The Old Half Time Smoke Thread

[Knibbsworth]

It's a dying habit... literally... That said is it really a big deal not having a fag for 2/ 2.5 hours...

If you smoke 30 a day and are used to having two cigarettes an hour, I suppose it is a big deal going without for over two hours.

If Argyle can create an area where it doesn't bother non-smokers, what's the big deal?

There may even be a few hundred smokers out there who currently won't come to Home Park while the ban is in place. Can we afford to lose that potential revenue?

 

[Penmaster]

Presto, I acknowledge my cloths, hair etc stink enough to know it can make some non smokers feel ill, although can't smell it on other smokers.

Flip side of your coin is if your not a smoker you can't appreciate the level of addiction, to a legal drug. There has to be a compromise. What has been suggested is just that and works well at most lower league grounds.

Ballham you don't like walking through smoke outside buildings? It was non smokers who campaigned to make smokers go outside the doors! Pre 2007 we were more than happy smoking inside! In buildings other than pubs, often in designated rooms and areas, you can't have it both ways.

As a non smoker I have a right to be able to walk through a door without having to inhale others' possibly cancer causing chemicals. It defeats the object of the exercise if they all stand right outside the door. Re the addiction element I get its is difficult to give up but dont believe the symptoms are anywhere near as bad as those giving up e.g heroin.

Do you drive a car or any form of fossil fuel burning transport?

Was your point going to be "then you're a hypocrite as you're also poisoning the air for people?"

If so, it's ridiculous. Driving is a societal necessity for a myriad of reasons, and pollution caused by it is something with which massive efforts are being taken all the time. It doesn't really compare to your selfish need to hang around by doorways blowing smoke into people's faces, does it?

Yes that was my point and I think it is far from ridiculous. I don't smoke and I do drive a car, but surely someone who doesn't drive would be just as entitled to complain about the air contamination caused by burning fuel than a non smoker complaining about smokers smoking in open air in public. I can't fathom how you can't see the parallels.

I can't fathom how you can see the parallels. Are you saying smoking is a necessity or driving a car isn't??

Neither as that's not part of my argument, nor is it part of a counter argument. But i will indulge you thus. There are electric vehicles, solar powered transport, public transport... loads of different modes of transport which are less damaging to air quality then driving. So, one could argue that driving a fuel powered car and pumping harmful emissions directly into the lungs of innocent people on their pushbikes and on foot is not a necessity.

 

[Presto]

I was a heavily addicted smoker from the age of 14 through to 38. I realised that I was not just slowly killing myself but also inflicting a disgusting habit on my wife and children. I gave up - not without a big big struggle. For many years after stopping I would dream about smoking.

Now I recognise what a filthy habit it is which not only affects the user but also impacts on those both close to the user but also those who come into close contact with the user. It is a total erroneous argument to suggest that smokers contribute to the NHS or the general tax take. They are actually spongers on the health system and on the rest of society by expecting special treatment ie working less hours etc.

Drug addiction is a blot on society and there are no grounds to suggest that Argyle or anyone else should take special measures to support this disgusting habit.

 

[IJN]

I'm an ex smoker (30 years ago I gave up).

If people want a fag at half time outside the ground and Argyle can do it, then why not?

Jesus some people are holier thou aren't they?

 

[Pilgrim78]

I'm an ex smoker (30 years ago I gave up).

If people want a fag at half time outside the ground and Argyle can do it, then why not?

Jesus some people are holier thou aren't they?

Well said let's move on shall we.

 

[argyleapf]

Presto, I acknowledge my cloths, hair etc stink enough to know it can make some non smokers feel ill, although can't smell it on other smokers.

Flip side of your coin is if your not a smoker you can't appreciate the level of addiction, to a legal drug. There has to be a compromise. What has been suggested is just that and works well at most lower league grounds.

Ballham you don't like walking through smoke outside buildings? It was non smokers who campaigned to make smokers go outside the doors! Pre 2007 we were more than happy smoking inside! In buildings other than pubs, often in designated rooms and areas, you can't have it both ways.

As a non smoker I have a right to be able to walk through a door without having to inhale others' possibly cancer causing chemicals. It defeats the object of the exercise if they all stand right outside the door. Re the addiction element I get its is difficult to give up but dont believe the symptoms are anywhere near as bad as those giving up e.g heroin.

It is a proven scientific fact that nicotteen is as addictive as herion.

