|
||||||||
Why do so many smokers smoke in areas that are very clearly marked as no smoking? |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#76 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 461
|
Most people think they are above the law anyway ,
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#77 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,694
|
Quote:
Most people think they are above the law anyway ,
|
|
|
|
|
|
#78 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,212
|
Quote:
I think that most smokers will always smoke wherever the hell they want, regardless of any No Smoking signs.
I often go into town to help my mother with the shopping and there are always large groups of smokers stood outside the main precinct, puffing away and creating huge clouds of filth in the process. You should see the looks that they give you if you cough or wave your arms around to dispel the smoke. I have never smoked myself and I think it is a filthy habit. Mind you, I have asthma, so smoking would not be a good idea. My dad smoked heavily for most of his life, though and he recently died from lung cancer, as a result of this. He basically contributed towards his own ill health and death, as do most other smokers and he remained in denial about this until the day that he died. Mum and I run the gauntlet of "The Smoke" whenever we walk into or out of the shopping centre. We call it Lung Cancer Avenue, in fact, lol. Still, I guess that it keeps the Macmillan Nurses and the cancer wards in hospitals in work. My dad was the only one in my immediate family that smoked and he paid a heavy price for it. So, I have no sympathy for smokers at all. They made that choice to wreck their own health and so they must accept the consequences of their own actions. They have no one to blame for their health issues but themselves. So, in reponse to the thread title, I guess that smokers will carry on smoking, because there is no one around to stop them and they know that they are relatively safe from prosecution. No one would be brave enough to confront a smoker face to face. I know that I certainly wouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
#79 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 667
|
Quote:
I wonder how these "it's my right to smoke, put up with it and shut up" people would act if people were deciding to spit around the entrances to buildings or walking down the street and some landed on them, and they got a similar "it's my right to spit, so put up with it" response when they objected. They wouldn't like it I imagine. So why should we have to put up with clouds of smoke when going in and out of buildings and fags waved in our faces while walking down the street? It's not unreasonable (or hard) to smoke out of the way of other people.
I notice even in places where they ask you not to smoke and provide plenty of designated areas (like lots of zoos, theme parks and the likes), lots of smokers still ignore it and light up where the hell they want. With this sort of behaviour, is it any wonder so many people see smokers as rude, selfish and ignorant? Also they will go on about air pollution, thats a separate matter. The air in London is terrible for instance, but that's a different matter. Just because the world isn't perfect no reason why we shouldn't all try to make it a better place. It's all very well saying just stand 10ft away and you won't smell it. But in reality it needs to be further than that and its often difficult finding a spot many that is far enough away from all the smokers dotted all over the place. That's the reason why they have a designated area outside many places and aren't just spread out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#80 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,350
|
The difference between air pollution caused by traffic and that caused by cigarette smoke is at the moment, because there is no widely viable alternative, we need road transport that runs on fossil fuels and unfortunately it will cause emissions that pollute the air. People don't need to smoke.
Once cleaner alternatives for running motorised transport have been found then I would expect a lot more low emission zones or fossil fuel-powered vehicle bans will come into place, particularly in areas with heavy traffic or around residential areas. At the moment most alternatives are very expensive or don't allow the mileage required, so aren't really practical for all the kinds of transport we use. |
|
|
|
|
|
#81 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,212
|
Quote:
The difference between air pollution caused by traffic and that caused by cigarette smoke is at the moment, because there is no widely viable alternative, we need road transport that runs on fossil fuels and unfortunately it will cause emissions that pollute the air. People don't need to smoke.
Once cleaner alternatives for running motorised transport have been found then I would expect a lot more low emission zones or fossil fuel-powered vehicle bans will come into place, particularly in areas with heavy traffic or around residential areas. At the moment most alternatives are very expensive or don't allow the mileage required, so aren't really practical for all the kinds of transport we use. |
|
|
|
|
|
#82 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
|
Quote:
Because in the case of railways, their byelaws are fully enforceable.
Other private locations would just ask you to leave. |
|
|
|
|
|
#83 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,437
|
Quote:
And people have the right to smoke outside, do people need to run a car or do they choose too. Strange how the government has not declared smoking illegal ( wonder why )
|
|
|
|
|
|
#84 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,036
|
Quote:
I think that most smokers will always smoke wherever the hell they want, regardless of any No Smoking signs.
I often go into town to help my mother with the shopping and there are always large groups of smokers stood outside the main precinct, puffing away and creating huge clouds of filth in the process. You should see the looks that they give you if you cough or wave your arms around to dispel the smoke. I have never smoked myself and I think it is a filthy habit. Mind you, I have asthma, so smoking would not be a good idea. My dad smoked heavily for most of his life, though and he recently died from lung cancer, as a result of this. He basically contributed towards his own ill health and death, as do most other smokers and he remained in denial about this until the day that he died. Mum and I run the gauntlet of "The Smoke" whenever we walk into or out of the shopping centre. We call it Lung Cancer Avenue, in fact, lol. Still, I guess that it keeps the Macmillan Nurses and the cancer wards in hospitals in work. My dad was the only one in my immediate family that smoked and he paid a heavy price for it. So, I have no sympathy for smokers at all. They made that choice to wreck their own health and so they must accept the consequences of their own actions. They have no one to blame for their health issues but themselves. So, in reponse to the thread title, I guess that smokers will carry on smoking, because there is no one around to stop them and they know that they are relatively safe from prosecution. No one would be brave enough to confront a smoker face to face. I know that I certainly wouldn't. Quote:
I wonder how these "it's my right to smoke, put up with it and shut up" people would act if people were deciding to spit around the entrances to buildings or walking down the street and some landed on them, and they got a similar "it's my right to spit, so put up with it" response when they objected. They wouldn't like it I imagine. So why should we have to put up with clouds of smoke when going in and out of buildings and fags waved in our faces while walking down the street? It's not unreasonable (or hard) to smoke out of the way of other people.
I notice even in places where they ask you not to smoke and provide plenty of designated areas (like lots of zoos, theme parks and the likes), lots of smokers still ignore it and light up where the hell they want. With this sort of behaviour, is it any wonder so many people see smokers as rude, selfish and ignorant? |
|
|
|
|
|
#85 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
|
Quote:
I'm usually reasonably polite and respectful to non smokers, but if I ever came across the two posters above I would follow them around smoking the biggest cigar I could find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#86 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 27,511
|
Quote:
I'm usually reasonably polite and respectful to non smokers, but if I ever came across the two posters above I would follow them around smoking the biggest cigar I could find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#87 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,350
|
Quote:
And people have the right to smoke outside, do people need to run a car or do they choose too. Strange how the government has not declared smoking illegal ( wonder why ) could it be to the money they get off it, in taxes which of cause then get spent on things like the NHS, roads, defence and lots of other thing.
The government is kind of stuck over the issue of smoking - it has signed up to EU and WHO agreements about reducing smoking because of the harm it can cause to people's health, but at the same time it raises a huge amount of tax revenue for them. Would people really be prepared to pay more income tax or tax elsewhere if smoking were completely outlawed? The government wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and accept the loss of a massive money generator for their coffers. We're a strange country regarding taxes. We all want Scandinavian levels of social service but would never be prepared to pay the taxes required to fund it. Any party that had massive tax increases in their manifesto would never get voted into power. We're not a massively socialist society in the UK. |
|
|
|
|
|
#88 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,671
|
Quote:
Actually compliance with the no smoking laws; the real ones from 22007; not 'rules' posted hopefully on signage; seems to have been almost total. Certainly I have not seen anyone break them.
But I try to be courteous, despite some rabid anti-smokers. As for bus stops, any smoker knows that if you're waiting for a bus, lighting a cigarette will usually summon one, especially if it's the last one in a pack. |
|
|
|
|
|
#89 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Devon
Posts: 47,995
|
Quote:
I have! Canary Wharf has security guards who'll try 'fining' smokers on the estate sometimes. And a security guard at a local college yelled at me for smoking despite signs proclaiming smoking was illegal in that area. Which puzzled me somewhat as it was a public footpath on a main road. Just because there's a sign saying it's 'illegal' to smoke somewhere doesn't mean that's legally binding or enforceable.
But I try to be courteous, despite some rabid anti-smokers. As for bus stops, any smoker knows that if you're waiting for a bus, lighting a cigarette will usually summon one, especially if it's the last one in a pack. I'm now an ex-smoker and vaper which is always good for a laugh if someone tells me it is illegal to 'smoke' wherever I am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#90 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,185
|
Quote:
Most people think they are above the law anyway ,
Just as it's not illegal to dangerously pollute the air from infinitely worse traffic fumes which rabid anti-smokers hypocritically and happily contribute to out of choice because it suits them. The infinitely worse mass addiction and too much lovely revenue available from both. |
|
|
|
|
|
#91 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 25,212
|
Quote:
Not just referring to cars, but lorries for delivering food and goods, buses, vans etc. Motorised transport is an essential in the way our society runs.
The government is kind of stuck over the issue of smoking - it has signed up to EU and WHO agreements about reducing smoking because of the harm it can cause to people's health, but at the same time it raises a huge amount of tax revenue for them. Would people really be prepared to pay more income tax or tax elsewhere if smoking were completely outlawed? The government wouldn't just shrug their shoulders and accept the loss of a massive money generator for their coffers. We're a strange country regarding taxes. We all want Scandinavian levels of social service but would never be prepared to pay the taxes required to fund it. Any party that had massive tax increases in their manifesto would never get voted into power. We're not a massively socialist society in the UK. |
|
|
|
|
|
#92 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: In a jar, on a shelf
Posts: 31,671
|
Quote:
Smoking is only illegal, as in against the law, in the specific places the law says it is prohibited.
Quote:
I'm now an ex-smoker and vaper which is always good for a laugh if someone tells me it is illegal to 'smoke' wherever I am. I've still not tried vaping. But I have found the perfect funeral for when I succumb to my habit!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89j04Vyj84 Wonder if I could ban non-smokers? |
|
|
|
|
|
#93 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: By the Skeleton Tree.
Posts: 56,603
|
Quote:
I think that most smokers will always smoke wherever the hell they want, regardless of any No Smoking signs.
I often go into town to help my mother with the shopping and there are always large groups of smokers stood outside the main precinct, puffing away and creating huge clouds of filth in the process. You should see the looks that they give you if you cough or wave your arms around to dispel the smoke. I have never smoked myself and I think it is a filthy habit. Mind you, I have asthma, so smoking would not be a good idea. My dad smoked heavily for most of his life, though and he recently died from lung cancer, as a result of this. He basically contributed towards his own ill health and death, as do most other smokers and he remained in denial about this until the day that he died. Mum and I run the gauntlet of "The Smoke" whenever we walk into or out of the shopping centre. We call it Lung Cancer Avenue, in fact, lol. Still, I guess that it keeps the Macmillan Nurses and the cancer wards in hospitals in work. My dad was the only one in my immediate family that smoked and he paid a heavy price for it. So, I have no sympathy for smokers at all. They made that choice to wreck their own health and so they must accept the consequences of their own actions. They have no one to blame for their health issues but themselves. So, in reponse to the thread title, I guess that smokers will carry on smoking, because there is no one around to stop them and they know that they are relatively safe from prosecution. No one would be brave enough to confront a smoker face to face. I know that I certainly wouldn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
#94 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: London
Posts: 41,694
|
Quote:
Yup, but anti-smoking campaigners keep looking for ways to further restrict smoking, eg calls to ban smoking in all public places, parks etc.
I've still not tried vaping. But I have found the perfect funeral for when I succumb to my habit! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V89j04Vyj84 Wonder if I could ban non-smokers?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#95 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,185
|
Quote:
I think that most smokers will always smoke wherever the hell they want, regardless of any No Smoking signs.
I often go into town to help my mother with the shopping and there are always large groups of smokers stood outside the main precinct, puffing away and creating huge clouds of filth in the process. You should see the looks that they give you if you cough or wave your arms around to dispel the smoke. I have never smoked myself and I think it is a filthy habit. Mind you, I have asthma, so smoking would not be a good idea. My dad smoked heavily for most of his life, though and he recently died from lung cancer, as a result of this. He basically contributed towards his own ill health and death, as do most other smokers and he remained in denial about this until the day that he died. Mum and I run the gauntlet of "The Smoke" whenever we walk into or out of the shopping centre. We call it Lung Cancer Avenue, in fact, lol. Still, I guess that it keeps the Macmillan Nurses and the cancer wards in hospitals in work. My dad was the only one in my immediate family that smoked and he paid a heavy price for it. So, I have no sympathy for smokers at all. They made that choice to wreck their own health and so they must accept the consequences of their own actions. They have no one to blame for their health issues but themselves. So, in reponse to the thread title, I guess that smokers will carry on smoking, because there is no one around to stop them and they know that they are relatively safe from prosecution. No one would be brave enough to confront a smoker face to face. I know that I certainly wouldn't Then you toddle off home with your self righteous sanctimony in tact in an infinitely greater public health endangering toxic vehicle? As for tackling smokers face to face when they're smoking outside, what on earth makes you think you have that right? |
|
|
|
|
|
#96 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,437
|
Quote:
Then you toddle off home with your self righteous sanctimony in tact in an infinitely greater public health endangering toxic vehicle?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#97 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,987
|
Quote:
I'm usually reasonably polite and respectful to non smokers, but if I ever came across the two posters above I would follow them around smoking the biggest cigar I could find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#98 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 30,185
|
Quote:
It would be good to go over to electric vehicles completely, but we're stuck with a certain amount of petrol/diesel fumes for the time being - not much we can do about it. Cigarette smoke is a different matter.
Inspired by greedy spineless politicians, smokers are an easy scapegoat who they arrogantly assume they're somehow entitled to attack. While they choose to use their cars without bothering to consider other ways to reduce purely convenience use and we don't have the infrastructure to sustain the ever increasing numbers. Does every member of the family and their dog need to own a car now? Housing estates now resemble a motorway pile up. In the meantime they reap the rewards of billions of annual tobacco revenue and if it was banned they'd have to contribute towards the billions of lost revenue. The latest finding, there's a far greater incidence of dementia in people living near busy roads. |
|
|
|
|
|
#99 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 25,437
|
Quote:
Electric cars are available now. How many of the whinging sanctimonious anti-smoking brigade actually buy them? Very few, I suspect.
Inspired by greedy spineless politicians, smokers are an easy scapegoat who they arrogantly assume they're somehow entitled to attack. While they choose to use their cars without bothering to consider other ways to reduce purely convenience use and we don't have the infrastructure to sustain the ever increasing numbers. Does every member of the family and their dog need to own a car now? Housing estates now resemble a motorway pile up. In the meantime they reap the rewards of billions of annual tobacco revenue and if it was banned they'd have to contribute towards the billions of lost revenue. The latest finding, there's a far greater incidence of dementia in people living near busy roads. |
|
|
|
|
|
#100 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Devon
Posts: 12,833
|
Emissions story just on the BBC 6 o'clock news, but I can't find a link. DM will have to do (It's the same story)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...cientists.html Diesel cars producing 500mg/km of NOx ! (A cigarette, including filter, weighs up to approx 1000mg) |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:44.


