Smokers

[Jacob334]

Thats true. Maybe instead they could have a collection outside of tube stations and places like that. Those collections could then be given to the homeless to build their homes out of, or whatever they do with them.

lol make homes out of fag ends and chewing gum! lol

 

[Kell_ee001]

i do not see that non smokers should be told what they can and cant do in public, when it is smokers who are abusing the situation.

So non-smokers can do what they like in public but smokers aren't allowed the same right? No room for compromise as I suggested above?

That's what I meant by smokers are happy to try and please the non-smokers but regardless of what they do, it's still not enough for some who simply want to dictate.

 

[alexakasloth]

lol make homes out of fag ends and chewing gum! lol

They would be quite sticky though.

 

[turkey73]

I love these threads

Im a smoker - flame me

 

[nero120]

Ty I don't feel I have the right to impose my views (or smoke) on others, but I do expect the same consideration in return.

That sounds very similar to my view on people who insist on playing "music" from their mobile on the bus, ignoring others' views and imposing it on them, so yes, I see where you're coming from. I dislike that attitude as well, every individual should accept responsibility for their actions.

Good example there, I feel the same way.

Quick question: is it the smoke or the attitude that annoys you more?

Thats too hard to tell. Would I not mind smoke as much if it werent associated with the attitude, or vice versa? I dont think I could seperate the two in my mind to make that call, Im too bitter!

 

[nero120]

So non-smokers can do what they like in public but smokers aren't allowed the same right? No room for compromise as I suggested above?

That's what I meant by smokers are happy to try and please the non-smokers but regardless of what they do, it's still not enough for some who simply want to dictate.

Do you feel that a non smoker doing nothing is equal to a smoker smoking? What example of behaviour do you have that suggests equality on part of non smoker to a smoker? Treefrog gave a good example of people playing music loud on their mobiles - do you think that this is unreasonable behaviour? Is it not the one "doing" the disputed action who should be responsible for its reaction and answerable on account of it?

 

[t31os]

B

So non-smokers can do what they like in public but smokers aren't allowed the same right? No room for compromise as I suggested above?

That's what I meant by smokers are happy to try and please the non-smokers but regardless of what they do, it's still not enough for some who simply want to dictate.

In reality its hard to give smokers much option without still effecting those not smoking.

For example, a smoking area of a restauratn right next to a non-smoking section, which you'll see in thousands of places is pretty pointless, the smoke still travels in the air into the non-smoking section. This problem can apply to many other places to, even those with smoking rooms, unless the air is heavily vetilated it doesnt intuitively know to drift away from the joining rooms.

I quit smoking for 2 years and it took a good 1 of those years for my sense of smell and taste to get back to decent level, but by god could i smell great, and you soon realise how bad it is. I can say now, and i've only been back on it 6 months or so, that i can rarely notice the smell or yucky taste it gave me when i was of it.

I'd like to give up again and i'm sure i will, but i agree with the non-smokers here, its very easy to disregard certain things when you can't really notice the effects yourself.

However i also appreciate some non-smokers can be all up in your face, but then unless you've been the non-smoker breathing in the smoke can you honestly say they were in the wrong?......

I smoke anywhere i'm allowed and yes i'm one of those people who chucks his butts on the floor (not all the time), but in fairness to smokers, how many ashtrays do you spot when you walk down the street?.... i don't see many, and its not really a good idea to chuck butts into a bin. I normally aim for drains.

I'll also admit its very easy to disregard others without even realising it, and its never easy for anyone to say "hey you mind if i smoke?" near a stranger, or take a considerate thought in the first place, its just been the 'ok' thing for smokers for soo long.

I'm not perfect and i'll admit i disregard other people at times, and its why i support banning smoking in public places and so on.......

 

[Kell_ee001]

Do you feel that a non smoker doing nothing is equal to a smoker smoking? What example of behaviour do you have that suggests equality on part of non smoker to a smoker? Treefrog gave a good example of people playing music loud on their mobiles - do you think that this is unreasonable behaviour? Is it not the one "doing" the disputed action who should be responsible for its reaction and answerable on account of it?

If everyone is doing what they want and not being restricted by others then I would say it was equal. If you wish to continue with Treefrogs very good example of loud music on mobiles, I do think it's a little unreasonable but at the same time you don't hear me whinging on about it and trying to get music banned from all public places - each to their own afterall

And you didn't answer either of my questions. Do you not believe people should have equal rights? Is there any room for compromise in your view?

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Well next year Engerland is going to be having a smoking ban like us, so they're going to have to care at some point in the future.

Our department got rid of it's smokers room and there is a no-smoking policy on campus when the ban came in here. A few people smoke at the main door to the building so I can see the head of department getting annoyed at that if there is a mess when important government officials come to visit to determine research budgets for next year.

It's been funny so far though watching the smokers at my local pubs huddling together at the main door freezing and getting soaked with rain, only to get worse once winter arrives.

haha it can't come soon enough.. I find the habit inexcusable and disgusting to be honest. He hate having smoke blasted in my face and having to smell that desease on my clothes. Even worse, when you can smell it ozzing from your skin when your in the bath.. yuk..


as far as the opening thread is concerned.. sounds like a good idea. We used to have a smoking room at work but that's been banned because people take the buscuit... so then people started going outside without going through the security doors.. people complained so now, any time taken for smoking, has to be made up..

Also, there is no smoking in front or to the sides of the building.. they have to smoke in the rear by the gutters.. where they belong.

 

[nero120]

If everyone is doing what they want and not being restricted by others then I would say it was equal. If you wish to continue with Treefrogs very good example of loud music on mobiles, I do think it's a little unreasonable but at the same time you don't hear me whinging on about it and trying to get music banned from all public places - each to their own afterall

True, but it was only a loose example. People who listen to music on their mobiles dont make your clothes/hair stink or drop loads of litter do they?

And you didn't answer either of my questions. Do you not believe people should have equal rights? Is there any room for compromise in your view?

Sorry. The trouble is how do you define "equal rights" - what is equal to you seems not to be equal to me, so where do you draw the line?

To answer your previous question, I think smokers should be allowed to do exactly what non smokers do - since non smokers aer allowed to drop litter and dont affect those around them by making them directly breathe in smelly fumes and make their hair/clothes smell, it would exactly be "fair" to allow smokers the right to do that would it?

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Do you feel that a non smoker doing nothing is equal to a smoker smoking? What example of behaviour do you have that suggests equality on part of non smoker to a smoker? Treefrog gave a good example of people playing music loud on their mobiles - do you think that this is unreasonable behaviour? Is it not the one "doing" the disputed action who should be responsible for its reaction and answerable on account of it?

This has nothing to do with equilty it's about having respect for each others wishes and in the case of smoking, health. Why should any non-smoker have to put up with someone elses second hand smoke.. I wonder why anyone would except this as being ok?

People playing music loudly in public places is not a good example. It is considerd disrespectful and rude but it inflicts no health risk to others except annoyance so the two are incomparable.

 

[Kell_ee001]

Non-smokers do what they like. So smokers should be allowed to as well (which includes smoking wherever they are allowed to)

Each to their own That, to me, is fair.

Non-smokers shouldn't complain about people smoking where smoking is allowed - I don't complain I can't smoke in non-smoking places so I move to somewhere I can if I want one. Non-smokers can move too. Just takes a little consideration for other people, but that works both ways.

 

[dod]

True, but it was only a loose example. People who listen to music on their mobiles dont make your clothes/hair stink or drop loads of litter do they?

We're back to the chewing gum again Personally I find having to dodge discarded gum far more offensive than having to walk past a cigarette end, that and piles of phlegm from the youngsters walking in front of you.

Generalising of course.

 

[nero120]

We're back to the chewing gum again Personally I find having to dodge discarded gum far more offensive than having to walk past a cigarette end, that and piles of phlegm from the youngsters walking in front of you.

Generalising of course.

Littering is illegal, what more do you want? Gum chewers in general do not take it as their right to drop it on the floor, as much as any other person does. Besides, your example does not stand as there are far more fag ends on the floor than chewing gum.

 

[nero120]

Non-smokers do what they like. So smokers should be allowed to as well (which includes smoking wherever they are allowed to)

Each to their own That, to me, is fair.

Non-smokers dont litter as a matter of course. Non smokers dont make other people stink as a matter of course. Non smokers dont set out to affect others negatively as a matter of course. Why is it so difficult to understand the inherent difference of action here? Non smokers do not affect others, smokers do, therefore the onus is on the smoker to make ammends - i.e. smoke some place where it does not affect others. If you can not understand this reasoning then this is going nowhere, and I'll just settle for our nanny state to do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Non-smokers shouldn't complain about people smoking where smoking is allowed - I don't complain I can't smoke in non-smoking places so I move to somewhere I can if I want one. Non-smokers can move too. Just takes a little consideration for other people, but that works both ways.

You really need to think about this one some more...

 

[Admiral Huddy]

Non-smokers do what they like. So smokers should be allowed to as well (which includes smoking wherever they are allowed to)

Each to their own That, to me, is fair.

Non-smokers shouldn't complain about people smoking where smoking is allowed - I don't complain I can't smoke in non-smoking places so I move to somewhere I can if I want one. Non-smokers can move too. Just takes a little consideration for other people, but that works both ways.

As a non-smoker and always have been, I agree with this.

However, in public where smoking is permitted, it's upto the idividual to consider and respect other non-smokers wishes. There's nothing worse than getting a facefull from someone elses puff.. In this case, the benefit of the doubt must go to the non-smoker because only the smoker can do something about it. Smokers are very welcome to puff themselfs in to a grave as long as it's not taking me with them.

 

[singist]

See, just when you thought that it couldn't be discussed yet again, someone comes along and picks the scab off that healing wound.

It reminds me of playground fights ... lol .... lets all gather round and shout eh?

Let it die FFS! it's been done to death from every angle and the opposong parties will never agree so save the bandwidth.

 

[Admiral Huddy]

See, just when you thought that it couldn't be discussed yet again, someone comes along and picks the scab off that healing wound.

It reminds me of playground fights ... lol .... lets all gather round and shout eh?

Let it die FFS! it's been done to death from every angle and the opposong parties will never agree so save the bandwidth.

ehh this is a forum.. where you discuss things.. quite normal really

 

[Kell_ee001]

Non-smokers dont litter as a matter of course. Non smokers dont make other people stink as a matter of course. Non smokers dont set out to affect others negatively as a matter of course. Why is it so difficult to understand the inherent difference of action here? Non smokers do not affect others, smokers do,

Non-smokers drop litter too - when out shopping I regularly see people (smokers and non-smokers) dropping their receipts. Got the metro home yesterday with a loads of kids who'd obviously been playing football - sweaty and stinky and I could smell it for ages after. Saw a load of charvs while I was walking home from the metro - now they were definately set out of effect other negatively and I didn't see any of them with a cigarette. All of these effected me and had nothing to do with smoking.

therefore the onus is on the smoker to make ammends - i.e. smoke some place where it does not affect others.

No - I didn't like it so I did something about it... I picked up and binned the receipt, I moved my seat on the metro and I crossed the road to avoid the charvs.

You really need to think about this one some more...

I don't think I do. I think it's all about give and take and everyone having some consideration regardless of your smoking habits. If you know people will be smoking somewhere, don't go there.

 

[dod]

I support your view that non smokers shouldn't be subjected to smoke. I just don't think that using the litter issue is a particularly strong argument to support it. I can't find anything quickly saying how many fag ends were dropped in Oxford street unfortunately

Gum chewers in general do not take it as their right to drop it on the floor, as much as any other person does. Besides, your example does not stand as there are far more fag ends on the floor than chewing gum.

From http://www.gumpouch.com/gumlitterfacts.html

* People who drop gum face on-the-spot fines of at least £50
* Some councils have Gum Buster machines to clean chewing gum off the pavements
* The Gum Buster machines cost £17,000 each and they take about 2 minutes to remove one piece of gum
* Wrigley say chewing gum is used by 28 million people in the UK
* Street cleaning in the UK costs £413m - this is paid for by council taxes
* Some countries are considering putting a tax on gum to help pay for the clean-up costs
* London's Oxford Street is peppered with over 300,000 pieces of chewing gum
* It takes 17 weeks to remove chewing gum from Oxford Street, but only 10 days for the street to be covered in gum again
* A piece of chewing gum costs about 3p, but costs 10p to remove from the street
* During the last 5 years Wrigley has invested over £5 million and dedicated three full-time R&D staff to the challenge of producing a more easily removable chewing gum
* In the UK alone more than 935 million packs of gum are chewed every year

and more here. Both are an issue, personally I think gum is the worse of the two.

http://www.cleanercities.co.uk/cigarettelitter.html