Mosman Council

[aniken]

No, because under the Constitution, we do not have an official religion. If we did, then yes you would. But what has that got to do with smoking anyway

yES YOU ARE RIGHT, BUT WE CAN LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION out of it, because it says nothing about smoking either.

What I was getting at is the way people inthis thread want to use the MAJORITY thingy. Somehow I don't think anyone should or could be forced into an opinion based on the MAJORITY, and if you don't agree you are an outcast, how is this freedom? :wacko:

Because if you get enough people to agree with you, you can get the law changed.

Going by your definition, we would only have freedom if there were no laws at all??? Not somewhere I would want to live.

[Velvet Glove]

Put this in your pipe and smoke it !!

What is second-hand smoking?

Second-hand smoking, passive smoking, involuntary smoking or exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) all refer to the phenomena of breathing other people's smoke. Second-hand smoke is produced during the burning and smoking of tobacco products. It results from the "sidestream" smoke which is emitted from the burning tip of a cigarette and the "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then exhaled by the smoker.

What is found in second-hand smoke?

Second-hand smoke is a complex combination of over 4000 chemicals in the form of particles and gases. It includes irritants and systemic toxicants such as hydrogen cyanide, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia, and formaldehyde. It also contains carcinogens and mutagens such as arsenic, chromium, nitrosamines, and benzo(a)pyrene. Many of the chemicals are reproductive toxicants such as nicotine, cadmium and carbon monoxide. Second-hand smoke is also an important indoor air pollutant. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has classified second-hand smoke as a "class A" carcinogen for which there is no safe level of exposure.

Does second-hand smoke affect the health of non-smokers?

Yes. There is substantial scientific evidence that second-hand smoke is a serious health threat. Non-smokers who breathe second-hand smoke suffer many of the diseases of active smoking. Heart disease mortality as well as lung and nasal sinus cancers have been causally associated with second-hand smoke exposure. Second-hand smoke also causes a wide variety of adverse health effects in children including bronchitis and pneumonia, exacerbation of asthma, middle ear infections, and "glue ear", which is the most common cause of deafness in children. Exposure of non-smoking women to second-hand smoke during pregnancy causes reductions in fetal growth, and there is also evidence that postnatal exposure of infants to second-hand smoke contributes to the risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Tobacco smoke is also an important source of indoor air pollution, causing such immediate effects as eye and nasal irritation, headache, sore throat, dizziness, nausea, cough, and respiratory problems.

How big a problem is second-hand smoke?

It is a ubiquitous problem because people from all cultures and countries are exposed to second-hand smoke. This exposure occurs under daily-life conditions: in homes, at work, on public transport, in restaurants, in bars - literally everywhere people go.

Surveys conducted in countries around the world confirm widespread exposure. One survey estimated that 79 percent of Europeans over age 15 were exposed to second-hand smoke. Recent data from South Africa shows that 64 percent of children below age five in Soweto live with at least one smoker in the house. The Cancer Society of New Zealand reports that that second-hand smoke is the third largest killer in the country, after active smoking and alcohol use.

Source: World Health Organisation website

http://www.who.int/health_topics/tobacco/en/

Does the council still need to justify itself ?

Like I said, the perverted logic of smokers to justify their addictions is quite pitiful

[tab]

Like I said, the perverted logic of smokers to justify their addictions is quite pitiful

OK, I cannot sit back and quietly read this crap any longer.

This thread has obviously denigrated into the usual meaningless banter, but is there any need for comments like this. On one hand VG you get all upset and emotional about another famous stereotype in our community (that of the humble police officer) but you have no hesitation whatsoever in casting your own dispersions and classifying anyone that partakes in a cigarette as the scum of the earth (No you didn’t say that, but that is what you are suggesting).

I am a smoker as mentioned early in the piece, and I am the type that will not smoke unless there is somewhere that I can without disturbing others – if this means standing out in the rain to satisfy my so called pitiful addiction then so be it. And I do not see this as the exception rather than the norm because all of my friends do the same, and in fact I have never seen a smoker that will deliberately go out of their way to blow smoke into someone else’s face as has been drawn into one of the other various stereotypical comments earlier in the thread.

The fact of the matter is, this is the way that things are going, majority does rule and that’s a good thing. So unless anyone as any valued input into this thread then just leave it alone – I don’t donate (albeit small and somewhat insignificant contributions) to this site so that Chris can run servers to host the tripe that this thread has become.

Trent.

[Velvet Glove]

Like I said, the perverted logic of smokers to justify their addictions is quite pitiful

OK, I cannot sit back and quietly read this crap any longer.

This thread has obviously denigrated into the usual meaningless banter, but is there any need for comments like this. On one hand VG you get all upset and emotional about another famous stereotype in our community (that of the humble police officer) but you have no hesitation whatsoever in casting your own dispersions and classifying anyone that partakes in a cigarette as the scum of the earth (No you didn’t say that, but that is what you are suggesting).

I am a smoker as mentioned early in the piece, and I am the type that will not smoke unless there is somewhere that I can without disturbing others – if this means standing out in the rain to satisfy my so called pitiful addiction then so be it. And I do not see this as the exception rather than the norm because all of my friends do the same, and in fact I have never seen a smoker that will deliberately go out of their way to blow smoke into someone else’s face as has been drawn into one of the other various stereotypical comments earlier in the thread.

The fact of the matter is, this is the way that things are going, majority does rule and that’s a good thing. So unless anyone as any valued input into this thread then just leave it alone – I don’t donate (albeit small and somewhat insignificant contributions) to this site so that Chris can run servers to host the tripe that this thread has become.

Trent.

What piffle !

At no stage have I said or suggested that smokers are 'scum of the earth'. I used to be one myself. If that is the way you behave then good on you as you obviously have consideration for others. I have had vastly different experiences with having smoke blown in my face deliberately (and the miscreant ending up on his ass because of it). I also find them congregating outside the front door of just about every office building I go to during business hours

With all the medical evidence around you would think people would draw a logical conclusion. I guess logic and smoking are mutually exclusive.

Insinuating that I am insinuating is quite silly. I donate as well and, if I'm not interested I just dont read it. I realise it wasnt set up for my personal benefit, maybe others should as well....OMG am I insinuating again ??

[Guest Elvis Brown]

It all seems like a bit of a storm in tea really…or should that be an ashtray? I’m sure we will get to a point where smoking is banned in the majority of public places and perhaps that’s as it should be…. certainly it’s not the most pleasant of habits as evidenced by some of the discussion in this thread.

But as things currently stand, at least in my part of the country, you can still smoke in pubs etc, and in the designated areas (I.e. outside) at cafes, restaurants etc. So, given that I’m entitled to smoke in these areas then I will…if that’s a problem for non-smokers…well, really….”suffer in yer jocks” just about sums it up…will I blow smoke in your face? No, not if I can help it…but conversely if asked to extinguish my cigarette because you find it disagreeable, no not if I’m in a area where it’s been stipulated that I am able to smoke…. that’s why I’m there…. and if you feel inclined to make an issue of it…well, that’s certainly your choice…. in much the same way that smoking in a designated smoking area is mine and one that’s certainly no wiser, so really all I could say to that (without meaning to overly inflammatory) would be “come and have a go if you think you're hard enough”

Though seriously I’ve seen more altercations in public as a result of alcohol consumption than tobacco…in fact I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone assault another patron at a pub, restaurant, what ever as the result of cigarettes…..

[jetute]

It all seems like a bit of a storm in tea really…or should that be an ashtray? I’m sure we will get to a point where smoking is banned in the majority of public places and perhaps that’s as it should be…. certainly it’s not the most pleasant of habits as evidenced by some of the discussion in this thread.

But as things currently stand, at least in my part of the country, you can still smoke in pubs etc, and in the designated areas (I.e. outside) at cafes, restaurants etc. So, given that I’m entitled to smoke in these areas then I will…if that’s a problem for non-smokers…well, really….”suffer in yer jocks” just about sums it up…will I blow smoke in your face? No, not if I can help it…but conversely if asked to extinguish my cigarette because you find it disagreeable, no not if I’m in a area where it’s been stipulated that I am able to smoke…. that’s why I’m there…. and if you feel inclined to make an issue of it…well, that’s certainly your choice…. in much the same way that smoking in a designated smoking area is mine and one that’s certainly no wiser, so really all I could say to that (without meaning to overly inflammatory) would be “come and have a go if you think you're hard enough”

Though seriously I’ve seen more altercations in public as a result of alcohol consumption than tobacco…in fact I don’t believe I’ve ever seen anyone assault another patron at a pub, restaurant, what ever as the result of cigarettes…..

Agreed,

I would rather be in an area where I might get the occasional sniff of cigarette smoke... then say for example on the road with a drink driver or in an area where a fight breaks out because of intoxication.

A friend of mine died due to a drink driver hitting him... But not one of my friends has died because he had to walk past 5 smokers to get inside the office building. At the same token my aunty died at the age of 88 and was a heavy smoker and yes her death was a smoking related illness.

There should be no smoking in enclosed spaces, but to not allow a person to smoke outdoors in an area specifically designed for smokers is in my opinion going over the top. Should there be 2 outdoor areas 1 for smokers and 1 for non smokers... I think so.

Personal attacks and vindification is not a rational approach by anyone be it a smoker or a non smoker... If someone cannot get their point accross without derogitory (spelling??) comments or stereotyping then dont have a say at all.

[Falchoon]

*bump*