitors leave the ward after all they have seen, as soon as they are out the door, they light up, do they think it won't happen to them, that's what my relatives thought, it killed them both. Such a waste of life. :(

I do not need a whole lot of instruction on cancer, maggioneato. I have been operated on and treated in cancer wards (not for lung cancer) in Montreal and London (Eng), and president of two separate units of the Canadian Cancer Society. I have seen people die of lung cancer. It is an unhappy spectacle. That is what eal401 "sincerely wishes" for fellow human beings.

That is what eal401 "sincerely wishes" for fellow human beings.

I am sorry to hear of your treatment for cancer. My Grandad died of prostate cancer. The chances are that you did not choose to get your cancer. My Grandad certainly did not.

I sincerely wish what I said for fellow human beings who willing know what their actions are risking and do not make any attempt to avoid it. I wouldn't expect any sympathy if I had a heart attack after spending my life stuffing my face with McDonalds or had liver cancer after downing a bottle of vodka a day.

I am well aware of how "heartless" it sounds but the very people it's directed out DO NOT care anyway.

eal401 the point is that there is a very clear difference between wishing that a selfish smoker gets his/her just desserts and wishing them a painful and agonising death (even if that turns out to be the actual outcome). That is what Davaar finds so upsetting, and so do I. If you are a parent and overheard someone wishing that kind of death on one of your children for whatever reason, how would you feel?

There is a line in every discussion that should not be crossed, and I think you just stepped over it.

I'm getting a little anxious as to how long it is before, as a non smoker, I might expect a kiss???

*Kiss* *Kiss* *Kiss*

:D

There ya go, PPRuNe Towers ... have three.

Congratulations on giving up. It's not at all easy but you've done very well. Three weeks and counting!! Are you using the patches or anything? I found they were such a help and in six weeks it will be one year for me. Keep it up and I'll send ya more kisses.

;)

Dear EA401,

Would you also like to see inconsiderate/dangerous road users "crash+burn" on the highways?

Your approach will not engender the more hardened smokers to take a reasonable view of what they are doing in disturbing our (non-smoking + unappreciative secondary smoking) lives.

Despite their reluctance to give up smoking and their disregard for others, no-one related or close to them would take any pleasure in witnessing suffering as you would have inflicted and no lesson will be learned.

I do not agree either with having my airspace polluted. I do, however, wish to educate those who do it so that they will stop.

Anyway:

WELL DONE PPrune Towers - good on you! Not only will you enjoy the benefits, those close to you will too! :ok:

And BD - Good on you too for sticking the hard path!:ok:

Would you also like to see inconsiderate/dangerous road users "crash+burn" on the highways?

If they are driving deliberately in contravention to the rules of the road and with disregard to road safety & conditions, e.g. 106/Saxo type boy racers, then all I can say is that they get what they deserve. So long as no-one else is hurt or injured I'd feel no sorry or remorse at such an individual being killed.

If someone crashes through genuine error, it's a different story.

Hope yer not getting too dizzy sitting up there on yer high horse, eal401. When I'm coughing up my lungs, you can pop round and say, "I told you so." You might find yourself in a similar position with asbestosis, mind - probably our next big health problem.

As a smoker, I love it when well-meaning people tell you that smoking is bad for you. "Really? I didn't know that! I'll stop immediately!"

I will not smoke if there are others in the house.

I send them outside first.

sep

Ratsarrse,

Quick quiz for you.

Which of the following, in this day and age, might an individual deliberately choose to breath in?

a) Cigarette smoke

b) Asbestos dust

For a bonus point, which would you more likely be able to hold an individual or group other than yourself responsible for if you became ill through breathing the named substances?

As for the high horse, looks as though it's pretty crowded already with the "I smoke, f*ck the rest of you" brigade.

Touché eal!

It must be quite galling to climb onto said horse for a breath of fresh air, only to find the smokers already there having nipped out for a quick fag (they're not allowed to smoke inside, you see).

The evidence I have seen and plain common sense suggest that the risk of contracting a "smoking related" disease from secondhand tobacco smoke will probably be the hoax of the 20th century. (There are many candidates, though!) Now, a Laissez-Faire City Times reader wrote and cited a court decision awarding damages to the family of an asthmatic man who, the judge ruled, died from a heart attack initiated by an asthma crisis due to secondhand smoke on a flight.

Suppose then that secondhand tobacco smoke does kill, in this way or in some other fashion. Would this be a reason to regulate or forbid smoking in public places? The answer is, No.

The basic reason is that nothing forces nonsmokers to stick around with smokers. Imagine we start from the present situation, where the state forbids airlines to accommodate smokers. Now, suppose that the law starts allowing special flights advertised for "Smokers and Lovers of Secondhand Smoke Only" (call them "SALSSO flights" for short). Since 25 percent of the adult population smokes, and a somewhat smaller but still sizeable proportion of flyers are smokers, a few such flights will likely be offered by profit-seeking entrepreneurs. For logistic reasons, and like for many minority goods and services, these flights may cost more. Yet, even if smokers are statistically poorer than nonsmokers, some smokers would probably be willing to pay for their preferences to be catered to. Indeed, it is precisely because this would happen that the anti-smoking Jihad prohibits smoking on all commercial flights.

The market may evolve. Suppose that some SALSSO flights end up being offered at cheaper rates, or at least at no higher rates, than nonsmoking flights. This may happen for a number of reasons (including, perhaps, the lower probability of air rage in SALSSO flights). Or it might happen that some SALSSO flights are more conveniently scheduled. So, in certain cases, you will find a nonsmoker who judges that the cost of secondhand smoke during a couple of hours is lower than the supplementary cost of his next best alternative (say, waiting a couple of hours in the air terminal). Since consumers are dumber than voters, let have anybody boarding a SALSSO flight sign a discharge form: "I am 18 years old (22 in California), and I understand that this is a smoke-filled plane, and that I will be submitted to levels of secondhand smoke that, according to the Surgeon General, the EPA, the FDA, the CDC...," and so on, and so forth. What would be wrong with permitting this? Nonsmokers would still be at liberty to pay for their own nonsmoking flights.

Miscegenation
Now, not all nonsmokers are smokers or secondhand-smoke haters. Some entrepreneurs may find that there are potential nonsmoking customers who wouldn't mind secondhand smoke provided they are not seated too close to smoking patrons. Perhaps this would first occur on a route where nonsmoking and SALSSO flights are often half filled, and both clienteles can be offered a better rate if they agree to share flights with separate smoking and nonsmoking sections. Although they may not be the ideal, mixed flights could prove, in certain circumstances, to be the most economic alternative. Antismokers (or asthmatic) could still have more expensive nonsmoking flights if they are willing to support the cost of their preferences. Again, what's wrong with that?

The same argument applies to restaurants, bars, and other so-called "public places," which are generally private properties opened to the public. Freedom of choice and private property rights are preferable to public apartheid, even if secondhand smoke carries health risks.

Consider the parallel with other activities that are risky in a social context. Take Alpine skiing, where participants run an important risk of being killed or maimed, often when hit by another skier. In France, 115,000 skiers are injured every year, and more than 50 killed. You might want to choose your resort (for example, family resorts would be less risky than trendy ones), but if you want no risk of ski accidents, there is only one option: don't congregate with other skiers on Alpine slopes.

Now, it can be objected that being hit and killed by another skier, is "inherent in the activity," while being grazed by secondhand smoke is not inherent in the activity of, say, having dinner in a restaurant. This objection assumes that what is "inherent" in a human activity can be defined by some outside expert without reference to the acting individual's own preferences. For example, gun control advocates claim that what distinguishes guns from other risky objects (say, bicycles or swimming pools) is that guns are "designed to kill." Well, guns are designed to do what the customer wants them to do. It does include killing, but also stopping an aggressor, hunting, collecting, target shooting, or plinking. Indeed, policemen are armed but have no license to kill. What is inherent in an activity is what the participant wants it to be: for some, wine is inherent in a meal, for others it will be a cigar, or music, and so on, according the infinite diversity of human preferences. In other words, individual preferences are subjective. Many women and men think that wearing perfume is inherent in social gatherings.

Others complain that they are allergic to fragrances, which can provoke asthma crises among other health problems. There is a growing movement that has already obtained fragrance bans in some "public places." In an interesting American Spectator article ("Scents and Senselessness," April 2000, available at http://www.fumento.com/scents.html), Michael Fumento quotes an antifragrance newsletter: "Symptoms provoked by fragrances include: watery or dry eyes, double vision, sneezing, nasal congestion, sinusitis, tinnitus, ear pain, dizziness, vertigo, coughing, bronchitis, difficulty breathing, difficulty swallowing, asthma, anaphylaxis, headaches, migraine, seizures, fatigue, confusion, disorientation, incoherence, short-term memory loss, inability to concentrate, nausea, lethargy, anxiety, irritability, depression, mood swings, restlessness, rashes, hives, eczema, flushing, muscle and joint pain, muscle weakness, irregular heartbeat, hypertension, swollen lymph glands and more."

The only efficient solution to this clash of preferences is, like for secondhand tobacco smoke, to let private property and individual choices establish the necessary arbitrage. Let every individual free to decide with whom he will associate.

Wandering Photons
Can we find something that is "inherent" in a social activity while avoiding the pitfalls of an "objective," authoritarian and arbitrary determination of different people's preferences? Perhaps, but then, certainly, interaction with other individuals must be part of the definition. Inherent in your dining out or boarding a commercial flight -- inherent in your doing something socially -- is the fact that other individuals may be nearby. Now, if you choose to interact with other individuals, you cannot avoid a "proper assumption of risk," a concept borrowed by Murray Rothbard from Williamson Evers (The Ethics of Liberty, Humanities Press, 1982, p. 236). This includes the risk of catching a contagious disease (perhaps because you have wandered in the wrong bed), of being hit by photons deflected by, or scent particles emitted by, a passer-by, or being glazed by his secondhand smoke.

Risks inherent in social interaction can be limited by private property owners imposing rules on the use of their space. No public regulation is needed, as every property owner can choose to bear the cost of excluding people or behaviors he does not like, or to maximize his profits by catering to the preferences of the clienteles most willing to pay him. This approach justifies private discrimination against smokers, perfume wearers, or sneezing individuals (even if I, for one, do not agree with the values underlying such discrimination); but it also allows the liberty to accommodate them.

Let's consider the extreme case of the killer smoker. Should there be laws prohibiting smoking while filling up at gas stations? The short answer is, No. If an isolated gasoline station posted a sign saying "Smoking permitted, explosion likely, come at your own risk!", and customers went there to fill up, how could we justify that the state send armed men and stop these capitalist acts between consenting adults? You don't go there if you don't want to be blown up, as you don't go on a boxing ring if you don't want a fist on your nose. Gas station owners, take notice! The long answer might be that perhaps efficient common law establishes general standards that protect third parties' lives when immediately and directly threatened. In case of doubt, though, let individuals make their own trade-offs. The state, and addiction to the state, are much more dangerous than any herb you can think of. Security is not the only value, and slave life is not a value to be imposed.

A search would certainly reveal many peaceful activities that have indirectly "killed" a third party. An ayatollah seeing a woman in a bathing suit might die of a heart attack. An asthmatic man making love to a perfume-wearing woman might run the same risk. (So would perhaps a libertarian seeing a government-mandated "prohibited" sign in a private business.) Are we going to sacrifice the life of the ayatollah just for the convenience of the woman on a hot day? Are we going to kill one lover just because his partner likes to wear "Opium" or "Eternity" -- and was too impatient to take a shower with unscented soap? Such questions are basically meaningless in a free society. Everybody chooses with whom to associate or not, and takes the risks that come with the package.

Nuff said I'm off for a fag then anyone coming?

Whatever happened to common courtesy and letting others make their own choices in their own lifes without having someone shoving things down their throats?

eal401,

Nice to hear that you care for your fellow human beings enough to wish them painful deaths but don't let "smoking will kill you and me" mentality control your whole being.;)

I smoke like you do perhaps less but who am I to say what others do with or without me standing nearby?
If I find it disturbing,I have the option of taking a powder. I'm not shackled to them,you know.

Now then! my way of looking,by eating right,exercising regularly,not smoking or drinking and being extra careful of my environment,I may add an extra 10 years to my life but still manage to spend those years in full misery getting worked up about what may kill me sooner.

Lighten up,mate.

Whatever happened to common courtesy and letting others make their own choices in their own lifes without having someone shoving things down their throats?

I don't know, I'd ask the smokers that.

Spelling it out for the thick people, I am not anti-smoking. I accept people's choice to smoke. But, there are smokers who are have the belief that their rights outweigh all others and refuse to accept that their habits affect others.

That's what annoys me.


Wonder how many more times I'll have to spell this out for the selective readers here.

eal401 - if you sincerely wish someone a horrible, painful death when they annoy you, what do you wish people that make you really mad? :uhoh:

I have to admit that I was beginning to lose the will to live about halfway through Squire's long, rambling post. So I'll just pick out this quote.

Suppose then that secondhand tobacco smoke does kill, in this way or in some other fashion. Would this be a reason to regulate or forbid smoking in public places? The answer is, No.

The basic reason is that nothing forces nonsmokers to stick around with smokers.

This in-context quote captures perfectly what a lot of smokers on here just don't seem to be able to haul on board. BY POLLUTING SAID PUBLIC PLACES WITH YOU FOUL SMOKE YOU MAKE LIFE VERY UNPLEASANT FOR THOSE AROUND YOU WHO CHOOSE NOT TO SMOKE. Are you suggesting that you have a right to make these places unihabitable to non-smokers?

I don't give a tuppeny damn if you end up coughing your guts up between gasping for air at an early age in some dreadful hospital ward - that's entirely your lifestyle choice. What I do object to is your subjecting that lifestyle choice on others. You simply don't have the right to do that.

But then, with your 'I'm enjoying MYSELF so s*d YOU' attitude I don't suppose you care.

SSD

I think SSD, no matter what is said, it will not get through their smoke infested brains. Must be awful to let a little white stick rule your life, and to crave such an object that looks so stupid sticking out of ones gob. No doubt more tax will be put on them today in the budget.

I'm a non smoker!

Have been all my life. Can't fathom the dirty, filthy, money wasting, health destroying habit myself. :rolleyes:

I object to having to breathe other peoples smoke in public places, anywhere for that matter, not only on health grounds but also on comfort grounds. It tends to make me cough, splutter & choke & I never refrain from showing my total disdain to their selfish, unsociable behaviour. :mad:

I was furious to find that my beautiful 17 year old niece was seen smoking in a pub the other day, when I queried this from someone more in the know I discovered she had taken up the dreaded weed at the very ripe age of 14. Her mother can expect a word in her ear from me one of these days. How long will she remain beautiful & healthy, gifts she no doubt takes for granted, if she continues down this self destructive path?

Think also what can be done with the money one could save from not smoking. People slag me cause I don't drink or smoke but if they saw all the productive things I can afford because of my lifestyle choice they might be laughing at the other side of their face, nor have my looks been ravaged from the overindulgence in drinking, it always tells on their face after a time, or smoking for that matter. :p

Coco

eal401 - if you sincerely wish someone a horrible, painful death when they annoy you, what do you wish people that make you really mad?

Hmmm, BFU, you made a few mispellings in your post above. Please find corrected version below.

eal401 - if you sincerely wish someone a horrible, painful death when they have a habit which makes doing things you like, such as going for a meal or for a sensible drink* in a pub a potential risk to your health, what do you wish people that make you really mad?

I hope this clears things up.

maggioneato, post of the thread well said!! :ok:

*usually none due to the fact that I am driving.

Well, eal401, it seems that you’re somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan when it comes to smokers and speeding drivers. How do you stand on other emotive issues such as hunting and hanging? I think I already know the answers, but a bit more of your fuzzy logic will help pass a few moments.