anti tabaco laws

[carolina estrada]

in Spain since Genuary has started a very strict law against smoking. It is prohibited to smoke in almost everywhere. Smokers are starting to be treated as criminals and even they have to hide sometimes
what is your opinion? how does it work in ur countries?

[thalbergmad]

In England, President Bliar has got through a bill to ban smoking in pubs, clubs and restautants.

The one exempt place is the bar in the house of commons.

Nothing strange in that at all.

I read this in the Daily Sport which is the most reliable of papers.

[brahmsian]

Not strange at all. Where I live smoking is banned in all public places.

[gilad]

when i was 12 i used to walk thrugh shopping malls puffing on a camel.
now it's absolutely unthinkable that that was ever possible.
i live in aouth africa.
the law was passed about 6 years ago i think.
no smoking in restaurants, or public buildings.
the rests. still have smokers sections though.
we can smoke in pubs and nightclubs.
i smoke, and i get annoyed when someone is smoking in a mall, the smell is terrible and overpowering.
i dont smoke in my house, i go outside for cigs, thats not the law, i just hate the foul stale smell it leaves in the house(;

[BoliverAllmon]

Galveston actually rejected a bill yesterday to ban smoking in restaurants and bars. everywhere else is already banned. Seeing that I don't smoke, it doesn't bother me really.

boliver

[pianorama]

I wish cigarette and cigar companies a slow and painful death. Smoking is disgusting. As sure as politicians are dishonest, lying little (insert objectional name) I will never smoke. I hope.

[BoliverAllmon]

the smoke irritates my lungs and therefore I know I will never smoke.

[rc]

I nearly fell into that habit, doesn't take too long before you find yourself craving a smoke. 80% of the people I know smoke, around it all the time. Doesn't bother me much but for that damned smell it leaves, and if there're enough smokers in the room the eye irritation.

Smokers are segregated in restaurants and banned from most public places. I saw in the news yesterday that our city will be banning smoking from pubs and bars as well, by next year so businesses have time to adapt.

It's in everyones best interest really.

As sure as politicians are dishonest, lying little (insert objectional name)

We can thank the politicians for the legislation inhibiting public smoking .

[stevie]

I read this in the Daily Sport which is the most reliable of papers.

reliable to provide NICE TITZ

to the topic originator - many people die of 2nd hand smoke, literally killed by their own friends, and this is HILRIOUSLY IRONIC, and sick.

so yes, ban.

[jas]

While I'm not a smoker, I don't think it's OK to suddenly act as though smokers are doing something horribly wrong and should be "punished" (ie. sent outside) for it. I don't think the government should have approved the ban in private member clubs, and I don't think they shouldn't allow pub owners to make their own decisions on the subject, or at least to supply smoking and non-smoking areas.

This isn't because I like being in smoky places; I just think it's very unfair that, just because the government are cashing in on the current public health craze (and that's all they're doing -- they haven't done anything else in any way useful recently), people who smoke should be treated as though they're finally getting what they "deserve."

Having said that, I would like to see a decrease in the number of smokers, because it's so incredibly bad for you. I think a lot of people were sucked in young, because of peer pressure, and have been unable to get out again, or started smoking back when the cigarette companies were denying that smoking was bad for you. I find the number of people I see, when I'm getting off a bus or train, who have unlit cigarette in mouth and lighter in hand, so they can light up the second they're off, completely ridiculous. There's something so desperate and, well, undignified about people who literally need one, and can't wait until it's appropriate to have one. It's pretty sad.

Jas

[carolina estrada]

thanks for giving a little bit of realism to the situation, mate
It says a lot from you, cause you are someone who actually wouldnt need to care about the "smoking problem". 
The situation and the real problem is not the people who smokes! It is actually all the chemical inside the cigs.
Why if smoking is so bad instead of turning it into an almost ilegal thing just they dont question the industries who build this material?

They just clean their hands and put a stupid label on the cigarretes boxes like "Smoking kills you" ...but this is, my friends, a clear case of business sucking the citycens blood and playing with their health.

You know how much goverment get income for the actual tabaco taxes? They really need smokers, believe me.
 
 smokers should complaint! And ask for better quality and not chemical stuff!!
 The problem is that the smokers feel discriminated so they cant complaint, of course.

