Tobacco Kills; The end of Smoking?

[Chaimai]

2 hours ago, palooka said:

Ex and think it a disgusting habit but some smokers find it hard to quit and some cannot so their bad habit  must be tolerated.  Many smokers are responsible smokers in that they are aware of the negatives of their habit and take measures to not affect others. 

 

 

....and I like and respect those people.

 

Rookiescot does not fall into that category.

[longwood50]

5 hours ago, Shade_Wilder said:

is it not the duty of a government to act in the best interest of society? Is abetting smoking the best interest of society? 

[JohninDublin]

9 hours ago, Chaimai said:

I think that you will find that they don't give a toss what you think!  

As a smoker of 50 years + who has tried multiple times to quit, I can assure you I do care what others think. 

On those occasions when i have been able to stop for w few days, I have often been walking on the street, and some one passing me, not even smoking, has given off a strong smell of tobacco from a mere 5 yards away. My usual thoughts when this occurs is, "Do I really smell like that"?  Cringe.

[RampantRabbit]

9 hours ago, nobusinessofurs said:

 I feel the same about the drinkers of alcohol, disgusting blumbing sots who think they can't have a good time unless they have a drink in hand.

Kin stupid  idea  I think even worse of religions  they should  ban all teachings of that until youre 18+ disgusting indoctrination at a young  age, smokers  know the risk what next eating too  much fat /sugar, wait until the only thing  you can eat is lettuce and orgasmically grown lettuce at that. Never  smoked but am about to start whilst munchiong on chocolate and crisps, is this an idea  form Whinny the Horse  teeth PM of NZ?

[JohninDublin]

9 hours ago, nobusinessofurs said:

 I feel the same about the drinkers of alcohol, disgusting blumbing sots who think they can't have a good time unless they have a drink in hand.

How did I know that as soon as I read your post, @LoongFredwould be upvoting it.

I am not sure you would be tolerant of my drinking habits, even though you don't know what they are. I can't really criticise your intolerance. I too can be intolerant, especially of intolerance.

[JohninDublin]

8 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

I totally agree with every word you say, but what I find really disconcerting is when a government is supposed to be working for us are actually dictating to us what we can or cannot do. Educating people is the answer not running a mother knows best attitude, Jacinda Adern has to be the biggest control freak in all of all civilised countries, she is creating a two tier society in NZ, pretty much forcing their citizens to take the covid vaccines or you won't be part of our society, she is some scary woman.

Admittedly, my experience of Arden, is only what I've seen about her in the media, but I am a fan.

Regardless, I do see public health as part of the gov's responsibilities. Sewers and Water Treatment Plants, don't build themselves.

Gradually over the past 180 years, many govs in advanced nations have started huge infrastructure projects in the interest of public health, and seen diseases such as cholera become a rarity. As the understanding of how disease is spread has expanded, gov's have been very active in promoting messages about personal hygiene etc. Steps like these have paid off in greater life expectancy, reduced infant mortality etc. Disease prevention has contributed to that.

Many in the public health branch of gov, look for areas in which to increase these gains, and among those are the elimination of what I would call "self-inflicted wounds", such as obesity, smoking, poor diet, alcohol probs, drug addiction etc. When I hear those who would invoke the "nanny state" as a criticism of pro-activity by govs in dealing with these issues, I do question whether the people railing against this, have really thought this through, because contempt for these state actions will often lead to the victims of these self-inflicted wounds becoming a burden on the public purse. 

 

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, palooka said:

...someone who is smoking sensibly is only endangering their own life.

As a smoker who for a long time tried to argue against my critics, I have never been able to come up with any argument, that my smoking was ever done sensibly. 

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, PBS said:

Be interesting to see how government respond if and when there is finally an indisputable proven linkage between marijuana smoking and cancer.

I've never been able to understand this. Cannabis is often used as an additive to tobacco. Unless it is being claimed that Cannabis neutralises the carcinogens in tobacco, then the only real question in my view is, "Does Cannabis exacerbate the pre-existing problem"?

