Can the world stop smoking?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2013 10:36 PM GMT
    http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2013_11_16/Russia-brings-in-fines-to-battle-against-smoking-2087/

    If it is harmful to society, why allow it?

    http://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2013/nov/13/can-we-stop-smoking
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 6:13 PM GMT
    as long as i continue smoking the worlds not gonna stop smoking...
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 17, 2013 6:55 PM GMT
    No. The world needs to focus on the whole word and forgive stupid humans who smoke. Right now, plant and animal species that we can't imagine our planet without are dying, and it's not from second hand smoke, it's fossil fuels. The second hand smoke argument is thin when you think about all our pollution.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 6:57 PM GMT
    I agree - I don't think the world will ever stop smoking altogether. I finally quit after 15 years of on and off smoking- feels great for me icon_wink.gif
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 17, 2013 7:13 PM GMT
    Error saidWe didn't start the fire.

    Adam and Steve were hot, except for all that gross smoking.icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 7:21 PM GMT
    Have you met Nam? The answer is No.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 7:22 PM GMT


    Each individual has to make his own decision but smoking near my lungs
    Is a decision he will regret.
  • Pontifex

    Posts: 1882

    Nov 17, 2013 7:23 PM GMT
    RadRTT saidHave you met Nam? The answer is No.


    The caterpillar.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 17, 2013 7:26 PM GMT
    Lifter4ever said

    Each individual has to make his own decision but smoking near my lungs
    Is a decision he will regret.

    What will you do?
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 17, 2013 8:32 PM GMT
    HottJoe saidNo. The world needs to focus on the whole word and forgive stupid humans who smoke. Right now, plant and animal species that we can't imagine our planet without are dying, and it's not from second hand smoke, it's fossil fuels. The second hand smoke argument is thin when you think about all our pollution.


    Perhaps, but those of us who don't want to breathe second-hand smoke should be able to avoid it conveniently without having to do careful planning. Generally that is possible now, but at one time it was practically impossible to avoid second-had smoke. One could not even eat in a restaurant, go to public places, or fly in an airplane without being heavily exposed to smoke. That created serious problems for me because of my sensitivity to it.

    I remember when airplanes had smoking in rear seats only; it was slightly better than permitting smoking on all positions, but not much. A passenger in the seat next to mine, in the non-smoking section, said that she smoked but the smoke in the smoking section was so thick that she could not stand it so she refrained from smoking at sat in the non-smoking section. Even though the smoke in the smoking section was chokingly thick, parents forced their young children to sit there.

    On a global basis, the burning of fossil fuels is a much more serious problem than tobacco smoking. But before smoking was restricted, it was a very serious problem for non-smokers.

    The global seriousness of burning fossil fuels should not be used as a reason to permit smoking in all places.
  • honestsweat

    Posts: 182

    Nov 17, 2013 8:41 PM GMT
    Source: campaign for tobacco-free kids.

    Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined, with thousands more dying from spit tobacco use. Of all the kids who become new smokers each year, almost a third will ultimately die from it. In addition, smokers lose an average of 13 to 14 years of life because of their smoking

    Toll of Smoking in the
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Nov 17, 2013 8:45 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    HottJoe saidNo. The world needs to focus on the whole word and forgive stupid humans who smoke. Right now, plant and animal species that we can't imagine our planet without are dying, and it's not from second hand smoke, it's fossil fuels. The second hand smoke argument is thin when you think about all our pollution.


    Perhaps, but those of us who don't want to breathe second-hand smoke should be able to avoid it conveniently without having to do careful planning. Generally that is possible now, but at one time it was practically impossible to avoid second-had smoke. One could not even eat in a restaurant, go to public places, or fly in an airplane without being heavily exposed to smoke. That created serious problems for me because of my sensitivity to it.

    I remember when airplanes had smoking in rear seats only; it was slightly better than permitting smoking on all positions, but not much. A passenger in the seat next to mine, in the non-smoking section, said that she smoked but the smoke in the smoking section was so thick that she could not stand it so she refrained from smoking at sat in the non-smoking section. Even though the smoke in the smoking section was chokingly thick, parents forced their young children to sit there.

    On a global basis, the burning of fossil fuels is a much more serious problem than tobacco smoking. But before smoking was restricted, it was a very serious problem for non-smokers.

    The global seriousness of burning fossil fuels should not be used as a reason to permit smoking in all places.

    I agree with all of that. I don't think smokers should be making indoor air pollution in public. I just think world initiatives need to be focused on global issues, and the big pink elephant in the room is climate change, which isn't just targeting one group, but focusing attention on the pollution we're all contributing to. I think people feel helpless seeing some of the consequences of climate change come to pass, and yet when it comes to problem solving we govern small groups, rather than solve large problems which we and all of earth's creatures have a stake in.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 17, 2013 9:09 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    HottJoe saidNo. The world needs to focus on the whole word and forgive stupid humans who smoke. Right now, plant and animal species that we can't imagine our planet without are dying, and it's not from second hand smoke, it's fossil fuels. The second hand smoke argument is thin when you think about all our pollution.


    Perhaps, but those of us who don't want to breathe second-hand smoke should be able to avoid it conveniently without having to do careful planning. Generally that is possible now, but at one time it was practically impossible to avoid second-had smoke. One could not even eat in a restaurant, go to public places, or fly in an airplane without being heavily exposed to smoke. That created serious problems for me because of my sensitivity to it.

    I remember when airplanes had smoking in rear seats only; it was slightly better than permitting smoking on all positions, but not much. A passenger in the seat next to mine, in the non-smoking section, said that she smoked but the smoke in the smoking section was so thick that she could not stand it so she refrained from smoking at sat in the non-smoking section. Even though the smoke in the smoking section was chokingly thick, parents forced their young children to sit there.

    On a global basis, the burning of fossil fuels is a much more serious problem than tobacco smoking. But before smoking was restricted, it was a very serious problem for non-smokers.

    The global seriousness of burning fossil fuels should not be used as a reason to permit smoking in all places.

    I agree with all of that. I don't think smokers should be making indoor air pollution in public. I just think world initiatives need to be focused on global issues, and the big pink elephant in the room is climate change, which isn't just targeting one group, but focusing attention on the pollution we're all contributing to. I think people feel helpless seeing some of the consequences of climate change come to pass, and yet when it comes to problem solving we govern small groups, rather than solve large problems which we and all of earth's creatures have a stake in.


    Quite so, and considering the magnitude of the problem, our efforts to solve it are woefully inadequate.

    As large poor countries work to lift their people out of poverty, global demand for energy will probably increase by more than four times by the end of the century. The percentage of global CO2 emitted by the U.S. will become a much lower percentage of the total. Therefore, unless we reduce our own CO2 emissions and help other countries to reduce their CO2 emissions, all of us will be in trouble. That includes CO2 emissions from power plants, transportation, cooking, and home heating. Probably 90% of energy will have to come from non-CO2 emitting sources.

    Dealing with the already inevitable global warming will require more power. To solve potable water shortages, we will require more power for sea water desalination. Battery electric vehicles will probably become important and of course they require power for recharging. We will also require power to manufacture CO2-free artificial fuels for types of transportation for which batteries will not do the job.

    Renewable energy sources are diffuse and intermittent. Even if they were free, they could not do the job unless we could do without power when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. After spending almost countless hours of searching, I was unable to find even one carefully done quantitative study that indicated that renewables could do the job. Others may wish to duplicate that effort and see what they find. And, wishful thinking is not proof that something is practical.

    As a result of the above, we probably have no choice but to depend on nuclear power for most of our power. Because of poor media coverage, very few people are aware that there are numerous ways to design nuclear reactors and that it is possible to design reactors which do not have the problems associated with our current reactors. In fact, fission reactors can be built that do not use uranium. Unfortunately, reactor R & D was discontinued a few decades ago because it was seen as unnecessary.

    We can solve our emission problems, but we are not doing a very good job of doing so. And, as has been correctly pointed out, on a global scale, emissions from fossil fuels are a much more serious problem than emissions from tobacco smokers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 9:44 PM GMT
    Smoking among gays is a real problem, IMHO.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2003/08/why_do_gays_smoke_so_much.html

    Nicotine has been proven to have an effect on brain chemistry similar to heroine.
    http://www1.umn.edu/perio/tobacco/nicaddct.html
    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html

    And, death by smoking takes...decades or more. I can think of easier ways to spend my final days than Emphysema. Didn't fully realize this until I had a manager (ex mil) with a chronic year round cough.

    Graphics like this don't help:
    7bff008a7b40d6c5814ca806d0046112.gif

    No matter how many times you show this, people will continue to smoke for that dopamine rush.

    Best way to fight it is to discourage people from starting.
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Nov 17, 2013 9:59 PM GMT
    I think a that it should only be allowed on private property, or designated areas.
    So no smoking on sidewalks, in your car, etc.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 17, 2013 10:00 PM GMT
    ThatSwimmerGuy saidI think a that it should only be allowed on private property, or designated areas.
    So no smoking on sidewalks, in your car, etc.

    Is your car not private property?
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Nov 17, 2013 10:09 PM GMT
    IceBuckets said
    ThatSwimmerGuy saidI think a that it should only be allowed on private property, or designated areas.
    So no smoking on sidewalks, in your car, etc.

    Is your car not private property?

    But it is being used on public property. Idk just my opinions really.
    I knew you would quote me.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 17, 2013 11:19 PM GMT
    IceBuckets said
    ThatSwimmerGuy saidI think a that it should only be allowed on private property, or designated areas.
    So no smoking on sidewalks, in your car, etc.

    Is your car not private property?


    Yes it is private property. However, there are other considerations.

    Statistics indicate that smokers have a higher accident rate. Whether the reasons for that have been studied I don't know, but there are multiple possibilities.

    Fiddling with smoking materials is obviously a distraction.

