Sensational-Adelaide.com

Shuz wrote:

Norman wrote:It's all part of a continous effort to stamp out smoking... which is why I support it.

Well if you didn't notice, the first signs of stamping out drinking are starting to eventuate... How would you feel about that?

I don't drink (SHOCK! HORROR!) so it doesn't affect me at all. Anyway back to the issue at hand, smokers, please confine your filthy habits to your own homes and vehicles. I support this 100%. If it works in Queen St Mall which it does, it will work in Rundle Mall.

Shuz wrote:You're comparing smoking to murder, or attempted murder at that...

There's no denying that when smoking, your 'drift' goes with you and into the air. However - I seriously doubt that given the enormous quantities of 'clean air' substances (oxygen) per square cubic metre, that the additional properties of second-hand drift would adversely impact on the 'cleanliness' of that space - taking up a meagre <0.1% or less, still providing you with a substantial sample of quality clean air to breathe from. I would believe that walking adjacent a main road (in face of car emissions) would be more detrimental to your health than smoking. To believe that 'second-hand' drift is as detrimental (health-wise) as first-hand inhalation, is just a load of BS. Unless someone will willingly show me some scientific data that proves my argument (and scenario wrong) I will withdraw my statement and re-examine my actions, but for the time being I stand by my opinion and belief.

http://www.quitnow.info.au/internet/qui ... econd-hand

Norman wrote:

Shuz wrote:You're comparing smoking to murder, or attempted murder at that...

There's no denying that when smoking, your 'drift' goes with you and into the air. However - I seriously doubt that given the enormous quantities of 'clean air' substances (oxygen) per square cubic metre, that the additional properties of second-hand drift would adversely impact on the 'cleanliness' of that space - taking up a meagre <0.1% or less, still providing you with a substantial sample of quality clean air to breathe from. I would believe that walking adjacent a main road (in face of car emissions) would be more detrimental to your health than smoking. To believe that 'second-hand' drift is as detrimental (health-wise) as first-hand inhalation, is just a load of BS. Unless someone will willingly show me some scientific data that proves my argument (and scenario wrong) I will withdraw my statement and re-examine my actions, but for the time being I stand by my opinion and belief.

http://www.quitnow.info.au/internet/qui ... econd-hand

Second-hand smoke is dangerous but only in sufficient quantities. For example when people present to their doctor with a problem you suspect may be lung cancer, you are advised to ask what their profession is. Because certain professions such as bartenders are exposed to sufficient quantities of second-hand smoke so as to cause serious health problems. That is why banning smoking in enclosed spaces is a good idea. However I highly doubt, using scientific reasoning that the minuscule amount of smoke you would be exposed to by walking past a smoker in the street would be deleterious to your health.

Will has a very valid point - a point which I vaguely expressed beforehand.

Its a bit like a science experiment, because of the ever changing variables surroung smoking - eg: environment, quality, quantity, etc. There are a range of differentiating answers to match the outcome of each scenario. Being in an enclosed environment would be the biggest influence that adversely changes being affected by second-hand smoke, because the air within would barely be recycled enough to match the quanity (again another variable) of smokers and nonsmokers within that environment, so the risk of being affected increases substantially. This is reason enough to ban smoking indoors.

Whereas an outdoors environment, which is exposed to an infinite quantity of air, is consistently recycled and redistributed elsewhere, but in such miniscule partitions, it would represent the smallest of fractions to the rest of atmospheric elements, that it would be scientifically near impossible to prove that second-hand smoke would affect people in such conditions. Rundle Mall is no exception to this matter, and therefore smoking should be allowed there and elsewhere outdoors.

I conclude my argument.

Ok, if not a health hazzard it's at the very least annoying..?

Where is the argument to that?

Smoking causes sexual impotence shuz.

AtD wrote:Smoking causes sexual impotence shuz.

Well I'm only 2 months into the habit, haven't noticed anything different, and I plan on giving up somewhere between now and 21, so you and all the anti-smokers, pro-sexualists don't need worry.

Why did you get started in the first place? And is it consistent or social?

Cruise hates people who talks loudly on their mobile phones, and therefore all people with mobile phones should be banned from Rundle mall, (and public transport).

People like Cruise who hate loud mobile phone talkers are being descriminated against, they walk next to to Cruise, in front of Cruise and even behind Cruise!!!

THAT'S UNFAIR!!!

That is not a health risk, smoking is

I'm pretty sure i have read somewhere mobile phones are in fact a health risk, Crawfy.

Maybe so, however I'm talking about 'people talking loudly on their mobile phone'

anyway my post was sarcastic.

I personally believe people should be allowed to do what they want.


Why do you really think we need more laws constricting our social liberties?

I believe it should be banned, as Rundle Mall is a highly patronised place and it will clean up the mall.

Though I think smoking should be allowed in the laneways.

unfortuantly i don't share your vision of a nanny state