| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| uselesseater wrote: | | But at a glance I think it does have classicly 'out-there' profile like, 'dont drink the water' but then you shouldn't drink the water. |
Having admitted you are a smoker, I don't think it matters what additional bad stuff you do, nothing tops inhaling poison smoke for pleasure.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC
Last edited by telecasterisation on Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:36 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What about drinking poison alcohol for pleasure ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Gobell wrote: | | What about drinking poison alcohol for pleasure ? |
shhhh! its only bad for your health and the enviorment(what ever you do)if you don't do that activity.
if you do do that activity then it is both needed, justified and dos'nt harm your health and is not for pleasure or convience.
just something i have learnt about people, well most of them not all.
can you imagine how many people would be in uproar if the goverment said drinking is bad for your health and a hazard to others(violence/drink driving etc) and taking up lots of police time and resources due to crime commited from intake, therefore band in public places.
i think you'd find peoples morals change over night, they will justify it not bothered one bit how many in the uk are effect due to living near such activity and suffering as a result or die as a result, although i do agree with smoking being bad and banned in public places, but where does it end now its started and how do you distinguish what is bad in public and what is'nt when a lot of things can effect health and inconvience other people as some users of such things have little though for anyone else? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | uselesseater wrote: | | But at a glance I think it does have classicly 'out-there' profile like, 'dont drink the water' but then you shouldn't drink the water. |
Having admitted you are a smoker, I don't think it matters what additional bad stuff you do, nothing tops inhaling poison smoke for pleasure. |
That's a completely fallacious argument which people often voice without much thought. For a start somking is my personal choice.
Because I choose to take in toxin 'A' therefore toxins 'B' through 'Z' don't matter.
There are thousands of ambient toxins and carcinagens in the environment as is demonstratred by the indirect correlation of smoking and cancer rates that we see today.
_________________
www.wytruth.org.uk
www.myspace.com/truthleeds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | | What about drinking poison alcohol for pleasure ? |
shhhh! its only bad for your health and the enviorment(what ever you do)if you don't do that activity.
if you do do that activity then it is both needed, justified and dos'nt harm your health and is not for pleasure or convience.
just something i have learnt about people, well most of them not all.
can you imagine how many people would be in uproar if the goverment said drinking is bad for your health and a hazard to others(violence/drink driving etc) and taking up lots of police time and resources due to crime commited from intake, therefore band in public places.
i think you'd find peoples morals change over night, they will justify it not bothered one bit how many in the uk are effect due to living near such activity and suffering as a result or die as a result, although i do agree with smoking being bad and banned in public places, but where does it end now its started and how do you distinguish what is bad in public and what is'nt when a lot of things can effect health and inconvience other people as some users of such things have little though for anyone else? |
The social cost of drinking is far greater than smoking.
Yes, but moderation is ok isn't it? So everybody should be in favour of alcohol rations, shouldn't they.
Well I'm not.
_________________
www.wytruth.org.uk
www.myspace.com/truthleeds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| uselesseater wrote: | That's a completely fallacious argument which people often voice without much thought. For a start somking is my personal choice.
Because I choose to take in toxin 'A' therefore toxins 'B' through 'Z' don't matter.
There are thousands of ambient toxins and carcinagens in the environment as is demonstratred by the indirect correlation of smoking and cancer rates that we see today. |
No.
The recent legislation about smoking came into being for the very reason it ISN'T a habit that is limited to the individual.
The new law exists for the very reason it damages the health of others, hence the expression 'passive smoking'.
Smoking is a foul, nasty, invasive pursuit for countless non-smokers, children in cars with smoking parents, pregnant smokers - the recipents have no choice, they are forced to ingest concentrated poisons just because the 'adult' is blindly driven by their drug habit.
A smoker in a room monopolises the atmosphere, they actively impose their will on everyone in the room to consume concentrated carginogens or leave. This is not personal choice, this is selfish and I view it as assault.
No doubt we are now going to embark on the usual justification mission detailing the internal combustion engine and alcohol. If you wish to reply, try simply listing all the wonderful things that smoking does for society, the benefits it brings, let it stand on its own merits. I am happy you don't mention all the premature deaths and underweight sickly births, put aside the exacerbated childhood asthma, rasping cough, stained teeth, stinky clothes and hair, stinging eyes, not even touching on the grieving families who have lost a father/mother et al.
My mother died of smoking related cancer when I was 11 and have the perspective of watching someone die horribly over an eighteen month period. So I have given it some thought. Also, having been a serving police officer, my very first sudden death was a child who died of asthma, I was present at the autopsy and the lungs were full of black filth caused by the chain smoking parents.
Smokers are drug addicts who give little to no thought to anyone except themselves and constantly strive to justify what they do.
Personal choice? Your statement is like saying a rapist's habits don't impact anyone else. Not in a thousand lifetimes.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
karlos
Validated Poster
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 2516
Location: london
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with you here Tele. As a non smoker myself who used to be a smoker a few years back i really can see both sides of this argument. Even smokers today tell me how much better it is that they have to go outside to smoke. they end up smoking much less and it does not annoy people like me.
I can remember when one would go to places and within minutes your eyes would become red and your voice hoarse simply because of the second hand smoke. Now you CAN wear your clothes for more than one day because they dont stink of smoke.
Smoking like having a barbeque is an outdoor activity 
thats my tuppence
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| uselesseater wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Mark Gobell wrote: | | What about drinking poison alcohol for pleasure ? |
shhhh! its only bad for your health and the enviorment(what ever you do)if you don't do that activity.
if you do do that activity then it is both needed, justified and dos'nt harm your health and is not for pleasure or convience.
just something i have learnt about people, well most of them not all.
can you imagine how many people would be in uproar if the goverment said drinking is bad for your health and a hazard to others(violence/drink driving etc) and taking up lots of police time and resources due to crime commited from intake, therefore band in public places.
i think you'd find peoples morals change over night, they will justify it not bothered one bit how many in the uk are effect due to living near such activity and suffering as a result or die as a result, although i do agree with smoking being bad and banned in public places, but where does it end now its started and how do you distinguish what is bad in public and what is'nt when a lot of things can effect health and inconvience other people as some users of such things have little though for anyone else? |
The social cost of drinking is far greater than smoking.
Yes, but moderation is ok isn't it? So everybody should be in favour of alcohol rations, shouldn't they.
Well I'm not. |
neither am i. but it will be intresting to see what else gets banned in public etc as a result and spun in the way i explained, you can gaurentee all the non drinkers would support it, simply because they don't do it and find it replusive and disruptive etc.
im certain it will not stop at smoking now it has started. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stefan - Your last post was very interesting and well put. I think for me it's because I don't recall seeing such obvious grids. But then I don't think I really look. I shall bear what you say in mind and keep my eyes open more (truth be told, I tend to wander round in a world of my own most of the time!).
Just one thing, though - has anyone seen if the plane spotter community have anything interesting to say here?
Non smokers may wish to keep in mind the inordinate amount of tax we smokers pay. Being a loyal citizen, I only infrequently purchase the under the counter smuggled stuff at the corner shop. We're propping up the NHS for you selfish non-smokers. Not to mention, as Bill Hicks pointed out, we at least get predictable diseases and don't linger on into our nineties being treated for obscure ailments costing the taxpayer millions.
I smoke for England - it's as simple as that!
Honest.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Telecasterisation wrote: | | The recent legislation about smoking came into being for the very reason it ISN'T a habit that is limited to the individual. |
And alcohol ?
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | uselesseater wrote: | That's a completely fallacious argument which people often voice without much thought. For a start somking is my personal choice.
Because I choose to take in toxin 'A' therefore toxins 'B' through 'Z' don't matter.
There are thousands of ambient toxins and carcinagens in the environment as is demonstratred by the indirect correlation of smoking and cancer rates that we see today. |
No.
The recent legislation about smoking came into being for the very reason it ISN'T a habit that is limited to the individual.
The new law exists for the very reason it damages the health of others, hence the expression 'passive smoking'.
Smoking is a foul, nasty, invasive pursuit for countless non-smokers, children in cars with smoking parents, pregnant smokers - the recipents have no choice, they are forced to ingest concentrated poisons just because the 'adult' is blindly driven by their drug habit.
A smoker in a room monopolises the atmosphere, they actively impose their will on everyone in the room to consume concentrated carginogens or leave. This is not personal choice, this is selfish and I view it as assault.
No doubt we are now going to embark on the usual justification mission detailing the internal combustion engine and alcohol. If you wish to reply, try simply listing all the wonderful things that smoking does for society, the benefits it brings, let it stand on its own merits. I am happy you don't mention all the premature deaths and underweight sickly births, put aside the exacerbated childhood asthma, rasping cough, stained teeth, stinky clothes and hair, stinging eyes, not even touching on the grieving families who have lost a father/mother et al.
My mother died of smoking related cancer when I was 11 and have the perspective of watching someone die horribly over an eighteen month period. So I have given it some thought. Also, having been a serving police officer, my very first sudden death was a child who died of asthma, I was present at the autopsy and the lungs were full of black filth caused by the chain smoking parents.
Smokers are drug addicts who give little to no thought to anyone except themselves and constantly strive to justify what they do.
Personal choice? Your statement is like saying a rapist's habits don't impact anyone else. Not in a thousand lifetimes. |
You missed my point completely.
I wasn't commenting on the smoking ban but rather your argument that 'Seeing as I smoke I shouldn't be bothered about anything else like chemtrails'
I should have remembered to tack on the discalimer of 'When not making others inhale' onto 'It's my choice.'
_________________
www.wytruth.org.uk
www.myspace.com/truthleeds |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | uselesseater wrote: | That's a completely fallacious argument which people often voice without much thought. For a start somking is my personal choice.
Because I choose to take in toxin 'A' therefore toxins 'B' through 'Z' don't matter.
There are thousands of ambient toxins and carcinagens in the environment as is demonstratred by the indirect correlation of smoking and cancer rates that we see today. |
No.
The recent legislation about smoking came into being for the very reason it ISN'T a habit that is limited to the individual.
The new law exists for the very reason it damages the health of others, hence the expression 'passive smoking'.
Smoking is a foul, nasty, invasive pursuit for countless non-smokers, children in cars with smoking parents, pregnant smokers - the recipents have no choice, they are forced to ingest concentrated poisons just because the 'adult' is blindly driven by their drug habit.
A smoker in a room monopolises the atmosphere, they actively impose their will on everyone in the room to consume concentrated carginogens or leave. This is not personal choice, this is selfish and I view it as assault.
No doubt we are now going to embark on the usual justification mission detailing the internal combustion engine and alcohol. If you wish to reply, try simply listing all the wonderful things that smoking does for society, the benefits it brings, let it stand on its own merits. I am happy you don't mention all the premature deaths and underweight sickly births, put aside the exacerbated childhood asthma, rasping cough, stained teeth, stinky clothes and hair, stinging eyes, not even touching on the grieving families who have lost a father/mother et al.
My mother died of smoking related cancer when I was 11 and have the perspective of watching someone die horribly over an eighteen month period. So I have given it some thought. Also, having been a serving police officer, my very first sudden death was a child who died of asthma, I was present at the autopsy and the lungs were full of black filth caused by the chain smoking parents.
Smokers are drug addicts who give little to no thought to anyone except themselves and constantly strive to justify what they do.
Personal choice? Your statement is like saying a rapist's habits don't impact anyone else. Not in a thousand lifetimes. |
alcohol, is equally as bad and can cause the same problems.
how many children die as a result of drunk drivers each year?
how many parents die slow deaths due to alcohol?
how many people destroy their lives and other peoples lives due to addiction?
how much violence is created each year due to alcohol?
how many children are driven around with an alcohol induced parent?
whats the excuse again? "ive only had two"
i agree with everything your saying about smoking but you seem obsessed with only targeting and putting down people who take part in this one activity, when it is not the only activity which destroys lives.
will you condem alcohol telly? and support a ban?
or is it a classic case of "well i do that so thats ok". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 07, 2007 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | will you condem alcohol telly? and support a ban?
or is it a classic case of "well i do that so thats ok". |
I have yet to witness a debate on smoking that doesn't wander off onto cars or drinking, smokers are a very paranoid lot and rightly so. I see no correlation between smoking and drinking, due to the uniquely passive effects of the former.
Yes, alcohol has a downside when ingested to an extreme by a percentage of the population. Equally, there are those who purchase knives, or fireworks, or pick up a brick who do something socially questionable with it. You can run an old rusty nail down the side of a new car, or play loud music with the windows open until 04:15 on your new sound system - there are countless actions we don't condone, what makes alcohol any different? I went to many domestic incidents where violence played a part and lots did not involve drink.
What figures are you citing to suggest that as many people die annually from alcohol as smoking? Put me in a room with a drunk and a smoker and only the smoker would force me to inhale poison.
This site is in part all about protecting civil liberties, but smoking instantly by its nature contravenes that premise, so I believe that rightly, smokers should be allowed to smoke, but not in enclosed spaces near those who do not want to be forced to participate.
We already have laws to restrict alcohol purchase, use and driving under the influence. An automatic term of imprisonment for drivers over the limit would be useful, but a ban would be pointless and unworkable due to the ease in producing the stuff domestically.
The last alcohol I drank was about 1982.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | will you condem alcohol telly? and support a ban?
or is it a classic case of "well i do that so thats ok". |
I have yet to witness a debate on smoking that doesn't wander off onto cars or drinking, smokers are a very paranoid lot and rightly so. I see no correlation between smoking and drinking, due to the uniquely passive effects of the former.
Yes, alcohol has a downside when ingested to an extreme by a percentage of the population. Equally, there are those who purchase knives, or fireworks, or pick up a brick who do something socially questionable with it. You can run an old rusty nail down the side of a new car, or play loud music with the windows open until 04:15 on your new sound system - there are countless actions we don't condone, what makes alcohol any different? I went to many domestic incidents where violence played a part and lots did not involve drink.
What figures are you citing to suggest that as many people die annually from alcohol as smoking? Put me in a room with a drunk and a smoker and only the smoker would force me to inhale poison.
This site is in part all about protecting civil liberties, but smoking instantly by its nature contravenes that premise, so I believe that rightly, smokers should be allowed to smoke, but not in enclosed spaces near those who do not want to be forced to participate.
We already have laws to restrict alcohol purchase, use and driving under the influence. An automatic term of imprisonment for drivers over the limit would be useful, but a ban would be pointless and unworkable due to the ease in producing the stuff domestically.
The last alcohol I drank was about 1982. |
we already have laws to restrict smoking, the only point is you seem to think smokers should be shot, but smoking is like everything else.
it is a persons choice to smoke or quit and if used in a responsible way and thought and care is taken not to effect others there should be no problem, and they are no differant to anyone else who for example use alcohol in a responsible way.
however you want to brand smokers as evil people who are selfish and should be shot.
that is what i take issue with as it is not the case with all smokers.
just as it is not the case with all drinkers and whatever else.
is it about responsibility and thought for others or just hating a group of people by stereotyping and using that as a excuse.
your morals are clearly only ever aimed at smokers and never at things on a par interms of destroying lives and childrens lives also, yet you use examples of those types of things to bash smokers but defend them on anything else and play the smokers cannot compare to other groups of people card because i want to hate smokers and not consider if what they do is as bad as what other people do.
do you hate drinkers telly? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | we already have laws to restrict smoking, the only point is you seem to think smokers should be shot, but smoking is like everything else.
it is a persons choice to smoke or quit and if used in a responsible way and thought and care is taken not to effect others there should be no problem, and they are no differant to anyone else who for example use alcohol in a responsible way.
however you want to brand smokers as evil people who are selfish and should be shot.
that is what i take issue with as it is not the case with all smokers.
just as it is not the case with all drinkers and whatever else.
is it about responsibility and thought for others or just hating a group of people by stereotyping and using that as a excuse.
your morals are clearly only ever aimed at smokers and never at things on a par interms of destroying lives and childrens lives also, yet you use examples of those types of things to bash smokers but defend them on anything else and play the smokers cannot compare to other groups of people card because i want to hate smokers and not consider if what they do is as bad as what other people do.
do you hate drinkers telly? |
Yes, if smoking is done in a responsible manner it is not a problem (for those who don't smoke), however legislation had to be implemented because it wasn't.
You then say smoking is like everything else?
Smoking is totally and wholly unique, there is no other drug related habit that impacts everyone in the area like smoking does. There is not 'passive drinking' is there? I have never been to a social gathering where the smokers ask if it is okay to smoke and every non-smoker inhales it or leaves.
We went to a quiz night in 2002 in the local community centre. There were about two smokers to every five people. Within 20 minutes, the air was chokingly thick with cigarette smoke, I couldn't even see the paperwork my eyes hurt so much. I had a sore throat for days, all our clothes had to be put in the back garden when we got home until they were washed as the house stank of stale smoke. This was all because people were taking drugs/smoking in a social setting - what other drug related habit does this? Smoking is like everything else? What else?
I am not against smoking per se, if people smoke in their own homes not forcing it upon their 'loved' ones, then that's 100% okay with me. I am against the vast majority though who don't do that.
I quite accept that I have a biased view, but the experience I had watching the child's autopsy back in 1977 altered my perspective. Parents who claimed to love their kid killed it with their drug habit = selfish, ignorant fools. They had been warned many times that the asthma was brought on by the poor air quality they created domestically - the desire for nicotine was too strong and the child died. Like everything else? What else is it 'like'?
I don't hate drinkers. People drink, it doesn't impact me. A small percentage certainly get aggressive or drive cars when drunk and I do not condone that, I arrested a number of drunk drivers.
I am unable to draw a comparison with drinking and smoking and again highlight that the only reason people play the comparison card when smoking is debated is that it cannot be discussed on its own for everything about it is negative. I don't view there being anything on 'a par' with smoking.
As for smokers being shot, I have been most clear about that - only the pregnant ones.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
However, as well as habitual smokers, there are also plenty of casual smokers who enjoy a bifter when they are pubbing or clubbing. In the club setting, cigarettes also supply a nifty cover for those wishing to break the country's ridiculous and unworkable cannabis laws. I have been in clubs where the greater majority were gleefully skinning up and having a jolly good time. Why should they not let their hair down? IMO, the notion of having venues where one may smoke and one may not is the fairest solution. Or perhaps permitting specific smoking rooms where people can contaminate their lungs of their own free will. The notion of prohibiting smoking totally in any enclosed public space forces is over the top - a clearly designated separate enclosed space people enter at their own risk allows people to choose to smoke while both avoiding freezing their nuts off in winter and contaminating the airspace of others.
Though I can guarantee it would be the busiest part of most pubs and clubs.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dogsmilk wrote: | However, as well as habitual smokers, there are also plenty of casual smokers who enjoy a bifter when they are pubbing or clubbing. In the club setting, cigarettes also supply a nifty cover for those wishing to break the country's ridiculous and unworkable cannabis laws. I have been in clubs where the greater majority were gleefully skinning up and having a jolly good time. Why should they not let their hair down? IMO, the notion of having venues where one may smoke and one may not is the fairest solution. Or perhaps permitting specific smoking rooms where people can contaminate their lungs of their own free will. The notion of prohibiting smoking totally in any enclosed public space forces is over the top - a clearly designated separate enclosed space people enter at their own risk allows people to choose to smoke while both avoiding freezing their nuts off in winter and contaminating the airspace of others.
Though I can guarantee it would be the busiest part of most pubs and clubs. |
Seconded. The fairest solution by far is separate venues, not laws lifted wholesale from the reader's tips section of Der Sturmer.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catfish
Validated Poster
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Posts: 430
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | uselesseater wrote: | That's a completely fallacious argument which people often voice without much thought. For a start somking is my personal choice.
Because I choose to take in toxin 'A' therefore toxins 'B' through 'Z' don't matter.
There are thousands of ambient toxins and carcinagens in the environment as is demonstratred by the indirect correlation of smoking and cancer rates that we see today. |
No.
The recent legislation about smoking came into being for the very reason it ISN'T a habit that is limited to the individual.
The new law exists for the very reason it damages the health of others, hence the expression 'passive smoking'.
Smoking is a foul, nasty, invasive pursuit for countless non-smokers, children in cars with smoking parents, pregnant smokers - the recipents have no choice, they are forced to ingest concentrated poisons just because the 'adult' is blindly driven by their drug habit.
A smoker in a room monopolises the atmosphere, they actively impose their will on everyone in the room to consume concentrated carginogens or leave. This is not personal choice, this is selfish and I view it as assault.
No doubt we are now going to embark on the usual justification mission detailing the internal combustion engine and alcohol. If you wish to reply, try simply listing all the wonderful things that smoking does for society, the benefits it brings, let it stand on its own merits. I am happy you don't mention all the premature deaths and underweight sickly births, put aside the exacerbated childhood asthma, rasping cough, stained teeth, stinky clothes and hair, stinging eyes, not even touching on the grieving families who have lost a father/mother et al.
My mother died of smoking related cancer when I was 11 and have the perspective of watching someone die horribly over an eighteen month period. So I have given it some thought. Also, having been a serving police officer, my very first sudden death was a child who died of asthma, I was present at the autopsy and the lungs were full of black filth caused by the chain smoking parents.
Smokers are drug addicts who give little to no thought to anyone except themselves and constantly strive to justify what they do.
Personal choice? Your statement is like saying a rapist's habits don't impact anyone else. Not in a thousand lifetimes. |
More laws that's definitely what we need. And why not follow in the footsteps of those great social reformers.... the nazis!
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1450
_________________
Govern : To control
Ment : The mind |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TELE WROTE:
| Quote: | | There is not 'passive drinking' is there? |
no there is'nt i agree, but there is passive behaviour caused by drink, which can lead to and does lead to:
filling up accident and emercancy on a friday and saturday night(a strain on the health service).
serious car accidents
verbal abuse
violence and assault on members of the public
rape
domestic violence
vandalism of peoples property
sexual harrasment
i could go on and on.
to put it bluntly i'd rather sit in a room of smokers smoking than in a room of unpredictable people all out of their face on alcohol.
smoking dos'nt cause an upsurge in any of the above things other than maybe health care, anyone working in accident and emergancy will tell you their friday/saturday night would be less of strain if people drank in a more responsible way and took others into account, as drinking is very passive interms of how it makes people behave which is then enforce on people who get in the way including hospital staff who are attacked on a regular basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
right as we speak i have drunks across the street at the pub all shouting very loudly, so lets add noise polution also.
i hope i actually get sleep tonight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | right as we speak i have drunks across the street at the pub all shouting very loudly, so lets add noise polution also.
i hope i actually get sleep tonight. |
Yes, yes, yes but that is PEOPLE who are causing the noise not the alcohol. It is the CAR that hits you not the alcohol. With passive smoking you are being fed the same drug directly by the same vehicle that the drug user is using to get their fix - there is no difference to a junkie sticking the same needle in your arm that they are using - you are forced to take their drug with them. It is that I object to and to keep comparing smoking with the latent behaviour induced by alcohol is completely flawed.
Drinking alcohol is a whole 'nother subject entirely and I acknowledge the desire to habitually justify by comparison, however smoking has no peers, it is wholly unique. People out of control after drinking, on the street, in cars, wherever, are a world removed from children being forced to ingest drugs with the users.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 08, 2007 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | you are forced to take their drug with them. |
yes but most people who hate drugs would'nt go and sit next to a drug addict who is shooting up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | | you are forced to take their drug with them. |
yes but most people who hate drugs would'nt go and sit next to a drug addict who is shooting up. |
I don't personally hate drugs - I am however against sections of the community having no choice about taking them.
You make a excellent point about not sitting next to an addict, but this merely endorses the uniqueness of smoking - you don't have to be next to the user to get to participate.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| telecasterisation wrote: | | marky 54 wrote: | | Quote: | | you are forced to take their drug with them. |
yes but most people who hate drugs would'nt go and sit next to a drug addict who is shooting up. |
I don't personally hate drugs - I am however against sections of the community having no choice about taking them.
You make a excellent point about not sitting next to an addict, but this merely endorses the uniqueness of smoking - you don't have to be next to the user to get to participate. |
you do now, so i don't get hatred.
the only way possible you can take part is if you were in a smokers house(you could leave)
car(your choice to get in)
on the street(don't stand next to them)
public buildings(banned)
work(banned)
nothing a smoking room and a none smoking room would'nt solve without infringing upon freedom of choice for all.
but like i said long ago in this thread, once its starts it dos'nt stop.
the pregnancy, smoking around children etc come down to responsibility, the same as drinking in a sensible way comes down to responsibility.
when the goverment is after limiting every part of our lives because it effects others i hope you remember where it all started.
pubs had smoking sides and none smoking sides for as long as i can remember all that need enforcing there was a smoking area away from the bar and from food areas, shopping centres banned smoking and work places provided an outdoor area for smokers.
i really don't see a need for the ban when all these things could of been enforced to satisfy both sides and were already implemented in the vast majority of places.
you may think its about smoking tele, but its not the ban is about restricting parts of our lives and laying down the stones of justifaction to limit yet more things from what i can tell.
im convinced ive made a good case already as to why drinking should be banned. if you sell it right most will vote for it(especially those who don't drink). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 9:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| marky 54 wrote: | you do now, so i don't get hatred.
the only way possible you can take part is if you were in a smokers house(you could leave)
car(your choice to get in)
on..............is about restricting parts of our lives and laying down the stones of justifaction to limit yet more things from what i can tell.
im convinced ive made a good case already as to why drinking should be banned. if you sell it right most will vote for it(especially those who don't drink). |
There are still any number of 'workplaces' where you would encounter smokers;
Firstly, many smokers flaunt the rules in the more 'manly' pursuits like builders vans. My nephew is currently labouring for a self-employed builder. He needs the money but has to endure often long journeys in a Ford Tourneo to sites with heavy smokers.
Often you get in a vehicle not knowing if someone smokes, taking away any real option to 'leave' fifty miles from home.
What about plumbers and electricians in homes? This is their workplace - yes, they could leave, but we come back to making a living and upsetting the client.
The biggest problem you face is explaining away the impact of smokers on children who are unquestionably the most vulnerable. All the current legislation ignores this, children can't 'leave', and huge numbers of people in the main simply aren't responsible. My middle daughter got a lift home from school by her friend's dad - she came home smelling of smoke. I asked why? Apparently the driver smoked without questioning anyone if they minded?
Remember, the legislation exists for the very reason responsibility is lacking throughout society. People had to be forced to conform to more acceptable behaviour. It acknowledges that smokers don't ask, don't think - they had to be forced to take their habit elsewhere and what a wonderful wonderful thing it is too.
This puzzled me;
| Quote: | | i really don't see a need for the ban when all these things could of been enforced to satisfy both sides and were already implemented in the vast majority of places. |
A huge amount of businesses would have needed to put aside a specific area for smokers. This would also mean an air extraction system, a double door to stop smoke encroaching into the non-smoking area. The vast majority of places? Walk down any high steet - how would the shops implement such a move when most just have a small stockroom and a toilet? Estate agents, solicitors, charity shops, clothes and shoe shops, betting offices, Halfords, health shops, bakers, computer games shops etc etc - not a chance.
To implement legislation that says you as a business must supply a dedicated smoking area at considerable cost (assuming you have the space), would put many businesses out of business. A blanket ban was the only sensible way forward.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What about plumbers and electricians in homes? This is their workplace |
so now my home is not my home due to legislation? its somebodys work place so they can now us that excuse to dictate what people do at home?
and people accept it?
| Quote: | | many smokers flaunt the rules |
report them.
| Quote: | | The biggest problem you face is explaining away the impact of smokers on children who are unquestionably the most vulnerable. |
i don't intend to explain it away, it comes down to responsibility, responsible people don't smoke near their children, you assume however all smokers do because they smoke and are therefore evil.
| Quote: | | My middle daughter got a lift home from school by her friend's dad - she came home smelling of smoke. |
a irresponible person. did you take issue with it?
| Quote: | | Remember, the legislation exists for the very reason responsibility is lacking throughout society. People had to be forced to conform to more acceptable behaviour. |
and would you say society is better now than the 1940's/50's when smoking was widely accepted and even advertised on t.v?
| Quote: | | It acknowledges that smokers don't ask, don't think |
really? or do you mean some smokers?
| Quote: | forced to take their habit elsewhere and what a wonderful wonderful thing it is too.
|
i agree with not infringing on other peoples right not to smoke, now for those blastered drinkers! what a better society it will be when teenagers are not running around the streets out their heads, and people in general are less violent.
| Quote: | | A huge amount of businesses would have needed to put aside a specific area for smokers. |
yes nothing a few chairs outside and maybe a little shelter if the boss is feeling generious. yep i can see buinesses going bust over that.
| Quote: | | A blanket ban was the only sensible way forward. |
sensible if you believe in restricting freedom of choice, yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Gobell
On Gardening Leave
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 4529
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 10:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Telecasterisation wrote: | | A blanket ban was the only sensible way forward. |
So, do you think there could have been any latitude in the legislation that could have provided for folk who are members of private clubs, for example ?
You will recall that, at one time during the bill's passage this was supposedly being considered.
_________________
The Medium is the Massage - Marshall McLuhan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
telecasterisation
Banned
Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 1873
Location: Upstairs
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
marky 54 wrote stuff like;
| Quote: | | so now my home is not my home due to legislation? its somebodys work place so they can now us that excuse to dictate what people do at home? |
You misunderstand - the point being there are still places of work not covered by legislation. All workers in the domestic environment are exposed to smoking, social workers, district nurses, tradespeople, whoever.
This is not always a practical solution for a seventeen year old anxious to keep their cash in hand job.
| Code: | | i don't intend to explain it away, it comes down to responsibility, responsible people don't smoke near their children, you assume however all smokers do because they smoke and are therefore evil. |
Society is riddled with irresponsible people, you have already cited 'teenagers not running around the streets out their heads'. What about the 40 a day habit of the lone parent in a one room flat? These are hardcore addicts, with no desire to go outside to smoke and leave a six month old infant alone.
| Quote: | | a irresponible person. did you take issue with it? |
What issue exactly - you have already told me 'so now my home is not my home due to legislation?' The driver can legally smoke in his own car - so your belief now is I should restrict his freedom of choice? Surely not??
| Quote: | | and would you say society is better now than the 1940's/50's when smoking was widely accepted and even advertised on t.v? |
We are certainly more informed now and therefore moving towards a different mindset. Take recycling for example - I am unable to state if this is means a 'better' society, but certainly it is different.
| Quote: | | really? or do you mean some smokers? |
I typed 'smokers', not 'all smokers'. It is who we are discussing and the generic expression for the group. However, from experience, I know very few smokers who have ever asked if I minded if they smoked? I have never once been to a restaurant where a smoker asked those non-smokers nearby if they minded if they lit up - this was down to the ludicrous notion of being in a 'smoking area' four feet away as if it magically made everyone else immune.
| Quote: | | yes nothing a few chairs outside and maybe a little shelter if the boss is feeling generious. yep i can see buinesses going bust over that. |
A few chairs outside, OUTSIDE? But that is where they have to go now and this is what you complain about. So instead of being huddled in doorways, they should be given chairs? Your suggestion just makes you appear very confused.
| Quote: | | sensible if you believe in restricting freedom of choice, yes. |
Not that long ago, smokers held all the cards. They could smoke pretty much where they liked and those non-smokers who did not like it, had to suffer or leave. The freedom of choice dynamic was reversed and I accept it is difficult to deal with if you smoke, but that is simply the way things are and tough.
The new legislation is not there to upset people or infringe on civil liberties per se, it exists to reduce the amount of concentrated poisons non-smokers are forced to inhale whilst enjoying a more pleasant workplace (were you supposed to leave that too?), and facilities they previously couldn't.
Things changed and the boot is now very much on the other foot, if you want to smoke, then it is you who has to leave and if the question is, is that better? Then yes, it is.
_________________
I completely challenge the official version of events - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC -I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC - I AM NOT A 9/11 TRUTH CRITIC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 09, 2007 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You misunderstand - the point being there are still places of work not covered by legislation. All workers in the domestic environment are exposed to smoking, social workers, district nurses, tradespeople, whoever. |
again if they walk through my door it is MY home, NOT their workplace.
what next? home owners must supply a firstaid kit and safty boots?
| Quote: | This is not always a practical solution for a seventeen year old anxious to keep their cash in hand job.
|
if it effected my health or put me in danger i certainly would say something or complain and explain my postion, or find another job.
i use to work in a dye house when i was 16/18, i ended up finding another job due to having to breathe chemicals all day, i knew if i stayed long term it would have serious effects on my health.
its the only job i have had where having to pick your nose was necessary due to fine dust partials from the dye(in powder form)
rainbow bogies is not a understatement.
my point being sometimes none of us have a choice but to breathe nonsense, a bit like traveling in a car with that sickly petrol smell, or waiting at the traffic lights with numerous transports crawling past.
but i bet your not concerned about those types of things.
| Quote: | | Society is riddled with irresponsible people |
i agree, and they are the ones who should be punished not the responsible ones.
| Quote: | | What issue exactly |
for smoking around your daughter and having no consideration, im not suggesting restricting his freedom of choice, but as a parent you had a right to complain or have a word in a nice way, depending which you choose.
its not against the law to feed children sweets, but i have complained many times to the school for feeding my children additional sweets, as i find they never eat their tea due it when it occures, plus i am unable to monitor their intake of nonsense.
| Quote: | I have never once been to a restaurant where a smoker asked those non-smokers nearby if they minded if they lit up - this was down to the ludicrous notion of being in a 'smoking area' four feet away as if it magically made everyone else immune.
|
your placing blame on the wrong people unless they were sat in the none smoking area.
you should of complained to the restaurant about being seated 4ft away from smokers or took your custom to a restaurant who respected none smokers and arranged the seating areas better.
its certainly not the smokers fault if he is lighting up in the smokers section, however overall where food is concerned i agree with no smoking throughout, and why people need to smoke in restaurants never made sense.
you eat then light up in my experience, if people cannot wait till they get out of the door after eating for the sake of others then i agree to a point, however they were still incouraged by the restaurant who put a "smoking is ok" sign in the area.
| Quote: | A few chairs outside, OUTSIDE? But that is where they have to go now and this is what you complain about. So instead of being huddled in doorways, they should be given chairs? Your suggestion just makes you appear very confused.
|
some places have banned it outright, but at least we can agree smoking at work is fine and so far restaurants not fine.
| Quote: | Not that long ago, smokers held all the cards. They could smoke pretty much where they liked and those non-smokers who did not like it, had to suffer or leave. The freedom of choice dynamic was reversed and I accept it is difficult to deal with if you smoke, but that is simply the way things are and tough.
|
i agree and it dos'nt bother me, what i find disgusting is none smokers being bothered when smokers are smoking in a totally different room to the one they are sat in, ie: just a thing against smokers. take away their rights! whooo but i want to keep mine!
| Quote: | | The new legislation is not there to upset people or infringe on civil liberties per se |
but it does.
im all for none smokers not breathing smokers smoke, but it has gone to far interms of infringing on peoples rights.
| Quote: | Things changed and the boot is now very much on the other foot, if you want to smoke, then it is you who has to leave and if the question is, is that better? Then yes, it is.
|
9/10 people like that sit right next to the smoking area, which makes me laugh or even go to a smokers pub and decide they don't want to sit in the NO SMOKING area, but maybe thats because they are usually empty, like most pubs are starting to find out.
dos'nt bother me though because i don't really care, but i always like to see how people justify abolishment of freedom of choice, and just basic freedoms in general.
please sign here:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Neo_Prohibition/
maybe these people feel the same way you do about smoking.
do you hope they get their own way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