    Dropped cigarettes require immediate attention which distracts the driver.

    A minor fire caused by dropping a cigarette is an emergency making it impossible to drive safely.

    Because of the carbon monoxide in tobacco smoke, the night vision of smokers may be somewhat reduced.

    Smokers may be less safety-conscious than non-smokers.

    Smoking causes the windshield to become covered with a film which reduces vision under certain lighting conditions.

    In any case, there is ample reason to ban smoking while driving a car.
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Nov 17, 2013 11:36 PM GMT
    Littering is fucking annoying. If you want to smoke, it's up to you. But at least clean up after yourself, improve your lungs and don't allow cigarette smoke to hover in front of other people. Make sure you are healthy everywhere else and you don't die from lung cancer and it is all good. Don't smoke indoors and try to avoid accidentally lighting up your apartment. Put it out responsibly and make sure it is fully out. Stub it with your shoe or something, but you should have enough money to buy another pair of shoes if you can buy cigarettes.

    Yes, seriously. I don't care if you smoke. Just tidy up after you, don't flick the used cigarette butt on the ground, don't litter the ground with cigarette ash and always bring a cigarette tray with you at all times, if possible. (I have been attacked by cigarette butts when a few smokers don't look where they flick the used cigarette.)

    Don't let the paparazzi see you smoking otherwise young kids will nag and nag you. You don't want to be nagged. Young kids always nag you about the dangers of smoking, but maybe they when they are teenagers they will smoke too and realise how good it is.

    As long as you exercise and you eat healthily, some body parts might recover from the nutrients you eat (vegetables and fruit), but smoking is a serious health hazard.

    Make sure you don't stink of cigarette smoke, because your clothes will smell and your breath might smell too. You could always use gum? Or use some deodorant to cover that cigarette smell you leave on your clothes... unless you like the smell.

    As long as smokers pay their taxes I am fine with it.

    Make sure you have enough money to buy cigarettes.

    icon_cool.gif

    Is that everything covered?
  • Paperless_Pen

    Posts: 573

    Nov 17, 2013 11:37 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    IceBuckets said
    ThatSwimmerGuy saidI think a that it should only be allowed on private property, or designated areas.
    So no smoking on sidewalks, in your car, etc.

    Is your car not private property?


    Yes it is private property. However, there are other considerations.

    Statistics indicate that smokers have a higher accident rate. Whether the reasons for that have been studied I don't know, but there are multiple possibilities.

    Fiddling with smoking materials is obviously a distraction.

    Dropped cigarettes require immediate attention which distracts the driver.

    A minor fire caused by dropping a cigarette is an emergency making it impossible to drive safely.

    Because of the carbon monoxide in tobacco smoke, the night vision of smokers may be somewhat reduced.

    Smokers may be less safety-conscious than non-smokers.

    Smoking causes the windshield to become covered with a film which reduces vision under certain lighting conditions.

    In any case, there is ample reason to ban smoking while driving a car.



    Likes.
    icon_cool.gif
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 18, 2013 1:15 AM GMT
    Here is a study from Taiwan indicating that smokers have a higher propensity for accidents of various types:

    http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/suppl_1/i28.full

    The study is rather lengthy and goes into public policy issues related to smoking since accidents caused by smokers can affect non-smokers. An interesting finding was that job related accidents caused by smokers increased on non-smoking days indicating that withdrawal symptoms make smokers more likely to have accidents.


    The following study also found a correlation between smoking and auto accidents, but found no difference in accident rates between drinkers and non-drinkers. To me, that seems rather questionable:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12716567

    There are several studies relating auto accidents to marijuana use, but I have not read them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 1:28 AM GMT
    There should be one day out of the year in which it would be legal to club smokers like baby seals. Then and only then will we rid the world of smokers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 3:47 AM GMT
    The government does not have the right to tell people they cannot smoke.do you really think they do.It amazes me what system of government people think we have in the USA.This is a direct result of the awful history courses children get today.It is called government of the people and by the people for a reason.Ryan
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 18, 2013 3:54 AM GMT
    WickedRyan saidThe government does not have the right to tell people they cannot smoke.do you really think they do.It amazes me what system of government people think we have in the USA.This is a direct result of the awful history courses children get today.It is called government of the people and by the people for a reason.Ryan


    The government has the right to tell you to buy health insurance and what type of benefits that health insurance will provide. I am sure the government can mandate that people cannot smoke.

    The only catch is that you create another Prohibition Era black market.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4862

    Nov 18, 2013 4:00 AM GMT
    FLgator said
    WickedRyan saidThe government does not have the right to tell people they cannot smoke.do you really think they do.It amazes me what system of government people think we have in the USA.This is a direct result of the awful history courses children get today.It is called government of the people and by the people for a reason.Ryan


    The government has the right to tell you to buy health insurance and what type of benefits that health insurance will provide. I am sure the government can mandate that people cannot smoke.

    The only catch is that you create another Prohibition Era black market.


    This ^