The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
kevstar wrote:
> munn wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
> No but you should think about smoking in another room where you dont
> eat.
Errr, I don't smoke.
My dad does, and he's my dad, I can't tell him what to do - he owns the house.
> 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.
>
> And does that make cars healthy
Hydrogen fuel? Yes, when it combusts its only product is H20 - water. Pure water, clean water, they're not clean yet, but in 10-15 years they will be.
Cigarettes? Pfft.
> 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.
>
> Ok try this, you walk in the non smoking section and enjoy your drink
> without the smoke around you, not hard to compromise is it. Every pup
> should have a non smoking section and if they did it would stop your
> petty excuses, if they havn't then it's your fault for choosing to
> drink in a pup with smoke in. Try telling the bar man and he may see
> sense that a non smoking section would benefit the pup on a whole.
> Why? Well it would please you non smokers, and for us smokers it
> would stop the complaints we get against it.
Why shyould I be the one that makes thje effort to keep myself healthy when it's not even my fault. Your comment there fully justifies my comment at the end of my last post.
> munn wrote:
>
>
> 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?
>
> No but you should think about smoking in another room where you dont
> eat.
Errr, I don't smoke.
My dad does, and he's my dad, I can't tell him what to do - he owns the house.
> 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.
>
> And does that make cars healthy
Hydrogen fuel? Yes, when it combusts its only product is H20 - water. Pure water, clean water, they're not clean yet, but in 10-15 years they will be.
Cigarettes? Pfft.
> 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.
>
> Ok try this, you walk in the non smoking section and enjoy your drink
> without the smoke around you, not hard to compromise is it. Every pup
> should have a non smoking section and if they did it would stop your
> petty excuses, if they havn't then it's your fault for choosing to
> drink in a pup with smoke in. Try telling the bar man and he may see
> sense that a non smoking section would benefit the pup on a whole.
> Why? Well it would please you non smokers, and for us smokers it
> would stop the complaints we get against it.
Why shyould I be the one that makes thje effort to keep myself healthy when it's not even my fault. Your comment there fully justifies my comment at the end of my last post.
Light wrote:
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> A total ban, or a ban in enclosed public places?
In enclosed public places. Outside it isn't so bad because there is "fresh" air.
> Notorious Biggles wrote:
> A total ban, or a ban in enclosed public places?
In enclosed public places. Outside it isn't so bad because there is "fresh" air.
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.
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.
Thing is, you'll only dig yourself deeper by continuing to post in the same topic, with light 'ignored'.
Your best bet, would be just to abandon this topic altogether.
Alternatively, you could just admit you're wrong (regardless of whether you really believe it or not. It's no big deal really).
Or you could just be stubborn, and continue to refuse to discuss anything with light or address his questions. It take two people for an argument, and light does it for sport, so he's not gonna back down anytime :)
Your best bet, would be just to abandon this topic altogether.
Alternatively, you could just admit you're wrong (regardless of whether you really believe it or not. It's no big deal really).
Or you could just be stubborn, and continue to refuse to discuss anything with light or address his questions. It take two people for an argument, and light does it for sport, so he's not gonna back down anytime :)
lol. I dont see any reason I should dicsuss any topic with light. Its just a constant barrage of personal insults. If someone ELSE wants to talk about it then Id be more than happy to.
okay sorry !feel bad now !
sweet tooth wrote:
> was i talking to you ? let me think ! em NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
A simple "No, he's merely my hero" would have sufficed...
> was i talking to you ? let me think ! em NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
A simple "No, he's merely my hero" would have sufficed...
was i talking to you ? let me think ! em NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
sweet tooth wrote:
> please do or nothing to read !
Are you Salacious Crumb?
> please do or nothing to read !
Are you Salacious Crumb?
Pandaemonium wrote:
> Fozz wrote:
> lol. I have light ignored for obvious reasons. If someone wants me
> to
> address an actual argument then feel free to translate it. The
> ignore
> button is there for a specific reason. hooray.
>
> Bwhahahaha. What a cop out and a half. You can't just state something
> then run away as it all falls to pieces around you. Stand up for
> yourself.
please do or nothing to read !
> Fozz wrote:
> lol. I have light ignored for obvious reasons. If someone wants me
> to
> address an actual argument then feel free to translate it. The
> ignore
> button is there for a specific reason. hooray.
>
> Bwhahahaha. What a cop out and a half. You can't just state something
> then run away as it all falls to pieces around you. Stand up for
> yourself.
please do or nothing to read !
Page: