Puff Puff - Over 18's only now

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by Keerin

Brian - I knew you wouldn't agree with me on that. Who's job is it to stop people doing stupid things if it isn't the governments? people can only be personally responsible up to a point. A lot of people are so addicted that they couldn't even think about seriously quitting. As well as that, many, many people refuse, claiming it is their right to smoke if they wish. This attitude condemns the health of others, leaving our health in the selfish hands of people who take up this stance.

It's up to the individual not to do stupid things that are unhealthy for them, not the government. Adults have responsibility for their own actions.

The government has no business interfering with people's personal lives in this way. If someone wants to kill themselves with smoking, then that's their personal choice, and their right. It's not for the government to dictate what people can and can't do with their bodies.

We live in a free society, not a dictatorship. In a free society, people will do things you don't like, things that you don't approve of, things that cause themselves harm. That's the beauty of a free society.

Originally Posted by Keerin

If you were to inject the contents of one cigarette into your body as you would heroin, you would die within 20 mins...

That doesn't really say much though. I imagine you'd probably die pretty quickly if you injected the contents of a bottle of spring water into your body. You'd most definitely die if you injected yourself with air.

Originally Posted by Keerin

It's not about what is unhealthy for you, it's about what is un-natural for us to do.

What exactly is natural for us to do, and why is doing un-natural things bad?

Is landing on the moon natural? Is using a computer natural? Is using anti-biotics to cure someone of an infection that would have killed them 100 years ago, natural? Is using technology to save the life of a premature baby natural?

War is most definitely natural, it's natural behaviour for our species to fight over territory. Is war then a good thing?

Actually, since human beings are a part of nature, isn't anything that human beings tend to do, natural?

[Keerin]

But like I said, it is not only themselves they are harming. Although the damage done to the environment through smoking has not been conclusively proven we all now know the dangers and effects passive smoking has upon other people, especially children.

A smokers right to smoke in public should never infringe on the non-smokers right NOT to smoke, even passivey(sp?). That is just not right and where the government HAS to step in.

In fairness, they made an attempt with the new laws about smoking in public places, but they can only be effective up to a point. I mean, if I want to go into a pub I have to fight my way through the crowd of smokers at the door and if I don't want to go into a pub but I have to pass one (as I do every night coming home from work) I have to pass through a crowd of people smoking!

[Keerin]

Originally Posted by humndislocation

That doesn't really say much though. I imagine you'd probably die pretty quickly if you injected the contents of a bottle of spring water into your body. You'd most definitely die if you injected yourself with air.

Of course, I was just highlighting why this method of consumption is not used and the toxicity (of our city, of our ciiiiity! haha) of one cigarette, of how bad it is for your body. demonstrating that inhaling that shite just makes the effects more visible in the long term reather than the short term.

Breathing and drinking are completely natural actions for a human to perform so we don't need to invent ways in which to do these.

[humndislocation]

Originally Posted by Keerin

But like I said, it is not only themselves they are harming. Although the damage done to the environment through smoking has not been conclusively proven we all now know the dangers and effects passive smoking has upon other people, especially children.

A smokers right to smoke in public should never infringe on the non-smokers right NOT to smoke, even passivey(sp?). That is just not right and where the government HAS to step in.

Now, there I would agree. I just don't agree it should go as far as banning smoking. If someone has children, they shouldn't be smoking in the house. I also agree with the smoking ban in pubs and clubs for the reasons you said.

Originally Posted by Keerin

In fairness, they made an attempt with the new laws about smoking in public places, but they can only be effective up to a point. I mean, if I want to go into a pub I have to fight my way through the crowd of smokers at the door and if I don't want to go into a pub but I have to pass one (as I do every night coming home from work) I have to pass through a crowd of people smoking!

I don't really see that as being much of a problem. The amount of smoke you would inhale when passing through the smokers, in the outside air, is pretty negligable in my opinion.

[ArchFlameTera]

Money is an excuse. well it is for the government! But saying that i wonder how much money is spent from treating patients with smoking related illness...

The point about passive smoking is a good one, and there is very little anyone could do to stop that happening. You could ban them altogether or ban smoking in all public places completley (which could happen possibley sometime, unlikely but imn10 years you never know)

anyway fags will defintley not be banned. Its complete madness when you think about it, most bad things have a good edge to them

ie

booze has "social qualities" (hahah get drunk)
unhealthy food tastes good
but smoking, really has no plus points.

i smoked when i was 14-16 but stopped. I still use baccy for a spliff though. a few times when ive been drunk and smoked a fag by stupidity the next day, the taste in my mouth is so bad i feel like washing my mouth out with soap!

[Keerin]

Natural behaviour:

Of course, you can argue that humans have no innate "nature" to fall back on but to be honest I don't know enough about that stance yet to argue it's truth.

What I will try to argue here is my beliefs on how I try (and will try) to live my life and my reasons for them (with regards to smoking and natural behaviour). I will try to justify myself and my views. I'm, not saying "these are my views and they are right because they are mine".

Is landing on the moon natural? Is using a computer natural? Is using anti-biotics to cure someone of an infection that would have killed them 100 years ago, natural? Is using technology to save the life of a premature baby natural?

yes, yes, debatable, debatable

From what I've read of your views in previous posts I'm going to assume you are in favour of Darwin's evolution theory. I am too. I think this is one truth we can give ourselves as being universal. Some do not accept it, but they are in the minority.

Darwin's evolution is natural, I believe. I also believe that humans are also naturally curious. As far back as human history goes people have asked question of our origins and of distant lands etc. From this I conclude that landing on the moon is natural and using a computer is natural.

Anti biotics and saving the life of a premature baby is a completely different thread, completely different discussion. I cannot say whether each is right or wrong, but neither is natural, if you agree that Darwin's evolution is natural. There is so much more you could add here about anti biotics causing diseases (that would have died out naturally as our immune system got used to them) to mutate and become resistant to all forms of defence, giving rise to "superbugs" etc etc. With regards to saving the premature baby there is things to be ascertained, such as why was it premature, will it have a life if it is saved or is it just giving the parents false hope. There are things you have to take into account to see whether it is right or not, but in answer to your query, this is both natural and unnatural in that interfering with nature is (in my eyes) unnatural (saying that, it may be something unnatural which has caused the premature birth, cigarettes maybe? or pesticises, or asbestos, can't think of a relevant "thing" but hopefully you get what I mean by this), but it is natural to want to save the child and to use any means neccesary to do so. It is also natural that someone (or a group of people) will want to create something to save the life of future children, going back to my comments about curiosity being natural.

When I talked about something not being natural I was specifically talking about the things we consume; food, drink and drugs, but you could also take on board the air we breathe as well, for arguments sake

Our body is only intended to do certain things and to digest certain things. For example, we, as a species are predominant omnivores, who occasionally ate meat. We have a mid sized intestine that is designed to process mainly vegeation and fruit, for example. On the other hand, the only living mammals that can digest seeds and grains are birds (ignore that birds may/may not be mammals!). The effects of not following a natural diet for centuries are slowly coming to the surface, and a lot of people are slowly realising that the only way to proper health is through following a natural diet.

Just because something grows naturally does not mean that it is natural to consume it. Tobacco for example, when chewed (different preperation method than smoking tobacco) is sweet and is not reported to have any effect on the health of the user, other than spitting lots, whereas smoking tobacco tastes quite bad, doesn't smell nice and has well known, well researched effect on the human body which has been well documented and are well known.

I've completely lost my train of thought so I'll stop there.

*edit*

Originally Posted by humndislocation

I don't really see that as being much of a problem. The amount of smoke you would inhale when passing through the smokers, in the outside air, is pretty negligable in my opinion.

It's not about the smoke I inhale, in that situation. That was me just moaning. It smells horrible and makes me smell horrible. Smoking shouldn't be socially acceptable as it is just now and walking through a cloud of smoke makes me feel unsociable as I smell.

[Keerin]

Originally Posted by ArchFlameTera

Money is an excuse. well it is for the government! But saying that i wonder how much money is spent from treating patients with smoking related illness...

The point about passive smoking is a good one, and there is very little anyone could do to stop that happening. You could ban them altogether or ban smoking in all public places completley (which could happen possibley sometime, unlikely but imn10 years you never know)

anyway fags will defintley not be banned. Its complete madness when you think about it, most bad things have a good edge to them

ie

booze has "social qualities" (hahah get drunk)
unhealthy food tastes good
but smoking, really has no plus points.

i smoked when i was 14-16 but stopped. I still use baccy for a spliff though. a few times when ive been drunk and smoked a fag by stupidity the next day, the taste in my mouth is so bad i feel like washing my mouth out with soap!

I know smoking will never get banned, but I'd prefer it if it was. haha.

plus points for smoking:

Money
Helps relax people, both in a social scenario (can go out for a fag and talk to people more freely) and in private, when a mum is stressed, for example.

[ArchFlameTera]

Originally Posted by Keerin

plus points for smoking:

Money
Helps relax people, both in a social scenario (can go out for a fag and talk to people more freely) and in private, when a mum is stressed, for example.

nah i was talking about the plus points to the average smoker, so money is a bad point because they have to pay over the odds for fags (in this country anyway) all the time

and it wouldnt be relaxing if you hadnt started. and to be honest, in my smoking experience there has probably only been 2 times were smoking has relaxed me. probably just me but 1 relaxing fag per year of smoking isnt worth it! Ive been trying to get my girlfriend to stop smoking for agessss because she spends so much on fags, etc. i even placed a bet with her once because she said she would stop. after about a month, i won the bet. And even though it was an extra tenner for me it really annoyed me, because a month of not smoking and your pretty much home free im led to believe. mayve even less than that. i stopped smoking instantly, but then again i only smoked for 2 years.

[Keerin]

I was meaning money in taxes for the government...! sorry, shoulda specified that!

Plus the relaxing thing was from my mum saying she only enjoyed her fags when she was upset or stressed (or in pain from her spina bifida(sp?)) but I accept what you saying.

[ArchFlameTera]

ive got no doubt in my mind whatsoever that a lot of smokers find smoking relaxing. for sure. but, this would defintley not be the case if they had not started smoking in the first place! Its only relaxing because your feeding your nicotine addiction!

[scottyboy]

i'd be happy if they extended the existing ban to all public places. bus stations in particular it's still hard to avoid breathing passive smoke.