Liverpool FC Forum

[LFC2007]

As far as the difference between Cannabis and Cigs people will argue that it is less harmless than cigs but it is in fact just as much  of a health risk as it has a higher tar content than a cig, so smoking cannabis brings the same health problems like bronchitis, emphysema and lung cancer etc,etc

Plus, Cannabis has a history of causing psychosis, resulting in Schizophrenia and other mental disorders. That is the key difference.

Alcohol is bad for the liver, it leads to cirrhosis.

When I addressed the comparison between alcohol and tobacco, you answered that it's the combination of a numpty person and alcohol. At the end of the day, I don't see why that must be an attenuating factor to defend alcohol.

Smoking is harmful for oneself. Smoking can be harmful to others and might result in serious ilness, true. So you have a substance, that as a result of entering a man's body can produce that. That's a fact.

Alcohol? the same thing. When it enters a man's body it messes with the nervous system and the mind, and as  aresult it may provoke a violent attack that end up in the killing of a wife or a multiple accident. Then again, you have a substance that when contacting a man it influenciates it. And as a result you have a dead woman -- for instance. If it's not mentioned that the risk of getting a lung cancer being a passive smoker depends on how cancer prone is the patient, then it should not be mentioned that it's the combination of alcohol and violent people the combination that makes the disaster.

So I don't see how the fact of being this men numpty or aggressive per se is attenuating, because statistically you'll have people like that always in the society and statistically aswell it provokes deads, which is the thing that anti tobacco people use most to talk against it. It's a matter of a substance, it's effects on people, and it's consequences. But in one case it's attacked, and in the other isn't.

I can understand your point, but I have a slight different view.

Sorry to be redundant to explain my points LFC2007, but as I don't find the accurate words, I have to go in circles of words to say what I mean. 

Don't get we wrong, I agree many anti-tobacco laws. Not smoking in closed rooms is common sense to me. I'm just against the hostility I can sense against us, smokers, sometimes they treat smokers as if they had the leprosy.

Sabre, with all due respect to your post I think it may be the language but you are missing my point completely.

"Don't get we wrong, I agree many anti-tobacco laws. Not smoking in closed rooms is common sense to me. I'm just against the hostility I can sense against us, smokers, sometimes they treat smokers as if they had the leprosy."


This is the part of your post that we agree on, the rest is misplaced since I never questioned the health effects of excessive drinking - that is a given.


The issue is not whether alcohol is a dangerous substance, the issue is whether tobacco products should be allowed to be used in public places.


Drinking in moderation does not harm the individual (unless you have an alcohol intolerance).

Smoking in moderation harms the individual regardless, it also harms others around that individual in public places like bars (the issue).

Drinking in moderation, and doing so responsibly can be healthy for the individual and healthy for society.

Smoking in the presence of others in moderation harms others around you, smoking in excess ALSO harms others around you even more since the concentration of smoke is greater.


Lung Cancer is one form of illness that you can contract from passive smoking, the susceptibility of the individual to cancer is largely irrelevent since the exposure to the individual significantly increases the risk they will get ANY form of cancer - tobacco is carcinogenic.

The issue of excessive drinking is a cultural issue, it is not something you can legislate against (with the obvious exceptions of under age drinking etc.) because in moderation it is not a dangerous substance to people around you.

There are plenty of other substances, legal drugs, that when taken in excess can also cause death by dangerous driving when taken in excess.



The only issue here is that smoking causes death passively within the BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW, drinking does not cause death WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES of the law.

Attacking someone physically due to intoxication is OUTSIDE of the boundaries of the law.

You can harm someone just as much by smoking in the presence of others and it is considered WITHIN the boundaries of the law - that is the KEY difference Sabre.


That is why people pose the question, "is it fair that WITHIN the boundaries of law that people can be harmed just as much as a drunken thug through passive smoking?".



Before Dawson or Saint pounce, the issue of having segregated pubs is a different issue that we've gone over a billion times and I can't be fecked to go over it again, just look back a few pages and you can find my opinion.

[Sabre]

Ok, we agree the main point. And I didn't try to say you question the effects of alcohol, I just was trying to say that this hostility I've mentioned is backed on the effects tobacco has in people, when there are other factors and substances that also make harm.

