Smokers...grrrr

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:46 PM

When you talk about products with addictive principles, for children, is there really ever a choice once you start?

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:47 PM

Quote:

But you don't have to eat junk food, if eating was the primary concern there are much better alternatives then cake and ice cream.

Junk food is about self indulgence; we all know junk food is bad for us, but we eat it anyway, smokers know smoking is bad for them, they do it anyway.

You are still missing the point entirely. THE INTENT OF FOOD IS NOT TO KILL YOU. Cigarettes are the opposite. You do realize that many people that die in home fires die from the smoke, not the fire, right? Smoke = death. Period.

Quote:

You can get addicted to sugar, caffeine, nicotine, alcohol.

Sugar? Addicted physically? Are you sure about that?

Quote:

How many people die due to heart attack because they didn't have healthy eating habits?

Missing the point, again. ANYTHING can kill you in excess - even oxygen. But you need oxygen to live. You need food to live, and can live off of junk food. You cannot live off of cigarettes - at all.

Quote:

It just, in my mind seems like this topic sort of vilified smokers for smoking and causing harm to themselves; while Mr Big mac is out there clogging arteries.

*I* have not vilified smokers. I even married one.

Quote:

I want to say we all agree that, at this point, with the knowledge available in this day and age, its about personal choice.

Not when the company that creates the product actively, continually lies about it.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:57 PM

Quote:

Fair point, and I am all about education. And if the cigarette companies were even remotely honest about the true nature of their product, I might even agree. But let's not kid ourselves that they have even attempted to be open about what it is they are purveying. They actively lie and adulterate their product to make it extremely difficult to quit, whilst at the same time making an underhanded attempt to lure the only market that does not have the "personal responsibility" to make an informed choice - children.

i dont get it? how do they try and 'indoctrinate' children? I have never seen a modern tobacco advert aimed at kids? In the UK, you are not even allowed to advertise tobacco on TV anymore. There are age restrictions imposed by the govt are their not? these are in place to insure that one has to be of an age deemed sufficient to make a reasoned choice. If tobaco marketing is aimed at adults, and the law makes smoking an adult pastime, yet kids do their utmost to break the law and smoke, then who exactly is to blame? Seeing as how the whole smoking thing is seen by young teenagers as a rite of passage and a way of being 'grown up', then increasing legal age and further emphasising the adult nature of it will a)make kids want to smoke more or b) want to smoke less?

Then add an element of danger and increase its image as anti-social and controversial- its the anti smoking lobby that 'sell' smoking to teenagers, the tobacco companies dont have to do squat.

When I was a kid, they brought out a brand of smokes called 'Death'. Black softpack, with a skull and crossbones on the pack, along with a big sign saying 'smoking kills. period' or something similar. I wouldnt smoke any other brand, and neither would anyone else in my school/college.

Somewhere amongst the cries of 'will nobody save the children!

' you have to remember what being a teenager actually was. We were not wide eyed and innocent- we were rebellious horny lumps of hormonal flesh who wanted to rock and roll

James Dean and Marlon Brando were cool, music was loud and your parents hated it, graduating in your 20's was a lifetime away, and you knew damn well that drink and drugs were not a clever idea- THEY WERE JUST FUN. Thoughts of our own mortality are not a big factor in most young minds, but the knowledge is there- i lost friends and family young, and I think we all understand the concept of death (even if through a family pet).

You see a 18 year old smoking, go tell them its gonna kill them, they will say 'yeah I know' and they do. Push the point and they should tell you to p1ss off- because its their right to harm themselves any damn way they want. Practicing MA is full of physical risk, and at its heart involves learning to inflict as much harm to another human being as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thats how a lobby would picket govt. to ban what we enjoy. They would ignore argument of social and spiritual development, pointing out that such things could be gained through other mediums. 'BAN THE VIOLENCE' would be the cry. How do you feel about that? I would be furious if it was even considered, but the precedent has been set.

On the point of transport- what is 'good' for mankind does not validate it as 'good' for the planet at large. Mankinds discovery of fossil fuel is the single biggest tragedy to befall planet earth in known history.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:57 PM

Quote:

Who judges when someone is responsible enough to make that choice? Do they all of a sudden receive enlightenment from the age of 17 to 18?

OY FACKIN VEY. Spade, do you know what the average age of new smokers is? Do you think kids ages 12-15 are responsible enough to make that choice? You are trying to put an adult face on a trend that starts well before adulthood. Do some research, please.

Posted by: Spade

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 05:22 PM

Quote:

You are still missing the point entirely. THE INTENT OF FOOD IS NOT TO KILL YOU. Cigarettes are the opposite.

I have a feeling that cigarette companies have a slight problem with their customers dying off, and not being able to buy more.

Quote:

Sugar? Addicted physically? Are you sure about that?

Yeah, from my personal experience anyway.

Quote:

OY FACKIN VEY. Spade, do you know what the average age of new smokers is? Do you think kids ages 12-15 are responsible enough to make that choice? You are trying to put an adult face on a trend that starts well before adulthood. Do some research, please.

Go ask some 12-15 year old kids if they know that smoking is bad for them.

Yes, I do think they are responsible, it is their choice, its not like you are going to stop them if they really want to do it anyway.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 05:43 PM

Quote:

I have a feeling that cigarette companies have a slight problem with their customers dying off, and not being able to buy more.

*whispers* that's why they go after kids.

Quote:

Yeah, from my personal experience anyway.

Ok, thanks.

Quote:

Go ask some 12-15 year old kids if they know that smoking is bad for them.

Sure, no problem. Why don't we ask them if they are ready for sex and pregnancy, too. What about war/turf and killing someone? Shall I go on?

Quote:

Yes, I do think they are responsible, it is their choice, its not like you are going to stop them if they really want to do it anyway.

Sure! It's only an addictive, health-destroying product with no redeeming value whatsoever. And these are teens we're talking about. Everyone knows how level-headed teens are. I know I was! Let's just eliminate all those pesky laws while we're at it. People are gonna do bad stuff anyway, right? Why bother stopping them! What was I thinking.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 05:53 PM

Some valid statements by both parties and it comes down to personal responsibility and choice HOWEVER smoking isn't just harming the smoker, it is harming nonsmokers as well. And also in Canada I am paying for a large amount of smokers who need extra healthcare due to their personal choice. Now the responsibility to take care of these people rests in the hands of people like myself.

Kids know it is wrong, it is drilled in them but as pointed out it is for some a right of passage and they will do it regardless. Things haven't changed much over the years and as you can see on movies and now TV shows, smoking is making a come back. Kids are impressionable and want to appear older and cooler and be accepted. If they hang with a particular group they will more then likely follow that group's choices regardless of knowing it is wrong or right. The manufacturing companies "don't" care and know there will always be somebody else getting addicted ... and they want the youth as they will keep it going. They may not target them directly but they know as we do that is their future.

I'm a nonsmoker and would choose if I could for all to be nonsmokers and live longer healthier lives. I don't necessarily respect smokers choices but I will accept that I cannot change them and I will not try; especially since I have friends and family that smoke. I do however wish that I could walk into a building without smelling smoke or stand beside some stinky smoker but that isn't my choice ... I just wish others wouldn't take my choices away from me.

Posted by: Spade

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 06:16 PM

Quote:

*whispers* that's why they go after kids.

I haven't seen evidence of this in my youth.

Quote:

Sure, no problem. Why don't we ask them if they are ready for sex and pregnancy, too. What about war/turf and killing someone? Shall I go on?

Not too long ago young woman got married at the age of 13. At the age of 17 you can be in the military, I don't see such a huge gap between 15-17 in terms of "killing someone".

It only seems recently that we have this idea that "children" aren't fit to be responsible for themselves, and if you don't let them, then of course they wont be.

Quote:

And also in Canada I am paying for a large amount of smokers who need extra healthcare due to their personal choice. Now the responsibility to take care of these people rests in the hands of people like myself.

At least in the USA, smokers are taxed.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 06:29 PM

Quote:

And also in Canada I am paying for a large amount of smokers who need extra healthcare due to their personal choice. Now the responsibility to take care of these people rests in the hands of people like myself.

In the UK, it is estimated that smoking related illness costs the NHS 3 billion pounds a year. Taxation on tobacco generates 10 billion pounds a year. Smokers pay for the healthcare of non smokers.

Remember, I am not pro smoking, but propaganda goes both ways. Choosing to believe one sides propaganda over another does not create truth.

Now lets fast forward 10 years, to when the anto smoking campaigners inevitably win out and smoking is illegal. like heroin. like marijuana. like cocaine. like prostitution. like murder.

Making something illegal does not make it vanish. Narcotics do not enjoy advertising rights to young or old, they have no official distribution centres, no wide public acceptance. They are still all pervasive in society. If you think cigarettes are dangerous now, wait till they are black market only!

i remember smoking canabis resin that was cut with engine oil- I was sick for a week. Would I have been so ill if I could have made a choice to put my health at risk and been able to buy pure, regulated marijuana?

Who knows. One thing I do know is that I have spent more of my life with self ingested toxins flying around my body than without, and if that comes back to bite me on the ass in the future, it will be my fault and no one elses. I decided at the time that the pleasure I experienced from substances was more important than my health and longevity, no one made that decision for me.

Culturaly, the need to attribute blame away from the self for self destructive activity is very strong. We are predominantly a christian society, and suicide- slow or fast is a mortal sin. Also, the idea that some people simply dont rate this existance as so wonderful as to stretch their time out in it is never a happy thought. These two issues make it only too easy for the families of those who self harm with substances to divert the blame from the afflicted to 'peer pressure', 'advertising', 'whatever'.

Our whole society wants the individual to be blame free. Columbine- do we blame the kids with the guns? No. Do we blame the school culture and systematic ostracisation of those who do not 'fit in' that lead to their anger? No. We Blame Maralyn Manson and Charlton Heston

PERSONAL.RESPONSIBILITY.IS.EVERYTHING

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 09:22 PM

Spade -

Quote:

I haven't seen evidence of this in my youth.

It's not overt - legally, it can't be. But they are doing it just the same, it's quite obvious.

Quote:

Not too long ago young woman got married at the age of 13. At the age of 17 you can be in the military, I don't see such a huge gap between 15-17 in terms of "killing someone".

What about 12 and 17. Still not a big deal? So you have no problem with youth gangs shooting it out because someone with the wrong shirt color came down the street?

And the 13 year old brides? They were not getting married willingly, and no one thinks that was a good practice. Or do you?

Pretty sure that's why you have to 18 to get married now.

Quote:

It only seems recently that we have this idea that "children" aren't fit to be responsible for themselves, and if you don't let them, then of course they wont be.

Hmmm.......perhaps you need to read up a bit on "recent" history to see why this attitude has come about. You don't really seem to understand how destructive child labor, marriage, and military action really is. There are reasons why this stuff has been outlawed in modern society. But I suppose since you think you "haven't seen evidence of this in my youth" that everything could be OK with that stuff now. Unfortunately, you are making my point for me in stereotypical teenage fashion.

Cord -

Quote:

In the UK, it is estimated that smoking related illness costs the NHS 3 billion pounds a year. Taxation on tobacco generates 10 billion pounds a year. Smokers pay for the healthcare of non smokers.

They do this in the US as well, and for more things than just health care. Frankly, I disagree with it. If we are trying to eradicate smoking, then why make smoking a tax base for something else? If you remove smoking, then where does the money come from? Can't have it both ways. Poor policy, IMHO.

