Disposable vapes ban

[stuie]

8 hours ago, DeanoL said:

You already said it: their house. For smoking at least that's the direction we are going in, and it's going to get easier as the ban on purchasing comes in.

 

I think we all know prohibition doesn't have a good history of working.  But sure, let's give organised crime another massive revenue stream and push the tobacco market underground. 

[stuie]

3 minutes ago, mph said:

Can this thread be moved to discussions ?

 

The relevance to Glastonbury has long gone 

 

It seems people are discussing smoking and vaping at Glastonbury?

[mph]

It has digressed into discussions on drugs and alcohol which is something else altogether

 

Get rid of the cocaine users before smokers 

[CharlotteB]

3 hours ago, stuie said:

 

You think smoking is anti-social because you don't like it. 

 

 

There should be - alcohol is the most accessible damaging drug that there is.  It's seen as socially acceptable but causes many more problems than smoking ever has. Not just health - social, criminal, domestic abuse, fighting, assaults, child neglect etc. 

 

🤣😂 No, I think smoking is anti-social because society doesn't like it, and that's the reason it's getting stomped out. That's how it works.

 

And how can you say alcohol has caused more damage than smoking when we all know for a fact none of us be alive without it? Can you say that about smoking? Don't delude yourself!

 

I made the poor decision of responding to one of your lot's many deflections. As soon as I did, I had several "you've been quoted" messages in my inbox 🤣 like a pack of dogs, you lot. It's been mentioned a few times, but can anyone explain why your only defence is to latch onto something else and use it as an excuse? 

Edited yesterday at 02:23 AM by CharlotteB
Spelling

[SticklinchJoe]

Oh Good Lord! This thread is following me around the forum. You try to get away from smokers and they just appear again, forcing you to breathe in their gibberish.

[stuie]

7 hours ago, CharlotteB said:

And how can you say alcohol has caused more damage than smoking when we all know for a fact none of us be alive without it?

 

😂😂😂 don't stretch too much. 

[A Particular Grey Chihuahu]

4 hours ago, SticklinchJoe said:

Oh Good Lord! This thread is following me around the forum. You try to get away from smokers and they just appear again, forcing you to breathe in their gibberish.

 

🚬🏃🏽‍➡️🏃🏻‍♂️‍➡️🏃🏿‍♀️‍➡️

😂🤣 Made me chuckle.

[A Particular Grey Chihuahu]

15 hours ago, Alvoram said:

Yet, it starts with one freedom... 

 

I know. I really like punching babies in the face but apparently I'm not allowed to do that because of "the man" 🤜🏽👶🏽

 

14 hours ago, clasher said:

 

You think smoking is anti-social? Bit strange...

 

Maybe we should all get together to discuss this. We just need some sort of building that people meet up at regularly for social occasions. Perhaps a pub? Of which there are tens of thousands in this country...

[mph]

5 hours ago, A Particular Grey Chihuahu said:

Maybe we should all get together to discuss this. We just need some sort of building that people meet up at regularly for social occasions. Perhaps a pub? Of which there are tens of thousands in this country...

Good idea but some of us will be in the beer garden having a smoke while the rest of you are inside

[Alvoram]

5 hours ago, A Particular Grey Chihuahu said:

 

I know. I really like punching babies in the face but apparently I'm not allowed to do that because of "the man" 🤜🏽👶🏽

Please tell me that's tongue in cheek and you don't actually think that's a reasonable analogy?

Our current right to smoke and drink go hand in hand, they make a good analogy, last time I checked we've never had the right to punch a baby in the face!

It's perfectly reasonable to surmise that, allowing them to take away a right such as smoking, could, or maybe even will, lead to them looking at things like drinking in the future.

 

  

11 minutes ago, mph said:

Good idea but some of us will be in the beer garden having a smoke while the rest of you are inside

Or the smoking area, the place where all of the best social interactions take place at most late night venues.... 

Edited yesterday at 05:04 PM by Alvoram

[A Particular Grey Chihuahu]

2 hours ago, mph said:

Good idea but some of us will be in the beer garden having a smoke while the rest of you are inside

 

Ah yes, the place you were forced into by the people who want to be sociable.

 

1 hour ago, Alvoram said:

Please tell me that's tongue in cheek and you don't actually think that's a reasonable analogy?

Our current right to smoke and drink go hand in hand, they make a good analogy, last time I checked we've never had the right to punch a baby in the face!

