*SMOKING IN THE STADIUM*

[BlueBeenie]

We can all chip together and get a banner to thank the Sheikh, but rather than lobby for smoking area's to help out fellow Blues all people want to do is lobby to get their fellow Blues chucked out and banned because "it's the LAW!!!!1<shift one, caps lock>

No non smokers on this have said I'll write to try and get a smoking area for us in the lower tier or the club to allow smokers their legal right to smoke on the spirals (programme from last game of last seaon, Points of Blue, P64 where the council clearly say the spirals are not substantially enclosed and therefore legal to smoke at, thats straight from MCC so lets not have any of this shite about its illegal there) for the other two tiers, only that they will write to City and the Council and get people thrown out.

I agree 100% about smoking in the toilets but the attitude of the OP and some of the non smokers in this thread stinks worse than the toilets they are complaining about. Instead of trying to find a solution for fellow fans you are completely intolerant and call for their banning, then you have the cheek to call people who smoke selfish. It might have escaped your attention but smoking is an addiction, I can go without one through the game, that doesnt make me bigger or better than another smoker who cant go those 2 hours without one.

If you dont like the smoke in the toilets lobby for smoking area's, dont be twats and call for Blues to get chucked out.

i want it to stop in the toilets, if you as a smoker want to then make arrangements with the club to smoke then thats up to you, i agree there should be an area to go but you will have to sort that out, not me.

Of course you do, but you're completely intolerant to the Blues who want/need a cig and dont care if they get banned from watching. You would rather lobby to get them banned than lobby to help your fellow Blues.

That says a lot about you.

 

[vonksbignose]

Thank you for saving me the job of making this response. I have no choice in whether or not some drunk pillock decides to come & twat me in the face, or to get in his car and potentially run me over if he's been "drinking inconsiderately". In this sense, he is just as much of a potential health risk to me as the "inconsiderate smokers" are to you! I have a bit of experience around this mate, so don't tell me that drinking doesn't potentially affect other peoples health!

So I'll ask you again, if this is about your health, and not just a crusade against freedom of choice, why couldn't the law have been drafted to allow for smoking withing designated sections of the stadium "bowl"?

even more so in fact because i pissed up guy is an immediate threat. i could be stood next to you for 10 secs and you could turn round and but me or something.
you have to stand next to me for quite a long time over consecutive weeks for the second hand smoke to case any damage to your lungs. think about al the shit you are breathing in just walking through and from the car park to the ground?

Correct!

By the way, just to make it clear, I was referring to the O/P when I said "you" in my last post!

Thing is though, although I recognise the dangers of other people's drinking, I'm not for one minute about to start telling them they can't do it. If anybody tried, despite the dangers it potentially poses to others, I'd be firmly on the side of the drinkers!

I think the O/P is being a little dishonest when he argues that were a law to be passed tomorrow banning drinking, he'd fall into line without question. If not, I fear for his ability to make up his own mind about important issues!

 

[Lordeffingham]

All you gay faggots piss me off, what about the poor smokers who have to put up with you liberal turds bombarding their only refuge with stale piss, dirty bastards!

 

[miasma]

Umm...that actually supports what I'm saying?
Page 10, paragraph on the left "In a DOT study....", all the way through to the end of the section says exactly this. That was the exact study that I posted above, and the CO limit compared to the danger limit was between 532 and 25,000 times below it.

ha ha ha!

That report also says:

"A flight attendants’ survey conducted by a European
airline indicated that smoky air caused by environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) was their number one complaint.
19
Working in a smoking environment can be uncomfortable.
ETS can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, and may have
long-term health effects."

while no doubt the CO levels are well below the limits which you have mentioned, the above points to the effect on the flight experience.

 

[Harry Godwin]

Second hand smoke has absolutely no effect on you, unless you stand in the toilet all day everyday for about 40 years.

Don't talk about something that you don't have an understanding of.

that is the biggest amount of shite i have ever ever heard in my life, here is a passagraph from another web page, i will provide the link aswell
Passive Smoking
Choosing to smoke and destroying your own health is one thing but passive smoking, also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) or Secondhand Smoke (SHS), damages the health of those around you. These people have no choice as to whether or not they are exposed to your harmful smoke. Passive smoking constitutes a serious public health risk to both children and adults. It is also a major source of indoor air pollution. A non-smoker is subjected to both the "sidestream" smoke from the burning tip of the cigarette and the "mainstream" smoke that has been inhaled and then is exhaled into their environment by the smoker. Nearly four-fifths of the smoke that builds up in a room containing a smoker is of the more harmful "sidestream" type.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.stopsmokingtoday.com/dync/13/Passive_Smoking.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.stopsmokingtoday.com/dync/13 ... oking.html</a>

I'm a non smoker and you're even pissing me off now. Where the hell do you get off calling people scum and
retards ? What a small minded pathetic individual you are. Incidentally, I also notice that you chose to quote
a stopsmoking site, like most small minded people you choose your sources carefully, here are a few INDEPENDANT
quotes that tell the realistic story about passive smoking;

Professor Sir Richard Doll, the first scientist to publish research that suggested a correlation between lung cancer and primary smoking, commented: “The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me.”

* World Health Organisation
In March 1998 the World Health Organisation was forced to admit that the results of a seven-year study (the largest of its kind) into the link between passive smoking and lung cancer were not “statistically significant”. This is because the risk of a non-smoker getting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%. According to WHO, non-smokers are subjecting themselves to an increased risk of 16-17% if they consistently breathe other people’s tobacco smoke. This may sound alarming, but an increase of 16-17% on 0.01 is so small that, in most people’s eyes, it is no risk at all.

* Greater London Assembly report
In April 2002, following an exhaustive six-month investigation during which written and oral evidence was supplied by organisations including ASH, Cancer Research UK and Forest, the Greater London Assembly Investigative Committee on Smoking in Public Places declined to recommend ANY further restrictions on smoking in public places, stating very clearly that it is not easy to prove a link between passive smoking and lung cancer. As joint author of the report, Angie Bray put on record her opposition to a total ban on smoking in public places in a letter to the Daily Telegraph (5 July 2003). According to Bray: “The assembly spent six months investigating whether a smoking ban should be imposed in public places in London. After taking evidence from all sides, including health experts, it was decided that the evidence gathered did not justify a total smoking ban.”

* Enstrom/Kabat study
In May 2003, the British Medical Journal published a study that seriously questioned the impact of environmental tobacco smoke on health. According to the study, the link between environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. The analysis, by James Enstrom of the University of California, Los Angeles and Geoffrey Kabat of New Rochelle, New York, involved 118,094 California adults enrolled in the American Cancer Society cancer prevention study in 1959, who were followed until 1998. The authors found that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, as estimated by smoking in spouses, was not significantly associated with death from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any time or at any level of exposure. These findings, say the authors, suggest that environmental tobacco smoke could not plausibly cause a 30% increased risk of coronary heart disease, as is generally believed, although a small effect cannot be ruled out.

* House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report
In July 2006 the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee published a report on the management of risk. One of the subjects they looked at was passive smoking. The committee, whose members included former Chancellor Lord Lawson, concluded that, “Passive smoking is an example in which [government] policy demonstrates a disproportionate response to a relatively minor health problem, with insufficient regard to statistical evidence.”

 

[Damocles]

That report also says:

"A flight attendants’ survey conducted by a European
airline indicated that smoky air caused by environmental
tobacco smoke (ETS) was their number one complaint.
19
Working in a smoking environment can be uncomfortable.
ETS can irritate the eyes, nose and throat, and may have
long-term health effects."

while no doubt the CO levels are well below the limits which you have mentioned, the above points to the effect on the flight experience.

Oh, I agree with that. Smoking can and will do all of those things, and flight attendants on smoking planes would still fall under the long term users of passive smoke, which are the people at risk. My point is though, that it isn't going to have any detriment on your health if you stand next to a smoker for 5 minutes, once a week.

 

[MeatnSpudsMCFC]

Pfft, sit in corporate seats east stand level 2, we have none off this riff raff up there:-)

 

[sweynforkbeard]

'Smoking in the stadium'-the long awaited follow up to Brownsville Stations 'Smoking in the boys' room?'

 

[KenTheLandlord]

My Beagle is livid he cannot smoke anywhere. Livid.

 

[Dubai Blue]

i think you have missed my point. indeed people don't smoke on planes because it is illegal and the price is high for ignoring that fact. also a plane is in essence an enclosed and sealed tin can, flying at 40,000 foot (?! not well up on plane cruising altitudes) it is highly irresponsible in today's world to smoke in such a place. that is why i think smoking should be allowed but in special, designated places (not the toilets btw) away from others that don't smoke or wish to breathe second hand smoke.

More crap. If you were to smoke on an aeroplane, you would actually help out other passengers as the air recyclers would work harder and produce cleaner air.
Planes banned smoking way before everybody else, simply because it saved them a shedload of money (recyclers burn energy which essentially comes from fuel).

It was disgusting when people used to smoke in planes and cinemas. I don't care what they can do to clean the air, smoking in such a confined space is ridiculously inconsiderate as it causes other people a huge amount of discomfort.

I'm a smoker but I'm actually very much in favour of the smoking ban. It's something we choose to do; those sensible ones who choose not to do it shouldn't have to put up with it, if for no other reason than it makes their clothes stink through no fault of their own.

I agree that there should be an outdoor smoking area but the fact that there currently isn't really doesn't justify people being so selfishly inconsiderate of others that they spark up in the toilets anyway.