Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The results of research have proved the case that passive smoking is damaging to non-smokers.
    That is absolutely untrue. What's worse is, you have some inkling it's not true & you keep repeating it. If you're about to call me an "addict in denial," fine---look at these statements (not from me, not from anyone who smokes):


    "The estimates of ETS caused deaths are guesstimates at best ... Maybe there are no deaths due to ETS in the workplace." --- Elizabeth Whelan, president: American Council on Science and Health, anti-tobacco activist, author of the book Smoking Gun: How the Tobacco Industry Gets Away with Murder

    "[C]oronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (including chronic bronchitis and emphysema) are closely linked to active smoking .... However, there is considerable controversy over whether secondhand smoke bears on one's likelihood of developing these diseases." --- Kimberly Bowman, ACSH researcher (my emphasis)

    "the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health remains under dispute." ---George Davey Smith, professor of clinical epidemiology

    "[A]nti-tobacco activists are exaggerating the dangers of second-hand smoke." --- Jeff Stier, ACSH spokesman

    "We must be interested in whether passive smoking kills, and the question has not been definitively answered." --- Richard Smith, editor, British Medical Journal

    This is only the tip of the iceberg. People in the medical/scientific community, and even people on the anti-smoking side, say things like this every day. Why? Because the research on passive smoking---after 2 decades and billions of dollars---hasn't proven a solitary thing (except possibly that secondhand smoke is not dangerous).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I can't really say I'll be mourning the loss of these liberties. Whether secondhand smoke is damaging to me or not, I simply dislike it and will thus prefer when it's not around me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I can't really say I'll be mourning the loss of these liberties. Whether secondhand smoke is damaging to me or not, I simply dislike it and will thus prefer when it's not around me.
    I,me,I,me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I can't really say I'll be mourning the loss of these liberties. Whether secondhand smoke is damaging to me or not, I simply dislike it and will thus prefer when it's not around me.
    i agree. As well as damaging people's health, there's nothing more anti social than someone having a fag in a place where people are eating, or socialising. I can't stand these smokers who don't think of others around - I for one don't want fag ash Lil sitting next to me in a bar or restaurant. They think they have the right to smoke everywhere and anywhere. It's rude and highly irritating, and the sooner the ban, the better.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    I,me,I,me.
    Yup. What's your point? Or are you a paragon of selflessness?

    When it comes to my eyes watering and my clothes stinking, I will be 'selfish'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophieD)
    i agree. As well as damaging people's health, there's nothing more anti social than someone having a fag in a place where people are eating, or socialising. I can't stand these smokers who don't think of others around - I for one don't want fag ash Lil sitting next to me in a bar or restaurant.
    Why are you in the restaurant then?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Yup. What's your point?
    You put your own selfishness before the liberties and freedoms of others.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Why are you in the restaurant then?
    Because last i checked, it didn't say "SMOKERS ONLY".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophieD)
    Because last i checked, it didn't say "SMOKERS ONLY".
    So smokers and non-smokers are allowed. Is that your choice or the choice of the restaurant owner?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    You put your own selfishness before the liberties and freedoms of others.
    I've already admitted to that, in this case. Thanks for pointing it out though. Obviously, smokers aren't putting their own selfishness before the liberties and freedoms of others when they blow their emissions into our faces and eyes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Obviously, smokers aren't putting their own selfishness before the liberties and freedoms of others when they blow their emissions into our faces and eyes.
    Not if youve accepted to inhabit a space with smokers, and accepted the consequences of smoking, no.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Not if youve accepted to inhabit a space with smokers, and accepted the consequences of smoking, no.
    Well it's their selfishness that's forcing me (and others) to even have to make this acceptance in the first place.

    Having said that though, I only have a problem with it when it gets to the point where smoke is literally going in my eyes, in a way that the smoker could easily prevent, by moving their hand slightly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    I've already admitted to that, in this case. Thanks for pointing it out though. Obviously, smokers aren't putting their own selfishness before the liberties and freedoms of others when they blow their emissions into our faces and eyes.
    I agree,lol. Well said.

    We're not putting our own liberty above others, smokers are abusing their liberty, by selfishly inflicting their exhaled smoke on people who have chosen not to smoke, and therefore shouldn't have to be subjected to it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    Well it's their selfishness that's forcing me (and others) to even have to make this acceptance in the first place.
    Who is forcing you to spend time next to smokers?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sophieD)
    I agree,lol. Well said.

    We're not putting our own liberty above others, smokers are abusing their liberty, by selfishly inflicting their exhaled smoke on people who have chosen not to smoke, and therefore shouldn't have to be subjected to it.
    Sorry, I dont believe you answered this,

    So smokers and non-smokers are allowed. Is that your choice or the choice of the restaurant owner?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Who is forcing you to spend time next to smokers?
    Are you in favour of decriminalising all banned substances? A smoking ban would not mean that people cannot smoke, simply that they cannot harm others through their ignorance and stupidity.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AMM)
    Are you in favour of decriminalising all banned substances? A smoking ban would not mean that people cannot smoke, simply that they cannot harm others through their ignorance and stupidity.
    Who is forcing you to spend time next to smokers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Who is forcing you to spend time next to smokers?
    No one. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that if I was truly bothered by the smoke (rather than just finding it to be annoying), I would be forced to go to places that don't have smoking - ruling out basically every pub where I live. So in effect, the smokers would actually be forcing me to behave in a certain fashion.

    As it stands, I am not quite prepared to let them do this, but will not be complaining when they are no longer able to even make it an issue.

    Even if I am putting myself ahead of the liberties of others, they're some pretty damn unpleasant liberties in any case. I'll pre-empt you asking "does this mean they deserve any less respect?" - yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    No one. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that if I was truly bothered by the smoke (rather than just finding it to be annoying), I would be forced to go to places that don't have smoking - ruling out basically every pub where I live. So in effect, the smokers would be forcing my behaviour.
    So would you prefer it if there were more non-smoking bars?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Partial ban: when you have a smoking and no smoking area, (right next to one another) its like that thing Lee Evans said about smoke stopping and going ''Oh, no, I'm not allowed in here..'' lol
 
 
 

3,563

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.