It's perfectly reasonable to surmise that, allowing them to take away a right such as smoking, could, or maybe even will, lead to them looking at things like drinking in the future.

 

  

Or the smoking area, the place where all of the best social interactions take place at most late night venues.... 

 

The point you're missing is that everyone is happier now that smoking is being nudged out of public places. 

[Alvoram]

1 hour ago, A Particular Grey Chihuahu said:

 

Ah yes, the place you were forced into by the people who want to be sociable.

 

 

The point you're missing is that everyone is happier now that smoking is being nudged out of public places. 

Bit random that, completely irrelevant to what I asked, I haven't mentioned plans to limit smoking in public places. 

I'm talking about the plans to effectively ban smoking altogether. I agree with plans to restrict smoking tobacco products in parks, and where there are normally children around. 

Funny you should mention that though, since only 51% of all polled (YouGov,) including non smokers, support banning smoking in pub beer gardens (which the outdoor restaurant ban will effectively do.) A majority still, I admit, but a far cry from "everyone." Also, 20% of none smokers, yes NONE SMOKERS, oppose further restrictions anywhere, I guess they wouldn't be too happy being lumped in with "everyone" either. Meanwhile, almost half of smokers themselves actually support further restrictions in places where it makes sense. 

 

Of course there is overwhelmingly strong support for sports grounds and hospitals, from all sides, I support these myself, along with schools, parks, playgrounds, child care centres, youth clubs etc etc. In fact, I thought it already was banned in sports grounds and outside hospitals! But the story is very different when it comes to Pub Gardens, and I imagine that would be the same picture for other places that are primarily centres for adult relaxation, entertainment and socialising. 

You seem to forget, I do not smoke, none of the announced legislation affects me in the slightest. So I have no stake in this whatsoever, other than common sense, preserving freedoms and not wanting a government to overstep it's remit. Trust me, with every inch they're given they will take another mile, regardless of what party is in power. You might be 'getting what you want' this time around, but somewhere down the line, maybe in a few years, maybe a decade or two, when they're going after something that does directly affect you, you'll think back to this conversation. 😉 

Edited yesterday at 07:58 PM by Alvoram

[SticklinchJoe]

1 hour ago, Alvoram said:

Bit random that, completely irrelevant to what I asked, I haven't mentioned plans to limit smoking in public places. 

I'm talking about the plans to effectively ban smoking altogether. I agree with plans to restrict smoking tobacco products in parks, and where there are normally children around. 

Funny you should mention that though, since only 51% of all polled (YouGov,) including non smokers, support banning smoking in pub beer gardens (which the outdoor restaurant ban will effectively do.) A majority still, I admit, but a far cry from "everyone." Also, 20% of none smokers, yes NONE SMOKERS, oppose further restrictions anywhere, I guess they wouldn't be too happy being lumped in with "everyone" either. Meanwhile, almost half of smokers themselves actually support further restrictions in places where it makes sense. 

 

Of course there is overwhelmingly strong support for sports grounds and hospitals, from all sides, I support these myself, along with schools, parks, playgrounds, child care centres, youth clubs etc etc. In fact, I thought it already was banned in sports grounds and outside hospitals! But the story is very different when it comes to Pub Gardens, and I imagine that would be the same picture for other places that are primarily centres for adult relaxation, entertainment and socialising. 

You seem to forget, I do not smoke, none of the announced legislation affects me in the slightest. So I have no stake in this whatsoever, other than common sense, preserving freedoms and not wanting a government to overstep it's remit. Trust me, with every inch they're given they will take another mile, regardless of what party is in power. You might be 'getting what you want' this time around, but somewhere down the line, maybe in a few years, maybe a decade or two, when they're going after something that does directly affect you, you'll think back to this conversation. 😉 

 

Good grief. Are you just having your own little debate here? That all sounds clever, but is completely irrelevant.

You keep mentioning "they" as if there's a clandestine conspiracy to eliminate smokers. Sensible legislation is being introduced to phase it out. Because nothing about smoking is good. Nobody who isn't addicted to nicotine thinks that smoking is a good idea. Smokers are victims of marketing, peer pressure, and bad influences - things that tricked them into starting in the first place.

And I was a smoker! Because my dad, my role model, was a smoker, and he ended up killing himself with it and my dear old gran as well. I've managed to quite, but who knows, it could kill me too. It certainly gave me asthma.

So if you're not a tobacco user you probably don't appreciate how sh*tty the whole culture is, and how many people get caught up in the knock on effects. You'll get people on here saying "it's not as bad as this, it's not as bad as that" and it's probably true, but only because society has done such a good job of getting rid of smoking.

Supporting it is a wasted effort, and it offends me personally because I've seen so many loved ones die because of it.

[Alvoram]

54 minutes ago, SticklinchJoe said:

 

Good grief. Are you just having your own little debate here? That all sounds clever, but is completely irrelevant.

You keep mentioning "they" as if there's a clandestine conspiracy to eliminate smokers. Sensible legislation is being introduced to phase it out. Because nothing about smoking is good. Nobody who isn't addicted to nicotine thinks that smoking is a good idea. Smokers are victims of marketing, peer pressure, and bad influences - things that tricked them into starting in the first place.

And I was a smoker! Because my dad, my role model, was a smoker, and he ended up killing himself with it and my dear old gran as well. I've managed to quite, but who knows, it could kill me too. It certainly gave me asthma.

So if you're not a tobacco user you probably don't appreciate how sh*tty the whole culture is, and how many people get caught up in the knock on effects. You'll get people on here saying "it's not as bad as this, it's not as bad as that" and it's probably true, but only because society has done such a good job of getting rid of smoking.

Supporting it is a wasted effort, and it offends me personally because I've seen so many loved ones die because of it.

I mentioned 'they' three times, and was very clearly referring to the poll respondents, referenced in the same sentence, of the 3rd paragraph, whilst the second and third time... well, I'll just quote it here. 
 

Quote

not wanting a government to overstep it's remit. Trust me, with every inch they're given they will take another mile, regardless of what party is in power. You might be 'getting what you want' this time around, but somewhere down the line, maybe in a few years, maybe a decade or two, when they're going after something that does directly affect you, you'll think back to this conversation.

Very clearly talking about the government, but not wanting to type "the government" over and over again. However, in answer to your question, not exactly no, not a "clandestine conspiracy to eliminate smokers," But I do think that, given half a chance, they'll (sorry, the government / any government will) remove as many freedoms as we will let them get away with!  

I'm truly sorry for your losses by the way, and they do give good reason to your strong opinions on this. But literally everything you've just said, including losing family members, can be applied to alcohol too. It might surprise you to learn (given I'm a publican) that I lost my Dad and several other family members of his generation to alcohol. In my Dad's case, I lost him a long long time before he died, as is often the case with alcohol. It's probably one of the reasons I make my place behind the bar and very rarely in front of it. (festivals, gigs and holidays only, never at home / in my pub.) Yet if you go back over the last few pages in here, mine, and other's, attempts to highlight the similarities have been shrugged off and ridiculed. You touched on it in that very reply!

They're both bad habits, that have the potential to end lives, especially if done to excess. However, if people want to do these things, that's entirely up to them, it's not your place, not my place, nor the government's place, to save people who don't want to be saved. 

[CharlotteB]

3 hours ago, Alvoram said:

I mentioned 'they' three times, and was very clearly referring to the poll respondents, referenced in the same sentence, of the 3rd paragraph, whilst the second and third time... well, I'll just quote it here. 
 

Very clearly talking about the government, but not wanting to type "the government" over and over again. However, in answer to your question, not exactly no, not a "clandestine conspiracy to eliminate smokers," But I do think that, given half a chance, they'll (sorry, the government / any government will) remove as many freedoms as we will let them get away with!  

I'm truly sorry for your losses by the way, and they do give good reason to your strong opinions on this. But literally everything you've just said, including losing family members, can be applied to alcohol too. It might surprise you to learn (given I'm a publican) that I lost my Dad and several other family members of his generation to alcohol. In my Dad's case, I lost him a long long time before he died, as is often the case with alcohol. It's probably one of the reasons I make my place behind the bar and very rarely in front of it. (festivals, gigs and holidays only, never at home / in my pub.) Yet if you go back over the last few pages in here, mine, and other's, attempts to highlight the similarities have been shrugged off and ridiculed. You touched on it in that very reply!

They're both bad habits, that have the potential to end lives, especially if done to excess. However, if people want to do these things, that's entirely up to them, it's not your place, not my place, nor the government's place, to save people who don't want to be saved. 

 

Sorry for everyone's losses, but smoking and alcohol aren't comparable. I could list all the reasons why, but the proof is in the pudding really, isn't it? The people have spoken. It's a democracy! By getting rid of it in public areas, you're protecting people's freedoms to breathe safer air (your poll was done in 2024, by the way, after all the hard work has been done. Of course nobody, especially younger people, are too bothered by it when it has been all but eliminated in public areas!!!!)

 

Alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as smoking, and much much less carcinogenic. 

Edited 20 hours ago by CharlotteB

[SticklinchJoe]

Couldn't have said it better myself. I'm going to leave this conversation because it's ridiculous. Anyone who lived through smoking's heydey knows that it's a good thing it's on its way out, and it's down to public choice and common sense.

[Alvoram]

8 hours ago, CharlotteB said:

 

Sorry for everyone's losses, but smoking and alcohol aren't comparable. I could list all the reasons why, but the proof is in the pudding really, isn't it? The people have spoken. It's a democracy! By getting rid of it in public areas, you're protecting people's freedoms to breathe safer air (your poll was done in 2024, by the way, after all the hard work has been done. Of course nobody, especially younger people, are too bothered by it when it has been all but eliminated in public areas!!!!)

 

Alcohol is nowhere near as addictive as smoking, and much much less carcinogenic. 

How are they not? Please list the reasons, I would be very interested to read them.

Both very addictive - check

Both dangerous to the user - check

Both cause harm to those around the user - check, alcohol more so.
Both anti social - check (as in, has the potential to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to others... Everybody knows full well what was meant by the other poster, who pointed this out, earlier in the thread.) 

Both cost the public purse a lot of money - check, alcohol more so.

Both used as a way of extracting more money from the poor via additional taxation - check

Smoking causes more deaths in users (8%) than alcohol (5%,) but alcohol causes more health issues in more people overall. 

I'm sure there are more likenesses, but since we haven't heard any reasons why they shouldn't be likened, let's hear them first.

If people are going to make sweeping statements, please, let's back them up with reasoning at the very least, if not evidence. Also, we're back to the 'public opinion' argument, again, despite nobody addressing the evidence, I posted earlier, that this is being overstated too. Public opinion is in favour of controlling smoking in sensible areas, it's not in favour of controlling smoking in all public areas, and is definitely not in favour of banning it outright. Not on any evidence I've seen anyway, but I am open to being shown otherwise. 

 

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Alvoram

[Skip997]

As I’m sure many have noticed I’m anti alcohol use as a recreational drug, but I’m also aware that prohibition doesn’t work, it’s actually the cause of most problems with illegal drugs.

 

For anyone interested in the adverse effects of prohibition I recommend reading “Chasing the Scream”

Edited 9 hours ago by Skip997

[A Particular Grey Chihuahu]

19 hours ago, Alvoram said:

Bit random that, completely irrelevant to what I asked, I haven't mentioned plans to limit smoking in public places. 

I'm talking about the plans to effectively ban smoking altogether. I agree with plans to restrict smoking tobacco products in parks, and where there are normally children around. 

Funny you should mention that though, since only 51% of all polled (YouGov,) including non smokers, support banning smoking in pub beer gardens (which the outdoor restaurant ban will effectively do.) A majority still, I admit, but a far cry from "everyone." Also, 20% of none smokers, yes NONE SMOKERS, oppose further restrictions anywhere, I guess they wouldn't be too happy being lumped in with "everyone" either. Meanwhile, almost half of smokers themselves actually support further restrictions in places where it makes sense. 

 

Of course there is overwhelmingly strong support for sports grounds and hospitals, from all sides, I support these myself, along with schools, parks, playgrounds, child care centres, youth clubs etc etc. In fact, I thought it already was banned in sports grounds and outside hospitals! But the story is very different when it comes to Pub Gardens, and I imagine that would be the same picture for other places that are primarily centres for adult relaxation, entertainment and socialising. 

You seem to forget, I do not smoke, none of the announced legislation affects me in the slightest. So I have no stake in this whatsoever, other than common sense, preserving freedoms and not wanting a government to overstep it's remit. Trust me, with every inch they're given they will take another mile, regardless of what party is in power. You might be 'getting what you want' this time around, but somewhere down the line, maybe in a few years, maybe a decade or two, when they're going after something that does directly affect you, you'll think back to this conversation. 😉 

 

So what legislation coming into effect are you actually against? Because you seem to be in favour of banning smoking in most public places (which isn't a far cry from preventing it in, say, the Pyramid Field at Glastonbury).

