The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
This isn't another "omgay, smokin is bad 4 u!!!" but more of a question to anyone here who smokes - is it just the cardboard chemical crap from the UK/US companies or more rarer exotic stuff like Giantes? Not a smoker myself but I'd like to know.
Page:
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Cars are by no means a necessity.
And smoking is?
> Cars are by no means a necessity.
And smoking is?
Hedfix wrote:
> Anyway if it was peer pressure that got you started then you're
> spineless weak-willed scum and you deserve to die of lung cancer.
>
> End of. ;)
Hahahahahaha, genius.
> Anyway if it was peer pressure that got you started then you're
> spineless weak-willed scum and you deserve to die of lung cancer.
>
> End of. ;)
Hahahahahaha, genius.
munn wrote:
> stuff
> A: There are very few cars in the world which don't cause pollution,
> and those that are aren't on the market.
Presumably then you're lobbying car manufacturers to design such cars? Seeing as pollution and subsequent damage to health is so important to you?
> B: Even though you can buy low tar ciggerettes which are less
> dangerous to your health, few people do
Even though you can buy electric cars which are less dangerous to peoples health than petrol/diesel cars, few people do.
> C: Cars have a use (they are TRANSPORT!)
Cigs have a use; the tax from them pays for a huge chunk of the NHS.
> D: Smoking does feck all.
Neither do cars. Or at least, nothing that public transport couldn't do.
So...it's acceptible for someone to cause your lungs damage because they've chosen to use a car rather than public transport, but it's not acceptable for them to damage your lungs via secondary smoke because you personally don't smoke?
By any chance, do you have a car?
> stuff
> A: There are very few cars in the world which don't cause pollution,
> and those that are aren't on the market.
Presumably then you're lobbying car manufacturers to design such cars? Seeing as pollution and subsequent damage to health is so important to you?
> B: Even though you can buy low tar ciggerettes which are less
> dangerous to your health, few people do
Even though you can buy electric cars which are less dangerous to peoples health than petrol/diesel cars, few people do.
> C: Cars have a use (they are TRANSPORT!)
Cigs have a use; the tax from them pays for a huge chunk of the NHS.
> D: Smoking does feck all.
Neither do cars. Or at least, nothing that public transport couldn't do.
So...it's acceptible for someone to cause your lungs damage because they've chosen to use a car rather than public transport, but it's not acceptable for them to damage your lungs via secondary smoke because you personally don't smoke?
By any chance, do you have a car?
Light wrote:
> munn wrote:
> stuff
>
> So...it's acceptible for someone to cause your lungs damage because
> they've chosen to use a car rather than public transport, but it's
> not acceptable for them to damage your lungs via secondary smoke
> because you personally don't smoke?
>
> By any chance, do you have a car?
Mmmm, because public transport causes no pollution whatsoever, does it?
> munn wrote:
> stuff
>
> So...it's acceptible for someone to cause your lungs damage because
> they've chosen to use a car rather than public transport, but it's
> not acceptable for them to damage your lungs via secondary smoke
> because you personally don't smoke?
>
> By any chance, do you have a car?
Mmmm, because public transport causes no pollution whatsoever, does it?
Your Honour wrote:
> Mmmm, because public transport causes no pollution whatsoever, does
> it?
If it were electric, no it wouldn't. Or at least, the pollution caused would be limited to the areas around the power stations, which would nicely address those health-nazi complaints of secondary smoke.
Amazing how many people are forgetting about Electric cars/electric rail etc.
And yeah, public transport does cause some pollution. Are you seriously trying to say that it would cause as much as we experience now in our 2.4 car lifestyles?
> Mmmm, because public transport causes no pollution whatsoever, does
> it?
If it were electric, no it wouldn't. Or at least, the pollution caused would be limited to the areas around the power stations, which would nicely address those health-nazi complaints of secondary smoke.
Amazing how many people are forgetting about Electric cars/electric rail etc.
And yeah, public transport does cause some pollution. Are you seriously trying to say that it would cause as much as we experience now in our 2.4 car lifestyles?
So in summary.
Ban Cigarettes.
Ban Cars.
Legalise weed to make up for the tax shortfall.
See? I should be a politician or something.
Ban Cigarettes.
Ban Cars.
Legalise weed to make up for the tax shortfall.
See? I should be a politician or something.
The public transport idea - get a bigger vehicle to transport more people to their destinations, cutting down on fuel consumption and gas emmision.
The public cigarette idea - get a bigger cigarette and let lots of people smoke it together, cutting down on fuel consumption and gas emmision.
Then again, how popular is the bus? I get one each morning and am one of very few people on a long route that stops in all sorts of convenient places - the university, the city centre and pretty much all of the little subtowns around the Bath area.
The public cigarette idea - get a bigger cigarette and let lots of people smoke it together, cutting down on fuel consumption and gas emmision.
Then again, how popular is the bus? I get one each morning and am one of very few people on a long route that stops in all sorts of convenient places - the university, the city centre and pretty much all of the little subtowns around the Bath area.
Light wrote:
> munn wrote:
> stuff
>
> A: There are very few cars in the world which don't cause pollution,
> and those that are aren't on the market.
>
> Presumably then you're lobbying car manufacturers to design such
> cars? Seeing as pollution and subsequent damage to health is so
> important to you?
No, I'm spending all of my time lobbying tobacco companies to stop making ciggerettes, so I don't have time to annoy the car companies to make hydrogen powered cars, which, strangely enough, are bieng worked on by scientists anyway.
