Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Smokers soon to be pariahs?

Virgil-TB2

Virgil-TB2

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 3, 2007
1,143
1
I just read an interesting article about the statistics coming out of Scotland this year in regards smoking and disease. Scotland is one of the few places where smoking in public (anywhere in public) is now banned, and a lot of smokers thought this was "extreme," fascist" etc. etc. at the time it was proposed.

Now after only one full year, the heart attack rate has dropped by a full 17%! :eek:

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3031836920080730?rpc=64

Interestingly, the majority of the drop (67%) is among non-smokers.

Two people in my family have already died from smoking so as a result I see smokers as the weak disgusting drug-addicts that they actually are, but even I was very surprised by this result.

This means that large numbers of people are having heart attacks every day that are directly caused by the idiot at Starbucks who refuses to butt out.

Note also that smoking *is* allowed in Scotland in the private home (as it probably should be), so this is not wives of chain smokers having the heart attacks, this is fairly definitively, second hand smoke in the *public* or workplace environment.

I think smokers days may finally be numbered.

.
 
leekohler said:
I propose a ban on all "let's-bash-the-smokers-and-call-them-names" threads. Honestly- enough already. It's been done enough. :mad:
Click to expand...


I agree.

But I wholeheartedly support the ban on smoking in public places. It's nice to go out for a drink and not to end the night smelling like an ashtray.
 
leekohler said:
I propose a ban on all "let's-bash-the-smokers-and-call-them-names" threads. Honestly- enough already. :mad:
Click to expand...
I apologise for getting carried away with the name calling, but just as you have some serious emotional attachment to defending smokers (likely based on your life and events in it), I will own up to having a serious problem with smoking (since it killed two people in my family).

Above all the emotion however, and speaking just rationally ...

Smoking is a drug addiction problem that has nothing to do with "smokers rights" etc. and it's demonstrably killing people. There is no rational argument for smoking or allowing people to smoke in public. It should clearly be banned except in the privacy of your own home.

No one comes forth and says "Junkies have the right to do crack" when they cause civil disorder, they are just dragged away by the cops. I certainly don't advocate all that police-state stuff, but let's just start dealing with smoking for what it is, a drug problem.

I have been affected rather strongly by smoking my whole life, why should I have to suffer (along with the majority of the population), just because someone thinks they have the "right" to smoke.

Anyway apologies for the name calling again, but if I am perhaps a bit to strong on this issue it's only because after 40 years or so of second hand smoke, finally the worm is beginning to turn on this issue. Finally! :)

I'm an older person now, and there are only so many years left. I frequently wonder about how many extra years I would have, if there were no smokers around me. Smokers may feel "under attack" now, but the rest of us have been under attack from you for our entire lives.

Smokers just don't appreciate all the damage they have been doing to people around them all these years. They won't quit until they feel the necessary shame of the drug addict.
 
Washington has had a public indoor smoking ban for almost 3 years now and it seems to have worked. Aside from the health benefits, most places which were smokey, who thought they would loose customers (like bars, strip joints, and casinos) have actually found that they are busier than before, because non-smokers are more inclined to go someplace without smoking. The Indian Reservations have also seen an increase of revenue as Smokers are flocking there to smoke while gambling.

I'm not for government telling people what to do, especially since smoking is still legal. In Washington though, the ban was created by the people and put on the ballot through an Initiative process. The Initiative passed with 80% or so voting yes.

So the people chose this path, not the government, so I feel much better about this law than I do those in the UK, New York, California, or the impending law in Oregon.

TEG
 
Is smoking outdoors in public in Scotland also banned? That's where I encounter most of my second-hand, where it drifts or sticks to things. (Or is this like the other public smoking bans listed, that only apply to places like public buildings, pubs, etc?)

Just curious.
 
Tilpots said:
Next they'll try to ban sugar. Be careful what you wish for, your freedom is at stake.
Click to expand...

I don't seem to remember many people dying from second-hand sugar.

So the people chose this path, not the government, so I feel much better
Click to expand...

The government are there to represent the views of the people. That's the point.
 
TEG said:
Washington has had a public indoor smoking ban for almost 3 years now and it seems to have worked. Aside from the health benefits, most places which were smokey, who thought they would loose customers (like bars, strip joints, and casinos) have actually found that they are busier than before, because non-smokers are more inclined to go someplace without smoking. The Indian Reservations have also seen an increase of revenue as Smokers are flocking there to smoke while gambling.

I'm not for government telling people what to do, especially since smoking is still legal. In Washington though, the ban was created by the people and put on the ballot through an Initiative process. The Initiative passed with 80% or so voting yes.

So the people chose this path, not the government, so I feel much better about this law than I do those in the UK, New York, California, or the impending law in Oregon.

TEG
Click to expand...
Great post. I wholeheartedly agree. The people need to decide NOT the bloody government!
 
Well our government has outlawed smoking in your own car :confused: I guess cracking down on those drinkers who have a few then drive off to mow some innocent pedestrian over are socially acceptable :rolleyes:
 
Much Ado said:
I don't seem to remember many people dying from second-hand sugar.
Click to expand...

I don't seem to remember people dying from second hand smoke. There are lies, damn lies and statistics. I don't smoke and I don't enjoy the smell of smoke but I know ******** when I hear it.

By the logic required to create a death statistic from something so vague as second hand smoke, you could say that sugar causes more second hand deaths when a fat ass has a heart attack in his car and drives it into the middle of an intersection.
 
Soon??

It's been here for quite a while.

And for a country with universal health care, none too soon.

If they want to opt out in favour of smoking, fine.
 
Time to go smokeless. :) I love this stuff.
 

Attachments

  • ariva.jpg
    ariva.jpg
    86.3 KB · Views: 51
We've had the law banning indoor smoking here in Arizona for a year (If I recall correctly) and it's nice, but the moment you head to Indian Reservation you get nailed with the smoke (mostly at the casinos)

We had it in Florida too.

It's very nice to go into a restaurant and not have to pick a place, and wait less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back