Quote:

Now lets fast forward 10 years, to when the anto smoking campaigners inevitably win out and smoking is illegal. like heroin. like marijuana. like cocaine. like prostitution. like murder.

I think that this is an appropriate analogy, as cigarettes as similar to other drugs in the sense that they have no other redeeming value. Hell, you can make a better case for marijuana, which has shown some benefit for certain medical treatments and conditions. Who has been helped by cigarettes? Oh right, the corporate whores that own the companies.

Quote:

Making something illegal does not make it vanish. Narcotics do not enjoy advertising rights to young or old, they have no official distribution centres, no wide public acceptance. They are still all pervasive in society. If you think cigarettes are dangerous now, wait till they are black market only! i remember smoking canabis resin that was cut with engine oil- I was sick for a week. Would I have been so ill if I could have made a choice to put my health at risk and been able to buy pure, regulated marijuana?

I do not have an opinion on government regulated drug trade yet.

Quote:

Our whole society wants the individual to be blame free. Columbine- do we blame the kids with the guns? No. Do we blame the school culture and systematic ostracisation of those who do not 'fit in' that lead to their anger? No. We Blame Maralyn Manson and Charlton Heston

PERSONAL.RESPONSIBILITY.IS.EVERYTHING

Again Cord, I would agree with you if we were talking about an adult situation with adults - but it's not. When you thrust addictive and harmful substances at an uninformed part of the public (beginning smokers are typically 11-17 years old), you cannot in good faith rely on their sense of personal responsibility. This is not like the 7 year old that burns his hand on a boiling pot of water in the kitchen. He is not ADDICTED to grabbing burning things, and will learn immediately to refrain from doing so in the future.

Cigarettes are much less obvious in their damage, and much more difficult to break the habit once begun. Don't show kids the cool ads with laughing, beautiful people in sexy places doing sexy things. Show them my mother - long term smoker who's teeth are almost completely gone, bones so brittle than she has broken her back 3 times from walking, and such horrible lung function that she can barely get from one room to the next without having to take a break in between. But they won't show you that sh1t, will they?

Posted by: Spade

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 10:48 PM

Quote:

It's not overt - legally, it can't be. But they are doing it just the same, it's quite obvious.

could I get an example?

Quote:

What about 12 and 17. Still not a big deal? So you have no problem with youth gangs shooting it out because someone with the wrong shirt color came down the street?

I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

Quote:

And the 13 year old brides? They were not getting married willingly, and no one thinks that was a good practice. Or do you?

Pretty sure that's why you have to 18 to get married now.

You can get married younger than 18 if you have parental consent.

I'm not saying that its a good idea, I am saying that our view of "children" has radically changed. Pre-arranged marriage has been common throughout history.

From when I was 14 to 15 I was a swimming instructor at a boy scout camp for 6 weeks during the summer, it was the only job I could get at the time, and I did just fine.

I had plenty of people offer me cigarettes and playboy while working, I rejected their offer... But I must not have known what I was doing since I was only 14, just blind luck I guess.

After that I would work in someones yard on Saturdays to make money.

I was born with a cleff lip and palate. I've had eight Reconstruction surgery's.

I can go through all that, but I'm not "responsible" enough to understand if I should smoke or not.

I lost my little brother when I was 8 due to him having rocky mountain spotted fever; leg and finger amputations, brain damaged and blind.

I helped take care of him until he died, but evidently I'm not "responsible" enough to decide If I can smoke or not.

when you are 16 you are allowed to drive a car, but not smoke? You can do way more damage in a car then you can smoking.

Posted by: rideonlythelabel

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 12:09 AM

All you anti-smokers, you all sound like sociologists. You're sucking the life out of smoking, saying it has no value whatsoever. Truth is, smoking is fun. I love smoking. That's where it's values lies; pleasure. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yet I smoke about 10 cigarettes a week. Chain smoking doesn't exactly fit in with my plans of living to a ripe old age.

As somebody pointed out; toxicity lies in the dose, not in the substance. Cyanide in very small doses is harmless. Too much water will kill you from potassium deficiency.

Quote:

I would if car related carcinogens were killing my family members

Sounds like somebody has never been in a big city on a hot and humid summer day.

Quote:

And also in Canada I am paying for a large amount of smokers who need extra healthcare due to their personal choice.

Cigarettes (at least in Canada) are so over taxed that smokers pay for their own deaths. Knowing lots of people who work in hospitals, I know that the 1 million or whatever figure for every lung cancer is way exagerated. Lots of people get diagnosed with cancer after it's too late to do anything, so they all they get is a bed to die in, and a lot of morphine. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Oh, and if I hear one more people bitching about the effect of cigarettes on non-smokers before driving out in his SUV, I will punch him in the throat.

Oh, but wait, you NEED an SUV to drive your two kids around, right?

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 01:04 AM

Quote:

I think that this is an appropriate analogy, as cigarettes as similar to other drugs in the sense that they have no other redeeming value. Hell, you can make a better case for marijuana, which has shown some benefit for certain medical treatments and conditions.

Marijuana is a carcinogen, ask Bob Marley- oh hang on, you cant- He died due to smoking it.
A lot of medicines have potentialy lethal side effects, and mary-jane is one of them. Got MS or parkinsons? life quality impaired by nervous tremors and poor muscle control? Smoking this might help. Of course you increase your risk of cancer as a side effect, but the immediate effect will be increased quality of life through symptom control. That is a personal risk assessment- quality over possible shortening of expectancy.

Quote:

Who has been helped by cigarettes?

Me. They made me happy. i enjoyed them. The recent ban on smoking in public buildings (pubs,clubs, restaurants etc) has led to a 'pavement culture' in Britain. There are coutless stories of smokers bonding and forging social links in the face of persecution, hell, even relationships being forged from the social aspect of smoking. first thing I asked my wife when we first met was 'want a smoke?' as an ice breaker. What if I hadnt found anything to say (unlikely I know

)

If we are going to quantify validity of personal activity based on ratio of risk to benefit, lets start banning some other stuff while we are at it eh?

Skiing, scuba, skydiving, bungee jumping, motorcycle riding, MARTIAL ARTS, NFL rules, Rugby, Ice Hockey, gymnastics, free running, rock climbing, horse riding etc, etc, etc.

All the above pose high levels of risk, and serve no other purpose when done in leisure time than to provide pleasure.
Why are they acceptable when your criteria is applied? Because you want them to be?

1 in 10 smokers die every year. That means that 9/10 smokers are gonna be alive next christmas- thats not bad odds.

Quote:

Again Cord, I would agree with you if we were talking about an adult situation with adults - but it's not. When you thrust addictive and harmful substances at an uninformed part of the public (beginning smokers are typically 11-17 years old)

North american kids are either dumb, or choosing to ignore what they know regarding smoking. I knew damn well that smoking is bad from a very young age, and so does every kid- THATS A BIG PART OF WHY WHY THEY DO IT

Quote:

you cannot in good faith rely on their sense of personal responsibility. This is not like the 7 year old that burns his hand on a boiling pot of water in the kitchen. He is not ADDICTED to grabbing burning things, and will learn immediately to refrain from doing so in the future.

Unless he experiences a huge adrenaline/endorphine rush in the aftermath and takes to measured self harm to trigger similar responses. Pain and pleasure receptors are very closely linked.

Quote:

Don't show kids the cool ads with laughing, beautiful people in sexy places doing sexy things. Show them my mother - long term smoker who's teeth are almost completely gone, bones so brittle than she has broken her back 3 times from walking, and such horrible lung function that she can barely get from one room to the next without having to take a break in between. But they won't show you that sh1t, will they?

But school health programmes DO show that sh1t all the time. I remember loads of info videos at school showing some old guy with an oxygen bottle, and then various healthy/unhealthy post autopsy organs to show smoking effects. You know what we all talked about after (whilst having a smoke)- how the owner of the healthy organs used in the pic was still very dead despite not smoking!

Kids aint dumb, they know the risks and take them willingly. Take advertising away and all you will leave is the outrage of parents and society if they are caught smoking, and that is all they want

Posted by: Taison

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 02:19 AM

I smoke alot since I started this job.

I avoid places where a lot of people are at when I do smoke.

I'm starting to hate my job, and have recently taken up smoking to a very large extent.

15-17 cigarettes a day.

I still feel that I'm not close to death. Sigh...

-Taison out

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 08:56 AM

Spade -

Quote:

could I get an example?

Joe Camel. There are plenty of others if you look.

Quote:

You can get married younger than 18 if you have parental consent.

I'm not saying that its a good idea, I am saying that our view of "children" has radically changed. Pre-arranged marriage has been common throughout history.

Again, what is your point? It was a bad idea.....that's why it's not done as much anymore. So bad ideas are OK if it's a tradition?

Quote:

I lost my little brother when I was 8 due to him having rocky mountain spotted fever; leg and finger amputations, brain damaged and blind.

I am deeply sorry about your brother.

Quote:

when you are 16 you are allowed to drive a car, but not smoke? You can do way more damage in a car then you can smoking.

*sigh* Still missing the point, my friend. A cigarette has no other purpose than to kill you - whether you enjoy it or not. Can't say the same for a car.

Ride -

Quote:

Sounds like somebody has never been in a big city on a hot and humid summer day.

Guess you have never been to Baltimore MD, huh? But in any case, you guys are attempting to muddle the point. It is not good logic to associate the ill effects of things that have a benign purpose to things that have NO benign purpose. Can't make it any more clear than that. EVERYTHING has ill effects, but why some people wish to give a pass to things that have no other purpose than harm is beyond me.

Cigarette compaines do not wish to play fair, so I see no reason to treat them fairly.

Cord -

Quote:

Marijuana is a carcinogen

Not if you eat it.

Quote:

A lot of medicines have potentialy lethal side effects, and mary-jane is one of them. Got MS or parkinsons? life quality impaired by nervous tremors and poor muscle control? Smoking this might help. Of course you increase your risk of cancer as a side effect, but the immediate effect will be increased quality of life through symptom control. That is a personal risk assessment- quality over possible shortening of expectancy.

But again, cigarettes have no medicinal or health value, so you can't compare them to any of the other things you just listed.

Quote:

If we are going to quantify validity of personal activity based on ratio of risk to benefit, lets start banning some other stuff while we are at it eh?

Skiing, scuba, skydiving, bungee jumping, motorcycle riding, MARTIAL ARTS, NFL rules, Rugby, Ice Hockey, gymnastics, free running, rock climbing, horse riding etc, etc, etc.

All the above pose high levels of risk, and serve no other purpose when done in leisure time than to provide pleasure.
Why are they acceptable when your criteria is applied? Because you want them to be?

Afraid not. All those things you mentioned have sporting benefits to them - exercise, coordination, etc.......again guys, you cannot compare those things to cigarettes. Cigs have no purpose but to harm you - period. Sorry.

Quote:

kids are either dumb, or choosing to ignore what they know regarding smoking.

Fixed that for you.

Quote:

Unless he experiences a huge adrenaline/endorphine rush in the aftermath and takes to measured self harm to trigger similar responses. Pain and pleasure receptors are very closely linked.

TEE HEE! Now you're reaching, Cord. How often does that happen, compared to the number of kids that get addicted to smoking? Come on, guys!

Quote:

But school health programmes DO show that sh1t all the time.

Let's not change the argument. I was talking about the cigarette companies. They are the ones that lie, not the schools.

