Poll: Do you smoke cigarettes?

[buctootim]

You keep saying that whilst ignoring what I've actually written. How odd.

 

I know nicotine is the addictive drug, however if you quit you can be over the withdrawl in less than a week. 6 months seems like a ridiculous amount of time to be on nicotine patches to me. They're not supposed to be a completely substitute for cigarettes. The idea is you use them and decrease the usage until eventually you are independant.

 

My original point was, why go back to cigarettes if you are on patches? If you are getting the nicotine you need without most of the side effects of smoking, why go back to cigarettes.

 

I did the nicotine patches for about two weeks whilst giving up smoking and they helped break the addiction. I think most ex addicts have some kind of occasional cravings for the thing they've given up though. I do for cigarettes - not unmanageable but a definite feeling of 'I'd really like one' . I guess its the same with ex alcoholics and junkies - people might be over the primary addiction but can still fall off the wagon.

[Jonnyboy]

It's true, smokers stink.

 

Also, have you seen those comparison pictures of twins where one of them smokes and the other doesn't? Smoking makes you ugly too.

Smoked for a while in my twenties, then realised it was the lamest, stupidest thing I'd ever done and gave up. Drug addiction is for the weak.

 

 

Yep, makes all the difference.

[Turkish]

I smoke cigars.

 

I don't smoke but I am partial to one of these now and again.

[Julian H. Cope]

 

Yep, makes all the difference.

 

To be fair they're both horrific, fags or no fags.

[rpb]

Anyone who remembers the smell of tobacco which use to cover Regents Park, Freemantle, Millbrook and Shirley from the BAT factory will enjoy this...

[Jonnyboy]

To be fair they're both horrific, fags or no fags.

 

whoosh

[angelman]

so you're one of these 'giving up smoking is easy, done it lots of times' people then.

 

 

Usually I give up because I run out of fags and can't be bothered to go and get some more, although this time it was a cold and the Mrs nagging me. I enjoy smoking and do/did a pack a day, but I realise it's not good for me. I pretend I can't afford it but I can. I do like my kids though and do want to see them grow old. But yes, I do find giving up very easy - as you allude to, it's just as easy to start again. (Wouldn't mind one now, guess I'll just have to have a drink instead).

[Ohio Saint]

I can hardly breathe for the second hand smug in this thread. I don't see why so many non smokers have to be such tossers about it.

[scotty]

I'm a no. Toyed with it as a teenager, but really disliked it.

 

Unlike some of the nonsmokers on here though, I have no problem with anyone else smoking, especially since the public-places smoking ban. (Even then I reckon its done me more harm than good, there are far fewer pubs for me to satiate my alcohol craving in as a direct result of it.)

[Ampersound]

No from me. Had phases of smoking on and off until my early 20s and luckily never got addicted to it.

 

Now although I have no issues with people smoking around me, I just don't like the after-smoking smell of smokers. It's almost as bad as coffee drinkers breath.

[JackanorySFC]

No never have. Jesus, remember the days of smoking in pubs, pretty much all my mates smoked back then and my locals (Dolphin in Botley & Fountain in Hedge End) were both dingy gaffs that left me stinking of smoke. Looking back now it's mental that it was allowed to go on for so long before it was banned! Lots of mates have quit since the ban came in and the ones that smoke have cut down due to not being @rsed to go outside every 10 minutes.

 

First time I really noticed what smoking does to you was in our GCSE PE year 11 bleep test, I won for our year beating mates fitter than me (or so I thought) that had been smoking a combination of Embassy #1's, Benny Hedgehogs & Sov's for 3 years.

 

Just say no kids...

[so22saint]

Smoked years ago, lived in Paris, it was the done thing. Nothing nicotine related since 2007. So pleased it's outlawed in pubs now - nice to come home smelling ok.

 

My old man still doesn't believe it kills you bless him despite the massive body of evidence.

 

Interesting article on it here:

 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004582,00.html

[so22saint]

I can hardly breathe for the second hand smug in this thread. I don't see why so many non smokers have to be such tossers about it.

 

And as a non-smoker now I always liked the Bill Hicks stand up. "Here's a message for all you non-smokers out there....ready......drumroll....non-smokers.....die every day"

[Whitey Grandad]

And as a non-smoker now I always liked the Bill Hicks stand up. "Here's a message for all you non-smokers out there....ready......drumroll....non-smokers.....die every day"

 

Typical denial of the nicotine junkies. Yes they die, but they die later. I have seen two close colleagues die very painful deaths from cancer in the past few years at 63 and 64. Yes, they were both smokers.

[JPTCount]

only two answers? cigarettes are the just tip of the iceberg, and by far the most disgusting tobacco product out there.

 

if smokers should be executed then so should ppl with no manners & middle lane drivers, at least most smokers make a conscious effort not to blow smoke in ur face.

[badgerx16]

Father-in-law used to smoke up to 60 a day. Having already had his voice box removed due to the 'big C', he was told yesterday he now has lung cancer, which is spreading and not treatable.

 

You can read into this what you like.

[dellboypete]

Anyone who remembers the smell of tobacco which use to cover Regents Park, Freemantle, Millbrook and Shirley from the BAT factory will enjoy this...

 

Yeah, but they had fantastic sports facilities!

[JPTCount]

Typical denial of the nicotine junkies. Yes they die, but they die later. I have seen two close colleagues die very painful deaths from cancer in the past few years at 63 and 64. Yes, they were both smokers.

 

and my grandad smoked straights and baccy for 70 years, got bowel cancer when he was 60 something and died aged 91. (although he never knew he had cancer, nana wouldn't let the doctor tell him)

 

life kills, enjoy it while it lasts, all smokers know the risks so let us get on with it.

[Whitey Grandad]

and my grandad smoked straights and baccy for 70 years, got bowel cancer when he was 60 something and died aged 91. (although he never knew he had cancer, nana wouldn't let the doctor tell him)

 

life kills, enjoy it while it lasts, all smokers know the risks so let us get on with it.

 

You can always find some people, but with smoking the odds against are awful. For every one who lives to over 90 there are many more who never got to retirement. The point about smoking is that the benefits and pleasure are illusory and non-existent. The 'high' that smokers get is relief from withdrawal symptoms. They have deliberately forced a chemical parasite into their bodies. Initially the body will fight this but once it's ingrained then it demands to be fed by nicotine, and in return it lets you feel normal for a little while. Then it gets hungry again, and all the while it is eating away at your insides. If you think you enjoy smoking then try banging your head against a wall for a while and see how nice it feels when you stop. Your choice, of course, your money, your life.

[Wurzel]

Never have never will

 

Execution a tad harsh but I do feel if someone has an illness that is directly linked to smoking and refuses to give up after being told it will only make the illness worse, they should forfeit any right to NHS treatment for that problem. (Same for drink-related illness or any other where any recommendation of a necessary lifestyle change is ignored)

[pap]

Never have never will

 

Execution a tad harsh but I do feel if someone has an illness that is directly linked to smoking and refuses to give up after being told it will only make the illness worse, they should forfeit any right to NHS treatment for that problem. (Same for drink-related illness or any other where any recommendation of a necessary lifestyle change is ignored)

 

Yeah, except smokers are actually a net benefit to the health service. Take all the duty off ciggies and you may have a point. Right now, they are not only paying for themselves, but also subsidising other non-smoking related maladies.

[Window Cleaner]

I can hardly breathe for the second hand smug in this thread. I don't see why so many non smokers have to be such tossers about it.

 

You are a special case, keep smoking those lucky fags.

[Julian H. Cope]

whoosh

 

Whoosh? Really? Maybe I should have quoted Norway's post which it was in response to.

 

Whoosh. Prannit.

[Ken Tone]

I have no problem with smokers choosing to damage their own health -- hugely increased risk of cancer, heart disease, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, impotence, kidney failure, macular degeneration blindness, gum disease, asthma, etc, -- and the law over smoking in public places has improved things for the rest of us signifcantly, so the risks from passive smoking are much reduced

 

Of course smokers do still stink, but I suppose the rest of us just have to put up with that!

 

(You may have guessed by now that I'm a non-smoker btw)

[Ken Tone]

Yeah, except smokers are actually a net benefit to the health service. Take all the duty off ciggies and you may have a point. Right now, they are not only paying for themselves, but also subsidising other non-smoking related maladies.

 

Not so pap I'm afraid, or at least the net cost to society as a whole outweighs the tax

 

See ...[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] A report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to society of smoking to be £13.74 billion. This includes the £2.7bn cost to the NHS but also the loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9bn) and increased absenteeism (£2.5bn). Other costs include: cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million), the cost of fires (£507m), the loss of economic output from the death of smokers (£4.1bn) and passive smokers (£713m).8

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-2012 (excluding VAT).

16 This amounts to 2% of total Government revenue. Including VAT at an estimated £2.6bn, total tobacco revenue was £12.1bn.17

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

oh and

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the primary cause of fatal accidental fires in the home and have claimed the lives of 1200 people in the UK over the past ten years. In 2010-11, smokers’ materials accounted for 96 deaths in Great Britain - over a third of all accidental dwelling fire deaths

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

So it may be wise not to live too near to a smoker !

[Ohio Saint]

Yeah, except smokers are actually a net benefit to the health service. Take all the duty off ciggies and you may have a point. Right now, they are not only paying for themselves, but also subsidising other non-smoking related maladies.

 

This. I remember Alf Garnett making that point, and saying that smokers deserve a medal for their contribution to society!

[Chez]

I smoked a packet a day for over ten years and enjoyed them a great deal. I gave up ten years ago. Since then I've always missed it, but have managed to to stay off them despite having the odd urge. Seeing the price go through the roof makes me thankful I managed it.

 

That said, recently I've thought about starting again. I feel as though I'm denying myself one of life's pleasures and wonder why I am bothering. We are all going to die and as far as I can see the last 10-20 years are pretty crap and will be even crappier by the time I get there.

 

When it comes to executing smokers that sounds like a cunning plan. What do we hope to achieve here as perhaps there are other groups we can add to that list.

[scotty]

This. I remember Alf Garnett making that point, and saying that smokers deserve a medal for their contribution to society!

 

, didn't Sir Humphrey Appleby have a similar line in Yes Minister?

[Chez]

Not so pap I'm afraid, or at least the net cost to society as a whole outweighs the tax

 

See ...[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] A report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to society of smoking to be £13.74 billion. This includes the £2.7bn cost to the NHS but also the loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9bn) and increased absenteeism (£2.5bn). Other costs include: cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million), the cost of fires (£507m), the loss of economic output from the death of smokers (£4.1bn) and passive smokers (£713m).8

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-2012 (excluding VAT).

16 This amounts to 2% of total Government revenue. Including VAT at an estimated £2.6bn, total tobacco revenue was £12.1bn.17

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

oh and

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the primary cause of fatal accidental fires in the home and have claimed the lives of 1200 people in the UK over the past ten years. In 2010-11, smokers’ materials accounted for 96 deaths in Great Britain - over a third of all accidental dwelling fire deaths

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

So it may be wise not to live too near to a smoker !

 

but without those smoking caused deaths unemployment would be higher so that would cost the government. Without those ciggy breaks perhaps worker moral would reduce, reducing output. Without those breaks maybe worker eyesight/health would be affected by staring at a PC continuously - that added health care is going to cost. Many smokers replace fags with food and become overweight adding to health costs. Cigs reduce stress, stress is a killer and must cost the country in terms of absenteeism and health. Smoking is an industry. If that industry was removed would that not add to unemployment placing a further burden on the government in terms of benefits? People living longer costs the government a fortune in pensions and health care. I'm just making these up as I go along, but those figures don't show the cost of removing cigs from the equation.

[The Cat]

Father-in-law used to smoke up to 60 a day.

 

Always wondered how people find the time to smoke that much. You'd pretty much have to be lighting up another a few minutes after putting one out.

 

I've never been a heavy smoker. About 15 years ago at the 'peak' of my habit I would smoke up to 10 a day but now I feel awful if I manage to get through that many (this only happens at football or festivals) and won't smoke for a good few days after. I can't begin to understand how it must feel to plough through 4 times that many.

[Whitey Grandad]

but without those smoking caused deaths unemployment would be higher so that would cost the government. Without those ciggy breaks perhaps worker moral would reduce, reducing output. Without those breaks maybe worker eyesight/health would be affected by staring at a PC continuously - that added health care is going to cost. Many smokers replace fags with food and become overweight adding to health costs. Cigs reduce stress, stress is a killer and must cost the country in terms of absenteeism and health. Smoking is an industry. If that industry was removed would that not add to unemployment placing a further burden on the government in terms of benefits? People living longer costs the government a fortune in pensions and health care. I'm just making these up as I go along, but those figures don't show the cost of removing cigs from the equation.

What about the morale of those who don't smoke? Are you saying that everybody should have a cigarette break just to increase their morale? Three quarters of the population don't smoke so how on earth have they managed for the last 2 million years?

[JPTCount]

You can always find some people, but with smoking the odds against are awful. For every one who lives to over 90 there are many more who never got to retirement. The point about smoking is that the benefits and pleasure are illusory and non-existent. The 'high' that smokers get is relief from withdrawal symptoms. They have deliberately forced a chemical parasite into their bodies. Initially the body will fight this but once it's ingrained then it demands to be fed by nicotine, and in return it lets you feel normal for a little while. Then it gets hungry again, and all the while it is eating away at your insides. If you think you enjoy smoking then try banging your head against a wall for a while and see how nice it feels when you stop. Your choice, of course, your money, your life.

 

not many men live to 90. the main reason smokers die of degenerative diseases us something else doesnt get them first.

 

its am interesting stance to day it's complete illusion. I like to sit in the garden and have a fag and a coffee, and read the paper. if my happy time releases serotonin then is it still an illusion? anything one finds pleasurable is addictive mentally, regardless of physical dependence. I only get major cravings if I'm stressed, similar to the feeling I get at the end of a heavy week at work and I just wanna crash with a jd&c. i have given up before a few times, and often dont smoke all day, especially when I'm about my younger family members. and in clubs these days I dont smoke at all coz I'm not queueing to have a fat.

 

and there's clearly a view that all smokers are chaining some dirty brand like jps. just like with alcohol, most of us enjoy a few beers here and there, and wine with a good meal, yet some insist on bingeing from Friday through to sunday, every weekend. I smoke about 5-8 a day, rarely smoke ten, if ever, and I smoke rollies, have done for 10 years, it probably only costs me under £500 a year. straights taste awful in my opinion, and a clearly full of extra chemicals, there's over a thousand just to keep it burning (apparently).

 

and I dont think smacking my head against a brick wall would ever be comparable to enjoying a post dinner smoke with some port.

 

like I said, all smokers know the risk, stop telling us, if u really did think twas my choice u wouldn't come up with an analogy like that.

[Chez]

What about the morale of those who don't smoke? Are you saying that everybody should have a cigarette break just to increase their morale? Three quarters of the population don't smoke so how on earth have they managed for the last 2 million years?

I'm not saying smoking is good for moral. I'm saying that having a break, a smoke and a chat with workmates through the day is probably good for their moral. Happy, thriving workplaces need staff that communicate with each other and fag breaks represent a good opportunity to do that.

 

By the way I would guess that far more time is lost in the workplace from people making a drinking tea/coffee, not that I care. UK workers by and large work long and hard, so any time (and money) lost due to smoking breaks shouldn't be reflected in a overall cost to the country of smoking.