The only issue here is that smoking causes death passively within the BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW, drinking does not cause death WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES of the law.

While I can't argue this, for me the issue is to avoid deads, not to avoid deads within the law. For instance if a person gets a cancer for living near a cell phone big repetition antenna, it isn't a good enough answer for me saying that the "antenna is fulfilling all the regulations and it's functioning according the law" because for me the matter is the ill person, and measures must be taken to avoid that, no matter the law.

I can't argue neither the points of moderated drinking, and I'm not against it, in fact, I like alcohol

But since we agree the main point, I wonder, why all this hostility all of a sudden?

[LFC2007]

Ok, we agree the main point. And I didn't try to say you question the effects of alcohol, I just was trying to say that this hostility I've mentioned is backed on the effects tobacco has in people, when there are other factors and substances that also make harm.

The only issue here is that smoking causes death passively within the BOUNDARIES OF THE LAW, drinking does not cause death WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES of the law.

While I can't argue this, for me the issue is to avoid deads, not to avoid deads within the law. For instance if a person gets a cancer for living near a cell phone big repetition antenna, it isn't a good enough answer for me saying that the "antenna is fulfilling all the regulations and it's functioning according the law" because for me the matter is the ill person, and measures must be taken to avoid that, no matter the law.

I can't argue neither the points of moderated drinking, and I'm not against it, in fact, I like alcohol

But since we agree the main point, I wonder, why all this hostility all of a sudden?

Hostility?

The issue of Antenna is a different one to Alcohol, an antenna may or may not harm the individual. If it does, it is passive harm, and the government should regulate that. They do have regulations on the amount of public exposure from Antenna, below certain levels they are not harmful - that is acceptable. Smoking is harmful in any quantity or form of passive inhalation - you cannot regulate the amount of tobacco a person smokes but you can regulate the radiation emitted by an antenna.

[Sabre]

I didn't mean you were hostile  sorry. I meant why there's this special hostility from the anti-tobacco radicals to smokers.

As for the antennas, many serious scientific researchs are being ignored by politicians just because they preffer to live in the scientific ambiguity and try to avoid to take measures as much as they can. Just the same way the remained silent about tobacco many years. It's proven the effects of electromagnetism in humans and how it affects us since slight annoyances like quality of sleep, to serious illnesses like cancer. Many lives could be saved if more security measures and better product quality existed, but they do not seem to be interested in that part of the threats to health there is in society. Too much attention against smokers, though.

In a nutshell, legislate whatever is necessary to protect people from tobacco in public places, but let's not make (not you but the antitobacco radicals) the smokers the culprits of all the problems of the health. I was talking of that hostility I can sense sometimes in some people. I'll comply with any law that is put about tobacco, but I don't want to be rejected  in a job because I'm a smoker.

[LFC2007]

I didn't mean you were hostile  sorry. I meant why there's this special hostility from the anti-tobacco radicals to smokers.

As for the antennas, many serious scientific researchs are being ignored by politicians just because they preffer to live in the scientific ambiguity and try to avoid to take measures as much as they can. Just the same way the remained silent about tobacco many years. It's proven the effects of electromagnetism in humans and how it affects us since slight annoyances like quality of sleep, to serious illnesses like cancer. Many lives could be saved if more security measures and better product quality existed, but they do not seem to be interested in that part of the threats to health there is in society. Too much attention against smokers, though.

In a nutshell, legislate whatever is necessary to protect people from tobacco in public places, but let's not make (not you but the antitobacco radicals) the smokers the culprits of all the problems of the health. I was talking of that hostility I can sense sometimes in some people. I'll comply with any law that is put about tobacco, but I don't want to be rejected  in a job because I'm a smoker.

Well I know in the U.K. that levels of radiation emitted from antenna are regulated , there are also things like power lines that have scientifically been proven to increase the risk of cancer, the government should also regulate on this issue in the interests of public health.

But it is not feasible to apply regulating measures to the smoking issue, in public places you cannot impose a limit of 3 cigarettes for example in one bar since it would be impossible to enforce and the effects would still be to increase the risk of cancer to passive non-smokers in any case. The only compromise is in the type of place in which you are allowed to smoke - in England the compromise was private members clubs - but this was rejected after a further amendment in Parliament.

There may be a stigma attached to smokers in today's society - but that is human nature - like there are stigma's/prejudices existing in other forms - race, sexuality, gender, background etc....

[redtrader74]

I can't f*cking wait. I'm sick of breathing in second-hand smoke. It's selfish, irresponsible, and now - it's going to be banned.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have it you b*stards!!!!!

oh feck off. im just gonna follow u around outside areas now smoking!!!

i will never quit. why should i? the governmanet is trying to make us stop? bollox, the amount we spend on tax for ciggys compared to the amount we take up on nhs is a laugh.

can i also ban in restaurants all: fat people, families (kids are not allowed in restaurants!!!) mobile phones.

where will it stop?

f*cking government. i bet there is a smoking room in the houses of parliament too.

how can u put a smoking ban on a private club?

this law has ruined old peoples lives in wales, ireland and scotland, they cant play bingo anymore!!!

I understand that there will be somewhere in the House of Parliament where they can smoke and drink.
Dawson for MP?

[66-1112520797]

Don't get we wrong, I agree many anti-tobacco laws. Not smoking in closed rooms is common sense to me. I'm just against the hostility I can sense against us, smokers, sometimes they treat smokers as if they had the leprosy.

Sabre I see what your getting at, I now live in a country where I think anti-smoking is pretty radical.

I think over here in certain areas of society, you're frowned upon if your seen smoking (not all but still....)

I dont think its that bad in the UK yet, and to be perfectly honest I hope it doesnt get that bad. Smoking is bad for you and "others" around you. But people have been smoking tobacco for hundreds of years, and now its all suddenly changing, too ........you cant smoke in a Pub anymore ... WTF ?

A public house used to be a working mans place, and alot of people would go there to enjoy a drink and a smoke. Nobody knew the effects it could have on you then and people didnt batter an eye lid. It was the norm so to speak, and has been passed down in generations from society to society.

But today we live in a society where Scientists are pulling many facts out of there labs to prove to people. So now the government expect smokers to abide by there new changed laws, they move the goal posts whenever they want. If it wasnt for the government doing this, I very much doubt you'd hear hide nor hair from at least half the non-smokers now who actually complain about it, there like ants coming out of the woodwork and are jumping on the governments anti-smoke in public places bandwagon. While we're talking of the government, if smoking is so bad why sell cigarettes ? Why not make them illegal like Cannibis ? infact thats another prospect the government have lost out on Cannibis, they could of made millions in taxes if the legalised it, after all Tobacco, alcohol and pot are all bad for you, but you should be able to have the choice IMO, hooray for the Damn !

Obvious answer to the reason they sell cigarettes .... TAX ..... Hypocritical of most governments around the world. There happy to sell you the product you enjoy but which is bad for you. Then they tell you to smoke it where they say.

I think there are plenty worse things in life to worry about than passive smoking.

All in all though, non-smokers do have a right too  and that is totally fair, but like you I agree against the "hostility" towards smokers and smoking.

[LFC2007]

So do you not accept Bamaga man that passive smoking harms people?

It has existed for hundreds of years in pubs and taverns but the health impacts from both smoking directly and passive smoking were never recognised back then. We've only known about the health impacts of direct smoking since 1950. It was only in 2002 that an independent report confirmed the seriousness of smoke in the work place, this is what sparked this legislation.

The anti-smoking lobby existed well before this new law was proposed in 2004, it is not just a case of people jumping on the bandwagon - they are genuinely concerned for their right to work in a smoke free environment. This legislation is a RESULT of this movement not an EFFECT.


As for Cannabis, it can cause long term psychosis.
It has been recorded that Schizophrenia amongst Cannabis users is higher than non-users. Is this acceptable? or

Not only is it just as harmful as smoking, it causes significant mental health problems when used even moderately over a long time. Drinking moderately over a long time moderately does not have these pschological effects either.

Cannabis effects

[dawson99]

So do you not accept Bamaga man that passive smoking harms people?

It has existed for hundreds of years in pubs and taverns but the health impacts from both smoking directly and passive smoking were never recognised back then. We've only known about the health impacts of direct smoking since 1950. It was only in 2002 that an independent report confirmed the seriousness of smoke in the work place, this is what sparked this legislation.