Told you all you shouldn't get me started on smoking. And remember, I hate cigarettes - not smokers.

PS - post # 11000 for me.

Posted by: Ed_Morris

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 09:07 AM

http://www.baxleystamps.com/litho/219_gossip-1.shtml

Posted by: grumbleweed

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 12:27 PM

<<Guess you have never been to Baltimore MD, huh?>

Bwaaaaa, positivly arctic compared to bangkok and add to that riding the gauntlet along a busy street on the back of a motorbike taxi around songkran aka thai new year aka looney season. way way WAY more lethal than smoking. fumes, drunk drivers, water cannons and april heat sending everyone nuts!....ask taison

Posted by: Jeff_G

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 04:19 AM

You could say that my first wife quit smoking completely on Saturday, January 2, 1999 at 4:38 pm. That was at UNC Medical Center in Chapel Hill, NC. She smoked from her college days till the age of 43. Even being diagnosed with emphesema couldn't get her to quit.

The facts at the end are way too gory to go into here. Those details will never be heard by my kids. Let's just say that no one should go that way.

Jeff G.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 11:41 AM

My wife just saw this thread, and she is SO irritated with me right now.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 03:28 PM

OK. You are a parent, and you catch your 12 year old kid smoking cigarettes.

do you:
a) discipline them, and tell them why its bad to smoke, and ask them why they have chosen such a dangerous action.
b) sympathise with them about how helpless they are in the grip of 'Joe Camel' and fire off an angry email to the tobacco companies, leaving your child unpunished for their stupidity?

If you ask any kid caught smoking why they are doing it, or how they started, none of them will say 'cuz of all the happy faces in the adverts', they will site peer pressure, the wish to appear more mature, the wish to impress someone they are crushing over, even horror of horrors,just because they like it.

By the time child has reached the age of 12, they have seen 72,000 advertisements. Part of a parents job is to ready their kids for the world they live in. We are happy to tell kids not to trust strangers, not to go off alone, not fool around on frozen lakes, not to run out in the street without looking. Why is it such a stretch in this media saturated world, to tell kids that advertisers lie? is it such a destruction of a childs innocence to explain that people who make money from selling things make the things seem much better than they are, because that makes more people buy it/them?

If you treat kids like they are dumb, they will grow up dumb. You have to instill the concepts of personal choice, and responsibility for their choice, or society is lost.

Last night the boxing was on TV till late, and i had to be up early for work. i had a choice to stay up and watch it, making me tired for work today, or to miss it, get a proper nights rest and be fresh for work.

I chose to watch the boxing, and had a tiring less than marvelous day at work as a result. My choice.
Now if someone had walked into my living room, lectured me on the health hazards of sleep depravation, ripped the remote from my hand switched the tv off as they ordered me to go to sleep, my right to choose would have been destroyed.

It is a downside to a free society people within it are entitled to make life choices that harm themselves, but it IS their choice to do so.

Posted by: grumbleweed

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 03:42 PM

i recall at school when the 'hard' boys of my year smoked it looked to me like they didn't actually take the smoke down into their lungs anyway-just puffed in and out quickly, always looked a bit silly to me. i dont really feel like i missed out on anything 'rock n roll'!

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 06:05 PM

Quote:

a) discipline them, and tell them why its bad to smoke, and ask them why they have chosen such a dangerous action.
b) sympathise with them about how helpless they are in the grip of 'Joe Camel' and fire off an angry email to the tobacco companies, leaving your child unpunished for their stupidity?

Just so everyone knows I'm not a total smothering nanny who does not understand freedom of choice, let me quote myself from earlier:

"While every smoker deserves at least one good hard kick to the crotch for starting........"

Quote:

If you ask any kid caught smoking why they are doing it, or how they started, none of them will say 'cuz of all the happy faces in the adverts', they will site peer pressure, the wish to appear more mature, the wish to impress someone they are crushing over, even horror of horrors,just because they like it.

Not disagreeing with you there at all. But where did they (and their predecessors) get the idea that smoking is "cool" in the first place? You think a 12 year old doesn't want to be like Joe Camel or the Marlboro man? Driving hot cars with hot girls to a hot club or an awesome beach? etc.....

Quote:

Why is it such a stretch in this media saturated world, to tell kids that advertisers lie?

It isn't, but that is only part of the problem with cigarettes. Which brings me to the next point......

Quote:

I chose to watch the boxing, and had a tiring less than marvelous day at work as a result. My choice.
Now if someone had walked into my living room, lectured me on the health hazards of sleep depravation, ripped the remote from my hand switched the tv off as they ordered me to go to sleep, my right to choose would have been destroyed.

I get what you mean there, I do. However, I do not agree with the analogy at all. TV does not come laden with chemicals that will cause you to become addicted to watching it (despite how it seems, LOL). So it's slippery logic IMHO, to pull the "choice" card about an addictive substance. Once you're addicted, choice becomes more theoretical than actionable. And again, I get you that ANYTHING can become addictive. But cigarettes are loaded from the beginning to ensure that outcome. How many 12-15 year olds do you think understand the true nature of addiction? I'm betting not many.

Let me put it to you this way: While I find your "choice"

to quit smoking laudable, how many other smokers do you think can quit as easily? Reams of medical studies would suggest that you are by far the exception to the rule, sadly.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 06:25 PM

Quote:

Not disagreeing with you there at all. But where did they (and their predecessors) get the idea that smoking is "cool" in the first place? You think a 12 year old doesn't want to be like Joe Camel or the Marlboro man? Driving hot cars with hot girls to a hot club or an awesome beach? etc.....

Kids who identify with smoking identify with rebellion- this is where my point about the anti smoking lobby being self defeating in its approach really shows.

more and more smoking is seen as an 'outsider' activity by society at large, this appeals to a certain aspect of hormonal youth. Its the same aspect that made Elvis the king when he swivelled his hips and parents banned their daughters from listening to his records. Its the same aspect that makes them put posters of Brando in 'the wild one' on their walls.
'Joe Camel' is about acceptance in society- its about conformity, spring break in the hamptons, abercrombie and fitch sweaters, and an affluent mainstream life as an accountant for some big corporation.
Thats not what kids who smoke want from from life, or smoking- thats what adults want from life. Kids want a Harley, a backpack and no strings.
Where do kids get the idea that smoking is cool? Sinatra, The man with no name, Snake Pliskin, Jack Kerouac, Slash, James Dean etc etc etc.
The more you tell kids how bad smoking is, how it is dangerous, and the more they see societies disaproval of it, the more they will want to smoke.

Come on, am i the only one here who actually remembers who they were when they were a teenager?!

Posted by: JasonM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 10:23 PM

Cord, I do remember what I was like as a teen. it if funny cuz my wife seems to think I don't remember when i am hard on our kids.

Whew, all these post, with great arguments and viewpoints. I don't even know where to begin.

It seems to me it will come down to personal choice. I try to teach my kids right, wrong but eventually they will have to learn to be an adult on their own. I can't be an adult for them. I am sure my oldest (15) has been offered a smoke, just guessing. I know for sure sex is an active topic in the high school. (gringes)sp Anyway, I feel for the ppl that lost loved ones to smoking and its ill affects. I would probably feel the same way if I lost someone too.

For the parents it is hard to raise our kids when we have soo much against us. I just hope when that choice is made they make the right one.

I have to add, my uncle has smoked probably longer than I have been alive and I am 34. And this man is healthy as an ox. His wife smoke too and has one or two smoking related illness and had a bypass. She quit on the spot. But my uncle can smoke like a chimney and probably live forever. Now that makes me sick, when my Dad, who smoked but quite after 30 yrs died at 66. Okay, maybe I am bitter that my Dad died before my uncle, but I just can't help but feel that way.

When I was a kid I got lucky. My first smoking experience was an awful one. I got so sick that I never touched one for about 5-7 years. Then i went to Korea and smoke just cuz i was in the bars and it felt right to smoke and drink. I dont think I was addicted but just doing it because and probably because everyone else was. I even think I might have been rebelling. Cuz I trained karate and lived healthy for soo long I just said screw it. Luckily that smoking for me lasted only a year and then I put them down for good.

Posted by: grumbleweed

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 02:34 AM

i didn't smoke as a child because not because my folks berated me not too i think because i had respect for them--sounds pompous maybe and i'm not suggesting you didn't respect your folks but its how i was. i'd be mortified if my daughter started smoking at 8 years old, thats just two years away, unthinkable!

Posted by: grumbleweed

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 05:09 AM

its a shame cord you dont show the tolerance towards durian eaters (yes smelly but no toxic smoke staining clothes, furniture etc) i show towards smokers

you nearly blew a gasket and verbally got quite excited towards me when i ate one near you once, i guess its just not rebelious enough indulging in them in your eyes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Singapore_MRT_Fines.jpg

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 06:35 AM

I didnt start smoking when I was 8, i merely stole one of my dads smokes and tried it- i inhaled and didnt cough or splutter, just got a dizzy feeling I liked

It was 12 years old that I started smoking regularly- that was not every day, only once a week, when I went out drinking before the under 16's disco that I was allowed to attend with friends. My parents were very strict, so this taught me to be extra crafty. I learned to smoke the same brand as my parents so they wouldnt smell smoke on me that was different to that drifting through the house, and also made sure that when i was picked up from the disco, that I had a can of Bass Shandy from the vending machine in my hand- thus explaining any hint of alcohol on my breath. I was a junior criminal mastermind

I was 14 before I started smoking on a daily basis, and then maintained that until they quit me when i was 29.

I always have had utmost respect for my parents, but that doesnt mean I didnt want to do my own thing and live my own life just like every forming adult. Part of the fun was the buzz of excitement playing cat and mouse with the rules, and the inherent thrill of 'being naughty'

As for the durian fruit- give me passive smoking to that any day of the week

Posted by: grumbleweed

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 07:17 AM

well another reason i didn't smoke as a nipper.....not enough money

. or did you steal them from the corner shop, i did a bit of shop theft as a horrible little teen, mars bars, twix, topics.....hows that for naughty??!! but honestly i did that about a dozen times in all.....mmmm, what was i saying about respect for my folks

......smokes were always placed well behind the counter to be nicked anyway.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 10:45 AM

Never stole anything. i had a job washing cars and kitchen portering for my parents at our hotel from the age of 10. Plus side was more money than most of my age, down side was no work= no pocket money

Posted by: grumbleweed

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 11:04 AM

oh i had a paper round and did apple picking and strawberry picking when in season but that money went on fishing tackle (my fishing mates now laugh at my prehistoric Mitchell 400 reel i saved for 25 years ago, still going strong now, great french engineering

), yes what a nerd, should have been on getting kicks on liquor and F_A_G_S.....mind you, shoplifting had its kicks particuarly getting away with it

(and doesn't give you cancer or sclarosis of the liver!)

Posted by: jakmak52

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/18/07 05:58 PM

Yes, it's a nasty habit, I've cut down to 3 packs a day

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/19/07 07:01 AM

never tried it, never did see the atraction.

Posted by: NewJitsu

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/19/07 03:52 PM

smoked for 11 years, loved it, but am a stubborn so-an-so and always said I'd quit at 30. which I did. it wasn't easy but it wasn't hard either, going cold turkey. what I resent is the millions of pounds the UK government spends on 'Quit Smoking' clinics and 'free patches'. People, to a certain extent, have to help themselves. Another sign of the nanny state here, where everything is always somebody else's fault. I can't believe that some people are getting ill through smoking and then still trying to plead ignorance to its dangers. Yes, my great grandmother smoked all her life and lived till she was 94; but that argument is so lame. Giving up smoking is the single best thing someone can do for their health.

But I'm with Cord - you can't become a 'hang everyone who smokes' member, as where will personal freedom end? Drinking causes many more problems and burdens on society than smoking. How many times have cigarettes caused assaults, random violence, spousal violence etc? Although I loved smoking, I did give up and do not wish ill or bad feeling to anyone who does decide they want to smoke. No, you shouldn't light up without considering the feelings or health of those next to you, but people should be able to make up their own minds. And here smokers are helping fund our national health service, and if they all quit this country would be in dire straits! That's why the politicians put the prices up every year rather than creating an out-and-out ban. If smoking is that much of an addiction, is a small annual price hike going to make people stop?!

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/19/07 04:32 PM

NewJitsu, I can see your point but I don't agree with drinking causes more problems and burdens then smoking. Smoking kills people every day; drinking doesn't. For those that drink responsibly there is no problems but there is no responsibly amount for smoking; it is all bad to those who smoke, those around them and the environment.

One thing I have noticed, and maybe it is me, many drinkers in bars are also smokers. I've even seen time and time again those that don't regularly smoke as soon as a drink is in their hand that they smoke. So perhaps we can say that those people that cause assaults, random violence, spousal violence, etc. are also smokers. But that would be stretching it and there is no data but it would be interesting to know.

Disclaimer: This is just random thought only.

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 02:36 AM

At what point did non-smokers become absolutely incapable of sharing the planet with smokers? Smokers and non-smokers seem to co-exist in relative peace and harmoney until about 10 years ago. Now whenever someone lights up nonsmokers act like someone just threw and handful of dung at them. I don't smoke, by the way.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 06:24 AM

Quote:

At what point did non-smokers become absolutely incapable of sharing the planet with smokers? Smokers and non-smokers seem to co-exist in relative peace and harmoney until about 10 years ago. Now whenever someone lights up nonsmokers act like someone just threw and handful of dung at them. I don't smoke, by the way.

Since it became evident that non-smokers were dieing from breathing in passive smoke. Just maybe somebody snapped and thought "i'm not takeing this anymore" and everybody else thought "yeah, why should we?".

I worked in a bar for 4 years and I never really thought much of the smoke I just accepted it as thats the way it was now that I see/smell/breathe the difference, I wouldn't take that anymore. Why should I?

Posted by: drgndrew

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 08:26 AM

The difference between a smoker and a non-smoker....... the smoker doesn't care if you smoke.

Nor does he bitch about encroaching his rights to partake in a wholly legal activity, even though they have been discriminated against countless times. far more then that of a non-smoker.

If someone wants to smoke then they should have every right to do so, providing they obey the law.

I don't smoke anymore and haven't for quite a while, but I am still [censored] off at the way I was treated because I chose to smoke.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:38 AM

Quote:

I don't smoke anymore and haven't for quite a while, but I am still [censored] off at the way I was treated because I chose to smoke.

Good.

Smokers can smoke all they want as long as THEIR smokes not wafting in my face.

in the uk.

The real cost of smoking Tobacco use causes about 92000 deaths each year Smoking costs the NHS between £1.4bn and £1.7bn.

so actually that affects ME the taxpayer also

Posted by: jakmak52

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 10:37 AM

I smoke, it's a nasty habit and I'm trying to quit for health reasons and respect for non-smokers. I do not smoke in my house, in front of non-smokers unless it doesn't bother them. First and foremost I need to respect and appreciate non-smokers position.

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Posted by: ThomsonsPier

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 10:55 AM

Quote:

The real cost of smoking Tobacco use causes about 92000 deaths each year Smoking costs the NHS between £1.4bn and £1.7bn.

so actually that affects ME the taxpayer also

Smokers are net contributors to the NHS through taxation (stir, stir).

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 11:53 AM

I'm a non smoker. I know many people that do smoke. I appreciate the respect that many smokers have given me in the past. I dislike it however those who are not respectful and feel it is their right to make me suffer with them. I'm sure they would not appreciate for me to drive my vehicle in their vicinity and crack my stereo to deafening levels, which is less harmful. Give me the respect and I will give you the respect.

Now if I go some place that allows smoking then I have to accept smokers smoking. However in my area smoking has now been banned in all bars and all public area. What I HATE its the ignorance of many smokers that think that smoking from their vehicle to the front of these buildings is okay and that after they are done that the ground in front of that building is an ash tray. Why don't you bud out in your vehicle instead of making the front area of this building trashy and foul smelling? Plus what agrivates me is smokers that toss their cigarette butts out the window of their cars. The world is not your ashtray. You chose to smoke so put that dam thing in your ashtray. And for those ignorant a-holes that dump their ashtrays where ever they feel like it ... F-YOU A-HOLE!

Like anything it is the ignorant that make it worse for the respectful.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 12:27 PM

We have these guys that run around the city centre of glasgow called litter wardens and if they catch dropping a cigarette butt thats a £50 fine!

($90-100)

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:02 PM

Yes, I am sure inceasing public awareness about the potential harm of second-hand smoke has had something to do with it. But there is difference between a reasonable concern for one's health and unreasonable intolerance towards any who do not share our standards of public behavior.

Asking people to smoke outside public buildings? Reasonable. Asking people to stand a full 15+ feet away from the entrance--i.e. practically in the street? Unreasonable. Asking people not to smoke in restaurants? Reasonable. Asking people not to smoke in taverns? Unreasonable. What's next? No drinking in taverns?

Posted by: jakmak52

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:20 PM

Some taverns where they serve food don't allow smoking.

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:29 PM

This is true. I am from Chicago, and here the word "tavern" commonly refers to a small, neighborhood bar that does not serve food. But if food is served, I think it is reasonable to disallow smoking.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 09:46 AM

Quote:

Some taverns where they serve food don't allow smoking.

Welcome to Canada. Most provinces have had this in place for years and on January 1, 2008 it is mandatory across Canada. And that goes for ALL public places.

I remember going to Rosie's tavern in Kelowna, BC and it was the place to hang out. The year they banned smoking in British Columbia the bar was practically empty. The following year back that place was back to normal.

People don't need to smoke in taverns/bars. I enjoy a drink once and a while so why should my experience be ruined by a smoker? It is a public place and smoking has been deemed unhealthy for the smoker and the people around them. Don't put my health at risk. Put your own health at risk at your home or in your vehicle; things you own.

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 01:07 PM

I think our the key to our disagreement lies in part of what you just said: "why should my experience be ruined by a smoker?"

It is an attitude that says, "What is right and what is fair is for me to get my way all the time." I just don't buy it. We have to co-exist with each other in this world, and that means occasionally putting up with other people's crap. If you know a particular bar is full of smokers, drink somewhere else.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 01:43 PM

Quote:

It is an attitude that says, "What is right and what is fair is for me to get my way all the time."

Far from it. This is a health issue, plain and simple, despite what the corporate whores that own the tobacco industry would have you believe. Please read my earlier posts in this thread.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 02:47 PM

Fileboy, for those people that need to drink to have fun, because it makes them feel good, calms them down, gives them energy, relieves stress, to get by in life, addicted or what have you ... they are called alcoholics. If you need narcotics to do this then you are call a druggie. If you need to smoke for any of these reasons well then obviously you have a problem.

Smoking is bad for you, the people around you and the environment. We all know this but many people dismiss it. Why should I have to suffer because they are ignorant to this. The same people when they run into health problems will whine and complain and suck society and my health care for their bad decisions.

Again I have friends that smoke and I accept that and they are considerate of me. There are a numerous amount of smokers that take the same approach and it is appreciated.

As for your statement, "If you know a particular bar is full of smokers, drink somewhere else" ... do you not read? I stated that I accept the fact that if I go where smokers are that I have no problem; but that is my decision it is not forced upon me.

I'm sorry, your bleeding heart carries no weight with me and most cities, provinces, states, countries. It's bad as simple as that. If it is so great why are so many people trying to quit. And if you admit they are bad well then why make it bad for others.

Posted by: fileboy2002

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 01:08 AM

Fine, Dereck.

And don't forget to explain to that fat guy with the cheeseburger in one hand and a fistful of fries in the other that he needs to lose weight and stop sucking the health care system dry. Oh, and while you are doing it, don't forget to tell him he is a food addict.

Posted by: Bushi_no_ki

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 02:54 AM

Three words regarding bars, taverns, pubs, and clubs- heated smoking patios. I don't mind going outside, so long as I can take my drink with me. And some heat helps too.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 08:23 AM

Quote:

Fine, Dereck.

And don't forget to explain to that fat guy with the cheeseburger in one hand and a fistful of fries in the other that he needs to lose weight and stop sucking the health care system dry. Oh, and while you are doing it, don't forget to tell him he is a food addict.

File -

Again, please read the thread. That is an invalid argument I have already addressed.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 09:39 AM

Quote:

in the uk.

The real cost of smoking Tobacco use causes about 92000 deaths each year Smoking costs the NHS between £1.4bn and £1.7bn.

so actually that affects ME the taxpayer also

Yes it does affect you- smokers generate 10 billion steriling in tax a year, so if they all quit, your tax is going to rocket to make up the shortfall.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 10:15 AM

Quote:

Yes it does affect you- smokers generate 10 billion steriling in tax a year, so if they all quit, your tax is going to rocket to make up the shortfall.

Fair point, and I am against using tobacco products as a tax base. The politicians will not want to give up that money (conflict of interest). As far as taxes being raised, remember that some of that will be mitigated by lower overall health expenses from less tobacco related problems. Smokers will also have more disposable income to buy other goods and services (presumably less destructive

) , so the tax base will not take quite the hit that it would seem.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 10:55 AM

Yes good point Cord, but im pretty sure the 92000 familys would rather pay more tax if it ment they had their family members back, and im sure you'll agree

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 03:03 PM

Quote:

Fine, Dereck.

And don't forget to explain to that fat guy with the cheeseburger in one hand and a fistful of fries in the other that he needs to lose weight and stop sucking the health care system dry. Oh, and while you are doing it, don't forget to tell him he is a food addict.

Yes he is a food addict but his eating habits are not being destructive to me nor the environment. And while I would like to see this person become more health he is only doing it to himself. And the money that he takes from the healthcare system is minimal or nil. Another invalid argumentative point.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 03:34 PM

Quote:

Yes good point Cord, but im pretty sure the 92000 familys would rather pay more tax if it ment they had their family members back, and im sure you'll agree

Without freedom to live how you wish, where is the joy in a long life?

We all take risks in life. Driving, sports, air travel, name it. The vast majority of us take risks everyday in the name of pleasure or convenience, seldom necessity. To be descriminated against for a personal life choice is unacceptable.
A recent report shows that HIV+ and STI's are dramaticaly increased in the UK. Should unprotected sex be made illegal unless both parties are tested and proven to be in a committed relationship? Should those found to have any STI's be fined under law, or taxed in a prejudicial way based on their self inflicted poor health?

Think about the parallels, and decide if such a development is scary and orwellian, or just what we need.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/25/07 09:39 AM

Quote:

Without freedom to live how you wish, where is the joy in a long life?

We all take risks in life. Driving, sports, air travel, name it. The vast majority of us take risks everyday in the name of pleasure or convenience, seldom necessity. To be descriminated against for a personal life choice is unacceptable.
A recent report shows that HIV+ and STI's are dramaticaly increased in the UK. Should unprotected sex be made illegal unless both parties are tested and proven to be in a committed relationship? Should those found to have any STI's be fined under law, or taxed in a prejudicial way based on their self inflicted poor health?

Think about the parallels, and decide if such a development is scary and orwellian, or just what we need.

There are far too many parallels to be able to draw a line in the sand, and i don't think for one second an outright Ban on smokeing is going to take us one more step down an Orwellian yellow brickroad to communism, fascism or totalitarianism.

Maybe its not about freedom to do as we wish maybe its a problem with being TOLD what to do for your own good. It might just take a while to seep in.

And as for taking risks, I see you listed driving, well, try drink driving, would you do that? In my opinion thats more on a par with smoking than just driving is.

This sort of thing is springing up all over the world (Public smoking ban)

Now, I dont know how you make your decisions but I for one weigh up the good and bad points. lets try that.

Smoking

Disadvantages

Smoking KILLS
Detrimental to lungs and arteries
Addictive
can affect

Advantages

Relieves stress
Helps control weight
Makes you look hard

kepps the flys away....

to name a few.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/25/07 01:16 PM

Quote:

i don't think for one second an outright Ban on smokeing is going to take us one more step down an Orwellian yellow brickroad to communism, fascism or totalitarianism.

Really? i disagree.

Quote:

Maybe its not about freedom to do as we wish maybe its a problem with being TOLD what to do for your own good.

Define 'good'. What constitutes a 'good' life. A devout Muslim is a heretic to a devout christian.

Martial arts are a high risk activity, what if you were prevented from persuing them because some twat in a government office decided it was 'for your own good'.
You would say 'its my body, my business', and quite right too.

Is longevity the cornerstone of a 'good' life? If someone is only ever truly happy when they are riding a motorbike, and they die doing so, would they have been better to have a longer life deprived of that passion?

The principle reason smokers smoke is enjoyment- pure and simple. the vast majority of people who 'cant' quit simply dont want to- they are trying to quit because they feel pressured by family or by medical propaganda, but the enjoyment and desire to smoke outweighs that. Anyone who resolutely decides, in their heart, that they dont want to smoke anymore normaly finds it remarkably easy to stop.

Heavy handed legislation acts as bullying, and smokers are far more likely to dig their heels in and defy it. no one wants a cream cake more than a person on a diet- deprivation creates need and fixation. Deprive smokers and make them smoke more- its human nature.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/25/07 01:58 PM

Quote by Cord -

Quote:

Is longevity the cornerstone of a 'good' life? If someone is only ever truly happy when they are riding a motorbike, and they die doing so, would they have been better to have a longer life deprived of that passion?

The principle reason smokers smoke is enjoyment- pure and simple. the vast majority of people who 'cant' quit simply dont want to- they are trying to quit because they feel pressured by family or by medical propaganda, but the enjoyment and desire to smoke outweighs that.

Fair point, but is society obligated to tolerate the enjoyment of activities that have no redeeming value to them whatsoever? The only reason smoking has gotten a pass for this long is the monetary influence that it's corp-whore-ate shills have with lawmakers.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/25/07 02:29 PM

You know I have great respect for your Cord and I was trying not to get into any of your comments with Matt no matter what my own beliefs were, but I'm jumping in so no hard feelings. I can definitely understand where you are coming from as I know you were a smoker and you do have a connection in the bar scene world. For myself I've never smoked buy my parents are heavy smokers as are my in-laws. We seen things from different points of views where yours was a choice, mine wasn't.

Quote:

Martial arts are a high risk activity, what if you were prevented from persuing them because some twat in a government office decided it was 'for your own good'.
You would say 'its my body, my business', and quite right too.

I think this would be stretching it as not all martial arts are hard on the body and even for those that are, there are "good" things that can be indicative to training martial arts, the same cannot be said about smoking. Plus there are no adverse effects from training martial arts to those around me or to the environment.

Quote:

Is longevity the cornerstone of a 'good' life? If someone is only ever truly happy when they are riding a motorbike, and they die doing so, would they have been better to have a longer life deprived of that passion?

Good point on the long life issue. The motorbike one ... I always dread anything that discusses death as I'm a rider and wouldn't give it up, but I accept that fact when I go out on it.

Again we have different views but as stated above I have no problem with smokers that are considerate, and yes it is their life to do with what they want ... as long as it does not affect any others around them. But then they should sign wavers giving up rights to paid health benefits through healthcare so as not to drain anything from society. They already pay higher benefits through their life insurance policies, perhaps this might be a solution to healthcare as well. Just some thoughts.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/25/07 02:59 PM

Quote:

You know I have great respect for your Cord and I was trying not to get into any of your comments with Matt no matter what my own beliefs were, but I'm jumping in so no hard feelings.

No chance of that bud, I spend more time disagreeing with friends than enemies

Quote:

I can definitely understand where you are coming from as I know you were a smoker and you do have a connection in the bar scene world. For myself I've never smoked buy my parents are heavy smokers as are my in-laws. We seen things from different points of views where yours was a choice, mine wasn't.

All my family are smokers. i have lost family to smoking related illness.

Quote:

I think this would be stretching it as not all martial arts are hard on the body and even for those that are, there are "good" things that can be indicative to training martial arts, the same cannot be said about smoking. Plus there are no adverse effects from training martial arts to those around me or to the environment.

The positive health benefits achieved from MA can be replicated by non-combatative, low risk exercise. the 'positive' achieved through smoking is pleasure. you enjoy MA and accept the risks inherent to fighting, smokers enjoy smoking, and accept the risks inherent to smoking.
Any risk to health/wellbeing never only affects the person directly at risk. If you were at grappling class tomorrow, and your cervical disks gave out in a neck crank leaving you quadraplegic, your whole family's life and wellbeing would be irreperably damaged. Are you going to give up grappling? Should you give up grappling? Should others be able to force you to give up grappling?

Quote:

Good point on the long life issue. The motorbike one ... I always dread anything that discusses death as I'm a rider and wouldn't give it up, but I accept that fact when I go out on it.

again, a life choice, based purely on enjoyment, that could potentialy ruin lives around you, and is bad for the environment. Sound like what we are discussing?

Q.What is the difference between giving a non smoker the choice to stay in a smokey environment, or leave of their own volition, and forcing a smoker to refrain from a legal activity in that same environment?

A. One involves the exercising of personal choice, the other involves the removal of personal choice. There is more to a healthy society than air quality.

Posted by: grumbleweed

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/25/07 04:38 PM

smoking is no different to any other activity/hobby/service/sport etc etc be it driving, boxing, airports, fishing--you name it they're all regulated in some shape or form its how civilised societys function, you want anarchy and disorder go to cambodia or sierra leone. there is a time and a places for smoking, pubs, nightclubs, discos, restaurants (yes, partitioned) and such places obviously yes. hospitals, schools, law courts etc, such places during ones lifetime are unable to avoid, imo, no.

i dont feel comfortable seeing folk having to stand outside a pub to puff in the rain apparently to protect me, i have a choice to be there or not. i'm laying in hospital or a loved one is and someone lights up and puffs smoke in my direction, words will be exchanged make no mistake about that. Its more a respect issue than a health issue. That person is more or less saying feck you.

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/28/07 12:54 PM

I have read this thread with interest and have tried really hard not to be drawn into it, but I notice that alot of the arguments against smoking/smokers are based on the harm caused by ETS/SHS or "Passive smoking".

Passive smoking is a fraud!
I challenge any body here to come up with the names of 3 people that have been scientifically proven to have been killed by it.

In fact, I challenge anybody here to come up with some real scientific evidence that passive smoking causes any harm whatsoever.
By real scientific evidence, I don't mean some epidemiological case control study that bases its findings on the dodgy memories of peoples exposure to smoke some 50 odd years ago.

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/28/07 01:43 PM

Here are a couple from a search that took about a half a second.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/ETSKIDSHEALTH.PDF

http://artsciencepub.com/secondhand.htm

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/28/07 02:05 PM

Quote:

Passive smoking is a fraud!
I challenge any body here to come up with the names of 3 people that have been scientifically proven to have been killed by it.

In fact, I challenge anybody here to come up with some real scientific evidence that passive smoking causes any harm whatsoever.

Smoke inhalation is a well known, documented cause of cancer. Cancer is a well known, documented killer. Smoke is smoke, whether from a cigarette or anything else. It can kill people.

http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic538.htm

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/smoke_inhalation/article_em.htm

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_7386712

http://www.topix.com/city/lemoore-ca/2007/08/smoke-inhalation-cited-in-lemoore-fire-deaths

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/28/07 03:16 PM

Are you joking McSensei? Heather Crowe did not smoke a day in her life but died of second hand smoke due to her workplace.

http://www.smoke-free.ca/heathercrowe/

Read Heather's Story section.

"Thanks in large part to her lobbying, the province of Ontario passed a tough anti-smoking bill which came into effect four days after her 2006 death of lung cancer at the age of 61."

This has now been adopted by all of Canada and takes place January 1, 2008. It is now against the law to spoke in any public places. In fact BC was the first province to implement this province wide and many cities across Canada implemented this as well included Edmonton, Alberta.

"Heather is one of hundreds of Canadians who become fatally ill as a result of breathing second-hand smoke each year."

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/28/07 06:58 PM

Quote:

Here are a couple from a search that took about a half a second.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422

http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/ETSKIDSHEALTH.PDF

http://artsciencepub.com/secondhand.htm

Razor, I looked through your links and found exactly what I expected to find. Basically, several different sites spouting what ETS does and doesn't cause. This from your second link though is what my major point is all about.

"The current Surgeon General’s Report concluded that scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to second hand smoke.

To anyone with even a snippet of curiosity, this should have alarm bells going off in their heads just for the sheer rediculousness of the statement. No safe level????

OK so now even though there is a safe level of exposure to every other known poison, we have to suspend the idiom, "it's the dose that makes the poison," just for cigarette smoke?
Purleeeeze.

And that is not my main point, which is that the organisations that spout this stuff quite often refer to "The Science or Scientists," but they don't actually say what that so called science is.

Because it is rarely what people think of as science.
It is Epidemiology.

Quick lesson for the uninformed.

The goal of an epidemiological study is to determine Relative Risk (RR).

Relative risk is determined by first establishing a baseline, an accounting of how common a disease (or condition) is in the general population. This general rate is given a Relative Risk of 1.0, no risk at all. An increase in risk would result in a number larger than 1.0. A decrease in risk would result in a lower number, and indicates a protective effect.

For instance, if a researcher wants to find out how coffee drinking effects foot fungus, he first has to find out how common foot fungus is in the general population. In this fictional example, let's say he determines that 20 out every 1,000 people have foot fungus. That's the baseline, a RR of 1.0. If he discovers that 30 out of 1,000 coffee drinkers have foot fungus, he's discovered a fifty percent increase, which would be expressed as a RR of 1.50.

If he were to find the rate was 40 out of 1,000, it would give him a RR of 2.0.

He might find foot fungus was less common among coffee drinkers. A rate of 15 out of 1,000 would be expressed as a RR of 0.75, indicating that drinking coffee has a protective effect against foot fungus.

The media usually reports RRs as percentages. An RR of 1.40 is usually reported as a 40% increase, while an RR of .90 is reported as a 10% decrease.

