|
|
|
|
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/26/2008 7:11:05 AM | Many of us want to live a long health life. The best thing to do is never smoke.
The New York City mayor thinks that every smoker should quit and I agree with him. He's very supportive on smoking bans as he started the smoking ban in NYC and soon expected the rest of the state to follow and it did. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/26/2008 8:10:32 AM | >>>Many of us want to live a long health life. The best thing to do is never smoke.
No, the best thing to do is to exercise and eat right. Not smoking does not make you healthy, nor does staying away from smokers make you healthy- smoking and hanging around smokers certainly is decremental to a long life, but non-smoking doesn't extend your life by any means. Thats like saying that not chopping off your hand will extend your life- no, chopping off your hand will shorten your life, but not chopping off your hand doesn't extend it at all.
Not to mention this statement could clearly be a double standard- if theres nothing wrong with banning smoking because we "want to live a long health life", and thus justifies the Government telling you what you can and cannot do, then why cannot the Government equally treat you the same with drinking alchoal? Or Overeating? Or eating unbalanced diets? Or exercising too much?
If an adult knows the risks of their choices, why can they not make that choice? I doesn't matter that "Most" of us -the collective- wants; the collective claims no ownership nor has no right to your body or your health. I know that when I drive p to a Wendy's that this food will not help me live a long healthy life- but I choose so. When I drive past a gym, I know that not exercising on a regular basis will not help me live a long healthy life- but I know the risks, and a choose not to. I know that if I go out on an all night bender, spend $100 on shots and beers and wake up the next night not remembering half the night, that this isn't going to help me live a long, healthy life- but I choose it.
So, I ask again- why is smoking so special? Why do you believe there should be an exception to smoking?
>>>The New York City mayor thinks that every smoker should quit and I agree with him.
And you're entitled to your opinion- but you're not entitled to us my tax dollars to force me to do as you say. You're free to disagree, but your freedoms end the moment you try and force my hand.
But as for everything I posted just now- you might as well ignore it- you've been ignoring everything I've posted up until this point anyways- you clearly have no intention on answering why a grown adult cannot decide for themselves their own health, and just want to dictate people on how to life their lives, believing your opinion should be law while your neighbor should be arrested and punished for disagreeing with you. I feel sorry that there are so many people out there like yourself who claim to be fighting for my rights, but hate me having rights so very, very much. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/26/2008 9:53:12 AM | | The strange thing about "the far left" is that in its true sense, "liberal" essentially means free. Just another term our lovely politicians have manipulated into meaning two contradictory ideas simultaneously. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/26/2008 9:55:53 AM | Politicians have the right to ban cigarettes. They just don't want the same thing to happen for when alcohol was illegal.
My grandmother was born in the prohibition era and she never smoked and always banned smoking in the house.
There are people that think pot should be legal and there are people that think those bad drugs illegal is violating the bill of rights. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/26/2008 10:39:38 AM | >>>Politicians have the right to ban cigarettes. They just don't want the same thing to happen for when alcohol was illegal.
Please, how exactly do they have the right? Because we elected them? What if they outlawed junk food- would they have that right? Or what if they outlawed liquor? What if they start dictating that we spend 2 hours a day on a treadmill for our own safety, and that all night shifts are to be ended because thats unhealthy?
Health alone is not a reason to make something illegal. People should be responsible for their actions and should accept the consequences of such.
And how do you believe that a black market will not appear for cigarettes if you outlaw them? Taxes for cigarettes have skyrocketed in Ontario, and already a black market has appeared from our Aboriginal Reserves, tax free.
Pot is illegal, and theres a black market for it- same with crack, cocaine, heroin, meth- and yes, when liquor was illegal, there was also a black market for it- because all of these drugs are or were illegal, they are far more dangerous and have no oversight and health standards that anything else we sell has. All this money that was once being given to the government to pay for our services was immediately given to criminals to pay for further crimes
So what would be different when smokes are outlawed? You're the one preaching it, so I would hope you would have a plan to stop criminals from profiting from your social experiments
>>>My grandmother was born in the prohibition era and she never smoked and always banned smoking in the house.
And its wonderful she believes in freedom- her house, her property, her rules. I have nothing against people choosing not to smoke, I have everything against someone forcing a decision onto me because they believe there is some innate reason that I am incapable of making decisions for myself. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 5:04:52 AM | | I don't think that there should be a junk food ban. Eating junk food only harms the person doing it. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 5:25:57 AM | Okay we all know that smoking is bad. We also know that 2nd hand smoke is unhealthy too. While I myself am a non-smoker I do not support those who seek smoking bans. I look deeper to the reason why such seek ways to implement such acts and it's very clear to me that such acts are designed to force socialism upon the populace.
The whole purpose of a smoking ban is nothing short of "Social Engineering". Which is something that goes against ever standard of a free society. It has more to do with socialism than health and don't let yourself be fooled into believing otherwise... | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 7:37:02 AM | So in other words you feel there should be no restrictions on dry cleaners, industrial plants, or coal plants that bilge pollution into the atmosphere? Right?
After all, that's "social engineering". While it does cut down on the cases of lung cancer and heart disesase, it drives up the cost of your dry cleaning, home heating fuel, not to mention the cost of consumer goods. How dare they!
The reason for smoking restrictions are just as valid as restrictions for other environmental pollutants.
The only way a restaurant would be able to have a smoking section that didn't stream tobacco in the the spaces of the non-smoking clients would be to have a separate room with a separate air filtration system and a door that didn't open into the rest of the restaurant.
My guess is this would be too expensive a proposition for most owners to even consider.
"Social engineering" would only come into play if smoking were made illegal, or if you weren't allowed to smoke in your own properly filtered single family home.
Any time the rights of the smoker impinges on the rights of non-smokers -- the right of the non-smoker not to be injured, or just plain old grossed out -- the rights of the non-smokers prevail. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 8:01:38 AM |
So in other words you feel there should be no restrictions on dry cleaners, industrial plants, or coal plants that bilge pollution into the atmosphere? Right?
No, that is not what I was saying but I do thank you for being kind enough to ask the question most just assume what others are thinking. Naturally a working society needs to accomidate as best it can in the interest for all but that will never make everyone happy. Sure business on that scale would require some sort of regulations...
The reason for smoking restrictions are just as valid as restrictions for other environmental pollutants.
As a non-smoker I totally disagree... While I agree smoking is a terrible health issue both for the user and those who breath 2nd hand smoke. I don't agree that raising the price per pack like proposed in New York to $10 is Social engineering. The agenda appears to be since that can't out right ban it as leagally as they can over tax it. Which will greatly reduce the number of people who can purchase it. That's social engineering! They know banning it in private homes is a hard fought case but endagerment of a child's well being is much easy to pursue. So, they seek to remove children from the homes of parents that smoke arguing that the smokers are threathing the well being of the child.
It's social engineering I tell you clear and simple!
While I think smoking is a disgusting habit and bad for peoples health. I know of no greater danger to people's health than the social engineering agenda of the anti-smoker freeks. I might not smoke but I do take sides with the smokers as the anti-smokers are far more dangerous to a free society...
So, I guess I'm enemy No. 1 on the Anti-smoker list, GOOD! | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 8:50:26 AM | Doesn't particularly matter whether you are the "anti-smoker's" number one enemy or not. This isn't about you, it's about the rights of people not to be injured by second-hand smoke.
As someone who has been injured by second-hand smoke, I am interested in making sure that future generations of children don't have the same problems, and that adults who don't smoke also aren't injured.
I have no desire one way or another to stop people from smoking. Their lungs, their heart, their arteries, their right to ruin them if they so desire. That's a whole world different from inflicting that smoke on the general public.
Smoking bans have changed me from someone who couldn't go out to eat, couldn't travel on a plane, a bus, the subway -- who even had to turn down jobs in smoking offices, to someone who can now circulate free in society. It's a wonderful thing.
People shouldn't have to stay home because the air is so putrid they can't function normally in society, and that's the way it used to be. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 8:59:58 AM |
it's about the rights of people not to be injured by second-hand smoke.
What about the rights of smokers?
People shouldn't have to stay home because the air is so putrid they can't function normally in society, and that's the way it used to be.
So are you still in the house? I mean there are all those poluting cars, trucks and factories still pumping far more toxic fumes into the air than some second hand smoker...
I am interested in making sure that future generations of children don't have the same problems, and that adults who don't smoke also aren't injured.
At what cost? You going to stand behind the State coming in and taking children away from smokers? Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable and what is social engineering? | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 10:30:30 AM | >>>My guess is this would be too expensive a proposition for most owners to even consider.
So they shouldn't even be given the freedom to consider it at all, eh?
>>>"Social engineering" would only come into play if smoking were made illegal, or if you weren't allowed to smoke in your own properly filtered single family home.
Which is exactly what the person we have been talking to, Demo there, is preaching- outlawing smokes.
>>>This isn't about you, it's about the rights of people not to be injured by second-hand smoke.
I'm sorry- you have a right to go to a bar or restaurant? Why do you have the right to walk up to smokers and demand they have to put out their smokes while you are in their presence? What about my right not to be injured from car fumes- do I not have that right? What about my right not to be injured from the gases in the air caused by the power powering your PC- Is in this situation my suffering acceptable, but in yours, it isn't?
Why do you have a right to clean air, but I do not?
>>>I am interested in making sure that future generations of children don't have the same problems
I'm not sure if it was this topic or another anti-smoking thread, but another user pointed out the irony of such a statement- to defend children by making it legal for parents to smoke in their kids bedrooms, but illegal to smoke in places where children are not allowed to be.....right....
>>>and that adults who don't smoke also aren't injured.
Are adults incapable of making decisions for themselves? Are they incapable of handling the consequences of their choices? Should all choices that could potentially be a poor choice be the place where the Government steps in and takes our responsibility to our own well being away from us?
Admit it- you want to be freed from the burden of being responsible for your actions.
>>>Smoking bans have changed me from someone who couldn't go out to eat, couldn't travel on a plane, a bus, the subway -- who even had to turn down jobs in smoking offices, to someone who can now circulate free in society. It's a wonderful thing.
Really? Are you sure it was the smoking ban? Are you sure it simply wasn't a natural change in peoples opinions?
>>>People shouldn't have to stay home because the air is so putrid they can't function normally in society, and that's the way it used to be.
So you agree cars should be outlawed then, or at least heavily regulated? There was just a smog warning in the next town over warning seniors and young children to stay indoors because the air contains too many toxins- this isn't because of second hand smoke- but you claim people shouldn't have to stay at home either- so are you claiming that no one should ever have to stay at home because of the air conditions elsewhere? Or are you claiming that SOME people can suffer, SOME people can stay indoors- so long as you can benefit from pollution, its okay if others cannot? Why the double standard?
Why should a private business have to be forced to accommodate to you? If they do not wish to have your business, isn't it their loss? Isn't it entitlement and elitist to believe that business's should do as you say or the government will close them down? And if smoking bans are as popular as you claim, what do you have to worry about? If smokers are the minority, then its only the minority that will allow smoking in their establishments. Does that mean you may not be able to go everywhere you like and have good time? Yes- but then again, I like burgers- should I be entitled to go to a vegan restaurant and demand they accommodate my needs? | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 1:00:48 PM | Lots of apples and oranges in this thread . Booze is bad too, cars pollute too, rights are taken away, regulations imposed, it’s about freedom, ‘so you agree cars should be outlawed?’
There are nice slippery slopes too, I should have brought my skis. ‘You’ll see, they’ll be outlawing X if we don’t stop this smoking ban.’ ‘The freedom to do X is next, after they impose this on us.’
Keep up the argument, it fun to watch people grasp at straws. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 1:17:54 PM | .
to the OP; start a law suit against the city and lose it. DO not concede anything period. Then when you lose take it to the appelate court and kick their "democratic" asses and remind then this is a republic.
I do not smoke. I think no one should smoke.
I also think you have the RIGHT to smoke.
I will give you YOUR RIGHTS if you give me mine!
I will fight for your rights as well as mine.
. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:03:58 PM |
So they shouldn't even be given the freedom to consider it at all, eh?
There's nothing to stop them from considering it. Even California has private smoking establishments. There are cigar bars all over the state.
I'm sorry- you have a right to go to a bar or restaurant? Why do you have the right to walk up to smokers and demand they have to put out their smokes while you are in their presence?
I have just as much of a right to go to a bar or restaurant without smoke as you have a right to smoke. Your rights end where my nose begins.
Only a small portion of the people in this country smoke, and the indoor pollution is a hazard to nonsmokers, including those who work in the restaurant. Even in jurisdictions where smoking in private businesses is not under regulation, the majority of businesses don't allow smoking. Further, in suburban DC a very large and growing population of bars don't allow smoking -- with NO government interference.
So REGARDLESS of the law, restaurants and bars will continue to restrict smoking and more and more of them will do so.
Restaurants ONLY care about having patrons. If they can get the same number of patrons, or MORE patrons (the case in many places in the DC area) by banning smoking they're going to do it. It's cheaper for them to ban smoking. They don't have to deal with smoke damage, filters for air purifiers, dirty ashtrays, and the bartenders and waiters like it a whole lot better too.
Really? Are you sure it was the smoking ban? Are you sure it simply wasn't a natural change in peoples opinions?
It was the availability of more non-smoking establishments. So it was a combination of both. I used to spend a lot more time on the West Coast until NY banned smoking. Now I'm about half and half between coasts because I can enjoy myself in all three locations now (I also have a condo in the DC metro area).
I mean there are all those poluting cars, trucks and factories still pumping far more toxic fumes into the air than some second hand smoker..
Most people do not live on a highway, nor near an industrial plant. So the majority of people live in cleaner air than the average smoke-filled room (unless you ARE a smoker).
Further, there are a lot of regulations on both cars and factories. The air quality in California has improved significantly over the last 10 years.
So you agree cars should be outlawed then, or at least heavily regulated?
That's a joke, right? Cars are ALREADY heavily regulated, and more regulation is coming.
Why should a private business have to be forced to accommodate to you? If they do not wish to have your business, isn't it their loss?
They aren't forced to accommodate me, just to provide a non-smoking environment. I might not like a whole lot of things about a restaurant, and may choose not to go there again.
I may not like the food. I may not like a loud television and people watching sports. I may not like the noise level.
But regardless, people should be able to BREATHE there. That's not an accommodation, that's just basic safety. You wouldn't have benzene, methane or another environmental pollutant being sprayed in a restaurant, would you?
Yes- but then again, I like burgers- should I be entitled to go to a vegan restaurant and demand they accommodate my needs?
No, but you should be entitled to basic sanitary conditions, and those are regulated. You should be entitled to know the food they do serve is fresh, and that is regulated. Regulating smoking is just one other way of making sure that your experience in the restaurant is a healthy one.
You going to stand behind the State coming in and taking children away from smokers?
Do you stand behind the state when it removes children from parents who beat them? Who neglect them? Who starve them?
Now if you are a parent who smokes outside, and doesn't smoke in your car then that's one thing. But if it is proven that you are exposing your child to ETS, then sure. The effects of that are serious, and can cause permanent injury, and exposing children to ETS is more dangerous than exposing adults because their cells are growing. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:38:07 PM |
a parent who smokes ~ are exposing your child to ETS, then sure.
What's next on the agenda? Removing children because of their parent's religious beliefs? I mean come on we all know how dangerous it is for parents to tell children about a "God"
See the point isn't about smoking or non-smoking at all? It's about the agenda of the social engineering types hell bent on having their way. They're neither concerned about freedom or liberty it's their grand visions of a false utopia that comes first... If that means entering into people's homes and seperating children from their families then they feel that's perfectly acceptable. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:44:32 PM | Have any of you heard of an organization from California called the Americans for Nonsmokers Rights? I won't give out their web site since it might go against site rules. There are many talks about smoking bans on that site. I have subscribed to the site.
It's run by Cynthia Hallet. Also there's Bill Godshall who created a site about urging smoking bans to be passed and signed. There's an alert on that site for PA to be urged for a statewide smoking ban and alerts for state and local law makers go extend the smoking ban to Atlantic City casinos. One of the workers there lost part of his lung due to the resultes of lung cancer.
Smoking bans save lots of lives. People should just go outside to smoke if they chose to.
PA is called ashtray of the Northeast.
There are rules by the agencies against smoking in foster homes. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 2:51:26 PM | >>>I have just as much of a right to go to a bar or restaurant without smoke as you have a right to smoke.
I never said you have a right to smoke. I said you have a right to run your business as you see fit, and its up to the consumer if they want anything to do with you. I don't have the right to smoke anywhere I want- but I do have the freedom to smoke if the property owner permits me to do so- their property, their rules- and If I do not like it, I don't have to take my business there. The opposite is equally the same- If you do not like cigarette smoke at a restaurant or a bar, you do not have to take your business there.
>>>Further, in suburban DC a very large and growing population of bars don't allow smoking -- with NO government interference.
And thats excellent- I have absolutely not problem with that whatsoever. Its the property owners right to choose I'm fighting for, not the right to smoke wherever you want.
>>>Restaurants ONLY care about having patrons.If they can get the same number of patrons, or MORE patrons (the case in many places in the DC area) by banning smoking they're going to do it.
So why not allow each one to address their patrons as they see fit? Why is there a need to ban cigarettes from bars and restaurants at all? If a bar owner feels they will save money, it should be their choice to make- its their investment, not yours.
>>>Most people do not live on a highway, nor near an industrial plant. So the majority of people live in cleaner air than the average smoke-filled room (unless you ARE a smoker).
And, if your above statements that smokers are minority are true, the majority of people do not spend time in smoke-filled rooms. So why the distinction at all?
>>>
That's a joke, right? Cars are ALREADY heavily regulated, and more regulation is coming.
And what about your own personal choice? After all, you are on a forum debating about how smoking should or should not be banned in bars and restaurants, and your opinion is quite clear- you feel its an unnecessary health risk, and unfair to impose that health risk onto others- so have you abandoned cars because they impose poor health on your neighbours? Do you abandon electricity because they pollute your fellow mans air supply? And if you believe businessmen and women should risk their investments based on the ideal that everyone deserves clean air, then why are you polluting mine? Isn't that a double standard?
>>>
They aren't forced to accommodate me, just to provide a non-smoking environment.
That....that's a joke, right?
You are a non-smoker demanding a business meet your beliefs, or be forced to be closed by the government- and you claim that isn't forcing them to accommodate you? Then what do you call it? What kind of bizarre doublespeak are you trying to pull?
>>>.But regardless, people should be able to BREATHE there.
Once again, coming back to my example of with cars- I should be able to breathe in my own home- so why does your right to drive override my right to clean air?
>>>That's not an accommodation, that's just basic safety. You wouldn't have benzene, methane or another environmental pollutant being sprayed in a restaurant, would you?
Oh gimme a break- life is about moderation- and if you go to a restaurant that you feel is harming your health by allowing smokers in it enough to cause you actual harm, then I feel you should be responsible for the action of not standing up, leaving, and never coming back.
Who is responsible for you going back to that restaurant? Who is responsible if you keep coming back to a place that you have deemed unsafe?
>>>Do you stand behind the state when it removes children from parents who beat them? Who neglect them? Who starve them?
Is this what we are discussing? Are we discussing about how smoking should be banned from homes, or are we discussing smoking being banned from places that children shouldn't be in the first place?
I love how you hide behind children over a law that does nothing to protect children in the first place.
>>>The effects of that are serious, and can cause permanent injury, and exposing children to ETS is more dangerous than exposing adults because their cells are growing.
And yet you support bans in areas that only have adults and speak nothing of banning smoking in a kids bedroom?
Oh, but then again, I suppose then we'd learn your agenda. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 4:39:51 PM | WOW!
The city you're moving to just RECENTLY banned smoking in restaurants???
It's been years since smoking has been banned at restaurants in the province I live in.
At first it was hard to get used to - being a smoker myself - but over time I appreciate it. It encouraged me to stop smoking in my own house.
There was nothing more disgusting than watching a young family come into a restaurant with a baby car seat with a newborn in it, see them put the car seat on the booth bench, then watch the mother light up a cigarette and see ashes falling all over the baby's blanket - and see it's poor little face all bunched up while it had sneezing and coughing fits. Never mind the toddlers that wave their little hands through the smoke. I work in a school where I help children with cognitive disabilities - there is one or two that comes into the school reeking of cigarettes. (Have I mentioned that I smoke) Smoking stinks !!! It permeates the room, the fabric of the furnishings, burns holes in carpet, furniture, your clothing, etc...
Even the Clubs/Bars/Pubs don't have smoking in them - I was recently in a province where they still allow smoking in a pub - went there with some friends - by the end of the night my lungs hurt from the second hand smoke - to the point where I didn't light one up myself.
It is a terrible habit - one that everyone should stop (myself included) - I think that restaurants not allowing cigarettes is a GREAT thing - not only for the health of our children - but for ourselves too. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/27/2008 7:21:33 PM | i live on the ohio pennsylvania border in between cleveland and pittsburgh. ohio has a smoking ban in all bars. pennsylvania does not.
all the bars in ohio on the border have lost revenue to the point of closing and some have. people just go to the penn bar.
it's not a good law to ban smoking.... i am a NON smoker. the politicians push around the smokers with taxes and laws. it's wrong. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/28/2008 2:54:34 PM | I know that PA is trying to get a smoking ban. Bill Godshall is the director of smoke free Pennsylvania. I was asking how many of you have heard of him or the Americans for Nonsmoker's Rights?
I have contacted them both.
Bill wants a statewide smoking ban in PA and I think law makers are trying to everywhere pass smoking bans in any place they can get to.
People from Pennsylvania have said to be eating out and maybe even bowling in New Jersey to get away from the smoking in places. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/28/2008 4:44:16 PM | demolition:
on the western end of pennsylvania there has been no increase in revenue in ohio restaurants. the stateline bar (ohio side) has a sign outside that says "where are all the non smokers????" so the pa people are not rushing over to ohio to eat or drink. it has been horrible for taverns here. i curse and damn the pols who started this bullshit law. | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/29/2008 9:12:54 AM | There's a huge difference in the demographic between people who live in the Western part of PA and the Eastern. Eastern Pennsylvanian's are basically part of the East Coast and Western Pennsylvanians part of the Midwest. It doesn't surprise me at all that smoking bans have met with resistance in Ohio. The prevalence of smoking in that state is one of the highest in the country: 25.8% in 2004 (latest year for which data is compiled).
Most trends start on the East and West Coast and then work their way to the middle of the country. That appears to be more or less true for smoking, except in the tobacco growing states.
Bans have a very positive effect on getting people to quit smoking. California, which has had a ban in place for over 10 years has a smoking prevalence of 14.7% the second lowest in the country. Utah is first because of its large Mormon population.
The national average was 20.8% in 2004, which was down 1.2% from the year before. If that rate has continued, that means that the national average in 2008 is 16%.
See:
http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.com/shr2005/components/smoking.html | |
|
tmpzor
|
Joined: 1/22/2008
Msg: 149 | |
| smoking bans
Posted: 4/29/2008 9:21:54 AM | Q: Can anyone remember the last time smoking bans were in vogue??
A: Nazi Germany! 
link: http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/6886/smokingfj2.jpg | |
|
| smoking bans
Posted: 5/1/2008 5:21:52 AM | Now that the somking ban in public places and building here in the UK has been in place now for sometime it may be appropriate for you to be given an update of how this removal of our own personal rights and freedoms is going.
Well it's virtually self policing. No authority figure is patrolling the bars and clubs looking for law breakers. Most people I meet outside having a fag seem to have some small grievences usually related to how cold or windy it is, but most accept it as a good thing. Our bars and clubs no longer stink, your clothes smell ok when you get home and the 'passive smoking' brigade are now silent. Nipping outside for a fag have given us 'smirting'. A good way to start chatting up other people.
By far and way though, the very best thing is that our children don't see adults smoking much any more. Smoking is learned behaviour and the next two or three generations will see an end to smoking and therefore to one of the most damaging and dangerous additions known to mankind. I am lead to understand that some 250,000 people have given up since the ban. Hurray.
Yes I do smoke and have done for 33 years. Full blown addict. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
