Donate SIGN UP

Down To The Hard Core Now....

Avatar Image
ToraToraTora | 13:14 Fri 17th May 2013 | News
94 Answers
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22567778
Numbers of smokers seem to be stubbornly fixed, are we now down to the hard core that only extreme measures would effect. What measures do you think would reduce smoking further?
Gravatar

Answers

41 to 60 of 94rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
MadMen

//You said "Imprison those who continue with this filthy habit ".

I would have thought the reason for my question was fairly obvious... :-) //

No , it's not - hic hic hic ...

Bartender - when your'e ready .
// There also wouldn't be many motorists left if petrol and diesel was £1,000 a litre. //

True. There'll basically be Roman Abramovich driving up and down an empty motorway, with a fag in one hand a can of Stella in the other.
\\\\\What measures do you think would reduce smoking further?\\\\

None.

Here, the medical profession and associated scientists have a problem:

Whether or not you smoke you could still develop lung cancer.
You are are more likely to develop lung cancer if you do smoke.
Does that mean that smoking causes lung cancer?

The points that we have read from, Jim, tambo et al are simply saying "Oi! we know smokers who are healthy and some in their 90's"

Difficult very difficult.
Lol Bazile. I'll take that as a yes then, which kind of makes your first comment "Imprison those who continue with this filthy habit " void.

:-)
I didn't exactly say that, Sqad, to be fair.
Octavius

/// AOG, no my new law would only relate to tobacco breath, otherwise it would just be silly. ///

That is just being unrealistically bias towards the smoker, and rather hypocritical if one is ready to condemn the smoker, yet still wants the freedom to pollute the atmosphere with his or her engine fumes, seeing that petrol and diesel fumes are much more harmful to many more people in comparison.

I wonder how many anti-smokers actually lead a healthy life style, and do nothing to damage their health or other's health, or is smoking just one of the 'follow the sheep issues' that it seems only right to join in with?
-----------------------------------------
I tend to follow this edict, AOG:

Smokers.
Cigarette smoke is the residue of your pleasure. It permeates the air, my hair and clothes, not to mention my lungs. This takes place without my consent. I have a pleasure- I like a beer now and again. The residue from my pleasure is urine. Would you mind if I stand on a chair and piss on your head without your consent??
jim.....LOL.....fair?.......don't spoil my rhetoric.....;-)
*mumbles* sorry sqad. :P

AOG: That's a bit of a flawed argument. There are all sorts of problems in the world -- does that mean that any one problem can be ignored?

It also overlooks the fact that petrol fumes used to be much more dangerous about 40 years ago, when petrol was leaded. This doesn't happen these days, as lead has mostly been removed from petrol. Yes, we haven't made petrol fumes completely healthy. On the other hand we have made progress.

Finally, for most people transport is a necessity -- to get to their job, for example -- whereas smoking is only ever a choice.
LOL ChillDoubt :o)
Why should I suffer 'extreme measures' to stop me smoking?
I am quite able to pay for my cigarettes (so unlike druggies and alkies I don't rob or beg to pay for my addiction)
I only smoke in my own home as I am not allowed to smoke in pubs (lots of them closing anyway) and restaurants. It would be rude to smoke in anyone elses home without their consent.
I started smoking at the age of 12 and finally gave up playing sport (squash, tennis, and table tennis) when I was about 50 due to my arthritis.
My home does not stink as it's always well ventilated but due to my smoking I do tend to redecorate more than a non-smoker.
So you tell me why I should stop....................
The amount of tax smokers pay more than outweighs the cost of treating them so leave them alone to get on with it.
ChillDoubt

/// Smokers.
Cigarette smoke is the residue of your pleasure. It permeates the air, my hair and clothes, not to mention my lungs. This takes place without my
consent. ///

Car drivers.

Petrol & Diesel fumes is the residue of your need to drive. It permeates the air, my hair, and clothes, not to mention my lungs. This takes place without my consent.

Incidentally I am a none smoker and I also drive myself, so I am neither showing a bias or being hypocritical, merely a believer in people being allowed the freedom to take part in an activity that is not illegal.



The difference is between "pleasure" and "need". Smoking and driving are in that sense not comparable.

Otherwise yes, we may just have to let people do this. However that's not to say that we shouldn't try to discourage people from smoking, surely?
-- answer removed --
"I am neither showing a bias or being hypocritical, merely a believer in people being allowed the freedom to take part in an activity that is not illegal."

My law allows that, but it also allows non smokers to squirt them with water. Its a slightly milder option than ChillDoubt's which was in my previous manifesto.

My dad was a drinker and a smoker. Guess what he died of??

Liver cancer!

jim360

/// AOG: That's a bit of a flawed argument. There are all sorts of problems in the world -- does that mean that any one problem can be ignored? ///

No but perhaps we should take care of the more important problems first, and not forget also that one person's problem could be another's enjoyment.

I have a problem with many things that others may do, but I would be both unreasonable and selfish, if all I wanted was to stop their pleasure because I happened to have a problem with it.

/// It also overlooks the fact that petrol fumes used to be much more dangerous about 40 years ago, when petrol was leaded. ///

And smoking was also more dangerous years ago before the introduction of filter tips.

/// Finally, for most people transport is a necessity -- to get to their job, for example -- whereas smoking is only ever a choice. ///

Yes but owning a car is also a choice, public transport is freely available, just think of the amount of pollution that would be cut, if we didn't all demand our own personal transport to and from our place of work?
Who defines which is more important?
triggerhippy

/// AOG, most people don't get their faces close to car engines. ///

There is no need to, the amount that is belched out into the atmosphere means that it is constantly all around us.

How many smokers would there have to be in a bus station to puff out the amount of exhaust fumes that the buses do?

41 to 60 of 94rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Down To The Hard Core Now....

Answer Question >>