As a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.

A couple of quotes to back up this last bit..

"As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication." - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"

"My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

"Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident." - The National Cancer Institute

"An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer." - Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist

I have yet to see the results of any study where the relative risk was even close to the requirements laid out above. Usually the RR is round about 1.25. Which is statistically insignificant because the margin of error could take that figure below 1. Which would show a protective effect.

Matt,

You wrote,

"Smoke inhalation is a well known, documented cause of cancer. Cancer is a well known, documented killer. Smoke is smoke, whether from a cigarette or anything else. It can kill people."

As I said earlier, it's the dose that makes the poison.

Did you know that cooking on a BBQ for a couple of hours will expose you to almost identical carcinogens as found in ETS only it will be 220 000 times higher than a single cigarette. So why is noone banning BBQs? Because they are outdoors I hear you cry. OK then what about coal or wood fires, or candles or incense burners or just about anything that you burn gives off more or less the same carcinogens in mostly higher doses than cigarettes.

Here's a few more of those D34d1y chemicals.

http://members.aol.com/nonycrnc/

Dereck,

Sorry mate, but no cigar. Sad as her story is there is absolutely not one shred of REAL evidence to say that her illness was caused by SHS. Much like the Roy Castle saga in this country, it is conjecture that has ballooned into perceived reality.

There's always another view..

http://surrealitytimes.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html

I still haven't seen those three names I asked for.

Posted by: BrianS

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 01:08 AM

McSensei,

To me it's just common sense.

FACT: If someone smokes they are at risk for lung cancer. So we can deduce that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.Yep.
If someone else breathes in the same smoke wouldn't it make sense that it would have the same effect? Hmmmmmm,well gee golly, I don't need proof to figure that out.

Also, when I breathe in second hand smoke I cough and gag. This tells me that the smoke is not good for me. My body reacts that way all by itself. It tells me, "Hey stupid! Get the heck away from the smoke!"

I don't need some "scientist or epidemicpancreaologisticalloser" to tell me that ingesting secondhand anything is a bad idea.

What?......

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 04:35 AM

McSensei,

I believe you are in a fantasy world where you believe what you wish to be the case maybe your still a bit bitter about the recentley enforced public smoking ban?.

40-50 years ago some Doctors were recomending smokeing to relieve stress, or to people of a nervous disposition.That was down to ignorance.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse

What your saying IMHO that no one has died from exposure to second hand smoke is like denying the holocaust ever happened.

Heres the Surgeon generals report on the matter and I'd imagine they've come along way from 40-50 years ago,

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 07:34 AM

McSensei -

Wow.

Brother, that is some POWERFUL denial you have going on there. That smoking (active or passive) is a health threat is simply a priori knowledge at this point. Trying to pick out individual statistics to disprove it is like someone trying to prove that the earth isn't round, or that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, or that there are WMD's in Iraq.

It is simply indisputable that smoking can cause harm. Both fires and smoking have been studied and documented (see links above). It is not that much of a stretch to see that second-hand smoke can cause harm as well. It is the same smoke, whether a room is filled with burning material or people smoking.

Let's look at it this way:

Is there an acceptable level of bullets allowed in the human body? If I shoot a gun up in the air, can the "passive" bullets still kill someone when they come back down? Common sense, right?

I am exaggerating, but I hope you get my point. Smoking is a harmful activity with no benefit whatsoever, and no amount of denial or fact twisting will change that.

Tradition does not make it right, anymore than slavery or child-brides. Society is not obligated to allow people to harm themselves or others because of "freedom" or because "it makes them happy".

Let's not kid ourselves here.

Posted by: Gavin

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 07:55 AM

Quote:

Tradition does not make it right, anymore than slavery or child-brides. Society is not obligated to allow people to harm themselves or others because of "freedom" or because "it makes them happy".

Let's not kid ourselves here.

Bugger! *Cancels wedding and unchains the "workers" in the back garden*

McSensei, wake up and smell the butt ends mate! Of course inhaling smoke is harmful.

I gave up Door work before the ban on smoking in public places was enforced and at the end of the nght I used to go home smelling like an ashtray. My lungs felt like they had cotton wool in them, my shirt stunk like it had been in a fire and gone stale and the smell when I washed the hair gel out of my hair coming from the sink was disgusting. Saying that sort of environment, created by smokers, is not harmful is blatant denial...from a bloody smoker! How many times have you trained with me now and we clinch up have I said, "Still smoking then?"...it's not coz I'm Mystic Meg that I could tell!

Saying that I have a choice to go into a smokey pub is a valid point, but the fact is a minority (ie. smokers!) are restricting the freedom of my choice through no fault of my own. I think its a filthy anti-socail selfish addiction. But I might be biased!

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 09:11 AM

MC Sensei, when you can sit here and deny fact as it is written in thousands of MEDICAL DOCUMENTS with PROVEN and VALID FACTS by RESPECTED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS, there is something seriously wrong. If you are not going to believe the facts when presented to you, why ask for them.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 10:47 AM

McSensei is very brave to risk the flak on his point, braver than I (and less lazy as he looked up the stats), but there is a lot of controversy in the medical world at the moment in regards to the existance of 'cancer genes' and the part they play in our risk of developing cancer. Hereditary issues have already been flagged as fact in regards to breast cancer, along with other cancers that have never had external environmental factors attributed to them, and these genetic factors are becoming linked ever more increasingly with 'lifestyle' cancers, and are considered of ever increasing importance over commonly flagged external triggers such as alchohol and smoking.
step outside a smoky bar for some 'fresh air' and you are inhaling countless thousands of pollutants and poisons. For some, their genetics will protect from cancerous cell mutations, for others, their genes will increase the risk.

Anti smoking propaganda dont like the facts that are emerging, but for a balanced view, one should at least look into the data- it makes some interesting reading.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 11:03 AM

Quote:

step outside a smoky bar for some 'fresh air' and you are inhaling countless thousands of pollutants and poisons. For some, their genetics will protect from cancerous cell mutations, for others, their genes will increase the risk.

Anti smoking propaganda dont like the facts that are emerging, but for a balanced view, one should at least look into the data- it makes some interesting reading.

While there is some truth to that, it is accepted almost universally that irritants to the lungs cause cancer. Asbestos, coal dust, and cigarette smoke do so in a very direct and concentrated manner, and the research links are very substantial.

Posted by: Cord

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 11:14 AM

They are factors in triggering cellular reaction, which is thought to occur due to genetic pre-disposition.
This means that those with genetic make-up conducive to creating cancerous cells are just as likely to do so from one of the other, non demonised external triggers as they are from 'passive' smoking, whist others without the genetic charecteristics can puff away cancer free. In smokers, emphysema, heart disease and other health issues are far more prevalent than lung cancer and are responsible for many more deaths. If the risk of lung cancer is statisticaly low for smokers, then they are low for non smokers in their environment.

Like i said, its valid research, and if the anti-smoking brigade are not to be 'blinded by propaganda' or 'in denial' as they accuse pro-smokers to be, then they should investigate genuine research, even if it challenges what they believe.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 11:28 AM

I am not disagreeing that genetic factors may make *some* people prone or immune to cancer, or other diseases. But to sacrifice the other (substantial) group that IS susceptible to environmental factors would hardly be in the best interest of the people, especially considering the utter lack of benefit that smoking (in particular) begets anyone.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 11:54 AM

cancer aside smoking also narrows arterys causing strokes and DVT, It doesnt look good from whatever side of the fence you're sitting on does it?

How much money are the tobacco industry missing with people becoming more health conscious e.t.c

I'll bet if you looked behind some of the people funding the research against the idea that smoking is harmfull you'll find some untrustworthy desperate tobacco companys trying to salvage their industry throwing what money they have left at anyone who'll stand up for them.

I'll tell you what, I think I'll listen to the medical professionals just now over them.

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 12:16 PM

Cord, you have a valid point. Some people may be inclined or have a genetic disposition towards cancer. If that is the case, doesnt second hand smoke increase the chance of those people contracting cancer?

I look at it this way, if I am prone to developing cancer, I am in a sealed room with a slow water leak pouring in. Sooner or later that leak will fill the room and kill me. Do I really want to add a second, much larger leak to that to increase my chances to die that much quicker?

Those people seem to be at greatest risk when it comes to passive smoking. Shouldnt that reasoning alone, the belief that some people are more prone to cancer than others, be a strong argument NOT to add second hand smoke to their level of risk?

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 01:30 PM

Great post, Scottie. I had a similar thought, but couldn't figure out how to articulate it.

Posted by: Blackrainbow

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 02:28 PM

Did you know that if you took all of the chemicals found in one lit cigarette and filled a 55 gallon drum. Not concentrated or adulterated in any way----the only legal place you could dispose of that drum would be a superfund rated toxic waste dump. That material would be in the same hazardous waste catagory as nuclear waste. This from the CDC.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 02:39 PM

I can't belief what I'm reading. The Surgeon General says smoking is bad. Independent studies say smoking is bad. Governments are banning smoking in public places as it has proven to be bad. Everyday people die due to smoking. People have died due to second hand smoke. People have contracted health problems from smoking or from second hand smoke. These are all facts.

I don't for once believe standing over my BBQ is anywhere in the category of harmful as a cigarette that is filled with known poisons. Nor is standing around say a camp fire in the same category as cigarette smoking.

I will tell you some fact. I work in the chemical industry at a manufacturing plant that is filled with chemicals. Many chemicals require more PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) to use such as vapor masks, Scott Air Packs, ventilation fans, protective clothing and gloves, etc. You wouldn't work with these chemicals without this stuff but you have no problem inhaling chemicals that many are MORE hazardous into your lungs not to mention giving off foul, toxic fumes (second hand smoke) to those around you.

UN-F'N-BELIEVABLE!

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 03:50 PM

A fair few posts to reply to so I'll try to get them in order.

Brian wrote,

"FACT: If someone smokes they are at risk for lung cancer. So we can deduce that smoking cigarettes causes cancer.Yep."

Well no. We can deduce that if you smoke you have an increased risk of LC. That's it. To say that smoking causes cancer means that everyone that smokes WILL get LC.

"If someone else breathes in the same smoke wouldn't it make sense that it would have the same effect? Hmmmmmm,well gee golly, I don't need proof to figure that out."

Again, no. Most cases of LC are people in their 70s. The average smoker starts as a teenager so we are looking at about 50 years of active smoking to contract LC. Some people develop it earlier so lets make the amount of time actively smoking at 40 years just to be cautious. Average 20 a day smoker will smoke 7300 a year, that is, 292000 cigs in their lifetime.
Estimates set the level of SHS breathed in by an average hospitality worker at between 50-200 cigarettes per year. Do you see where I'm going here?
How many years does that work out to be?
I'll save you the time. 1460 years worth of passive smoking just to match the increased risk of the active smoker. What does your common sense tell you now, mate? Again, IT'S THE DOSE THAT MAKES THE POISON.

"Also, when I breathe in second hand smoke I cough and gag. This tells me that the smoke is not good for me. My body reacts that way all by itself. It tells me, "Hey stupid! Get the heck away from the smoke!"

This tells you that you find cig smoke an irritant. Animal fur irritates me and a lot of other people as well, but we don't all go around demanding that animals are banned from EVERY indoor public place.

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 03:59 PM

So basically, the surgeon general and thousands of doctors are wrong and you are right?

Time to pick my battles and arguing logic with someone who refuses to yield to reason and FACTS (medically proven and verified facts) is not a productive use of my time.

Oh, and by the way, being a safety professional, toxic is toxic, no matter what the dose or concentration. Whether I have an ounce of MEK (Methyl ethyl ketone) or 55 gallons, it is still considered and regulated as a toxic substance.

The same is true of carcinogens. Regardless of the quantity or dose in a substance, they must all be listed.

Have fun guys.

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 04:09 PM

Shills wrote,

"I believe you are in a fantasy world where you believe what you wish to be the case maybe your still a bit bitter about the recentley enforced public smoking ban?."

I get bitter about any attempted manipulation of lifestyles by intrusive Governments using junk science and scaremongering. As should everyone.

"40-50 years ago some Doctors were recomending smokeing to relieve stress, or to people of a nervous disposition.That was down to ignorance.

Ignorance is no longer an excuse"

And 60 years ago in Germany they were using the same fraudulent arguments to ban smoking because Der Fuhrer didn't like it and it didn't fit his view of things. Much the same as the people that are pushing this divisive and hateful agenda now.

" What your saying IMHO that no one has died from exposure to second hand smoke is like denying the holocaust ever happened."

No it isn't. There is empirical evidence of the Holocaust and the bodies, or what were left of them, were there for the eye to see.
I don't want you to show me 1000s of bodies, just name three.

As for the link, nothing new. No explanation of the actual science involved just some conclusions that don't actually fit the evidence.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 04:23 PM

Scottie, we are in the same mindset. McSensei hasn't come out to my knowledge and says he smokes or not but I would say yes. I would also say he is living in a fantasy world that he is trying to make smoking seem not as unhealthy as it appears to be ... what, does he work for the tobacco company?

Comparing banning of animals because it irritates him to banning of a known carcinogenic that has the medical world and organizations such as the government promoting its banning ... that is stretching it big time.

Saying that smoking a little is better then smoking a lot; OH MY GOD! Everybody reacts differently to things and somebody that smokes very little can have the same repercussions as somebody that smokes a lot. The fact still remains that a little or a lot of exposure is exposure and it is not good for you at all. You can not set limits on stuff like that.

Since you like analogies lets use one that you might get. Say you got stabbed with a knife "once"; there is a possibility that you will die and then maybe you will live. Say you got stabbed with a knife a "multiple" amount of times; there is still a possibility that you will live and higher possibility that you will die. I suspect that you don't want to be stabbed at all, that you don't want to take a chance regardless of once or multiple times. Whether once or multiple times it is not good and the medical world and anybody with some sensibility would recognize this. It is not rocket science.

You can't make smoking look good no matter how you look at it. People do die from smoking, people have died from second hand smoke, people who smoke or because of second hand smoke have incurred health problems. Repeated exposure being a smoker or nonsmoker to cigarette smoke only rises the more you are exposed to it. I don't want to take those risks nor would I want to put those risks on anybody else out of common decency.

You can fluff up your stats and your way of thinking but in this case and matter you are wrong.

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 04:38 PM

Matt wrote,

"Brother, that is some POWERFUL denial you have going on there. That smoking (active or passive) is a health threat is simply a priori knowledge at this point. Trying to pick out individual statistics to disprove it is like someone trying to prove that the earth isn't round, or that 2+2 doesn't equal 4, or that there are WMD's in Iraq."

That's the point though Matt. I'm not picking out individual statistics. I'm talking about every single peer reviewed study that has been undertaken has shown that the Relative risk from SHS is statistically insignificant.
Just because the press releases and headlines don't say that doesn't mean it isn't so. You wouldn't seriously expect the people pushing this agenda to acknowledge they have no evidence, would you. No, what they rely on is people hearing the sound bites and then just taking it as true. It's a technique devised by Josef Goebbels. See last post for the Nazi connection.

"It is simply indisputable that smoking can cause harm. Both fires and smoking have been studied and documented (see links above). It is not that much of a stretch to see that second-hand smoke can cause harm as well. It is the same smoke, whether a room is filled with burning material or people smoking."

If the above is true then why is it just smoking that is banned and not the burning of coal/gas/wood fires and candles etc?

"Let's look at it this way:

Is there an acceptable level of bullets allowed in the human body?"

Yes, I know a fair few people that have got bullets in them and apart from the obvious structural damage the existence of a bullet inside someone is not necessarily a cause for alarm.

"If I shoot a gun up in the air, can the "passive" bullets still kill someone when they come back down? Common sense, right?"

Funnily enough I asked this question of a Royal Marine friend of mine the other day and the answer was highly improbable as the mass of the bullet would not generate enough g force on its decent to gather the speed required to be deadly. So there you go. The urban myths are just falling away on this thread. What next, Anthropogenic Global Warming.

"I am exaggerating, but I hope you get my point. Smoking is a harmful activity with no benefit whatsoever, and no amount of denial or fact twisting will change that."

Actually it has been shown to have a protective effect on conditions like dementia and parkinsons.

"Tradition does not make it right, anymore than slavery or child-brides. Society is not obligated to allow people to harm themselves or others because of "freedom" or because "it makes them happy".

Let's not kid ourselves here."

Actually I disagree. Society, especially the US, is obligated to allow people to do things which may harm them. That is exactly what freedom is all about.
Sometimes I wonder why your Founding Fathers ever bothered.

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 05:00 PM

Gav wrote,

"McSensei, wake up and smell the butt ends mate! Of course inhaling smoke is harmful.

I gave up Door work before the ban on smoking in public places was enforced and at the end of the nght I used to go home smelling like an ashtray. My lungs felt like they had cotton wool in them, my shirt stunk like it had been in a fire and gone stale and the smell when I washed the hair gel out of my hair coming from the sink was disgusting. Saying that sort of environment, created by smokers, is not harmful is blatant denial...from a bloody smoker! How many times have you trained with me now and we clinch up have I said, "Still smoking then?"...it's not coz I'm Mystic Meg that I could tell!"

I've not said it isn't harmful. I've tried to get across the point that it depends upon the dose and the dose you get from ETS is just not enough to do you any harm.
You may not like the smell and with that I can sympathize, but not liking something is no reason to blanket ban a perfectly legal substance that is enjoyed by a quarter of the population.

"Saying that I have a choice to go into a smokey pub is a valid point, but the fact is a minority (ie. smokers!) are restricting the freedom of my choice through no fault of my own. I think its a filthy anti-socail selfish addiction. But I might be biased!"

So we both need our choices catered for. That is what happens in a tolerant and civilised society. Not draconian bans. What's wrong with separate indoor smoking rooms or smoking and non smoking bars? Whatever happened to choice. Not to mention the property rights of bar owners that now are not allowed to partake of a legal substance on their own fecking property.

Biased Gav, never.

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 05:09 PM

Cord,

I don't really have to look up the stats as I have them rattling around the old bonce after studying this issue for some time now, but I pretty much agree with what you have written.
The fact is that that there are some 300 contributing factors to LC and the questionairres used by epidemiologists cannot possibly, comprehensively cover them all.

Guess what people...non smokers die too!

http://www.forces.org/Multimedia_Portal/index.php?selection=84

Just to lighten things a little.

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 05:21 PM

Razor wrote,

"Those people seem to be at greatest risk when it comes to passive smoking. Shouldnt that reasoning alone, the belief that some people are more prone to cancer than others, be a strong argument NOT to add second hand smoke to their level of risk?"

Then you would also need to ban the other contributing factors as well. I don't think many people would like that and in all honesty, I don't think it would be possible.

Blackrainbow wrote,

"Did you know that if you took all of the chemicals found in one lit cigarette and filled a 55 gallon drum. Not concentrated or adulterated in any way----the only legal place you could dispose of that drum would be a superfund rated toxic waste dump. That material would be in the same hazardous waste catagory as nuclear waste. This from the CDC."

Really? Fascinating.

Except we are not talking about 55 gallon drums here we are talking about a few nanograms, pictograms and femtograms.
Do you realise exactly how small the particles we are talking about are?

Right, I think I've caught up on all the main points.
Fire away.

Posted by: Blackrainbow

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 05:49 PM

Actually were talking milligrams and micrograms. Do you know how many children die in the us every year from injesting just a couple of cigarette butts ? Nicotine is one of the most toxic substances on the face of the earth. Go do a Google. Just type in Nicotine LD 50/50. Back in the 16th and 17th century, tabacco smugglers used to wrap the leaves around their bodies, under their shirts to sneak them into countries where tobacco was heavily taxed or illegal. Death was common place due to direct absorbtion through the skin. Tobacco dust used to be commonly used as a very potent insecticide on crops but is now mostly banned. It is more lethal ounce for ounce then a product called Seven. Remember Bophal India. Seven is made from methylisocyanate. A few pounds of this stuff leaked into the air and thousands died and many thousands injured. Yep, I know all bout tobacco. In my day job I get to sit and watch people die because they too believed like my mom and dad did that a little cigarette smoke was harmless. I held mom and dads hands while they died too from cancer and respiritory failure due to a lifetime of smoking. I'm real familier with those micrograms and milligrams.

Posted by: McSensei

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 06:05 PM

Goddammit, where'd this come from. I thought I was all caught up.

Razor wrote,

"So basically, the surgeon general and thousands of doctors are wrong and you are right?"

Yes. Why not? I don't have an agenda to push, except freedom to choose.

"Time to pick my battles and arguing logic with someone who refuses to yield to reason and FACTS (medically proven and verified facts) is not a productive use of my time."

You haven't argued logic and you still haven't managed to name 3 people that have been scientifically proven to have died from SHS. All you have done is shown me the "Conclusions" that those with an agenda want you to see. I have said to look at the studies themselves.
Still, if you wish to no longer debate this subject with me then that is your right.

"Oh, and by the way, being a safety professional, toxic is toxic, no matter what the dose or concentration. Whether I have an ounce of MEK (Methyl ethyl ketone) or 55 gallons, it is still considered and regulated as a toxic substance.

The same is true of carcinogens. Regardless of the quantity or dose in a substance, they must all be listed."

As I said earlier, we are not talking about ounces. Femtograms are unimaginally small. I don't think you are quite getting that.

Dereck wrote,

"Scottie, we are in the same mindset. McSensei hasn't come out to my knowledge and says he smokes or not but I would say yes. I would also say he is living in a fantasy world that he is trying to make smoking seem not as unhealthy as it appears to be ... what, does he work for the tobacco company?"

Firstly I would have thought Gavins post would have cleared that up, but yes I am a smoker.
I don't live in a fantasy world it's just that I have a tendency to disbelieve things told to me by "Authority."
A healthy trait I would say.
Do you think Governments don't tell lies, 'ahem''WMD''ahem'!

"Comparing banning of animals because it irritates him to banning of a known carcinogenic that has the medical world and organizations such as the government promoting its banning ... that is stretching it big time."

Well here's the thing. If smoking and SHS was sooooo bad, why not just ban it.
And don't come back with the tax thing because if something was so bad and killed off so many people from just the mereist whiff then the Government would find a way to offset the tax.
If it looks like it, smells like it and comes from a place renowned for it then it probably is Bu11sh1t.

"Saying that smoking a little is better then smoking a lot; OH MY GOD! Everybody reacts differently to things and somebody that smokes very little can have the same repercussions as somebody that smokes a lot. The fact still remains that a little or a lot of exposure is exposure and it is not good for you at all. You can not set limits on stuff like that."

Would you stay for 20 minutes in a locked room with a car engine running? No, I thought not, but you wouldn't worry too much about spending 20 minutes in an indoor multi story car park. The same car park where you wouldn't be allowed to smoke a cigarette. Oh yeah. That makes sense.
The dose makes the poison.

"Since you like analogies lets use one that you might get. Say you got stabbed with a knife "once"; there is a possibility that you will die and then maybe you will live. Say you got stabbed with a knife a "multiple" amount of times; there is still a possibility that you will live and higher possibility that you will die. I suspect that you don't want to be stabbed at all, that you don't want to take a chance regardless of once or multiple times. Whether once or multiple times it is not good and the medical world and anybody with some sensibility would recognize this. It is not rocket science"

But the chance of you contracting the disease is tiny in the first place. Just like the chance of being stabbed is small and before the smoking bans came in people had a choice of whether to visit smoky places like you would have a choice of whether or not you go to places you are likely to get stabbed.

"You can't make smoking look good no matter how you look at it. People do die from smoking, people have died from second hand smoke, people who smoke or because of second hand smoke have incurred health problems. Repeated exposure being a smoker or nonsmoker to cigarette smoke only rises the more you are exposed to it. I don't want to take those risks nor would I want to put those risks on anybody else out of common decency.

You can fluff up your stats and your way of thinking but in this case and matter you are wrong. "

And you still haven't been able to name three.

Posted by: Zombie Zero

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 07:43 PM

Quote:

You haven't argued logic and you still haven't managed to name 3 people that have been scientifically proven to have died from SHS.

Grandma Pat. There's one. Never smoked a ciggy in her life, but lived with a chain-smoker. Died of lung cancer.

Quote:

But the chance of you contracting the disease is tiny in the first place.

One in three veterans who have served in a foreign land will be diagnosed with cancer.

Quote:

If smoking and SHS was sooooo bad, why not just ban it.

Because it generates millions of dollars in tax revenue annually.

Anybody can play the convenient factoid game.

This is directed at everyone: Arguing/disagreeing is fine, but let's keep it constructive and respectful.

Also, please remember that this is a family site. Disguising swear words with clever symbols in place of letters isn't a loophole around the site rules.

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 08:39 PM

Quote:

And you still haven't been able to name three.

I named one and you dismissed it. Even I came up with 100 you would still dismiss it.

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 09:12 PM

*cracks knuckles, takes deep breath, applies war-paint*

McSensei, I apologize in advance for what I'm about to do to you.

McSensei -

Smoke does indeed cause structural damage to the lungs, from both the heat and the particulates in it.

http://www.diagnose-me.com/cond/C211471.html

Respiratory Diseases
The irritant and inflammatory effects of tobacco smoke lead to increased cell turnover, damage to cells and tissues in the throat and lungs, and interference with the normal barrier and clearance mechanism of the lung. The loss of the protective cilia allows harmful smoke particles, dust and bacteria to invade the lungs... thus reducing resistance to lung diseases.

Studies have indicated that smoking is the primary risk factor for accelerated decline in respiratory function. For instance, "forced expiratory volume in one second" test (FEV1) is an often-used measurement of lung function. FEV1 normally declines with age, but while in nonsmokers this decline is some 20-30ml per year, in current smokers this decline is 25-80ml per year.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN2643239720071126

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - One third of people who breath in high levels of secondhand smoke have damage to their lungs similar to that seen in smokers, doctors reported on Monday.

They used a special kind of magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, scan to look at the lungs of non-smokers who had high exposure to other people's cigarette smoke and found evidence of the kind of damage that causes emphysema.

"We interpreted those changes as early signs of lung damage, representing very mild forms of emphysema," said Chengbo Wang, a magnetic resonance physicist at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who led the study.

"Almost one third of nonsmokers who had been exposed to secondhand cigarette smoke for a long time developed these structural changes," Wang added in a statement.

"To our knowledge, this is the first imaging study to find lung damage in non-smokers heavily exposed to secondhand smoke. We hope our work strengthens the efforts of legislators and policymakers to limit public exposure to secondhand smoke."

BTW - Passive bullets are a myth, Eh?

http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Stray_Bullet,_Gun_Death_And_Injury.html

Macedonia
Another Stray Bullet Injures 4yr-old Girl in Macedonia Playground
Dnevnik Macedonia, Transcript
6 August 2007
The celebration bullets kill people too. We seem to not be able to learn this lesson, and because of that, we are often witnesses of incidents in which stray bullets end up hitting innocent bystanders. A family celebration for someone can easily become tragedy for others. Only by chance the 4-year-old Jana from Skopje did not end up being the new victim of the stray bullets, and from representation of life and hope to be turned...

Iraq
7 Dead, 50 Wounded by Stray Bullets as Iraqi Soccer Fans Fire Guns in Air
Reuters
29 July 2007
BAGHDAD -- Crowds of ecstatic Iraqis wept tears of joy and fired rifles into the air on Sunday after their soccer team's victory in the Asian Cup triggered the biggest street celebrations since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Police in Baghdad and Kut reported at least seven deaths and more than 50 people wounded by stray bullets as gun-toting revelers took to the streets in a wave of euphoria unprecedented after four years of war....

Brazil
Stray Bullets Rain Down on Rio de Janeiro: 87 Innocents Hit in 3 Months
San Francisco Chronicle / AP
20 June 2007
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil -- The toll from stray bullets that rain down on Rio from the city's steep hillside slums as police and drug gangs battle with automatic weapons has grown sharply, with one innocent bystander killed or wounded every day. Businesses and schools in the line of fire have been shuttered. Thousands of children are staying home. Even air travel is affected -- domestic jet routes were diverted from Rio's downtown...

Etc. Plenty more you can find with a quick search.

Quote:

Actually it has been shown to have a protective effect on conditions like dementia and parkinsons.

Cancer, pulmonary and respitory diseases are "protective effects"?!

Quote:

Actually I disagree. Society, especially the US, is obligated to allow people to do things which may harm them. That is exactly what freedom is all about.
Sometimes I wonder why your Founding Fathers ever bothered.

No, the founding father were actually quite smart. Society is NOT obligated to allow freedoms which harm others, especially when that harm is the exclusive effect of that behavior.

Quote:

You may not like the smell and with that I can sympathize, but not liking something is no reason to blanket ban a perfectly legal substance that is enjoyed by a quarter of the population.

Cocaine and heroin were both legal and popular at one point in time. That does not make those activities protected forever. Smoking is a health threat that continues to persist in spite of crushing amounts of data, only because of the monetary influence of the industry. Period.

Quote:

Then you would also need to ban the other contributing factors as well. I don't think many people would like that and in all honesty, I don't think it would be possible.

Poor logic that I have addressed before. Many of the other incidental hazards referred to are a by-product of an otherwise benign product or effect. Cigarettes have no other purpose than to degrade people's health - including people that don't even smoke.

Quote:

Except we are not talking about 55 gallon drums here we are talking about a few nanograms, pictograms and femtograms.
Do you realise exactly how small the particles we are talking about are?

Wait, aren't you the one saying "it depends upon the dose"? A quarter of the population is a hell of a lot of "nanograms, pictograms and femtograms" floating around, isn't it? We're not talking about making YOU ONLY put away tobacco products. We mean EVERYONE!

Quote:

Yes. Why not? I don't have an agenda to push, except freedom to choose.

Health and safety is an agenda? Isn't that a basic human right - almost everywhere?

Quote:

Would you stay for 20 minutes in a locked room with a car engine running? No, I thought not, but you wouldn't worry too much about spending 20 minutes in an indoor multi story car park. The same car park where you wouldn't be allowed to smoke a cigarette.

Poor analogy for the USA and most of Europe. Vehicle exhaust is treated via catalytic converters to remove most of the pollutants emitted - not true of cigarettes. Would you want to stay in a (same size) locked room with 50 chain-smokers?

Quote:

And you still haven't been able to name three.

Strawman.

Have a good night. See you tomorrow!

Posted by: Zombie Zero

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/29/07 09:27 PM

Matt...

I stand back in awe. You're a good man, and thurrah.

As far as I'm concerned, you are Teh Winnar of this thread.

With that said, I'll say this: Smoke if you want to. If it makes you happy, it makes me happy for you. Frankly, I enjoy the rare cigar or hookah, myself. (legal stuff only) Just try to keep your pleasure from becoming my misery, ok?

If I go into a bar, I know I'm subjecting myself to smoke. But if I go into a restaurant, I want my steak to taste like beef, not beef plus your stanky tobaccy. Please step outside and keep that rot to yourself, plskthxbye.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 04:57 AM

http://www.davehitt.com/

it looks like Mcsensei has taken a leaf out of this guys book! Only he has a webpage and everything! name three indeed.

This website is (apparently) "The Only Place to Get
Smartenized®"

Maybe thats what McSensei is doing, Smartenizeing us all, we should thank him really

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 07:50 AM

Matt, clearly sir, you have done your homework and I for one am proud of you. Thank you for, in my mind and probably the minds of many others here, putting this matter to rest.

Posted by: Blackrainbow

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 08:02 AM

Goooo Matt!!! Slam! Dunk! Game over!!!

Posted by: JasonM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 09:43 AM

Posted by: MattJ

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 10:39 AM

Quote:

You're a good man, and thurrah.

Yes, and proud we are of MattJ! Sorry McSensei, didn't mean to pee on your carpet, bro.

Big L is one of my favorite movies, btw.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 11:17 AM

"this agression, will not stand man"

One of my favourite movies also

Posted by: Dereck

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 11:24 AM

The Big Lebowski is on my "worst" movies of all time list. I remember my Plant Manager telling me it was a good movie when it came out so I rented it. The next day he was laughing as he knew it was crap and knew I felt the same way. I just don't see how anybody can like this movie! he still laughs about it today.

Posted by: shills11

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 11:44 AM

forget it Derek, your out of your element.

Posted by: RazorFoot

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/30/07 12:06 PM

I believe that this thread has run its course. Before there is further breakdown of this very volatile subject, with Admin approval, I believe it is time to close the door.

Smokers...grrrr

Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 09:32 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 09:42 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 09:47 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 09:58 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 10:06 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 10:11 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 11:41 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 11:59 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 12:00 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 12:08 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 12:22 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 12:43 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 01:04 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 01:14 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 01:29 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 01:44 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 01:59 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 02:11 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 02:31 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 02:42 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 02:50 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 03:19 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 03:31 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 03:39 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:19 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:24 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:27 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:35 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:46 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:47 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:57 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 04:57 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 05:22 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 05:43 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 05:53 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 06:16 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 06:29 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 09:22 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/05/07 10:48 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 12:09 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 01:04 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 02:19 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 08:56 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 09:07 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/06/07 12:27 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 04:19 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 10:33 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 11:41 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 03:28 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 03:42 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 06:05 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 06:25 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/07/07 10:23 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 02:34 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 05:09 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 06:35 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 07:17 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 10:45 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 10/08/07 11:04 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/18/07 05:58 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/19/07 07:01 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/19/07 03:52 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/19/07 04:32 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 02:36 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 06:24 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 08:26 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:38 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 10:37 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 10:55 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 11:53 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 12:27 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:02 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:20 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/22/07 09:29 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 09:46 AM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 01:07 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 01:43 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/23/07 02:47 PM

Re: Smokers...grrrr - 11/24/07 01:08 AM