>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
General discussions >
Non mobile discussion
> The Smokers Thread
Bookmark topic
Obviously you weren't addicted before you started, but no doubt there was some compunction, either on the part of peers, media advertising or conforming to a family tradition perhaps?
On 2007-07-23 14:20:13, carkitter wrote:
>
This paragraph is contradictory. You begin with an objection to a visitor in your home being able to dictate the rules, then finish with an anecdote of your former Prime Minister doing exactly that to a foreign Head of State no less! And you applaud this attitude! I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways.
The lunch was being held by Churchill, which made him the host. It is the host's prerogative to decide upon the etiquette of the occasion, and thus it was down to Churchill to decide. The other point that should be made is that the King of Saudi Arabia was apparently gracious enough to accept his host's decision and not to inconvenience his host.
I'm confused. In your earlier post it's said that Churchill was invited - that makes him the guest, no? The conditions imposed are I believe consistant with some Arab laws, I'd hardly expect a guest to impose them on a host (when in Rome... and all that) especially if Churchill was anything like Albert Finny's portrayal in 'The Gathering Storm'... loved that movie.
If someone is in my home then I am the host and I make the rules of the house. It should be up to me to offer not to smoke in front of a guest; I should not have to seek the permission of a guest to smoke in my own home if I want to.
Agreed.
I've tried to ignore the posts about thrill seeking behaviour, but in response to that I must say that Skydivers follow safety proceedures, Bungy Jumpers wear harnesses, Racing Motorists use helmets, seatbelts, flame proof undergarmets even. After all, why take the risk if you won't live to score chicks with the story afterwards
.
Smoking is a different sort of risk taking behaviour... the risks involve long unpleasant illness' at some unspecified time in the future and there is no safety equipment (except maybe the filter) to minimise the risk.
I must say, a discerning smoker such as yourself, is infinitely preferable to the great number of those who leave thier used butts discarded all over the place. I'd happily put up with a small amount of smoke to have lunch with such an eloquent and accomplished debator. I'll bet the King of Saudi Arabia felt the same way.
_________________
SE and Vodafone sponsor Motorsport in OZ
If a man speaks in the woods and there's no woman to hear him, is he still wrong?
[ This Message was edited by: carkitter on 2007-07-24 08:09 ]
--
Posted: 2007-07-24 09:04:52
Edit :
Quote
OK, things geting violent now...
Boxer shot over club smoking row
The shooting is being investigated by Operation Trident detectives
A former British heavyweight boxer was shot when he asked customers at a club to stop smoking.
James Oyebola, 47, is critically ill in hospital after being shot in the head and leg at Chateau 6 in Fulham Road, in south-west London.
Three men were seen running away after the 6ft 9ins tall former fighter, from north-west London, was shot.
Police said Mr Oyebola was involved in an altercation about smoking before being shot in the rear garden area.
A search of the area was undertaken by police, including armed officers, following the shooting in the early hours of Monday.
It is a horrible crime to happen anywhere but over nothing - an incident such as smoking - these people need to be caught
DCI Scott Wilson
The shooting is being handled by detectives from Operation Trident, which investigates gun crime in the black community.
Det Ch Insp Scott Wilson said police believe the three black suspects, aged between 19 and 25, ran from the club in separate directions.
"The altercation takes place, someone pulled out a gun and shots are fired, I can imagine it was over in 20 seconds," DCI Wilson said.
"It is a horrible crime to happen anywhere but over nothing - an incident such as smoking - these people need to be caught," he said.
In a statement Oyebola's family thanked friends and fans for their "unprecedented show of support for James's well being".
Mr Oyebola's former manager, Frank Maloney, described the boxer as a "gentle giant" and said he had done a lot of work in the community to get youngsters into boxing and sport.
"I was absolutely devastated, struck dumb when I heard the news," he told BBC London.
The British Boxing Board of Control paid tribute to the former heavyweight champion, turned manager.
General secretary Simon Block said Mr Oyebola was "one of nature's gentlemen" and the shooting was a "cowardly and gutless attack".
Source:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6912900.stm
--
Posted: 2007-07-24 21:23:12
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-07-24 09:04:52, carkitter wrote:
Obviously you weren't addicted before you started, but no doubt there was some compunction, either on the part of peers, media advertising or conforming to a family tradition perhaps?
Not at all. In fact I was decidedly against smoking before I started. I started smoking of my own free will.
I'm confused. In your earlier post it's said that Churchill was invited - that makes him the guest, no? The conditions imposed are I believe consistant with some Arab laws, I'd hardly expect a guest to impose them on a host (when in Rome... and all that) especially if Churchill was anything like Albert Finny's portrayal in 'The Gathering Storm'... loved that movie.
I'm sorry I I got the situation wrong, but from what I understand Churchill was the host. He says so himself. Churchill being the host had the right to set the etiquette and tone of the luncheon.
I've tried to ignore the posts about thrill seeking behaviour, but in response to that I must say that Skydivers follow safety proceedures, Bungy Jumpers wear harnesses, Racing Motorists use helmets, seatbelts, flame proof undergarmets even. After all, why take the risk if you won't live to score chicks with the story afterwards
.
A skydiver can use all the safety features he likes, but there is still the risk they will fail. The safety features don't remove the risks entirely. The same is true of smoking; one can say that one only puffs and doe snot inhale, but of course it still harms one's health.
Smoking is a different sort of risk taking behaviour... the risks involve long unpleasant illness' at some unspecified time in the future and there is no safety equipment (except maybe the filter) to minimise the risk.
Whether their is safety equipment or not is not the point. The point is that if someone take up smoking with full knowledge of the risks involved then that is their right to do so. If someone decides to eat a fat laden breakfast everyday of their lives knowing full well that it may increase their chance of heart disease then that is their choice too, and so on.
BY all means educate people on the dangers of smoking, but at the end of the day it is up to the individual.
I must say, a discerning smoker such as yourself, is infinitely preferable to the great number of those who leave thier used butts discarded all over the place. I'd happily put up with a small amount of smoke to have lunch with such an eloquent and accomplished debator. I'll bet the King of Saudi Arabia felt the same way.
I must agree with you here, littering is a foul thing. I myself am guilty of it on occasion and I always regret it. There really is no excuse for putting a little effort into finding a suitable vessel to dispose of one's butt or ash.
--
Posted: 2007-07-24 21:40:40
Edit :
Quote
yes i read this on the way home last night. its terrible news.
but interefering with the wrong people for whatever reason can land you in trouble but shouldnt end up with this extreme.
I would be more inclined to look at this one at the angle of gang culture and possibly the issues with gun crime in the british black communities which has been in the news a lot as well.
a needless loss of life, and if it wasnt for the smoking ban, he wouldnt have asked the question that ultimatly led to the confrontation that ended his life.
--
Posted: 2007-07-25 10:27:53
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-07-25 10:27:53, batesie wrote:
a needless loss of life, and if it wasnt for the smoking ban, he wouldnt have asked the question that ultimatly led to the confrontation that ended his life.
I can see these assaults become more common (maybe not shootings).
When in a pub/club you tend to drink and as smokers know a pint and a cigarette go hand in. But with the smoking ban in place smokers will have to stand out side the venue, more than likely intoxicated with other intoxicated people which often leads to trouble (fighting…etc).
More people will get injured, more people in A&E, more money spent buy the NHS (probably more cost than dealing with lung cancer patients). Especially now with 24 hour drinking in place too.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: joebmc on 2007-07-25 12:19 ]
--
Posted: 2007-07-25 13:18:15
Edit :
Quote
So Batesie, it was HIS fault he was attacked and was killed, I find Smokers to be an aggressive and intolerent bunch who never take kindly to being told what to do, and have zero respect for the rights/views of non-smokers just so long as they can abate their addiction!!
--
Posted: 2007-07-25 13:19:40
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-07-25 13:19:40, mweb6161 wrote:
So Batesie, it was HIS fault he was attacked and was killed, I find Smokers to be an aggressive and intolerent bunch who never take kindly to being told what to do, and have zero respect for the rights/views of non-smokers just so long as they can abate their addiction!!
no i never said it was his fault what a rediculous this to say! and now you are insulting 25% of the population by calling them aggressive and intolerant.
if you were to change the word smokers for a faith or religion, you would most likely be cautioned or banned by a mod, so i would like you to apologise.
--
Posted: 2007-07-25 13:31:51
Edit :
Quote
@mweb
Now steady on their old boy, I don't think that one can tarnish all smokers with the one brush. I could say that non-smokers are an intolerant bunch who do not respect the rights of smokers and so on, but that wouldn't be the truth. There are rude people who smoke and rude people who do not smoke.
For instance, you will find that most smokers would probably be perfectly happy with compromising on the smoking ban. Give smokers dedicated clubs and rooms to smoke in and there would probably be a great deal less friction over this ban. People are not going to stop smoking simply because the government bans it in pubs, etc, they can, and do, just go out into the street, which spreads the smoke further. It would be a far more sensible idea to allow smoking in dedicated establishments where the only people who go there would be smokers.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2007-07-26 11:02 ]
--
Posted: 2007-07-26 10:19:15
Edit :
Quote
i was at an outdoor train station last night and it was empty, when i say empty i was the only one on that platform, i took a walk down to the far end of the platform and enjoyed a ciggarette.
apparantly i was breaking the law. of the couple of people walking down the platform on the other side, no one battered an eyelid.
morally i feel what i did wasnt wrong, making sure that what i was about to do had absolutely no impact on anyone else. yet legally i was wrong...
feel free to pass on your thoughts
--
Posted: 2007-07-26 10:25:40
Edit :
Quote
I guess the problem with setting things in law is that you can't say "you can't do this or that except in this situation, or that situation or the other situation" as it would make it far too complicated for the average person to understand and therefore to comply with
--
Posted: 2007-07-26 10:28:13
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
