Mini-Rants Thread

I may be on my own on this, but I think that smoking around a child equates to abuse and social services should be involved if children are being exposed to cigarette smoke on a regular basis. I'm not talking about parents smoking at all, just smoking around the kids; it's not like it takes so much effort to walk to the front/back door to smoke outside.

 

Isn't that a little bit extreme though? There's a ton of cases of both examples where kids haven't been affected by the cigarette smoke (like me or anyone in my family + my husband's family) and the other end where it does affect people. If this equates to abuse then you're putting it in line with physical abuse, which is a lot more serious to the child due to not only harm but due to the emotional repercussions of said action.

I'm not advocating smoking, it's just that I think a lot of people views against smoking are just too extreme.

 

Smoking may not cause lung cancer or emphysema for everybody, but it does cause harm to the lungs as it kills tissue, whether it be first or secondhand. This may ultimately lead to a shorter life span as the lungs fail to operate at the same capacity they should be able to. With the lungs playing such a large role in the circulation and gas exchange of blood, it is pretty imperative to not have them be fucked up.

Not supporting the whole "it's child abuse!" thing by the way. Just saying, having to inhale secondhand smoke as a child can be detrimental towards your overall life span.

 

As I said, there's many cases stating otherwise and there's cases stating for, not everyone exposed to second hand smoke get any of these symptoms, while we may argue for the may and maybes; not everyone gets them.

I'm not too sure about anyone else but my first hand experience is that I know no one who has had adverse affects from second hand smoke, but that's just in my experience, if someone has contradictory experience, correct me then tell me how many you know who have had bad effects compared to the ones who don't.

 

my friend was affected by second hand smoking

he's now a mushroom

 

I'm scared.

 

You should be. Becoming a mushroom is becoming an increasingly common effect of secondhand smoke exposure.

 

My mother smoked around me constantly whilst I was a child, and I haven't developed any apparent health issues because of it either. However, second-hand smoke is proven to be dangerous, and just because some people have not been affected by it (or, at least, have not developed health problems that could be linked to inhaling cigarette smoke yet) doesn't cancel out the very real damage that is being done to the physical heath of the children that are exposed to it by their parents choosing to smoke.
I respect your opinion; but I think that given that there is overwhelming evidence that second-hand smoke is dangerous (especially to children), parents should be penalised for exposing their children to it. If people want to f**k up their own health, that's their decision; they shouldn't be allowed to do the same to their kids. As I said, it doesn't require much effort to walk outside to smoke: and if people can't be bothered to do that for the sake of their children's health then they aren't particularly good parents IMO.
I'm sure that there are people reading this that have parents who smoked around them when they were kids who were excellent parents in other regards, so I know my views that "passive smoke = child abuse" probably seem stupid to some, perhaps they didn't know or understand the health implications for their kids, or it's a social/cultural norm in some places. If a parent understands how damaging their smoking is to their children's health, but continue to smoke around them, that's the same as abuse to me.

To which I argue that lung cancer, asthma, heart disease etc are also very harmful physically and emotionally. Watching someone you care about degrade their health through a drug addiction is also damaging psychologically, as is knowing that they don't care enough about your health to stop smoking around you.

I have no problem with people who want to smoke, doing so. They can kill themselves with cigarettes if they like, just not other people.

Not everyone who drives drunk crashes or hits someone: that doesn't make it OK. I remember watching a documentary about a year ago about people whom lived to be 100. There was a guy (I think named "Billy") whom was older than 100, still had a job as a mechanic, was doing well health-wise and said he'd been smoking since his early teens. There are always exceptions to the rule.

 

I used to have asthma as a kid.

I also had an uncle who smoked around me constantly.
Whenever I coughed nwhen he smoked he said "suck it up and be a man, or get out of here!"

Now, I can hold my breath for an amazing 17 seconds!
Thanks uncle!

 

your uncle sounds like a cool guy

 

My local council are soon reducing housing benefit to £50 per week for all people under 35 years old, its currently £70. Most people currently still have to put towards their rent as a 2 bedroom house is £320+. Where do you know that is possible to get a house/flat for £200 a month? How is somebody unemployed going to make up the difference?
Also, why are people aged 35 and older entitled to £70? Thats discrimination in my book. People under 35 still have to live, we still require housing, we still have children and need money to eat, pay bills etc.

I find it fucking disgusting that a 34 year old man that finds himself currently unemployed, has children to look after and has paid tax for almost 20 years gets less than a 35 year old asylum seeker thats just arrived in the country.

