I wish you could sue smokers!

marleyboy

janninew wrote: »

Whilst I agree that cars do pollute the air, I think breathing in cigarette smoke is completly different. Unless your walking right behind a car, next to the exhaust pipe, I don't think you can compare them. Also I live in a quiet village, so exhaust fumes aren't really a problem for me.

Today for example, me and my sister went in to town shoping as we normally do on a Saturday. The town centre was very busy, several times we had smokers in front of us and the smoke was blowing in our faces. Having to walk into shops through smoky doorways is disgusting and makes my eyes sting! Me and my sister had never smoked and don't know why we have to breath it in just because we choose to go shopping? We are doing nothing at all to affect anybody else in town, the same cannot be said for smokers!

I don't think it should be banned, but I do think smokers need to have more consideration for other people. Alot of smokers are not very considerate when it comes to lightning up though, as proven on here by a poster who told us her Mum use to smoke when she was pregnant and around her as a child.

I disagree, I dont think its any different at all, try saying that to my baby in the Buggy who has NO CHOICE but to breathe in the exhausts fumes of a vehicle, you are doing just as much harm to my kids, as any smoker does.
That you dont like the finger being pointed at your nasty habit is nobody elses but your own problem, likewise I could say if you don't like the smoke, don't walk directly behind a smoker. I have managed perfectly well to steer clear enough of a smoker not to make it problematic. I cant say I have much choice when crossing a busy road to avoid exhaust fumes that I don't like either.

Smokers are doing nothing wrong in the street to me, not half as much pollution as you are doing in my City,

A lot more smokers ARE considerate, they don't light up in their own house if I visit, not because they don't want to.

You can criticize smokers, so long as you are aware that you are adding to the pollution in your vehicle. I don't class smokers as being inconsiderate for going outside of a building to "light up".

Smokers don't light up inside the shop, on the bus or in the pub. They light up in the car polluting street.

To complain about smokers, smoking outside without taking any blame whatsoever to pollution from your car on the very same street, is in my eyes infringing on a smokers RIGHT to smoke.

How can you say car fumes do not affect me or my children, yet smokers do? that's a little hypocritical.

I don't think there is any difference, I would say car fumes exhale far WORSE fumes and certainly CAN compare them to smokers, as is my RIGHT as a non smoker, but of course I think your too ignorant to accept that. What's good for the Goose.....

I have no issue with smokers on the street, whilst their are cars driving along it. Smoky doorways are a direct result of indoor banning, its where Smokers are told to go now, if its a problem, its the building inspector you want to talk to, or do what I have no choice to do when I go cycling, wear a mask.

marleyboy

PinkLipgloss wrote: »

....I suspect some of the staff in those places would quite rightly take issue!

I would add, allow them to smoke in smoking pubs and venues, where staff are smokers, visitors are smokers, and NON smokers are welcome, so long as they know its a smoking venue.

Esqui

I don't smoke, I have never even tried smoking, I try to avoid places where people smoke and if it annoys me, I move away from people smoking.

BUT I would rather be friends with someone who smoked than a self-righteous anti-smoking moralist.

jb66

marleyboy wrote: »

I would add, allow them to smoke in smoking pubs and venues, where staff are smokers, visitors are smokers, and NON smokers are welcome, so long as they know its a smoking venue.

Thats called discrimination. Its not fair on non-smokers who wish to work in a bar/venue

marleyboy

Neither is it fair on Smokers NOT to be able socialise in a bar exclusively for them. NON smokers have all the bars now, which IS discriminating to Smokers, it swings both ways, I would have no objection to a NON smoker wishing to work in a smokers bar, so long as they know its exclusively a smokers bar for smokers, they are free to work in a NON smokers bar if they so wish.

jb66

marleyboy wrote: »

Neither is it fair on Smokers NOT to socialise in a bar exclusively for them. NON smokers have all the bars now, which IS discriminating to Smokers, it swings both ways

Smokers have the bars too, they just need to go outside. How can you justify by increasing someones chance of getting lung cancer just because they don't want to go outside?

Its their disgusting habit and its their health they show no respect for, why should someone who made better choices suffer because of them?

I don't want my hair, nails and clothes smelling of tobacco and i like my eyes not to sting. Its also nice not to worry about drunkards burning me. I'm glad there is such a high tax on cigarettes, least they can pay for there own cancer treatment

marleyboy

Yes you can, as its a smokers LEGAL choice to smoke, just because NON smokers think its a stupid choice, doesn't make it any LESS stupid than a drivers (lifestyle choice).

Some people DONT need a car, obviously a Smoker feels they NEED a smoke (whatever their reason) else they would not be going outside to smoke.

Trying to justify cars to me a NON smoker, who objects to pollution of ALL KINDS is a non starter I'm afraid. They are just as bad for my health as a smoker is.

