The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
As the news reports on the scottish parliment with the law for banning smokeing in public places no one gives any evidence about the effect passive smokeing can have.
I am not a smoker and I dont live in a smokeing home but it just seems very presumtuis to have a law put into place without a thorough scientific investigation. Its only because of a bunch of articles in the paper sevrel years ago that put the scare into people that seems to think passive smokeing will harm you. there is a show in america called pen and teller's bull****(the comedic magiciains) which they disprove alot of things that they deem bull**** and they research these things and have respected experts talk and they talked to people that had worked in bars and restruants that had alot of smokeing a bar owner worked for 20 years a non smoker and he had no problems and all the people that they talked to had worked in smokey enviroments for just as long or longer and had nothing wrong with them that smokeing could cause.
Seems our democrecy is turning into a big brother system they are even discussing law and fines to reduce the amount of advertising sweets soft drinks and other things deemed "not healthy" because there is a large percentage of children that are obese and they blame the advertising if I want to eat a snikers I will a snickers because I want a snickers not because an advert made me chose it over a mars bar.
If you can give evidence for or again or just your own veiw on all of this then talk away.
Excuse me for any grammaticle or spelling erros since I am dyslexic but I have tried my best to make sense.
I am not a smoker and I dont live in a smokeing home but it just seems very presumtuis to have a law put into place without a thorough scientific investigation. Its only because of a bunch of articles in the paper sevrel years ago that put the scare into people that seems to think passive smokeing will harm you. there is a show in america called pen and teller's bull****(the comedic magiciains) which they disprove alot of things that they deem bull**** and they research these things and have respected experts talk and they talked to people that had worked in bars and restruants that had alot of smokeing a bar owner worked for 20 years a non smoker and he had no problems and all the people that they talked to had worked in smokey enviroments for just as long or longer and had nothing wrong with them that smokeing could cause.
Seems our democrecy is turning into a big brother system they are even discussing law and fines to reduce the amount of advertising sweets soft drinks and other things deemed "not healthy" because there is a large percentage of children that are obese and they blame the advertising if I want to eat a snikers I will a snickers because I want a snickers not because an advert made me chose it over a mars bar.
If you can give evidence for or again or just your own veiw on all of this then talk away.
Excuse me for any grammaticle or spelling erros since I am dyslexic but I have tried my best to make sense.
Page:
Well as I said let us smokers decide, its your choice to sit in front of someone when there smoking e.g. I have 1 room in my house where I smoke, the rest of the house is smoke free. If anyone in my house chooses to go in there and breath in smoke, thats there problem!
You see it's all about choice, you choose to inhale the fumes by sitting next to him when lighting a tab, is it his fault. Do I get a choice in breathing car fumes? Don't try and tell me because you choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
You see it's all about choice, you choose to inhale the fumes by sitting next to him when lighting a tab, is it his fault. Do I get a choice in breathing car fumes? Don't try and tell me because you choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
kevstar. thats exactly it. if I could choose not to inhale smoke fumes all over my face cos the wind is blowing in that direction then I would choose to do so. as it happens I need to breathe. I commend you for having most of your house smoke free and I think it is someone elses fault if they come into your smoking room complaining about smoke.
If I had a choice in having to breathe in other peoples smoke Id choose not to. In a lot of cases people DO move away. But in what way are civil liberties being infringed? Is it to an extent I cant go to my favourite pub for fear of passive smoke? or I have to move down the back of the bus (well..maybe not a bus...but that concept reminds me of 1950's america) ? Why should it be up to US, people who are doing nothing wrong, to have to take extra care to protect ourselves from the polluted enviroment when we could just stop the enviroment being polluted in the first place. I know it sounds selfish but its not just about non smokers convenience. its also about health and pollution. I do wish cars would be banned, or at least engines replaced with vegetable oil ones..(ooh..I'll do a post about that)
Regarding advertising, Im 17, and I remeber watching ads for crappy toys. if it was some new product ina line of something which sounded interesting or I knew Id like I might want it but the ad itself never made me want it. The same went for sweets. If I liked it I might want it, purely cos it reminded me there was such a product, but not to the extend the ad actually pushed something on me. I think theyre a complete waste of money. Maybe its just me. YAY. I have defeat the great evil advertising.
