The Old Half Time Smoke Thread

[Guiri Green]

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.

I'm no genius but have the intelligence to have not smoked since 1985, when cigarettes were so much cheaper than now, and in my case , Duty Free.

I was surrounded by booze and cheap smokes, but I never blamed everyone else for me partaking, nor did I feel hard done by when the situation prevented me from accessing either for however long was required.

 

[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.

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.

I managed to give up after a lifetime of cigarette smoking by now vaping instead. This was allowed behind the stand in the fresh air until this season. As a Fanfest member and disabled, I can only vape if I suffer the journey to and thro at half time. Vaping in the open air, away from the stand and others causes no detrement to anyone (no lingering smell,etc) and is just a penalty without any just cause or reasoning. I can understand some of the reasons given against cigarette smoking inside the ground but this is authority gone mad. :thumbdown:

 

[Andy Holland]

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.

Woe is me.

People who smoke as much as you stop all the time, but they probably have less of a "I'm helpless" attitude to it and display a bit of willpower and mental fortitude instead of crumbling when it gets tough.

This is getting off topic - there aren't facilities for you at Argyle and there aren't about to be. If you don't like that, don't go.

 

[robbieB]

This is no longer about Argyle. Can it be moved?

 

[Lancastergreen]

I say make the non smokers have a fag

 

[Miles Bidgood]

This is awful.....

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

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.

I managed to give up after a lifetime of cigarette smoking by now vaping instead. This was allowed behind the stand in the fresh air until this season. As a Fanfest member and disabled, I can only vape if I suffer the journey to and thro at half time. Vaping in the open air, away from the stand and others causes no detrement to anyone (no lingering smell,etc) and is just a penalty without any just cause or reasoning. I can understand some of the reasons given against cigarette smoking inside the ground but this is authority gone mad. :thumbdown:

Vaping is still in it's infancy and we just don't know if there are any implications to users and those around them. 50 years ago we didn't know what we know now about tobacco products. I think it is wise to not trust this "new smoke" until we really know and if that takes another 50 years then so be it.

 

[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.

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.

I managed to give up after a lifetime of cigarette smoking by now vaping instead. This was allowed behind the stand in the fresh air until this season. As a Fanfest member and disabled, I can only vape if I suffer the journey to and thro at half time. Vaping in the open air, away from the stand and others causes no detrement to anyone (no lingering smell,etc) and is just a penalty without any just cause or reasoning. I can understand some of the reasons given against cigarette smoking inside the ground but this is authority gone mad. :thumbdown:

Vaping is still in it's infancy and we just don't know if there are any implications to users and those around them. 50 years ago we didn't know what we know now about tobacco products. I think it is wise to not trust this "new smoke" until we really know and if that takes another 50 years then so be it.

 

[neilbet79]

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.

It is tough and I know full well the addiction, but you have to agree it's a pretty horrible habit for you (and those around you). I understand why sports clubs would not make it easy to spark up, especially with kids about etc.

 

[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.

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.

If the club does provide a provision then that is all well and great, and the club should be applauded for it. However from what I have read it seems that the availlability is only for those sitting in the grandstand or those who are attaneding the fan fest, this means that a certain proportion if smokers who sit in other parts of the ground are not able to smoke at this current time. I am not certain of the logistics regarding access to the Lyndhusrt and the Devonport but maybe an area accessible to both outside could be put aside for people wanting toi have a cigarette at half time. Obviously if a smoking area was at this part of the ground then it would also lower the risk of incidents happening between rival supporters smoking in the same area.

I have said previously, I love the way that the system works at the ice hockey club I follow. You can access the smokers yard up to 5 minutes before the game starts, a minute or 2 the door is then locked until the end of the first period(given stopages etc usually about 30 minutes), the smokers yard is again locked a few minutes before the start of the second period, and the same process for the third period. The added bonus of this system is that it stops peoole walking along the sides and back of the rink during play, as obviously that can affect the players on the ice.

 

[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.

I'm no genius but have the intelligence to have not smoked since 1985, when cigarettes were so much cheaper than now, and in my case , Duty Free.

I was surrounded by booze and cheap smokes, but I never blamed everyone else for me partaking, nor did I feel hard done by when the situation prevented me from accessing either for however long was required.

I don't blame anyone else for me starting smoking and I haven't insinuated that. My dad had COPD and terminal lung cancer due to smoking, I had seen what it did to him but that didn't stop me picking a cigarette up and trying it. From 1998 until 2001 I looked after my mum who had COPD due to smoking, I saw what it put me through but again it didn't stop me smoking. In May 2011 I lost my eldest brother to COPD and smoke induced lung cancer, then in December 2014 I lost my youngest brother to COPD and smoking induced lung cancer. In between my 2 brothers passing away I nearly lost my remaining brother as well, again due to COPD from smoking, his mortality expectancy was 2 weeks, but for a double lung transplant in February 2014 he wouldn't be here either.

I have seen what cigarettes have done to the people I love, it has cost me the majority of my family but that doesn't stop me from smoking, in fact my cigarette intake has doubled since my youngest brother passed away in December 2014. No one forced me to smoke in the first place, no one forces me to smoke now, it's my own choice. In fact when my family found out I had started smoking in 97 they went totally ballistic at me. Bear in mind I had lung damage even before I had started smoking, I knew what the risks were, I knew what smoking would do to me, those are decisioins I made myself, from my own free will. I have never asked for, nor want sympathy from anyone, I made the decision to start smoking and it is me that lives with the consequences of it on a daily basis, I don't blame anyone else for it because I know that is my responsibility.

 

[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.

It is tough and I know full well the addiction, but you have to agree it's a pretty horrible habit for you (and those around you). I understand why sports clubs would not make it easy to spark up, especially with kids about etc.

I totally know it is a horrible habit as my previous post states. If I have someone come to mine that is a non smoker then I will either smoke in another room or go down by the front door, if they chose not to smoke then even though it is my home I am not going to subject them to breathing in second hand smoke. The issue here is that many seem to think it is acceptable to stop a customer from having a cigarette in a designated area, non smokers will know that it is a designated area and therefore have the choice not to go into that area when people are smoking. It's not like the smokers that have commented on this thread are saying they want a smoking area where it means that second hand smoke is going to be forced on everyone including non smokers. They are merely asking for an area set aside where they can go at half time and have a cig or 2, I don't think it is unreasonable at all. Other clubs cater for it, other sports cater for it, so I fail to see why Argyle should be any different personally.