I see more cars dropping kids of at school (10 minute walk from their homes), then I see Delivery vehicles, and\or Emergency vehicles.

We have what is commonly known as Pubic Transport, that is just as pollutive, but if everyone was forced to use those to go to work, there would be uproar about their human rights to use the car.

No one really NEEDS a car, we have public transport that has a NO SMOKING policy, so your argument is as pointless as "nobody NEEDS to smoke".

Ive said before (but as this thread is constantly going around in circles, I will repeat), Its not feasible to ban cars, but it is a choice whether we use them. Whilst smoking remains a legal choice for smokers, they are free to smoke where the pollution levels are no different to those Lorries, cars or buses that spout even more deadly fumes.

There's nothing silly about the argument, its just as bad to my health, as a smoker is.

You don't like the argument merely because it extends it to NON smokers and Smokers alike....heaven forbid a NON smoker being accused of polluting the atmosphere.

Just like a Smoker can choose to smoke, a driver can choose to drive. They are each as bad as the other, but legal choices they are, whatever excuse they have for doing it.

On a final note, I don't get cigarettes from anywhere, they are bad for my health, I choose not to smoke, as is my legal choice (apart from those nasty fumes I am forced to inhale whenever I go to the City) - and I dont just mean cigarettes.

I appreciate its not nice to be accused of polluting someone else's airspace especially those who merely claim its a silly argument, I can only guess that's how Smokers feel.

janninew

marleyboy wrote: »

I disagree, I dont think its any different at all, try saying that to my baby in the Buggy who has NO CHOICE but to breathe in the exhausts fumes of a vehicle, you are doing just as much harm to my kids, as any smoker does.
That you dont like the finger being pointed at your nasty habit is nobody elses but your own problem, likewise I could say if you don't like the smoke, don't walk directly behind a smoker. I have managed perfectly well to steer clear enough of a smoker not to make it problematic. I cant say I have much choice when crossing a busy road to avoid exhaust fumes that I don't like either.

Smokers are doing nothing wrong in the street to me, not half as much pollution as you are doing in my City,

A lot more smokers ARE considerate, they don't light up in their own house if I visit, not because they don't want to.

You can criticize smokers, so long as you are aware that you are adding to the pollution in your vehicle. I don't class smokers as being inconsiderate for going outside of a building to "light up".

Smokers don't light up inside the shop, on the bus or in the pub. They light up in the car polluting street.

To complain about smokers, smoking outside without taking any blame whatsoever to pollution from your car on the very same street, is in my eyes infringing on a smokers RIGHT to smoke.

How can you say car fumes do not affect me or my children, yet smokers do? that's a little hypocritical.

I don't think there is any difference, I would say car fumes exhale far WORSE fumes and certainly CAN compare them to smokers, as is my RIGHT as a non smoker, but of course I think your too ignorant to accept that. What's good for the Goose.....

I have no issue with smokers on the street, whilst their are cars driving along it. Smoky doorways are a direct result of indoor banning, its where Smokers are told to go now, if its a problem, its the building inspector you want to talk to, or do what I have no choice to do when I go cycling, wear a mask.

You mention how you feel smokers polluting the air is no different to drivers and how your child has no choice but to breathe in traffic fumes. No he does not have a choice, but you do as his parent. Maybe if you live in such a heavily polluted area and are concerned about your child breathing un traffic fumes you need to move somewhere more rural? Otherwise your other choice would be to not take him out in his buggy.

You say don't walk behind smokers, I do try to steer clear, but sometimes in a busy high street it just isn't possible. Also I have no choice but to walk through the smoke if I want to visit some stores.

Also I did not say car fumes do not affect you and your children, just that I don't think they can be directly compared. Where I live there are very few cars and the air is very clean, until you walk past pubs, shop doorways etc.

Alos I am sure alot of smokers drive, so they are polluting the air twice as much!

You say you disagree with me. I put in my thread that I don't want smoking to be banned, so you do want it to be banned then? All I want is a little more consideration.

Also I am not in the slighest bit ignorant, i'm entitled to my opinion, as you are entitled to yours. I would never revert to calling people ignorant for having different views and experiences than me.

momoyama

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"

That's rubbish, marleyboy. You do seem to struggle to acknowledge other people's points, even when they are fact. Alcohol, in moderation of course, is good for you. Fact.

marleyboy wrote: »

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.

The country would die on it's feet in the absence of transportation.



And your burger argument also gets sillier. Burgers = red meat = source of iron. I agree MuckDonalds (for example) are hardly the bastion of fat-free food, but I'm talking more generally.

momoyama

jb66 wrote: »

If a smoker is allowed to puff in my face.... can i fart on theirs?

A point I've raised before on here. And in my more militant times, I fancy doing just this.

That was a great Jalfrezi last night, too. Great for me, anyway.