Who smokes?

mcj78 · January 2011

bianchimoon wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

Bompington, you're not wrong about the tobacco industry's manipulation and propaganda and it's the mantra of the antis whenever anyone speaks out - they're tarred and feathered with the stain of the tobacco industry. However, you could say the same about the anti lobby's funding; they've got themselves in hock to big pharma, not coinsidently the makers of NRT. Much of the junk science is funded via the antis and pharma, both of which clearly have an agenda.

Despite what you might think, I value good science highly and if it came out in favour of health risks that warrented bans and restrictions I wouldn't object. I can find none from the antis, only hyperbolic claims of the health risks and propaganda: if it was as bad as they say they wouldn't need bans, denormalisation and coercion, folk would give up anyway. I've not come to my conclusions without looking at it closely

If I'm wasting my time posting links let me know and I won't bother.

Ok without wishing to be inflamatory, say for arguments sake you were in a public place and i had a little atomiser/spray bottle containing minute traces of: Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide: DDT, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Formaldehiyde, Methoprene, Methyl isocyanate, Polonium amongst others (since you value good science you won't argue that these are NOT chemicals in cigarette smoke?, and every now and again i sprayed a little in your direction, you wouldn't object? No - ok then i spray it in the vicinity of your children, still you don't object because of course no one's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it will harm you or your children

I'd say give the climate in which we currently live, that sort of behaviour would find you residing at her maj's pleasure, or, beaten half to death by someone who takes exception to strangers spraying them in the face with a strange substance. What you're describing pretty much amounts to assault, next time you're exposed to a wisp of cigarette smoke in the street, phone the Police & let us know how you get on - just explain that it's a smoking analogy & i'm sure they'll congratulate you on your wit before giving you a small round of applause. Or avoid taking yourself/children into the immediate vicinity of those who enjoy exercising their legal right to smoke if it upsets you so much.

Pokerface · January 2011

Quit about 2 years ago. Still have the odd fag once or twice a year - usually when visiting other people who smoke. Don't really miss it at all and I'm sure my cycling has improved because of quitting/

gethmetal · January 2011

Pokerface wrote:

Quit about 2 years ago. Still have the odd fag once or twice a year - usually when visiting other people who smoke. Don't really miss it at all and I'm sure my cycling has improved because of quitting/

How long have you been competing, Pokerface?

bianchimoon · January 2011

mcj78 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

Bompington, you're not wrong about the tobacco industry's manipulation and propaganda and it's the mantra of the antis whenever anyone speaks out - they're tarred and feathered with the stain of the tobacco industry. However, you could say the same about the anti lobby's funding; they've got themselves in hock to big pharma, not coinsidently the makers of NRT. Much of the junk science is funded via the antis and pharma, both of which clearly have an agenda.

Despite what you might think, I value good science highly and if it came out in favour of health risks that warrented bans and restrictions I wouldn't object. I can find none from the antis, only hyperbolic claims of the health risks and propaganda: if it was as bad as they say they wouldn't need bans, denormalisation and coercion, folk would give up anyway. I've not come to my conclusions without looking at it closely

If I'm wasting my time posting links let me know and I won't bother.

Ok without wishing to be inflamatory, say for arguments sake you were in a public place and i had a little atomiser/spray bottle containing minute traces of: Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide: DDT, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Formaldehiyde, Methoprene, Methyl isocyanate, Polonium amongst others (since you value good science you won't argue that these are NOT chemicals in cigarette smoke?, and every now and again i sprayed a little in your direction, you wouldn't object? No - ok then i spray it in the vicinity of your children, still you don't object because of course no one's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it will harm you or your children

I'd say give the climate in which we currently live, that sort of behaviour would find you residing at her maj's pleasure, or, beaten half to death by someone who takes exception to strangers spraying them in the face with a strange substance. What you're describing pretty much amounts to assault, next time you're exposed to a wisp of cigarette smoke in the street, phone the Police & let us know how you get on - just explain that it's a smoking analogy & i'm sure they'll congratulate you on your wit before giving you a small round of applause. Or avoid taking yourself/children into the immediate vicinity of those who enjoy exercising their legal right to smoke if it upsets you so much.

Yup you're right, assault with a deadly weapon! My argument is not against people smoking, it's academic now as the thing that i am totally against is smoking in confined public places. The point was raised to counter the SHS had no harmfull effects of note, and if so would a smoker be willing to inhale the exact same chemicals in anything other than cigarette smoke

mcj78 · January 2011

bianchimoon wrote:

mcj78 wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Crapaud wrote:

Bompington, you're not wrong about the tobacco industry's manipulation and propaganda and it's the mantra of the antis whenever anyone speaks out - they're tarred and feathered with the stain of the tobacco industry. However, you could say the same about the anti lobby's funding; they've got themselves in hock to big pharma, not coinsidently the makers of NRT. Much of the junk science is funded via the antis and pharma, both of which clearly have an agenda.

Despite what you might think, I value good science highly and if it came out in favour of health risks that warrented bans and restrictions I wouldn't object. I can find none from the antis, only hyperbolic claims of the health risks and propaganda: if it was as bad as they say they wouldn't need bans, denormalisation and coercion, folk would give up anyway. I've not come to my conclusions without looking at it closely

If I'm wasting my time posting links let me know and I won't bother.

Ok without wishing to be inflamatory, say for arguments sake you were in a public place and i had a little atomiser/spray bottle containing minute traces of: Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide: DDT, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Formaldehiyde, Methoprene, Methyl isocyanate, Polonium amongst others (since you value good science you won't argue that these are NOT chemicals in cigarette smoke?, and every now and again i sprayed a little in your direction, you wouldn't object? No - ok then i spray it in the vicinity of your children, still you don't object because of course no one's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it will harm you or your children

I'd say give the climate in which we currently live, that sort of behaviour would find you residing at her maj's pleasure, or, beaten half to death by someone who takes exception to strangers spraying them in the face with a strange substance. What you're describing pretty much amounts to assault, next time you're exposed to a wisp of cigarette smoke in the street, phone the Police & let us know how you get on - just explain that it's a smoking analogy & i'm sure they'll congratulate you on your wit before giving you a small round of applause. Or avoid taking yourself/children into the immediate vicinity of those who enjoy exercising their legal right to smoke if it upsets you so much.

Yup you're right, assault with a deadly weapon! My argument is not against people smoking, it's academic now as the thing that i am totally against is smoking in confined public places. The point was raised to counter the SHS had no harmfull effects of note, and if so would a smoker be willing to inhale the exact same chemicals in anything other than cigarette smoke

Haha, fair play to you - most of the anti-smoking people I know are also pretty happy with the ban on smoking indoors - I certainly don't mind it, i'm still allowed to moan at breathing in god-knows how many diesel particulates on the ride to work though, because I can't choose to avoid that

gregster10217 · January 2011

Another to have given up - 3 1/2 years ago following the birth of my son. Cannot stand the smell of them now and it annoys me that smoking areas seem to be right outside entrance doors to most places, shops, pubs etc, etc. I don't miss it at all, but still find myself sucking a nicotine lozenge, which I really like!!!!
Nothing worse than an ex-smoker, eh?

Crapaud · January 2011

bianchimoon wrote:

Ok without wishing to be inflamatory, say for arguments sake you were in a public place and i had a little atomiser/spray bottle containing minute traces of: Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide: DDT, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Formaldehiyde, Methoprene, Methyl isocyanate, Polonium amongst others (since you value good science you won't argue that these are NOT chemicals in cigarette smoke?, and every now and again i sprayed a little in your direction, you wouldn't object? No - ok then i spray it in the vicinity of your children, still you don't object because of course no one's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it will harm you or your children

Scary sounding stuff, binchimoon. What are the concentrations? Assuming they're the same as cigarette smoke why would I care?

Consider this: we're exposed to toxins and pathogens every day and we get on pretty much fine. Tomatos contain arsenic, you wouldn't think twice about eating one and you'd probably be hailed a hero getting a child to eat one (it being a healthy fruit). Motor vehicles spew out more benzene - one of the most potent carcinogens - and carbonmonoxide than any smoker could possibly do. Why would anyone choose to put themselves in such a risky position by cycling in heavy traffic? They must be feckin' mad!

It takes years for the effects of smoking to affect even the heaviest of smokers, so why would the limited and extremely diluted SHS that non-smokers inhale be that bad? Why aren't we up to our arses in dead and dying non-smokers (never mind smokers)?The greatest percentage of the population that smoked, from memory, were in the 1940s - 70s yet we've got the oldest population in history. How is that?

RDW · January 2011

Crapaud wrote:

While I don't especially like using blogs to back up my arguements, when it comes to passive smoking that's pretty much all there is.

And did you never wonder why? There's certainly plenty of material that takes the opposite view, much of it here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?Db=p ... %20smoking

Crapaud wrote:

I'd suggest opening your mind rather than soaking up whatever you're told.

Funnny how 9/11 'Truthers', HIV denialists, anti-vaccinators and the 'NASA faked the moon landing' brigade always portray themselves as 'open-minded', isn't it?

But there's no need to be 'told' anything. The medical literature (the stuff that doctors and scientists read and write) is directly available to anyone who can run a PubMed search and (where necessary) visit a library. You might start with a couple of 'meta-analyses' that review the same studies Snowdon is attempting to trash in his blog and his (is that self-published?) book:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17690135

'The abundance of evidence, consistency of finding across continent and study type, dose-response relationship and biological plausibility, overwhelmingly support the existence of a causal relationship between passive smoking and lung cancer.'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17267733

'The findings from this investigation provide the strongest evidence to date that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke in the workplace is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer.'

Of course the professional epidemiologists who made these reports are presumably in the pay of the Sinister Antismoking Conspiracy, whereas Mr. Snowdon's star billing at FOREST's 30th birthday party and his 'adjunct scholar' position at the 'Democracy Institute', a think-tank apparently run by former tobacco industry lobbyists, are purely coincidental.

Anonymous · January 2011

I gave up smoking two years ago, I did the classic thing of putting on weight after giving up and so as a reward to myself, and to help with loosing weight I brought myself a bike.

I have to say I feel so much better, I used to cough up so much crap every morning.

I think the reason I finally gave up is because I found smoking completely pointless.

It's not a addiction that gives you any kind of buzz. It's not like smoking weed, or having a line of coke. The only reason for smoking tobacco is that it stops you wanting to smoke tobacco for a bit.

willowthewhite · January 2011

RichardSwt wrote:

I gave up smoking two years ago, I did the classic thing of putting on weight after giving up and so as a reward to myself, and to help with loosing weight I brought myself a bike.

I have to say I feel so much better, I used to cough up so much crap every morning.

I think the reason I finally gave up is because I found smoking completely pointless.

It's not a addiction that gives you any kind of buzz. It's not like smoking weed, or having a line of coke. The only reason for smoking tobacco is that it stops you wanting to smoke tobacco for a bit.

I too have put on weight since giving up 9 months ago, went from 11.5 stone to 13 stone in the space of two months, It is only now that I feel "healthier" but my stress levels are through the roof and I'm having to learn how to deal with that one, probably the hardest part of giving up for me, even more so because I didn't want to give in the first place up but could no longer afford to continue.

It's just like any other addiction, the more you do the less the "hit", If you went and smoked a cigarette right now you would feel the buzz.

At the end of the day both the sides are bullshitting bastards and both have a vested interest in the work they do.

bianchimoon · January 2011

Crapaud wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Ok without wishing to be inflamatory, say for arguments sake you were in a public place and i had a little atomiser/spray bottle containing minute traces of: Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide: DDT, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Formaldehiyde, Methoprene, Methyl isocyanate, Polonium amongst others (since you value good science you won't argue that these are NOT chemicals in cigarette smoke?, and every now and again i sprayed a little in your direction, you wouldn't object? No - ok then i spray it in the vicinity of your children, still you don't object because of course no one's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it will harm you or your children

Scary sounding stuff, binchimoon. What are the concentrations? Assuming they're the same as cigarette smoke why would I care?

Consider this: we're exposed to toxins and pathogens every day and we get on pretty much fine. Tomatos contain arsenic, you wouldn't think twice about eating one and you'd probably be hailed a hero getting a child to eat one (it being a healthy fruit). Motor vehicles spew out more benzene - one of the most potent carcinogens - and carbonmonoxide than any smoker could possibly do. Why would anyone choose to put themselves in such a risky position by cycling in heavy traffic? They must be feckin' mad!

It takes years for the effects of smoking to affect even the heaviest of smokers, so why would the limited and extremely diluted SHS that non-smokers inhale be that bad? Why aren't we up to our arses in dead and dying non-smokers (never mind smokers)?The greatest percentage of the population that smoked, from memory, were in the 1940s - 70s yet we've got the oldest population in history. How is that?

what can i say, you deny good science, you deny the rights for people to go into public places and breathe clean air. Fortunately, people like me have won the argument and you're banned from doing it, i can tell from your writing that you are not an unreasonable person, just passionate about being told what you can and can't do to the point that you couldn't care less about what people around you think. You have decided that it's ok for them to breathe in your second hand smoke it's not for them to have a say in the matter, even in your mind the infinitely small chance that they could contract a life threatening disease so that you could fulfil your smoking pleasure is a risk that they should take. Fortunately there are people out there that are far wiser than me or you and they have won the argument it's banned and won't ever make a return.

rick_chasey · January 2011

Crapaud wrote:

bianchimoon wrote:

Ok without wishing to be inflamatory, say for arguments sake you were in a public place and i had a little atomiser/spray bottle containing minute traces of: Ammonia, Arsenic, Benzene, Butane, Carbon monoxide, Cyanide: DDT, Ethyl Furoate, Lead, Formaldehiyde, Methoprene, Methyl isocyanate, Polonium amongst others (since you value good science you won't argue that these are NOT chemicals in cigarette smoke?, and every now and again i sprayed a little in your direction, you wouldn't object? No - ok then i spray it in the vicinity of your children, still you don't object because of course no one's proven beyond reasonable doubt that it will harm you or your children

Scary sounding stuff, binchimoon. What are the concentrations? Assuming they're the same as cigarette smoke why would I care?

Consider this: we're exposed to toxins and pathogens every day and we get on pretty much fine. Tomatos contain arsenic, you wouldn't think twice about eating one and you'd probably be hailed a hero getting a child to eat one (it being a healthy fruit). Motor vehicles spew out more benzene - one of the most potent carcinogens - and carbonmonoxide than any smoker could possibly do. Why would anyone choose to put themselves in such a risky position by cycling in heavy traffic? They must be feckin' mad!

It takes years for the effects of smoking to affect even the heaviest of smokers, so why would the limited and extremely diluted SHS that non-smokers inhale be that bad? Why aren't we up to our arses in dead and dying non-smokers (never mind smokers)?The greatest percentage of the population that smoked, from memory, were in the 1940s - 70s yet we've got the oldest population in history. How is that?

It's proven beyond any doubt that any smoking at all is particularly bad for your body.

It's also well known that smoking when you are still growing is even worse, plus children need much smaller doses to have the same bad effect.

There's no defending smoking from the heath costs. It's just very bad for the health of anyone who breathes the smoke.

Now, whether you care or not is another matter, and whether you should be banned or not is another matter - but you can't reasonably argue that smoking, even passive smoking isn't very bad for anyone's health.

Leesykoi · January 2011

No, not for me and would not criticise anyone if they did smoke (away from me though as i cannot stand the smell !!!

)

blackpoolkev · January 2011

Does anyone know where I can get a carbon fibre ashtray to clip on my handlebars?

rick_chasey · January 2011

blackpoolkev wrote:

Does anyone know where I can get a carbon fibre ashtray to clip on my handlebars?

this badboy fits into your jersey (if you're xxxl)

http://www.simplycigars.co.uk/folding-c ... -2031.html

neilo23 · January 2011

bexley5200 wrote:

hate the smell of it every morning im woken up by the bloke next door smoking by my window yuck

Why don't you ask him to smoke outside?

bexley5200 · January 2011

you wont catch me smoking

scattered pedals · January 2011

just switched two weeks ago - from rollups with no filter to these new electric fags! still waiting to see how it helps the cycling...

Gotte · January 2011

I used to smoke, and I have to say, I really enjoyed it. I found personally that the physical addiction was only transitory, and very easy to break. It was the mental addiction I found more problematic. I grew up surrounded by smokers, and when I was growing up, most of the classic roll models smoked. My father, the main smoker in the family, used to love all those old Hollywood movies from the 40s and 50s, with the likes of Humphrey Bogart and Gary Cooper. We used to watch them with him on a Saturday and Sunday afternoon. Usually through a fug of smoke. It had a certain knock-on. I remember being about five, at school in the dining room, and pretending to smoke with my friend, because we'd seen a john Wayne film the previous day, and he smoked in the canteen before puling on his flying jacket and taking his bomber to blow hell out of the Japanese.
And that's the difficulty with me. I know it's bad for you, and will kill you (my father died of lung cancer), but for all the logical thought in the world, at the back of my mind, somewhere deep, next door to my reptile brain, there's a little movie theater which still shows all those old films, and I know that I'm still young and sitting there and still deeply impressed.
I remember a few years after quitting, I saw Wings of Desire, which has this scene where Peter Falk is on a Berlin street corner talking to an invisible angel (bear with me), and he's trying to explain the wonder of being human, of being fallible, I suppose. He gets a cup of coffee and says something along the lines of "There's nothing like a cup of coffee and a cigarette." The wind swirls, and he takes a drag of his cigarette and sips his coffee, and I was there. I knew what he meant.
I could have smoked a packet of cigarettes after seeing that - but if I had, it wouldn't have been for the sensation, the heavy drag deep down, the heady reel. It wouldn't have been for the need of nicotine. It would have been for me seeing myself as this wise, romantic figure on a street corner in Berlin, in a billowing mac, with a polystyrene cup of coffee and a cigarette, and all the best lines.
Stupid, but true.
And as much as I enjoyed smoking, and would probably still be doing it, if it didn't rob you of everyhting, whittling you down to this wheezing, coughing nothing - as much as I have a sympathy for smokers, and do often think that I'd sorely love to be with them, huddled in a doorway shooting the breeze, I truly hate it when I see adults smoking around children, becasue once you get those images in a kid's head, those images that say "this is how adults are, this is what they do," it's just so difficult to get them out.
It's just another generation doomed to spend its last days in an overcrowded hospital ward, rolling its eyes, blue in the face, spitting blood in a kidney dish and gasping for every last breath.

Nuggs · January 2011

Gotte wrote:

Stuff

One of the great BR posts of all time.

Gotte · January 2011

Nuggs wrote:

Gotte wrote:

Stuff

One of the great BR posts of all time.

Why, thank you. Much appreciated.

ratsbeyfus · January 2011

Nuggs wrote:

Gotte wrote:

Stuff

One of the great BR posts of all time.

Gotta agree. I gave up more than seven years ago when me and my missus decided to have kids. I miss it sometimes for many of the reasons in Gotte's post... shallow but true.

verylonglegs · January 2011

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

Gotte wrote:

Stuff

One of the great BR posts of all time.

Gotta agree. I gave up more than seven years ago when me and my missus decided to have kids. I miss it sometimes for many of the reasons in Gotte's post... shallow but true.

Probably a halfway split on this forum (crude guess!)...a lot of us will be too young to relate to what he means. Not a criticism though! just interesting how things change.

bexley5200 · January 2011

puf puf 14 days a non smoker

Gotte · January 2011

verylonglegs wrote:

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

Gotte wrote:

Stuff

One of the great BR posts of all time.

Gotta agree. I gave up more than seven years ago when me and my missus decided to have kids. I miss it sometimes for many of the reasons in Gotte's post... shallow but true.

Probably a halfway split on this forum (crude guess!)...a lot of us will be too young to relate to what he means. Not a criticism though! just interesting how things change.

It's true - the immortality of youth is a beautiful thing, and rightly so. I suspect it would be a very grey world if it weren't. We were all immortal once, after all.
But as they used to say in the Russian airforce: there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but seldom do you find old, bold pilots.

DIESELDOG · January 2011

markyboy2005 wrote:

Only after sex......

......so I voted No in your Poll!

'bout sums it up but I'm now on at least 20 a day. God someone get me a bloke!!

tailwindhome · January 2011

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Nuggs wrote:

Gotte wrote:

Stuff

One of the great BR posts of all time.

Gotta agree. I gave up more than seven years ago when me and my missus decided to have kids. I miss it sometimes for many of the reasons in Gotte's post... shallow but true.

+1

Word perfect post.

Flasheart · January 2011

DIESELDOG wrote:

markyboy2005 wrote:

Only after sex......

......so I voted No in your Poll!

'bout sums it up but I'm now on at least 20 a day. God someone get me a bloke!!

Heh just saw this thread and was about to say pretty much the same thing. I was gonna say I only smoke after sex, but these days I never bother to check under the duvet anymore :twisted:
I wish. Yeah DD I know how you feel (shut it Bunneh. I don't like guys)

Back in my late teens/ early 20's I used to smoke like a chimney. When I arrived in the UK in 92' I was still on 70 a day. Ciggies were sold in 35's and even 50's back there. I used to do a pack during the day at work and another when I was out clubbing in the evening.
Well after I arrived and my duty-free's ran out I realised that ciggies here cost 4 1/2 times more un the UK :shock: So I had to cut right down.
I quit smoking 8 1/2 years ago. 8)
Considering my Dad died of Lung Cancer and my Mother died of Emphysema related problems 5 years previously, I should have done it sooner.
I set a date and when it arrived I just stopped.
Willpower & Wrigley's I called it. Everytime I felt like sparking up, I stuck a piece of chewing gum in my mouth. A few hours later you couldn't get a ciggie in your gob if you wanted too

Smokin Joe · January 2011

Chewing gum is a useless substitute for cigarettes. The blasted stuff won't stay alight.

springtide9 · February 2011

Crapaud wrote:

It takes years for the effects of smoking to affect even the heaviest of smokers, so why would the limited and extremely diluted SHS that non-smokers inhale be that bad? Why aren't we up to our arses in dead and dying non-smokers (never mind smokers)?The greatest percentage of the population that smoked, from memory, were in the 1940s - 70s yet we've got the oldest population in history. How is that?

It's your opinion... good luck to you. I have a different opinion and would rather you didn't impact my or any of my family's health thanks v much.
I also hate the smell of passive smoking on my clothes. In the old days... having non smoking areas in a pub - was a bit like having 'no urinating areas in a swimming pool.'
Taking everything that you had on the night before and chucking it all in the wash was very normal.

There are plenty of studies out there on both smoking and passive smoking and you have to look and weigh up the evidence (and ignore the bad science)

People who smoke are very inventive on why they smoke ( should know as a ex smoker).

My parents smoked for years and my dad sounded very much like you do in your post. However... a serious heart attack and triple bypass later... after being a smoker for 35 years - he gave up overnight. My mother also gave up once my dad got out of hospital. They live abroad.. where the doctors are a little more 'frank' as they say... My mother talked to the doctor once he was in intensive care.. about why... my dads fitness was good (very active), healthy eating habits, etc etc. The doctor asked one question... 'He smokes?" And after my mother replied.... shrugged his shoulders as if to say... "why are you surprised."

Don't think most people have any objection to smokers. What people object about is the selfish nature of some who think it's OK to impact other people's health and justify their unacceptable actions by quoting a load of BS.

As they say... you believe... because you want to believe. People who don't smoke are not influenced by a drug addition ; and hence looking for an excuse to justify their actions.

Who smokes?

Comments

Categories