Irish smokers should defend themselves more

Uriel.

The bottom line is, should we not be doing everything we possibly can to discourage the uptake of smoking in future generations, outside of outright outlawing of it?

The same of course can also be said of alcohol.

Call Me Jimmy

I'd also like to say that people who make an issue of outdoor public smoking have within that week forced a grease-drenched burger down their face-holes which will do them more damage than any bit of second hand smoke they have the misfortune of being in the presence of outdoors.

Call Me Jimmy

Uriel. wrote: »

The bottom line is, should we not be doing everything we possibly can to discourage the uptake of smoking in future generations, outside of outright outlawing of it?

The same of course can also be said of alcohol.

I don't want to live in a world without alcohol/tobbacco/drugs/indulgences unless we are ALL at a heightened level of consciousness and enlightenment!

Michael D Not Higgins

FunLover18 wrote: »

Cars are essential to the point that banning them would have a massive effect on society. The same can not be said for cigarettes.

Banning cars may not effect you but it would have cause huge problems for most other people. Remember when the buses were out and everyone had to use their cars? That was Dublin alone. Banning cars nationwide would wreak havoc on the public transport system.

Smoking on the other is essential to only to addicts (who can quit) and banning cigarettes would only affect people on an individual basis.

Now, did I just waste 5 minutes typing that?

Yes you did

Massive effect != essential

Uriel.

dark crystal wrote: »

Why should they? They're not doing anything illegal or immoral.

While I don't ever see outright ban of cigarettes, not sure that I'd support the notion either, but if restrictions or bans are placed on when/where smoking is allowed, then they will be doing something illegal.

Once upon a time, not so long ago, marital rape was legal... and probably wasn't considered immoral either...:(

Uriel.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I don't want to live in a world without alcohol/tobbacco/drugs/indulgences unless we are ALL at a heightened level of consciousness and enlightenment!

Smoking is a massive public health concern, there's no doubt about that. I think we should do all we can denormalise it, restrict access particularly for future generations and change the attitude from "you can't tell me what to do" to "Damn, I wouldn't smoke if you paid me.."

Outright ban won't achieve that. But I think some (a lot) of the ideas in the strategy document have very strong merit.

Happyman42

Madsl and his wife need to get... stay in more.

MadsL

dark crystal wrote: »

Yes they did.

Not the direct questions that were asked which is basically why can other forms of nicotine delivery not be used instead. The answer it appears is "because we don't feel like it, and it tastes different"

Why should they? They're not doing anything illegal or immoral.

Fine. I can fart in peoples faces then. Not illegal or immoral.

Who exactly? Have they made a complaint about students smoking outside?

Should they not also be protected under the legislation, if they work on UCD's grounds. Their workplace after all.

Great analogy. I saw a leopard in Dublin zoo and know many others who have seen one too.

My point is pretty clear, you don't need to have witnessed it to know that it exists. Are you a doctor?

I don't smoke any more and if I did, I wouldn't be blowing smoke in your wife's face any more than I would blow smoke in anyone else's face.

So hand on heart you have never smoked in these scenarios:

1. Lashing rain, waiting for the bus, everyone cramped under the shelter. Sure I'll have a fag, long bus ride.

2. Lashing rain, I'll have a fag in the entrance, sure it's outside - sod the people coming in/out.

3. I'm in the queue, sure quick fag, can't smoke inside.

Out of curiosity, how many asthma attacks has your wife suffered from directly because of someone smoking outdoors in a wide open space?

Twice. Once at an outdoor gig, the other when sitting on a patio having a drink and a guy lit up a cigar.

DeVore

2Bn was spent on tobacco related illnesses in the HSE last year (4bn on booze related, 400m on all other drugs combined... but yeah, fncking junkies eh?). We ALL pay for those tax (Duty on cigs was only 1.3Bn) but only smokers COST them.

Smokers clog the queues for lung transplants which leaves others to die on the list.

And still I would defend smokers right to smoke... all I'm saying is "meet us half way". Go outside for your cig yeah? Its not much to ask.

MadsL

Happyman42 wrote: »

Madsl and his wife need to get... stay in more.

How inconsiderate of her to have a medical condition. If only there was some way to control that.

Can you imagine how nice it was to actually be able to go to the pub when the smoking ban came in...

But please, continue to express your preference for burning tobacco...not like there is any other way to enjoy nicotine...

Happyman42

MadsL wrote: »

How inconsiderate of her to have a medical condition. If only there was some way to control that.

Can you imagine how nice it was to actually be able to go to the pub when the smoking ban came in...

But please, continue to express your preference for burning tobacco...not like there is any other way to enjoy nicotine...

I think you are being a tad hysterical. What are these people smoking outdoors- 40ft long, 10inch wide cigs? Walking past somebody smoking will only mean you ingest a tiny amount of smoke.

Uriel.

DeVore wrote: »

2Bn was spent on tobacco related illnesses in the HSE last year (4bn on booze related, 400m on all other drugs combined... but yeah, fncking junkies eh?). We ALL pay for those tax (Duty on cigs was only 1.3Bn) but only smokers COST them.

Smokers clog the queues for lung transplants which leaves others to die on the list.

And still I would defend smokers right to smoke... all I'm saying is "meet us half way". Go outside for your cig yeah? Its not much to ask.

Perhaps lung transplants and treatment for smoking relating illnesses should see you prioritized on the waiting lists?

MadsL

DeVore wrote: »

2Bn was spent on tobacco related illnesses in the HSE last year (4bn on booze related, 400m on all other drugs combined... but yeah, fncking junkies eh?). We ALL pay for those tax (Duty on cigs was only 1.3Bn) but only smokers COST them.

Smokers clog the queues for lung transplants which leaves others to die on the list.

And still I would defend smokers right to smoke... all I'm saying is "meet us half way". Go outside for your cig yeah? Its not much to ask.

I'd go further. As an ex-smoker it is pure selfishness driven when there are plenty of alternatives.

I'd ban tobacco use in public places, except members clubs (pipe/cigar bars)

By all means enjoy your vaping inside and then maybe we can stop having to segregate people. Non-smokers no longer have to go outside to be 'sociable" and ex-smokers can even enjoy their hit in the cinema. And taxpayers no longer have to fund the cost of treatment.

Win-win. Done and done.

Call Me Jimmy

Uriel. wrote: »

Smoking is a massive public health concern, there's no doubt about that. I think we should do all we can denormalise it, restrict access particularly for future generations and change the attitude from "you can't tell me what to do" to "Damn, I wouldn't smoke if you paid me.."

Outright ban won't achieve that. But I think some (a lot) of the ideas in the strategy document have very strong merit.

I agree with you on one level, and for all things it should be that attitude - chips? no thanks, gimme a salad after my night out! sitting on computer all evening watching breaking bad? No I'll stimulate my senses and reactivate my body, cheers! Want a drink? Of water, yea, the life-giving liquid, I'll do shots of it with ye!

You get my drift. This is not the case, and I don't know we will ever evolve to a stage where it is. The problem I have with a campaign like this is that one crowd get superior, (wouldn't want us to see all the unhealthy things they do to themselves) however which has arguably as much as a bad cumulative effect on humanity that smoking does.

The other crowd say 'I'm doing what I want it ain't against the law' and ultimately they have a point because the indoor ban was a step forward because that has significant impact on the people around them.

If someone could show a significant negative impact outdoor smoking has on the average person who doesn't smoke there would be merit to the argument.

FunLover18

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Yes you did

Massive effect != essential

Cars on their own are not essential no. But, where do we draw the line? Private ownership? Are the police allowed cars? Taxis? Why stop at cars, vans must be bad, we'll cut out the ambulances. Buses and truck, we'll get rid of them too, yes even the firetrucks. Trains, they can go, planes too. Ban cars, society will suffer.

Ban cigarettes and only smokers suffer, and only marginally what with the various nicotine supplements available.

The two situations aren't comparable, and to look at them from a subjective, individual basis is moronic.

MadsL

Happyman42 wrote: »

I think you are being a tad hysterical. What are these people smoking outdoors- 40ft long, 10inch wide cigs? Walking past somebody smoking will only mean you ingest a tiny amount of smoke.

Oh I'm sorry, is my wife having an athsma attack disturbing the enjoyment of your cigarette, how inconsiderate of me. I'll have her move. :rolleyes:

I have seen her react to a damp house within 2 minutes of being inside. But I'm glad you know better...

Call Me Jimmy

MadsL wrote: »

I'd go further. As an ex-smoker it is pure selfishness driven when there are plenty of alternatives.

I'd ban tobacco use in public places, except members clubs (pipe/cigar bars)

By all means enjoy your vaping inside and then maybe we can stop having to segregate people. Non-smokers no longer have to go outside to be 'sociable" and ex-smokers can even enjoy their hit in the cinema. And taxpayers no longer have to fund the cost of treatment.

Win-win. Done and done.

Unfortunately your suggestion is going too far and I think you know it because when someone has an opinion like this it begs the question: what are the things that you do that effect society that are not positive.

Indoor smoking: significant effect on other people.
Outdoor smoking: not enough of effect on other people that it warrants any action at all.

swht

MadsL wrote: »

How inconsiderate of her to have a medical condition. If only there was some way to control that.

Can you imagine how nice it was to actually be able to go to the pub when the smoking ban came in...

But please, continue to express your preference for burning tobacco...not like there is any other way to enjoy nicotine...

With most medical conditions it is up to the sufferer to manage that condition, I don't see how your wife's is any different, it must be a tiny proportion of the population that suffer from such issues and to ask such a considerable portion for the population to change their habits for these is unrealistic.

Call Me Jimmy

MadsL wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, is my wife having an athsma attack disturbing the enjoyment of your cigarette, how inconsiderate of me. I'll have her move. :rolleyes:

I have seen her react to a damp house within 2 minutes of being inside. But I'm glad you know better...

I beep my car horn, you with your dodgy ticker have a heart attack. Ban car horns? You are almost stretching the argument that far!

MadsL

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

If someone could show a significant negative impact outdoor smoking has on the average person who doesn't smoke there would be merit to the argument.

I have given an example. Define average. Do you mean medically unafflicted?

Uriel.

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I agree with you on one level, and for all things it should be that attitude - chips? no thanks, gimme a salad after my night out! sitting on computer all evening watching breaking bad? No I'll stimulate my senses and reactivate my body, cheers! Want a drink? Of water, yea, the life-giving liquid, I'll do shots of it with ye!

You get my drift. This is not the case, and I don't know we will ever evolve to a stage where it is. The problem I have with a campaign like this is that one crowd get superior, (wouldn't want us to see all the unhealthy things they do to themselves however which has arguably as much as a bad cumulative effect on humanity that smoking does.

The other crowd say 'I'm doing what I want it ain't against the law' and ultimately they have a point because the indoor ban was a step forward because that has significant impact on the people around them.

If someone could show a significant negative impact outdoor smoking has on the average person who doesn't smoke there would be merit to the argument.

I don't disagree. Nor would I really support an outright outdoor ban. I do see merit though in banning it in specific outdoor areas - such as near places were a large amount of children congregrate. Now of course, that can be said possibly of every footpath in Ireland, which might make it sounds illogical. But I would definitely support a ban around parks, playgrounds, that sort of thing. Not because someone walking by might get a faceful of smoke but to keep it out of sight of children. really hammer home the "dirty habit" message.

Also, I would advocate a massive increase in on the spot fine specifically for disposal of butts on the ground. That's a real pet hate of mine. Like REALLY!!

MadsL

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I beep my car horn, you with your dodgy ticker have a heart attack. Ban car horns? You are almost stretching the argument that far!

At least two people in this thread have described the effects of cig smoke on people with athsma.

Do you not believe them?

Michael D Not Higgins

FunLover18 wrote: »

Cars on their own are not essential no. But, where do we draw the line? Private ownership? Are the police allowed cars? Taxis? Why stop at cars, vans must be bad, we'll cut out the ambulances. Buses and truck, we'll get rid of them too, yes even the firetrucks. Trains, they can go, planes too. Ban cars, society will suffer.

Ban cigarettes and only smokers suffer, and only marginally what with the various nicotine supplements available.

The two situations aren't comparable, and to look at them from a subjective, individual basis is moronic.

I'm not advocating banning cars just pointing out their non essentiality

Happyman42

MadsL wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, is my wife having an athsma attack disturbing the enjoyment of your cigarette, how inconsiderate of me. I'll have her move. :rolleyes:

I have seen her react to a damp house within 2 minutes of being inside. But I'm glad you know better...

As I said, you should be more careful where you take her. The world is full of dangerous places for a variety of people. They mostly avoid those dangerous places.
If your wife has that sensitive a complaint, you need to take more care. Perish the thought a chimney could go on fire on a damp misty day.

Michael D Not Higgins

DeVore wrote: »

2Bn was spent on tobacco related illnesses in the HSE last year (4bn on booze related, 400m on all other drugs combined... but yeah, fncking junkies eh?). We ALL pay for those tax (Duty on cigs was only 1.3Bn) but only smokers COST them.

Smokers clog the queues for lung transplants which leaves others to die on the list.

And still I would defend smokers right to smoke... all I'm saying is "meet us half way". Go outside for your cig yeah? Its not much to ask.

Those numbers are propaganda.

http://www.foresteireann.org/blog/2012/5/16/the-true-costs-of-smoking.html

MadsL

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Unfortunately your suggestion is going too far and I think you know it because when someone has an opinion like this it begs the question: what are the things that you do that effect society that are not positive.

Indoor smoking: significant effect on other people.
Outdoor smoking: not enough of effect on other people that it warrants any action at all.

But we can get to a state where we no longer have to have a smoker vs non-smoker argument. AND we can all sit in the same room.

Technology has given us a method of nicotine use that is acceptable to everyone. We just have to get tobacco users to move forward, a ban seems the simplest way to do that. Is anyone still grumbling about the indoor ban?

MadsL

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Those numbers are propaganda.

http://www.foresteireann.org/blog/2012/5/16/the-true-costs-of-smoking.html

No bias on that site.

Michael D Not Higgins

MadsL wrote: »

Is anyone still grumbling about the indoor ban?

Publicans?

Michael D Not Higgins

MadsL wrote: »

No bias on that site.

The numbers speak for themselves.

MadsL

Happyman42 wrote: »

As I said, you should be more careful where you take her. The world is full of dangerous places for a variety of people. They mostly avoid those dangerous places.
If your wife has that sensitive a complaint, you need to take more care. Perish the thought a chimney could go on fire on a damp misty day.

I'm merely pointing out that the people behind you in the bus queue could be that sensitive to environmental pollutants. But don't let that bother you Mr Smoker, you continue to smoke in the outdoors, it's the outdoors after all! Bloody extremist unhealthy people. Why don't they move and catch the next bus!

Funnily enough her athsma has improved since leaving Ireland. Damp and misty are indeed factors.

dark crystal

MadsL wrote: »

Not the direct questions that were asked which is basically why can other forms of nicotine delivery not be used instead. The answer it appears is "because we don't feel like it, and it tastes different"

Yes...what other answer were you expecting exactly?

Fine. I can fart in peoples faces then. Not illegal or immoral.

Sure go ahead - when they have designated farting areas, I'll make sure and stay away from those! If someone farts in a wide open space, I doubt it will affect me at all.

Should they not also be protected under the legislation, if they work on UCD's grounds. Their workplace after all.

Did those people make a complaint though? Just asking, because there are also plenty of staff working in beer gardens and pubs with designated smoking areas both inside with ventilated roofs and outside who don't seem to feel the need to complain about it or see it banned.

My point is pretty clear, you don't need to have witnessed it to know that it exists. Are you a doctor?

Just saying I've never seen anyone suffer an asthma attack purely because someone was smoking elsewhere in a wide open space. I'm most certainly not a doctor, are you?

Is there a report anywhere which proves that smoking outdoors in wide open spaces causes health issues for others?

So hand on heart you have never smoked in these scenarios:

1. Lashing rain, waiting for the bus, everyone cramped under the shelter. Sure I'll have a fag, long bus ride.

2. Lashing rain, I'll have a fag in the entrance, sure it's outside - sod the people coming in/out.

3. I'm in the queue, sure quick fag, can't smoke inside.

1. Nope.

2. If there are ashtrays provided there, I would smoke there. Only in pubs, clubs, hotels etc. where smoking is banned indoors and I would have to be there for longer than a few hours.

3. Nope.

Twice. Once at an outdoor gig, the other when sitting on a patio having a drink and a guy lit up a cigar.

How close was she to these smokers?

Call Me Jimmy

MadsL wrote: »

At least two people in this thread have described the effects of cig smoke on people with athsma.

Do you not believe them?

Of course I believe them and there are almost an infinite number of things that trigger illnesses in millions of people. We cannot legislate for such things is what I'm saying. All things have to be taken into consideration. I'm sure if a smoker was informed (I know ANY reasonable person would) by someone 'I have severe asthma and I could have an attack', the person smoking would move away.

Isn't that an easy solution?

FunLover18

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

I'm not advocating banning cars just pointing out their non essentiality

But ... you said .... why are you pointing out their non essentiality?

MadsL

MadsL wrote: »

Would you stop smoking in a queue at a bus stop if it was asked of you?

But you see, a lot of us wouldnt do that , smoke at a bus queue I mean. Some of us are very considerate.

Call Me Jimmy

MadsL wrote: »

But we can get to a state where we no longer have to have a smoker vs non-smoker argument. AND we can all sit in the same room.

Technology has given us a method of nicotine use that is acceptable to everyone. We just have to get tobacco users to move forward, a ban seems the simplest way to do that. Is anyone still grumbling about the indoor ban?

We can get to that state, with effort in maybe 50-100 years, just as easily as we can get to a state where you do not indulge anything that is not logical and can be considered unhealthy!

Michael D Not Higgins

FunLover18 wrote: »

But ... you said .... why are you pointing out their non essentiality?

Follow the thread back. Someone claimed they were essential and smoking wasn't.

FunLover18

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Follow the thread back. Someone claimed they were essential and smoking wasn't.

Was it me? I was talking about this earlier ... screw it, never mind, I'm sure others were too. I've made my point anyway

MadsL

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Of course I believe them and there are almost an infinite number of things that trigger illnesses in millions of people. We cannot legislate for such things is what I'm saying. All things have to be taken into consideration. I'm sure if a smoker was informed (I know ANY reasonable person would) by someone 'I have severe asthma and I could have an attack', the person smoking would move away.

Isn't that an easy solution?

I see. Plenty of people calling for the non-smoker to move. Should she have worn a badge?

You see I know what smokers are like, I've been the inconsiderate prick smoking at the seated open air gig, and in the bus queue and the ATM queue.

Smokers generally don't give a flying fuck about what comes between them and their fix. We finally have fixed that problem with technology, time to fix smokers attitudes. No, you don't have rights as far as I can see and here are your alternatives - use nicotine delivery in public or don't smoke. Then we all get on with each other so much better.

MadsL

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

We can get to that state, with effort in maybe 50-100 years, just as easily as we can get to a state where you do not indulge anything that is not logical and can be considered unhealthy!

We could do it tomorrow if we passed the legislation. We banned smoking in workplaces overnight.

Happyman42

MadsL wrote: »

I'm merely pointing out that the people behind you in the bus queue could be that sensitive to environmental pollutants. But don't let that bother you Mr Smoker, you continue to smoke in the outdoors, it's the outdoors after all! Bloody extremist unhealthy people. Why don't they move and catch the next bus!

Funnily enough her athsma has improved since leaving Ireland. Damp and misty are indeed factors.

I find it hard to believe that somebody out and about in a city standing in bus queues and breathing in all the polluted air will suddenly go into seizure by inhaling a whiff of cig smoke.
I still think you are being hysterical. Anyway, this is about banning smoking in wide open spaces like UCD.

MadsL

dark crystal wrote: »

Yes...what other answer were you expecting exactly?

Something other than excuses.

Sure go ahead - when they have designated farting areas, I'll make sure and stay away from those! If someone farts in a wide open space, I doubt it will affect me at all.

I'd love to follow you around all day farting at you to see if your opinion changes...

Did those people make a complaint though? Just asking, because there are also plenty of staff working in beer gardens and pubs with designated smoking areas both inside with ventilated roofs and outside who don't seem to feel the need to complain about it or see it banned.

People have to complain before their health is protected at work. What an interesting view.

Just saying I've never seen anyone suffer an asthma attack purely because someone was smoking elsewhere in a wide open space. I'm most certainly not a doctor, are you?

Do you believe it can happen?

Is there a report anywhere which proves that smoking outdoors in wide open spaces causes health issues for others?

Report? Isn't it common sense that cig smoke triggers asthma attacks?

1. Nope.

2. If there are ashtrays provided there, I would smoke there. Only in pubs, clubs, hotels etc. where smoking is banned indoors and I would have to be there for longer than a few hours.

3. Nope.

Very good.
2/3 - you have still polluted the air around the entrance, that people have to walk through.

How close was she to these smokers?

Between five and ten feet. Should we have sat elsewhere?

Call Me Jimmy

MadsL wrote: »

I see. Plenty of people calling for the non-smoker to move. Should she have worn a badge?

You see I know what smokers are like, I've been the inconsiderate prick smoking at the seated open air gig, and in the bus queue and the ATM queue.

Smokers generally don't give a flying fuck about what comes between them and their fix. We finally have fixed that problem with technology, time to fix smokers attitudes. No, you don't have rights as far as I can see and here are your alternatives - use nicotine delivery in public or don't smoke. Then we all get on with each other so much better.

Okay I don't mean to be harsh but you haven't thought wide enough if you're saying things like this. And for that reason, (also because it is boring me now) - I'm out. (What a grand exit)

MadsL

Happyman42 wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that somebody out and about in a city standing in bus queues and breathing in all the polluted air will suddenly go into seizure by inhaling a whiff of cig smoke.
I still think you are being hysterical. Anyway, this is about banning smoking in wide open spaces like UCD.

When it is raining those wide open spaces get awful cramped.

Do you know anything about environmental asthma?

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/triggers.html

Cody Pomeray

end of the road wrote: »

forcing your views on people isn't good, thats what voting for this ban has done.

yes it is when their forcing them to go that far because of their self righteous extremism and expecting UCD to waste time and money which could be spent on students and equipment to bother enforcing this pointless ban.

You are misunderstanding the student vote.

The students of UCD do not have the authority to establish and implement a policy of no smoking on the grounds. That's a matter for the President, the Management, and the Governing Authority. The reason for the vote was basically to determine whether the decision had the co-operation of UCD's students.

So we the students are not enforcing our views. The Governing Authority and the President's Office alone have the right to do that. All we can do is say "we think that's sensible" or "we think that's not sensible".

so go where their isn't smokers, you say UCD is a 300 acre estate, loads of space for smokers and non-smokers to co-exist.

It's 300 acres of ground but with about 25,000 human beings on it, so the space is used quite extensively.

It's not just the direct health effects on others, it's the idea that smoking is an acceptable, grown up thing to do.

I don't see why it should be tolerated at all. We don't allow students to drink cans in public on campus, even though alcohol can be a great drug if used responsibly. Why? because it gives off the wrong message about health responsibility. So why should cigarette smoking be tolerated? Cigarettes do nothing constructive, they only harm. Allowing cigarettes has been a logical contradiction, which I'm personally glad to see the back of.

returnNull

DeVore wrote: »

Go outside for your cig yeah? Its not much to ask.

No it isnt DeVore.But we are getting grief for even doing that.As I said earlier I make a point of exhaling in the best possible way(down towards my navel)and I occasionaly still get grief.

Happyman42

MadsL wrote: »

When it is raining those wide open spaces get awful cramped.

Do you know anything about environmental asthma?

http://www.epa.gov/asthma/triggers.html

People go into anaphylactic shock from eating nuts, do we ban nuts? No, we make it clear that nuts are present or may be present and it is up to the sufferer to be vigilant.
When you are out with your wife, be vigilant.

MadsL

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Okay I don't mean to be harsh but you haven't thought wide enough if you're saying things like this. And for that reason, (also because it is boring me now) - I'm out. (What a grand exit)

Run out of excuses?

Fact is there is no excuse, other than the delusional sense of self-importance and entitlement in the smokers head. As a former smoker, getting off a flight I would have killed someone to get to a place to smoke.

We can remove all that by banning tobacco and promoting non-tobacco nicotine use, and ultimately quitting. Then we genuinely will stop having silly arguments about "smoker's rights". They are as ludicrous a concept as the right to enjoy heroin.

MadsL

Happyman42 wrote: »

People go into anaphylactic shock from eating nuts, do we ban nuts? No, we make it clear that nuts are present or may be present and it is up to the sufferer to be vigilant.
When you are out with your wife, be vigilant.

You be vigilant. You are the one polluting. Better yet, stop using tobacco in public and use a socially friendly method of nicotine use...why don't you?

Would you support the right of someone to grind up and vapourise peanuts and let the smoke drift over a large crowd of kids?

MadsL

returnNull wrote: »

No it isnt DeVore.But we are getting grief for even doing that.As I said earlier I make a point of exhaling in the best possible way(down towards my navel)and I occasionaly still get grief.

Then change your delivery system. Not really that hard.

Means Of Escape

Daveysil15 wrote: »

Yes.

With four people inside driving on a winters night in the rain on the motorway with a charge port 60 miles away?