It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

EU Smoking Ban

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
This doesn't mean that smoking is the most addictive thing on earth, although it could be, as I'm sure big tobacco put a lot of research into making just the right concoction of additives as to make smoking extremely difficult to quit.


This is my theory so don't ask for proof. It's known that the tobacco companies put ammonia in the cigs. Why would they do this?

Ammonia is very addictive when smoked IMO. That's why crack is so much more addictive than coc aine. All crack is, is coc aine added with baking soda and ammonia.

In my own quest to quit smoking, I have noticed that the first couple days (even with the use of nicotene gums etc) are unbearable. I think it is because of the ammonia addiction.

I'm going to do some research into this and see if I can get corroboration on my theory.




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:20 PM
link   
Wow, didn't take long. Looks like I'm not the only one who thinks this.

lists.ibiblio.org...



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by SpaceCalamari
The arguement against it usually seems to be that "you're taking away their rights"


Because you would be.


but the problem is that smoking doesnt just affect the person smoking, it is a risk to the health of everyone around them which just isnt fair.


Then maybe they should ban smoking in public.


I don't smoke, except maybe a cigar very rarely, because it's disgusting to me too, but so what? I'm never around anyone that really makes it unpleasant for me by smoking. I can't imagine why it would be so hard just to avoid the smoke. At any rate I don't think the solution is outlawing tobacco.
[edit on 2-2-2007 by bsbray11]


To be honest it depends on where you live in regards to avoiding smokers. Where Griff and I live in D.C., before the New Years smoking ban you could NOT find a bar that wasn't coated in a haze of smoke. Maybe it's the stress of politicians and lobbyist, who knows, but if you want to go out with your friends you had to deal with smoke. Even fantastic restaurants you could always smell the lingering hint of smoke from the bar or smoking section, ruining the meal, at least for me smoking and eating are a poor combination.

Here's an idea, like liquor licenses, create smoking licenses but make them extremely expensive so not all bars are able to afford the; I have no idea how that would be enforceable though. (Although I don't know if Europe and elsewhere require liquor licenses, for some reason I think definitely not.) I would eventually like to transition back into smoking cigars, and I'd love to have a place (like Shelly's Backroom in D.C.) that caters almost exclusively to smokers. There is nothing finer than sitting in a big chair with your buds or your father while having a fine Davidoff and a nice glass of scotch or port.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baphomet79
Where Griff and I live in D.C., before the New Years smoking ban you could NOT find a bar that wasn't coated in a haze of smoke.


Actually there were a few bars that had been smoke free before the ban. Halo opened in 2003 I believe and from day one was smoke free. Granted, Halo is a gay bar, but I'm sure I heard of a couple straight bars that were smoke free before the ban.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   
I know this thread is about smoking but the principal is that ones habits affecting the health of others so I would like to ask our American friends a question.

As Americans still consume large amounts of the oil supply and carry lots of guns which are definately a health risk to others do I take it that the anti smokers who have posted to this thread would be willing to give up their guns and their gas gusling auto's as sign of support to those who smoke and would like them to quit.

Its obvious the answer would be yes as they feel so strongly about thier health being put at risk by those selfish smokers.

Please feel free to send in your comments to this question.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Wow that ranks up there as the best attempt at derailing a thread I've seen before.

Well I'll bite. Firearms are a constitutionally protected right, smoking is not. Regarding the Assault Weapons Ban, I'm all for that, but then again I'm not the survival paranoid type. I only use them to hunt, shotguns and rifles work just fine for me.

Oil is a tricky subject. It wasn't the primary source of energy until the mid 20th century, and even then no one could have predicted the environmental/ geo-political consequences of being so dependent on a single source of energy.

Smoking, was how most of those rich old signers of the Constitution made their money. Colonial Big Tobacco!



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Well considering cigarettes kill more people than alot of 'hardcore' drugs, its about time they got banned from public. I never really understood why marijuana was illegal and cigarettes aren't. Smoking marijuana isn't addicting (unless you mix it with other drugs), it does less damage than a cigarette and its alot more of an anti-social thing to do.
People smoke marijuana with friends, whereas people who smoke cigarettes often go trundling off at inconvenient times to light up, or buy another pack of fags.

And second hand smoke is the worse type of smoke - mainly because you are literally killing the people around you as you happily puff away.

In your own homes, do what you want, but in public... none of that.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Bap as I said the thread is about the habits of some people affecting the health of others and whilst I was being slightly sarcastic it is still a pertinent question. Many of us are engaged in activities that effect the health of others the question is like smokers would we stop our habits as we expect smokers to stop irrespective of rights.

And with regard to the numbers of people who die from smoking please remember this. If a patient is diagnosed with a smoking related illness all questions will relate to that persons smoking habits. No questions will be asked if that individual was exsposed to any other harmful substances throughout his or her life.

It will be automatically assumed that the smoking habit was the cause of the illness/death and that alone. This is a very dangerous situation because it does 2 things, 1 gives a false number of smoking related illness's and deaths and 2 which is far more important there could be other cause's for the illness that then go undiagnosed and undetected and would hence cause more death and illness.

We as humans are exposed to a mass of chemicals all our lives many of which can cause illness and death and it would be wrong for these not to be discovered or treated.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
We as humans are exposed to a mass of chemicals all our lives many of which can cause illness and death and it would be wrong for these not to be discovered or treated.


And I believe perfume to be a big one. I'd like to see how much effort the perfume industry has put into the banning of smoking because of health.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I knew it wouldn't be long after smoke bans. Here's some mention of perfume bans.

www.smokersclubinc.com...

www.hour.ca...

Slippery slope people. We are sledding down it at a fast past.



posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Actually this smoking ban has nothing to do with our health at all. This is just one more way of showing us who is da BOSS. Do you honestly think EU goverments are concerned about Our health, when they are mutilating our food, mutating seeds of vegetables, putting brain-eating aspartame in almost every so-called "sweet" product and possibly lying to us about the effects of mobile phones being harmfull to our brain.

But oh, how so concerned they are about smokers and especially non-smokers being in public places. Yea so concerned that in France there is already an army of so-called cigarette-police, which will enforce the newly accepted smoking ban there. Yeeepeeekaaayaaay! Not to mention that in San Francisco they want to ban smoking EVERYWHERE, which means that you would not be allowed to smoke at home! Wait a minute! At MY HOME I am not allowed to do what I want? Well talk about Fascism.


Smoking Is Healthier Than Fascism

This is not a debate about the dangers of passive smoking, we all know smoking is bad for us and those around us. On an individual level, freedom includes the right to do dumb things and whether others should be subject to our vices comes down to two questions, is fascism more unhealthy for a society than passive smoking and does the government really care about your health?

Dare I suggest that western governments raining down depleted uranium in all corners of the world, spraying chemtrails in our skies, playing Dr. Frankenstein with our food, drugging us into oblivion with psychotropic poison pills, shooting x-rays to expose our naked bodies, and injecting us with toxic vaccines really care about our physical well-being?

It's all about control, it's all about letting you know who the bosses are. If the government can regulate personal habits and behavior, what's next? If the state is so concerned about our good health as they would have you believe, why not use the latest scientific advancements to remove that nasty aggressive gene that causes so much unhappiness? Well, you're causing those around you distress and harming their health so why not? Are your political opinions a mental illness? Are they harming society? Perhaps we should ban certain types of "free" speech that is offensive to others.

Oh yeah, and this is where the story is actually beginning. For example in Omaha Nebraska, city police are encouraging residents to call 911 if they see a smoker in a non-smoking area. Well that certainly is an excellent use of the police force - screw the drug dealers and the sex-traffickers and the weapon smugglers and all the real criminals - just call the cops when you see a smoker breaking the law! Not to mention, that one firm the boss ordered all his employees to take urine tests to determine if they had smoked, even in their own homes. Well what is next? Putting pink starts on all smokers, so that they can be quickly spotted in the public? Deport them to the nearets detention camp? Just so that YOU know who is da BOSS, and who tells you where you can do what and why - you think you are going to do what you want at home? Not anymore! Welcome to the Fascist Police states of Europe and America, where your only freedom is to stay dumb and just nod and say:

"Yeeeesssshhhh Maaaassstttttaaaaaa!"




posted on Feb, 2 2007 @ 03:50 PM
link   
You know aI have a theory re the smoking issue and I think its business' putting pressure on goverments because of all the law suits re secondary smoke especially with whats happened in the US.

Could this be the real reason, is it just a case of companies not wanting to pay out massive compensation claims, could it be really as simple as that.

And Souljah is right just think of all the crap they put in our food alone and they actually allow that to happen. So if these companies can get our goverments to allow them to put crap in our food they can do the opposit re smoking.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Oh yeah, and this is where the story is actually beginning. For example in Omaha Nebraska, city police are encouraging residents to call 911 if they see a smoker in a non-smoking area. Well that certainly is an excellent use of the police force - screw the drug dealers and the sex-traffickers and the weapon smugglers and all the real criminals - just call the cops when you see a smoker breaking the law! Not to mention, that one firm the boss ordered all his employees to take urine tests to determine if they had smoked, even in their own homes. Well what is next? Putting pink starts on all smokers, so that they can be quickly spotted in the public? Deport them to the nearets detention camp? Just so that YOU know who is da BOSS, and who tells you where you can do what and why - you think you are going to do what you want at home? Not anymore! Welcome to the Fascist Police states of Europe and America, where your only freedom is to stay dumb and just nod and say:

"Yeeeesssshhhh Maaaassstttttaaaaaa!"


Now THIS is a conspiracy theorist. Shiva H. Vishnu, and I thought I was bad. I'm gonna be followin' this guys posts around and see if I can pick up some kernals of wisdom.
In fact, is that Joe Rogan in your sig?
Hell, are you Joe Rogan?



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by JackofBladesI never really understood why marijuana was illegal and cigarettes aren't. Smoking marijuana isn't addicting (unless you mix it with other drugs)


Wrong... it is addictive. It contains nicotene (which is addictive), just like cigarettes. Just with a little THC, that gives you that high.


, it does less damage than a cigarette and its alot more of an anti-social thing to do.


Wrong, again... It was tested. 3-4 average size buds, was equivalent to a packet of cigarettes. Don't believe me... okay, smoke a cigarette through a piece of cloth, and a bud/joint through a piece of cloth. You will see that marijuana leaves a lot more of its "residue" (which is nicotene, tar and in this case THC)... Guess where that filth ends up?


People smoke marijuana with friends, whereas people who smoke cigarettes often go trundling off at inconvenient times to light up, or buy another pack of fags.


What happens when all the marijuana's finished? Someone has to go buy it? "trundeling off at inconvenient times to light up", huh? so smoking marijuana is fine?



And second hand smoke is the worse type of smoke - mainly because you are literally killing the people around you as you happily puff away.


Everybody says that, but I don't belive it. How can something be twice as deadly, if it has already filtered through someone else's lungs? What's next? They'll tell you to hold your breath... *because when you exhale your breath produces cyanide that, blah, blah, blah.*



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
Wrong... it is addictive. It contains nicotene (which is addictive), just like cigarettes. Just with a little THC, that gives you that high.

You need to bring some links if you're gonna come in here with all this goofy propaganda. Kick Nancy Reagan out of your house and start thinking for yourself a little bit.
1st link - Cannabis Smoke

2nd link - Addictiveness
Hmm...
That's funny, I can't find anything linking cannabis and nicotine, maybe you can show me?


Wrong, again... It was tested. 3-4 average size buds, was equivalent to a packet of cigarettes. Don't believe me... okay, smoke a cigarette through a piece of cloth, and a bud/joint through a piece of cloth. You will see that marijuana leaves a lot more of its "residue" (which is nicotene, tar and in this case THC)... Guess where that filth ends up?

Look pumpkin, we've already established the absence of nicotine in cannabis with my first two links. With that out of the way, let's cover the smoke from your point of view.
BBC - Cannabis

Now my first link on this post points towards cannabis smoke being less carcinogenic, even though it may be "thicker." From a logical point of view, that's entirely possible considering the two smokes have different chemical makeups

The BBC link is saying that cannabis smoke is worse, but not explaining why.

So even if I totally throw out the "BBC drug propaganda" theory and take the BBC's article as fact, that still means that you would have to smoke three joints a day to equal a pack of cigarettes. A casual smoker probably smokes three joints a month, although it might seem like more due to the group sharing thing that often goes on.
Most normal people that haven't succumbed to the brainwashing and enjoy some cannabis every now and then probably smoke about three joints a year.


What happens when all the marijuana's finished? Someone has to go buy it? "trundeling off at inconvenient times to light up", huh? so smoking marijuana is fine?

I've never met or even heard of anybody that would go out at an inconvenient time to get cannabis. Crack, yes. Alcohol, yes. Heroin, yes. Cigarettes, yes.

Granted, you get points for trying to "feel" the truth at us, but the Colbertisms don't always work.

To be fair though, I don't see how "going out at an inconvenient time" is a valid arguement either way. I've gone out at inconvenient times to go to the gym, to buy a CD, to get milk for my coffee in the morning, so, you see where that leads.


Everybody says that, but I don't belive it. How can something be twice as deadly, if it has already filtered through someone else's lungs? What's next? They'll tell you to hold your breath... *because when you exhale your breath produces cyanide that, blah, blah, blah.*

I honestly think the second hand smoke thing is nonsense, we agree on something.

And to clarify, I am a cigarette smoker and can't remember the last time I smoked weed, but I still feel that cigarettes should be banned and cannabis should be legalized.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Hmm, I don't need links to prove anything to me... I was a hardcore smoker (weed included 3-4 big buds a night and smoked almost 2 packs a day for almost 10 years). Well, if there is no nicotene in cannabis... then THC is addictive. It cannot be measured, it depends on the person. I was addicted, and it took me awhile to get out of it. And I'm damn proud of it.


1st-hand experience beats scientific tests. I had a wicked cough when I smoked (weed of course), and I don't actually cough... Now, I rarely clear my throat. I'm a healthy person.

Legalizing weed is the worst thing people can do... the world doesn't need more hippies. Hippies always go on, on how they are going to do something to make the world a better place... then they do nothing. Prove that wrong.

I also was skeptical about legalizing weed... when I smoked marijuana. But you will disagree with me on this. Weed is a stepping stone to hardcore drugs. It is a rare occurence if someone smokes weed and didn't try anything else (the ones who stick to their word about never doing any other kind of drug).

Been there, done that, got what I deserved. A sh*tty reputation and less friends.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by The_unraveller]



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
My vote is for a complete ban or letting them only smoke in their own home. Then the stench of these people wont affect others.

Some buildings have banned smoking already and its hilarious watching these addict losers stand outside in literally gale force conditions to get their fix.


They are no different or better than crack addicts.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by The_unraveller
Hmm, I don't need links to prove anything to me... I was a hardcore smoker (weed included 3-4 big buds a night and smoked almost 2 packs a day for almost 10 years). Well, if there is no nicotene in cannabis... then THC is addictive. It cannot be measured, it depends on the person. I was addicted, and it took me awhile to get out of it. And I'm damn proud of it.


1st-hand experience beats scientific tests. I had a wicked cough when I smoked (weed of course), and I don't actually cough... Now, I rarely clear my throat. I'm a healthy person.

Legalizing weed is the worst thing people can do... the world doesn't need more hippies. Hippies always go on, on how they are going to do something to make the world a better place... then they do nothing. Prove that wrong.

I also was skeptical about legalizing weed... when I smoked marijuana. But you will disagree with me on this. Weed is a stepping stone to hardcore drugs. It is a rare occurence if someone smokes weed and didn't try anything else (the ones who stick to their word about never doing any other kind of drug).

Been there, done that, got what I deserved. A sh*tty reputation and less friends.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by The_unraveller]


I've only smoked pot 2 times so I can't speak from first hand experience. But first hand experience set aside, pot is NOT chemically addictive, I'm to lazy to look for a link but just trust me on that one. People become behaviorally addicted to it because of the feeling they get while high, that's it. Gateway drug, absolutely, many of my friends fell down that path while in high school.



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Baphomet79

I've only smoked pot 2 times so I can't speak from first hand experience. But first hand experience set aside, pot is NOT chemically addictive, I'm to lazy to look for a link but just trust me on that one. People become behaviorally addicted to it because of the feeling they get while high, that's it. Gateway drug, absolutely, many of my friends fell down that path while in high school.


^^^^^^^^^

Give that man a WATS. People become addicted to cannabis the same way they become addicted to drinking coffee every morning. If you smoke cannabis alone you will eventually find yourself needing to repeat the routine daily. However, if you smoke with friends you do it irregularly and are unable to form a behavioural pattern that must be repeated.
I have been a cannabis smoker for a while... however in the five years I have been smoking I have probably had the total equivalent of ten average size rollups... an average of two a year. I have gone for 11 months without having any and suffered no withdrawal or anything.

Cannabis isn't chemically addictive. I suggest you read sunsetspawn's post again as he provided a very concise breakdown of it. The media has demonised a very social, and medically beneficial drug.
Cannabis doesn't turn people into dopeheads. You get high, have a laugh with your mates, have a bite to eat and go home to bed. You don't go cruising through streets lokoing for fights as the media would have you believe (mainly because the idea of actually fighting seems hilarious at the time!).
Sure you get paranoid, but the only reason you do is because if you get caught you get punished. If it was legalised, there wouldn't be any paranoia involved.

It also helps alleviate the symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis (a terrible disease that my grandmother suffers. If I could get her to stop believing the propaganda and have some cannabinoids, her painful symptoms would be lessened), as well as a variety of other horrible dieseases.

Down with cigarettes... up with cannabis!



posted on Feb, 3 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   
Now that I've read the second link (the one about addictiveness)... I find it REALLY hard to believe... nicotene more addictive than heroin? Heroin healthier than alcohol? nicotene tolerance almost the same as herion tolerance? f*ck, then I should've smoked 5-6 packs a day. Marijuana's tolerance is BS, I can smoke a joint right now, get high, then the next night I'll have to smoke 2 to get the same effect. Don't try to disprove me on this one.

My disbelief in this is not because of propaganda... I had friends going down that path (and went real far down it, the hardcore drugs like heroin), and heroin isn't as "healthy" as they put it in table 2 it is not healthier than alcohol (and it doesn't make sense, they say marijuana isn't addictive but they mark marijuana's Dependency/addiction the same as the rest, that its addictive)... and table 1, coc aine's physical dependency the same as weed? so crack (crack-coc aine, or the crystalized form of coc aine, its another form of coc aine, but you can smoke it instead of snorting it and has a shorter effect) is less addictive than it seems?

These are old examinations... Nobody realized that marijuana became more potent over the years. the other drugs on the other hand gets "watered down", eg. mixing coc aine with baby-powder, to make more money. More dud E's, the list goes on.

Drugs are ALL bs... Here's my question to all of you who does ANY kind of drug (alcohol, weed, crack, smack, meth, whatever)...Why do you want to feel abnormal? is it because reality is boring? or scary? or what? I've learned to get along with reality, and feeling "normal"/sober.

I stick with ban all drugs. Cigarettes and booze... that is hard to ban, so raise the prices to make it more expensive.

[edit on 3-2-2007 by The_unraveller]







 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join