Smoking ban

Profanity

The Post Master
Jul 3, 2003
32,140
349
83
41
Manchester, England, UK
I believe the smoking ban is a violation of human rights (Human Rights Act 1998).

Smokers are being discriminated against in the same way black people used to be. They are not allowed to smoke in buildings or very shortly in outdoor locations, a lot of employers won't employ smokers, lots of people won't allow smokers into their friendship group and what is all this based on?

Surely it is an individuals own choice whether they want to indulge in a habit which will kill THEM early, especially considering that the elderly are costing the government £22billion a year with that figure rising as people are living longer. People choose to drive, knowing how dangerous the roads are. I hear about at least 5 accidents per day on the M60(Manchester ring road) alone and RTA's are thought to kill 23,000 people per year.

The effects of passive smoking have been somewhat exagerated. I have carefully analysed much of the data and a large number of studies were correlational which means there's no cause and effect, so these studies are scientifically invalid. Other studies have exposed participants to 60 times the normal concentration of smoke in a pub for 6 weeks only to find a difference in blood readings. I hardly think this is substantial evidence to warrant a ban, yet the government have successfully sent out the message that smoking is as bad as murder.

Discuss.

ps - don't use the argument that you choose to smoke but don't choose what race you are because the 3 main religions of the world are supposedly peacful and are largely down to faith which means that you are not forced to join those religions, so like whether a person chooses whether or not to smoke, they choose their religion.
 
I don't smoke.

Are you Doogie Howser ? :rofl:

doogie-howser-kiss.jpg



Profanity said:
The effects of passive smoking have been somewhat exagerated. I have carefully analysed much of the data and a large number of studies were correlational which means there's no cause and effect, so these studies are scientifically invalid.
 
Profanity said:
I believe the smoking ban is a violation of human rights (Human Rights Act 1998).

Smokers are being discriminated against in the same way black people used to be. They are not allowed to smoke in buildings or very shortly in outdoor locations, a lot of employers won't employ smokers, lots of people won't allow smokers into their friendship group and what is all this based on?

Surely it is an individuals own choice whether they want to indulge in a habit which will kill THEM early, especially considering that the elderly are costing the government £22billion a year with that figure rising as people are living longer. People choose to drive, knowing how dangerous the roads are. I hear about at least 5 accidents per day on the M60(Manchester ring road) alone and RTA's are thought to kill 23,000 people per year.

The effects of passive smoking have been somewhat exagerated. I have carefully analysed much of the data and a large number of studies were correlational which means there's no cause and effect, so these studies are scientifically invalid. Other studies have exposed participants to 60 times the normal concentration of smoke in a pub for 6 weeks only to find a difference in blood readings. I hardly think this is substantial evidence to warrant a ban, yet the government have successfully sent out the message that smoking is as bad as murder.


\

you cant really compare smoking to the way black people use to be treated. i dont see "smokers only" water fountians or anything like that. sure you may not be allowed to smoke in buildings or some restaunts but that is just an inconvince...you are still allowed in it. and as for people not wanting smokers in a friendship circle or whatever....those people dont really like you for you...and as for not being allowed to smoke in some outdoor places is just to try to make everyone happy. as for employers not hireing smokers....i am like in charge of empolyment at my work and smoking has nothing to do with being employed. its not even a question brought up. if you do whatever if you dont whatever...

and you cant compare smoking to driving. a car is going to do awhole lot more damage to you than a cigrette.

stop compareing smoking to other things......
 
I once drank a large bottle of Tequila and got taken home by the police. As I was walking to the police car I kept pulling the police over I was that drunk. It was a funny experience.
 
-[chop]- said:
I only smoke when im drunk ^^

I'm the opposite. When i'm drunk all I can taste in my mouth is alcohol and the only effects I can feel are drunkeness. Usually when I smoke I get a nice calming sensation at the same time as getting a buzz from the increased alertness.
 
Profanity said:
I'm the opposite. When i'm drunk all I can taste in my mouth is alcohol and the only effects I can feel are drunkeness. Usually when I smoke I get a nice calming sensation at the same time as getting a buzz from the increased alertness.

hehe i see...so you dont smoke at all when your drinking?
 
Nerve said:
Health probs

which mean stays in hospital, which means being fed, bathed e.t.c by sexy nurses and living in a luxury hotel (almost).

but before that you get the benefits from the naughty element (smoking where there's no smoking signs), the high from the nicotine rush on the first cig' of the day, the calming/lertness which each cigarette brings, it's something to do while waiting e.t.c.
 
Not really :lol:
Just the interdiction to smoke anything on risk of death. I had an accident a few years ago, since then I can't smoke anymore.

I used to smoke pot sometimes (4 or 5 in a month, nothing crazy) and I miss it now, but I never catched on cigs. Useless, and expensive.