> B: Even though you can buy low tar ciggerettes which are less
> dangerous to your health, few people do
>
> Even though you can buy electric cars which are less dangerous to
> peoples health than petrol/diesel cars, few people do.
You can't buy completely electric cars though, most of them require a bit of petrol to start them up, and by charging them up on electricity you're using power created by burning coal in huge power plants, not much better, is it?
> C: Cars have a use (they are TRANSPORT!)
>
> Cigs have a use; the tax from them pays for a huge chunk of the NHS.
So that covers the cost of people dying from lung cancer caused by smokers?
And what about taxes on fuel?
> D: Smoking does feck all.
>
> Neither do cars. Or at least, nothing that public transport couldn't
> do.
Of course, because everyone can just walk out their door and shout down a bus/train/aeroplane to take them exactly where they want to go.
Unlike in many trains and buses, they'll definately be able to get a seat, listen to the radio station/cd/tape cassette of their choice and won't have to wait for a while whilst their train/bus is delayed or cancelled because of leaves on the track or a bus driver who's having a coffee.
Their journey will probably be a lot more comfortable, and they won't need to worry about the neds sitting behind them with a lighter who are planning to set their hair on fire.
Other than that, the reasons for taking public transport are pretty good.
Well, unless there's no service near your area because you live in a rural area, or it's 3 o'clock in the morning and you need to take your brother/sister/mother/pet dog to hospital and you don't know how long it'll take an ambulance to get there.
You could always call a taxi, but that's just another car, so what's the difference?
They seem like much better reasons to own a car than just "tax from ciggerettes pays for the NHS"
> By any chance, do you have a car?
No. But I'd buy one if I had the money.
> munn wrote:
> stuff
>
> A: There are very few cars in the world which don't cause pollution,
> and those that are aren't on the market.
>
> Presumably then you're lobbying car manufacturers to design such
> cars? Seeing as pollution and subsequent damage to health is so
> important to you?
No, I'm spending all of my time lobbying tobacco companies to stop making ciggerettes, so I don't have time to annoy the car companies to make hydrogen powered cars, which, strangely enough, are bieng worked on by scientists anyway.
> B: Even though you can buy low tar ciggerettes which are less
> dangerous to your health, few people do
>
> Even though you can buy electric cars which are less dangerous to
> peoples health than petrol/diesel cars, few people do.
You can't buy completely electric cars though, most of them require a bit of petrol to start them up, and by charging them up on electricity you're using power created by burning coal in huge power plants, not much better, is it?
> C: Cars have a use (they are TRANSPORT!)
>
> Cigs have a use; the tax from them pays for a huge chunk of the NHS.
So that covers the cost of people dying from lung cancer caused by smokers?
And what about taxes on fuel?
> D: Smoking does feck all.
>
> Neither do cars. Or at least, nothing that public transport couldn't
> do.
Of course, because everyone can just walk out their door and shout down a bus/train/aeroplane to take them exactly where they want to go.
Unlike in many trains and buses, they'll definately be able to get a seat, listen to the radio station/cd/tape cassette of their choice and won't have to wait for a while whilst their train/bus is delayed or cancelled because of leaves on the track or a bus driver who's having a coffee.
Their journey will probably be a lot more comfortable, and they won't need to worry about the neds sitting behind them with a lighter who are planning to set their hair on fire.
Other than that, the reasons for taking public transport are pretty good.
Well, unless there's no service near your area because you live in a rural area, or it's 3 o'clock in the morning and you need to take your brother/sister/mother/pet dog to hospital and you don't know how long it'll take an ambulance to get there.
You could always call a taxi, but that's just another car, so what's the difference?
They seem like much better reasons to own a car than just "tax from ciggerettes pays for the NHS"
> By any chance, do you have a car?
No. But I'd buy one if I had the money.
Lets just agree ciggys are the worst invention ever. And the person who invented them was a idiot.
munn wrote:
> And it doesn't "help you with stress bkah blah blah blah"
> like that argument that comes up as well.
> There are millions of people who can dela with stress without
> smoking, and usually the "stress" is just withdrawal
> because of the addiction.
My uncle has been a regular smoker for years, I would guess about 20 a day, and yet he is currently suffering from major depression. He even overdosed on pills a little while back. Obviously, smoking isn't the cause of this, but he's a bit short of money as it is and I know he spends a lot on cigarettes...but for what exactly? To destress? Obviously not.
Moreover, both my grandparents (his mum and dad) died from cancer that was related to smoking (in my grandad's case, it was lung cancer.) And so now I wouldn't be surprised if he just smoked himself to an early death, which would be even tougher on my mum whose lost most of her family to smoking. I'm just happy that she gave it up a long time ago.
> And it doesn't "help you with stress bkah blah blah blah"
> like that argument that comes up as well.
> There are millions of people who can dela with stress without
> smoking, and usually the "stress" is just withdrawal
> because of the addiction.
My uncle has been a regular smoker for years, I would guess about 20 a day, and yet he is currently suffering from major depression. He even overdosed on pills a little while back. Obviously, smoking isn't the cause of this, but he's a bit short of money as it is and I know he spends a lot on cigarettes...but for what exactly? To destress? Obviously not.
Moreover, both my grandparents (his mum and dad) died from cancer that was related to smoking (in my grandad's case, it was lung cancer.) And so now I wouldn't be surprised if he just smoked himself to an early death, which would be even tougher on my mum whose lost most of her family to smoking. I'm just happy that she gave it up a long time ago.
Page: