Smoking Policy from a Brits point of view!

[AllieInMD]

The sign of a skilled debater is that they can state the opposition's position as well as the opposition - they just don't agree with it. You've shown you can't do that because you exaggerate the position of smokers - mainly to distract from the reality of the situation.

 

So let me help you out with at least MY position:

:

So I think I have this figured out.

 

Only smokers know what is really going on.

 

-rather broad, but I do think that smokers tend to look at the science rather than listen to the rhetoric that is spoonfed from the media and do-gooders. The studies used to start bans was junk science, and declared so. If you say anything long enough, people will believe it. Just like the scientific and political leaders of centuries ago declared the earth was flat and the Universe revolved around the Earth. Today we think that is unbelievable, but in those days everyone KNEW it to be true, because they'd been told so for so long. The only large objective study I've found came to the conclusion that risks of SHS were neglible or non-existent. That's fact, and science. Not what someone with an agenda had to say. Sadly now - as with global warming, any scientist that doesn't toe the party agenda will not be given work or research money.

 

Only smokers are good for business.

 

-Facts would seem to support that smokers are a highly valued clientèle for certain industries/venues - bars, casinos, cruise ships, etc.

 

-The cruise lines would go out of business without smokers.

 

Well, so far only one ship has tried it, and they went back to the prior business model because it failed. Cruise lines rely heavily on alcohol and casino profits, neither of which apparently can be supported by non smoking casinos or bar. One is anecdotal info reported by people, further bolstered by the fact that non-smokers say they are the majority on a ship, they are probably right, but the ship/line still allows smoking in the casino. RCCL knows how to make a buck :)

 

-Anyone who says smoking is bad for your health does not know what they are talking about.

 

Who said that? What I have said is that SHS is not the huge health crisis that it's made out to be - and the WHO commission study supports that theory. The increased risk of lung cancer everyone screams about is negligible or non-existent if you live with a smoker, raised by a smoker, or work with one. No doubt an occasional social exposure wasn't even measurable - or they would have.

 

Smokers are great, they understand what's really going on.

 

-Most of us are great people as are many non-smokers - smoking doesn't make a person bad, nor does not smoking make you good. Most are and considerate smokers and only smoke where permitted. I do think we look more at facts and science because we have a vested interest. Just like if say you were carrying the breast cancer gene you'd pay more attention to the research because you had a vested interest in it.

 

Non-smokers are evil, they only want to stomp on peoples rights.

 

-Evil? No. Do they want to stomp on other's rights - yes. Like I said - it's all good to non-smokers, til they come for something YOU enjoy or want.

 

Do I have it about right?

 

-Almost - you would have had it much closer if not for all the rhetoric and exaggeration used because you can't support your claims.

 

Always remember drug addicts, legal or not, will say anything to justify their habit.

 

- The same can be said about booze, prescription drugs, gasoline, money, as well as the morbidly obese who eat their mountain of cheesecake while drinking a diet coke. The difference for me is - I can come up with actual objective bona fide science to support my position.

 

 

[AllieInMD]

Yep - 9 wonderful days on Explorer with my kids and with friends who have 30+ cruises on various lines - not a one of us ever set foot in the casino.

 

 

Have you ever been on a cruise ?

[beachdogboarder]

Non smokers can not even speak in one voice during smoke free casino nights.

 

So what you are saying is that smoking make you flush your money down the urinal gambling while non-smokers spend their money on healthy active shore excursions?

[beachdogboarder]

Too bad this is exceedingly unlikely to ever happen. Smoking is permitted to varying degrees on every cruise ship, non-smokers still cruise en masse and will continue to do so.

 

In this economic climate, I would think that the cruise lines would be very careful not to alienate a significant percentage of their market. Just sayin'.

 

....and whats the more significant percentage smokers or non-smokers? The degree of smoking allowed will certainly continue to diminish as old smokers die off .

[Shipyard Cruiser]

The sign of a skilled debater is that they can state the opposition's position as well as the opposition - they just don't agree with it. You've shown you can't do that because you exaggerate the position of smokers - mainly to distract from the reality of the situation.

 

So let me help you out with at least MY position:

:

 

Always remember drug addicts, legal or not, will say anything to justify their habit.

 

That about sums up my position.

 

The message except for the last line was a joke.

 

Glad you got it:confused:

[abcten]

It takes quite a while to read all the posts in this very long thread but I have done it! What strikes me the most is how very cold and heartless many of the smokers are. They realize they cause disease and death in the innocent victims of theirs who breathe their second hand smoke. Yet, even though they know they are leaving these hideous results in their wake, they simply do not care. Hearts of stone to say the least.

 

It's very sad.

 

Even though smokers don't care about the disease and death they cause others, the link below has some useful information for the non-smokers who are concerned about the negative effects smokers inflict on them.

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf

[Shipyard Cruiser]

Always remember drug addicts, legal or not, will say anything to justify their habit.

 

- The same can be said about booze, prescription drugs, gasoline, money, as well as the morbidly obese who eat their mountain of cheesecake while drinking a diet coke. The difference for me is - I can come up with actual objective bona fide science to support my position.

 

I can't argue with logic like that.

 

Your right of course.

 

How could I be so dumb.

 

Thanks for setting me on the right track.

 

You win.:D

[AllieInMD]

Right - was a joke - just like saying the WHO study was bought for - when you are shown to be wrong and your rhetoric is just rhetoric you drop back to save face :)

 

And people will use whatever they can to stomp all over other's rights - history has shown it over and over - you're in infamous company at least - not good company, but infamous.

 

 

Always remember drug addicts, legal or not, will say anything to justify their habit.

 

That about sums up my position.

 

The message except for the last line was a joke.

 

Glad you got it:confused:

[Shipyard Cruiser]

Right - was a joke - just like saying the WHO study was bought for - when you are shown to be wrong and your rhetoric is just rhetoric you drop back to save face :)

 

And people will use whatever they can to stomp all over other's rights - history has shown it over and over - you're in infamous company at least - not good company, but infamous.

 

Of course you are right again, as always.

 

Thank you so much putting me on the right track again.

 

Wow, I fell like going out for a pack of smokes right now.:)

[AllieInMD]

You read the whole thread did you. How do you come up with your position then when the WHO, an independent objective study, showed there is little to no evidence that SHS results in lung cancer for anyone - even if you live with a smoker? Because you don't want to believe it?

 

Too bad the Surgeon General position is a political appointee one - and must toe the party line in order to be appointed - remember Jocelyn Elders and the condom to prevent AIDS controversy?

 

 

 

It takes quite a while to read all the posts in this very long thread but I have done it! What strikes me the most is how very cold and heartless many of the smokers are. They realize they cause disease and death in the innocent victims of theirs who breathe their second hand smoke. Yet, even though they know they are leaving these hideous results in their wake, they simply do not care. Hearts of stone to say the least.

 

It's very sad.

 

Even though smokers don't care about the disease and death they cause others, the link below has some useful information for the non-smokers who are concerned about the negative effects smokers inflict on them.

 

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf

[AllieInMD]

Go right ahead - they are legal :)

 

 

 

Of course you are right again, as always.

 

Thank you so much putting me on the right track again.

 

Wow, I fell like going out for a pack of smokes right now.:)

[Captain Jake]

Of course you are right again, as always.

 

Thank you so much putting me on the right track again.

 

Wow, I fell like going out for a pack of smokes right now.:)

 

 

LOL:D

[beachdogboarder]

Go right ahead - they are legal :)

 

To buy but in most public places it IS NOT legal to smoke and MY GENERATION plans to keep it that way and do not believe for one second that we are foolish enough to believe your VOODOO science

[abcten]

Then I suggest female smokers fall into 3 camps (although I think there are very few that fall into camp 3).

 

Camp 1 knows that smoking will make their hair, clothes, body, mouth, tongue, etc. reek of cigarette smoke and therefore they take extra steps (including using too much perfume) to cover up the stink. I think most female smokers fall into this camp.

 

Camp 2 also knows that smoking will make their hair, clothes, body, mouth, tongue, etc. reek of cigarette smoke but this group has thrown in the towel. They have decided over the years that no matter how you try to cover up the stench of cigarette smoke, it is really just not possible. So why even try. Their motto is, "To heck with perfume, I'll just choose to stink!"

 

Camp 3 is sort of the utterly oblivious group. Their sense of smell is so degraded and they are so out of touch that they are clueless as to whether or not they stink. They assume that stale smell of cigarette smoke is just a "normal" smell and have gotten used to it and assume everyone else is used to it as well.

 

It would be nice to have female smokers weigh in as to which camp they fall into.

 

I would agree that female smokers probably do all fall within the 3 camps you have outlined. However, I disagree with your assessment that most female smokers use too much perfume in an attempt to mask the stench they exude due to their smoking habit. Perhaps the younger female smokers would be a bit more inclined to do this. But, overall, I would guess most female smokers would fall into the category you label as camp 2. I imagine most female smokers at some point in their late teens or early twenties take a long and sorrowful look in the mirror. They come to the realization that they are a smoker and, as such, will have to face certain facts that are undeniable. Among the things they will come to grips with is that they will stink. No mincing words here. Their entire being will exude the nasty stink of cigarette smoke. It is what it is. Some things in life are unavoidable and, if you are a smoker, this is one of those things. After coming to this realization, they will likely dispense with the use of perfume in an attempt to mask the stink of cigarette smoke.

 

As you suggested, some thoughts from female smokers might shed further light on the subject. Also, I am sure the perfume makers are very aware of the percentage of users who smoke vs. those who do not. They would be a good source of information on the mindset of smokers vs. non-smokers with regard to perfume use.

[abcten]

Always remember drug addicts, legal or not, will say anything to justify their habit.

 

That about sums up my position.

 

 

In a nutshell, you have basically hit the bullseye. Smokers are drug (nicotine) addicts. They will say and do whatever it takes to keep their habit satisfied. Unfortunately for those that don't smoke, many of us will suffer disease and death at the hands of these addicts because of their second hand smoke. Sad but true.

[HurricaneSally]

To buy but in most public places it IS NOT legal to smoke and MY GENERATION plans to keep it that way and do not believe for one second that we are foolish enough to believe your VOODOO science

 

And your generation is doing such a good job that your kids never learn how to lose a game, can't handle discipline, can't take "no" for an answer, and have you busy trying to take away the freedom of others, instead of teaching your children values.

[aloha43]

You read the whole thread did you. How do you come up with your position then when the WHO, an independent objective study, showed there is little to no evidence that SHS results in lung cancer for anyone - even if you live with a smoker? Because you don't want to believe it?

 

Too bad the Surgeon General position is a political appointee one - and must toe the party line in order to be appointed - remember Jocelyn Elders and the condom to prevent AIDS controversy?

 

I am another who has read the whole thread.

 

I'm sorry, but I can't hold back.....

 

What I am getting through all of this is that you seem to be sounding more and more desperate with every post you make. You seem to think you know everything. Everything!

 

As you can see by my 2 previous comments on this subject, I, in no way want a smoking ban, although I am a non-smoker. But all of your WHO and SCIENCE talk (That so far, only gave links at the beginning of this thread that were almost 10 years old....) probably makes some smokers want to quit, just to be disassociated with your views.

 

You should go back and see how many times you have started a comment by laughing and how sarcastic you have been to most.

 

What about what the SHS does for someone with COPD?

 

You work in a hospital....tell me that the SHS doesn't effect them. It is VERY unhealthy for anyone. I live in California with the fires going on right now.....if that smoke is very hazardous for people with lung problems, then SHS can be too. Maybe not as bad, but it still isn't good for ANYONE to breathe. (Especially with kids in a car...as you mentioned....you want your rights....but at the expense of your own kids.)

 

You say....stay out of your space If I don't want to be around it? Your smoke doesn't "stay" in your space, it travels to mine.....smoke from one cigarette permeates through a whole room.

 

Maybe you should try to quit for yourself, and your children, then your views will change and you'll look back at this thread and see how irate you have been with almost everyone. And you would be much healthier too. And believe me...I know how hard it is to quit.

 

I'm sorry to everyone if this thread is "poofed" because of my post, I just couldn't help it anymore.:(

[cruisinMike]

Here are some studies done by scientists supported by or working within the WHO. These attachements are either studies done by the WHO or supported by that organization. I'm not sure how someone can say that the WHO says SHS is not dangerous. A simple search would prove otherwise. However, I'm not going to make judgement but pass on these links for anyone interested. It's interesting to find that the tobacco industry has spent so many millions to keep the controversy alive by creating their own studies to dispute widely accepted studies from around the world and then distort what the WHO actually says. Again, this will not convince anyone I'm sure and it will take you some time to go through the info if you really have an interest.

 

http://www.fctc.org/

 

http://www.fctc.org/index.php?item=treatyoverview (of interest Article 8 for those arguing the WHO says SHS is not dangerous).

 

http://www.fctc.org/docs/factsheets/fca_factsheet_003_en.pdf

 

http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20070529.htm

 

There are many, many, many more from the WHO and others that I could list.

 

So in conclusion, I think folks will still draw their own opinions, link their own studies, that support their own behaviors. However, I think it should be clear that the WHO does support the evidence that SHS is dangerous and to state otherwise is to be disingenuous about this fact.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

You should go back and see how many times you have started a comment by laughing and how sarcastic you have been to most.

 

That's her mode of operation and I just ignore it when trying to respond.

 

It's OK, everyone has a right to their opinion.

[Shipyard Cruiser]

Double post.

 

Sorry

[aloha43]

That's her mode of operation and I just ignore when trying to respond.

 

It's OK, everyone has a right to their opinion.

 

Yea...forgive me. I just couldn't help myself. I held back as long as I could.

 

Thank you for your advice.:)

[shaggyofwv]

Here are some studies done by scientists supported by or working within the WHO. These attachements are either studies done by the WHO or supported by that organization. I'm not sure how someone can say that the WHO says SHS is not dangerous. A simple search would prove otherwise. However, I'm not going to make judgement but pass on these links for anyone interested. It's interesting to find that the tobacco industry has spent so many millions to keep the controversy alive by creating their own studies to dispute widely accepted studies from around the world and then distort what the WHO actually says. Again, this will not convince anyone I'm sure and it will take you some time to go through the info if you really have an interest.

 

http://www.fctc.org/

 

http://www.fctc.org/index.php?item=treatyoverview (of interest Article 8 for those arguing the WHO says SHS is not dangerous).

 

http://www.fctc.org/docs/factsheets/fca_factsheet_003_en.pdf

 

http://www.wpro.who.int/media_centre/fact_sheets/fs_20070529.htm

 

There are many, many, many more from the WHO and others that I could list.

 

So in conclusion, I think folks will still draw their own opinions, link their own studies, that support their own behaviors. However, I think it should be clear that the WHO does support the evidence that SHS is dangerous and to state otherwise is to be disingenuous about this fact.

 

 

This is something that liberal politicians are very good at (and their friends in the media). They can find one study amongst a thousand that come to the opposite conclusion and use that single study as their "evidence" to support their argument. It is my experience that most studies that show no correlation between SHS and sickness are usually funded by the tobacco companies or an entity that has an interest in continued smoking.

[shaggyofwv]

One more thing.. The reason that these threads get closed is because people don't remain civil towards each other. If we would all take a deep breath and just have a clean and educational debate, then we would all be the better for it.

[cruisinMike]

One more thing.. The reason that these threads get closed is because people don't remain civil towards each other. If we would all take a deep breath and just have a clean and educational debate, then we would all be the better for it.

 

Would that be a smoke free deep breath. ;)

[Shipyard Cruiser]

And your generation is doing such a good job that your kids never learn how to lose a game, can't handle discipline, can't take "no" for an answer, and have you busy trying to take away the freedom of others, instead of teaching your children values.

 

Which of course has nothing to do with smoking or smoking rules on RCI.

 

How can you argue with logic like this?