I wish you could sue smokers!

momoyama

jen_br wrote: »

In canada they came out with a GREAT law.. if you are driving in your car with a child under 12 it is ILLEGAL for you to smoke!

Completely agree. At least I have the free will to avoid smokers as best as I can. Which is damned difficult. What choice does a child or vulnerable adult have?

Craig Charles, the actor, was known for it. Chloë Annett, fellow actress went to look at his new child but couldn't see the child for the smoke over the cot. In my (apparently extreme) view, this is child abuse just one step away from Baby P.

hartcjhart

Cmon then you anti smoking mob ANSWER MY QUESTION, SADLY YOU CANOT

marleyboy

janninew wrote: »

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?.

Ditto, maybe that's the solution to NON smokers, move somewhere more rural where its not considered acceptable You do after all, have a choice.

momoyama

hartcjhart wrote: »

Cmon then you anti smoking mob ANSWER MY QUESTION, SADLY YOU CANOT

What was the question?

marleyboy

momoyama wrote: »

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.

NONSENSE! Alcohol is one of the biggest causes of liver cancer FACT!



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

Agreed, but what's wrong with choosing electric vehicles OR public transport, over and above private 4x4 school runs! is it a matter of choice?


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.

Vegans (different to vegetarians) survive quite well without them, and a vegan is within their rights NOT to have to smell or taste a "meat is murder" burger.

Pointless arguments I agree, but it still all boils down to choice.

You constantly misinterpret my argument of vehicles, AT NO point do I suggest banning them, my argument (AGAIN), is that a smoker is no more pollutant than a motor vehicle and therefore has no more or less "passive pollution" ON THE STREET, than any vehicle or other hazardous pollutant ON THE SAME STREET.

Your argument is merely "Car pollution is allowed because cars are needed", which is as weak as "Tobacco pollution is allowed - because Smokers need a cigarette". Whether or not we agree that a smoker NEEDS a cigarette, a smoker feels they do, as is their legal right.

The whole World is suffering because of Traffic Pollution, lets not forget SMOG is not related to tobacco smoke.

Fact of the matter is, whilst a vehicle can pollute a street, so can a smoker.

costapkt

I would say that there are more drink related incidents in A&E than smoking ones.
Discuss.;)

teresaevans_2

It is my experience that it is those that have given up who complain the loudest......

jen_br

I dont think we are staying on track we aren't debating which is worse drinking, smoking, driving a car etc....

But truth of the matter is im tired of going to a grocery store either on my own or with my baby and having smokers huddled under the roof smoking near the frickin doors... I dont wanna walk through that nor do i feel i should have to!

The UK should follow countries like Canada and BAN smoking in cars that have a child under 12 (personally id even say 16).

Its a nasty habit but so is biting your nails, all though no one is spitting their nails in my face.

As for your question hartcjhart I think your being a BIT unrealistic they said they aren't going to smoke and if it means dying on the side of the road or getteing in the car id get in the car.. Doesn't mean i condone smoking...

Dire situations call for Dire responses.

marleyboy

jen_br wrote: »

I dont think we are staying on track we aren't debating which is worse drinking, smoking, driving a car etc....

But truth of the matter is im tired of going to a grocery store either on my own or with my baby and having smokers huddled under the roof smoking near the frickin doors... I dont wanna walk through that nor do i feel i should have to!

The UK should follow countries like Canada and BAN smoking in cars that have a child under 12 (personally id even say 16).

Its a nasty habit but so is biting your nails, all though no one is spitting their nails in my face.

As for your question hartcjhart I think your being a BIT unrealistic they said they aren't going to smoke and if it means dying on the side of the road or getteing in the car id get in the car.. Doesn't mean i condone smoking...

Dire situations call for Dire responses.

I dont think the thread is going off track, as the arguments regarding pollution and alcohol are just as valid as passive smoking. (a stark difference to smoking).

The agruments of passive smoking are about polluting another person who doesn't smoke. The arguments about driving, are about polluting another person who isn't driving. its only fair for a Smoker or NON moker to address BOTH

The arguments about health with smoking is it causes lung cancer, the arguments about health with alcohol is it causes liver cancer, all are as equally valid as the other. The only difference is, it isn't limiting pollution or health, to JUST smoking. It is only fair to address BOTH.

Its merely because the NON smoking brigade don't want to hear anything else, but passive smoking KILLS.

I agree it could, just as prevalent as exhaust fumes could passively KILL, I think it reasonable as a NON smoker, that smoking is done where other outdoor potentially fatal pollutants are just as bad.

I've NEVER once had someone blow smoke in my face, spit nails at me or fart in my face.
I don't think a smoker buys cigarettes, to blow in other peoples faces, much as a driver doesn't buy a car to pollute the World.

It seems to me that Non smokers are just looking for reasons to attack smokers. To the degree of accusing Smokers of attacking them. Not all smokers are inconsiderate, ignorant, litter bugs. We have our fresh indoor pubs and clubs now, where we are free to drink our "dirty beer", we have our fresh smoke free beaches and our fresh smoke free offices.

Smokers have their smelly cancer stick zones, lingering where the smelly cancer cubed cars and lorries, linger.

Whilst people can make choices to legally cause pollution at others health benefits, they will always have the legal right to do so.

I would extend banning smoking in cars COMPLETELY, but for the same reasons as banning the use of mobile phones whilst driving.

Its my choice not to smoke, but I don't take it out on the smoker for choosing to, that would make me a bigot.

I appreciate before the indoor ban was introduced, passive smoking in doorways was not prevalent, but this is a direct result of it. any Nightclub, theres hundreds of smokers stood outside, merely because that's where they are told to smoke, (Clubs dont have outdoor beer gardens for smokers, they have designated spots, doorways or zones). It is illegal to smoke in a sheltered bus stop but LEGAL to smoke at a non sheltered bus stop, for the same reason.

What is legal, remains choice, it becomes a right.

hartcjhart

MOMOYAMA page 16 post 308.

and I notice all the vehement anti smokers have not dare answer because it would show them up to be the hipocrites that they are,,

'we hate the stink blah blah but will get in the car when it suits us':mad: