25th March 2005, 01:31 AM
Smoke from cigarettes probably contributes less than 1% of 'total pollution', taking into account those from various industries as well as traffic.
Originally Posted by xray
Coffeeshops have 'outdoor' and 'indoor' areas. Why can't smokers be allowed to smoke at the 'outdoor' areas? We're not challenging the existing ban of smoking indoors and in air-conditioned areas, and now we're to be banned from outdoor premises as well?
25th March 2005, 01:35 AM
Originally Posted by RossChang
25th March 2005, 01:58 AM
I think extremists should be banned from the face of this earth!
Attempting to use their small brains without any sensitivity to others. Not even attempting to understand the other side of the story. Using generalisation and groundless claims to support their senseless arguments.
Problem is that they will never even accept a compromise. Self-righteous bigots!
25th March 2005, 02:44 AM
To each his own.... i really cannot stand those who start fanning their face when walking pass smokers... hey.. you can always walk the other way... ... the worst kind of people are the self righteous... holier than thou... ass#%@les
25th March 2005, 03:14 AM
I agree with Octane. Although I am not a smoker, but I respect others decision to smoke....
Then again, maybe those who fan their faces are those with sensitive noses. Nothing can be done, just ignore them lor.
25th March 2005, 12:02 PM
Ban public smoking?... y not ban industrial polution, oh yea, polutant industries contribute to the economic while us smoker doesn't right...
Thou I also must advocate, smokers shouldn't blow their smoke to other ppl, or throw their cig butt anywhere... besides, I think everything is just fine? no?...
*(Heck)* I'm going out for a puff...
25th March 2005, 12:57 PM
Every smoker knows smoking is bad.
Every smoker knows that each puff adds risks to their health, shortens their lifespan, adds risks to those around him/her.
Every smoker wouldn't want their children to smoke.
Every smoker doesn't want their expectant wife/mother/self to smoke.
I'm for the Ban of sale of cigrattes in Sg, the Ban of smoking in pubs.
Chewing Gum was easily banned. Nicotine is not a big addiction. Sale of cigrattes can be banned. Meanwhile, the government is happily collecting taxes. Thanks, smokers.
When you know of something suffering of a smoking-related disease, you will think think twice of your lifestyle.
The next puff could be your last.
and one petty note: smokers litter more than non-smokers.
25th March 2005, 01:43 PM
Not a big addiction? Nicotine addiction is the biggest addiction globally! We all know the health risks involved with the habit. Which is why smokers do try and quit, but is because of nicotine as well as physical addiction which prevents people from successfully doing it. If it wasen't an addiction, why do you think that anually globally, only 2.5% of smokers who try to quit manage to? Do you know it is widely regarded that nicotine is as highly addictive as heroin and cocaine?
Originally Posted by di0nysus
What proof do you have that smokers litter more than non-smokers? I can also add petty notes to my replies which say: non smokers litter more than smokers.
25th March 2005, 02:00 PM
Originally Posted by di0nysus
obviously u are not staying in singapore to make the above comments ...... how extreme one can be to be such a no brainer remark .... on your next trip out , open your eyes and see who is the one littering ........
Given the percentage of people smoking is smaller than those not smoking , logically .... non-smokers will litter more than smokers , how's that ? truth in your face ....
Last edited by poohbear; 25th March 2005 at 02:04 PM.
25th March 2005, 02:31 PM
Originally Posted by mr_jason
My apologies. I did not know that nicotine is as addictive as heroin and cocaine. Then why does government ban heroin and cocaine? Do enlighten readers.
As regards to proof that smokers(in proportion) litter more than non-smokers. I've no video tapes nor other concrete proof. Its just observation. In smoking areas that I've observed, such as army yellow boxes, and areas in some companies that allow smoking, I tend to see smokers dumping cig packs and butts on the floor when the litter bin is a few feet away. Of course, non-smokers litter too, when the littler bin is nearby.
I'm sorry if I've offended you. These are just my humble personal opinions and are subjective.
25th March 2005, 02:33 PM
My apologies. I didn't make myself clear, I meant in proportion. I meant that the proportion of smokers littering is more than that of non-smokers. Of course, its a subjective remark. There's no concrete proof.
Originally Posted by poohbear
25th March 2005, 03:46 PM
Simple reason: Smoking is still socially accepted, and is good for the economy.
Originally Posted by di0nysus
It's said that nicotine is even more addictive than herion, which comes from morphine. Although both are addictive, the effects of heroin are much stronger. After the initial rush of euphoria, withdrawal sets in and produces drug craving, restlessness, muscle and bone pain, insomnia, diarrhea and vomiting, cold flashes among other symptoms.
Being only available on the black market, heroin and other drug prices are extremely high. Hence addicts which need a fix and do not have money for the drug usually turn to crime, which is socially undesirable. Also, black market herion may have additives (as well as impurities) that do not readily dissolve and result in clogging the blood vessels that lead to the lungs, liver, kidneys, or brain. This can cause infection or even death of small patches of cells in vital organs.
Even if you had the money to get your fix constantly, heroin abuse is associated with serious health conditions, including fatal overdose, spontaneous abortion, collapsed veins, and, particularly in users who inject the drug, infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis.
Such things are not 'socially accepted'. Nicotine does not seemingly cause such effects (increased crime, instant death from o/d). It's the chemicals and additives in the cigarette mind you which cause all your health problems, not the nicotine. Nicotine gum meant to combat smoking addition is safe for consumption.
As for nicotine benefitting the economy more than heroin, well I'm sure we all know why this is the case. Self-explanatory.
If we're for banning, then ban alcohol also since alcoholism is a form of addiction as well. Crime does increase due to more alcoholics/drunks who cannot afford the next bottle of whisky, but not so much in Singapore than abroad. The simple issue is that smoking and alcohol have been around for so long that removing it from society will just be unacceptable.
Last edited by mr_jason; 25th March 2005 at 03:49 PM.
25th March 2005, 04:19 PM
The government will not ban the sale of cigarettes in SG. Simple, ban, where the additional money is going to come from? The taxes amount to millions of dollars. Do you really think that by increasing the price of cigarettes will prevent people from smoking? The answer is pretty obvious. The motive is pretty obvious too. Do you think the under age law is useless and redundant? Why dun they just increase the legal age to 21?
Originally Posted by di0nysus
Are you a smoker? If not, how do you know that nicotine is not a big addiction? How about enlightening me?
25th March 2005, 04:41 PM
25th March 2005, 05:23 PM
The additional money might come from.....Casino! Similar to casino debate, where tax revenue versus social costs, revenue from tobacco sales also compares with the social costs that comes with it.
Originally Posted by afbug
The increase in price do help to deter some smokers from smoking as much as they used to. I've no comment whether the under age law is useless and redundant. But increaseing the legal age to 21 sounds like a good idea.
I'm not a smoker. I did try smoking. Must be been too few sticks in too short a time to get addicted. My subjective comment came from comparing nicotine with heroin etc. It seems to me that quitting nicotine is easier than quitting heroin. Mr_jason has written a good explanation as to why it might not be so.
25th March 2005, 05:27 PM
in one group of friendly colleagues, there is a smoker, and the rest do not smoke. the non-smokers once asked the smoker, why don't you join us for our coffee break?
to humour the non-smoking friends, the smoker obliged, and joined them for a coffee. halfway through, his craving hit hard, and he had to light up. he tried to blow the smoke away from the rest of the group, but the strain was beginning to show - he couldn't relax because he was trying to control the smoke, and the rest couldn't relax because they couldn't ignore the smoke while it was getting into their faces.
the next day, the same friends asked if he wanted to join them for coffee again, and he declined, saying "no offense, but you're not the right kind of company for my kind of break."
the non-smokers never asked the smoker out for coffee again, and the smoker enjoyed his cigarette break. but later that day, and then regularly after that, they still all met up for foosball, and all was well.
i don't smoke, but my friends who do are still my friends.
25th March 2005, 06:00 PM
25th March 2005, 11:14 PM