The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
> 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.
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.
dont think he loves you any more !
VenomByte wrote:
>
>
> I just thought this post deserved highlighting, rather than being
> lost in the endless rants of Light in hunting-season
~grasps handbag to chest~
ooooooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo....
Anyway, for the record I totally agree with IB. The point I'm trying to get Fozz to respond to is his assertion that smoking should be banned altogether, in both public and private.
>
>
> I just thought this post deserved highlighting, rather than being
> lost in the endless rants of Light in hunting-season
~grasps handbag to chest~
ooooooOOOOOOOOOOooooooo....
Anyway, for the record I totally agree with IB. The point I'm trying to get Fozz to respond to is his assertion that smoking should be banned altogether, in both public and private.
Insane Bartender wrote:
> 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.
I just thought this post deserved highlighting, rather than being lost in the endless rants of Light in hunting-season
> 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.
I just thought this post deserved highlighting, rather than being lost in the endless rants of Light in hunting-season
Notorious Biggles wrote:
> It is the complete lack of co-operation in my experience that makes
> me support a smoking ban.
A total ban, or a ban in enclosed public places?
> It is the complete lack of co-operation in my experience that makes
> me support a smoking ban.
A total ban, or a ban in enclosed public places?
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?
Not in my experience. Last time I asked someone to put out a cigarette on a non-smoking bus I got the charming reply "Am gonnae stab you in the heed". Last time I asked someone smoking in the no smoking section of a bar he just turned towards me and blew smoke in my direction.
It is the complete lack of co-operation in my experience that makes me support a smoking ban.
> 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?
Not in my experience. Last time I asked someone to put out a cigarette on a non-smoking bus I got the charming reply "Am gonnae stab you in the heed". Last time I asked someone smoking in the no smoking section of a bar he just turned towards me and blew smoke in my direction.
It is the complete lack of co-operation in my experience that makes me support a smoking ban.
I don't like smoking, ergo, it should be banned. Yes I think I would make a good dictator. Sadly however Stuart Rose got the Marks & Spencer job.
Having a no-smoking section in a bar or restaurant is pretty pointless really, because smoke still wafts into it. I want a smoke free bar or restaurant. Now I'm not opposed to people choosing to smoke, that's their right. Ideally there would be some completely smoke free bars and restaurants, and some where smoking was allowed throughout. Nice simple compromise if you think about it, bars for everybody.
But the problem with that is, if it was up to management to decide, most of them I think would opt to allow smoking. Simply to avoid alienating smokers. Which really though is a bit of an oxymoron because they alienate non-smokers. There are a few places in Glasgow that I really like, yet don't go in to because I find the smoke too much.
It's a touchy subject for many people, but at the end of the day I support it.
Having a no-smoking section in a bar or restaurant is pretty pointless really, because smoke still wafts into it. I want a smoke free bar or restaurant. Now I'm not opposed to people choosing to smoke, that's their right. Ideally there would be some completely smoke free bars and restaurants, and some where smoking was allowed throughout. Nice simple compromise if you think about it, bars for everybody.
But the problem with that is, if it was up to management to decide, most of them I think would opt to allow smoking. Simply to avoid alienating smokers. Which really though is a bit of an oxymoron because they alienate non-smokers. There are a few places in Glasgow that I really like, yet don't go in to because I find the smoke too much.
It's a touchy subject for many people, but at the end of the day I support it.
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.
My, I was in a bad mood yesterday...
My apologies Fozz; you didn't deserve the more excessive insults. Apart from the criticisms for avoiding addressing why you think everyone should be banned from smoking, you probably didn't deserve it at all.
My apologies Fozz; you didn't deserve the more excessive insults. Apart from the criticisms for avoiding addressing why you think everyone should be banned from smoking, you probably didn't deserve it at all.
Page: