Nice People Thread Number 11 - A Treasury of Nice People

Doozergirl

PasturesNew wrote: »

Smoking, drugs, alcohol ..... if you have to do one of them, most people choose booze.... so why is choosing smoking so bad?

It's all bad but I think maximum lung capacity is essential for an athlete!

vivatifosi

Well, hopefully you'll have plenty to celebrate in the Commonwealth Games. You have a clutch of good Scots there, plus there will likely be some surprise victories by people who get an extra boost from the home soil advantage (the same as team GB did at the Olympics).

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PasturesNew wrote: »

Smoking, drugs, alcohol ..... if you have to do one of them, most people choose booze.... so why is choosing smoking so bad?

I think a lot of non-smokers don't really get how pleasant smoking is for smokers maybe?

So they see all the harm and no benefits?

On the scale of medical harm, smoking is worse for you than all but the heaviest booze consumption, and both booze and smokes are significantly worse for your health than most illegal drugs.

But society's attitude towards deciding which of these things will be legal/illegal has never really been very grounded. A lot of hysteria out there.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

Well, hopefully you'll have plenty to celebrate in the Commonwealth Games. You have a clutch of good Scots there, plus there will likely be some surprise victories by people who get an extra boost from the home soil advantage (the same as team GB did at the Olympics).

Yes, we'll likely do alright there.

vivatifosi

Doozergirl wrote: »

It's all bad but I think maximum lung capacity is essential for an athlete!

That's the key thing in the Rooney instance.

Whether people smoke or not is entirely up to them, but in the case of athletes it detracts from peak physical fitness and ultimately their earning potential. Perhaps if he wasn't as wealthy as Croesus, Rooney would concern himself with that a bit more.

In terms of Hamish's point, it's up to people whether or not they want to smoke, but it is thoroughly unpleasant to be around smoke in a confined space if you don't smoke. As a more or less non-drinker, I don't much like being around lots of drunk people in a confined space either.

michaels

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, we'll likely do alright there.

Is it likely that Scotland will finish above England in the medal table? A shot in the arm for your favourite independence movement?!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

Is it likely that Scotland will finish above England in the medal table? A shot in the arm for your favourite independence movement?!

A good result for team Scotland is one of the risk factors being considered. That an unusually good outcome may spur a misguided and emotional surge of patriotic pride that the nats can exploit right before the referendum.

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A good result for team Scotland is one of the risk factors being considered. That an unusually good outcome may spur a misguided and emotional surge of patriotic pride that the nats can exploit right before the referendum.

Interesting point. Hadn't thought about that. I've also just heard on Sunday Politics a pov that if England do well in the World Cup it will lead to more votes for the yes campaign.

Sport and politics are strange bedfellows (if you're not Seb Coe).

tomterm8

PasturesNew wrote: »

Smoking, drugs, alcohol ..... if you have to do one of them, most people choose booze.... so why is choosing smoking so bad?

Footballers are paid a lot of money to be as fit as possible, so shouldn't do any of them (although, booze in moderation isn't actually bad for you - a glass of wine a week, say, may actually improve your health.)

vivatifosi wrote: »

I've also just heard on Sunday Politics

Tsk, tsk...

Seriously, if Scottish people are dumb enough to vote based upon their results in the commonwealth games then it's a pretty good thing if they vote to go.

I don't think they are.

It'll probably come down to whether they think they (as individuals) will be better off in the Union or out of it.

Generali

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I think a lot of non-smokers don't really get how pleasant smoking is for smokers maybe?


So they see all the harm and no benefits?

On the scale of medical harm, smoking is worse for you than all but the heaviest booze consumption, and both booze and smokes are significantly worse for your health than most illegal drugs.

As an ex-smoker, IMHO the enjoyment of smoking is almost entirely grounded in the removal of withdrawal symptoms. I can't think of a single positive thing that I miss about smoking.

Smoking is very bad for individuals. Financially it's great for non-smokers as smokers tend not to claim the pension for very long, they pay significant amounts of extra tax and smokers tend to die from chronic illnesses that kill them quite quickly and thus cheaply. IIRC a smoker has an even money chance of dying from smoking. By comparison you have about a 0.5% chance of dying in an accident related to driving, cycling or crossing the road.

During my trips to the Alps I once had a thought. You see quite a few 80 year olds riding bicycles up mountains but you don't see many 80 year old smokers. I was still smoking at the time.

I'm a great believer in freedom of choice so long as your exercise of that choice doesn't harm anyone else. If someone wants to smoke or take heroin or coke then good for them.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But society's attitude towards deciding which of these things will be legal/illegal has never really been very grounded. A lot of hysteria out there.

I read a claim as a student that the drugs that were banned in the 1870s health craze were those taken by the working class. Middle class drugs (booze and tobacco) were kept legal.

Drug addiction, IMHO, should be treated as a medical problem not a legal one. People should be treated for their addictions and helped rather than slung in prison for having a mental illness.