Dia on 23/6/2009 at 21:10
Rant over.
Nicotine level normal again.
Wish more non-smokers had RH's attitude. I get tired of feeling like some sort of fugitive and my throat gets sore from all the unasked-for dire smoking facts & stats being crammed down it sometimes.
And don't even go there Q.
Stitch on 23/6/2009 at 21:47
Quote Posted by Dia
Wish more non-smokers had RH's attitude.
Most of us do, the few sanctimonious pricks by nature create a disproportionate level of noise.
SubJeff on 23/6/2009 at 22:01
Quote Posted by Ostriig
Oh, on a separate note, what's up with smoking bans in UK train stations? I mean - above ground, open air train stations: no smoking.
Same reason its banned everywhere else. You can smoke outside the station though.
SubJeff on 23/6/2009 at 22:44
Yeah, it still gets in other peoples face. Ok, you can argue that you were standing at the end of the platform but all the smokers can't do that. And when it rains people congregate under the shelters. Its just easier to say no than to have complex and ambiguous rules.
Ostriig on 23/6/2009 at 22:59
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Yeah, it still gets in other peoples face. Ok, you can argue that you were standing at the end of the platform but all the smokers can't do that. And when it rains people congregate under the shelters. Its just easier to say no than to have complex and ambiguous rules.
Well, alright, I'll give you that it's simpler. It's just that, unlike a bus shelter, you can't just step outside (rain or not) and there are times when you've got a long wait ahead of you. I'm not too bothered about it, mostly curious if there was some other reason behind it.
demagogue on 23/6/2009 at 23:01
I've never smoked as a habit. But every once in a while, like Turtle (except I have no history of smoking), maybe once in 6 months I'll have a cigar just to ... stand there and look cool with a cigar and cognac, I guess. And also maybe one or two cigarettes in the same period. But then I'll only want it to be a flavored cigar (which I assume is also covered by the ban) or cloves, because the only reason I do it is for the taste and chic of it (which normal cigarettes lost long ago, but cloves sort of salvage in a poetry-slam cafe-junkie sort of way).
It's like the only cigarettes that will be allowed are ones for chain smokers actually compromising their health, and the people that actually try to be responsible about it and have like only 3 cigarettes/cigars a year are the ones getting their cigarettes banned.
Edit -- Also: banned? Can't they just put a tax on it or something?
Do they really have to outright ban it as if it were an illegal drug?
D'Juhn Keep on 23/6/2009 at 23:12
In the UK tobacco is taxed to hell and back. It doesn't seem to deter many people, just encourage complaining! Also, tobacco advertising is banned, as is smoking in public places, in case you weren't aware. In all candour, smoking will probably to be assigned to history in the 20-50 years and good riddance.
My instinct is to say "why shouldn't tobacco be illegal" but that sort of goes against my instincts of "people should be free to do what they like as long as nobody else is harmed". I have no problem with people smoking if it doesn't affect anyone else - which it usually does. There is a question of why should the government interfere with something like this which does contain a good point. However, it's sort of balanced by the fact that tobacco is very harmful and does absolutely fucking nothing for you bar satisfy the craving you've got for the nicotineand that tobacco companies have cultivated this very sexy image of smoking while trying to cover up any negative consequences. If it takes the governments of lots of different countries stepping in and banning it in public to help people quit and put and end to the industry then that's a means to an end I can live with.
Ostriig on 23/6/2009 at 23:56
Quote Posted by D'Juhn Keep
My instinct is to say "why shouldn't tobacco be illegal" but that sort of goes against my instincts of "people should be free to do what they like as long as nobody else is harmed". I have no problem with people smoking if it doesn't affect anyone else - which it usually does. There is a question of why should the government interfere with something like this which does contain a good point. However, it's sort of balanced by the fact that tobacco is very harmful and does absolutely fucking nothing for you bar satisfy the craving you've got for the nicotineand that tobacco companies have cultivated this very sexy image of smoking while trying to cover up any negative consequences. If it takes the governments of lots of different countries stepping in and banning it in public to help people quit and put and end to the industry then that's a means to an end I can live with.
You wanna take another minute to think that through? I really wish some of you who dislike smoking would consider a wider perspective on things. Tell me, do you enjoy going out for a drink every now and then? Are you aware that in public spaces, such as bars, people occasionally have a few too many drinks and then start whacking each other? A different mechanic behind the act of causing harm to others, and by no means a sole factor, but alcohol can and does act as a catalyst for this sort of shit in some cases. What next, we ban alcohol from being served in pubs? Prohibition "Lite"? There are solutions to minimize the chance of drunken brawling, and there are solutions to allow people to smoke in public spaces without causing harm to non-smokers.
SubJeff on 24/6/2009 at 00:00
I think that's just a problem with violent people though. If you start going down that road you'll end up banning congregations of X number of people and so on.
The problem with smoking is it is harmful just by being around it, never mind what the smoker is doing. Plus the harm caused by smoking outweighs the harm done by drunken brawling. Outweighs it by a lot.
