It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


I dont think smoking is as bad as they say

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 09:44 PM
Excuse me most of the kids i see smoke and are covered in tattoos, don't think they have got the message. This banning the smoker will only last till people with a business to run are forced to allow them back before they go bankrupt I'm afraid.

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Excuse me most of the kids i see smoke and are covered in tattoos, don't think they have got the message. This banning the smoker will only last till people with a business to run are forced to allow them back before they go bankrupt I'm afraid.

what makes you think they will go bankrupt? there are more somkers than non and not all feel the need to boycott. they will just huddle outside like mentioned earlier.
even the smokers that boycott will tire of it. after a while a good steak will win over the fact that they can't smoke.

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 07:23 PM
The death knoll has been put on any business that relies on a mixed customer base because of the anti smoking lobby. I wont entertain any premises that ban smoking and hope my fellow smokers follow suit. If you think I'm going to stand in the cold and rain outside a place , your wrong. Smokers don't go to places that ban you, let them go bankrupt. They will be filled by obnoxious Liberals anyway.

posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 08:34 PM
Here's some great stats from the BBC.

21% of Canadians over the age of 15 reported smoking in 2002,

Some 30% of the Netherlands' 16 million population are smokers - a higher rate than all other European Union countries except Spain, Greece and Germany.

About 30% of adults under the age of 65 smoke in the UK, according to recent research conducted by Imperial College in London.
(which means LESS people in England smoke which makes smokers a minority)

However if you don't believe that smoking can lead to cancer and other ailments, then why would you believe those statistics?

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 03:28 AM
Native Americans smoked tobacco for hundreds if not thousands of years. If it had proved detrimental to their health, I doubt this would have been the case.

Europeans have been smoking ever since they "discovered" the new world. Did it take four hundred years to learn it makes people sick? Or maybe smoking didn't become a health hazard until after cigarettes started being massed produced.

I believe it is the fault of modern pesticides, carbon filters and other additives in cigarettes that has rendered smoking dangerous. This probably occurred in the early nineteen hundreds, around the time fluoride and other poisons were pawned off on the American people.

But sure, lets put all the blame on tobacco, that's just what the cigarette industry's hoping for.

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 11:51 AM
As I feel I have made my position on this usbject perfectly clear I will keep this fairly short.

I live in Manhatten (New York City) and we've had this ban for a few years now. The ban hardly effects me since i rarely go to bars or resturants, the price of food and drinks (8 bucks for a Jack and coke) has done a good job of keeping me away. It seems it hasn't stopped many other smokers either, like others have said they now congregate somewhere outside the establishment. On weekdays this is hardly a problem, usually just a few people having a few drinks to loosen up after work also stand outside to have a smoke. However, on fridays and saturdays there is a constant group of loud, rowdy drunk people standing outside virutally every bar. In fact, for me to go to the bodega and get a pack of cigarettes I have to wade through the drunkards, who last friday were having a hand stand competition in front of the bar. This particular bar, being old and very irish, has been known for it's rowdiness long before the ban took effect but had done a good job of keeping inebriated customers inside and away from the children and families in the neighborhood. Thanks to the ban you can now hear the sounds of intoxication spiling into the street from the hours of 7-2am when last call is announced. Anyone who has dealt with a pissed off drunkard can attest to the fact that not much motivation is needed to make them violent. I have personally gotten into and out of a few fights with some of these people. This is not to say that every angry alchi is a smoker, I'd wager a bet that many of them are there because of "how nice it is now that it's not full of smoke". In addition to our many drinking establishments New York is also known for it's sidewalk cafes. And this is where the ban begins to be assinine. The ban extends to the outdoor areas of these cafes, which are hardly more than a few tables on the sidewalk in front of the resturant. I can stand literally 6 insches away from one of the tables ane be allowed to smoke, but once I cross the little barrier I have to snuff it out, even though we're still outside.

As for the statement about no one losing business thanks to this ban I believe you are in error. I personally know someone who owns about 5 bars throughout the city, most of these are sports bars mainly geared towards the college crowd and he said he has lost business. Business is not measured by how many customers come into your establishment but how much money they spend while there. Instead of sitting at the bar and continually ordering drink after drink many customers have to interupt their drinking to go outside for a smoke. Being drunk it generally takes them a while to smoke and they generally smoke a few in a row. These customers still stay at the bar until last call except they spend less money on drinks. In addition many bars sold packs of cigarettes for as much as twice the asking price. This ban on smoking is simply a case of the opinion of a few powerful people succeeding over the desires and common sense of the majority.

I'd like to see where the non-smokers are getting their evidence of the rapid decline in smoking as I see just as many people smoking today as I did years before.

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
Ive been smoking for 40 years and im fine , no coughs or anything, perhaps the anti smoking brigade are wrong.

Consider yourself fortunate. The studies on the effects of smoking are pretty well documented. As with many ailments not everyone suffers the same effects. Perhaps you are not predisposed to cancer and thus you may smoke the rest of your life and never have any problems. But the statistics on those that do suffer are clear and pretty concrete in my humble opinion.

The choice to smoke or not is certainly up to you the individual. I think the biggest challenge is still the issue of second hand smoke. I do realize there are still those that are not yet convinced that second hand smoke causes anything. But there is enough evidence to at least imply that it does thus at this point if I choose not to smoke, my right will oversee yours to smoke. That may seem harsh, however, it is my health, not yours.

posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:04 PM
What happened to the rights of people who have a business that relies on smokers spending money in their premises. Why are they not allowed to say who comes in . They can say no smokers allowed or smoking allowed in a democratic society but the Government has overruled them. All i can see is a 30% drop in business now. Who's next to be barred from having a night out?

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 11:46 AM
I still haven't seen anyone address the issue of why our
grandparents puffed away happily into their 70's and 80's...

I suspect the cigarette companies probably started adding chemicals in the 60's to
make them burn faster...and the increased use of pesticides in that era, too

I suppose you could determine when this happened by analysing statistics

I enjoy smoking, and have decided not to give up...I think it's a matter of
sensible usage...and compensating by following a healthy regime

Smoke full-strength chemical-free roll-your-owns with a filter, you'll find
you smoke less as it's a more satisfying smoke than the chemical ones.

Only drink low-sodium spring water (at least 2 litres per day)

Have regular fresh vegetable juices to help flush out toxins

Have healthy supplements such as Spirulina, and Bee pollen
granules and Missing Link in your fruit smoothies

Take a sensible complement of fingerprinted vitamins

Don't consume Nutrasweet or flouride

Exercise....have a good, brisk walk at least once a day

Don't eat anything with a central nervous system, eyeballs, or a mother

If you do all this, and can still afford (non-chemical) cigarettes, then I can't see a problem
(just don't smoke near other mammals)

Heck, you could even have the occasional drinky-poo and not feel guilty


[edit on 1-8-2005 by Ganesh2005]

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Ganesh2005]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 07:38 PM
I agree Ganesh i only smoke roll up tobacco thats not full of the chemicals that are put in manufactured cigs. Also I'm a great believer in vitamin c as a prevention against ill health , i take 1 mg a day. Perhaps if the anti smoking lobby would stop making outrageous claims against tobacco as the main evil in life, then we could seek common ground ,as the smoker is despised and treated as a second rate citizen at present. This is not good for anyones business as it segregates the workforce and many smokers wont be employed because of false claim that second hand smoke is a killer.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:02 PM
I haven't read most of the posts but I thought I would give my own experience.
I have smoked for 13 years & have played football (Soccer) for the same amount of years, I out run most of the people on the pitch more down to my lack of skill but I don't stop running for 90 mins.
I never have breathing problems, my heart rate is very low & my physician tells me that it's remarkably low even when under stress.
So I think it is more down to your attitude towards fitness rather than the smoke, as a previous poster said you have more damage from the amount of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere than from smoking.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:10 PM
I think like cancer, it has to do with genetics of people and what they are prone to get or not get. My mom is 73, smoked since she was 18 and there is no problems with her lungs.
she did get high blood pressure as she got older and did have a brain hemorage though. she was always an angry person also, so that probably helped bring the high blood pressure on also.
either way, i am an EMT and i know the effect smoking does have on the aveloies/cappilaries of the lungs. It is why a lot of people get emphesema (man my spelling sucks)...

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:18 PM
Don't worry about the spelling GREGNOW how do you know that smoking caused the problem? Do you accept that other causes might have contributed to the problem? Why do Doctors blame all illness on smoking? Are they afraid to address that other things might cause illness and fall off the no smoking bandwagon?

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:28 PM
Bulldog, i never said my mom's smoking caused her problems, like i said she was always angry which can bring on high blood pressure and cause a hemorage. like i said her lungs are fine.
The damage that smoking does to the aviolies/capalaries in the lungs though has been proven and a lot of people with emphasema (which has nothing to do with lung cancer) are shown to be smokers so there does seem to be a connection in that area. but agin i think genetics come into play as to what certain people are prone to and not prone to because my mom does not have emphasema either.
i know that i was never a smoker until i moved to NYC when i was 32. I noticed that the smoking seemed to make me more sluggish and more tired when i used to have a lot of energy. there are times when i have quit for a month or so and i get more energy and feel a lot better.
here is a link on emphasema and smoking (again it has nothing to do with lung cancer).

[edit on 1-8-2005 by GREGNOW]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:41 PM
If there is any Doctors on here , explain why smoking does not affect people as much as you say it does, ive been on 30 a day for nearly 40 years , im still here.

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 08:56 PM
Bulldog, like i said i think it has a lot to do with genetics also to what people are prone to and not prone to. My mom smoked since she was 18 and is now 73 but has no lung cancer and no emphasema. It might have to do with that her genetics some how make her immune to the damage that smoking does to those with different genetics.
that does not mean smoking is not bad. It may be bad for some people and not for others. but without knowing if you have genetics that may make it bad for you to smoke, you are playing russian roulette.
It's like drinking, why do some people become Alcoholics and others don't? They say in alot of people alcoholism is linked to certain genes.
I used to drink a lot when i was younger and now i never drink at all, i just got tired of it. but others come to the point where they need to drink even if there are no problems in their lives, etc.
also how old are you and how long have you been smoking? how do you know you have not done damage to your lungs that you may not feel now but may show up as you get older and/or keep smoking?

[edit on 1-8-2005 by GREGNOW]

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 10:57 PM
edit..please delete this

[edit on 1-8-2005 by Boondock78]

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Bulldog 52
The death knoll has been put on any business that relies on a mixed customer base because of the anti smoking lobby. I wont entertain any premises that ban smoking and hope my fellow smokers follow suit. If you think I'm going to stand in the cold and rain outside a place , your wrong. Smokers don't go to places that ban you, let them go bankrupt. They will be filled by obnoxious Liberals anyway.

Hey! I'm a liberal!

I smoke socially myself, but only because I can't walk ANYWHERE without a damn boy running up to me, and practically shoving a cigarette down my throat, then I'm like okay, I'll finish quick to get this over with, then when I'm done about to walk away, they offer another! LOL TONS of boys do this for some odd reason, maybe they want to convert more smokers, but really, they've turned me into like a chain smoker.
I've never bought a pack in my life, yet am beginning to have about a pack a week approximately, not much at all, but still, it's increasing more n more, I may as well not leave the house. T_T Silly boys.

posted on Aug, 3 2005 @ 11:52 AM
For one thing, filters are engineered to increase the amount of nicotene absorbed by the body. (along with the other deadly chemicals, arsenic, carbon monoxide, in fact, a whole slew of stuff not usually seen outside of death.)The filters are tiny fibres that abrade the throat and the chemicals enter the bloodstream more quickly/efficiently.

The reason smokers keep smoking, even in the light of ailing health, is because of addiction. The reason some people don't display any symptomology is also a physical trait in that they have lungs with a larger capacity for breathing. (doesn't mean that time won't take its toll, and certainly doesn't mean that they aren't addicted)

Want to know where your health stands as a result of smoking, do the bouyancy test. (out of water first) inhale as deep as you can and hold it. In water this inflating your lungs technique is what keeps us floating. Many people can't float and they don't even smoke. If you are a smoker though, you'll find that you are unable to perform the circular breathing that is required to keep you afloat. You'll bob instead of remain motionless as you continually expel air in order to get enough oxygen back into your blood.
I smoke, quit for a couple of years at one point, re-started with the stress of buying a home/moving/ adjusting. ...wishing I never did but bottom line, I still smoke and I know the ill effects. Its an addiction on a conspiracy scale in light of the cravings I get.

Why was tobacco even made available when it is so deadly? A number of reasons come to mind, money, money, and more money. If I stuck a stick of dynamite in my mouth and read a surgeon generals warning "lighting may be hazardous to ones health" would I still light it? Hell no, dynamite is also regulated and isn't readily available on every street corner/shop in the world. Tobacco is and even knowing its harmful, it still is available.

The rights of smokers are dwindling, people are being arrested for smoking in thier own cars. And yet it is the fault of the smoker and not the tobacco industry? Government has no sympathy for the individual, they only care about corporate concerns and board room policy.
You don't think smoking i s as bad as they say, you're right. Its much worse. Not selling to minors is a drop in the bucket when it comes to eradicationg nicotene addiction. The youth will eventually smoke when they are able and the reason they will even want to try is because the conspiracy exists that it is there to use.

... and wouldn't you know it that I am out of smokes? I am about to make my daily trip to the corner store for yet another pack... and I only buy a pack at a time in the hopes that it's the last.

If you hadn't tried smoking, do yourself a favor and don't even bother with it. It is the nastiest foulest tasting,life threatening habit one could adhere to. Any smoker will tell you not to even start.

[edit on 3-8-2005 by keybored]

[edit on 3-8-2005 by keybored]

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 12:25 PM
It is a terrible, harmful habit to be sure, not that I care enough to stop socially smoking, since I CAN'T say no to boys when there so pressuring, yes that means drugs too...X_X

Lets not get into that though.

The point I was going to say....

May as well go out, n try to find some random boys who will all hold out cigarettes as if it was raining them for you, and provide you with more n more as you smoke them! That's what happens whenever I go out around here at least...of course sometimes I'm in the mood for a it's *Possible* I might slab a bit of lipstick on, and wear my nice platform shoes, just to have that extra 'chance' I'll get a few free smokes. =P

I think my antioxidants defend me from the effects, but I shouldn't put the stress on my body anyways...I'm definately going to make an effort to refuse them more, if I can.....maybe going out with friends, or something, saying we don't smoke...

God...I swear I can smell the taste of one in my mouth right that......craving TASTE, on my tongue....god I must already be addicted...

I have good self control though....I will never let myself purchase any wasting my money, nor would I exceed more than 3 a day EVER, and I should set a weekly max even lower than added up day limits too, since I certainly don't smoke everyday....unless it's unusual circumstances.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in