 

[Isondil]

It's a dying habit... literally... That said is it really a big deal not having a fag for 2/ 2.5 hours...

If you smoke 30 a day and are used to having two cigarettes an hour, I suppose it is a big deal going without for over two hours.

If Argyle can create an area where it doesn't bother non-smokers, what's the big deal?

There may even be a few hundred smokers out there who currently won't come to Home Park while the ban is in place. Can we afford to lose that potential revenue?

As many a smoker has already identified, you can smoke inside Home Park at half time. You just need to be in the right place, the FanFest. It's your choice not to, knowing the consequences.

 

[Guiri Green]

Presto, I acknowledge my cloths, hair etc stink enough to know it can make some non smokers feel ill, although can't smell it on other smokers.

Flip side of your coin is if your not a smoker you can't appreciate the level of addiction, to a legal drug. There has to be a compromise. What has been suggested is just that and works well at most lower league grounds.

Ballham you don't like walking through smoke outside buildings? It was non smokers who campaigned to make smokers go outside the doors! Pre 2007 we were more than happy smoking inside! In buildings other than pubs, often in designated rooms and areas, you can't have it both ways.

As a non smoker I have a right to be able to walk through a door without having to inhale others' possibly cancer causing chemicals. It defeats the object of the exercise if they all stand right outside the door. Re the addiction element I get its is difficult to give up but dont believe the symptoms are anywhere near as bad as those giving up e.g heroin.

It is a proven scientific fact that nicotteen is as addictive as herion.

And shooting up is banned from HP too. Unless someone wants to moan about that as well.

 

[Presto]

OK, enough said. The fors and against are not going to agree and we all think we are right. No change there as we all have opinions on team selection, formation and player capability. So lets get back to mocking each others views re the team, the manager, the players and all things green!

 

[Argyle sy]

Smokers really don't have a clue (see it works both ways)

So you all go out and have your half time fag, return to your seat (next to me) bringing your cloud of pollution with you (on your breath and slowly drifting from your clothing and hair) This aggravates my asthma and starts a fatal asthma attack and I die in the seat beside you, but hey at least your happy because you had your fag...

Allan. I didn't start smoking until I was in my 20's. I came from a family of smokers, both parents and 3 out of 4 siblings all smoked. I am perfectly aware of what it is like as a non smoker being around smokers. In fact, by the age of 16 my lung capacity was already under 70% despite the fact I had never touched a cigarette in my life, so I am also fully aware of what the effects of what second hand smoke can do. I have lost both parents and 2 brothers to smoking related illnesses, I also came perilously close to losing my remaining brother due to a smoking related illness(he had terminal COPD and had a life expectancy of 2 weeks, but for a double lung transplant he wouldn't still be here now). I repsect the views of non smokers as I used to be 1 myself. What I will not accept is the notion that smokers should "just go without", it's a bit like a person who has never touched a drop of alcohol in their life telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking. Unless you have been there yourself then I do not believe you have any way of understanding both the level of physical and mental addiction that smoking causes. As I said, I am a heavy smoker, 40+ a day, I have tried everything from £200+ e cigarettes to patches, gum, mints, mibi tabs and inhilators, sadly my body won't accept any of these as substitues and within hours I am back smoking again.

I don't like having to breathe in smoke from car exhausts every time I go out, should I tell every driver to no longer drive their cars in public ?, of course not, and I don't think the same should be expected of smokers.

 

[Argyle sy]

I love the "non-smokers don't have a clue" approach. In all the posts Mark has quoted with a rebuttal he essentially cites "they cater for this addiction, so they should cater for mine" logic. Quoting , alcohol, chocolate (at overinflated compared to high st prices) and the fact the club once allowed gambling but no longer do as reasons you should be allowed to smoke...

Secondhand (passive) smoke unlike the other examples stated above do more than just offend people. It affects everyone else's health. Your passive smoke, after you exhale, still contains approximately 4000 chemicals, 250 are disease causing, 100 of which are toxic and a further 70 are cancerous. This affects children and pregnant ladies worse than adults, in the main. But in adults your secondhand smoke can cause stroke, cancer or heart disease. Yes, if people choose to smoke they can contribute to illness in others. In children it can be ear infections, in pregnancy your second hand smoke has been medically proven to cause SIDS.

Make no joke, passive smoking has a severe affect on the lives of other people, not just that I / we don't like it. Do I like being addicted to chocolate? No, chocolate contains the same chemical that alters the brain as cannabis. Does me eating a chocolate bar or two at half time have the same secondary health affects as smoking? No, my chocolate addiction will not send someone to the GP the next day.

I'm all for smokers being able to run the risks of premature death or illness, that is your choice but when you're addiction has the ability to inflict illness and in the very extreme premature death on others that do not smoke, I'm glad the club (though they are not saying it) say 'public health comes first'.

As has been indicted, smokers are catered for at HP via allowing smoking at the Fanfest. It just so happens to be a personal choice not to take the utility of that provision. Though, clemency should be offered to people with disabilities as I'm all to aware of how an undue long walk can have secondary or tertiary implications a day or two later.

Isondel, it is a matter of fact that non smokers really don't have a clue, and I am not meaning that in a nasty way. Many experts and many studies state that Nicotene is as addictive as Heroin, so no, I fail to see howe someone that has never smoked could have any idea as to the levels of physical and mental addiction that Nicotene causes people, so the whole "they can go 2 hours without a cigarette for 2 hours, surely it can't be that hard" approach is ridiculous. You need to remember that the tobacco companies deliberately make it addictive because that drives up their profits, after all what use would it be to them if it really was as easy as "just go without, it isn't that hard".

Thousands of people stop smoking every day. Stop being so weak and playing the victim, and show some willpower. There's plenty of help out there for people who want to stop.

Unless you don't want to, which is fair enough and completely your right, but society doesn't need to acquiesce to you in any way. We'll keep pushing you further away from people who don't want to inhale your smoke, and you'll have to learn to deal with it.

Being so weak and playing the victim ? lol, sorry Andy, can you point out where I asked for any sympathy ?, nah didn't think so. Many on here like monkeywrench know what I have been through due to the effects of smoking on my family so your comments are pretty ignorant. I don't particually want to breathe in the smoke from your car when I go outside, maybe I should stop you, pull you out of the car and tell you not to drive again, afte all if you have the right to say you don't want to breathe in my smoke then I have just as much right to say the same thing to you.

 

[Argyle sy]

I love the "non-smokers don't have a clue" approach. In all the posts Mark has quoted with a rebuttal he essentially cites "they cater for this addiction, so they should cater for mine" logic. Quoting , alcohol, chocolate (at overinflated compared to high st prices) and the fact the club once allowed gambling but no longer do as reasons you should be allowed to smoke...

Secondhand (passive) smoke unlike the other examples stated above do more than just offend people. It affects everyone else's health. Your passive smoke, after you exhale, still contains approximately 4000 chemicals, 250 are disease causing, 100 of which are toxic and a further 70 are cancerous. This affects children and pregnant ladies worse than adults, in the main. But in adults your secondhand smoke can cause stroke, cancer or heart disease. Yes, if people choose to smoke they can contribute to illness in others. In children it can be ear infections, in pregnancy your second hand smoke has been medically proven to cause SIDS.

Make no joke, passive smoking has a severe affect on the lives of other people, not just that I / we don't like it. Do I like being addicted to chocolate? No, chocolate contains the same chemical that alters the brain as cannabis. Does me eating a chocolate bar or two at half time have the same secondary health affects as smoking? No, my chocolate addiction will not send someone to the GP the next day.

I'm all for smokers being able to run the risks of premature death or illness, that is your choice but when you're addiction has the ability to inflict illness and in the very extreme premature death on others that do not smoke, I'm glad the club (though they are not saying it) say 'public health comes first'.

As has been indicted, smokers are catered for at HP via allowing smoking at the Fanfest. It just so happens to be a personal choice not to take the utility of that provision. Though, clemency should be offered to people with disabilities as I'm all to aware of how an undue long walk can have secondary or tertiary implications a day or two later.

Isondel, it is a matter of fact that non smokers really don't have a clue, and I am not meaning that in a nasty way. Many experts and many studies state that Nicotene is as addictive as Heroin, so no, I fail to see howe someone that has never smoked could have any idea as to the levels of physical and mental addiction that Nicotene causes people, so the whole "they can go 2 hours without a cigarette for 2 hours, surely it can't be that hard" approach is ridiculous. You need to remember that the tobacco companies deliberately make it addictive because that drives up their profits, after all what use would it be to them if it really was as easy as "just go without, it isn't that hard".

You'd have been jiggered at my last work place then. No smoking during working hours - anywhere. No smoking shelters, no little outdoor ashtrays. Addiction or not, unlucky, get over it. There was an understanding of addiction, it came in the form of free assistance in giving up. Blaming tobacco conpanies for making an addictive substance into an addictive substance is a poor excuse for not smoking for a couple of hours. Try a nictotine patch.

I would have jiggered indeed, however my last few jobs my bosses have all been smokers as well and you were allowed to smoke on the premisses. Try a Nicotene patch ? lol, it really is amazing how clueless people like you are. Blaming the companies for making Nicotene more addictive, why do you think they put all those even more addictive chemicals in tailor made cigarettes and hand rolling tobacco, doesn't take a genius to work it out so you clearly aren't a genius.

 

[Argyle sy]

Presto, I acknowledge my cloths, hair etc stink enough to know it can make some non smokers feel ill, although can't smell it on other smokers.

Flip side of your coin is if your not a smoker you can't appreciate the level of addiction, to a legal drug. There has to be a compromise. What has been suggested is just that and works well at most lower league grounds.

Ballham you don't like walking through smoke outside buildings? It was non smokers who campaigned to make smokers go outside the doors! Pre 2007 we were more than happy smoking inside! In buildings other than pubs, often in designated rooms and areas, you can't have it both ways.

As a non smoker I have a right to be able to walk through a door without having to inhale others' possibly cancer causing chemicals. It defeats the object of the exercise if they all stand right outside the door. Re the addiction element I get its is difficult to give up but dont believe the symptoms are anywhere near as bad as those giving up e.g heroin.

As a non driver I have the right to go outside and not breathe in air from passing vehicles, works both ways. You don't think it is anywhere near as addictive as Heroin ?, suggest you go do some research then, the evidence is there, something like 90% of smokers who try to quit have started smoking again within the first week, that is a pretty high figure for something which isn't very addictive.

 

[Argyle sy]

It's a dying habit... literally... That said is it really a big deal not having a fag for 2/ 2.5 hours...

If you smoke 30 a day and are used to having two cigarettes an hour, I suppose it is a big deal going without for over two hours.

If Argyle can create an area where it doesn't bother non-smokers, what's the big deal?

There may even be a few hundred smokers out there who currently won't come to Home Park while the ban is in place. Can we afford to lose that potential revenue?

I smoke roughly 45 a day, first 2 hours I am awake its every 20 minutes, then every half hour until 11pm then back to every 20 minutes. if someone is a heavy smoker like me then the notion that they should "just go without" is ridiculous and shows a high level of ignorance.

 

[Isondil]

Presto, I acknowledge my cloths, hair etc stink enough to know it can make some non smokers feel ill, although can't smell it on other smokers.

Flip side of your coin is if your not a smoker you can't appreciate the level of addiction, to a legal drug. There has to be a compromise. What has been suggested is just that and works well at most lower league grounds.

Ballham you don't like walking through smoke outside buildings? It was non smokers who campaigned to make smokers go outside the doors! Pre 2007 we were more than happy smoking inside! In buildings other than pubs, often in designated rooms and areas, you can't have it both ways.

As a non smoker I have a right to be able to walk through a door without having to inhale others' possibly cancer causing chemicals. It defeats the object of the exercise if they all stand right outside the door. Re the addiction element I get its is difficult to give up but dont believe the symptoms are anywhere near as bad as those giving up e.g heroin.

As a non driver I have the right to go outside and not breathe in air from passing vehicles, works both ways. You don't think it is anywhere near as addictive as Heroin ?, suggest you go do some research then, the evidence is there, something like 90% of smokers who try to quit have started smoking again within the first week, that is a pretty high figure for something which isn't very addictive.

You can probably tell I'm vehemently on the side of non-smoking. But I can not ignore that nicotine is consistently in the worlds top 5 addictive substances. I also concede the addiction is to a greater or lesser extent different depending on you.

My point is, the club does make a provision for those who smoke. Just because it isn't everywhere around the stadium doesn't mean they must provide it in the area you'd prefer. You are welcome, like other smokers, to choose to use that provision or not to use it. If you're addicted to the extent that 2 hours without a cig gets you worked up, white knuckled etc then why do you not use the area provided by the club which allows you to smoke? It satisfies your addiction, you still enjoy the game, people like me get the knowing choice to also use that facility and decide id I want to or not. For me it's win-win, unless you have a disability that means you can't get to that provision I don't see how smokers lose out at Home Park.