Smoking Tobacco Products Ban in Ireland?

MadsL

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/349.long

Snus (sounds like snoose) is a finely ground form of moist snuff that first came from Sweden and Norway. It’s most commonly packaged in small pouches, but can also be used like loose moist snuff. Some people believe that snus is a safe tobacco to use. Because it’s steam-heated rather than fermented (like American snuff and other forms of spitless tobacco), Swedish snus has fewer tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs) that are known to cause cancer. But there are other carcinogens in snus besides TSNAs.

It’s true that snus users in Sweden have lower rates of some types of cancer than Swedish smokers. But snus users may have a higher risk of cancer of the pancreas than non-users. They also get sores or spots in the mouth (lesions) where the snus is held. It appears that snus users may have mouth cancer more often than non-users, as well as higher risk for cancers of the esophagus, stomach, and pancreas, but more studies need to be done to confirm these links. (See the section called “What are the risks of using smokeless tobacco?” for more on this.)

It’s also important to know that Swedish snus is processed in a special way that limits some of its toxins, and it has very specific manufacturing standards. The Swedish makers also provide consumer information about the product. American-made snus doesn’t have this kind of regulation or requirements on its processing or labeling.

Since US tobacco sellers are not required to list what’s in their products, it’s hard to know how the US versions of snus might compare to the Swedish versions without more research. The studies done so far show that American versions of snus contain varying amounts of TSNAs depending on brand and region of the United States. There’s no requirement as to levels of TSNAs in American snus, nor is there a requirement for labeling this carcinogen

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

That is a truly silly post. The tobacco industry relies upon getting people hooked before they are old enough to make an informed choice about the life-shortening consequences of their actions. The vast majority of smokers take up the habit before turning 18. Professor John Crown (one of those 'anti-smoking extremists' - who deals on a daily basis with the horrible consequences of the tobacco industry's business model) summed it up perfectly when he said that the entire business plan of Big Tobacco companies can be summarised in four words: "Addict children to carcinogens."

I know the tobacco industry relies on useful idiots to spread their propaganda, but I'd frankly be inclined to question your usefulness.

i'm not spreading propaganda, and the person your talking about doesn't have an agenda?

MadsL

grindle wrote: »

No. For the same reason I wouldn't ban peanut butter (which has killed from a simple kiss in the past) - I think that banning anything that has such an incredibly low chance of affecting someone else's life is disproportionate.
It gives meaning to the word 'zealot' and very (veryveryvery) little else.

Anyone kissing you likely knows about your allergy, unnecessary clouds of peanuts in a public place are a bit different wouldn't you say?

end of the road

MadsL wrote: »

end of the road you are very good at the one word answer, it doesn't really explain why you would not protect the health of those who are vulnerable to the actions of others.

peoples choice

MadsL wrote: »

Would you go as far as permitting drunk driving?

no, being drunk can impair driving

MadsL wrote: »

what question did I not answer?

none, that was a little bit from your post i forgot to edit out, done now

banquo

kneemos wrote: »

Ban cigarettes and subsidise E cigarettes for six months.

This. And I say this as a long time smoker who hates nanny state nonsense. But this.

MadsL

grindle wrote: »

The rest of the EU's governments should truly be ashamed.

Of banning a oral product containing Lead and Arsenic?

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

peoples choice

Huh? The MAJORITY of people in Ireland do not smoke.

no, being drunk can impair driving

Smoking can impair other people.

mark13

MadsL wrote: »

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/12/4/349.long

I see you had to go back to 2003 to find a nonsense article supporting your case, the study you're quoting has been debunked.

grindle

MadsL wrote: »

It’s true that snus users in Sweden have lower rates of some types of cancer than Swedish smokers. But snus users may have a higher risk of cancer of the pancreas than non-users.

Your point being?

"OHMYGAAWWWWWD!!! Everyone! Something might affect somebody!!! Ban it quickly"

"Are you sure MadsL? Wouldn't banning it negate the positive health effects of having Snus availa..."

"BAN BAN BAN - BAN ALL OF EVERYTHING!!!!"

From here:

Current smokers who switch to using snus rather than continuing to smoke can realise substantial health gains. Snus could produce a net benefit to health at the population level if it is adopted in sufficient numbers by inveterate smokers. Relaxing current restrictions on the sale of snus is more likely to produce a net benefit than harm, with the size of the benefit dependent on how many inveterate smokers switch to snus.

Arguing against a product with a verified and vast public health gain when compared to smoking is superlatively...whatever word I can use here that wouldn't get me infracted... It's myopic to the point of true insanity.
If somebody argues based on an ill-conceived and terribly strung-together ideology that when played out means more people would keep dying, all because people didn't quit the way they wanted them to - that person is either insane, obscenely ignorant or evil.

Links234

Jesus, when the hell did I become the voice of reason around here?

mark13

Some info about snus

A detailed review of epidemiologic studies regarding snus use has just been published online by Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology (abstract here). Author Peter Lee, a UK epidemiologist, concludes: “Using snus is clearly much safer than smoking. While smoking substantially increases the risk of cancer and cardiovascular diseases, any increase from snus use is undemonstrated, and if it exists is probably about 1% of that from smoking.”

Dr. Lee confirms what I have been asserting since 1994: Smokeless tobacco use is 99% less hazardous than smoking, and the magnitude of risk, if it exists, is difficult to measure using modern epidemiologic methods.

Lee reviewed the evidence from over 150 studies covering many diseases. Previously, he published separate meta analyses involving smokeless tobacco use and all cancers (abstract here), dental problems (abstract here), pancreas cancer (here), oral cancer (here), and circulatory diseases (here).

The hallmark of Lee’s analytic approach is to use all of the published evidence in a systematic and unbiased manner. This is in direct contrast to anti-tobacco advocates like Dr. Paolo Boffetta, who cherry pick the data and use only numbers that confirm their pre-existing belief that smokeless tobacco causes disease. Pancreas cancer is an excellent example.

In 2008, Boffetta published a meta analysis (abstract here) in which he claimed that snus use is a risk factor for pancreas cancer. He cited two studies, one from Norway (here) and another from Sweden (here). The Norway study reported a risk increase among all snus users (Relative Risk = 1.7, Confidence Interval = 1.1 – 2.5) but not for a subset of snus users who were never smokers (RR = 0.9, CI = 0.2 – 3.1). The Swedish study reported exactly the opposite: There was virtually no risk among all snus users (RR = 0.9, CI = 0.7 – 1.2), but the subset of snus users who never smoked had an increased risk (RR = 2.0, CI = 1.2 – 3.3).

Dr. Boffetta chose only to use the elevated risks, even though they were from different groups. As Lee points out, “For pancreatic cancer, Boffetta cited only the increases for never smokers from the [Swedish] study and for the whole population from the [Norwegian] study, not mentioning the lack of increase for the whole population for the construction workers and for never smokers for the Norway cohorts.”

It is important to note Dr. Boffetta was an author of both studies; that makes his selective use of data from them even more objectionable.

Another issue raised by Lee about another Boffetta meta analysis (here) claiming that snus use is a risk factor for fatal – as opposed to non-fatal – heart attack and stroke. In a 2009 blog post, I noted that Boffetta’s claim was questionable (here): “Boffetta found that smokeless users had no significant risk for all heart attacks and strokes but had elevated risks for fatal cases. It logically follows that smokeless users probably had LOWER risks for NON-FATAL heart attacks and strokes.” Lee echoes my concern: “Anyway, an association for fatal cases but not for all cases seems unlikely unless implausibly snus protects against non-fatal cases.”

Finally, Lee reviewed epidemiologic studies to answer this question: Does snus encourage initiation of smoking or discourage quitting? His conclusion: “There is no good evidence that introducing snus in a population would encourage smoking initiation or discourage cessation.”

This is an especially important point, because RJ Reynolds has just launched a campaign encouraging smokers to switch completely to Camel Snus (article here). While apparently in full compliance with FDA tobacco regulations, the ads have enraged prohibitionists like Matt Myers, who said that Reynolds should “stop its insidious marketing of tobacco products in ways that seek to discourage smokers from quitting and keep them hooked on nicotine...The ads are trying to take advantage of people trying to end all uses of tobacco.”

Myers is wrong about many things. Most smokers are not trying to achieve abstinence, but they are interested in enjoying tobacco in a safer manner. As Dr. Lee documents, snus is a vastly safer cigarette substitute.

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.ie/2011/01/new-study-documents-health-effects-from.html

MadsL

mark13 wrote: »

I see you had to go back to 2003 to find a nonsense article supporting your case, the study you're quoting has been debunked.

2008 do you? Or has this been "debunked"?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.23469/abstract;jsessionid=13008FF828B705D359549978995BE3A6.f03t02

A cohort, comprised of 9,976 men who participated in a population-based survey, was compiled in 1973–74. Follow-up until January 31, 2002, was accomplished through record-linkages with nation-wide and essentially complete registers of demographics, cancer and causes of deaths. Adjusted relative risks among exposed relative to unexposed men were estimated using Cox proportional hazards regression. The cohort members contributed more than 220,000 person-years at risk for cancer. A statistically significant increase in the incidence of the combined category of oral and pharyngeal cancer among daily users of snus (incidence rate ratio 3.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5–6.6) was found.

MadsL

mark13 wrote: »

Some info about snus

Linky dink?

MadsL

Why are snus such a big deal anyway?

There are numerous ways of getting nicotine into your system.

mark13

MadsL wrote: »

Linky dink?

http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.ie/2011/01/new-study-documents-health-effects-from.html

RayM

end of the road wrote: »

i'm not spreading propaganda, and the person your talking about doesn't have an agenda?

Of course he has an agenda. In his work as an oncologist, he deals with the consequences of the unethical practices of the industry that you're positively falling over yourself to defend.

grindle

MadsL wrote: »

Why are snus such a big deal anyway?

There are numerous ways of getting nicotine into your system.

The only other effective way is ecigs and the EU are trying to neuter them while they figure out how to make money from them. The Tobacco Products Directive that they were trying to slip through was a de facto ban of working ecigs. They've fought very dirtily over the past year, accusing ecig users of astro-turfing for Big Tobacco.
One of the stipulations of the framework is that of a consistent dose output - this is a physical impossibility as the drag you take, the state of the atomiser and the charge of the battery all come into play. There can be no "consistent dose".

MadsL

grindle wrote: »

The only other effective way.

Not buying that...

plenty of other ways...

not that I support ecigs restrictions..

grindle

MadsL wrote: »

Not buying that...

plenty of other ways...

not that I support ecigs restrictions..

You've bolded the wrong word. What are these plenty of other effective ways?

Glad you don't support restrictions [Disclaimer: Unless they contain nuts as an ingredient]

MadsL

grindle wrote: »

You've bolded the wrong word. What are these plenty of other effective ways?

Glad you don't support restrictions [Disclaimer: Unless they contain nuts as an ingredient]

I assume you take my point about unknowingly wafting nut essences over people with violent and potential fatal allergies. Cus that is nuts...

Effective ways of nicotine use?

All of them deliver nicotine to some degree. What do you mean by "effective"? Instantly sating the craving of the addict? Why surely direct intravenous injection would be most "effective"; would you like to see nicotine needles for sale?

end of the road

RayM wrote: »

Of course he has an agenda. In his work as an oncologist, he deals with the consequences of the unethical practices of the industry that you're positively falling over yourself to defend.

lol, the biggest load of bull**** so far, i'm not defending any industry, until you show me evidence where the industry says that kids should take up their product and that they condone children using them your talking nonsense

catallus

Are the 18 year olds and 30 year olds and 50 year olds who take up smoking not somebody's children????

end of the road

MadsL wrote: »

Not buying that...

well buy it you will, as the facts speak for themselves

MadsL wrote: »

plenty of other ways...

not good enough, people need all ways so they can make a choice of which one they wish to use, just a load of busy body nonsense

MadsL wrote: »

not that I support ecigs restrictions..

good

Aidric

Howard Juneau wrote: »

Has James Reilly not already said he wants a ban on tobacco products by 2030/35?

James could do with going on a fags and yokes diet for a few months. Might get him down to a 32 waist yet.

RayM

end of the road wrote: »

lol, the biggest load of bull**** so far, i'm not defending any industry, until you show me evidence where the industry says that kids should take up their product and that they condone children using them your talking nonsense

Most smokers take up the habit and become addicted before they're 18. You said that the tobacco companies don't want children using their products. I didn't say that they publicly condone it, but it's obviously a vital, albeit unspoken, part of their business model.

ComputerKing

I would agree with a ban however this would not work so I think the government should increase the cost of fags to cover the huge health care costs associated with smokers.

looking_around

RayM wrote: »

Most smokers take up the habit and become addicted before they're 18. You said that the tobacco companies don't want children using their products. I didn't say that they publicly condone it, but it's obviously a vital, albeit unspoken, part of their business model.

But what model?
What are they doing that encourages youngsters to start up smoking?

__
None of this takes into account that the majority of smokers are from a generation it was acceptable and advertised as good, like drink. Less people start smoking now.
I remember back in school, maybe 15 people out of the whole school smoked.
I would wonder why, and think thats what the government needs to tackle, the why.

banning smokes or upping the cost isn't going to make much difference for the older gen.
And the younger that start, would probably take up something or other anyway, so better off finding out why and changing that.

Tayla

ComputerKing wrote: »

I would agree with a ban however this would not work so I think the government should increase the cost of fags to cover the huge health care costs associated with smokers.

I already posted this but the revenue from tobacco sales already covers the costs.
http://www.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/lifestyle/government-spends-2bn-tax-revenue-from-cigarettes-on-smokingrelated-illnesses-29083408.html

end of the road

ComputerKing wrote: »

I would agree with a ban however this would not work so I think the government should increase the cost of fags to cover the huge health care costs associated with smokers.

the health costs are more then covered as it is, increasing the cost does nothing, pointless suggesting it, face it, smoking is sticking around, legalization as is the current situation is the best way

Tzar Chasm

ComputerKing wrote: »

I would agree with a ban however this would not work so I think the government should increase the cost of fags to cover the huge health care costs associated with smokers.

ok by that logic they should increase the price of all fast food/junkfood to cover the burden of fatties and their drain on he health service.

25 euro for a burger and chips, might persuade some of the glutinous lazy fcuks to try a healthier lifestyle.

200% tax on all chocolate and sugary drinks.

let's put beer up to 50 euro a pint, that's somewhere in the region of the cost it currently has on society.

as has been pointed out in this thread the current cigarette prices more than cover the related costs ascosiated with smoking. its drunks and fatties that put the real strain on the system.

looking_around

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

ok by that logic they should increase the price of all fast food/junkfood to cover the burden of fatties and their drain on he health service.

25 euro for a burger and chips, might persuade some of the glutinous lazy fcuks to try a healthier lifestyle.

200% tax on all chocolate and sugary drinks.

let's put beer up to 50 euro a pint, that's somewhere in the region of the cost it currently has on society.

as has been pointed out in this thread the current cigarette prices more than cover the related costs ascosiated with smoking. its drunks and fatties that put the real strain on the system.

I'd be all for that and I loves me chocolate

Tzar Chasm

looking_around wrote: »

I'd be all for that and I loves me chocolate

actually the more I think about it the more I kinda think it would be a really good idea, I like me burgers too, but i f I really wanted one its not that much hastle to buy 500g of mince etc.. and chop up some spuds to make chips.

raising the price of the pint would be contentious bu I think an overall price hike on alcohol sold in shops and pubs coupled with a rethink of the home brew legislation might be the way to go - planning on getting drunk, well either you save up for a while or you invest some time into brewing and fermenting your own- could seriously change this nations attitude to drink. of course it would just lead to a burgeoning black market and a costly enforcement problem

ComputerKing

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

ok by that logic they should increase the price of all fast food/junkfood to cover the burden of fatties and their drain on he health service.

25 euro for a burger and chips, might persuade some of the glutinous lazy fcuks to try a healthier lifestyle.

200% tax on all chocolate and sugary drinks.

let's put beer up to 50 euro a pint, that's somewhere in the region of the cost it currently has on society.

as has been pointed out in this thread the current cigarette prices more than cover the related costs ascosiated with smoking. its drunks and fatties that put the real strain on the system.

I also agree with a sugar and fat tax.

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

well buy it you will, as the facts speak for themselves

What facts? No-one has posted any on NRT 'effectiveness'.

not good enough, people need all ways so they can make a choice of which one they wish to use, just a load of busy body nonsense

All ways? The single most effective nicotine delivery mechanism would be a needle plunged straight into the heart with a few mg of nicotine. Should these be marketed and sold without restriction?

WilyCoyote

MadsL wrote: »

What facts? No-one has posted any on NRT 'effectiveness'.



All ways? The single most effective nicotine delivery mechanism would be a needle plunged straight into the heart with a few mg of nicotine. Should these be marketed and sold without restriction?

Michael Jackson style like?

WilyCoyote

And all this PC "proof" about secondary smoking killing people. Not a scintilla of evidence ......... just like global warming climate change. Or butter being bad for you and margarine good. Or egg yolks being bad for you. Or eating five portions of fruit being the ultimate. Red meat bad ........ white meat good etc. Who TF comes up with this horseshit all the time?
The South Pole ice field is expanding ....... so what's the scientific explanation for that? And the mini ice age a few hundred years ago?
My new Years resolution is to shoot down any of these boring old farts as soon as they start a discussion on the merits of the above.

I realise that I'm letting myself open to ridicule by the trendies but fcuk it. 'Tis gone too far.

RayM

looking_around wrote: »

But what model?
What are they doing that encourages youngsters to start up smoking?

The fact that they knowingly manufacture, market and distribute life-shortening products that people mostly start using (and become addicted to) before they're legally old enough to make an informed decision about the consequences is, in itself, unethical. Aside from marketing (and actively opposing every 'denormalising' measure, from sport sponsorship bans to advertising bans to plain packaging), they don't need to actively do anything to encourage children to start smoking - peer pressure will always take care of that. From a business point of view, they need people to start smoking as young as possible because most people, if they haven't started smoking before 18, won't start at all.

Stojkovic

They should ban heroin being sold in O'Connell Street aswell.

cantdecide

Stojkovic wrote: »

They should ban heroin being sold in O'Connell Street aswell.

Steady now. Think about the powerful syringe lobby.

Tzar Chasm

MadsL wrote: »

What facts? No-one has posted any on NRT 'effectiveness'.



All ways? The single most effective nicotine delivery mechanism would be a needle plunged straight into the heart with a few mg of nicotine. Should these be marketed and sold without restriction?

well if that's/how people want to get their fix of a legal substance who are you to tell them whether they can or can't?

---

edit - feel the need to make a distinction here, the above is a response to the quoted post
the following is more of an open question to all those who call for legislation and or banning smoking and other things which they have bugbears about

---

me I like smoking, I enjoy rolling a cigarette and savoring the flavour, I also enjoy the mild high I briefly receive, I have been forced outside into the cold for my pleasures, so i would kindly ask the no smoking brigade to leave us alone, what harm am I doing you?

if you feel the need to launch a one man/woman crusade against a great ill in this nation maybe obesity is is a better candidate, turn your ostracising and bullying towards the fatties to see if they might mend their ways.
alas we both know you can't do this, societal norms are currently fixed against this type of intervention, you may gleefully highlight the dangers of smoking and point out the damage I do to myself,
heavens forbid you hurt someone feelings by informing them that their type 2 diabetes and underlying heart condition are because they are a fat lazy slob with no self control and dreadful lifestyle choices.

you may wish to rid the nation of the scourge of alcohol, but I would advise against targeting drinkers - although you believe you mean well and are trying to save people from themselves so they can join in creating your utopian society of dull soul less dry****es who get off on ruining everyone else fun- they probably wont be as open to discussion as they would be to the idea of kicking your skull until it caves in and they can get back to the business at hand of getting obnoxiously drunk

so again I ask you, what harm am I doing you, why do I offend you so, that even now, driven to the cold damp margins of society where our paths are unlikely to ever cross, you still feel the need to persecute me, to take away a source of pleasure in my life simply because YOU have decided that it is bad for me and i shouldn't do it any more, what gives/you the right?

MadsL

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

well if that's/how people want to get their fix of a legal substance who are you to tell them whether they can or can't?

---

edit - feel the need to make a distinction here, the above is a response to the quoted post
the following is more of an open question to all those who call for legislation and or banning smoking and other things which they have bugbears about

---

me I like smoking, I enjoy rolling a cigarette and savoring the flavour, I also enjoy the mild high I briefly receive, I have been forced outside into the cold for my pleasures, so i would kindly ask the no smoking brigade to leave us alone, what harm am I doing you?

if you feel the need to launch a one man/woman crusade against a great ill in this nation maybe obesity is is a better candidate, turn your ostracising and bullying towards the fatties to see if they might mend their ways.
alas we both know you can't do this, societal norms are currently fixed against this type of intervention, you may gleefully highlight the dangers of smoking and point out the damage I do to myself,
heavens forbid you hurt someone feelings by informing them that their type 2 diabetes and underlying heart condition are because they are a fat lazy slob with no self control and dreadful lifestyle choices.

you may wish to rid the nation of the scourge of alcohol, but I would advise against targeting drinkers - although you believe you mean well and are trying to save people from themselves so they can join in creating your utopian society of dull soul less dry****es who get off on ruining everyone else fun- they probably wont be as open to discussion as they would be to the idea of kicking your skull until it caves in and they can get back to the business at hand of getting obnoxiously drunk

so again I ask you, what harm am I doing you, why do I offend you so, that even now, driven to the cold damp margins of society where our paths are unlikely to ever cross, you still feel the need to persecute me, to take away a source of pleasure in my life simply because YOU have decided that it is bad for me and i shouldn't do it any more, what gives/you the right?

You flat out refuse to believe SHS is harmful?

Secondhand smoke can cause harm in many ways. Each year in the United States alone, it is responsible for:

An estimated 46,000 deaths from heart disease in people who are current non-smokers
About 3,400 lung cancer deaths in non-smoking adults
Worse asthma and asthma-related problems in up to 1 million asthmatic children
Between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections (lung and bronchus) in children under 18 months of age, with 7,500 to 15,000 hospitalizations each year
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are much more likely to be put into intensive care when they have the flu, they are in the hospital longer, and are more likely to need breathing tubes than kids who aren’t exposed to SHS
In the United States, the costs of extra medical care, illness, and death caused by SHS are over $10 billion per year

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/tobaccocancer/secondhand-smoke

carfiosaoorl

Yes and then we should also ban alcohol because it is really bad for our health and causes a major amount of deaths every year not just to the drinkers themselves but through attacks on streets due to drink, car wrecks and house fires. It also causes our A and E units to be over run by stupid drunken people most nights of the week.

Tzar Chasm

where exactly are/you exposed to second hand smoke in any concentration?

Gordon

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

so again I ask you, what harm am I doing you, why do I offend you so, that even now, driven to the cold damp margins of society where our paths are unlikely to ever cross, you still feel the need to persecute me, to take away a source of pleasure in my life simply because YOU have decided that it is bad for me and i shouldn't do it any more, what gives/you the right?

When I'm walking behind you and you're puffing out great gobs of stinking smoke into my face, it's disgusting, sometimes makes me retch a little. Why are smokers still forcing their smoke into our lives, what gives them the right? Even when I was a smoker I hated it.

Roger_007

whupdedo wrote: »

They should increase the price up to 15 euro and at least it would go some way to covering the health care costs associated with smoking related health issues

I don't get this argument about the cost to the health service associated with smoking. The majority of users of the health services are the over-65s. We told by the anti-smoking lobby that smokers die 15 years earlier on average that non-smokers. If this is true then smokers actually SAVE the state money, not only in health costs but also an average of €150k each in state pensions. They also contribute €2 billion per annum to the state in taxes, duty etc.

Let's hear it for the smokers.:P

donutheadhomer

Roger_007 wrote: »

I don't get this argument about the cost to the health service associated with smoking. The majority of users of the health services are the over-65s. We told by the anti-smoking lobby that smokers die 15 years earlier on average that non-smokers. If this is true then smokers actually SAVE the state money, not only in health costs but also an average of €150k each in state pensions. They also contribute €2 billion per annum to the state in taxes, duty etc.

Let's hear it for the smokers.:P

sure why not kill them all at birth then - would save millions in welfare payments

Tzar Chasm

Gordon wrote: »

When I'm walking behind you and you're puffing out great gobs of stinking smoke into my face, it's disgusting, sometimes makes me retch a little. Why are smokers still forcing their smoke into our lives, what gives them the right? Even when I was a smoker I hated it.

don't stand so close to me.

also best to avoid anywhere with traffic, or fires.

I don't force smoke into your life, I don't force you to walk behind me, I dont force you to stand next to me outside a pub, I have never forced you to get into my car or come into my house.

so why are you forcing your opinion onto me in these situations, why is it alright for you to force your will on me?

Gordon

Tzar Chasm wrote: »

don't stand so close to me.

also best to avoid anywhere with traffic, or fires.

I don't force smoke into your life, I don't force you to walk behind me, I dont force you to stand next to me outside a pub, I have never forced you to get into my car or come into my house.

so why are you forcing your opinion onto me in these situations, why is it alright for you to force your will on me?

Most of the time I can step away from someone smoking if I spot them, sometimes it's impossible unless I stop walking and wait for them to go much further ahead. It's really annoying that I have to change my life so that I'm not affected (ie: retching) by a selfish person, and ironic, as I'm still affected.

Yes, you do force smoke into my life, I've explained this. I don't mind people outside pubs as much as I mind the smokewalkers, you know that there are going to be smokers there, of course, it doesn't help when you have to walk that way and don't realise there are smokers, and they blow smoke into the pedestrian's line of walking, so it can be annoying sometimes.

Err.. fires? Right, because there are always fires burning in the streets where I live.. Yes, cars are also churning out great wads of sh*te, absolutely correct, and it's also disgusting, so I manage my walking to take into account the heavily trafficked areas, but it's never perfect.

I'm not forcing my opinion onto you, I think you misunderstand this, I am simply affected by your smoking. You are the one that is doing something that affects others negatively. I am simply walking, and being mindful of the society around me by having good socio-pedestrian skills.

Tzar Chasm

smoke dissapates very quickly out on the street, I find it a bit of a stretch that it makes you retch, I feel that you may be engaging in hyporbele to force a point.
even so it strikes me as another case of 'banning all nut products because someone might have a nut allergy.

if you really have such a major issue with smoking I think its reasonable that you alter your routines rather than trying to force everyone else to bend to your will

tdv123

RayM wrote: »

Yeah, really. Most smokers actually want to quit anyway. How many normal, law-abiding people would risk becoming criminals for a habit that they know is probably killing them slowly and definitely making them poorer?

I'd gladly become a criminal.