-matthEw- Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 dirty smokers, its not all bad news. at least now you can take part in the phenomenon of Smirting.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmirtingSmirting describes the social pastime of people flirting outside public places (e.g. public houses, cafes and restaurants) where smoking is forbidden or illegal the term for the activity being a compound of the words smoking and flirting.Smirting is an especially common phenomenon in societies that have strictly enforced regulations banning the smoking of tobacco in public places (e.g., Ireland, California, New York City, New Zealand, etc). The term is thought to have originated in the Republic of Ireland sometime after March 29, 2004 (when tough legislation banning smoking in many public places came into effect there). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 I think Costa might object to you having sex and snowboarding (at the same time or seperately) on their premises.he he, it's never stopped me in starbucks?I don't know if you noticed the word "list" at the start of my sentence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lepeep Posted February 22, 2006 Report Share Posted February 22, 2006 dirty smokers' date=' its not all bad news. at least now you can take part in the phenomenon of Smirting.[url']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmirtingSmirting describes the social pastime of people flirting outside public places (e.g. public houses, cafes and restaurants) where smoking is forbidden or illegal the term for the activity being a compound of the words smoking and flirting.Smirting is an especially common phenomenon in societies that have strictly enforced regulations banning the smoking of tobacco in public places (e.g., Ireland, California, New York City, New Zealand, etc). The term is thought to have originated in the Republic of Ireland sometime after March 29, 2004 (when tough legislation banning smoking in many public places came into effect there).I wonder if they'll start stalking ?that's a term that brings together "standing" and "talking"....well, that's what I tried to tell madonna....but, she KEPT IGNORING ME...>BITCH.....>>>>>.>.>AS<>AS<ASNLKASKJ>>?>>>K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingin' Ryan Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I'm becoming increasingly suspicious about the Government's inspiration for this ban...http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim.. Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Actually its not the cigarette that gives the pleasure' date=' its the relief from craving one. Its the same as wearing a tight pair of shoes all day for the relief of taking them off. You create a craving in the body which it is then pleasurable to satisfy.[/quote']What nonsense. I don't smoke offshore for 2 weeks at a time. I come home and really enjoy the taste of a cigar. Yes, I'm addicted to tobacco but it's the taste I enjoy. If you crave chocolate and then eat it, you don't say 'what a relief, I feel better now.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I'm becoming increasingly suspicious about the Government's inspiration for this ban...http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450Yes' date=' they're using the Propaganda that "Passive Smoking causes cancer" to push through a nanny law. I am in favour of the ban but against the campaign which led to it. There is no proof whatsoever that Passive Smoking can lead to cancer. And... before anyone brings Roy Castle into this.... DONT! Roy Castle [b']assumed Passive Smoking had led to him developing Lung Cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 For all those that have never smoked' date=' you really should try it. It's quite nice. Especially with a cup of coffee.[/quote']I gagged when I read that, I really cant think of anything more disgusting..... well watching my mother die of smoking related illness was quite unpleasant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 What nonsense. I don't smoke offshore for 2 weeks at a time. I come home and really enjoy the taste of a cigar. Yes' date=' I'm addicted to tobacco but it's the taste I enjoy. If you crave chocolate and then eat it, you don't say 'what a relief, I feel better now.'[/quote']Because that doesnt relate directly to you doesnt make it nonsense, I would guess that by far the majority of regular smokers are addicts of the highest order."Yes, I'm addicted to tobacco but it's the taste I enjoy."Thats like a junkie saying "yes i'm addicted to smack but its the hit I enjoy" Utter nonsense...!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marillionboy Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I'm becoming increasingly suspicious about the Government's inspiration for this ban...http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450Oh for fuck's sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Isnt it funny how onlya tobacco addict woud post this...."Yes, they're using the Propaganda that "Passive Smoking causes cancer" to push through a nanny law." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_1903 Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Smokers have the RIGHT to smoke.Smokers HAVE NO RIGHT to damage my health.Smoking ban in pubs is brilliant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Isnt it funny how onlya tobacco addict woud post this...."Yes' date=' they're using the Propaganda that "Passive Smoking causes cancer" to push through a nanny law."[/quote']The statement is true. I am actually NOT an addict. I smoke when I drink. I smoke because I enjoy it. I am Asthmatic and have decided to stop on the smoking ban day in the interests of my health. I can stop whenever I want and have done in the past.Isn't it funny that all the non-smokers are protesting against smokers soooo much now... before the ban they didn't care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_1903 Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 The statement is true. I am actually NOT an addict. I smoke when I drink. I smoke because I enjoy it. I am Asthmatic and have decided to stop on the smoking ban day in the interests of my health. I can stop whenever I want and have done in the past.Isn't it funny that all the non-smokers are protesting against smokers soooo much now... before the ban they didn't care.If it's in the interests of your health then why not stop now? Otherwise your just giving more chances of the carnigens (mutagenic agents) in fags to attack your dna, and cause a mutation which will lead to cancer. Cancer from smoking can happan at ANY AGE - not matter how long you have been smoking for, and can be caused by PASSIVE SMOKING.hence the need to ban smoking in places like pubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 If it's in the interests of your health then why not stop now? Otherwise your just giving more chances of the carnigens (mutagenic agents) in fags to attack your dna' date=' and cause a mutation which will lead to cancer. Cancer from smoking can happan at ANY AGE - not matter how long you have been smoking for, and can be caused by PASSIVE SMOKING.hence the need to ban smoking in places like pubs.[/quote']OK, two points I'd like to make:POINT 1The claim that passive smoking causes lung cancer is statistically improbable and biologically implausable.In the late 80s the Environmental Protection Agency resolved to lobby the US government to ban smoking in public places as a preliminary move in its longterm goal of outlawing it altogether. It was likely, however, to be difficult to prove the injurious effects of passive smoking if for no other reason than that non-smokers are only exposed, in relative terms, to minuscle amounts of tobacco smoke - estimated at around the equivalent of actively smoking 6 fags per year. Nonethless, a group of researchers came up with the ingenious proposal comparing the rates of lung cancer and heart disease in the non-smoking wives of smoking husbands with those where neither partner smoked, which may show passive smoking to be a factor in at least some cases. Their findings, as might be expected, were equivoval: some studies did show a small positive effect, while others, perversely, showed that women married to a smoking husband might even be protected against lung cancer. Or even that passive smoking was more dangerous than active smoking - with one study showing that the non-smoking wives of heavy smokers had a higher rate of lung cancer than active smokers.So, there was not much support here for supposedly carcinogenic effects of passive smoking - and the evidence for it's dangers seemed tenuous for another reason: the cases of lung cancer that were identified in these studies were not those normally associated with active smoking!!To explain: There are 2 broad categories of lung cancer, the commonest (group 1) being squamous and oat cell cancers that arise from the cells lining the airways (that are maximally exposed to the potential carcinogens in tobacco smoke). The second type (group 2) is known as adenocarcinomas which arise from the glandular tissue in the air sacs in the periphery of the lung.A study was also done in the 50s which first produced the powerful evidence implicating smoking in lung cancer. Tobacco-induced cancers were exclusively of the group 1 type where there is a poweful dose-response relationship, where with the more smoked, the greater the risks. By contrast he could find no association between smoking and group 2-type adenocarcinomas reflecting the absence of any biological gradient from which it would be reasonable to infer that whatever might be their cause it has nothing to do with smoking.So... (are you falling asleep yet??), if passive smoking was indeed the cause of some cases of lung cancer in the EPA studies, it was necessary to presuppose the following: that carcinogenic smoke as inhaled by active smokers over many years causes squamous and oat cell cancers to the airways, but the same smoke when inhaled by passive smokers at almost infinitely lower doses causes an entirely different type of cancer in a different part of the lung that is not associated with active smoking. This is, to put it mildly, highly improbable.Clearly, the protagonists of the evils of passive smoking must have deployed some ingenious statistical alchemy to transform this pig arse of contradictory studies and biological implausibility into the silk purse of the 'compelling evidence' that would eventually cause the government to ban smoking in public places.But the creative statistics involved were all in a good cause - so it doesn't really matter.POINT 2I am stopping on the smoking ban because I like a fag with my drink. I cannot do this after the smoking ban, so I will quit. I know I need to stop to improve my Asthma and Colitis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neil ex Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 If it's in the interests of your health then why not stop now? Otherwise your just giving more chances of the carnigens (mutagenic agents) in fags to attack your dna' date=' and cause a mutation which will lead to cancer. Cancer from smoking can happan at ANY AGE - not matter how long you have been smoking for, and can be caused by PASSIVE SMOKING.hence the need to ban smoking in places like pubs.[/quote']I know so many people that say 'yeah I could stop smoking any time but I just enjoy having a fag'. There just addicts that won't admit they're addicted.