I wish you could sue smokers!

ShaShaSha

beccam wrote: »

even to go as far as wishing smokers died earlier :eek:

Im guilty!! I was very hormonal earlier (im preg) and had just been subject to a group of smokers refusing to move to let me out of the spar entrance, so I therefor had to squeeze past and breath in there stinking smoke, and my unborn baby did too.

I have said that i do know of considerate smokers, but this issue is relaly about the people who dont consider other people when smoking.

Everyone has the right to smoke if they wish, but I wish it was the same if you chose not too. Yes the risk of passive smoking is less than that of actually smoking, but thats a risk I have never wanted or chosen to take.

As a result of my neighbours smoke stinking out my old flat, I moved. To the countryside, for my daughters benefit and my own - because it was unpleasant for me to have a house reaking of fags, and knowing my daughter would be subject to possible passive smoking, if I could smell it.


EVEN IF YOU DONT SMOKE NEAR PEOPLE, THE TOXINS ARE STILL IN YOUR BODY AND RELEASE THROUGH YOUR PORES. so if you have children, and smoke within 24 hours of seeing them - they are at risk.



SOME IMPORTANT INFO FOR YOU ALL:

Breathing secondhand smoke increases a non-smoker's risk of lung cancer by 24% and heart disease by 25%.

Secondhand smoke is especially dangerous for children as they are growing up and even when they are still developing in the womb:

• Cot death is twice as likely to occur in babies whose mothers smoke.
• Smoking near children is a cause of serious respiratory illnesses, such as bronchitis and pneumonia.
• Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of children developing asthma and causes asthma attacks.
• Younger children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are much more likely to contract a serious respiratory infection that requires hospitalisation.
• There is also an increased risk of meningitis for children who are exposed to secondhand smoke.
• Babies and children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to get coughs and colds, as well as middle ear disease, which can cause deafness.

Secondhand smoke comes from the tip of a cigarette and the smoke that is breathed back out by the smoker. Wherever people smoke, there is secondhand smoke in the air although you might not notice it because it is almost invisible and odourless.
Even if you open a window, secondhand smoke will still be present in a room after two and a half hours! Even if you can't see or smell any smoke, it's probably still there. Smoking in a car is even worse because all of the smoke is concentrated into a small space.

Smoking in pregnancy:
When you smoke, or inhale other people's secondhand smoke, the smoke goes into your lungs.
Chemicals from the smoke, such as carbon monoxide, are then absorbed into your bloodstream.
Some of the oxygen in your blood is replaced by carbon monoxide.
This means that the oxygen supply to your baby may be restricted
When you smoke you inhale over 4,000 chemicals from the cigarette. One of these is a dangerous chemical called carbon monoxide, which gets into your bloodstream.
This restricts the oxygen that's essential for your baby's healthy growth and development, and because cigarettes restrict their oxygen supply, their tiny heart has to beat harder every time you smoke.
Your child is more at risk of getting infections such as inflammation of the middle ear in childhood.
Smoking during pregnancy can increase the risk of asthma and other chest infections in young children.
Your child is more likely to become a smoker as they get older.





Who is really benefiting from fags?? The government, with taxes - its not doing anyone any good at all.

Volcano

beccam wrote: »

Do you or any of the other 'anti smoking' posters on this thread have actual statistics or evidence of the damage/trauma/harm done to an individual by walking past a person who is smoking?
Yes I agree that there is harm in passive smoking but I am pretty sure the research has all been done with people being sujected to long term, continuous periods of very smoky areas (living with smoking partner/working in smoking pub etc)

Yep, that's basically correct. Obviously you cannot say that there is NO risk from inhaling smoke outside rather than inside (it's the same smoke) but as marleyboy has covered, vehicle fumes make tobacco smoke pale into insignificance from a health point of view.

The F*** you mentality on here has shocked me too......the f*** the smokers mentality shown by many posters, even to go as far as wishing smokers died earlier

Hopefully you're similarly shocked by the 'f*** the non-smokers' mentality shown by many posters too?

ShaShaSha wrote: »

Yes the risk of passive smoking is less than that of actually smoking, but thats a risk I have never wanted or chosen to take.

As a result of my neighbours smoke stinking out my old flat, I moved. To the countryside, for my daughters benefit and my own - because it was unpleasant for me to have a house reaking of fags, and knowing my daughter would be subject to possible passive smoking, if I could smell it.