>Smokers nitcotine count 5000 non smoker 20 passive smoker 100.
Thats still an increase, even if those figures are true, which I really doubt, and any increase, in m eyes, is too much. I dont want someone risking MY health, just because he wants a fag. I dont see why HIS addiction, and HIS problem should jeprodise MY life and happiness.
If I had a choice in having to breathe in other peoples smoke Id choose not to. In a lot of cases people DO move away. But in what way are civil liberties being infringed? Is it to an extent I cant go to my favourite pub for fear of passive smoke? or I have to move down the back of the bus (well..maybe not a bus...but that concept reminds me of 1950's america) ? Why should it be up to US, people who are doing nothing wrong, to have to take extra care to protect ourselves from the polluted enviroment when we could just stop the enviroment being polluted in the first place. I know it sounds selfish but its not just about non smokers convenience. its also about health and pollution. I do wish cars would be banned, or at least engines replaced with vegetable oil ones..(ooh..I'll do a post about that)
Regarding advertising, Im 17, and I remeber watching ads for crappy toys. if it was some new product ina line of something which sounded interesting or I knew Id like I might want it but the ad itself never made me want it. The same went for sweets. If I liked it I might want it, purely cos it reminded me there was such a product, but not to the extend the ad actually pushed something on me. I think theyre a complete waste of money. Maybe its just me. YAY. I have defeat the great evil advertising.
>Smokers nitcotine count 5000 non smoker 20 passive smoker 100.
Thats still an increase, even if those figures are true, which I really doubt, and any increase, in m eyes, is too much. I dont want someone risking MY health, just because he wants a fag. I dont see why HIS addiction, and HIS problem should jeprodise MY life and happiness.
kevstar wrote:
> Well as I said let us smokers decide, its your choice to sit in front
> of someone when there smoking e.g. I have 1 room in my house where I
> smoke, the rest of the house is smoke free. If anyone in my house
> chooses to go in there and breath in smoke, thats there problem!
It's teh same in my house, except the room my dad smokes in is the kitchen.
If I want something to eat, should I hold my breath whilst I make myself something?
> You see it's all about choice, you choose to inhale the fumes by
> sitting next to him when lighting a tab, is it his fault. Do I get a
> choice in breathing car fumes?
No, but i've already commented on that, car companies and scientists are working on a way to use Hydrogen as a fuel so that no pollution is emitted. Tobacco campanies are lifting two finges to everyone who tells them they're poisoning people.
> Don't try and tell me because you
> choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
I don't, I'm forced to.
Lets say I walk into a pub, and I have say, two drinks, and I'm sitting enjoying myself, when, all of a sudden, a guy comes in, sits next to me and lights up a fag.
I've been sitting there 30 minutes or so, and he's just walked in and lit up.
Why should I be forced to move because he wants to smoke.
"He should have the freedom of choice to smoke if he wants to"
"You have the choice to leave, or stay"
That's no choice, that's a "I'm smoking, **** off if you don't want to inhale it"
That's what I hate about smokers.
> Well as I said let us smokers decide, its your choice to sit in front
> of someone when there smoking e.g. I have 1 room in my house where I
> smoke, the rest of the house is smoke free. If anyone in my house
> chooses to go in there and breath in smoke, thats there problem!
It's teh same in my house, except the room my dad smokes in is the kitchen.
If I want something to eat, should I hold my breath whilst I make myself something?
> You see it's all about choice, you choose to inhale the fumes by
> sitting next to him when lighting a tab, is it his fault. Do I get a
> choice in breathing car fumes?
No, but i've already commented on that, car companies and scientists are working on a way to use Hydrogen as a fuel so that no pollution is emitted. Tobacco campanies are lifting two finges to everyone who tells them they're poisoning people.