The anti-smoking lobby existed well before this new law was proposed in 2004, it is not just a case of people jumping on the bandwagon - they are genuinely concerned for their right to work in a smoke free environment. This legislation is a RESULT of this movement not an EFFECT.


As for Cannabis, it can cause long term psychosis.
It has been recorded that Schizophrenia amongst Cannabis users is higher than non-users. Is this acceptable? or

Not only is it just as harmful as smoking, it causes significant mental health problems when used even moderately over a long time. Drinking moderately over a long time moderately does not have these pschological effects either.

Cannabis effects

oh shuddup granddad 

everything is harmful. red meat, smoking, drinking, driving,

just enjoy life. if we wanna soke, we will smoke. if a pub wants people to smoke, it should be allowed to!

[LFC2007]

Red meat doesn't cause schizophrenia. Drinking excessively over many years may cause it, but smoking cannabis even MODERATELY can cause it.

If people want to work in a smoke free environment they should be allowed to. You know my view on this Dawson, I can't be fecked to re-visit that point.

[Sabre]

As for Cannabis, it can cause long term psychosis.
It has been recorded that Schizophrenia amongst Cannabis users is higher than non-users. Isthis acceptable?

Not only is it just as harmful as smoking, it causes significant mental health problems when used even moderately over a long time. Drinking moderately over a long time moderately does not have these pschological effects either.

That article is unacceptable because the main point is to slag Cannabbis and it uses a terrible murder to make a point.

Meaning, why in the case of alcohol, it's the user being nuts and aggressive the main factor to kill a woman (not that you've explained it that way) and in the case of that article it's the cannabis? I guess that kind of article is good so that the youngster are afraid of drugs, and keep away from them, but it's unfair that article.

I have never used other drugs other than cannabis, alcohol, tobacco and the ones given by doctors. And for me, and having seeing mates having  a bad time with cocaine, speed, LSD and other very addictive and dangerous drugs, I honestly think that putting cannabis in the range of other illegal drugs is unfair. Cannabis can cause problems, as much as Alcohol can, but just the same way an odd gintonic is fine, a cannabis cigggy watching a film of the Marx brothers or Monty Phyton should be fine, too.


I've smoked a few, especially when I was younger, and I think I'm sane, my chess is better than most people (I can beat many even without seeing the board) and I hadn't problems to study, nor lack of friends, nor major problems (apart from not being rich, and not having as much spare time as I'd like)

Yes, I was always a lazy , reached late some minutes to places, and things like that, but all that mistakes I had them before I ever smoked a cannabis ciggy.

I also agree the excessive use of it leads to health problems, and other problems (mental too), but then again, like in the case of alcohol, using it moderately doesn't have that bad effects. Most of the bad effects to health of smoking cannabis are due to the combustion of tobacco with it, but you can take cannabis other ways.

As for alcohol's therapeuthic capabilities, only recent studies over beer and wine suggest so, where as Cannabis is being used to combat the effects of anorexia and chemotherapy in cancer treatments (of course not smoked, but in pills with THC).

So the difference for me is how much the politicians want to stress the bad effects of alcohol or cannabis. Because both drugs have it's effects, they cause problems when used too much, and they have benefits when used moderately/ Properly.

As for Bamaga's post I agree with it. I'm not discussing that smoking makes harm to others. I'm not against making laws to protect non-smokers. But I'm definitely against ignoring other threats to health while a crusade against smokers is being made.

In your point of the antennas, of course in Spain there is also a regulation and limits, we do not go to work in Spain over a donkey with a cart any more it's a moderately modern country.

But those limits, are based on old and optimistic reports about the effects on humans and I'm pretty much afraid the same thing applies for England. I had to reasearch the topic 2 years ago in the uni, when I was studying advanced networks of computers and specifically the networks based on cell phones, and I read many worrying reports about it, most of them being in english as the best researchers in this topic were english or american. Let's see if I can find it.

But enough of topic drifting. I agree you have the right to be protected. I'll comply with the laws, no matter what country I visit and what laws, but I demand to be a citizen with my rights, and among those I expect not being punnished or put a stigma for being a smoker (in work or other places).