That's entirely sensible. Don't get passive smoking mixed up with a brief inhalation of tobacco smoke however. Long term exposure working in a pub or sharing a room with a smoker is quite a different thing, you'll be quite safe passing through a few smokers as you exit a building (however irritating it might be).

beccam

Volcano wrote: »

Yep, that's basically correct. Obviously you cannot say that there is NO risk from inhaling smoke outside rather than inside (it's the same smoke) but as marleyboy has covered, vehicle fumes make tobacco smoke pale into insignificance from a health point of view.
:T


Hopefully you're similarly shocked by the 'f*** the non-smokers' mentality shown by many posters too?



That's entirely sensible. Don't get passive smoking mixed up with a brief inhalation of tobacco smoke however. Long term exposure working in a pub or sharing a room with a smoker is quite a different thing, you'll be quite safe passing through a few smokers as you exit a building (however irritating it might be).:T

:Toverall totally agree with a great post.

Re the bit I've put in bold.
I've read very little of those sort of attitudes.....the odd one saying well it's legal so tough luck and the odd poster becoming irrate and saying they wouldn't accept being asked to move but I haven't read any 'wishing you dead' type posts or verbal abuse of the smelly foul nonsmokers etc (because after all non smokers can be just as smelly and foul just in different ways)

There is no evidence that simply walking past somone who smokes on occassion when you're outside will do you or an unborn baby any harm....continued, prolonged, regular exposure then yes it would be considered passive smoking but I'm pretty sure if anyone could prove there was damage done by merely walking past a smoker then there would be a lot more restrictions in place.

I agree it's not pleasant, even as a smoker I find it mildly annoying when 20smokers are grouped outside the doorway and you have to walk through, especially if I'm with my daughter but similarly I find it disgusting to be in a lift when someone farts or to sit on a bus behind a smelly unwashed person and bottom line is that it IS the same thing as you cannot prove walking past a smoker damages you just the same as I cannot prove smelling others farts does not damage me!

Also for those who think they don't know any smokers or if they do they can identify them by the smell/stink/yellow teeth/rudeness etc etc there are ALOT of people I deal with daily who have no idea I smoke, another large amount of people who have been surprised to find out I smoke as they never knew (even though they've known me for years) and even close friends who often forget I smoke until we're out for a night and I excuse myself to venture outside.
You may well know many smokers who just choose to not tell you because they know what sort of narrow minded and ridiculous prejudice they will face.

Volcano

beccam wrote: »

Re the bit I've put in bold.
I've read very little of those sort of attitudes.....

With smokers making up around 25% of the population, a ratio of 1:3 smokers v non-smokers 'insulting posts' would be about right!

Also for those who think they don't know any smokers or if they do they can identify them by the smell/stink/yellow teeth/rudeness etc etc there are ALOT of people I deal with daily who have no idea I smoke, another large amount of people who have been surprised to find out I smoke as they never knew (even though they've known me for years)

With respect, (in an indoor environment) someone who's just walked in from smoking outside will smell very strongly of smoke. They'll also smell of the mint/perfume they've used to try to mask it. When someone I worked with told me they smoked, what possible answer could I reply with except "Really? I didn't know". The truth ("Yes, you smell of cigarettes") is just too impolite, especially to a friend or work colleague.

beccam

Volcano wrote: »

With smokers making up around 25% of the population, a ratio of 1:3 smokers v non-smokers 'insulting posts' would be about right!

true!


With respect, (in an indoor environment) someone who's just walked in from smoking outside will smell very strongly of smoke. They'll also smell of the mint/perfume they've used to try to mask it. When someone I worked with told me they smoked, what possible answer could I reply with except "Really? I didn't know". The truth ("Yes, you smell of cigarettes") is just too impolite, especially to a friend or work colleague.

In my case it's been more because I either haven't smoked when in their company (because I'm considerate like that!;)) or haven't smoked just before meeting them or just before returning from a break in work (I tend to go for the smoke first followed by a walk so I 'stink' less :rolleyes:) and the people I'm talking about would have no hesitation in telling me if I smelled of smoke, quite a few have found out when they've been mid rant about smoking and I've quietly informed them I am a smoker only for them to become immediatley embarrassed and back track on what they've said :rotfl:

costapkt

There is the result of a survey in the Mirror today of peoples dislikes ,
smoking comes in at No.47 Smelly people at No.3 Does not say what they smell off !!!!!

dandare

momoyama wrote: »

Huh?

cash probably, it makes so much thats partly a reason why it is not illegal.




So, why am I not feeling that on this thread?

dunno, you'd have to tell us why yer not feeling it.




I think you've missed some words here? Your logic is flawed by the notion that the non-smokers are just asking to not be "done unto". We arn't asking that you stop smoking, just that you allow us our freedom. You are asking for the right to do us harm.

i get yer not asking folk to stop smoking but to allow you yer freedom, which does sound a bit extreme yer FREEDOM, seriously? ye think yer having yer freedom is restricted by smokers? if that's how ye feel then so by it. just sounds a bit ott to me.



I am indeed attached. And yes, I probably would. But as (in my oppinion) she's the most wonderful person on the face of the planet, I know that she wouldn't do that, knowing my feelings on the subject (which, BTW, she shares).

ye'd give up on the love and happiness ye share with this person and i assume intend to spend yer days with given how fondly ye write of her because of fags, sounds a bit much. that there is a shame.



Yes, but the justification of the majority of smokers on here is purely "because we can, and f*** the rest of you". I'm not being selfish in that I'm not trying to deny you any right, other than the right-to-do-me-harm. You on the other hand, are denying me the right to not be intentionally harmed.

that's never been my way of justification and i hate generalisations, that the majority of smokers blah blah coming from non smokers,
i think ye ott. i don't want to do ye harm but we all get harmed from things in the air but we put up with these. smoke is one of them. maybe not the most damaging of them but we get on with it.




Absolutely.



But there's my point; that the smokers make the bit in between f***ing miserable.

the plumes of smoke from folks fags make yer life miserable, ott. i don't see misery in that. lifes great don't let the small things bother ye.

by the way i'm a smoker who's quitting as i don't particularly enjoy it so much.
anyhoos i now see how ridiculous this thread is and not really helpful. i just got riled by the attitude towards smokers. nasty stuff. and some from the smokers too.
!!!!!! attitudes towards others does more harm than smoking in my eyes.
extreme views from boths poles are the cancer. seeds of hate.

hartcjhart

Anthillmob wrote: »

and just to totally !!!! you off i smkoked when i was pregnant with both my kids and they are fine, both good birth weights etc etc.

come on, tell me i bred a couple of defective children. are you going to say my kids occasionally misbehave because i smoked.

are you also from the no-smacking brigade and would rather see little 'jimmy' [for arguments sake] stick his fingers in a dangerous socket [i have socket covers, just using this as an example] or the short sharp shock treatment as opposed to the voltage shock treatment?

i do what i want when i want because I CAN. i wont be bleated to by do-gooders and the like.

whats wrong with thi9s country is the involvement of do-gooders telling all and sundry how one should behave and how one should bring up their kids and now we are overrun with unruly little !!!!!!.

Well said girl:beer:

dandare

momoyama wrote: »

Huh?

cash probably, it makes so make thats partly the a reason that it is not illegal.




So, why am I not feeling that on this thread?

dunno, you'd have to tell us why yer not feeling it.




I think you've missed some words here? Your logic is flawed by the notion that the non-smokers are just asking to not be "done unto". We arn't asking that you stop smoking, just that you allow us our freedom. You are asking for the right to do us harm.

i get yer not asking folk to stop smoking but to allow you yer freedom, which does sound a bit extreme yer FREEDOM, seriously? ye think yer having yer freedom is restricted by smokers? if that's how ye feel then so by it. just sounds a bit ott to me.



I am indeed attached. And yes, I probably would. But as (in my oppinion) she's the most wonderful person on the face of the planet, I know that she wouldn't do that, knowing my feelings on the subject (which, BTW, she shares).

ye'd give up on the love and happiness ye share with this person and i assume intend to spend yer days with given how fondly ye write of her because of fags, sounds a bit much. that there is a shame.



Yes, but the justification of the majority of smokers on here is purely "because we can, and f*** the rest of you". I'm not being selfish in that I'm not trying to deny you any right, other than the right-to-do-me-harm. You on the other hand, are denying me the right to not be intentionally harmed.

that's never been my way of justification and i hate generalisations, that the majority of smokers blah blah coming from non smokers,
i think ye ott. i don't want to do ye harm but we all get harmed from things in the air but we put up with these. smoke is one of them. maybe not the most damaging of them but we get on with it.




Absolutely.



But there's my point; that the smokers make the bit in between f***ing miserable.

the plumes of smoke from folks fags make yer life miserable, ott. i don't see misery in that. lifes great don't let the small things bother ye.

by the way i'm a smoker who's quitting as i don't particularly enjoy it so much.
anyhoos i now see how ridiculous this thread is and not really helpful. i just got riled by the attitude towards smokers. nasty stuff. and some from the smokers too.
!!!!!! attitudes towards others does more harm than smoking in my eyes.
extreme views from boths poles are the cancer. seeds of hate.

hartcjhart

momoyama wrote: »

Because most of what I do in life isn't available at night. Common sense. And the counter is I should be allowed "to do what the !!!! like when like [any time]".

I agree totally with your counter:beer: