Smokers suck

[Park Life 70]

Id cards anyone?

 

Indeed, and that's something that they've already admitted will be used for purposes they initially denied they'd be used for (which have nothing to do with preventing "terror" and everything to do with control).

 

Much like the DNA database that's already being built by stealth.

 

 

 

have you got anything to back up that statement?

 

Yup see above.

 

Don't swallow propaganda, even if it agrees with would you'd like. It's still a VERY dangerous thing.

 

 

 

modern cars are hardly massive polluters

 

Comparatively to what they used to be true, but (and again we get to the inconvenient bit) they still pump out a lot of crap, and certainly can have as much (or much more) effect on your health than a few hours a week in a smoky pub.

 

Actually that's also one of the biggest drawback of biofuels currently (beside raping the 3rd world and that some biofuels aren't particularly carbon saving), that they have some seriously NASTY emissions issues, stuff that if you had an LA or now Asian type car smog would do serious damage to peoples health.

 

Although this is again something the eco-nazi's (in this case) tend to ignore or gloss over and try to forget.

 

 

(and again I've all for a pollution free world with a pefect climate and many more trees [i've been growing and planting oaks and such for nearly 20 years now, long before it was trendy], but again I'm not silly enough to ignore the reality or say that the Government should be allowed to use whatever nonsense it likes to do whatever it likes)

 

 

runways across Euro packed with unsold brand new cars to keep prices high.....cars that have a hefty pollution cost per build even if you discount the chemicals used in the process...

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3187]

Id cards anyone?

 

Indeed, and that's something that they've already admitted will be used for purposes they initially denied they'd be used for (which have nothing to do with preventing "terror" and everything to do with control).

 

Much like the DNA database that's already being built by stealth.

 

 

 

have you got anything to back up that statement?

 

Yup see above.

 

Don't swallow propaganda, even if it agrees with would you'd like. It's still a VERY dangerous thing.

 

 

 

modern cars are hardly massive polluters

 

Comparatively to what they used to be true, but (and again we get to the inconvenient bit) they still pump out a lot of crap, and certainly can have as much (or much more) effect on your health than a few hours a week in a smoky pub.

 

Actually that's also one of the biggest drawback of biofuels currently (beside raping the 3rd world and that some biofuels aren't particularly carbon saving), that they have some seriously NASTY emissions issues, stuff that if you had an LA or now Asian type car smog would do serious damage to peoples health.

 

Although this is again something the eco-nazi's (in this case) tend to ignore or gloss over and try to forget.

 

 

(and again I've all for a pollution free world with a pefect climate and many more trees [i've been growing and planting oaks and such for nearly 20 years now, long before it was trendy], but again I'm not silly enough to ignore the reality or say that the Government should be allowed to use whatever nonsense it likes to do whatever it likes)

 

Sorry but you haven't anything which impacts the reason for the ban. Secondly comparing smoking to cars is moronic. Cars have a productive reason i.e transport. Cigarettes have no productive reason.

 

 

Also would like to know where you get your info on bio fuels? Also what kind of biofuels there are quite a few?

[Fop 1]

 

2 issues which are not part of the argument.

 

Er, they were the crux of the argument, at least in helping the public fall into the acceptably line.

 

 

 

The reason it was banned is because of the effect of employees made to work in a smoking environment and the rights of non smokers. That is why smoking rooms were not allowed as employees would still need to work in them.

 

 

Again it has everything to do with the issue that non-smokers will get very little if any "health benefit" from it. Unless it's a "human right" not to have smoky smelling clothes.

 

 

The working issue is an issue (even though it effects a very small amount of people), but frankly could have been negated simply with much better targeted ventilation solutions.

 

 

I personally would like the right to sue everybody who chooses to smoke in a confined area therefore knowingly putting my healt at an increased risk.

 

No you'd like to sue people for making your cloths smell.

 

 

There is no argument that this is not the case as no matter what the dose it does increase the risk of certain diseases.

 

Again, yes there is, actually read what I said.

 

I guess you'd clearly like second hand smoke to be utterly lethal for whatever personal issues you clearly have with smoking, BUT it just is NOT, not for the majority of non-smokers exposed in the way that most people are....... no matter the scare tactics it doesn't make it true.

 

 

Although you are taking a very typical anti-smoking fascist stance (and again I want a "smoke free" Britain, I just don't believe scare tactics and lies is the way to go about it).

[Park Life 70]

Id cards anyone?

 

Indeed, and that's something that they've already admitted will be used for purposes they initially denied they'd be used for (which have nothing to do with preventing "terror" and everything to do with control).

 

Much like the DNA database that's already being built by stealth.

 

 

 

have you got anything to back up that statement?

 

Yup see above.

 

Don't swallow propaganda, even if it agrees with would you'd like. It's still a VERY dangerous thing.

 

 

 

modern cars are hardly massive polluters

 

Comparatively to what they used to be true, but (and again we get to the inconvenient bit) they still pump out a lot of crap, and certainly can have as much (or much more) effect on your health than a few hours a week in a smoky pub.

 

Actually that's also one of the biggest drawback of biofuels currently (beside raping the 3rd world and that some biofuels aren't particularly carbon saving), that they have some seriously NASTY emissions issues, stuff that if you had an LA or now Asian type car smog would do serious damage to peoples health.

 

Although this is again something the eco-nazi's (in this case) tend to ignore or gloss over and try to forget.

 

 

(and again I've all for a pollution free world with a pefect climate and many more trees [i've been growing and planting oaks and such for nearly 20 years now, long before it was trendy], but again I'm not silly enough to ignore the reality or say that the Government should be allowed to use whatever nonsense it likes to do whatever it likes)

 

Sorry but you haven't anything which impacts the reason for the ban. Secondly comparing smoking to cars is moronic. Cars have a productive reason i.e transport. Cigarettes have no productive reason.

 

 

Also would like to know where you get your info on bio fuels? Also what kind of biofuels there are quite a few?

 

 

You don't compalin about cars and pollution as against smoking cause you are morally and psychologically bankrupt.

[Fop 1]

 

as you've just said it's harmless it wouldn't be hard for a car to be more harmful than a cigarette would it?

 

So you agree that second hand smoke is pretty much a non-issue for the majority of non-smokers then? (out side of smell of course)

 

 

 

Although as I said with current biofuels you are talking about a quite serious health issue with the current number of cars, scarily very similar to being mustard gassed.

[The Fish 8978]

 

 

Good post Fop. But surely way over their heads as they load the washing machine for more lovely smelling clothes.

 

Your right to smoke cannot impinge on my right not to smoke. I can't believe Fop is bemoaning a tactic that was created to stem the tide of the Aids spread. The Government shouldn't have to tell us that smoking is bad for us, it's bad for others (Irrespective of the proportionate danger), but unfortunately people don't seem to take heed.

 

If someone proves that, by smoking I'm putting my health at sever risk, then I'd stop. Yet the people who still smoke aren't listening or don't care. great, fine. But they can't complain when people who aren't daft enough to suck on noxious fumes refuse to join them in their apathy.

 

This whole "big bad Government" fear would hold more water if our honest to goodness freedoms were being taken from us. But the amount of difference the average Joe Smoker will experience after this comes to pass is positive. The difference the average Joe Non-Smoker is also positive. The Government aren't going to herd into pens and force us all to watch X-Factor until our will to fight tyranny seeps from our listless bodies.

 

We do that fine by ourselves.

 

 

 

If Fop and Parky really want to see injustice, and nanny states, they should cast their eyes about the rest of the world and realise that in this country and in these cases Nanny does actually know best.

 

Smoking is bad for you. Anything, ANYTHING that makes it more difficult to continue is a good thing in my eyes.

[Park Life 70]

 

as you've just said it's harmless it wouldn't be hard for a car to be more harmful than a cigarette would it?

 

So you agree that second hand smoke is pretty much a non-issue for the majority of non-smokers then? (out side of smell of course)

 

 

 

Although as I said with current biofuels you are talking about a quite serious health issue with the current number of cars, scarily very similar to being mustard gassed.

 

I thought they were working on hydrogen drive or summat?

[Park Life 70]

 

 

Good post Fop. But surely way over their heads as they load the washing machine for more lovely smelling clothes.

 

Your right to smoke cannot impinge on my right not to smoke. I can't believe Fop is bemoaning a tactic that was created to stem the tide of the Aids spread. The Government shouldn't have to tell us that smoking is bad for us, it's bad for others (Irrespective of the proportionate danger), but unfortunately people don't seem to take heed.

 

If someone proves that, by smoking I'm putting my health at sever risk, then I'd stop. Yet the people who still smoke aren't listening or don't care. great, fine. But they can't complain when people who aren't daft enough to suck on noxious fumes refuse to join them in their apathy.

 

This whole "big bad Government" fear would hold more water if our honest to goodness freedoms were being taken from us. But the amount of difference the average Joe Smoker will experience after this comes to pass is positive. The difference the average Joe Non-Smoker is also positive. The Government aren't going to herd into pens and force us all to watch X-Factor until our will to fight tyranny seeps from our listless bodies.

 

We do that fine by ourselves.

 

 

 

If Fop and Parky really want to see injustice, and nanny states, they should cast their eyes about the rest of the world and realise that in this country and in these cases Nanny does actually know best.

 

Smoking is bad for you. Anything, ANYTHING that makes it more difficult to continue is a good thing in my eyes.

 

 

Brainwashed?

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

a nanny state would have banned smoking full stop tbh

[peasepud 59]

Brainwashed?

 

I love the way that these discussions always go, the two people who have actually been brainwashed by the "conspiracy brigade" are the ones that then accuse the rest of it. It doesnt take a genius or a doctor to see that putting carcinogenic chemicals into an enclosed space is not good for anyone in that room.

 

To see the effects go into any pub and look at the walls. If it can do that to paintwork then I dread to imagine lungs. I dont ever want to see a picture of my lungs seeing as Im an ex smoker, if however I had never smoked one in my life and then found they were fucked I wouldnt be very chuffed to say the least.

[Fop 1]

 

 

Sorry but you haven't anything which impacts the reason for the ban.

 

Yes I have.

 

Just for whatever reasons you've chosen to ignore it.

 

 

 

Secondly comparing smoking to cars is moronic.

 

Just as moronic as blaming the wrong person for it.

 

 

Cars have a productive reason i.e transport. Cigarettes have no productive reason.

 

Neither do an awful lot of harmful things, does that mean they should be banned too?

 

Or indeed there's an awful lot of "productive" things that have much, much, much more harmful effects, does that mean they should be banned with scare tactics and lies too?

 

 

Also would like to know where you get your info on bio fuels? Also what kind of biofuels there are quite a few?

 

It's all out there (although broadly ignored by popularist crusaders on "Green" issues), you burn a lot of stuff and it produces some nasty stuff (a bit like cigarettes really , only in MUCH greater volume) it's not such a huge deal if you're taking 1-2% in conventional fuel, but when you are talking about large % or complete you're talking about hideous health issues at even a significantly reduced number of cars.

 

Although even that is still ignoring the negative effect on 3rd world countries (that is already beginning to be seen - basically there isn't enough land on the planet to grow enough biofuel to meet our needs) both the populace and their environment (it's a strange concept to cut down forests to grow biofuel to "save the world" is it not? ).

 

And indeed that many "biofuels" are far from (incoming buzzword) "carbon neutral" anyway.

[Fop 1]

a nanny state would have banned smoking full stop tbh

 

Nah.

 

 

1. it would have lost them a lot of votes (maybe even an election), we haven't quite got a dictatorship yet.

 

2. it would have simply created another lucrative black market that the government couldn't cash in on with tax (which is a bit like their catch 22 with cars [sorry Kevin] in that the best methods for reducing car travel and therefore congestion and pollution also cause a huge tax income reduction for the government).

[Fop 1]

Brainwashed?

 

I love the way that these discussions always go, the two people who have actually been brainwashed by the "conspiracy brigade" are the ones that then accuse the rest of it. It doesnt take a genius or a doctor to see that putting carcinogenic chemicals into an enclosed space is not good for anyone in that room.

 

To see the effects go into any pub and look at the walls. If it can do that to paintwork then I dread to imagine lungs. I dont ever want to see a picture of my lungs seeing as Im an ex smoker, if however I had never smoked one in my life and then found they were fucked I wouldnt be very chuffed to say the least.

 

Again you are putting what you (want to) believe over how it actually is.

 

Smoking is very bad for you.

 

But being a non-smoker exposed a few hours a week of second hand smoke is really not something anyone should be worrying about.

 

There's thousands more harmful (and easily avoidable) things you should be worrying about more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually this whole thing is like the flip side of the "superfood" fads (although thankfully the EU is going to do something productive and ban "superfood" marketing in a couple of years).

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

Brainwashed?

 

I love the way that these discussions always go, the two people who have actually been brainwashed by the "conspiracy brigade" are the ones that then accuse the rest of it. It doesnt take a genius or a doctor to see that putting carcinogenic chemicals into an enclosed space is not good for anyone in that room.

 

To see the effects go into any pub and look at the walls. If it can do that to paintwork then I dread to imagine lungs. I dont ever want to see a picture of my lungs seeing as Im an ex smoker, if however I had never smoked one in my life and then found they were fucked I wouldnt be very chuffed to say the least.

 

Again you are putting what you (want to) believe over how it actually is.

 

Smoking is very bad for you.

 

But being a non-smoker exposed a few hours a week of second hand smoke is really not something anyone should be worrying about.

 

There's thousands more harmful (and easily avoidable) things you should be worrying about more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually this whole thing is like the flip side of the "superfood" fads (although thankfully the EU is going to do something productive and ban "superfood" marketing in a couple of years).

 

 

the ban was about bar staff facing smokers for 6 shifts a week

 

and your comparisons are getting daft now tbh

Edited June 30, 2007 by Bazooka_From_Viduka

[Fop 1]

I can't believe Fop is bemoaning a tactic that was created to stem the tide of the Aids spread.

 

Well it was a classic overreaction (based upon invented science - the real science showed a very different infection model) that actually probably resulted in a backlash and increased in other sexual health issues in the end.

 

That's not to say the public shouldn't have been made aware of it, but the issue is how it is done.

 

 

The Government shouldn't have to tell us that smoking is bad for us, it's bad for others (Irrespective of the proportionate danger), but unfortunately people don't seem to take heed.

 

It's bad for smokers, but again outside of specific risk groups, it is just not that (and by that I mean at all in a modern day risk scenario) bad for the majority of non-smokers.

 

 

 

This whole "big bad Government" fear would hold more water if our honest to goodness freedoms were being taken from us.

 

Er... they are.

 

 

 

Smoking is bad for you. Anything, ANYTHING that makes it more difficult to continue is a good thing in my eyes.

 

Again there's a LOT of things that fit under that category, alcohol for ONE if we're building "Nirvana", as it had a higher over all (although not specific) health drain and tax drain than smoking.

 

Now I don't drink, so does that mean I should be for an alcohol ban? (it would make my life better and easier in many, many ways)

 

As I said the smoking ban I will like the effects of, just not how it has been done.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Fop

[Fop 1]

the ban was about bar staff facing smokers for 6 shifts a week

 

Ah so that is who it's about now is it?

 

(again there were many ways solve that without a ban anyway)

 

and your comparisons are getting daft now tbh

 

Heh, more daft than you having to end up agreeing with me? (because what you are saying is bollocks?)

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

the ban was about bar staff facing smokers for 6 shifts a week

 

Ah so that is who it's about now is it?

 

(again there were many ways solve that without a ban anyway)

 

and your comparisons are getting daft now tbh

 

Heh, more daft than you having to end up agreeing with me? (because what you are saying is bollocks?)

 

 

the ban was always about staff, I have no idea what else you think it was about

 

the alternatives such as ventilation were all dismissed quite rightly as unworkable

 

 

 

and no, I wasn't agreeing with you, I just thought it was a bit odd you forgot that you were claiming it was harmless when talking about cars for some reason

[ewerk 26232]

 

the ban was always about staff, I have no idea what else you think it was about

 

 

Bar staff have to put up with smoky conditions? Well there's a shock, I bet they didn't expect that when they took the job. If they don't like it then they should fuck off and get a different job. Though in saying that I am all for no smoking at the bar where practical.

[Fop 1]

the ban was about bar staff facing smokers for 6 shifts a week

 

Ah so that is who it's about now is it?

 

(again there were many ways solve that without a ban anyway)

 

and your comparisons are getting daft now tbh

 

Heh, more daft than you having to end up agreeing with me? (because what you are saying is bollocks?)

 

 

the ban was always about staff, I have no idea what else you think it was about

 

the alternatives such as ventilation were all dismissed quite rightly as unworkable

 

Er.... again there were studies and it didn't take a wind tunnel to reduce them to very small levels indeed.

 

It was a very practical solution to that specific issue, just not what was really desired for other issues.

 

 

 

and no, I wasn't agreeing with you,

 

Apart from where you agree that 2nd smoke is basically "harmless" and of course where you agreed that the propaganda about it had little to do with anything.

 

 

I just thought it was a bit odd you forgot that you were claiming it was harmless when talking about cars for some reason

 

Er... again no, you were the one that brought up cars not pollution now (clearly you need to ban something to help with your short term memory), which isn't true, but they aren't that bad these days, I never mentioned them till then.

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

 

the ban was always about staff, I have no idea what else you think it was about

 

 

Bar staff have to put up with smoky conditions? Well there's a shock, I bet they didn't expect that when they took the job. If they don't like it then they should fuck off and get a different job. Though in saying that I am all for no smoking at the bar where practical.

 

can't do that see, discrimination

 

I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who would willingly work in a smoky environment over an alternative job

 

kind of like the whinging miners is it? got emphesema? you should fuck off and get a different job son

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

the ban was about bar staff facing smokers for 6 shifts a week

 

Ah so that is who it's about now is it?

 

(again there were many ways solve that without a ban anyway)

 

and your comparisons are getting daft now tbh

 

Heh, more daft than you having to end up agreeing with me? (because what you are saying is bollocks?)

 

 

the ban was always about staff, I have no idea what else you think it was about

 

the alternatives such as ventilation were all dismissed quite rightly as unworkable

 

Er.... again there were studies and it didn't take a wind tunnel to reduce them to very small levels indeed.

 

It was a very practical solution to that specific issue, just not what was really desired for other issues.

 

 

 

and no, I wasn't agreeing with you,

 

Apart from where you agree that 2nd smoke is basically "harmless" and of course where you agreed that the propaganda about it had little to do with anything.

 

 

I just thought it was a bit odd you forgot that you were claiming it was harmless when talking about cars for some reason

 

Er... again no, you were the one that brought up cars not pollution now (clearly you need to ban something to help with your short term memory), which isn't true, but they aren't that bad these days, I never mentioned them till then.

 

 

I've no idea what you honestly think I've said tbh

 

the ventilation equipment required was considered impractical even by the pub operators themselves

[ewerk 26232]

can't do that see, discrimination

 

What?

 

I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who would willingly work in a smoky environment over an alternative job

 

Right so you're telling me that a bar person couldn't just as easily get a job in Tesco or Asda or as a waiter? There are plenty of other alternative jobs out, these people choose to work in bars knowing that there is a smoky atmosphere.

Edited June 30, 2007 by ewerk

[Fop 1]

 

the ban was always about staff, I have no idea what else you think it was about

 

 

Bar staff have to put up with smoky conditions? Well there's a shock, I bet they didn't expect that when they took the job. If they don't like it then they should fuck off and get a different job. Though in saying that I am all for no smoking at the bar where practical.

 

can't do that see, discrimination

 

I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who would willingly work in a smoky environment over an alternative job

 

kind of like the whinging miners is it? got emphesema? you should fuck off and get a different job son

 

So they are going to ban mining now are they?

 

(or perhaps just have already taken the needed precautions to avoid it)

[Bazooka_From_Viduka 0]

can't do that see, discrimination

 

What?

 

I think you'd be hard pushed to find someone who would willingly work in a smoky environment over an alternative job

 

Right so you're telling me that a bar person couldn't just as easily get a job in Tesco or Asda or as a waiter? There are plenty of other alternative jobs out, these people choose to work in bars knowing that there is a smoky atmosphere.

 

they don't choose to work in a pub because it's smoky, they do it in spite of that

[Fop 1]

 

 

 

I've no idea what you honestly think I've said tbh

 

Neither have you it seems.

 

the ventilation equipment required was considered too expensive even by the pub operators themselves

 

FYP.