The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Because we're faced with the brown-shirts that shout and scream on Trisha about "me baaaaby being poisoned" etc, whilst driving and drinking alcohol blahblahblah.
"baseball bat"
Hahahahahaha, you assclown.
"baseball bat"
Hahahahahaha, you assclown.
allardini wrote:
> You are completely
> separating smokers from anyone else on the planet, as if they are not
> people. It would seem you are saying all smokers are cocky and
> arrogant
I'm not. You just took it the wrong way.
I can think of loads of smokers I know who have exactly the same attitude, and I would like to smash their faces in with a baseball bat.
Of course there are others who are more considerate, but when a large proportion of smokers behave like that, you can't help but get -expletive- off.
> You are completely
> separating smokers from anyone else on the planet, as if they are not
> people. It would seem you are saying all smokers are cocky and
> arrogant
I'm not. You just took it the wrong way.
I can think of loads of smokers I know who have exactly the same attitude, and I would like to smash their faces in with a baseball bat.
Of course there are others who are more considerate, but when a large proportion of smokers behave like that, you can't help but get -expletive- off.
Oh I dream of going Cady on so many.
gaybys wrote:
> This is the type of cocky arrogant crap that makes people hate
> smokers.
I'm saving that foot long cuban to do a "Cape Fear", just for you
> This is the type of cocky arrogant crap that makes people hate
> smokers.
I'm saving that foot long cuban to do a "Cape Fear", just for you
Its not about the car polluting the enviroment, thats just dumb, its about whether its doing it for a useful purpose. There is no point to smoking except getting a fix. If you can find that in other ways, like coffee or something thats much better. With cars we're working on alternatives.
gaybys wrote:
> This is the type of cocky arrogant crap that makes people hate
> smokers.
That sentence is one of the most pathetic things I've read in a while; there are so many things wrong with it. You are completely separating smokers from anyone else on the planet, as if they are not people. It would seem you are saying all smokers are cocky and arrogant, and thus, because they enjoy something, are ruining the lives of every single other person. I understand that maybe smoking should be banned in some areas due to health issues, but I cannot stand singling out of "smokers" as a single group. I hate it when people say "Oh, I didn't know he was a SMOKER...", as if they are a group of people who are doing something horribly wrong. It makes them sound like criminals.
Generally, I wouldn't say I smoke regularly, though I have before and do very occasionally. Does this make me a SMOKER? A public enemy? I have friends who smoke a lot of the time, and when they're near me I sometimes ask them not to. And they don't. They're people, some friends, not a threat to this clean ickle country. They're not some group of people who have to go hide in the corner for an outraegously horrible secret.
And then you say "people hate smokers". This indicates that smokers are not human beings, but little monsters that decent human beings ALL despise. Yes, you say that the rest of us are all in agreement against these little toerags ruining my lungs. Your reduction of anyone who smokes to this stereotypical group of smokers is appaling, as well as assuming that anyone who doesn't smoke hates them in return. If this were really true, then, by now, most people who smoke wouldn't have anything left, and be on the streets due to the public's hatred of them. It's like those cheesy videos they showed us in school about what heroin addiction does to you. What it also appears you don't see is that there are also some people who are TRYING TO QUIT. They are addicted and don't want to part of an addiction, something they cannot help.
Lastly, the car thing. When smoking, you are letting off the gas of something about a few inches long, if that. When driving a car, you are letting off a tank of gasoline. I'm not an expert scientist, but it would seem that a car is polluting the environment and people much more. Sure, they serve a purpouse, but then why do families of 4 sometimes have about 3 cars? Not to mention that there is such thing as the train and bus that you can take quite easily, the use of cars about 5 times the size of a regular one that use up more gas and pollute the environment even more, just to drive around the streets. People can take bicycles or motorbikes and pollute the environment a lot less. And the richer people, who buy the bigger and larger quantity of cars, (though this may not be true to everybody wealthy, of course) can easily afford electric cars which function just as well. What irritates me are people who say their cars serve a purpouse and think that is reason enough to buy two 4x4's.
> This is the type of cocky arrogant crap that makes people hate
> smokers.
That sentence is one of the most pathetic things I've read in a while; there are so many things wrong with it. You are completely separating smokers from anyone else on the planet, as if they are not people. It would seem you are saying all smokers are cocky and arrogant, and thus, because they enjoy something, are ruining the lives of every single other person. I understand that maybe smoking should be banned in some areas due to health issues, but I cannot stand singling out of "smokers" as a single group. I hate it when people say "Oh, I didn't know he was a SMOKER...", as if they are a group of people who are doing something horribly wrong. It makes them sound like criminals.
Generally, I wouldn't say I smoke regularly, though I have before and do very occasionally. Does this make me a SMOKER? A public enemy? I have friends who smoke a lot of the time, and when they're near me I sometimes ask them not to. And they don't. They're people, some friends, not a threat to this clean ickle country. They're not some group of people who have to go hide in the corner for an outraegously horrible secret.
And then you say "people hate smokers". This indicates that smokers are not human beings, but little monsters that decent human beings ALL despise. Yes, you say that the rest of us are all in agreement against these little toerags ruining my lungs. Your reduction of anyone who smokes to this stereotypical group of smokers is appaling, as well as assuming that anyone who doesn't smoke hates them in return. If this were really true, then, by now, most people who smoke wouldn't have anything left, and be on the streets due to the public's hatred of them. It's like those cheesy videos they showed us in school about what heroin addiction does to you. What it also appears you don't see is that there are also some people who are TRYING TO QUIT. They are addicted and don't want to part of an addiction, something they cannot help.
Lastly, the car thing. When smoking, you are letting off the gas of something about a few inches long, if that. When driving a car, you are letting off a tank of gasoline. I'm not an expert scientist, but it would seem that a car is polluting the environment and people much more. Sure, they serve a purpouse, but then why do families of 4 sometimes have about 3 cars? Not to mention that there is such thing as the train and bus that you can take quite easily, the use of cars about 5 times the size of a regular one that use up more gas and pollute the environment even more, just to drive around the streets. People can take bicycles or motorbikes and pollute the environment a lot less. And the richer people, who buy the bigger and larger quantity of cars, (though this may not be true to everybody wealthy, of course) can easily afford electric cars which function just as well. What irritates me are people who say their cars serve a purpouse and think that is reason enough to buy two 4x4's.
Munn wrote
>First of all, you keep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the environment.
At least they actually have a use.
They help people get to where they want to go.
All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
So because theres a use for something that makes it alright to destroy the enviroment with it ehhh? Tabs reduce my stress levels so as it has a use I guess that makes it alright according to your logic.
>As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What country are you in?
The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created to give someone rights.
That's the US you're thinking of.
The struggle between the Monarch and Parliament came to an end in 1689 when the Bill of Rights was passed. This stated that laws could only be made or repealed by Parliament and not by the Monarch. What do you think parliment does? Parliament keeps a check on the work of government on behalf of citizens through investigative select committees and by asking ministers questions. The House of Commons also has to approve proposals for government taxes and spending. If a government could not win support for its main policies in the House of Commons, it would have to resign and a general election would be called. This parliment was created to give people freedom of rights among other things and to say it didn't is rubbish, we had freedom of rights way before the Americans so get your facts right.
>First of all, you keep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the environment.
At least they actually have a use.
They help people get to where they want to go.
All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
So because theres a use for something that makes it alright to destroy the enviroment with it ehhh? Tabs reduce my stress levels so as it has a use I guess that makes it alright according to your logic.
>As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What country are you in?
The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created to give someone rights.
That's the US you're thinking of.
The struggle between the Monarch and Parliament came to an end in 1689 when the Bill of Rights was passed. This stated that laws could only be made or repealed by Parliament and not by the Monarch. What do you think parliment does? Parliament keeps a check on the work of government on behalf of citizens through investigative select committees and by asking ministers questions. The House of Commons also has to approve proposals for government taxes and spending. If a government could not win support for its main policies in the House of Commons, it would have to resign and a general election would be called. This parliment was created to give people freedom of rights among other things and to say it didn't is rubbish, we had freedom of rights way before the Americans so get your facts right.
Goatboy wrote:
> Wahwahwah.
> I'd continue to smoke, even if I wanted to give up, just to annoy
> people like some of you in this thread.
>
> Hope they do ban it, because it'll be even more cooler.
> Way to go health nazis/governments, banning it will really
> help to stop.
> Prohibition anybody?
>
> I'd exhale a nice stinky foggy smoke-ring to help fill that little
> hole in your theory, but I'm saving all that smokey goodness for
> myself.
This is the type of cocky arrogant crap that makes people hate smokers.
> Wahwahwah.
> I'd continue to smoke, even if I wanted to give up, just to annoy
> people like some of you in this thread.
>
> Hope they do ban it, because it'll be even more cooler.
> Way to go health nazis/governments, banning it will really
> help to stop.
> Prohibition anybody?
>
> I'd exhale a nice stinky foggy smoke-ring to help fill that little
> hole in your theory, but I'm saving all that smokey goodness for
> myself.
This is the type of cocky arrogant crap that makes people hate smokers.
Light wrote:
> 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.
But the only reason they get so easily enraged is because they need a fix.
It's the same with me a caffiene.
I was fine before I didn't drink coffee, butnow if I don't have any in the morning, then I get headaches and get angry easily - but beforehand it didn't do harm not having it.
But at least I'm not clogging up peoples lungs with smoke by drinking coffee.
> 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.
But the only reason they get so easily enraged is because they need a fix.
It's the same with me a caffiene.
I was fine before I didn't drink coffee, butnow if I don't have any in the morning, then I get headaches and get angry easily - but beforehand it didn't do harm not having it.
But at least I'm not clogging up peoples lungs with smoke by drinking coffee.
kevstar wrote:
> Compromise, give all smokers a section to smoke in, and all non
> smokers a smoke free room. What really narks me is the fact that
> smokers in generall are more than happy to oblige non smokers by
> moving out of there way, and the thanks we get is asking for a total
> ban in public? On something which less enviromentle friendly than
> cars, I know I keep mentioning cars but it's true. I personally don't
> think you were harsh light, it's something which need to be said to
> people who don't understand the rights and freedom of people this
> country was made for.
First of all, youkeep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the environment.
At least they actually have a use.
They help people get to where they want to go.
All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What country are you in?
The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created to give someone rights.
That's the US you're thinking of.
> Compromise, give all smokers a section to smoke in, and all non
> smokers a smoke free room. What really narks me is the fact that
> smokers in generall are more than happy to oblige non smokers by
> moving out of there way, and the thanks we get is asking for a total
> ban in public? On something which less enviromentle friendly than
> cars, I know I keep mentioning cars but it's true. I personally don't
> think you were harsh light, it's something which need to be said to
> people who don't understand the rights and freedom of people this
> country was made for.
First of all, youkeep bringing up the fact that cars pollute the environment.
At least they actually have a use.
They help people get to where they want to go.
All cigarettes do is fuel an addiction.
As for the couintry being created for freedom of rights. What country are you in?
The UK has been around for hundreds of years, and was never created to give someone rights.
That's the US you're thinking of.
Page: