| Author |
Message |
ziccawei
Post Roaster
Joined: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 4556
Location: Ziccawei
Status: Offline
|
 Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 06:25 AM |
 
|
|
A smoking ban in China is just ridiculous. Smoking in China has strong cultural references so taking that away may insult many of the older generation. Walk around Shanghai - Do you ever feel you're not within spitting distance (sic) of at least three people smoking? If it was an olympic sport not only would the Chinese win but the CCP would have erected a cigarette stadium to host it.
Ever see middle-aged Chinese guys offering each other fags? That always makes me laugh a bit. |
_________________
Jackie Onnassis on acid. |
|
|
|
jay_dee
Reacher
Joined: Mar 22, 2009
Posts: 330
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 06:54 AM |
|
|
Giving up donuts is easy in China, they all taste like cardboard anyway - nothing at all like you would get back home in 'real' shops. |
_________________
US Expat in Shanghai |
|
|
|
|
ProcrastiNation
Talker
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 104
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 09:23 AM |
|
|
| CoffeeHawk_0 wrote: |
| ProcrastiNation wrote: |
Stop with the alcohol v smoking argument because it's ridiculous and just further goes to show how weak the smokers argument for smoking in public places really is.
Drinking alcohol itself doesn't inherently impact upon people in the immediate vicinity. If I'm sitting at a bar having a beer I don't make the person next to me drink as well. If someone can't handle alcohol and acts like a complete arse when they drink it, it is a question of self control. Smoking DOES impact upon people in the immediate vicinity no matter how nice the smoker is. |
Alcohol DOES impact people in the immediate vicinity and ever worse, impacts people miles away from the bar. This person who loses control due to drinking shoots you at the bar because he's mad at his boss, or he runs you over in a crosswalk 4 miles away from the bar because he or she is driving drunk? Oh, that's not the alcohol's fault you say, so let's give everyone a gun because guns don't kill, people do.  |
Again you arguments are weak and desperate (AND repetitive). Firstly regarding the blue collar workers, you may be right, exercise and physical fitness has a lot to do with overall health and well-being but please show some data (1 that the group of blue collar workers had a higher smoking rate than the white collar workers and 2 the rate of smoke related disease in the white collar workers was higher) to back that up as I have done with the cigarette smoke.
I'm not going to explain again why the alcohol argument is flawed, if you don't have the cognitive development to understand that what you are arguing is ridiculous by now, then you never will. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Beng
Rocker
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 779
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 09:52 AM |
|
|
| ProcrastiNation wrote: |
^Again not a relevant argument. Reckless driving is a question of enforcement.
It might not seem like it in China but there are laws in place to protect pedestrians. The argument is that laws should also be created to protect non-smokers. Whether they are enforced or not is another question. |
Yes, I think we need a law to protect smokers from the haressment of non-smokers who step into a smoking zone and then unrinate publicly. Smokers should not have to deal with inconsiderate non-smokers public pisser..or a restraining order that non-smokers stay 10 metres away from smokers to avoid a riot.
Btw, instigating a riot: Live imprisonment. |
|
|
|
|
|
ProcrastiNation
Talker
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 104
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 10:17 AM |
|
|
That's the whole point. The law will reduce the "smoking zones" from anywhere and everywhere to places that will allow smokers to suck away on their death sticks in the comfort and privacy of their own abode or other non-public area. There they can revel in their own cancerous stench without non-smokers also having to share the experience.
Basically there are two main points the smokers here have made.
1. That smoking is not detrimental to your health and in fact can be beneficial. All those so called "doctors" and recognised international health & medical organisations are simply part of a global fascist movement to suppress the rights of the poor old smoker.
2. That there are much worse things in the world than smoking. So we should not even worry about cigarettes until we have solved all the rest of the worlds problems (racism, war, human trafficking, drugs, child labour, pollution, drunk drivers and public urinators). |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Beng
Rocker
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 779
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 10:19 AM |
|
|
Ban non-smokers from transpassing the city...Or sign a disclaimer that states; enter at your own risk.
If you do sign the disclaimer, you should just zip up.
We all live happily thereafter... |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Beng
Rocker
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 779
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 10:32 AM |
|
|
| ProcrastiNation wrote: |
| That's the whole point. The law will reduce the "smoking zones" from anywhere and everywhere to places that will allow smokers to suck away on their death sticks in the comfort and privacy of their own abode or other non-public area. There they can revel in their own cancerous stench without non-smokers also having to share the experience. |
No, the point is that the law will further enlarge smoking zones everywhere and anywhere. Non-smokers should remain indoors to refrain themselves from harressing smokers by way of public urination. You are infringing the rights of this smoker's paradise.
Non-smokers should stay out of this bustling smoker city where the economy and culture is interwine with smoking.
Non-smokers have the rights to resdie in a place where smokers are discrimated, like Singapore. That's your paradise. Not here. |
|
|
|
|
|
JyBravo70
Seeker
Joined: Nov 25, 2005
Posts: 64
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 03:07 PM |
|
|
It won't happen here, all this debate is academic. Sure they can raise the taxes through the roof like they did in the US and reap all sorts of tax revenue but just as there it will not do anything here. Smoking is everywhere and, unfortunately as a parent, it is really hard to find non-smoking kid friendly restaurants, mesuems, or places to take the kids without some group of people smoking. Its not their fault its what is done here and they don't know about the dangers of smoke to kids. Save keeping the kids at home its hard, but doable here.
Its getting better at airports and subway but its more of a cultural thing, trying to legislate it is like getting the locals to follow traffic laws, no enforcement no change. |
|
|
 
 |
|
CoffeeHawk_0
Board Deity
Joined: July 14, 2005
Posts: 17977
|
| Posted:
Oct 20, 2009 - 07:05 PM |
|
|
| ProcrastiNation wrote: |
| CoffeeHawk_0 wrote: |
| ProcrastiNation wrote: |
Stop with the alcohol v smoking argument because it's ridiculous and just further goes to show how weak the smokers argument for smoking in public places really is.
Drinking alcohol itself doesn't inherently impact upon people in the immediate vicinity. If I'm sitting at a bar having a beer I don't make the person next to me drink as well. If someone can't handle alcohol and acts like a complete arse when they drink it, it is a question of self control. Smoking DOES impact upon people in the immediate vicinity no matter how nice the smoker is. |
Alcohol DOES impact people in the immediate vicinity and ever worse, impacts people miles away from the bar. This person who loses control due to drinking shoots you at the bar because he's mad at his boss, or he runs you over in a crosswalk 4 miles away from the bar because he or she is driving drunk? Oh, that's not the alcohol's fault you say, so let's give everyone a gun because guns don't kill, people do. |
Again you arguments are weak and desperate (AND repetitive). Firstly regarding the blue collar workers, you may be right, exercise and physical fitness has a lot to do with overall health and well-being but please show some data (1 that the group of blue collar workers had a higher smoking rate than the white collar workers and 2 the rate of smoke related disease in the white collar workers was higher) to back that up as I have done with the cigarette smoke.
I'm not going to explain again why the alcohol argument is flawed, if you don't have the cognitive development to understand that what you are arguing is ridiculous by now, then you never will. |
"White collar workers that DON'T smoke"
This is from the Surgeoon General's own reports. You, and I, are not allowed to see the data, (you undoubtly started your research at the beginning when the government confiscated not only the PC's but the servers at the ISPs when the Surgeon General's actual data was sent out over the internet, in the early days of this recent anti smoking capaign, cirsa 1982) however, but all the reports are on their website. Most of what you see in media is either 'sound bytes' of text from those reports, or articles that start out "A report was released today from xxxx that says..." which offers no credibility, but that's what the average person reads.
Seems you are doing all the generalizing, not quite what we expect from a 'university researcher'. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Beng
Rocker
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 779
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 01:34 AM |
|
|
Non-Smokers Public Urinators,
Before you whip out your genitals and start pissing all over the place, suck it up!
Like it or not, China is the most smoke-filled nation in the world, the largest consumer and producer of tobacco. Its 350 million smokers account for a third of the world's total. The country produces 42 per cent of all cigarettes on the planet. Sixty percent of all males over 15 smoke.
Smoking is considered social custom in China, rather than a dirty, nasty habit as pursued by puplic urinators. In China, smoking serves an important social function: the connection builder. When people meet each other, it is a custom for everyone to offer cigarettes to signal respect and hospitality. Among known friends or acquaintances, cigarette offering is equally prevalent and important, and serves the function of reinforcing friendships or relationships. For a non-smoker, it is very easy to suffer the agony and even humiliation of not accepting someone's polite but pushy offer of a cigarette because Chinese culture accepts repeated offerings of cigarettes as a gesture of hospitality."
