I wish you could sue smokers!

marleyboy

bumpoowee wrote: »

I find Marleyboys posts quite strange too, they seem to get sillier every time! Funny though!

Only sillier in the eyes of a selfish NON smoker Sometimes the truth his hard to swallow I know

bumpoowee

marleyboy wrote: »

Only sillier in the eyes of a selfish NON smoker Sometimes the truth his hard to swallow I know

So what you are saying is that non smokers can't in any circumstances have silly opinions on the topic of smoking?

tandraig

its no good - i gotta join in this debate! i hate mcdonalds customers - they seem to think its ok to dump the containers everywhere! i dont think the occasional ciggy butt adds up to a tenth of the amount of rubbish littering my local town courtesy of mcds. there is a kfc too yet you hardly ever see any of their containers.
for goodness sake cant some of you people get off your high horse - you dont half over-react. calling a smoking mum a child abuser for gods sake - suffer real abuse then see if you think someone having a ciggy is abusing you!!
and to call marley silly cos you dont agree with a non smoker posting comments supporting smokers!!!!!!! words fail me!
how about reserving your vitriol for real criminals and leave us smokers alone - you got what you wanted dont bloody whinge about it!

marleyboy

bumpoowee wrote: »

So what you are saying is that non smokers can't in any circumstances have silly opinions on the topic of smoking?

Not at all, NON smokers CAN have silly opinions on smoking, and on the contrary, invariably DO.

lepetit

Lol I'm amazed at the response to my op.

I am an ex smoker yes, I saw the light, why do something that
1. costs an arm and a leg
2. the government make a mint on taxing it so much but discourage you from doing.
3. KILLS YOU!

If I have seen the light and don't want to die an early, painful and drawn out death then I think I have the right to not continue smoking because some inconsiderate little schmuck thinks its ok to blow it right in my face or around my children (miles and miles worse)

bumpoowee

tandraig wrote: »

and to call marley silly cos you dont agree with a non smoker posting comments supporting smokers!!!!!!! words fail me!

I didn't call him silly because he is a non-smoker (I actually didn't call him silly full stop either, i said his posts were silly) posting comments supporting smokers - on the contrary I'm glad to see somebody who can defend somebody elses point of view for a change rather than assuming the way they do things is the only correct way.

I called his posts silly because they were made up of nonsensical arguments, such as cigarettes are just as useful to society at cars.. you could write a whole book on what is wrong with that argument!

marleyboy

Agreed, but you cannot call them non-sensical arguments, because they are as non sensical as "cars serve a purpose" or the best one "Alcohol is good for you". Non nonsensical to a smoker, who smokes because in their eyes, "it serves them a purpose"

Fact is Smokers SMOKE, because they CAN, regardless of the health risks. The argument about PASSIVE Smoking, is just as hazardous as every other "outdoor" pollutant. Its a valid argument for a smoker and a NON smoker alike.

Regardless of its ethics, the "passing it on" scenario of ALL passed on hazardous pollutions, has the same potential to KILL either long term or short term as any cigarette smoker on the street.

For a government to ban smoking on the street, they would have to justify why other likewise passive hazardous pollutants are not also banned from the very same street.

I wouldnt for example class driving to work in the City as "essential" as a Fire Engine. Yet I can safely say I see more private cars on the road, than Emergency Services or delivery vehicles. Regardless of the NON Smoking, public transport that is available, the argument here of course will be the inevitable "Its not good enough for me". Just more "justifications" for polluting passively..

You could write a bigger book on what pollution in general is doing to our health. But NON Smokers are blinkered to that, choosing to just point at the smokers and "justifying" anything else as acceptable.

Cigarettes sell, therefore its an inevitability they will be smoked (its all a cigarette can do when its sold). No different to anything else that is sold and used. Cars are UN-ESSENTIALLY driven, beer is UN-ESSENTIALLY drank and burgers are UN-ESSENTIALLY eaten, all because they selfishly CAN.