[LFC2007]

As for Cannabis, it can cause long term psychosis.
It has been recorded that Schizophrenia amongst Cannabis users is higher than non-users. Isthis acceptable?

Not only is it just as harmful as smoking, it causes significant mental health problems when used even moderately over a long time. Drinking moderately over a long time moderately does not have these pschological effects either.

That article is unacceptable because the main point is to slag Cannabbis and it uses a terrible murder to make a point.

Meaning, why in the case of alcohol, it's the user being nuts and aggressive the main factor to kill a woman (not that you've explained it that way) and in the case of that article it's the cannabis? I guess that kind of article is good so that the youngster are afraid of drugs, and keep away from them, but it's unfair that article.

I have never used other drugs other than cannabis, alcohol, tobacco and the ones given by doctors. And for me, and having seeing mates having  a bad time with cocaine, speed, LSD and other very addictive and dangerous drugs, I honestly think that putting cannabis in the range of other illegal drugs is unfair. Cannabis can cause problems, as much as Alcohol can, but just the same way an odd gintonic is fine, a cannabis cigggy watching a film of the Marx brothers or Monty Phyton should be fine, too.


I've smoked a few, especially when I was younger, and I think I'm sane, my chess is better than most people (I can beat many even without seeing the board) and I hadn't problems to study, nor lack of friends, nor major problems (apart from not being rich, and not having as much spare time as I'd like)

Yes, I was always a lazy , reached late some minutes to places, and things like that, but all that mistakes I had them before I ever smoked a cannabis ciggy.

I also agree the excessive use of it leads to health problems, and other problems (mental too), but then again, like in the case of alcohol, using it moderately doesn't have that bad effects. Most of the bad effects to health of smoking cannabis are due to the combustion of tobacco with it, but you can take cannabis other ways.

As for alcohol's therapeuthic capabilities, only recent studies over beer and wine suggest so, where as Cannabis is being used to combat the effects of anorexia and chemotherapy in cancer treatments (of course not smoked, but in pills with THC).

So the difference for me is how much the politicians want to stress the bad effects of alcohol or cannabis. Because both drugs have it's effects, they cause problems when used too much, and they have benefits when used moderately/ Properly.

As for Bamaga's post I agree with it. I'm not discussing that smoking makes harm to others. I'm not against making laws to protect non-smokers. But I'm definitely against ignoring other threats to health while a crusade against smokers is being made.

In your point of the antennas, of course in Spain there is also a regulation and limits, we do not go to work in Spain over a donkey with a cart any more it's a moderately modern country.

But those limits, are based on old and optimistic reports about the effects on humans and I'm pretty much afraid the same thing applies for England. I had to reasearch the topic 2 years ago in the uni, when I was studying advanced networks of computers and specifically the networks based on cell phones, and I read many worrying reports about it, most of them being in english as the best researchers in this topic were english or american. Let's see if I can find it.

But enough of topic drifting. I agree you have the right to be protected. I'll comply with the laws, no matter what country I visit and what laws, but I demand to be a citizen with my rights, and among those I expect not being punnished or put a stigma for being a smoker (in work or other places).

It's not unacceptable Sabre, it uses that murder as an example of the PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of moderate to high Cannabis use over a long time. I never said the Cannabis was committing a murder, the EFFECT of MODERATE cannabis use over a long time can cause Schizophrenia, these people were HEAVILY influenced by Cannabbis and the evidence strongly points to their mental incapacity as a significant reason for the murders.

Using alcohol MODERATELY over a long time does not cause these effects, not on the same scale as Cannabis.

The cannabis in Britain is different - a lot stronger- from elsewhere except holand where they are cannabis kings - it is much stronger, I have friends from Brazil who were shocked when they tried some of it over here, it is much stronger.

Smoking cannabis consistently will NOT cause mental health problems in EVERY case, but the incidences are higher than amongst other drugs when used moderately - e.g. The incidences of drinking alcohol in moderation has a much lower RELATIVE mental health impact than Cannabis.


The effects of Antennas are contested, but I'm in no doubt that there should be more regulation especially in schools where children are more prone due to the thickness of their skull being thinner and the greater risk of radiation affecting their brain.