 

The fact is £12billion comes in from smokers and their NHS bill is only £2.7billion. These people are helping to fund the healthcare of non smokers.

[tpbury]

Thanks for your replies, may have been a little OTT when talking about executing... In any case, having grown up in the 'post mandatory, but very popular' smoking days, I supppose I am informed by the 'civil liberties' arguments that smokers would put forward for being able to continue smoking (albeit outside, in a special room etc). I'm thinking that even the civil liberties argument doesn't wash anymore - if no-one smoked smoking wouldn't be missed.

[pap]

Not so pap I'm afraid, or at least the net cost to society as a whole outweighs the tax

 

See ...[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD] A report by the Policy Exchange in 2010 estimated the total cost to society of smoking to be £13.74 billion. This includes the £2.7bn cost to the NHS but also the loss in productivity from smoking breaks (£2.9bn) and increased absenteeism (£2.5bn). Other costs include: cleaning up cigarette butts (£342 million), the cost of fires (£507m), the loss of economic output from the death of smokers (£4.1bn) and passive smokers (£713m).8

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]The Treasury earned £9.5 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in the financial year 2011-2012 (excluding VAT).

16 This amounts to 2% of total Government revenue. Including VAT at an estimated £2.6bn, total tobacco revenue was £12.1bn.17

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

oh and

 

[TABLE]

[TR]

[TD]Cigarettes and other smoking materials are the primary cause of fatal accidental fires in the home and have claimed the lives of 1200 people in the UK over the past ten years. In 2010-11, smokers’ materials accounted for 96 deaths in Great Britain - over a third of all accidental dwelling fire deaths

[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

So it may be wise not to live too near to a smoker !

 

Cleaning up cigarette butts = crap figure. You can take that away immediately. We'd still have street cleaners irrespective of whether people smoked or not.

 

Loss of productivity from smoking breaks = kinda assumes that those non-smokers are 100% productive while the social lepers are polluting their lungs, and that the smokers are doing nothing but pollute their lungs. I know plenty of people who use their smoke breaks to mentally plan the next 2 hours of work, myself included. Besides, non-smokers get breaks too.

 

Loss of economic output from the death of smokers? What? Everyone else living forever and contributing to the wealth of the nation, are they?

 

Any fire caused by smoking is of course, a tragedy - especially if people are killed as a consequence. That said, I'd argue that anyone who was careless enough to start a fire like this would probably attract trouble regardless. It's a basic care and common sense thing. But again, we're not going to get rid of the Fire Brigade if people stopped smoking.

 

It's interesting that when considering positive economic activity, they only account for tobacco sales and VAT. What about the tax raised from companies who operate here, pull the product off the docks, distribute, deliver or even the likes of local shops, where tobacco is one of the main things that props them up? What about the corporation tax they pay, or the PAYE collected on the salaries of those staff, or the fuel duty raised when they move it all about? Or indeed, the VAT on that?

 

It seems that the Policy Exchange was very selective when considering the positive economic gain, yet holistic when considering the true cost to society. That is probably because if you added up all the economic activity I've listed and added it to the £12.1Bn raw taxation figure, they wouldn't have a report, and you wouldn't have a point.

[Whitey Grandad]

like I said, all smokers know the risk, stop telling us, if u really did think twas my choice u wouldn't come up with an analogy like that.

 

I would like your choice to be freely taken without being driven by addiction, for your own sake. I would not like to see anybody inflicting self-harm in any form even if they said that they enjoyed it. All I ask is that you understand the process by which you get effective pleasure, it comes from feeding the addiction. My point about banging your head was that it was like going without the smoke and having a craving. When you stop doing it (banging or going without) it feels good. Some of us get plenty of serotonin from just sitting in the garden reading the paper. For the non-smoker life feels great all the time, not just when they are having a fix.

[tpbury]

Cleaning up cigarette butts = crap figure. You can take that away immediately. We'd still have street cleaners irrespective of whether people smoked or not.

 

Loss of productivity from smoking breaks = kinda assumes that those non-smokers are 100% productive while the social lepers are polluting their lungs, and that the smokers are doing nothing but pollute their lungs. I know plenty of people who use their smoke breaks to mentally plan the next 2 hours of work, myself included. Besides, non-smokers get breaks too.

 

Loss of economic output from the death of smokers? What? Everyone else living forever and contributing to the wealth of the nation, are they?

 

Any fire caused by smoking is of course, a tragedy - especially if people are killed as a consequence. That said, I'd argue that anyone who was careless enough to start a fire like this would probably attract trouble regardless. It's a basic care and common sense thing. But again, we're not going to get rid of the Fire Brigade if people stopped smoking.

 

It's interesting that when considering positive economic activity, they only account for tobacco sales and VAT. What about the tax raised from companies who operate here, pull the product off the docks, distribute, deliver or even the likes of local shops, where tobacco is one of the main things that props them up? What about the corporation tax they pay, or the PAYE collected on the salaries of those staff, or the fuel duty raised when they move it all about? Or indeed, the VAT on that?

 

It seems that the Policy Exchange was very selective when considering the positive economic gain, yet holistic when considering the true cost to society. That is probably because if you added up all the economic activity I've listed and added it to the £12.1Bn raw taxation figure, they wouldn't have a report, and you wouldn't have a point.

 

But are you building a case for smoking, pap? There isn't one really is there? (He says blowing ash off the keyboard)

[scotty]

I would like your choice to be freely taken without being driven by addiction, for your own sake. I would not like to see anybody inflicting self-harm in any form even if they said that they enjoyed it. All I ask is that you understand the process by which you get effective pleasure, it comes from feeding the addiction. My point about banging your head was that it was like going without the smoke and having a craving. When you stop doing it (banging or going without) it feels good. Some of us get plenty of serotonin from just sitting in the garden reading the paper. For the non-smoker life feels great all the time, not just when they are having a fix.

 

Add to that the non-drinker, non-pharmaceutical addict, non-gamer, non-junkfood consumer, non-chocolate/coffee lover, non-gambler etc etc. Most things that most people enjoy are "bad" for them in one way or another. Non-smokers are not a class apart from other people with bad habits, and they are not automatically happy because they are non-smokers.

[Whitey Grandad]

Add to that the non-drinker, non-pharmaceutical addict, non-gamer, non-junkfood consumer, non-chocolate/coffee lover, non-gambler etc etc. Most things that most people enjoy are "bad" for them in one way or another. Non-smokers are not a class apart from other people with bad habits, and they are not automatically happy because they are non-smokers.

 

That's not quite my point. A non-smoker is a happy as a smoker having his fix. The perceived pleasure of the smoker comes from getting the fix, i.e. getting back to 'normal'.

[scotty]

That's not quite my point. A non-smoker is a happy as a smoker having his fix. The perceived pleasure of the smoker comes from getting the fix, i.e. getting back to 'normal'.

 

You could say the same about any addiction, but I was picking you up on this particular line- " For the non-smoker life feels great all the time, not just when they are having a fix."

 

I'm a non smoker, and life doesn't feel great all the time. That much ought to be obvious, I'm a Saints supporter.

[buctootim]

I like the personality type of people who smoke or smoked well into adult life. Tend to be more tolerant and less anally retentive.

[pap]

But are you building a case for smoking, pap? There isn't one really is there? (He says blowing ash off the keyboard)

 

No, of course not. It's a stupid habit and I'll kick it at some point. Might actually give this Stoptober thing a go. Like a sheep.

 

Anyway, my original weigh-in to this thread was the suggestion that we refuse health care to known smokers under certain circumstances. We collect a tremendous amount of duty which more than offsets the health care costs and pays for other things.

 

However, the piece from the Policy Exchange allowed me to pit common sense against a set of bad statistics, and I couldn't resist.

[krissyboy31]

I do. Mainly when I'm out. Just goes so well with a beer.

 

Must go well with crap beer that you don't really want to taste.

[krissyboy31]

I smoked a packet a day for over ten years and enjoyed them a great deal. I gave up ten years ago. Since then I've always missed it, but have managed to to stay off them despite having the odd urge. Seeing the price go through the roof makes me thankful I managed it.

 

That said, recently I've thought about starting again. I feel as though I'm denying myself one of life's pleasures and wonder why I am bothering. We are all going to die and as far as I can see the last 10-20 years are pretty crap and will be even crappier by the time I get there.

 

When it comes to executing smokers that sounds like a cunning plan. What do we hope to achieve here as perhaps there are other groups we can add to that list.

Surely the money saved can be spent on something better. A packet a day = a decent holiday I reckon.

[norwaysaint]

Just like to add how annoying it is that such a large proportion of smokers don't see their cigarette debris as litter. I've frequently seen people opening a pack of cigarettes and dropping plastic and paper wrapping casually as they do it, but an overwhelming number of smokers just drop their cigarette end in the street. Why do they think this is acceptable? They certainly don't biodegrade quickly, dirty ****ers should pick up their rubbish and throw it away just like any piece of litter. I know their are litterers in all sections of society, but smokers are noticeably over-represented.

 

The other annoying thing is when smokers leave a building to smoke, they are too lazy to move away from the doorway, so you end up having to walk through a big stinking cloud to get into the building. They are also often ignorant that they are casually holding a burning hot item at a level where people can be hurt. I don't think I should have to ask people not to wave a burning cigarette around at my children's eye level as I walk into a place. ****s.

[solentstars]

Glad smokers are made to go outside most of them I find weak minded people.my ex used the same old excuses of how she was addicted until she quit because she wanted to.most only think of themselves.I worked. with chain smokers who did not care that inhaled their smoke and went home with that bad odour on my clothes smokers smell of.they always flicked ash on the floor and butts even though the ash trays were in front of them. Makes me laugh with their victim mentality.

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

[Colinjb]

They are also often ignorant that they are casually holding a burning hot item at a level where people can be hurt. I don't think I should have to ask people not to wave a burning cigarette around at my children's eye level as I walk into a place. ****s.

 

Saw that happen at a Non-league game. Bunch of old men smoking away by the touch line only to have a little girl (5 or 6 years old) to run through the middle of them chasing a stray football.... Caught the little mite along the temple, naturally started screaming.

 

The old men started having a go at the parent saying that the child should be under control. A fair point but totally ignoring the selfish and needless risk their act brought.

[The9]

No. Where's the actual poll ?

[RonManager]

[The Kraken]

Just like to add how annoying it is that such a large proportion of smokers don't see their cigarette debris as litter. I've frequently seen people opening a pack of cigarettes and dropping plastic and paper wrapping casually as they do it, but an overwhelming number of smokers just drop their cigarette end in the street. Why do they think this is acceptable? They certainly don't biodegrade quickly, dirty ****ers should pick up their rubbish and throw it away just like any piece of litter. I know their are litterers in all sections of society, but smokers are noticeably over-represented.

 

The other annoying thing is when smokers leave a building to smoke, they are too lazy to move away from the doorway, so you end up having to walk through a big stinking cloud to get into the building. They are also often ignorant that they are casually holding a burning hot item at a level where people can be hurt. I don't think I should have to ask people not to wave a burning cigarette around at my children's eye level as I walk into a place. ****s.

 

One thing you don't see a great deal of in this country (but you do in France where smoking is a national sport) are dispensers for used cigarettes on the streets. Its obviously not a brilliant idea to stub a cig out and then chuck it in a bin, and it seems to only be pubs that have places where used butts can be thrown away. French rubbish bins typically also have built in to them a section where you can stub out the cigarette and safely dispense the butt.