Smelly smokers!

Notorious

Grimes wrote: »

We get it, non smokers are better humans.

Give me a boost up onto my pedestal, will ya?

Breezer

Notorious wrote: »

Give me a boost up onto my pedestal, will ya?

Come join me on my high horse instead, the view is even better :pac:

Raphael

Breezer wrote: »

There isn't a large demographic of students who have a need to smoke either. A want yes, a compulsion yes, but not a need. And dogs have to crap somewhere, same as smokers supposedly have to smoke somewhere, but if they were let do that outside the library or Arts there'd be war.

You could put one round the back of the library, near the delivery area, plenty of space there and not many people walking by.

It was the norm to smoke in pubs 5 years ago. About the only good thing that government ever did.

Nah, just better in bed

They have a chemical addiction to nicotine, failing to indulge in which will cause them significant difficulties. Especially seeing as it's exam time atm, when people are stressed to all hell and could really use the relaxant of nicotine, and do without withdrawl.

Also, the dog argument doesn't hold up. There's the odd dog walker I've seen around campus, but not usually in that area. However there's a significant percentage of students and staff who smoke.

As regards around the back of the library as a smoking area, I've seen people use it - mainly staff. Reckon they'd be pissed if everyone came down there... Irregardless, the idea of making a designated smoking area there begs the question: Why should the smokers have to walk all the way around the building rather than you just holding your breath for 2 seconds as you enter or leave the building.

I don't have any of the data to make a statement like this proper, but I'd suspect that based on the number of people who step outside the library for a smoke on a day to day basis, the number of people who go into or out of the main library door on a day to day basis, and the number of them who are pissed off about the fact that people are smoking there, it would require a hell of a lot less effort for those people to just not inhale when passing through than it would for all those smokers to have to go the whole way around to the back of the building when they wanted a smoke.

Breezer

Raphael wrote: »

They have a chemical addiction to nicotine, failing to indulge in which will cause them significant difficulties. Especially seeing as it's exam time atm, when people are stressed to all hell and could really use the relaxant of nicotine, and do without withdrawl.

My heart bleeds. The health service could do with them withdrawing from their addiction permanently. Whatever difficulties they have with that are nothing compared to the effects they and others will suffer in the future as a result of their habit. I'm not even asking them to do that though, I'm asking them to have enough respect for other people to walk a few extra metres.

Also, the dog argument doesn't hold up. There's the odd dog walker I've seen around campus, but not usually in that area. However there's a significant percentage of students and staff who smoke.

It was a somewhat flippant example and was not meant to be taken literally. It wouldn't matter whether the occasional dog produced it or Hugh Brady drove in on a JCB and dumped it there. My point was that if you replaced one unpleasant, harmful substance with another, suddenly everyone would be up in arms about it.

As regards around the back of the library as a smoking area, I've seen people use it - mainly staff. Reckon they'd be pissed if everyone came down there...

Why? Is it a private unofficial smoking area? I'd love to see them argue it.

Irregardless, the idea of making a designated smoking area there begs the question: Why should the smokers have to walk all the way around the building rather than you just holding your breath for 2 seconds as you enter or leave the building.

Because quite frankly I don't see why I should have to do anything for any length of time to facilitate someone else's disgusting habit, that no one disputes has negative health consequences for both the person indulging in it and those who have to share the immediate environment with them. Irish, and increasingly international society has by and large accepted smoking as an anti-social habit and has thus removed it from most indoor public places. Moving it more than 2 foot away from the entrances to these public places is a logical extension to this, and has been done in many places already.

Smoking is a choice. If you choose to smoke, you should be prepared to put up with the consequences, and walking a few extra metres should be way down the list of those.

Raphael

Breezer wrote: »

Why? Is it a private unofficial smoking area? I'd love to see them argue it.

The staff objecting thing was a joke.

Breezer wrote: »

Because quite frankly I don't see why I should have to do anything for any length of time to facilitate someone else's disgusting habit.

You see not breathing in while passing through a cloud of smoke as facilitating a smoking habit? I sure as hell don't. I see asking people to go out of their way to smoke so you don't have to mildly inconvenience yourself as being quite unreasonable on your behalf.

To clarify, for me you facilitating their habit would be them being allowed to smoke anywhere. Them facilitating your desire to avoid smoke would involve them smoking where no one would pass through. The current situation, where the smoke has to stay outside, but stats at the entrance because people don;t want to go far (Especially when it's cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey outside) Is a happy medium where no one is being forced to endure too much suffering in order to facilitate others.

Breezer wrote: »

Smoking is a choice. If you choose to smoke, you should be prepared to put up with the consequences, and walking a few extra metres should be way down the list of those.

Smoking is a choice you make once, and then live with for the rest of your life. It's a highly addictive drug that has so pervaded society that it has been deemed socially acceptable to use, or definitely did in the past. I have nothing to back this up (bar personal experience), but I would assume that most smokers start smoking when they're young and stupid, not knowing or caring about the consequences, and are then stuck with a nicotine dependence for the rest of your life.

Sure, they could quit. I've never known someone who managed to quit. I've known people who swore off the cigarettes, stayed off them for years, then something happened and they started again. No one ever quits smoking - they're just between cigarettes.

Breezer

Raphael wrote: »

The staff objecting thing was a joke.

My bad, didn't pick up on it from the text.

You see not breathing in while passing through a cloud of smoke as facilitating a smoking habit? I sure as hell don't. I see asking people to go out of their way to smoke so you don't have to mildly inconvenience yourself as being quite unreasonable on your behalf.

To clarify, for me you facilitating their habit would be them being allowed to smoke anywhere. Them facilitating your desire to avoid smoke would involve them smoking where no one would pass through. The current situation, where the smoke has to stay outside, but stats at the entrance because people don;t want to go far (Especially when it's cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey outside) Is a happy medium where no one is being forced to endure too much suffering in order to facilitate others.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. I see nothing unreasonable in my attitude and firmly believe that the current law that stops at the entrance doesn't go far enough. See, my desire to avoid smoke doesn't damage other people's health, doesn't smell bad, doesn't cause other people to cough, doesn't linger on other people's clothes, etc. And I really couldn't care less how cold, wet, windy or otherwise inclement the weather is: I don't see why smokers should be accommodated like this to the detriment of everyone else. Maybe I'm a cruel, cold-hearted bastard but that's how I feel and I make no apologies for it.

No one ever quits smoking - they're just between cigarettes.

Sorry Raphael, the rest of our argument comes down to differing opinions, but I'm gonna have to call you on that one, it's total rubbish. A lot of people never quit, but I've met many, many ex-smokers (for decades) in hospitals (it being a routine question we ask every patient). You'd be amazed what a heart attack or a doctor telling you you're going to lose a leg if you don't quit can do.

Wow, I'm not used to arguing with you this much, normally we seem to agree on things!

fillefatale

Breezer wrote: »

It was the norm to smoke in pubs 5 years ago. About the only good thing that government ever did.

I agree and indoors. So they smoke outside, and if the arts front entrance is the handiest place, thats the way it is.

Breezer

fillefatale wrote: »

I agree and indoors. So they smoke outside, and if the arts front entrance is the handiest place, thats the way it is.

Clearly. But as I pointed out, smoking inside was "the way it was" 5 years ago. It doesn't mean it's pleasant for other people, and it doesn't mean it can never be changed. I've seen many instances of smoking being prohibited around entrances, and there has been talk over the last few years of legally enforcing it, although nothing concrete yet.

Raphael

Breezer wrote: »

Sorry Raphael, the rest of our argument comes down to differing opinions,

Indeed, so I for one am giving up =p

Breezer wrote: »

but I'm gonna have to call you on that one, it's total rubbish. A lot of people never quit, but I've met many, many ex-smokers (for decades) in hospitals (it being a routine question we ask every patient). You'd be amazed what a heart attack or a doctor telling you you're going to lose a leg if you don't quit can do.

I think you kind of missed my point, which is my fault for miscommunicating it. I'm not saying no one ever quits them, I'm saying that even after/while you've quit, you still have to deal with cravings and it can only take one really bad day to send someone who's quit, long since off them, is very happy with their life as a non smoker, back onto the cigarettes.

The point about being told "You're going to die unless you cut that out" is a fair one, adds an extra incentive. However, it doesn't always cause someone to quit. I knew a woman who was dying of emphezema, on oxygen, and was still smoking.

Breezer wrote: »

Wow, I'm not used to arguing with you this much, normally we seem to agree on things!

Life would be boring if everyone got along all the time. This way, we get interesting debate.

dr.bollocko

Breezer wrote: »

Clearly. But as I pointed out, smoking inside was "the way it was" 5 years ago. It doesn't mean it's pleasant for other people, and it doesn't mean it can never be changed. I've seen many instances of smoking being prohibited around entrances, and there has been talk over the last few years of legally enforcing it, although nothing concrete yet.

Goddamn some people will just object to anything and everything.
Isn't there some climate march you could go on instead or something? Seems to me like that'd be slightly more noble than making smokers arbitrarily move 20 feet because you're sitting downwind of them and they're offending you.

Breezer

Raphael wrote: »

Indeed, so I for one am giving up =p

I win, I win!