 

Are you against the government phasing smoking out over the next few generations? That would be a strange thing to be against. Because if people never smoke, then they won't want to smoke. Smoking isn't like a drug that gives someone an instant high or anything. People only want to do it because they've become addicted.

 

And I think you should drop the smoking vs drinking comparisons, because it sounds a bit silly. Obviously smoking is much worse in all the categories you listed. Yet again, you're choosing to drag another thing that you say is "bad" into the conversation to justify another thing that's "bad". If you're intent on doing that all the time, at least do it convincingly. 

 

You're reeling back your argument too. I don't think many here would be in favour of a total ban (apart from a gradual phasing out, which would be brilliant). I don't have a problem with someone smoking in their own home🤣

Edited 7 hours ago by A Particular Grey Chihuahu

[Alvoram]

1 minute ago, A Particular Grey Chihuahu said:

 

So what legislation coming into effect are you actually against? Because you seem to be in favour of banning smoking in most public places (which isn't a far cry from preventing it in, say, the Pyramid Field at Glastonbury).

 

Are you against the government phasing smoking out over the next few generations? That would be a strange thing to be against. Because if people never smoke, then they won't want to smoke. Smoking isn't like a drug that gives someone an instant high or anything. People only want to do it because they've become addicted.

 

And I think you should drop the smoking vs drinking comparisons, because it sounds a bit silly. Obviously smoking is much worse in all the categories you listed. Yet again, you're choosing to drag another thing that you say is "bad" into the conversation to justify another thing that's "bad". If you're intent on doing that all the time, at least do it convincingly 🤣

I feel like I shouldn't really answer anything in this reply.. Multiple times I've asked questions, asked for opinions, or asked for info in this thread, and every time it's just sidestepped with more rhetoric like this nonsense. 

For example how many times do we have to post the actual evidence that drinking costs the UK more money, and causes more health issues (not deaths though, to be clear, slightly less deaths.) before you stop making ridiculous comments like "Obviously smoking is much worse in all the categories you listed" when the facts simply prove otherwise.

Smoking is also less addictive. Have you any experience of an alcoholic attempting to quit? Seen the serious physical side effects that coming off alcohol causes? Aware that 'just stopping' can actually be life threatening to a heavily alcohol dependant person? How is that less worse than getting agitated, twitchy, grumpy and maybe a bit of weight gain? 

Those that fail to see the similarities are the ones that look silly here. I can only assume it's a case of "that's ok, because I enjoy that myself!" Absolute hypocrisy, as was pointed out from the very beginning. So no, I will not drop it. How about you admit your hypocrisy? 😉 

I'm not trying to 'justify' anything, smokers don't need me to justify their actions, they're fully grown adults (mostly) who can do what the hell they like with their own bodies. Neither they, or I, have to justify their actions to you, who do you think you are? I'm simply pointing out that if there's a case for completely banning cigarettes, then the same applies to alcohol.

I dunno, maybe just start raising the drinking age every year, as they won't miss it then. 😉 (See how long you can buy it for, at reasonable prices and convenient locations, when the customer base starts to dwindle.)

Last thing I'm going to say on the matter is this... We do not elect governments to control what we do with our own bodies... Prohibition does not work, whatsoever, under any circumstances. 

[CharlotteB]

7 hours ago, Alvoram said:

How are they not? Please list the reasons, I would be very interested to read them.

Both very addictive - check

Both dangerous to the user - check

Both cause harm to those around the user - check, alcohol more so.
Both anti social - check (as in, has the potential to cause harassment, alarm, or distress to others... Everybody knows full well what was meant by the other poster, who pointed this out, earlier in the thread.) 

Both cost the public purse a lot of money - check, alcohol more so.

Both used as a way of extracting more money from the poor via additional taxation - check

Smoking causes more deaths in users (8%) than alcohol (5%,) but alcohol causes more health issues in more people overall. 

I'm sure there are more likenesses, but since we haven't heard any reasons why they shouldn't be likened, let's hear them first.

If people are going to make sweeping statements, please, let's back them up with reasoning at the very least, if not evidence. Also, we're back to the 'public opinion' argument, again, despite nobody addressing the evidence, I posted earlier, that this is being overstated too. Public opinion is in favour of controlling smoking in sensible areas, it's not in favour of controlling smoking in all public areas, and is definitely not in favour of banning it outright. Not on any evidence I've seen anyway, but I am open to being shown otherwise. 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Alvoram said:

I feel like I shouldn't really answer anything in this reply.. Multiple times I've asked questions, asked for opinions, or asked for info in this thread, and every time it's just sidestepped with more rhetoric like this nonsense. 

For example how many times do we have to post the actual evidence that drinking costs the UK more money, and causes more health issues (not deaths though, to be clear, slightly less deaths.) before you stop making ridiculous comments like "Obviously smoking is much worse in all the categories you listed" when the facts simply prove otherwise.

Smoking is also less addictive. Have you any experience of an alcoholic attempting to quit? Seen the serious physical side effects that coming off alcohol causes? Aware that 'just stopping' can actually be life threatening to a heavily alcohol dependant person? How is that less worse than getting agitated, twitchy, grumpy and maybe a bit of weight gain? 

Those that fail to see the similarities are the ones that look silly here. I can only assume it's a case of "that's ok, because I enjoy that myself!" Absolute hypocrisy, as was pointed out from the very beginning. So no, I will not drop it. How about you admit your hypocrisy? 😉 

I'm not trying to 'justify' anything, smokers don't need me to justify their actions, they're fully grown adults (mostly) who can do what the hell they like with their own bodies. Neither they, or I, have to justify their actions to you, who do you think you are? I'm simply pointing out that if there's a case for completely banning cigarettes, then the same applies to alcohol.

I dunno, maybe just start raising the drinking age every year, as they won't miss it then. 😉 (See how long you can buy it for, at reasonable prices and convenient locations, when the customer base starts to dwindle.)

Last thing I'm going to say on the matter is this... We do not elect governments to control what we do with our own bodies... Prohibition does not work, whatsoever, under any circumstances. 

 

The similarities list you posted could be applied to anything, though. Like computer games, or something. The issue is the damage it does to people and the people around them. The figures you're presenting are skewed, too, because smoking has been pretty much wiped out as far as this country goes. So those stats that you're championing are a result of the government action you're condemning.

 

Saying that alcohol is more addictive than smoking is wrong. You can get gradual addiction to alcohol, sure, but nicotine addiction is rapid. Most people take alcohol in moderation (there are recommended unit intakes on bottles that you shouldn't exceed) without becoming addicted. There are issues there, of course. 

 

But smoking is just way worse than alcohol in every way. So much so that they're not comparable. 

 

Getting back to the issue, though, no one here (to my knowledge) has said smoking should be banned tomorrow. I think that argument might be something that's in your own mind. But there's really no downside to phasing it out gradually. It's a rational thing to do, and that's why it's happening and everyone apart from you is ok with it.

[Alvoram]

2 hours ago, CharlotteB said:

 

 

The similarities list you posted could be applied to anything, though. Like computer games, or something. The issue is the damage it does to people and the people around them. The figures you're presenting are skewed, too, because smoking has been pretty much wiped out as far as this country goes. So those stats that you're championing are a result of the government action you're condemning.

 

Saying that alcohol is more addictive than smoking is wrong. You can get gradual addiction to alcohol, sure, but nicotine addiction is rapid. Most people take alcohol in moderation (there are recommended unit intakes on bottles that you shouldn't exceed) without becoming addicted. There are issues there, of course. 

 

But smoking is just way worse than alcohol in every way. So much so that they're not comparable. 

 

Getting back to the issue, though, no one here (to my knowledge) has said smoking should be banned tomorrow. I think that argument might be something that's in your own mind. But there's really no downside to phasing it out gradually. It's a rational thing to do, and that's why it's happening and everyone apart from you is ok with it.

I give in honestly...

Enjoy your drink 🙂 

Editing just to leave this here. 🙂 https://alcoholchange.org.uk/alcohol-facts/fact-sheets/alcohol-statistics (Alcohol a factor in 39% of ALL violent incidents is a jump out shocker!) 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Alvoram

[A Particular Grey Chihuahu]

I give in too. If you can't see that smoking is completely nonsensical (i.e. you don't even get pleasure out of it unless you're already addicted) then there's no way you'll ever understand. I'll leave this conversation with the following AI information on second hand smoking, and hopefully people who decide to light up in a crowd at Glastonbury, who have no idea who is around them, will have second thoughts and be more considerate...

 

 

Conversation with Gemini

What are the risks of second hand smoking?

 

Secondhand smoke, also known as passive smoking, is a serious health hazard that can cause a wide range of health problems in both adults and children. Here are some of the key risks:  

For Adults

Cardiovascular disease: Secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and high blood pressure.  

 

Secondhand smoke heart disease

Lung cancer: Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke have a significantly higher risk of developing lung cancer.  

 

Secondhand smoke lung cancer

Respiratory diseases: Secondhand smoke can worsen respiratory conditions like asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.  

 

Secondhand smoke respiratory diseases

Other cancers: Exposure to secondhand smoke has been linked to an increased risk of cancers of the bladder, cervix, stomach, and pancreas.

For Children

Respiratory infections: Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to develop respiratory infections like pneumonia and bronchitis.  

 

Secondhand smoke respiratory infections

Asthma: Secondhand smoke can trigger asthma attacks and worsen asthma symptoms in children with the condition.  

Opens in a new windowaluna.blog

Secondhand smoke asthma

Ear infections: Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to develop ear infections.  

 

Secondhand smoke ear infections

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): Secondhand smoke is a major risk factor for SIDS, a leading cause of infant death.  

 

Secondhand smoke SIDS

Long-term health effects: Children exposed to secondhand smoke may have impaired lung growth and development, leading to long-term respiratory problems.  

Additional risks

Pregnant women: Secondhand smoke exposure during pregnancy can lead to premature birth, low birth weight, and other complications.  

 

Secondhand smoke pregnant women

Infants and young children: Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke due to their developing respiratory systems.  

Important to note:

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.  

The only way to protect yourself and your loved ones from the dangers of secondhand smoke is to avoid exposure altogether.  

[Alvoram]

2 minutes ago, A Particular Grey Chihuahu said:

I give in too. If you can't see that smoking is completely nonsensical (i.e. you don't even get pleasure out of it unless you're already addicted) then there's no way you'll ever understand. I'll leave this conversation with the following AI information on second hand smoking, and hopefully people who decide to light up in a crowd at Glastonbury, who have no idea who is around them, will have second thoughts and be more considerate...

 

 

Conversation with Gemini

What are the risks of second hand smoking?

 

Secondhand smoke, also known as passive smoking, is a serious health hazard that can cause a wide range of health problems in both adults and children. Here are some of the key risks:  

For Adults

Cardiovascular disease: Secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease, stroke, and high blood pressure.  

 

Secondhand smoke heart disease

Lung cancer: Non-smokers exposed to secondhand smoke have a significantly higher risk of developing lung cancer.  

 

Secondhand smoke lung cancer

Respiratory diseases: Secondhand smoke can worsen respiratory conditions like asthma, bronchitis, and emphysema.  

 

Secondhand smoke respiratory diseases

Other cancers: Exposure to secondhand smoke has been linked to an increased risk of cancers of the bladder, cervix, stomach, and pancreas.

For Children

Respiratory infections: Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to develop respiratory infections like pneumonia and bronchitis.  

 

Secondhand smoke respiratory infections

Asthma: Secondhand smoke can trigger asthma attacks and worsen asthma symptoms in children with the condition.  

Opens in a new windowaluna.blog

Secondhand smoke asthma

Ear infections: Children exposed to secondhand smoke are more likely to develop ear infections.  

 

Secondhand smoke ear infections

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS): Secondhand smoke is a major risk factor for SIDS, a leading cause of infant death.  

 

Secondhand smoke SIDS

Long-term health effects: Children exposed to secondhand smoke may have impaired lung growth and development, leading to long-term respiratory problems.  

Additional risks

Pregnant women: Secondhand smoke exposure during pregnancy can lead to premature birth, low birth weight, and other complications.  

 

Secondhand smoke pregnant women

Infants and young children: Infants and young children are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of secondhand smoke due to their developing respiratory systems.  

Important to note:

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.  

The only way to protect yourself and your loved ones from the dangers of secondhand smoke is to avoid exposure altogether.  

Hopefully nobody lights up at all, you get your clean air, nobody drinks anything, (or does anything else) so nobody has to put up with any antisocial behaviour, and the medical tent has a very quiet festival... 

We can all have a good, clean, festival... Looking forward to it. 🙂