The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Light wrote:
> Fozz wrote:
>
> or smokers can have the courtesy
> not to smoke in a place where they can easily see that healthy non
> smokers will get a dose of toxins.
>
> Does that mean you can show the courtesy to allow people to make
> adult, informed decisions about what they do with their body and
> their life?
sure, but when that affects my life I think I should have a say in it. When someone decides to smoke and I'm forced to join in through passive smoking its affecting my body and my health and I should have a say in that. I should have the right to say 'NO'.
> Fozz wrote:
>
> or smokers can have the courtesy
> not to smoke in a place where they can easily see that healthy non
> smokers will get a dose of toxins.
>
> Does that mean you can show the courtesy to allow people to make
> adult, informed decisions about what they do with their body and
> their life?
sure, but when that affects my life I think I should have a say in it. When someone decides to smoke and I'm forced to join in through passive smoking its affecting my body and my health and I should have a say in that. I should have the right to say 'NO'.
Fozz wrote:
> Light wrote:
> sure, but when that affects my life I think I should have a say in
> it. When someone decides to smoke and I'm forced to join in through
> passive smoking its affecting my body and my health and I should have
> a say in that. I should have the right to say 'NO'.
Okay, so if that's the case, why are you wanting smoking and, indeed, all drugs banned? If someone smokes or takes a drug in their own home, how is that affecting your life?
You have the right to say no, but not on other people's behalf.
> Light wrote:
> sure, but when that affects my life I think I should have a say in
> it. When someone decides to smoke and I'm forced to join in through
> passive smoking its affecting my body and my health and I should have
> a say in that. I should have the right to say 'NO'.
Okay, so if that's the case, why are you wanting smoking and, indeed, all drugs banned? If someone smokes or takes a drug in their own home, how is that affecting your life?
You have the right to say no, but not on other people's behalf.
kevstar wrote:
> Fozz wrote
> To some extent yes, but the point is that it shows something is being
> DONE to make cars healthier.
>
> And giving smokers the simple right to smoke in a room they choose to
> go into, which doesn't bother non smokers as they wont have any need
> to enter would be making it healthier for them too without banning
> it.
>
> Now you tell me anywhere in the city where your not breathing in
> toxic fumes from the cars? You tell me if I have the choice to do so?
> Thats the reason why it's wrong to ban smoking. And drink does more
> bad than good and thats a fact. Ohh and I hope you do have a car
> because that will make you a total hypocrite.
Yes it would. Earlier in this forum I commended someone for having it like that in their house.
Sorry, I dont have a car, I dont drink, and I dont smoke. Car fumes are pretty bad and I would prefer not to breathe those in at all, however at least something is being done about that. New methods of filtering out some of the fumes are being put in place in newer cars. I dont know enough about cars to back that up but I heard about some form of filtration.
Just because we breathe in car fumes a lot doesnt make it fine. One of thr reasons we put up with it is because we rely so heavily on them for transportation, backseat antics etc.
I know drink does a lot more bad than good, but it doesnt mean it should be banned completely. Can you tell me any good that smoking does?
> sure, but when that affects my life I think I should have a say in
> it. When someone decides to smoke and I'm forced to join in through
> passive smoking its affecting my body and my health and I should have
> a say in that. I should have the right to say 'NO'.
Okay, so if that's the case, why are you wanting smoking and, indeed, all drugs banned? If someone smokes or takes a drug in their own home, how is that affecting your life?
You have the right to say no, but not on other people's behalf.
Thats right, smokers have the right to smoke, but not for me to smoke, yet I find myself a passive smoker.
The only reason Id be against private use that doesnt affect me at all, is because its damaging to your health. Most other forms of damage to your health are banned (such as drugs) and there is a crime refering to self harm which I cant remember. lol. If its called self harm Im going to kick myself. So why is smoking not considered a crime?
> Fozz wrote
> To some extent yes, but the point is that it shows something is being
> DONE to make cars healthier.
>
> And giving smokers the simple right to smoke in a room they choose to
> go into, which doesn't bother non smokers as they wont have any need
> to enter would be making it healthier for them too without banning
> it.
>
> Now you tell me anywhere in the city where your not breathing in
> toxic fumes from the cars? You tell me if I have the choice to do so?
> Thats the reason why it's wrong to ban smoking. And drink does more
> bad than good and thats a fact. Ohh and I hope you do have a car
> because that will make you a total hypocrite.
Yes it would. Earlier in this forum I commended someone for having it like that in their house.
Sorry, I dont have a car, I dont drink, and I dont smoke. Car fumes are pretty bad and I would prefer not to breathe those in at all, however at least something is being done about that. New methods of filtering out some of the fumes are being put in place in newer cars. I dont know enough about cars to back that up but I heard about some form of filtration.
Just because we breathe in car fumes a lot doesnt make it fine. One of thr reasons we put up with it is because we rely so heavily on them for transportation, backseat antics etc.
I know drink does a lot more bad than good, but it doesnt mean it should be banned completely. Can you tell me any good that smoking does?
> sure, but when that affects my life I think I should have a say in
> it. When someone decides to smoke and I'm forced to join in through
> passive smoking its affecting my body and my health and I should have
> a say in that. I should have the right to say 'NO'.
Okay, so if that's the case, why are you wanting smoking and, indeed, all drugs banned? If someone smokes or takes a drug in their own home, how is that affecting your life?
You have the right to say no, but not on other people's behalf.
Thats right, smokers have the right to smoke, but not for me to smoke, yet I find myself a passive smoker.
The only reason Id be against private use that doesnt affect me at all, is because its damaging to your health. Most other forms of damage to your health are banned (such as drugs) and there is a crime refering to self harm which I cant remember. lol. If its called self harm Im going to kick myself. So why is smoking not considered a crime?
Im off to lectures now. hooray. (sigh)
Fozz wrote:
> I know drink does a lot more bad than good, but it doesnt mean it
> should be banned completely. Can you tell me any good that smoking
> does?
Yes; it calms people down so that they don't get enraged at self-righteous prigs who want the world to do as they do, and from thence smash their faces through the back of their skull.
> The only reason Id be against private use that doesnt affect me at
> all, is because its damaging to your health. Most other forms of
> damage to your health are banned (such as drugs) and there is a crime
> refering to self harm which I cant remember. lol. If its called self
> harm Im going to kick myself. So why is smoking not considered a
> crime?
The case you're referring to involved a load of blokes hammering nails into one another scrotums, sandpapering bellends, and other such sadomasochistic treats. It was R v Brown, and it's still controversial because the chaps involved were all consenting adults. I believe the Court of Human Rights still has to hear the appeal. In other words, the crime wasn't self harm. It was assault on another, even though they were consenting. Or, to put it another way, you're stupid and wrong.
Regardless, that's quite a long way from the odd cigarette. Who in the name of hell are you to say to people that you've decided they shouldn't be allowed to damage their own health if they make an informed choice?
> I know drink does a lot more bad than good, but it doesnt mean it
> should be banned completely. Can you tell me any good that smoking
> does?
Yes; it calms people down so that they don't get enraged at self-righteous prigs who want the world to do as they do, and from thence smash their faces through the back of their skull.
> The only reason Id be against private use that doesnt affect me at
> all, is because its damaging to your health. Most other forms of
> damage to your health are banned (such as drugs) and there is a crime
> refering to self harm which I cant remember. lol. If its called self
> harm Im going to kick myself. So why is smoking not considered a
> crime?
The case you're referring to involved a load of blokes hammering nails into one another scrotums, sandpapering bellends, and other such sadomasochistic treats. It was R v Brown, and it's still controversial because the chaps involved were all consenting adults. I believe the Court of Human Rights still has to hear the appeal. In other words, the crime wasn't self harm. It was assault on another, even though they were consenting. Or, to put it another way, you're stupid and wrong.
Regardless, that's quite a long way from the odd cigarette. Who in the name of hell are you to say to people that you've decided they shouldn't be allowed to damage their own health if they make an informed choice?