[Sabre]

I'll put an example of hostility to smokers, to explain my point better.

New law in Spain, you cannot smoke in offices. Fine. So the smokers have to smoke outside the building, or smoking rooms (rarely). Fine. So, we smokers are smoking our cig at -3 Celsius in winter. We won't bloody die of lung cancer, but nobody will care we die of pneumonia due to extreme cold. . Fine, I accept all that conditions.

And THEN, a politically correct brigadist that turns out to be your boss says: Well if you smoke outside you'll have to work 15 mins extra for the lost work FOR EACH CIGARRETE.

And that's when I say, FÜCK OFF???!!??!??!! so why as a smoker I have to work 15 more, when some ladies are making personal calls with the phone, spending 30 mins taking a coffee, or walk happily through corridors showing her new dress??? That's hostility against smokers, we not only have to fulfill laws, but receive extra punnishments.


P.S. This post was before reading your last post, it's not a response to it, but I'd like to discuss the example.

[LFC2007]

I'll put an example of hostility to smokers, to explain my point better.

New law in Spain, you cannot smoke in offices. Fine. So the smokers have to smoke outside the building, or smoking rooms (rarely). Fine. So, we smokers are smoking our cig at -3 Celsius in winter. We won't bloody die of lung cancer, but nobody will care we die of pneumonia due to extreme cold. . Fine, I accept all that conditions.

And THEN, a politically correct brigadist that turns out to be your boss says: Well if you smoke outside you'll have to work 15 mins extra for the lost work FOR EACH CIGARRETE.

And that's when I say, FÜCK OFF???!!??!??!! so why as a smoker I have to work 15 more, when some ladies are making personal calls with the phone, spending 30 mins taking a coffee, or walk happily through corridors showing her new dress??? That's hostility against smokers, we not only have to fulfill laws, but receive extra punnishments.


P.S. This post was before reading your last post, it's not a response to it, but I'd like to discuss the example.

In England it's different, you don't have to work longer if you smoke.

If that woman wants to speak on her phone then I would also tell her to go outside, mainly because it is a distraction to others just like smoking in an office would be, but not because of microwave radiation - I'm sure there are plenty computers already in that office that supercede any radiation from a phone.

I don't contest that point Sabre, you should tell them to feck off, I would if I smoked.

[66-1112520797]

It's not unacceptable Sabre, it uses that murder as an example of the PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS of moderate to high Cannabis use over a long time. I never said the Cannabis was committing a murder, the EFFECT of MODERATE cannabis use over a long time can cause Schizophrenia, these people were HEAVILY influenced by Cannabbis and the evidence strongly points to their mental incapacity as a significant reason for the murders

Going down that route isnt very valid IMO, firstly it CAN produce Schizophrenia, it doesnt mean it will give everyone who smokes it Schizophrenia. Taken one point in which a murder is commited, doesnt really hold up for people when comparing it with Alcohol. No, not at all. How many alcoho deaths are recorded every year, how many people cause serious injury or death when under the influence of alcohol. What happens every Friday and Saturday night, in most towns and Cities throughout the UK, its not uncommon for fights to kick off, ending in serious consequences.

You had a fair point about the possibilitiy of  Schizophrenia, but like wise your liver could break down if drinking too much. Mentally or Physically its not what anyone would want.

Using alcohol MODERATELY over a long time does not cause these effects, not on the same scale as Cannabis.

How do you know have you tried using both over long periods moderately, plus everyone is different.

The cannabis in Britain is different - a lot stronger- from elsewhere except holand where they are cannabis kings - it is much stronger, I have friends from Brazil who were shocked when they tried some of it over here, it is much stronger.

That quite simply isnt true.

Smoking cannabis consistently will NOT cause mental health problems in EVERY case, but the incidences are higher than amongst other drugs when used moderately

Are you comparing just Cannabis and alcohol, if you are your possibly right, but like I said Cannabis wont cause mental health problems in many cases, drink driving definately kills more. If you are comparing Cannabis to other drugs like LSD, Amphetimene and Cocaine then you are wrong.


Basically both alcohol and Cannabis have different effects, both may have Pro's both definately have Cons.