It says in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, CHAPTER III. EQUALITY: Article 21. Non-discrimination
Any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic features, language, religion or belief, political or any other opinion, membership of a national minority, property, birth, disability, age or sexual orientation shall be prohibited.

My understanding of discrimination is excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups, or that he or she just needs to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. I believe this is the case here, why is a 35 year old entitled to more than a 34 year old?

Unfortunately the Charter is legally binding in all countries except Poland and the United Kingdom.
So basically its legal discrimination.

 

Oh God, so much ignorance.

1. You are aware there is more benefits than housing allowance such as JSA , Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits. Working Tax Credits alone can be worth up to £300 a week depending on the number of children.

2. See above, also asylum seekers can't claim benefits and their VOUCHERS, not cash, are only 70% of income support. Usually works out to around £40ish a week.

3. You've seen the deficit in the budget, yes? Cuts have to be made somewhere. You might of seen all the hoo haa over the pension scheme recently, I suspect that will affect more older people than young. OH NOES DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OLD PEOPLE. I also suspect the motive behind the cut off age is to make employment more attractive for younger people so that they actually look for work instead of sitting at home, watching Jeremy Kyle and signing on every second week.

4. UK has it's own anti-discriminatory laws and this isn't even discrimination. Anyway aren't you against the EU? I thought the fact that the UK opted out of the charter would please you.

 

Oh God, so much ignorance.

I just mentioned above, how is a person supposed to make up that amount out of their JSA when its only £65 per week? Don't they need to pay bills? Eat? Buy clothes?
Unemployed cannot claim working tax credits or child tax credits Duh.

In Hull they can http://www.hullcc.gov.uk/portal/page?_pageid=221,515583&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
You only have to be a low earner or unemployed to get it.

Yes I've seen the deficit, there are better ways to save money. Instead of discriminating under 35's they could just make benefits only available to British nationals. Somebody has to be discriminated against, why should it be the British by their own government. I think my idea is much more fair.

Please explain to me why this isn't discrimination. My understanding of discrimination is excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups, or that he or she just needs to be treated worse than others for some arbitrary reason. Why is a 35 year old entitled to better housing than a 34 year old?

 

Probably something to do with the fact that a middle-aged person has probably paid more tax than younger people. Really though, picking an arbitrary age is just to reduce the work needed to decide what to give the person on ss.

 

"More older" doesn't work, and it's "might have" not "might of".
Otherwise, I completely agree.

 

Have you asked him to take it elsewhere? I used to go out for joint-walks the year before last cause I lived with a non-smoker who didn't like it (although I have since ruined him). It's just discourteous to ignore the people around you. I wouldn't want someone smoking cigs in my place so I wouldn't smoke anything in their residence without permission.

i'm sick of hearing addicts say "i'm not addicted" or "its not addictive" bullshit if you have an addictive personality it'll be addictive. this one weaboo i knew all ways flipped his shit at people and bitched and moaned cause he hadnt watched any anime in litterealy 4 hours. and then all i heard out of his mouth everyday was some story all about an anime or what he did while he was watching it and nothing else EVER! i was ready to break something over his head by the end of the semester so he'd shut up.

Congratulations, weed is the cast for your hatred. People like the things they like and they enjoy talking about them. This is true for all interests. You don't smoke weed so you find it annoying, just like I find it annoying when pizza faced fucks talk about anime or whatever other life-wasting activities they indulge in. But it truly could be anything.

POT POT POT POT YOU SON OF A BITCH I LOVE IT.

 

If you apply it in the context nex used it in, it is correct. It was used to mean "a higher number of older people" rather than "more old older people".

 

Yeah I just reread it. Missed something, sleep deprivation.

 

Before this whole cigarette conversation passes, I've got to say this (as someone who doesn't smoke more than on certain social occasions):

Fuck anyone who thinks they should be able to tell anyone else what to do, even with smoking. As Bill Hicks once put it so poignantly: "What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see, say, think, who I fuck, what I take into my body - as long as I do not harm another human being on this planet?"

I take that to heart. I swear to God, if someone were to ever get in my face and rip a cigarette out of my mouth - and I don't care if I am in a non-smoking zone or not - they will end up with a pocket knife in their body. If you fuck with other people and try to control them you god damn had better expect retaliation. Don't ever get in my face for my life choices. This is a forewarning to anyone who may encounter me at any time. Thanks.

 

I'll remember to wear body armour if we ever do hold a RomuCon