Fozz said
> The only reason Id be against private use that doesnt affect me at
> all, is because its damaging to your health. Most other forms of
> damage to your health are banned (such as drugs) and there is a crime
> refering to self harm which I cant remember. lol. If its called self
> harm Im going to kick myself. So why is smoking not considered a
> crime?
According to your logic we should just ban everything, chips, cake, sugar hey even Xrays as they can be deemed damaging to your health, do you call a law on banning them?
Light said
> Regardless, that's quite a long way from the odd cigarette. Who in the name of hell are you to say to people that you've decided they shouldn't be allowed to damage their own health if they make an informed choice?
Couldn't have put it better.
> The only reason Id be against private use that doesnt affect me at
> all, is because its damaging to your health. Most other forms of
> damage to your health are banned (such as drugs) and there is a crime
> refering to self harm which I cant remember. lol. If its called self
> harm Im going to kick myself. So why is smoking not considered a
> crime?
According to your logic we should just ban everything, chips, cake, sugar hey even Xrays as they can be deemed damaging to your health, do you call a law on banning them?
Light said
> Regardless, that's quite a long way from the odd cigarette. Who in the name of hell are you to say to people that you've decided they shouldn't be allowed to damage their own health if they make an informed choice?
Couldn't have put it better.
> The case you're referring to involved a load of blokes hammering
> nails into one another scrotums, sandpapering bellends, and other
> such sadomasochistic treats. It was R v Brown, and it's still
> controversial because the chaps involved were all consenting adults.
> I believe the Court of Human Rights still has to hear the appeal. In
> other words, the crime wasn't self harm. It was assault on another,
> even though they were consenting. Or, to put it another way, you're
> stupid and wrong.
>
> Regardless, that's quite a long way from the odd cigarette. Who in
> the name of hell are you to say to people that you've decided they
> shouldn't be allowed to damage their own health if they make an
> informed choice?
lol light. TMI. I wasnt refering to a specific case, but rather the general idea. Maybe its a bigger deal in the US.
So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you dont consent I dont see how that applies.
This whole issue can be based around civil liberties, and how free are we to do what we want. If we were completely free etc we could walk round naked, and do lots of interesting I wont mention for the sake of the poor children. As it happens our society has rules that prohibit certain types of behaviour that are seen as being, well, wrong. So when it comes down to it theres a lot of stuff you might consider ok but society deems it fit that you shouldnt do it. Can we ever be truly free? hmm. anyway light whats wrong with me having an opinion about smokers? Why shouldnt I think that smokers should be given help to stop smoking and ciggarettes be made illegal etc? Maybe it would be different if I was a dictator and decided that smoking should be made illegal because its damaging my sweat shop workers. As it happens Im not aobut to go out and protest that ciggarettes should be made illegal, Im just stating an opinion.
Can you really say that smokers make an intellegent, informed etc choice? Its an addiction. A lot of smokers want to quit but cant.
According to your logic we should just ban everything, chips, cake, sugar hey even Xrays as they can be deemed damaging to your health, do you call a law on banning them?
Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING [I]can[I/] be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
> nails into one another scrotums, sandpapering bellends, and other
> such sadomasochistic treats. It was R v Brown, and it's still
> controversial because the chaps involved were all consenting adults.
> I believe the Court of Human Rights still has to hear the appeal. In
> other words, the crime wasn't self harm. It was assault on another,
> even though they were consenting. Or, to put it another way, you're
> stupid and wrong.
>
> Regardless, that's quite a long way from the odd cigarette. Who in
> the name of hell are you to say to people that you've decided they
> shouldn't be allowed to damage their own health if they make an
> informed choice?
lol light. TMI. I wasnt refering to a specific case, but rather the general idea. Maybe its a bigger deal in the US.
So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you dont consent I dont see how that applies.
This whole issue can be based around civil liberties, and how free are we to do what we want. If we were completely free etc we could walk round naked, and do lots of interesting I wont mention for the sake of the poor children. As it happens our society has rules that prohibit certain types of behaviour that are seen as being, well, wrong. So when it comes down to it theres a lot of stuff you might consider ok but society deems it fit that you shouldnt do it. Can we ever be truly free? hmm. anyway light whats wrong with me having an opinion about smokers? Why shouldnt I think that smokers should be given help to stop smoking and ciggarettes be made illegal etc? Maybe it would be different if I was a dictator and decided that smoking should be made illegal because its damaging my sweat shop workers. As it happens Im not aobut to go out and protest that ciggarettes should be made illegal, Im just stating an opinion.
Can you really say that smokers make an intellegent, informed etc choice? Its an addiction. A lot of smokers want to quit but cant.
According to your logic we should just ban everything, chips, cake, sugar hey even Xrays as they can be deemed damaging to your health, do you call a law on banning them?
Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING [I]can[I/] be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
Fozz said
>Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING can[I/] be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
What just like cars are deemed damaging period, just like rubbish pits are, plastic bags and anything else enviromental unfriendly. Do you use one of thoose mentioned? I thought so, hypocrite. Tabs don't destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke. Do I hear a vote to ban any of the above mentioned? Do every smoker a favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing to do it yourself are you.
>Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING can[I/] be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
What just like cars are deemed damaging period, just like rubbish pits are, plastic bags and anything else enviromental unfriendly. Do you use one of thoose mentioned? I thought so, hypocrite. Tabs don't destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke. Do I hear a vote to ban any of the above mentioned? Do every smoker a favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing to do it yourself are you.
kevstar wrote:
> What just like cars are deemed damaging period, just like rubbish
> pits are, plastic bags and anything else enviromental unfriendly. Do
> you use one of thoose mentioned? I thought so, hypocrite. Tabs don't
> destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
> certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke.
> Do I hear a vote to ban any of the above mentioned? Do every smoker a
> favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing to
> do it yourself are you.
I dont really understand your argument. Cars, rubbish pits are, of course, enviromental unfriendly. So what do you suggest we do when we bad cars, and all fossil fuel engines? Well there isnt really anything available now to replace it, maybe in a few years. That basicly means the the entire world will grind to a hault. A global market crash, followed by recessions in almost every country. What about the poorer nations who cant afford clean engines? "sorry guys, but its back to the dark ages for you"
How does me using a car, or rubbish pit make me a hypocrite? If I was a smoker, then yes I'd be one, but....just.....what??
How can something with as many toxins in as cigarettes, and used as widely as cigarettes not damage the atmosphere? It may not damage it as much as car emmisions do, but to say it doesnt is just wrong.
Tabs don't
destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke.
lol. I like that little added part at the end thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke Cars dont kill people who thoose who choose to keep away from them. When was the last time you heard of a Penguin being killed by a car, not that they really choose.
Do every smoker a
favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing to
do it yourself are you.
By all means I plan to stay well away from cigarette smoke. What do you think Ive been doing for most of my life? I am choosing to do it myself. The other day I was in a resteraunt, and it was pretty busy so we had to sit in the smoking section. Some people around us were smoking but the place was well ventilated enough so that it didnt affect us at all. I dont mind people smoking in smoking sections, or at home, but when its in a situation where, through no fault or choice of my own, Im induced with a faceful of smoke, and the smoker just doesnt care, and expects you to e grateful somehow, I have a problem.
> What just like cars are deemed damaging period, just like rubbish
> pits are, plastic bags and anything else enviromental unfriendly. Do
> you use one of thoose mentioned? I thought so, hypocrite. Tabs don't
> destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
> certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke.
> Do I hear a vote to ban any of the above mentioned? Do every smoker a
> favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing to
> do it yourself are you.
I dont really understand your argument. Cars, rubbish pits are, of course, enviromental unfriendly. So what do you suggest we do when we bad cars, and all fossil fuel engines? Well there isnt really anything available now to replace it, maybe in a few years. That basicly means the the entire world will grind to a hault. A global market crash, followed by recessions in almost every country. What about the poorer nations who cant afford clean engines? "sorry guys, but its back to the dark ages for you"
How does me using a car, or rubbish pit make me a hypocrite? If I was a smoker, then yes I'd be one, but....just.....what??
How can something with as many toxins in as cigarettes, and used as widely as cigarettes not damage the atmosphere? It may not damage it as much as car emmisions do, but to say it doesnt is just wrong.
Tabs don't
destroy the atmosphere, they don't knock people over and they
certainly don't damage thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke.
lol. I like that little added part at the end thoose who choose to keep away from the smoke Cars dont kill people who thoose who choose to keep away from them. When was the last time you heard of a Penguin being killed by a car, not that they really choose.
Do every smoker a
favour and keep away from our smoke as your obviously not choosing to
do it yourself are you.
By all means I plan to stay well away from cigarette smoke. What do you think Ive been doing for most of my life? I am choosing to do it myself. The other day I was in a resteraunt, and it was pretty busy so we had to sit in the smoking section. Some people around us were smoking but the place was well ventilated enough so that it didnt affect us at all. I dont mind people smoking in smoking sections, or at home, but when its in a situation where, through no fault or choice of my own, Im induced with a faceful of smoke, and the smoker just doesnt care, and expects you to e grateful somehow, I have a problem.
Fozz wrote:
> lol light. TMI. I wasnt refering to a specific case, but rather the
> general idea. Maybe its a bigger deal in the US.
Maybe it is. But I was talking about the UK. And in the UK, self harm is not a crime.
>
> So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and
> yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If
> youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you
> dont consent I dont see how that applies.
No; because you were talking about wanting smoking banned altogether, even when they're not anywhere NEAR you. Which is a little different to smoking around someone else.
For the avoidance of confusion (faked or otherwise), I'm not fussed about people smoking near me, but it seems to bother lots of people so I'm in favour of banning it in enclosed public spaces.
>
> This whole issue can be based around civil liberties, and how free
> are we to do what we want. If we were completely free etc we could
> walk round naked, and do lots of interesting I wont mention for the
> sake of the poor children. As it happens our society has rules that
> prohibit certain types of behaviour that are seen as being, well,
> wrong. So when it comes down to it theres a lot of stuff you might
> consider ok but society deems it fit that you shouldnt do it. Can we
> ever be truly free?
Ah, abstract cockrot. Always good to read when someone can't come up with concrete reasons for their beliefs.
Aside from the fact that I'd be intrigued to know what the problem with walking round naked actually is, society has rules yes. The point I'm making is that society has no right to regulate the behaviour of something done by someone in their own home that causes no harm to others (unless of course, it's consenting harm). You seem to be saying that society should tell people how to live their private lives. That's what we call "totalitarianism". Can we ever be truly free? Yes, if by truly free you mean "allowed to live our private lives the way we choose so long as we do not harm another soul on this planet". Why? Don't you?
> hmm. anyway light whats wrong with me having an
> opinion about smokers? Why shouldnt I think that smokers should be
> given help to stop smoking and ciggarettes be made illegal etc? Maybe
> it would be different if I was a dictator and decided that smoking
> should be made illegal because its damaging my sweat shop workers. As
> it happens Im not aobut to go out and protest that ciggarettes should
> be made illegal, Im just stating an opinion.
Oh, you're welcome to that opinion. It's just that you're stupid and wrong to have it. It shows a complete lack of empathy on your part. It shows a total inability to comprehend things that you personally have not experienced. Credit to you for trying to explain the logic behind the opinion, but that logic stems entirely from your own thoughts with no allowance whatsoever for anyone else.
Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private lives, I think you could look a little closer to home for the dictator comparison.
Oh, and your last sentence is illogical; you're not going to ask for smoking to be banned but it's your opinion that it should be? That's almost as contradictory as your "I'm not saying I think less of men who brag about sex, but I think I'm better than them because I don't" argument.
>
> Can you really say that smokers make an intellegent, informed etc
> choice? Its an addiction. A lot of smokers want to quit but cant.
Yes. Yes I can say that. Just because you don't make that choice, don't assume that everyone else thinks the way you do. Lots want to quit, yes. And good luck to them in doing so. Lots of people however, don't want to quit. Would you be the one to explain to them why they have to?
> Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things
> they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your
> health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just
> USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where
> something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter
> of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING
> can be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
Yes, smoking is damaging. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that not everyone is so precious about their health as you are. As Bill Hicks said, Non-smokers die every single day. We all die eventually. If we find something we enjoy in life that doesn't harm others, well why not indulge in it?
> lol light. TMI. I wasnt refering to a specific case, but rather the
> general idea. Maybe its a bigger deal in the US.
Maybe it is. But I was talking about the UK. And in the UK, self harm is not a crime.
>
> So let me get this straight. When you smoke, and you damage me, and
> yourself, its...consenting assault? I dont see how it applies. If
> youre intentionally in a smoking area, I would agree, but when you
> dont consent I dont see how that applies.
No; because you were talking about wanting smoking banned altogether, even when they're not anywhere NEAR you. Which is a little different to smoking around someone else.
For the avoidance of confusion (faked or otherwise), I'm not fussed about people smoking near me, but it seems to bother lots of people so I'm in favour of banning it in enclosed public spaces.
>
> This whole issue can be based around civil liberties, and how free
> are we to do what we want. If we were completely free etc we could
> walk round naked, and do lots of interesting I wont mention for the
> sake of the poor children. As it happens our society has rules that
> prohibit certain types of behaviour that are seen as being, well,
> wrong. So when it comes down to it theres a lot of stuff you might
> consider ok but society deems it fit that you shouldnt do it. Can we
> ever be truly free?
Ah, abstract cockrot. Always good to read when someone can't come up with concrete reasons for their beliefs.
Aside from the fact that I'd be intrigued to know what the problem with walking round naked actually is, society has rules yes. The point I'm making is that society has no right to regulate the behaviour of something done by someone in their own home that causes no harm to others (unless of course, it's consenting harm). You seem to be saying that society should tell people how to live their private lives. That's what we call "totalitarianism". Can we ever be truly free? Yes, if by truly free you mean "allowed to live our private lives the way we choose so long as we do not harm another soul on this planet". Why? Don't you?
> hmm. anyway light whats wrong with me having an
> opinion about smokers? Why shouldnt I think that smokers should be
> given help to stop smoking and ciggarettes be made illegal etc? Maybe
> it would be different if I was a dictator and decided that smoking
> should be made illegal because its damaging my sweat shop workers. As
> it happens Im not aobut to go out and protest that ciggarettes should
> be made illegal, Im just stating an opinion.
Oh, you're welcome to that opinion. It's just that you're stupid and wrong to have it. It shows a complete lack of empathy on your part. It shows a total inability to comprehend things that you personally have not experienced. Credit to you for trying to explain the logic behind the opinion, but that logic stems entirely from your own thoughts with no allowance whatsoever for anyone else.
Nice attempt to associate smoking with dictatorships, but as you're the one trying to say how people should conduct their private lives, I think you could look a little closer to home for the dictator comparison.
Oh, and your last sentence is illogical; you're not going to ask for smoking to be banned but it's your opinion that it should be? That's almost as contradictory as your "I'm not saying I think less of men who brag about sex, but I think I'm better than them because I don't" argument.
>
> Can you really say that smokers make an intellegent, informed etc
> choice? Its an addiction. A lot of smokers want to quit but cant.
Yes. Yes I can say that. Just because you don't make that choice, don't assume that everyone else thinks the way you do. Lots want to quit, yes. And good luck to them in doing so. Lots of people however, don't want to quit. Would you be the one to explain to them why they have to?
> Wow youre a logic whiz. Just like alcohol if you abuse those things
> they can damage your health. If you abuse oxygen it can damage your
> health, but is anyone leaping to ban it? nope. With smoking just
> USING damages your health, nevermind using to the level where
> something like cake or chips can damage your health. Its not a matter
> of if something CAN be deemed damaging to your health. EVERYTHING
> can be deemed damaging. Smoking IS damaging period.
Yes, smoking is damaging. You seem to have a hard time comprehending that not everyone is so precious about their health as you are. As Bill Hicks said, Non-smokers die every single day. We all die eventually. If we find something we enjoy in life that doesn't harm others, well why not indulge in it?
Page: