|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 26, 2010 21:43:42 GMT 1
Well does this prove the argument that the previous administration was right to ban smoking. Furthermore does it make people who smoke in their own homes irresponsible ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 26, 2010 23:44:56 GMT 1
Well does this prove the argument that the previous administration was right to ban smoking. Furthermore does it make people who smoke in their own homes irresponsible ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169no more irresponsible than letting your child drink coca cola, eat fattening foods etc. or as irresponsible as a needless journey in the car, pumping carcenogens into the atmos for all of us. speeding? plenty of risky things we all partake in knowingly, but the smoker is the one demonised. i smoke in the house, but only after the kids are in bed, with 2 doors between us and the window open. am i irresponsible? somebody please judge me
|
|
|
Post by El Presidente on Nov 27, 2010 5:15:36 GMT 1
Well does this prove the argument that the previous administration was right to ban smoking. Furthermore does it make people who smoke in their own homes irresponsible ? www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11844169no more irresponsible than letting your child drink coca cola, eat fattening foods etc. or as irresponsible as a needless journey in the car, pumping carcenogens into the atmos for all of us. speeding? plenty of risky things we all partake in knowingly, but the smoker is the one demonised. i smoke in the house, but only after the kids are in bed, with 2 doors between us and the window open. am i irresponsible? somebody please judge me I thought nicotine experiments on simians are banned...!?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2010 10:06:22 GMT 1
[ no more irresponsible than letting your child drink coca cola, eat fattening foods etc. or as irresponsible as a needless journey in the car, pumping carcenogens into the atmos for all of us. speeding? plenty of risky things we all partake in knowingly, but the smoker is the one demonised. i smoke in the house, but only after the kids are in bed, with 2 doors between us and the window open. am i irresponsible? somebody please judge me allowing your child to eat fattening foods or drink coke isnt irresponsible, but allowing them to eat these things too much whilst allowing the child to sit in front of a pc all day playing video games whilst slowly but surely getting fat is imo, my wife (who is a health visitor) and i have talked about this kind of thing a lot in the past and have concluded that it is as much a form of child neglect as leaving a child in its own poo and starving it, but thats not the topic being discussed here (although a valid topic). same goes for your car journey example. i would also say the same applies to parents who smoke in confined spaces with their kids present, smokey rooms, the car ect, and i for one would support a law that made such things illegal, if it where possible to enforce it. if you added arsenic to your childs breakfast cereal, you would be jailed for life, why is it different if the route of administration is inhalation? i believe the article / topic refers to passive smoking, which i guess by definition suggests that if the kids arnt breathing your smoke, means they are not passive smoking, and thus you are not being irresponsible in that sense, although it could be argued that as a role model, you are possibly encouraging them to smoke in future which im sure you must agree isnt what you want?
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Nov 27, 2010 10:23:17 GMT 1
Having never smoked in my life I have found passive smoking affects me badly I used to cough like a dying old man every Saturday morning after a night out It stopped the instant the smoking ban came in
Now some dodgy pubs still allow smoking a bit late on On the few occasions I've been caught up in this Yes you've guessed, next day is coughing time
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Nov 27, 2010 10:37:33 GMT 1
The differences between cigarette smoke and coca cola are fairly , and it is a very odd line of argument, but the key difference I can see is that a child is not damaged by you enjoying a coca cola.
Putting kids in a smoke filled atmosphere is irresponsible. Smoking when they're not around is completely different.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 27, 2010 11:39:45 GMT 1
I think Dave hit on the point I was trying to make.
In this instance it is the actions of the smoker smoking in front of people I wanted to debate, not sidelining like politicians with wishy washy equations.
Is the action of smokers irresponsible ?
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 27, 2010 12:02:32 GMT 1
The differences between cigarette smoke and coca cola are fairly , and it is a very odd line of argument, but the key difference I can see is that a child is not damaged by you enjoying a coca cola. Putting kids in a smoke filled atmosphere is irresponsible. Smoking when they're not around is completely different. if you read the post carefully , you will notice that i said leting your kids drink the stuff or eat fattening things.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 27, 2010 12:08:20 GMT 1
I think Dave hit on the point I was trying to make. In this instance it is the actions of the smoker smoking in front of people I wanted to debate, not sidelining like politicians with wishy washy equations. Is the action of smokers irresponsible ? you should be more specific if you want a specific answer surely this is a much wider debate about adult behaviour in front of children, as smoking is not the only thing that kids can pick up from adult actions. as i said, diet , attitude to fitness or even a selfish attitude are as harmful, maybe even more so. i think what you are really asking is, are parents irresponsible for not being perfect.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 27, 2010 12:21:09 GMT 1
you should be more specific if you want a specific answer surely this is a much wider debate about adult behaviour in front of children, as smoking is not the only thing that kids can pick up from adult actions. as i said, diet , attitude to fitness or even a selfish attitude are as harmful, maybe even more so. i think what you are really asking is, are parents irresponsible for not being perfect. The issue for me is about smoking, I think this report is factual, non political and should be listened to. Without doubt we can look at other areas such as Coca Cola, diet, fitness etc but to excuse one because of another is weak. A poor diet can be adjusted in life, the effects of passive smoking probably not. My point is with factual evidence of the harm passive smoking never mind actual smoking does, anybody smoking around others are not irresponsible they are both ignorant and selfish.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 27, 2010 12:33:22 GMT 1
you should be more specific if you want a specific answer surely this is a much wider debate about adult behaviour in front of children, as smoking is not the only thing that kids can pick up from adult actions. as i said, diet , attitude to fitness or even a selfish attitude are as harmful, maybe even more so. i think what you are really asking is, are parents irresponsible for not being perfect. The issue for me is about smoking, I think this report is factual, non political and should be listened to. Without doubt we can look at other areas such as Coca Cola, diet, fitness etc but to excuse one because of another is weak. A poor diet can be adjusted in life, the effects of passive smoking probably not. My point is with factual evidence of the harm passive smoking never mind actual smoking does, anybody smoking around others are not irresponsible they are both ignorant and selfish. but you could easily use the same argument for many things, why are you specifically targetting smokers? i will try and use an example. lets say you travel to an away football match, 100 miles away. from that journey a fair amount of exhaust fumes and carbon monoxide are dischrged into the atmosphere. We all know the harm it causes to the planet, and the general population,(plenty of "factual reports" on that) but you are prepared to force that on the rest of the world because of your personal choice? are you selfish and ignorant for going to the match, not as if it is a nessesary trip is it? but it has an impact on the health of others! oh no! this argument is about you and your need to judge other people. if you are so cooncerned about public health, lets see you cut down on your own selfish behaviour(and we all have them), before casting that judgmental stone eh ?
|
|
|
Post by northwestman on Nov 27, 2010 13:23:25 GMT 1
I've heard a very nasty rumour that the Welsh Assembly is pressing for smoking to be brought back in certain pubs.
Can see me going over the border to England if this is successful!
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 27, 2010 14:10:41 GMT 1
I've heard a very nasty rumour that the Welsh Assembly is pressing for smoking to be brought back in certain pubs. Can see me going over the border to England if this is successful! not got a problem with the pubs having separate rooms, or banning smoking altogether. the anti smoking lobby has a place, and in an ideal world nobody would smoke, we would all create no pollution. but smoking is a convenient red herring that enables people to focus on each others behaviour rather than their own.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2010 15:40:43 GMT 1
...or a reason to focus on their own behaviour i.e. consider quitting and think of the benefits such as significantly improved health (i.e. longer life expectancy, nicer teeth, better breath, better aerobic capacity etc), improved performance, improved smell and more money in their pocket!
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 27, 2010 17:00:12 GMT 1
but you could easily use the same argument for many things, why are you specifically targetting smokers? this argument is about you and your need to judge other people. if you are so cooncerned about public health, lets see you cut down on your own selfish behaviour(and we all have them), before casting that judgmental stone eh ? Again you try and deflect from the issue (lets not forget the report was about passive smoking). The fact is passive smoking kills hundreds of thousands yearly, yet you deflect defend and pick arguments to do so. As for my concern for public health I have as you put it "cut down" on my own behaviour I gave smoking the boot years ago Banning smoking in Public places was one of the policies I agreed with by the last administration. As for being judgmental I think we all are at times, I truly hope I don't feel the need to judge people all the time.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Nov 27, 2010 18:47:44 GMT 1
I can't see why smoking isn't gradually stubbed out Eg you have to be 18 to buy cigs Next year make it 19, then 20 and so on No one can ever argue they have been forced to quit
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 28, 2010 2:38:26 GMT 1
but you could easily use the same argument for many things, why are you specifically targetting smokers? this argument is about you and your need to judge other people. if you are so cooncerned about public health, lets see you cut down on your own selfish behaviour(and we all have them), before casting that judgmental stone eh ? Again you try and deflect from the issue (lets not forget the report was about passive smoking). The fact is passive smoking kills hundreds of thousands yearly, yet you deflect defend and pick arguments to do so. As for my concern for public health I have as you put it "cut down" on my own behaviour I gave smoking the boot years ago Banning smoking in Public places was one of the policies I agreed with by the last administration. As for being judgmental I think we all are at times, I truly hope I don't feel the need to judge people all the time. not deflecting anything old chap. if you look at my original post i have tried to quantify the risk by comparison. i said i think it is no more irresponsible than other behaviours. not especially irresponsible , but maybe a bit. similar to unnessesary car journeys or allowing your children. you narrow the argument to the point where this thread is just going to be a series of people saying how terrible smoking is, which is likely to be a little boring after a while. it just seems like a specific attack on smokers if we cant discuss it. i mean the health risks are so well documented to the point where your argument is redundant. so all i can do is re-iterate what i have already said, many people do many things that are unhealthy, it's a personal choice. you should try to ignore it if it bothers you as getting excited about one specific one is likely to be bad for your health.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 28, 2010 3:00:46 GMT 1
...or a reason to focus on their own behaviour i.e. consider quitting and think of the benefits such as significantly improved health (i.e. longer life expectancy, nicer teeth, better breath, better aerobic capacity etc), improved performance, improved smell and more money in their pocket! yes, but isnt it interesting that you feel you can make observations like that about someone just because they smoke. it seems perfectly socially acceptable to call someone smelly , to their face if they smoke. lets be honest, if someone had chronic b.o. you would still have to be a pretty close friend to broach the subject. But because of the animosity created by the anti smoking lobby it's fine to say it to a smoker. its almost impossible to have any sort of reaonable debate on the issue without people telling you the obvious well worn facts that we all know as smokers as they are printed on every packet, every leaflet, and told us every time we go to the doctors. If it was as easy as telling people the consequences, nobody would smoke , would they?
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 28, 2010 10:35:57 GMT 1
If it was as easy as telling people the consequences, nobody would smoke , would they? Fair comment, so why do people do it ? Education is oft the key to solution, so if it agreed smoking kills the smoker and others contaminated by it, it makes people "smell", (interestingly how many preffered the smell of pubs before the ban). It effects health on a negative scale it costs money to treat from the public purse. Why do people do it ?
|
|
|
Post by nicko on Nov 28, 2010 10:43:18 GMT 1
Monkee and Welshie back.
A good week for B & A.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Nov 28, 2010 10:59:26 GMT 1
Monkee and Welshie back. A good week for B & A. I was going to out him but thought he was undercover
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 28, 2010 12:27:02 GMT 1
If it was as easy as telling people the consequences, nobody would smoke , would they? Fair comment, so why do people do it ? Education is oft the key to solution, so if it agreed smoking kills the smoker and others contaminated by it, it makes people "smell", (interestingly how many preffered the smell of pubs before the ban). It effects health on a negative scale it costs money to treat from the public purse. Why do people do it ? i can only speak for myself , but i started when a pal at school started nicking ciggies from a shop he worked in. it had a forbidden quality to us at the time, we really thought we were cool. from then on it has been an addiction, i have tried to give up but i dont think my will to give up is strong enough. the public purse? i am not sure if the tax we pay on ciggies supports the harm it does in terms of health care, but i am pretty sure that if i paid the same amount in health insurance as i do in tax for my cigs, i would be quite well covered (25 quid per week, more than half of which is tax). i know you feel it is blurring the issue somewhat but i do feel a little scapegoated by health lobby as a smoker, and find it difficult to see the difference between my behaviour and that of someone with a high performance car. it is just an example but a car like that would be a personal choice like smoking, and it has an impact on the health of others. it also makes the entire world smelly, rather than just the individual. but the question as to whether the tax for petrol pays for the cost of the health damage caused, is never asked. even with alcohol which has a more direct link to health than exhaust fumes, we talk about tax in terms of deterrent rather than cost avoidance. so having answered your question, mine is: why is smoking different to other "ignorant" behaviours that impact on others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2010 12:46:51 GMT 1
I sympathise with your point on the comparison between smoking and pollution from cars.
The difference is that in one we see the results clearly - the points I have made above (I will not repeat because you are clearly well versed) as well as the serious effects it can have on others.
While there is loads of evidence to suggest a car pollutes the environment however the effects are not so pertinent on joe public i.e. people don't generally discuss with their family, friends or on here that they smell or are coughing because they've been sat in a car for three hours or have been walking down a road with cars whizzing past.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 28, 2010 13:05:52 GMT 1
I sympathise with your point on the comparison between smoking and pollution from cars. The difference is that in one we see the results clearly - the points I have made above (I will not repeat because you are clearly well versed) as well as the serious effects it can have on others. While there is loads of evidence to suggest a car pollutes the environment however the effects are not so pertinent on joe public i.e. people don't generally discuss with their family, friends or on here that they smell or are coughing because they've been sat in a car for three hours or have been walking down a road with cars whizzing past. thats sounds right, but i think there is also an element (a subconscious one maybe) of people wanting to focus on other peoples ills, rather than their own. the indirectness is part of why people smoke despite the risk i think. when you first start, a picture of someone older, with health issues, like they do in the adverts , is so far away from your own life that the association just doesnt stick. in the short term, when you first start, you dont feel addicted, or even unhealthy. you are young and you feel more adult, even though you look like a plank trying to be big(and we have all seen young kids, making a point of being seen smoking deliberatly, funny how we cant see how daft we look at the time) either way it does annoy me, but it also annoys me that i started smoking in the first place
|
|
|
Post by neilsalop on Nov 28, 2010 14:54:21 GMT 1
As a long time smoker (I too wish I hadn't started, but that's another story) I have tried on numerous occasions to quit, as I know that it is impacting my health and to an extent my families health. Unfortunately the addiction is very hard to kick and as a working man who has to pay for his prescriptions I struggle to afford the costs of nicotine replacement therapies (I could quit my job, go on the dole and get them free, but again that's for another thread).
I'm assuming that as the report is a worldwide one and has probably taken a few years to write and as such the effects of the smoking ban here and in many other countries has yet have had a great effect. Also in many lesser developed countries the chemicals found in cigarettes are in much higher quantities than this country allows, to keep cost down and to increase the addictive qualities of the products.
The arguments put forward by the chimp about the amount of garbage that our cars, buses, lorries, etc cough out into the atmosphere is valid, as is the one about parents that feed their kids on take-aways every night and sit them down in front of a TV or X-box game for hours on end with no noticable exercise. Am I a worse parent for feeding my daughter well and ensuring that she gets off her derierre occasionally, even though I am a smoker?
Just to add, I think if you add up every penny I've paid in tax on fags that I've already paid for any treatment that I may or not need in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Pilch on Nov 28, 2010 20:03:45 GMT 1
the main reason i never smoked was my grandad
he used to have to stop for a rest when walking from one room to the next and seeing him suffer and be sick was enough to put anyone off
i think it would be a good idea for one of these docusoaps to follow a few smokers to thier deaths
sounds a bit morbid but i know a few family members and friends of mine gave up instantly after a close relative either got cancer or died from smoking
my own view is its all or nothing when quitting you dont cut down, it doesnt work you dont have a quick one now and again either just give up
and yes i know its easier said than done i find it hard giving up eating
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Nov 29, 2010 0:17:18 GMT 1
if you read the post carefully , you will notice that i said leting your kids drink the stuff or eat fattening things. You missed my point. If the child drinks coca cola they enjoy the coca cola and any perceived benefit goes to them, along with the negative consequences. If the child eats fatty food they enjoy the fatty food and any perceived benefit goes to them, along with the negative consequences. If a parent smokes, and allows the child to breathe in that smoke, the child gets none of the perceived benefits of smoking and yet still gets the negative conesquences. Allowing passive smoking is not about teaching the child about what to drink, or what to eat, or how to smoke, or how to have balance, or how to enjoy things in moderation, it is both dangerously damaging and utterly, utterly selfish. PS: Smoking when they are not around is not the same. Not accusing you of anything.
|
|
|
Post by The Shropshire Tenor on Nov 29, 2010 9:40:59 GMT 1
After reading this thread I am suffering from passive sanctimony.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on Nov 29, 2010 10:19:04 GMT 1
After reading this thread I am suffering from passive sanctimony. ;D ;D ;D It is cold this time of year up on a high horse.
|
|
|
Post by simianus on Nov 29, 2010 15:23:29 GMT 1
After reading this thread I am suffering from passive sanctimony. did i come on a bit strong?
|
|