I wish you could sue smokers!

marleyboy

lightisfading wrote: »

I have to say, most of the non-smokers I know are of the opinion 'it's up to you if you do it, just don't bloody do it near me!', which is what most of the smokers on this thread seem to be overlooking. Yes, it is your 'right' to smoke (apparently - I'd say it's more of a priviledge). No, it is not your right to force others to smoke. Just because you think it's not dangerous, or disgusting, or smelly, or unpleasant, or socially unacceptable doesn't mean others feel the same way. Personally I don't give a monkeys if I'm 'infringing on your rights to have a cigarette' by 'forcing you to smoke outside'. You're infringing on my rights to not inhale tar and nicotine. :mad:

As far as I am aware, Smokers ARENT allowed to smoke indoors in social gatherings, they smoke outdoors in the designated areas, if that is somehow "infringing" your rights and forcing you to smoke, I would suggest you go back inside AWAY from such places.

I steer clear of the smoking area, for that very reason, leaving the smoker to choose their right to smoke their cigarette in peace, smokers dont light up near me when I eat my meal in the restaurant, sip my pint at the bar, or read my paper on the train

Drunkstar

stuart30 wrote: »

yet these same people happily drive around in cars/take trips over seas in planes/happily pollute the atmosphere with coal fires ect ect ect.

Bloody hypocrites....if you dont like me smoking next too you bloody well walk away.:mad:

I use public transport, have never been in a plane (I'm happy having a caravan holiday here in the UK ) and my house is gas central heating, not something I have a choice on with it being a council property.

So am I a hypocrite?

And if I am somewhere and you come and start smoking near me, maybe the issue is that you are a rude person with little consideration for others.

Drunkstar

marleyboy wrote: »

As far as I am aware, Smokers ARENT allowed to smoke indoors in social gatherings, they smoke outdoors in the designated areas, if that is somehow "infringing" your rights and forcing you to smoke, I would suggest you go back inside AWAY from such places.

I steer clear of the smoking area, for that very reason, leaving the smoker to choose their right to smoke their cigarette in peace, smokers dont light up near me when I eat my meal in the restaurant, sip my pint at the bar, or read my paper on the train

Exactly. 100% how I see it. Live and let live.

vyle

stuart30 wrote: »

Good god man dont mention cars produce more harmful gasses than smokers the do-gooders will lynch you.

Bloody annoys me that in recent years smokers have become modern day lepers.

These bleeding heart do-gooders who complain so loudly about those of us who smoke and bang on how were killing them with are disgusting choice too smoke....yet these same people happily drive around in cars/take trips over seas in planes/happily pollute the atmosphere with coal fires ect ect ect.

Bloody hypocrites....if you dont like me smoking next too you bloody well walk away.:mad:

I cycle most places, have only ever flown twice in my life and don't have a coal fire.

The difference is, I guess, if you walk past a car, you don't end up smelling like an ash tray, and you don't end up with dry, itchy eyes and a sore throat.

Like many other people have said (and the smokers on here seem to have ignored), nobody has a problem with you actually smoking. It's the inconsiderate attitude of smokers who want to force it onto other people.

The people who b*tch about 'not being able to go to a pub cos I can't smoke any more and it ruins my life' never seemed to care when they were smoking and ruining my night by making me smell like sh*t, giving me a croaky voice and making it hard to see. Smokers stopped me going out, because they made pubs intolerable. Now a barrier to non-smoker's enjoyment of pubs has been removed, yet smokers are still welcome in designated areas, and can still DRINK indoors, but that's not good enough for them.

janninew

jb66 wrote: »

Why are we assuming that everyone who smokes doesn't drive?

I know I did mention that previously, its seems to be your either a smoker who doesn't drive or a non smoker who drives a super polluting car. When in fact i'm sure plently of smokers are driving big gas guzzling vehicles as well! I have said I don't want smoking banned, just a little more consideration from some smokers!

marleyboy

vyle wrote: »

I cycle most places, have only ever flown twice in my life and don't have a coal fire.

The difference is, I guess, if you walk past a car, you don't end up smelling like an ash tray, and you don't end up with dry, itchy eyes and a sore throat.

When I walk past someone smoking, I don't end up with itchy eyes or smelling like an ash tray or suffer from a sore throat, I may do if I am locked in a room full of smokers, but certainty not out on the street, unless of course I choose to stand right by their side until they finish the cigarette.

In much the same way I dont kneel by the roadside kerb for prolonged periods of time.

Its a fact, that pollution from vehicles are just as lethal "passively" as any cigarette.
it is therefore reasonable that a smoker is allowed to pollute at the same level and in the same air space.

Nobody assumes only NON smokers drive, but we all assume "rightly" that cars "smoke", which tells me that ALL drivers are passive smokers but NOT ALL pedestrians are.

Drunkstar

marleyboy wrote: »

Its a fact, that pollution from vehicles are just as lethal "passively" as any cigarette.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3590578.stm

The controlled experiment was carried out in a private garage in a small mountain town in northern Italy which had very low levels of particulate matter air pollution.
A turbo diesel 2 litre engine, fuelled with low sulphur fuel, was started and left idling for 30 minutes in the garage, with the doors closed, after which the doors were left open for four hours.
Three filter cigarettes were then lit up sequentially, and left smouldering for a further 30 minutes.
A portable analyser took readings every two minutes during the experiments.
Combined particulate levels in the first hour after the engine had been started measured 88 ug/m3. In comparison, those recorded in the first hour after the cigarettes had been lit measured 830 ug/m3 - 10 times greater.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1386927/Pollution-as-dangerous-as-passive-smoking.html

Long-term exposure to the small particulates that make up urban pollution is as bad for the health as exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke, the report concludes

A you can see studies say different things about that. Either way, I dont want it in my face.

bumpoowee

hartcjhart wrote: »

so would you answer the question pg16 post 308

What's the point of the question exactly?

Both of..

"Would you rather get in a car with a smoker or be stranded in the middle of nowhere"

or

"Would you rather sit on a large metal spike or remove your own liver with a teaspoon"

are silly questions with only two choices, neither of which are particularly appealing but the answer will obviously always be the one least unappealing to the respondent.

marleyboy

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/114/6/1699

We could do this round and round all day, fact is Smokers DONT blow smoke in a NON smokers face, I have neither witnessed it nor had it done to me.

Whenever I cycle, I get smoke in my face regularly, but not walking through a street where there are smokers. Whenever I push my childs buggy down the street, he gets it in his face just as regularly. But not from Smokers.

If the only argument now is "blowing it in my face" I have to say I haven't witnessed it from people who smoke, mainly its people who drive.

Drunkstar

Sorry no, I didnt explain my point properly. For that I apologise.

I mean simply that its not a fact that car fumes are worse, the evidence the other way is strong enough for it just to be a... good opinion. Nor is it fact that a fag is worse. A lot is, after all, down to context. After all if we compare the two on the M1 we'd have a different result to if we compared in a pedestrian only town or city center.