Yeah, god forbid anyone should sound like they fall into the age demographic this site is most popular among...
I'm just curious about how old that makes hiim, because that IS what 25-year-olds sounded like 10 years ago...
Ucicare is about 50ish, he's a total wanker and occasionly has his little gimp buddies come post on here so he gets backup but they don't stay long..sadly he's the bad smell you just can't get rid of.
Oh and about the thread itself...i was a smoker and as an ex-smoker i'm the worst for not liking it.I hate the smell of it, hate the way it makes others smell and get pissed if some fucker sparks up next to me when i got my kids with me.It's nice to beable to go to the pub now and come home not stinking.I dunno if passive smoking hurts you or not, but i do know when i've been out at a club i dont come home smelling like an ashtray now.
It has been noted by several reputable sources including Prof. Sir Richard Droll (first scientist to establish a link between lung cancer and primary smoking) and the World Health Organisation that no real conclusive scientific evidence exists which proves any significantly harmful effects from passive smoking on health. Anti-smoking activists only cite research which reflects their personal bias and avoid any mention whatsoever of the many studies which negate their opinions. Statistical evidence against passive smoking also fails to withstand scrutiny, as was evident in several court rulings. The following year, the World Health Organisation (WHO) took a similar tumble. WHO claimed that non-smokers consistantly breathing other people's smoke were subjecting themselves to a 16-17% increased risk of lung cancer. Cue panic in the streets! The flaw, however, was that the estimated risk of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%, so a 17% increase on 0.01% meant that the findings of this seven year study - as the WHO conceded - were not "statistically significant". Positive research which dismissed the health risks, such as the Swedish studyby toxicologist Professor Robert Nilsson which found that non-smokers consumed between one cigarette a week to two cigarettes a year, featured in medical journals but never found their way into mainstream media. The latter were more inclined to publicise the sensational sounding claims made by anti-smoking groups, many of whom had dubious connections and/or motivations. Many were funded entirely - or were set up by - the very companies (international pharmaceutical giants such as Glaxo Wellcome and Smith Kline Beecham) who stand to make the biggest financial gains in what is now a multi-billion dollar industry producing smokeless nicoteine delivery systems such as patches, inhalers and gum. Indeed, the influence of these corporate giants is not only limited to our media. The pharmaceutical industry is known to have spent around £2 billion on hundreds of thousands of events attended by doctors. In the United States they donate more money to politicians and political parties than any other corporate entity and employ lobbyists to influence politicians. Such a rich and powerful industry, capable of spreading its' influence into so many areas of life - from schools and doctors to media, governments and the United Nations - is a formidable force, the effects of which on our lives should not be underestimated. In fact, legislation which prohibits the owner of a bar permitting a legal activity on their private property based on unreliable science might suggest that the government and politicians responsible are merely acting as pawns for big industry. And considering it is big industry which is primarily responsible for the extremely high levels of air pollution which is a proven significant cause of lung cancer (as well as a host of other maladies) there may be even greater amounts of wealth and power at stake than initially meets the eye. Imposing stricter (and costlier) regulations on industry would result in a huge drop in profits. Statistics from 'The Economist' (World in Figures 1997 edition) showed that despite the number of smokers in North America decreasing by 50% in the last thirty years, lung cancer rates had greatly increased - even among non-smokers. The country with the longest life expectancy in the world was Japan...which is also the second heaviest smoking nation in the world. It also happened to be last in the list for significant levels of pollution. In conclusion, i believe that through concerted media campaigns (that amount to nothing short of propaganda) smokers are being scapegoated for the sins of major international corporations whose long reaching and powerful tentacles are now visibley evident in all our lives. It seems that wherever there is great power and wealth, there inevitabley exists greed and corruption. And unless we guard against being led by fearful, knee-jerk reactions to such emotionally charged terms as "protecting children", "death" and "cancer" (backed up by impressive sounding data which on closer inspection holds not a drop of water), we stand to be ruthlessly manipulated by the malignant self-interest of giant, international corporate entities.
That's kind of how I feel. As an ex-smoker, I had to learn to abhor smoking as a means to quit. I didn't realize how badly I stunk when I was smoking. I, too, hate that stale ashtray stink that clings to my clothes after having been in contact with smoke. I don't mean get sanctimonious when someone lights up around me outside but I will make an excuse to leave the room if indoors.
I would smoke if I could, but it makes me sick. The worst thing about going to smoking bars with my friends is that my throat and lungs hurt for days afterward. That said, I think it's important to respect people's freedoms, and that includes the freedom to not have to breathe someone else's smoke.
So, you agree with the all out ban in public places or not? Because the total ban is denying smokers their freedoms/rights as much as allowing smoking anywhere and everywhere (which was the case many moons ago) is denying non-smokers the freedom to breath smoke or not. Most public places such as cafes and restaurants already had segregated areas for smokers and non-smokers anyway (voluntarily), apart from bars and clubs. But who wants a squeaky-clean, safe, regulated nightlife? Just the bores and hypersensitive. But a compromise - a law (or even incentives such as tax rebates etc) to create a segregated area would have been an acceptable option instead of this ridiculous (and unlawful) extreme - which, by the way, has destroyed a substantial number of businesses. And they would never have got away with it without the propaganda and spin to convince the masses that passive smoking is the big, bad bogeyman (instead of the real culprit - massively increased air pollution). You may not like it, and it may be an inconvenience, but is it really worth having our laws bastardised over? I think not. It's the thin end of the wedge too. First smokers, but who/what next? You cannot have giant, multinational corporations - who are only interested in increasing their profit margins - manipulating and shaping the laws of the land. And that is that.
I don't think there should be legal restrictions on it. I'm free to go to establishments that don't allow smoking by choice and can skip those that allow it. If the owners think they're losing business they can adjust as they see fit. But I do think that smokers should have enough restraint to leave the restaurant before burning one around everyone else. Still, it should be up to the (inconsiderate asshole) individual and not the government.
Yes, i agree. I should have amended this part to remove 'a law', but i hate having that 'last edited' message in my posts.
Its amazing that something that kills so many, on an annual basis, and places such a large burden on the Healthcare system that it is allowed to go on. Lead based paint and asbestos cause cancer and have been banned, if you have a house with asbestos shingles or siding, you have to have an abatement done, and pay out the ass to get it removed 'legally'. Heart disease, lung cancer, birth defects, ED, and Emphysema(SP?) are just a few of the issues related to cigarettes and tobacco, but its legal? I have told my family (all of whom smoke) and my friends that smoke that if I develop a form of cancer from their second hand smoke I will shoot them all before I go out. And I dont like guns.