Volcano

That post made a lot more sense Marleyboy and I basically agree more or less with all of it.

bumpoowee

marleyboy wrote: »

Agreed, but you cannot call them non-sensical arguments, because they are as non sensical as "cars serve a purpose" or the best one "Alcohol is good for you". Non nonsensical to a smoker, who smokes because in their eyes, "it serves them a purpose"

Fact is Smokers SMOKE, because they CAN, regardless of the health risks. The argument about PASSIVE Smoking, is just as hazardous as every other "outdoor" pollutant. Its a valid argument for a smoker and a NON smoker alike.

Regardless of its ethics, the "passing it on" scenario of ALL passed on hazardous pollutions, has the same potential to KILL either long term or short term as any cigarette smoker on the street.

For a government to ban smoking on the street, they would have to justify why other likewise passive hazardous pollutants are not also banned from the very same street.

I wouldnt for example class driving to work in the City as "essential" as a Fire Engine. Yet I can safely say I see more private cars on the road, than Emergency Services or delivery vehicles. Regardless of the NON Smoking, public transport that is available, the argument here of course will be the inevitable "Its not good enough for me". Just more "justifications" for polluting passively..

You could write a bigger book on what pollution in general is doing to our health. But NON Smokers are blinkered to that, choosing to just point at the smokers and "justifying" anything else as acceptable.

Cigarettes sell, therefore its an inevitability they will be smoked (its all a cigarette can do when its sold). No different to anything else that is sold and used. Cars are UN-ESSENTIALLY driven, beer is UN-ESSENTIALLY drank and burgers are UN-ESSENTIALLY eaten, all because they selfishly CAN.

I agree with volcano this makes a lot more sense, and I agree with a fair amount of it, as far as to say that a certain proportion of cars are unnecessary, however the remainder do serve a net positive purpose to society.

For example I wouldn't be able to get to my workplace (ok I could, but it would be a 4 hour round trip so I wouldn't bother) without a private car, and my partner couldn't do her job without her car either. I work in an office of 2000 or so people, and it's fair to assume a significant number of these people will need private cars to get to work due to lack of public transport (i've lived in big cities and now in a small town - there is a huge difference in the quality and availability of public transport).

If private cars were banned, the productivity of the UK workforce would drop since it wouldn't be possible to employ so many skilled people in one location and employers would be less willing to invest here (we live in a global economic society now) and we would lose jobs and our standards of living would drop as a result. Life expectancy would probably drop too - so although we may gain a year or two due to less pollutants, we would be less prosperous and life expectancy would see a net drop as a result.

Smoking on the other hand doesn't give a net benefit to society, sure you can argue it raises taxes, saves on pension contributions etc, but it also increases the healthcare bill, disability related benefits etc and most people (i'll admit this is an assumption) plain don't like it. I'd say it's fair to assume it wouldn't hurt society if people stopped doing it tomorrow.

marleyboy

But to be fair, and I agree that it isn't viable to ban cars, it isn't really a Smokers problem, to a smoker its a NON smokers justification for polluting the street, no different to Non smokers arguing that smokers pollute the streets with Cigarettes.

I have no doubt Smokers can argue their own excuses and justifications for smoking. Ultimately its a legal choice.

My argument is that smoking on a street has as much chance of passively killing NON smokers like myself, as driving does. We all know the risks of smoking, and it would do no harm if people stopped smoking tomorrow, but that is NOT really going to happen, simply because they choose not to.

It is no different "health-wise" to a driver choosing to drive their car on the street, whatever reason they have for driving, they still affect NON smokers on the street, in just the same way a smoker does.

Its your RIGHT to drive as much as it is a smokers RIGHT to smoke, regardless of the reason they do it. If they choose to pollute themselves, thats their problem.

To pollute via Passive smoking, is fair enough, it is banned in a building or public house for those very reasons. But out on the Street, where all manner of other pollutions are free to mingle and get breathed in,it is no better or worse for either smokers or NON smokers like myself, than cars on the Street.

You cannot ban Smoking on the grounds that you simply don't like it.