....that´s the way a Goverment control our lifes at the end....

it works for most of things like this, my friends... it is a tragedy.

[rob47]

Randomly I haven't had a smoke for almost 4 days and am quite proud.

>Here's a hilariously different perspective on cigarette companies<

[prometheus]

Our minister of justice, who is a really dull dusty conservative christian, has recorded an anti-pot rap because the major of Maastricht, who is from the same conservative christian part, has recorded a rap calling for legalisation.

Politics have gotten really strange lately.

[berrt]

Non-smokers die randomly 10 ys later than smokers, then suffering from illnesses as expensive as those of smokers. If every smoker stopped now, it would surely smash up the annuity insurances in 20 ys or so.

bye
Berrt (non-smoker)

[pianorama]

Randomly I haven't had a smoke for almost 4 days and am quite proud.

>Here's a hilariously different perspective on cigarette companies<

Let me guess, is that part of a South Park episode?

And if pot is illegal, I think cigarettes should too, IMO. Cigarettes are just as bad, if not worse than pot. (Unless of course you constantly smoke pot and are high 24/7.) I think pot should be decriminilised, and be sold legally like alcohol and cigarettes. That way most people who have grow-ops will have little reason to continue growing marijuana, and the government can collect more taxes to spend on health care and other things to help make a better country.

[BoliverAllmon]

I read one time that one joint equals the equivalent of three cigs. pot doesn't have any filters and therefore you are inhaling all sorts of stuff.

[thalbergmad]

Non-smokers die randomly 10 ys later than smokers, then suffering from illnesses as expensive as those of smokers. If every smoker stopped now, it would surely smash up the annuity insurances in 20 ys or so.

bye
Berrt (non-smoker)

true, and in this country, President Bliar would have to introduce more "stealth taxes" to cover the loss of revenue.

[steve jones]

It pisses me off when the responsibility gets transfered to the consumer, thats my opinion. It always happens:

- Heroin addicts are blamed for increases in crime, NOT Heroin dealers

- Drunken yobs are blamed for Saturaday night disturbences, NOT drinks companies who fiercely market drinks to young kids and promote the lifestyle.

And the same goes for smoking. They make the consumer the 'bad guys' and pass legislation against them, whereas what they should be doing is condemning the tobacco companies. They are the real evil in all this.

[prometheus]

Its kind of strange that 'we' send the military to Colombia to fight people producing cocaine, while 'we' pay them absurd amounts of money for, while we pay nothing for the food they could produce instead. Money which is needed because their civil war; the farmers are forced to grow cocaine by para-military groups and rebels.

And then 'we' dump our tabacco on their market, because 'we' found out how bad it is and passed legislation to stop people from smoking. Then when they try to shield their market 'we' send the WTO after them in the name of 'free markets'. Their economy would be destroyed by sanctions.

If cocaine would be legalised then the whole problem in Colombia would be solved. They would no longer be able to sell any cocaine, they would no longer get any money to buy weapons, etc. Note that Colombia is one of the most violent countries in the world.

The same goes for all criminal organisations. They main income comes from drugs smuggling. Remove it and they, and the crime assosiated with them, will just dissapear.

As for berrt's comment, I thing there is no basis for that at all. If there is, please show me.

[rc]

Well, the consumer is as much to blame as the dealers. Supply and demand. Marketing can create demand for a product, that's not the case with drugs and cigarette advertising has been very limited for as long as I've known. Alcohol marketing is alive and strong, sickening. There is a whole glorification of drinking, as it it's something special to tilt beer down your throat. People really believe the things they're sold!

hahah, the problem is that 'we' have no self-control! and the people who supply these things are willing to exploit that to their profit.

I can understand that, though not agree with it. But so far as smoking is concerned I say the government is doing the right thing in regulating this healthy pastime, since 'we' obviously can't control it on our own...

I don't see what ulterior profit the government has in regulating smoking. They're not making it illegal, not out to punish smokers or businesses. It can only improve health for everyone, and was a long time in coming. In ten years time, people will look back and wonder how we went so long allowing smoke to fill public places.

[berrt]

As for berrt's comment, I thing there is no basis for that at all. If there is, please show me.

It was a rather detailled article in the New England Journal of Medicine about 4 ys ago. Im not in the mood to look it up now.

B.

[pianorama]

I read one time that one joint equals the equivalent of three cigs. pot doesn't have any filters and therefore you are inhaling all sorts of stuff.

I was thinking more like home use. Public pot-smoking would be pretty bad too.

[steve jones]

The problem with pot is, if you smoke weed you also smoke fags. Simple as that. The amount of people I know who claim to be addicted to pot, yet its quite clear that its the tobacco that has them hooked.

I dont think they should legalise that stuff. I smoked it everyday for over 5 years, and it never did me a bit of good. Plus the fact, social moral is down to an all time low in the UK, so I really dont think legalising banned substances is going to help matters. We need to be pulling ourselves out of the gutter, and to do this we need to reinstate proper social standards (***, I sound like my Dad!).

As for smoking...

Well, tobacco should never have been made legal in the first place. But now thats its here, I find it difficult to condone a ban. Yes, cigarettes are bad for the health. But so is many things. If they ban fags, then why not ban McDonalds aswell? Infact, why not ban ALL industrial food fullstop. Alcohol is equally if not more destructive to society, so that would need to take the elbow too.

So with this in mind, I find the smoking ban all a bit purile. And to be honest, I think its more the numbers talking than it is anything else. Someone has sent a memo to big Tone stating that it is no longer economically viable to have X% of the population smoking, so better get the black propaganda boys in.

No, smoking doesnt concern me much. And I care less for all this bs about banning it. If our government wants to be show consideration towards the health of the nation, then look at the food industry first and foremost. Industrial crap discuised as healthy food is fed to the masses every single day, and it is responsible for a good portion of ill health imo. Smoking doesnt even feature on the radar.

Sorry, rant over, you can return to your regular viewing momentarily 

[steve jones]

...

[pianorama]

What's a fag? I always thought a fag was a idiotic dork.

[musik_man]

It pisses me off when the responsibility gets transfered to the consumer, thats my opinion. It always happens:

- Heroin addicts are blamed for increases in crime, NOT Heroin dealers

- Drunken yobs are blamed for Saturaday night disturbences, NOT drinks companies who fiercely market drinks to young kids and promote the lifestyle.

And the same goes for smoking. They make the consumer the 'bad guys' and pass legislation against them, whereas what they should be doing is condemning the tobacco companies. They are the real evil in all this.

Seriously, it's not like anyone believes in that old fashoin notion of personal responsibilty.  Why can't the government step in and tell us how to live our lives?  It'd be so much easier than thinking for ourselves.

BTW studies have shown that advertising cannot increase the sale of a certain market.  All it does is increase a certain brand's share of the market.

[pianorama]

And I never did say pot was good - I'm just saying it's not as bad as some (most?) people make it out to be. It isn't as addictive either; I once knew some who smoked marijuana every day. She found out she was pregnant, was concerned about the baby's health, and quit cold turkey, and she hasn't had a smoke ever since. Of course she occasionaly had a craving, but never went crazy.

Wait; marijuana is the same as pot, right?

BTW studies have shown that advertising cannot increase the sale of a certain market. All it does is increase a certain brand's share of the market.

BS. Explain how this works, please.

[steve jones]

What's a fag? I always thought a fag was a idiotic dork.

Sorry, I meant cigarette.

[steve jones]

Seriously, it's not like anyone believes in that old fashoin notion of personal responsibilty.  Why can't the government step in and tell us how to live our lives?  It'd be so much easier than thinking for ourselves.

BTW studies have shown that advertising cannot increase the sale of a certain market.  All it does is increase a certain brand's share of the market.

I think you give people a little to much respect Musik Man.  Iv learned that 'people' as a whole are far less intelligent and responsible than the individual. I dont think that government should tell us how to behave, but if anything they should suggest a desirable exsistence. Right now, our governments are quite happy to let us all drink ourselves into oblivion - devolution of the masses mate!

Take this for example:

For a family in the UK to be financially successful, it almost always requires the fulltime employment of both parents. As a result, many 'prosperous' families are having less or no children at all. However, the dreggs of society are actively encouraged to have as many children as physically possible, via outragous subsidising, free accomodation etc.

No one is being TOLD what to do here, but they are certainly being directed. And the proof is in the puding, so to speak - my sister works and her boyfriend both worth fulltime in 'normal'jobs, yet they can only afford to rent mediocre housing. Just around the corner is a brand new estate of high quality small housing being built by the housing association to accomodate said 'dreggs'.