[Marble-eye]

28 minutes ago, JohninDubin said:

Admittedly, my experience of Arden, is only what I've seen about her in the media, but I am a fan.

Regardless, I do see public health as part of the gov's responsibilities. Sewers and Water Treatment Plants, don't build themselves.

Gradually over the past 180 years, many govs in advanced nations have started huge infrastructure projects in the interest of public health, and seen diseases such as cholera become a rarity. As the understanding of how disease is spread has expanded, gov's have been very active in promoting messages about personal hygiene etc. Steps like these have paid off in greater life expectancy, reduced infant mortality etc. Disease prevention has contributed to that.

Many in the public health branch of gov, look for areas in which to increase these gains, and among those are the elimination of what I would call "self-inflicted wounds", such as obesity, smoking, poor diet, alcohol probs, drug addiction etc. When I hear those who would invoke the "nanny state" as a criticism of pro-activity by govs in dealing with these issues, I do question whether the people railing against this, have really thought this through, because contempt for these state actions will often lead to the victims of these self-inflicted wounds becoming a burden on the public purse. 

I hear what you are saying John and as usual you have a very eloquent way of putting your thoughts down, however imo you cannot tell a nation what they can eat or drink, nor can you tell or at least you shouldn't tell a nation what not to put in their bodies nor can you tell a nation what to put in their bodies. 

If a government said to you as a smoker that if you didn't stop smoking you couldn't leave your house, or you may have to spend some time in a detention centre until you are 'cured,' I hope you would be up in arms and tell them to mind their own business as it is nobody elses business what we eat or indulge in. What ever next, telling us that meat from animals contains toxins therefore you must exist on a meat free diet like lettuce and nettle soup.

In a democracy John we have certain rights and as soon as you start to remove citizens freedom of choice, you are not a democracy you are a dictatorship and I'm sure that none of us would like to see that would they John. Not to go into too much detail we are already losing our freedom of speech in the UK, lets not go down the road of letting our governments thinking that they do know what is best for us, if somebody wants to poison themself and they are not affecting anybody else they should be able to do so, just the same as governments telling us what to pump into our bodies on the advice of some dodgy scientists IMO.

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

I have not smoked in a house or a car for almost 30 years. I dont let my kids stand anywhere near me when I am smoking outside. I constantly tell them to never start smoking. I do not smoke in restaurants. Even where it is allowed.

In the pubs over here in Thailand I do smoke. If you dont like it go to one of the non smoking pubs.

Regarding your mention of non-smoking pubs, I just thought I'd mention the following.

I used to drive a taxi in Cambridge, and prior to the introduction of the UK smoking ban in pubs, "The Elm Tree" had uniquely for Cambridge imposed it's own smoking ban. The place was crowded every night, regardless of whether other pubs were having a quiet night. Within weeks of the smoking ban being introduced, the pub lost half it's trade as it no longer had this unique selling point.

In the period 2007-2015 over 7k pubs in the UK shut, with most blaming the smoking ban. I am sure that the ban had some effect, but this was also at a time credit crunch. I think TH's approach to allowing or disallowing smoking in bars is far more sensible

 

[JohninDublin]

19 minutes ago, Marble-eye said:

I hear what you are saying John and as usual you have a very eloquent way of putting your thoughts down, however imo you cannot tell a nation what they can eat or drink, nor can you tell or at least you shouldn't tell a nation what not to put in their bodies nor can you tell a nation what to put in their bodies. 

If a government said to you as a smoker that if you didn't stop smoking you couldn't leave your house, or you may have to spend some time in a detention centre until you are 'cured,' I hope you would be up in arms and tell them to mind their own business as it is nobody elses business what we eat or indulge in. What ever next, telling us that meat from animals contains toxins therefore you must exist on a meat free diet like lettuce and nettle soup.

In a democracy John we have certain rights and as soon as you start to remove citizens freedom of choice, you are not a democracy you are a dictatorship and I'm sure that none of us would like to see that would they John. Not to go into too much detail we are already losing our freedom of speech in the UK, lets not go down the road of letting our governments thinking that they do know what is best for us, if somebody wants to poison themself and they are not affecting anybody else they should be able to do so, just the same as governments telling us what to pump into our bodies on the advice of some dodgy scientists IMO.

Thanks for your reply.

As I said, I am a fan of Arden. However, there are a couple of things that it now becomes necessary to add as a result of your reply.

The first thing is that I think Arden's proposed legislation is unnecessary. Since I was a kid, there has been a tremendous decline in the number of kids that have begun smoking. The message has got through to many that it is no longer cool to smoke, and it's definitely not healthy. Had Arden done nothing, I think that situation would still have continued to improve.

The other is that unless I am very much mistaken, the thrust of the "nanny state" in NZ, is currently the emphasis is on what people should not do in the interest of having a healthy life. That is a lot different from telling people what they must not do. Presuming that is indeed the current state of affairs in NZ, then I have no problem with this. 

The thing that would concern me is when compulsion enters the argument. I don't see this so far.

[oldschooler]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

Admittedly, my experience of Arden, is only what I've seen about her in the media, but I am a fan.

Regardless, I do see public health as part of the gov's responsibilities. Sewers and Water Treatment Plants, don't build themselves.

Gradually over the past 180 years, many govs in advanced nations have started huge infrastructure projects in the interest of public health, and seen diseases such as cholera become a rarity. As the understanding of how disease is spread has expanded, gov's have been very active in promoting messages about personal hygiene etc. Steps like these have paid off in greater life expectancy, reduced infant mortality etc. Disease prevention has contributed to that.

Many in the public health branch of gov, look for areas in which to increase these gains, and among those are the elimination of what I would call "self-inflicted wounds", such as obesity, smoking, poor diet, alcohol probs, drug addiction etc. When I hear those who would invoke the "nanny state" as a criticism of pro-activity by govs in dealing with these issues, I do question whether the people railing against this, have really thought this through, because contempt for these state actions will often lead to the victims of these self-inflicted wounds becoming a burden on the public purse. 

Andrew Neill article in Daily Mail Online is spot on with Freedom / Rights / Duty. Its a Balance.

Absolute Freedom is Anarchy or Satanism which are not long tolerated by society or govt.

So if you choose No Vax / No Mask, lose some Freedoms.

If your self -abusing addiction lands you in hospital, you must pay the bill, knowing also you have perhaps delayed an innocent person treatment who may die consequently.

[palooka]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

As a smoker who for a long time tried to argue against my critics, I have never been able to come up with any argument, that my smoking was ever done sensibly. 

Being aware of your actions and realising the impact of your decisions on others around you, positive or negative, will lead to sensible decision making on how you do any thing in life even how to enjoy a cigarette and still have a big part of a non smoking social society.

[JohninDublin]

31 minutes ago, oldschooler said:

Andrew Neill article in Daily Mail Online is spot on with Freedom / Rights / Duty. Its a Balance.

Absolute Freedom is Anarchy or Satanism which are not long tolerated by society or govt.

So if you choose No Vax / No Mask, lose some Freedoms.

If your self -abusing addiction lands you in hospital, you must pay the bill, knowing also you have perhaps delayed an innocent person treatment who may die consequently.

I only got as far as reading "Andrew Neill article in Daily Mail Online is spot on with Freedom" before you lost my vote.

[Marc26]

10 hours ago, Rookiescot said:

You do realize THIS IS THAILAND right? 5555

Yup and I have been many places were they don't enforce the smoking ban.........but it is still illegal

[Marc26]

3 hours ago, Marble-eye said:

I hear what you are saying John and as usual you have a very eloquent way of putting your thoughts down, however imo you cannot tell a nation what they can eat or drink, nor can you tell or at least you shouldn't tell a nation what not to put in their bodies nor can you tell a nation what to put in their bodies. 

If a government said to you as a smoker that if you didn't stop smoking you couldn't leave your house, or you may have to spend some time in a detention centre until you are 'cured,' I hope you would be up in arms and tell them to mind their own business as it is nobody elses business what we eat or indulge in. What ever next, telling us that meat from animals contains toxins therefore you must exist on a meat free diet like lettuce and nettle soup.

In a democracy John we have certain rights and as soon as you start to remove citizens freedom of choice, you are not a democracy you are a dictatorship and I'm sure that none of us would like to see that would they John. Not to go into too much detail we are already losing our freedom of speech in the UK, lets not go down the road of letting our governments thinking that they do know what is best for us, if somebody wants to poison themself and they are not affecting anybody else they should be able to do so, just the same as governments telling us what to pump into our bodies on the advice of some dodgy scientists IMO.

But why don't non-smokers have the right not to have cigarette smoke come into their personal space

 

Someone brings up alcohol

And there are times when a drunk person is invading your personal space

But that is illegal and they can be punished for that, smokers can't be punished at the moment

[Poolie]

No matter how often we tell our smoke not to invade your personal space it still just willfully does so.  Its just like the sweaty, b.o.-ridden, farangs who it has been my unfortunate experience in encountering on previous trips. I can smell them before I see them, despite my olfactory senses being diminished.

Live and let live I say.

[Rookiescot]

6 hours ago, Chaimai said:

....and I like and respect those people.

Rookiescot does not fall into that category.

Why do I not?

I have not smoked in a house or car for nearly 30 years. Long before it was any kind of requirement.

I do not smoke in restaurants even in areas where it is OK to do so. 

I have said this a couple of times.

No. What you have decided is that you, personally, do not like me even though we have never met based on the fact I smoke cigarettes. You have made several poorly disguised barbed comments towards me in this very thread.

I however have a far more tolerant view of people and try not to judge them on their choices.

This makes me a better person.

[Rookiescot]

22 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

But why don't non-smokers have the right not to have cigarette smoke come into their personal space

Someone brings up alcohol

And there are times when a drunk person is invading your personal space

But that is illegal and they can be punished for that, smokers can't be punished at the moment

You smell alcohol on someone's breath and you want them arrested?

[Marc26]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

You smell alcohol on someone's breath and you want them arrested?

Haha, no

I actually like that!

 

I meant if some disorderly drunk is causing problems, getting in people's faces

[Rookiescot]

2 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

Haha, no

I actually like that!

I meant if some disorderly drunk is causing problems, getting in people's faces

If someone is drunk and disorderly and causing problems you think that is a lesser crime than someone smoking in your vicinity? 

After all you want smoking banned but not alcohol.

[Marc26]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

If someone is drunk and disorderly and causing problems you think that is a lesser crime than someone smoking in your vicinity? 

After all you want smoking banned but not alcohol.

No, what I said is that is policed and punished

 

Smoking is not........

[Rookiescot]

8 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

No, what I said is that is policed and punished

Smoking is not........

Smoking is not a crime though.

Being an obnoxious clown in public is.

Hold on a sec. How many times have YOU ranted at a smoker in public?

[Marc26]

9 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Smoking is not a crime though.

Being an obnoxious clown in public is.

Hold on a sec. How many times have YOU ranted at a smoker in public?

No but smokers cause much more imposition on others(daily) than a drunk in public(rarely)

 

The only time I ever really say anything to a smoker is if they are standing by an entrance/doorway

[Rookiescot]

1 minute ago, Marc26 said:

No but smokers cause much more imposition on others(daily) than a drunk in public(rarely)

The only time I ever really say anything to a smoker is if they are standing by an entrance/doorway

So you admit to being adversarial to smokers for no other reason than them being smokers while being in a public space.

Pretty sure there is a law covering that.