Smoke Or Not To Smoke

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

I get your point and you are correct, however if we were to able to compare the "innocent" deaths/injury attributed directly to both habits I'm guessing alcohol would win.:(

---

Good point.

Binge drinking has become the scourge of the English (British?) town centres at night.

If they had only just invented alcohol, it would be a banned substance. I dunno what the answer is. :emo:

---

Wow, let's be thinking about that. We can discount people who die/are injured as a direct result of their own drinking. The same as we do for smokers. So what are we left with in terms of people who are directly affected by the drinking of others.

It is impossible not to be affected by someone who is smoking in your direct vicinity. The more it goes on the greater the effect, the closer to them the greater the effect. Tho' possibly not as directly proportionate as one would have thought. Once the room is full of poison it's pretty much full of poison.

However it is entirely possible to sit in a room with other people drinking and for it to have no effect at all, other than having a laugh. It happens to most people, most of the time. Even if there is fighting or whatever it is entirely possible to walk away from it.

Yes some people get caught up in it, however my "guess" would be that less poeple are affected by others drinking than are affected by others smoking.

The pictures of boys fighting in the street are dramatic, however in the overall scheme of people taking a wee shandy, just how big a percentage are we talking here. It is also a reasonably specific demographic we are talking about here. 40 year old woman rarely rampage through the streets of Auchterarder.

Again I have no figures to support this, just an intuitive reaction. I suspect the survival rates from an A&E on a Saturday night are significantly better than the oncology ward in the same hospital.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Good point.

Binge drinking has become the scourge of the English (British?) town centres at night.

If they had only just invented alcohol, it would be a banned substance. I dunno what the answer is. :emo:

---

Wow, let's be thinking about that. We can discount people who die/are injured as a direct result of their own drinking. The same as we do for smokers. So what are we left with in terms of people who are directly affected by the drinking of others.

It is impossible not to be affected by someone who is smoking in your direct vicinity. The more it goes on the greater the effect, the closer to them the greater the effect. Tho' possibly not as directly proportionate as one would have thought. Once the room is full of poison it's pretty much full of poison.

However it is entirely possible to sit in a room with other people drinking and for it to have no effect at all, other than having a laugh. It happens to most people, most of the time. Even if there is fighting or whatever it is entirely possible to walk away from it.

Yes some people get caught up in it, however my "guess" would be that less poeple are affected by others drinking than are affected by others smoking.

The pictures of boys fighting in the street are dramatic, however in the overall scheme of people taking a wee shandy, just how big a percentage are we talking here. It is also a reasonably specific demographic we are talking about here. 40 year old woman rarely rampage through the streets of Auchterarder.

Again I have no figures to support this, just an intuitive reaction. I suspect the survival rates from an A&E on a Saturday night are significantly better than the oncology ward in the same hospital.

---

There are loads of secondary effects from binge-drinking. I'm going to list them as I think of them.

1). People who live on the main routes to and from a pub routinely have their cars vandalised, their letter-boxes pishes through, and their trees sicked on.

None of the above has actually happened to me, but once someone dived headfirst into one of my flowerbeds as a result of being drunk, and flattened all my daffodils. :angry:

2). Staff at A&E have to deal with rude, aggressive and violent patients as a result of excessive drinking, putting themselves in danger at their place of work.

3). Bouncers in clubs often have to break up fights etc, not knowing if whoever they are man-handling is going to suddenly pull out a knife and stab out, in their stuporific rage.

4). Taxi drivers who are picking up people at the end of the night are at risk from vomit and violence.

5). Police have to dedicate resources to patrolling known trouble-spots at night, rather than catching burglars and paedophiles.

6). People dive headfirst into your daffodils FOR FUCKS SAKE. That alone should be enough. :angry:




Yeah, I'm not saying it's worse than passive smoking, but it can get pretty bad. I'm all in favour of the smoking ban, for the reasons you've been giving.

I like a few drinks myself, and I get merry and silly when I'm drunk, but some people seem to not be able to cope with it all, and go mental. :(

"Yeah, I'm not saying it's worse than passive smoking, but it can get pretty bad"

So, in short and not beating about the bush or gilding the lilly, we are pretty much, what could be described as, in a word, agreed.

I had mistakenly thought you agreed that the drinking thing was worse, given you described it as a "good point".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

"Yeah, I'm not saying it's worse than passive smoking, but it can get pretty bad"

So, in short and not beating about the bush or gilding the lilly, we are pretty much, what could be described as, in a word, agreed.

I had mistakenly thought you agreed that the drinking thing was worse, given you described it as a "good point".

---

:lol: Self-pwned first thing on a tuesday.

I must have been thinking of a point that was not actually the point being made. :pinch:

Maybe you were talking about the presentation, rather than the content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

There are loads of secondary effects from binge-drinking.

---

Do they call stella "wife beater" for nothing?

i would have thought that would have been the first one listed, is why i ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

There are loads of secondary effects from binge-drinking.

---

Do they call stella "wife beater" for nothing?

i would have thought that would have been the first one listed, is why i ask.

---

Every person who smokes in their home subjects the other members of their family to the effects of passive smoking.

I know at least one person who drinks Stella, but rarely beats his wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

I know at least one person who drinks Stella, but rarely beats his wife.

---

I drink stella and don't have a wife:snooty:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

Every person who smokes in their home subjects the other members of their family to the effects of passive smoking.

I know at least one person who drinks Stella, but rarely beats his wife.

---

I think you are cross-arguing, because I don't remember arguing with you, that second hand smoke does not affect other people in the vicinity of the smoke.

my original post> i do agree that second hand smoke is bad, but here in the states, one of the first smoking bans to become famous was the california smoking ban, which banned it from pubs. my logic is this, if you are that terribly concerned about your health, why are you in a pub? you like the peanuts? most people drink in pubs, and yes i agree that's less invasive because unlike the smoke, that doesn't affect the non-drinking people in the pub. but i do think that a smoky pub is an incentive for the patrons not to stay there all day and drink their life away, which is a good incentive imo. other public places bans are different, i agree with those, except outdoor ones that's a little h4rsh considering the smoke mostly just goes up into the atmosphere. /

what i was arguing was this:

quote> There is nothing which is analogous with smoking.

So why do people keep trying to debate this issue by analogy. /

I then drew an analogy between smoking and drinking, because you had claimed there was "nothing analogous with smoking", by saying this:

smoking is something that many people do, to lighten up and relax

drinking is something that many people do, to lighten up and relax

so the similarity is in the motivation, although the means are different /

~sweet dreams

dont smoke your waste your money! hhhhaa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

Every person who smokes in their home subjects the other members of their family to the effects of passive smoking.

I know at least one person who drinks Stella, but rarely beats his wife.

---

I think you are cross-arguing, because I don't remember arguing with you, that second hand smoke does not affect other people in the vicinity of the smoke.

my original post> i do agree that second hand smoke is bad, but here in the states, one of the first smoking bans to become famous was the california smoking ban, which banned it from pubs. my logic is this, if you are that terribly concerned about your health, why are you in a pub? you like the peanuts? most people drink in pubs, and yes i agree that's less invasive because unlike the smoke, that doesn't affect the non-drinking people in the pub. but i do think that a smoky pub is an incentive for the patrons not to stay there all day and drink their life away, which is a good incentive imo. other public places bans are different, i agree with those, except outdoor ones that's a little h4rsh considering the smoke mostly just goes up into the atmosphere. /

what i was arguing was this:

quote> There is nothing which is analogous with smoking.

So why do people keep trying to debate this issue by analogy. /

I then drew an analogy between smoking and drinking, because you had claimed there was "nothing analogous with smoking", by saying this:

smoking is something that many people do, to lighten up and relax

drinking is something that many people do, to lighten up and relax

so the similarity is in the motivation, although the means are different /

~sweet dreams

---

That's just a mess. Both in presentation and in reasoning.

It is perfectly possible, indeed normal for people to have a drink without adversely affecting anyone else. Whether that other person is drinking or not. How old or young, healthy or infirm that person is.

The same cannot be said when one smokes in the presence of another person. If you smoke in the presence of another poerson, you adversely affect them. Fact.

They are therefore not analogous in the context of how they effect other people. Which is the point, when discussing whether smoking should be banned in enclosed public places.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chip Monk

They are therefore not analogous in the context of how they effect other people. Which is the point, when discussing whether smoking should be banned in enclosed public places.

---

Would it make you feel better, if I admit to you, that it's a weak analogy? :P You see, the problem with an absolute like "nothing" is that it corresponds to the number "0". That is to say, that only if there were 0 similarities between the two (and therefore not satisfying the definition of "analogy") would it be correct to say "nothing is analogous".

;)

and btw, it was you who inspired all this pedantic behaviour in me in teh first place. :lol:

methinks u created a monsta'

Things are either analogous or they aren't. There's no middle ground.

You have to bear in mind the context.

If we were discussing the reasons people smoke, or are unable to quit, then I may have to look at your analogy with drinking and think again. There is no doubt there are similar reason for each.

However we are discussing the ban on smoking in enclosed public places. This being because of the direct effect it has on other people. Which is the basis upon which I consider your analogy.

I'll give you this, it's a weak analogy. However I have to go on and say that it is weak to the extent that it serves no useful purpose in the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Things are either analogous or they aren't. There's no middle ground.

---

I've given him "weak analogy", by way of encouragement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Things are either analogous or they aren't. There's no middle ground.

---

You mean * is black and white? i fear such!!!!!!


@jpaul - it's a deal. if i had a smilie for it, it would be the one where i'm extending my hand as if to shake on it : )

I wonder what the world would be like if you drank tobacco and smoked alcohol :dabs:



I'm having a 100% moment...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

@jpaul - it's a deal. if i had a smilie for it, it would be the one where i'm extending my hand as if to shake on it : )

---

This one? :wank:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Things are either analogous or they aren't. There's no middle ground.

---

You mean * is black and white? i fear such!!!!!!


@jpaul - it's a deal. if i had a smilie for it, it would be the one where i'm extending my hand as if to shake on it : )

---

:chapeau:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

@jpaul - it's a deal. if i had a smilie for it, it would be the one where i'm extending my hand as if to shake on it : )

---

This one? :wank:

---

I RESENT THAT SMILIE!!! :hrrmmph:



:P


edit: who knew i would need my boxing gloves in the lounge? :boxing: whateva happened to lighthearted dingleberries and n00bs :wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MediaSlayer

@jpaul - it's a deal. if i had a smilie for it, it would be the one where i'm extending my hand as if to shake on it : )

---

This one? :wank:

---

:lol::earl:

teh harsh.

it was a setup.

lies, you've givenme gall to drink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoker09

dont smoke your waste your money! hhhhaa

---

Don't smoke you're wasting your life. Maybe for the better actually...

Can you waste your life for the better.

What I was trying to say was that:

Smoking is stupid->smoking kills stupid people->less stupid people in the world, the better

Meant it as a joke ;) Sorta.

People should be allowed to smoke if they want, these laws are stupid. They will most certainly effect places, I feel sorry for the owners who're gonna have their lives totally fucked by what's happening.

never smoked once in my life not even one puff

whats the point?? whats your money waste your health waste your time and its disgusting

but people who want to smoke its their choice let them we all have our own reasons for doing things

People should be allowed to smoke if they want, as long as they don't smoke near me. :snooty:

Hi!
For a year and a half we have those restrictions in Sweden too..all public places, restaurants and pubs - smoking is prohibited. All around the year you can see small groups of brave smokers (me included) huddling under umbrellas in rain and sleet with misty eyes remembering the good ol' days when a man could take a beer and a smoke with his friends inside the pub.
Curiously enough, pub incomes doesn't seem to diminish, quite the opposite actually. The pubs are crowded with beer-lovers, and the streets outside the pubs are crowded with us smokers.
thag57

The smoke thst comes while a cigarette burns in the ashtray contains twice as much nicotine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hairbautt

Smoking is just stupid.

---

and ur smart?:noes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by owl92

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hairbautt

Smoking is just stupid.

---

and ur smart?:noes:

---

maybe his is!:w00t:

quit smoking .. use acid :yup:

Just say no, kids.

or

Just say, no kids.

you choose.