Why are they doing this?

Maybe because they need to up the population quickly to cover the pension crisis, who knows?

My point is that government dictates social trends just as much as they ever have. But now they do it through persuasion rather than dication. And this is how they are working the smoking thing. Suddenly it is not economically viable for us to smoke, so out comes tactics to stop us all. They did the same thing with British beef - only problem was, we didnt comply so they ended up culling all our livestock and leaving the farmer stone broke (never to sell beef again).

I guess this is acceptable if it is whats required to keep the country on an even keel. But the shadiness of it gets my goat a little. When I see people being made physically ill and unhappy so that the UK can reach an economical target, then that is not right. This happens ever single day - our entire lifestyles destroy the health of body and mind, yet we're all blissfully unaware as big Tone has convinced us its what 'we' want.



"BTW studies have shown that advertising cannot increase the sale of a certain market.  All it does is increase a certain brand's share of the market."

First up, that doesnt make a massive amount of sense. How can you increase market share without uping revenue (ie from sales?). The only way that I can see this occuring is if the advertisement campaign decreased revenue for competitors.

But whether or not that statement is true or not, MARKETING is not just about advertising. I dont blame TV adverts for the increase in binge drinking. I blame the entire marketing campaign, from product placement, to glorification of the lifestyle in the media etc. For example, is it surprising that young females are the group worst effected by this? Not really when you consider that they are force fed a diet of Jordan and Kate Moss.

How about those 'reality' shows that appear on telly every spring / summer - "Club Reps in Ibiza Having it Large with a Mango Milkshake... Revisited" 

Funny isnt it how suddenly every 18 - 24 year old (and many younger) no feel obliged to spend their summer 14 days in some Spanish shite hole getting slaughtered, for fear that will be missing out on all the high living they've seen on TV. I wonder who financed the production of those shows? THIS is good marketing!

Once again, sorry for the rant but this stuff really gets to me. I should probably just accept it as the way of things, but it has such dire consequences that I find it difficult.

Just to finish on, one more little nugget...

In the UK they have been voting on the smoking ban for a good while now, and it seems to have finally come into fruition. Yet, at the very same time they have extended alcohol licenses to 24 hour!

How can they go for the jugular of tobacco so fiercely, yet actively encourage (indirectly ofcourse) the phenomena of binge drinking?

Because they have clear cut agendas, that is why. Nothing to do with our health or wellbeing, everything to do figures and projections.

Sleep well... 

[steve jones]

And I never did say pot was good - I'm just saying it's not as bad as some (most?) people make it out to be. It isn't as addictive either; I once knew some who smoked marijuana every day. She found out she was pregnant, was concerned about the baby's health, and quit cold turkey, and she hasn't had a smoke ever since. Of course she occasionaly had a craving, but never went crazy.

Wait; marijuana is the same as pot, right?

BS. Explain how this works, please.

Yep, both the same thing.

And you are correct, pot on its own is not physically addictive. However, it is addictive for two reasons:

- It is highly habit forming. People usually smoke pot in a social setting, and therefore to quit means serious altering their social activities. People also become dependent on pot as an aid to relaxation. In both these senses, pot is like alcohol. Most drinkers never develop physical dependence, yet they would be considered alcoholics due to their intense pyschological addiction - there entire social scene revolves around the pub, and they associate the pub and drinking with relaxation and enjoyment.

- Pot is smoked mixed with tobacco. Tobacco is highly addictive, so therefore smoking pot is also. If you could break the pyschological addiction to pot, then you'd still have to come off the nicotine aswell. This is why many people start smoking cigarettes when they quit pot.


Dont get me wrong, Iv been there with regards to the whole 'pot isnt that bad' argument. I used to tell myself that every single day when I smoked it. And its the truth, pot isnt that bad. Problem is, its not that good either. And when combined with the typical pothead lifestyle, it then becomes VERY bad. For example, I reckon that the pothead lifestyle is worse for you than the occassion use of cocaine, or a weekly binge drinking session.

Secondly, there is the affect of pot on the mind. Pot without doubt robs people of their 'get up and go'. They become bone idle to the point of no return. This is NOT what the younger generation needs today. There are enough negative influences affecting the youth today, and making pot legal would be the final nail in the coffin imo.

But once again, devolution of the masses! If we're all inbred, stupid, drug dependent plebs, we're much easier to control and manipulate. Makes alot of sense for our governments to take a lighthearted stance of pot, as it works in their favor. For now atleast. The second it doesnt, we'll be bombarded with bs about why we shouldnt smoke the stuff...

"Studies show that cannabis COULD give you cancer of the penis... etc"

Just like:

"Studies show that whole grain wheat MIGHT prevent heart attacks"

Its very easy really - indirectly fund a study to support your agenda, then you suggestive statements to manipulate peoples thoughs. Put them out in every newpaper, on ever radio station while people driving to work etc. In the end, their message penetrates and they get what they want.

Its a bit like the whole 'five a day' lark. Used to be 'an apple a day'. But I guess when you consider that industrial farming destroys the nutrients in food, we probably do need five times as much to be healthy, lol. I wonder how many it'll be next? I'll be listening to radio one on the way to work, and suddenly it'll be announced that 'fifteen fruit of veg a day is required to maintain good health...' 


You know what, I'll just shut up now. Anyone seen my coat? 

[prometheus]

Surely pot is bad. But if you make this stuff illegal you create a whole branch of organised crime. Making pot illegal is good for criminals.

Personally I don't use any drugs, period. Not even alcohol. But I don't see why the state should make pot illegal. They should even legalise heroine. What right do they have? Why don't they spent time and energy doing their real jobs? Instead of making jobs for criminals.
Then on top of that we have a few absurd exceptions; alcohol and tabacco. Both are very addictive and dangerous. Nicotine is more addictive than heroine. And alcohol is just very damaging and also very addictive, up there somewhere between cocaine and heroine considering all its properties.
So even if you descide to outlaw these things, you can't have these strange exceptions.

Imagine if we banned tabacco and alcohol tomorrow. And that 'we' would put the same penalties on these two substances as we have on heroine. Then make it a priority also. In that case only well organised, armed and dangerous, international criminal organisations can make money off this trade. They could make so much money, it would be unimaginable.

[maul]

- Pot is smoked mixed with tobacco. Tobacco is highly addictive, so therefore smoking pot is also. If you could break the pyschological addiction to pot, then you'd still have to come off the nicotine aswell. This is why many people start smoking cigarettes when they quit pot.

....uhhhhh? Pot is just another word for marijuana in the U.S. .. and I've never heard of anyone mixing tobacco and weed together... ever ....

interesting

[prometheus]

I live in holland and as far as I know it is common here.

But then again, I think the THC values here are off the scale. Maybe that has something to do with it.

[maul]

haha that would give you more reason not to mix it with anything. I just don't see a point in mixing tobacco with weed in any situation... although some of my friends claim that smoking a cig afterwards "enhances" the high. I don't smoke cigs though

[steve jones]

....uhhhhh? Pot is just another word for marijuana in the U.S. .. and I've never heard of anyone mixing tobacco and weed together... ever ....

interesting

Seriously?

What you guys in the US some weed pure?

Shoot, its no wonder you're all gun wielding maniacs! 

[steve jones]

haha that would give you more reason not to mix it with anything. I just don't see a point in mixing tobacco with weed in any situation... although some of my friends claim that smoking a cig afterwards "enhances" the high. I don't smoke cigs though

haha that would give you more reason not to mix it with anything. I just don't see a point in mixing tobacco with weed in any situation... although some of my friends claim that smoking a cig afterwards "enhances" the high. I don't smoke cigs though

I dont know about that. But for us, we add (sorry, USED to add  ) tobacco for several reasons:

- to help the weed burn. Sticky fresh skunk weed is impossible to keep alight on its own.

- to fill out the joint and produce a better smoke. With pures, it never smokes very well or tastes quite right. Also, you end up loosing loads in the ash.

- it is financially impossible to smoke pures from dusk til dawn. An 8th would be gone in 3 or 4 joints, if that.


Dont get me wrong, a pure is great for special occassions. But for common garden use, I like (sorry LIKED) to do 1:2 weed to baccy.

[carolina estrada]

that´s why it should be legal... it is better for people who consume it.

 pure weed with nothing added
 real price (bye bye mafias!yuhuuuu)

in this case,my friend,  u bud agree no point in mixing? 
 

[maul]

Those are some interesting reasons steve, but nothing to make me start putting that crap in with my dank.  I only smoke joints when I have a lot or some semi-dry stuff because it goes waaay too fast as you mentioned. Pipes are the way to go in my opinion, and if it's really wet, you just have to break it apart a lot and it'll smoke fine.

[steve jones]

Those are some interesting reasons steve, but nothing to make me start putting that crap in with my dank.  I only smoke joints when I have a lot or some semi-dry stuff because it goes waaay too fast as you mentioned. Pipes are the way to go in my opinion, and if it's really wet, you just have to break it apart a lot and it'll smoke fine.

I think another reason is you HAVE to put baccy in with resin, so that might be how the system came about in this country (as we used to get loads of resin and hardly any weed). Hey, you think thats bad, at uni they all used to put rolling baccy in their joints. You've never tasted anything quite some foul in your life!
 
To be honest, I have smoked a joint in years. Totally lost interest in it around age 21. Now Im glad not to do it. There's no way I would have been bothered to learn the piano if I were still smoking pot daily.

[BoliverAllmon]

It pisses me off when the responsibility gets transfered to the consumer, thats my opinion. It always happens:

- Heroin addicts are blamed for increases in crime, NOT Heroin dealers

- Drunken yobs are blamed for Saturaday night disturbences, NOT drinks companies who fiercely market drinks to young kids and promote the lifestyle.

And the same goes for smoking. They make the consumer the 'bad guys' and pass legislation against them, whereas what they should be doing is condemning the tobacco companies. They are the real evil in all this.

legally they can't go after the companies in the USA.

[steve jones]

Yeah, thats the problem. The LAW seems to protect everyone these days... except the regular joe! He seems to take the fall for everything, yet is rarely the responsible party imo.

Its like that farmer who shot the gypsy. This was an old bloke, and he kept having gypo's breaking into his property (and home) to steal and trash his possessions. One day, they came into his actual house, and he shot the dude with his 12 bore. The gypsy later died, and the farmer got sent to jail. Now he has been released, he is in fear of his life as the gypsy 'clan' want his blood!

This has nothing to do with cigarettes. But it does have everything to do with the attitudes of our governments. The regular, hard working man isnt worth a thing in their eyes.

Take this for another prime example:

When I left university I was completely skint. My only hope of breaking into my 'trade' was to set up as freelance. Other than that, I might as well start cleaning windows (which I did actually do for a while!). But to set up, I needed money for equipment.

I went to the Princes Trust begging for some assistence. I told them I was broke, on the dole, but was prepared to work hard to make my venture a success. Guess what - they told me that because I wasnt from a 'disadvantaged' area (ie Im not black), wasnt a single parent, wasnt drug dependant etc, then I wasnt eligable for a grant.

Great ay?

So because I was a run of the mill, hard working white guy, I wasnt going to get any support at all.

So no, it doesnt surprise me one bit that tobacco companies are immune to legal attack. They marketed and sold highly addictive, deadly substances to an unknowing population. Yet you or I will get fined for smoking in a public place.

No thats what I can justice... 

Its stuff like this that makes me want to just fly away and set up a mango stall on a lost beach somewhere. Im beginning to feel that modern life isnt all its cracked up to be 

[prometheus]

Multinationals have insane powers and rights. They shouldn't even be able to sue anyone. It is non-sense. Why should a company or multinational be a legal entity that has rights? Why should it have even more rights than a natural person?

[steve jones]

I'll tell you why mate - because pounds and dollars are worth more than people.

If you rape a young child, you'll probably be out of jail within 3 years and back working in a school.

But you steal a good sum of money, and they'll throw the key away!

[elspeth]

Hurrah for the smoking ban! So far as I'm concerned, it's great - I wish it did go further and cover outdoors as well as in - if I had my way the only place anyone'd be able to smoke would be their own home and/or garden.

I am and have been all my life, allergic to nicotine. It affects me differently now than it did when I was a child, but it's not pleasant and is easily capable of making me take to my bed for a couple of days to recover. At the moment I can't spend more than an hour or so in an averagely smoky pub before it makes me significantly uncomfortable, and two hours for it to make me properly ill.
As for the so-called smoking areas many pubs and restaurants operate... it never ceases to amaze me they think smoke can't drift over a three-foot high barrier. All the fancy air conditioning makes precious little difference.

It also annoys me that smokers can be so inconsiderate - and probably genuinely don't know they're doing it. For instance, on my commute home from work tonight it was raining, but I couldn't stand in the bus shelter because there were a couple of people in there smoking. They - as smokers are always so keen to point out - weren't doing anything legally wrong, but I had to stand in the rain and get soaked through. There was no point me asking them to stand outside because enough smoke had gathered in the air in the shelter that I couldn't have stayed there anyway.

Another point while I'm in rant mode - smokers, you smell, and my allergy is bad enough that sitting next to a smoker on public transport is enough to set a reaction off.

As a result of this... I currently have a very limited selection of places I can go out - a few restaurants and pubs with properly segregated rooms, places like theatres and cinemas which are enlightened enough to have banned smoking before the politicians got involved. All of my friends - and I do have a few friends who smoke - know that they can not smoke around me, and they're all sensible enough to know that on my part it's not prejudice of any sort, it's just the way it has to be.

If smokers feel they're being persecuted they might like to consider the few like me who are actively allergic and the many with asthma or other breathing difficulties who are currently persecuted and have never had the right to complain about it because smokers are always desperate to persuade the rest of the world their vice isn't doing any harm and isn't illegal.

The only reason alcohol and tobacco are legal is that they were discovered, cultivated and marketed before it was realised how damaging they really were. Products with such long established histories would be more or less impossible to outright ban. I am not of course trying to imply that other drugs haven't been known about for similar periods of time, just that alcohol and tobacco were the two accepted by society at large and the only two which attracted a mainstream consumer base.

The nanny state or not... always a difficult question. I forget where the quote is from, but there is a fairly famous theory that you can never say with certainty what an individual will be doing at any point but you can say with reasonable certainty what a proportion of the population will be doing at any given time, and I think that's one of the main points to consider.

There are, unfortunately, in basic terms two ways to govern a country. One is to say 'we recognise people are generally intelligent and want to make their own decisions. Therefore we, the government, will do our best to steer people away from unhealthy things but as long as people are warned of the consequences they must be free to make their own choice about what to eat, whether to smoke, whether to take excercise... and every other aspect of their lives as long as what they want to do is technically legal.'

The second is the draconian version - 'we the govenment recognise that although people are generally intelligent and well informed they are also lazy, scared of being thought unpopular, and would rather do what is easy or cheap than what is good for them. Therefore we will remove freedom of choice entirely in certain areas. People will not be allowed to smoke or drink, will be forced to take exercise, food will be rationed and state-controlled so that people may only eat healthy foods, private cars will only be permitted if the user can prove the car is essential and they could not function on public transport, and so on.'

We live, more or less, in the first state. We are generally well informed about what we're doing to ourselves via our lifestyles but as long as they have tried to educate us the government and large corporations can put the responsibility for the consequences of our choices onto us, the consumers.

The second state is not ideal of course, and I don't think anyone would want to live like that - but there is an argument for saying we'd all be better off if we did.

[thalbergmad]

It is now over a year since my last smoke.

Me lungs is much better and i is £1500 a year better off.

[steve jones]

Are you sure I couldnt tempt you with  cyber-cig old boy? 

[thalbergmad]

Are you sure I couldnt tempt you with  cyber-cig old boy? 

Thanks for the offer, but no .

Giving up was the hardest thing i have ever done. I went through months of hell as undoubtedly did anyone who came within 100 yards of me.

The worst thing i did was to use patches. I must have used too many for too long and ended up addicted to them instead.

There is nothing worse then listening to the rantings of a reformed smoker, but i now hate it.

I consider myself lucky that after 22 years of constant smoking, the damage to my lungs appears to be minimal.

I ask any smokers on this forum to seriously consider giving it up.

End of lecture.

Thal

[prometheus]

There is this two volume book by, I think a Harvard professor, about how law was undemocraticy manipulated in the US to give private power more rights and thus power and capital, in otherwise to optimise it for corporations.

I don't remember the titel or the author.

[steve jones]

Id bet there are a lot of books fitting that description.

[pianorama]

It is now been over a year since my last smoke.

My lungs are much better and I am £1500 a year better off.

Good for you.

Doesn't what you said look much better now that I fixed it?