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neil ex Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 OK' date=' two points I'd like to make:[u']POINT 1The claim that passive smoking causes lung cancer is statistically improbable and biologically implausable.Whether that's true or not, people still find it fucking unpleasant!By the way, passive smoking is unhealthy, and you're still breathing in toxic fumes. You can feel that it's damaging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cloud Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I saw an interesting thing in Tallinn in a museum.Two lungs (real), one of a smoker and one of a passive smoker. Obviously, the smoker's lungs were significantly black (80-85%), but the passive smoker's lungs had a fair degree...say 15-20% coverage of whatever the black stuff is?Something like that really reinforces the fact that passive smoking does damage your lungs, although it's a matter of debate as to how much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 ah the old smoking debate continues. well having spent a few night supping the black stuff over the border in the republic of ireland where they've had a smoking ban for a couple of years, i must say the next day you really do reap the benefits of being in a smoke free environment. and this comes from someone who has been hopeless addicted to the evil things for nearly 25 years. the next day i didnt have half as bad a hangover, and my lungs felt so much fresher. a lot of the pubs there have turned their back yard into a place people can smoke, usually covered by corregated iron roof so its good to get some fresh air when you do have a smoke.on the other hand, i hate the way that smokers are persucuted for a habit that is, after all, completely legal and one which the government makes a tidy sum of profit from (so that throws the costing the NHS arguement out the window - if i need treatment for my habit then i've bloody well paid the tax for it and are thus entitled to it). i mean its almost become fashionable to have a go at us smokers. that roy castle has a lot to bloody answer for, he started all these scare mongering tactics. ex smokers are the worst cos they know deep down they're dying a fag.i obey any places where i'm not to allowed to smoke and i have to admit before i actually went out on the piss in an environment i couldnt smoke, was the most fierce opposer of any ban. so smokers it aint as bad as you think and it gives the anti smokers one less thing to moan about so they might bloody cheer up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Denim.. Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Thats like a junkie saying "yes i'm addicted to smack but its the hit I enjoy" Utter nonsense...!!Ask any junkie, of course they enjoy the hit. Even when addicted. That's why people take drugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Whether that's true or not' date=' people still find it fucking unpleasant!By the way, passive smoking is unhealthy, and you're still breathing in toxic fumes. You can feel that it's damaging.[/quote']Yes I know!!!I'm not disputing the ban. I am in favour of it. I am disputing the governments claims of links to Lung Cancer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash@TMB Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 There is no proof whatsoever that Passive Smoking can lead to cancer.Cancer is the least of a bar workers worries. Much more likely are things like late on-set chronic asthma and emphysema. Both of those are considered to be industrial illnesses' date=' usually caused by breathing in lots of dust down a coal mine.But you have this whole concept arse over tit. It's not important whether we can prove that smoking causes these things. THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER ANYONE CAN PROVE THAT IT DOES [u']NOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Cancer is the least of a bar workers worries. Much more likely are things like late on-set chronic asthma and emphysema. Both of those are considered to be industrial illnesses' date=' usually caused by breathing in lots of dust down a coal mine.But you have this whole concept arse over tit. It's not important whether we can prove that smoking causes these things. THE REAL ISSUE IS WHETHER ANYONE CAN PROVE THAT IT DOES [u']NOT.I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I am FOR the ban and I know that passive smoking causes other illnesses. The point is that the government is using a study to prove the links between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer which is flawed and implausible. It is Propaganda. If they'd used more credible facts, like the ones you've made, things would be different. And yes, the majority of studies have concluded that passive smoking DOES NOT cause Lung Cancer attributable to smoking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beeker Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 I suggest you read my posts more carefully. I am FOR the ban and I know that passive smoking causes other illnesses. The point is that the government is using a study to prove the links between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer which is flawed and implausible. It is Propaganda. If they'd used more credible facts' date=' like the ones you've made, things would be different. And yes, the majority of studies have concluded that passive smoking DOES NOT cause Lung Cancer attributable to smoking.[/quote']but being fair - it's a pretty good bet that passive smoking is going to do some sort of damage to your lungs eh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchelonDivision Posted February 24, 2006 Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 but being fair - it's a pretty good bet that passive smoking is going to do some sort of damage to your lungs eh...YESSSS!!!! For Christ's Sake! Does no one know how to READ nowadays. FFS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GraemeC Posted February 24, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2006 Ask any junkie' date=' of course they enjoy the hit. Even when addicted. That's why people take drugs.[/quote']No shit Sherlock..... that was the point I was making....duhhh!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.