no, no, it's the experience with some heavy smokers
A shot is a cool thing, a blow is downright unpleasant, for no apparent reasons.
No smoking in public places
-
Capt_Maloche
- Moderator
- posts: 4559
- Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
- Location: Ile-de-France
- x 42
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
Woodcutter wrote:It's all to your credit, but I'm not really sure that you are representative of a large part of the "smoker" population ...Targol wrote:[...]
Otherwise, I'm a smoker with a non-smoker mentality: I smoke, but my house and my car are not allowed to smoke. I hate smoky atmospheres and the smells of cold tobacco and, as I am aware that this practice can hinder, I systematically ask before turning on one. [...]
Besides, tell me in the white of your eyes, do you really think that this law is "liberticide"?
Absolutely not: I put it in quotation marks in my message to refer to Zac's message:
zac wrote:no smokers stop gorging us with your drunkenness laws
For my part, it is my opinion that every adult citizen must have the choice to take risks for his health in all conscience (besides, until proven otherwise, the bungee jump, the climbing, and other risky individual sports are not prohibited). What, on the other hand, is not tolerable is to impose this risk on others who have not asked for anything.
What zac seems to have lost sight of is that it is not the purpose of the law to stop smoking, but to stop smoking. passive smoking not consented.
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
-
Woodcutter
- Econologue expert
- posts: 4731
- Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
- Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
- x 2
Passive smoking and its indisputable effects provide a powerful means of making one's voice heard when one is disturbed by the terrible smell of tobacco, but in a sense, is it normal that it has been necessary to provide irrefutable medical studies? for this to be so?Targol wrote:[...] What, on the other hand, is not tolerable is to impose this risk on others who have not asked for anything.
What zac seems to have lost sight of is that it is not the purpose of the law to stop smoking, but to stop smoking. passive smoking not consented.
Why has the simple fact of being strongly embarrassed by the result of an addictive individual practice never been enough for the "embarrassers" to show good citizenship and correctness?
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Woodcutter wrote:Why has the simple fact of being strongly embarrassed by the result of an addictive individual practice never been enough for the "embarrassers" to show good citizenship and correctness?
The practice does not need to be addictive to annoy others.
Look at the people who put their music or their TV all the way and that annoy the whole neighborhood.
As for the "why", the answer is simple: our society since the first half of the twentieth century advocates a frenzied individualism: nothing is important except its own little person. The inconvenience caused to others is only of little weight compared to his little selfish well-being.
If our society comes back to notions that are a bit obsolete like solidarity, respect for others, such laws will no longer be useful ...
0 x
"Anyone who believes that exponential growth can continue indefinitely in a finite world is a fool, or an economist." KEBoulding
I flew over this post because I feel concerned, and I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone!
Let me explain: everyone is free to live his life as he sees fit. I do not smoke, and the worst is that I have never tasted, I do not even know what taste it has. Quite simply because I do not see the interest of breathing smoke, whether the taste is good or not, from the moment or at a time we can become hooked, and especially that it can be harmful to health. Obviously there are smokers who will be living with 2 packs a day, but there are exceptions in all areas. When I see all that is in a cigarette, between tars, ammonia, etc., I tell myself that I do well not to smoke. We already breathe a bunch of shit every day, no need to add!
So those who want to smoke, no worries, it's their choice (or their problem!?), But on the other hand, they should not impose their choice on others, simply.
As a rule, the freedom of some ends when it encroaches on that of others. There is nothing "liberticidal" in this law, which would have been useless moreover if everyone had a minimum of common sense.
I fear, unfortunately, that the law must be mandatory because it is found in practice that a very small minority of smokers respects non-smokers!
It's stupid, but when I'm in a public place, no one or any law forbids me to fart
. But I do not do it, because it's common sense, I do not have to impose that on others!
Let me explain: everyone is free to live his life as he sees fit. I do not smoke, and the worst is that I have never tasted, I do not even know what taste it has. Quite simply because I do not see the interest of breathing smoke, whether the taste is good or not, from the moment or at a time we can become hooked, and especially that it can be harmful to health. Obviously there are smokers who will be living with 2 packs a day, but there are exceptions in all areas. When I see all that is in a cigarette, between tars, ammonia, etc., I tell myself that I do well not to smoke. We already breathe a bunch of shit every day, no need to add!
So those who want to smoke, no worries, it's their choice (or their problem!?), But on the other hand, they should not impose their choice on others, simply.
As a rule, the freedom of some ends when it encroaches on that of others. There is nothing "liberticidal" in this law, which would have been useless moreover if everyone had a minimum of common sense.
I fear, unfortunately, that the law must be mandatory because it is found in practice that a very small minority of smokers respects non-smokers!
It's stupid, but when I'm in a public place, no one or any law forbids me to fart
. But I do not do it, because it's common sense, I do not have to impose that on others!
0 x
-
Woodcutter
- Econologue expert
- posts: 4731
- Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
- Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
- x 2
Hello,
A fat patient has had a kidney transplanted, the surgeon warns him not to fummer, the detoxification of his kidney is from tobacco (although I am not a specialist in the matter, but apparently there is cause has effect).
a few 8 years later the grafted kidneys still deffécteux, the patient continued to smoke autand, if not, the surgeon has made it clear, he has already had a kidney and currently he wants to take the place of another who is on a long waiting list, and who has not been so fortunate to have one, why he will give him both kidneys to a person who does not take care, of whom so precious.
I had a serious accident all the right ribs broken with an internal hemorrhage perforation of the lung (the lungs drowned in the blood. The surgeon told me that if I had been a smoker, I would not have survived, unless remove part of the lung.
(Apparring the blood in a smoker's lung washes the creosote and deposits it in the lower lung).
At first I did not believe it, but on the radio review I saw that it took almost 2 years for the lungs to clean up, just traces of blood ..
Andre
A fat patient has had a kidney transplanted, the surgeon warns him not to fummer, the detoxification of his kidney is from tobacco (although I am not a specialist in the matter, but apparently there is cause has effect).
a few 8 years later the grafted kidneys still deffécteux, the patient continued to smoke autand, if not, the surgeon has made it clear, he has already had a kidney and currently he wants to take the place of another who is on a long waiting list, and who has not been so fortunate to have one, why he will give him both kidneys to a person who does not take care, of whom so precious.
I had a serious accident all the right ribs broken with an internal hemorrhage perforation of the lung (the lungs drowned in the blood. The surgeon told me that if I had been a smoker, I would not have survived, unless remove part of the lung.
(Apparring the blood in a smoker's lung washes the creosote and deposits it in the lower lung).
At first I did not believe it, but on the radio review I saw that it took almost 2 years for the lungs to clean up, just traces of blood ..
Andre
0 x
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : Remundo and 215 guests