I think you kind of missed my point, which is my fault for miscommunicating it. I'm not saying no one ever quits them, I'm saying that even after/while you've quit, you still have to deal with cravings and it can only take one really bad day to send someone who's quit, long since off them, is very happy with their life as a non smoker, back onto the cigarettes.

True.

The point about being told "You're going to die unless you cut that out" is a fair one, adds an extra incentive. However, it doesn't always cause someone to quit. I knew a woman who was dying of emphezema, on oxygen, and was still smoking.

I never say always I also said "lose a leg" rather than "die," you'd be amazed at how much more seriously people take the former.

Life would be boring if everyone got along all the time. This way, we get interesting debate.

Or tired cranky 3.30am debate

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Goddamn some people will just object to anything and everything.
Isn't there some climate march you could go on instead or something? Seems to me like that'd be slightly more noble than making smokers arbitrarily move 20 feet because you're sitting downwind of them and they're offending you.

No, I won't object to anything for the sake of it, but I'll object to things that I find disgusting and unnecessary, such as disrespectful people breathing poison down my throat.

The Agogo

I'm a smoker and have a problem with it, but that mainly is with the gipstain inbred who can't extinguish his cigarettes properly in the bin beside the library door's pillar.

When that thing goes on fire you can smell it all over the building. It's funny to see the amount of security walk past it and not do a single thing about it.

smk89

I hate when med students get on their high horse about smoking, and I dont smoke.
Its so sad and besides it acually encourages the person to smoke more.

Xhristy

This post has been deleted.

RandolphEsq

Maebh wrote: »

Some of my dearest memories of UCD were standing outside Arts sharing a smoke with my friends...

I'll smoke, I'll cough, I'll get the cancer, I'll die. You happy?

Delighted.

It's filthy to have all the cretins puffing away outside Arts or JJ. Both areas are very enclosed despite being 'outside' so a cloud of cancer goodness lingers for a while and is unpleasant to have to pass through. Smokers are weak people, hence the addiction, so as a non-smoker (beautiful and healthy) I am entitled to look down on them.

Breezer

smk89 wrote: »

I hate when med students get on their high horse about smoking, and I dont smoke.
Its so sad and besides it acually encourages the person to smoke more.

Plenty of med students and doctors smoke. I found it disgusting long before I started studying medicine. And if that's how smokers react to people not liking it it's a little sad to be honest.

Riamfada

This thread is full of Christmas love.

RandolphEsq

Grimes wrote: »

This thread is full of Christmas love.

/takes up smoking next to Grimes and sends him passive smoke for 50 odd years until he dies from lung cancer due to passive smoking. Christmas cheer that

Riamfada

RandolphEsq wrote: »

/takes up smoking next to Grimes and sends him passive smoke for 50 odd years until he dies from lung cancer due to passive smoking. Christmas cheer that

Free smoke!!! best Christmas present ever!!

Het-Field

I really enjoy the High Horse mentality of Breezer and the OP.

Im not a smoker, never have been. However, I cant stand it when people seek to take a moral high ground on the issue. Why should smokers have to have their right to inhale nicotine, and smell like a chimney, negated ? What about people who smell of B.O or rainwater ? Should they be shunned ???

I have no time for the individualism of Breezer in this matter. It's one way of life, competing against another. We dont like it, but we must accept it, or seek to use another route to make it into the library. Its a small price to pay for individualsim, and upholding one's right to slowly kill themselves.

Breezer

Het-Field wrote: »

I really enjoy the High Horse mentality of Breezer and the OP.

Im not a smoker, never have been. However, I cant stand it when people seek to take a moral high ground on the issue. Why should smokers have to have their right to inhale nicotine, and smell like a chimney, negated ? What about people who smell of B.O or rainwater ? Should they be shunned ???

I have no time for the individualism of Breezer in this matter. It's one way of life, competing against another. We dont like it, but we must accept it, or seek to use another route to make it into the library. Its a small price to pay for individualsim, and upholding one's right to slowly kill themselves.

Het-Field, I'm not taking a moral high ground. BO may be unpleasant, but it doesn't affect other people's health, which is why I don't object to it as forcefully. I see no reason why people should have to go out of their way to protect their health in order to defend someone else's "right" to smoke.

There is precedent for banning smoking in all but a few designated areas of premises where large numbers of people assemble: airports, stadia, hospitals, even some parts of UCD. I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to the rest of UCD.

Regarding individualism (which I notice you see as fine for smoking but not for me holding a dissenting opinion), I'm all for it, provided it does not significantly negatively affect other people.

Riamfada

Breezer wrote: »

Het-Field, I'm not taking a moral high ground. BO may be unpleasant, but it doesn't affect other people's health, which is why I don't object to it as forcefully. I see no reason why people should have to go out of their way to protect their health in order to defend someone else's "right" to smoke.

There is precedent for banning smoking in all but a few designated areas of premises where large numbers of people assemble: airports, stadia, hospitals, even some parts of UCD. I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to the rest of UCD.

Regarding individualism (which I notice you see as fine for smoking but not for me holding a dissenting opinion), I'm all for it, provided it does not significantly negatively affect other people.

Do you also have an issue breathing in carsonagenic fumes while standing in a street full of cars or waiting for a bus? That would be an interesting crusade. The few seconds a day you might have to pass by some smokers is nothing to your health compared to the exposure of numerous man made substances you come into contact daily that cause your health negative effects.

Second hand smoke is over rated unless Im standing in your face blowing it into you for 20 years. Also regarding the smell of smoke, its not at all harmful to you if not a little unpleasant therefore the BO comparison is perfectly valid. I have met some non smokers who's smell turns my stomach and I can hardly smell, being a smoker and all.

Het-Field

Breezer wrote: »

Het-Field, I'm not taking a moral high ground. BO may be unpleasant, but it doesn't affect other people's health, which is why I don't object to it as forcefully. I see no reason why people should have to go out of their way to protect their health in order to defend someone else's "right" to smoke.

There is precedent for banning smoking in all but a few designated areas of premises where large numbers of people assemble: airports, stadia, hospitals, even some parts of UCD. I see no reason why this shouldn't apply to the rest of UCD.

Regarding individualism (which I notice you see as fine for smoking but not for me holding a dissenting opinion), I'm all for it, provided it does not significantly negatively affect other people.

I have no problem with you holding a position of dissent on the matter. I simply disagree with your position.

As Grimes has suggested, it would take much second hand smoke before it will have a significant adverse impact on a person. If you pass by it occasionally during a week, then there should be no significant problem to your health. As such, I believe the "protection of ones health" argument is moot. In fact, I am of the belief that those with Flus and colds, and stomach upsets should stay away from campus. They certainly have an adverse impact on people's health, however, it is impossible to coral those who have them into little rooms, and designated areas.

graduate

BO, sneezes etc are natural although of course people should try to moderate the effect of these things things on others. Smoking is a deliberate effort to be odious and in a wholly different category.

MrKingsley

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Delighted.

It's filthy to have all the cretins puffing away outside Arts or JJ. Both areas are very enclosed despite being 'outside' so a cloud of cancer goodness lingers for a while and is unpleasant to have to pass through. Smokers are weak people, hence the addiction, so as a non-smoker (beautiful and healthy) I am entitled to look down on them.

I am only hoping that there is a hint of sarcasm in that post. If not then it contains some of the most stupid things i have heard in a long time.

Firstly theres no need to get offensive with use of the word cretin

Secondly outside the library is very enclosed???????? Thats just silly. And if you really feel so claustrophobic then go out the back door.

Thirdly you are not entitled to look down on anyone. And especially not if your argument for being not being weak is that your a non smoker. Or did i forget that when peoples personalities are being given to them the weak ones are given out with a pack of 20 John Player???? Missed that meeting obviously

griffdaddy

graduate wrote: »

BO, sneezes etc are natural although of course people should try to moderate the effect of these things things on others. Smoking is a deliberate effort to be odious and in a wholly different category.

How is it a deliberate effort to be odious? I would've thought it was a deliberate effort to have a smoke, nothing more. A deliberate effort to be odious would be to cover yourself in sh1t or something. Like other posters said, it's not gonna hurt you to walk past a crowd of smokers a few times a week. Man up ffs.

Breezer

Grimes wrote: »

Do you also have an issue breathing in carsonagenic fumes while standing in a street full of cars or waiting for a bus? That would be an interesting crusade. The few seconds a day you might have to pass by some smokers is nothing to your health compared to the exposure of numerous man made substances you come into contact daily that cause your health negative effects.

My logic is that those fumes serve a purpose other than allowing a few people to give themselves cancer.

Anyway, I've had a think about this, and I want to apologise for coming across as a complete twat. While I still think my points are valid, I blew them out of all proportion. It's a minor issue compared to what indoor smoking was five years ago, and there are far more effective ways public policy could reduce smoking levels.

Enjoy your cancer sticks folks. Just please make an effort not to blow them in my face when I'm standing in line for the ATM.

qwert2

Hi smokers! Just a reminder to you all that you still smell

Red Alert

Yes, you young folk are lucky you never had to endure a night in the student bar before the smoking ban.

IM0

Die thread..die!