Last November, The Globe and Mail (Toronto) reported some exciting medical news from China: Smoking is great for your health! Cigarettes are an excellent way to prevent ulcers, reduce the risk of Parkinson's disease, relieve schizophrenia, boost your brain cells, speed up your thinking, improve your reactions and increase your working efficiency! As for those depressing warnings about lung cancer, not to worry. You're more likely to get cancer from kitchen smoke than from smoking! |
|
|
|
|
|
CoffeeHawk_0
Board Deity
Joined: July 14, 2005
Posts: 17977
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 06:24 AM |
|
|
everyone is focusing on the tail of the dog when they should be looking at the bite, a good example of the gullible sheep falling prey to their masters |
|
|
|
|
|
Renovator
SuperStar
Joined: Apr 18, 2007
Posts: 1430
Location: Century Park & MA,USA
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 08:37 AM |
|
|
| Ah Beng wrote: |
... Sixty percent of all males over 15 smoke.
|
Since such a small percentage of Chinese women smoke (about 2.3% nationwide) may be why foreign non-smoking men are in such demand in China by Chinese women.  |
|
|
|
|
|
DrShanghai
Reacher
Joined: Nov 06, 2005
Posts: 318
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 09:08 AM |
|
|
I think it is more like 80 percent |
|
|
 |
|
fulltrack
Reacher
Joined: Sep 17, 2008
Posts: 257
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 09:30 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Beng
Rocker
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 779
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 11:44 AM |
|
|
When in rome, do as the romans do... |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Beng
Rocker
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 779
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 21, 2009 - 09:15 PM |
|
|
Public urinators decided to skip town..?? |
|
|
|
|
|
ProcrastiNation
Talker
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 104
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2009 - 10:16 AM |
|
|
| CoffeeHawk_0 wrote: |
"White collar workers that DON'T smoke"
This is from the Surgeoon General's own reports. You, and I, are not allowed to see the data, (you undoubtly started your research at the beginning when the government confiscated not only the PC's but the servers at the ISPs when the Surgeon General's actual data was sent out over the internet, in the early days of this recent anti smoking capaign, cirsa 1982) however, but all the reports are on their website. Most of what you see in media is either 'sound bytes' of text from those reports, or articles that start out "A report was released today from xxxx that says..." which offers no credibility, but that's what the average person reads.
Seems you are doing all the generalizing, not quite what we expect from a 'university researcher'. |
^ Haha, incoherent and unsubstantiated nonsense, as usual. "Some Surgeon General" (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/) issued "some report" back before the governments who reap millions (billions?) of dollars in tobacco taxes decided to "confiscate" information indicating what? That smoking isn't bad for you? In order to reduce the number of smokers and tobacco tax revenue? yeah... right....
Judging by the reasoning of the smokers on this thread the study below is spot on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4078841.stm |
|
|
|
|
|
JyBravo70
Seeker
Joined: Nov 25, 2005
Posts: 64
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2009 - 01:14 PM |
|
|
Ironically it is illegal to smoke when driving a car, its on the license test, yet you always see drivers puffing away... Its their lungs and their decision. My only gripe is the smoking at kids venues (restaurants - to be fair many have non smoking sections now), amusement parks, play areas, arcades, etc.
People smoking is their choice, when smokers are in an enclosed room with non-smokers they have no choice. |
|
|
|
|
|
Ah Beng
Rocker
Joined: May 14, 2008
Posts: 779
Location: Shanghai Paradise
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2009 - 06:48 PM |
|
|
To be fair, most decent restaurants have smoking and non-smoking sections. So I don't see what's the all the fuss about smoke gets in your eyes or food.. |
|
|
|
|
|
leidelaohu
Board Lord
Joined: June 11, 2007
Posts: 5751
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 22, 2009 - 10:49 PM |
|
|
| Ah Beng wrote: |
| Live imprisonment. |
Not much point to dead imprisonment, if you ask me ... |
|
|
|
|
|
CoffeeHawk_0
Board Deity
Joined: July 14, 2005
Posts: 17977
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 - 07:16 AM |
|
|
| ProcrastiNation wrote: |
| CoffeeHawk_0 wrote: |
"White collar workers that DON'T smoke"
This is from the Surgeoon General's own reports. You, and I, are not allowed to see the data, (you undoubtly started your research at the beginning when the government confiscated not only the PC's but the servers at the ISPs when the Surgeon General's actual data was sent out over the internet, in the early days of this recent anti smoking capaign, cirsa 1982) however, but all the reports are on their website. Most of what you see in media is either 'sound bytes' of text from those reports, or articles that start out "A report was released today from xxxx that says..." which offers no credibility, but that's what the average person reads.
Seems you are doing all the generalizing, not quite what we expect from a 'university researcher'. |
^ Haha, incoherent and unsubstantiated nonsense, as usual. "Some Surgeon General" (http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/) issued "some report" back before the governments who reap millions (billions?) of dollars in tobacco taxes decided to "confiscate" information indicating what? That smoking isn't bad for you? In order to reduce the number of smokers and tobacco tax revenue? yeah... right....
Judging by the reasoning of the smokers on this thread the study below is spot on.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4078841.stm |
I understand your ignorance and it was my fault for not being more specific. The entire smoking issue for the current time period began in about 1981. US President Reagan assigned the US Surgeon General (a position that reports to the president, the highest medical position in the country) to start a campaign against smoking. Reagan was an ex-smoker and Hollywood party guy, about 70 years old. The Surgeon General was also about 70 and a smoker. The actual raw data collected is banned from public viewing, except for the leak I mentioned earlier. The Surgeon General resigned his post over the facist type manipulation of the statistics and the ensuing reports which skewed the statistics into the story that was mandated to be presented to the public. If you know anything about statistics, then you know when given feeble data you can create any type of summary you want. But it works both ways, and hence the constant 'arguments' over the alleged dangers of smoking. The largest group of smokers by the late 1970's: doctors, followed next by lawyers and policemen. Blue collar workers than do not smoke have 2X the chance of getting lung cancer than white collar workers that do smoke. On the other side, a 300 pound man who drinks excessively, does not exercise, has a family history of lung disease, and smokes, dies of a stroke: the death is labeled as 'smoking related' and even today is used in the figures you see in the media as 'smoking deaths'. |
|
|
|
|
|
CoffeeHawk_0
Board Deity
Joined: July 14, 2005
Posts: 17977
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 - 07:22 AM |
|
|
And, regarding the link, it is perfect example. How about the links to studies that have never been successfully contested that shows nicotine increase short term memory, focus, prevents Alzheimers, etc. The link you show feeds the emotional side of anti-smoking, but 460 people studied out of almost 2 billion people that smoke....is meaningless statistically. Furthermore, to accept that article one has to buy into the credibility of IQ tests. Try Googling "the value of IQ tests". |
|
|
|
|
|
ProcrastiNation
Talker
Joined: Oct 21, 2008
Posts: 104
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 - 10:15 AM |
|
|
Ok champ, here you go. Reports from the surgeon general's office dating back to 1964 warning of the effects that smoking has on health.
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/
Quote from the 1964 report
"Cigarette smoking is associated with a 70 per cent increase in the age-specific death rates of males, and to a lesser extent with increased death rates of females. The total number of excess deaths casually related to cigarette smoking in the U.S. population cannot be accurately estimated. In view of the continuing and mounting evidence from many sources, it is the judgment if the Committee that cigarette smoking contributes substantially to mortality from certain specific diseases and to the overall death rate."
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Neville_Bartos
Barker
Joined: July 22, 2009
Posts: 196
Location: Behind you
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 - 05:37 PM |
|
|
Suck it up smokers! Your time is slowly coming to an end on this planet. Argue all you want but you are a dying race. |
|
|
|
|
|
monalisalee
Veejay
Joined: May 10, 2005
Posts: 2019
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Oct 23, 2009 - 09:12 PM |
|
|
Neville_Bartos wrote:
Suck it up smokers! Your time is slowly coming to an end on this planet. Argue all you want but you are a dying race.
DEAD right.
Smoking is addictive and those addicted will defend it literally to the death.
I know when I smoked I would do that, but gave up and survived.
This argument cannot be won, well, except by the "still living" non-smokers. |
_________________
johnboy88 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