> Don't try and tell me because you
> choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
I don't, I'm forced to.
Lets say I walk into a pub, and I have say, two drinks, and I'm sitting enjoying myself, when, all of a sudden, a guy comes in, sits next to me and lights up a fag.
I've been sitting there 30 minutes or so, and he's just walked in and lit up.
Why should I be forced to move because he wants to smoke.
"He should have the freedom of choice to smoke if he wants to"
"You have the choice to leave, or stay"
That's no choice, that's a "I'm smoking, **** off if you don't want to inhale it"
That's what I hate about smokers.
Two thumbs up
kevstar wrote:
>Don't try and tell me because you
> choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
Choose?
What the hell ...
Are you at all familair with the process of breathing? You can't really choose which bits of air to breath in or not, and stopping completely can have serious efffects on your health.
>Don't try and tell me because you
> choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
Choose?
What the hell ...
Are you at all familair with the process of breathing? You can't really choose which bits of air to breath in or not, and stopping completely can have serious efffects on your health.
I think it'd be hilarious to see the reaction of the country if smoking was banned completely.
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> kevstar wrote:
> >Don't try and tell me because you
> choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
>
> Choose?
> What the hell ...
>
> Are you at all familair with the process of breathing? You can't
> really choose which bits of air to breath in or not, and stopping
> completely can have serious efffects on your health.
Actually, I've found that if you don't breathe for long periods of time, you get free drugs and an easy way to get to sleep.
It's much better than breathing smoke.
> kevstar wrote:
> >Don't try and tell me because you
> choose to breath in smoke from a tab, its wrong?
>
> Choose?
> What the hell ...
>
> Are you at all familair with the process of breathing? You can't
> really choose which bits of air to breath in or not, and stopping
> completely can have serious efffects on your health.
Actually, I've found that if you don't breathe for long periods of time, you get free drugs and an easy way to get to sleep.
It's much better than breathing smoke.
hiiinteresting. I'll just try that.
THUD
THUD
gaybys wrote:
> I think it'd be hilarious to see the reaction of the country if
> smoking was banned completely.
I wouldn't venture outside for a few weeks in fear of having unthinkable things done to me by the dependents. But after that short time of death and ultimate destruction, everything would be okay.
> I think it'd be hilarious to see the reaction of the country if
> smoking was banned completely.
I wouldn't venture outside for a few weeks in fear of having unthinkable things done to me by the dependents. But after that short time of death and ultimate destruction, everything would be okay.
The argument against public smoking has not been built entirely upon the foundations - or otherwise - of dangers posed by passive smoking. Smoke irritates the eyes and lungs of those who do not smoke but are exposed to it. Smoke clings to your clothes and skin, making them smell and even discolouring them. I wonder what the reaction would be if I walked into a pub and emptied a bottle of ammonia on a table of smokers, tossed itching powder at their faces and sprayed fart gas on their jackets. I've no doubt they would be displeased. They would most likely protest that I shouldn;t do such things to them.
They would also try to beat the crap out of me.
Why then, can they not understant that what they subject me to is not so different? Why should they be allowed to do it, but I not? Smoking is a smokers choice. You want to smoke, I've not argument with that. What I do take issue with is when smokers force me to smoke along with them, against my will, and without consideration for the comfort of anyone bar themselves.
For that reason among many others, I believe a public ban is not only sensible and reasonable, but essential to maintain the notion of free choice for all in an orderly society.
They would also try to beat the crap out of me.
Why then, can they not understant that what they subject me to is not so different? Why should they be allowed to do it, but I not? Smoking is a smokers choice. You want to smoke, I've not argument with that. What I do take issue with is when smokers force me to smoke along with them, against my will, and without consideration for the comfort of anyone bar themselves.
For that reason among many others, I believe a public ban is not only sensible and reasonable, but essential to maintain the notion of free choice for all in an orderly society.
Page: