The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Oh, and I'm not trying to ignore the fact that cars are a pollutant also, it's just that every time this argument comes up, someone always says "oh, but what about cars/alcohol? They're bad too!"
It's just like in a classroom when the teacher says "Pupil A, stop talking."
"But miss, Pupil C was talking too, why are you only moaning at me?"
With cars though, we can expect a better future still. Hydrogen combustion is still in the early stages, though, as far as I'm aware there's about 20 buses in London with Hydrogen engines. At the moment they're just too big to put in cars, but there ARE scientists working on it.
And back to smoking; you say that the taxes pay for a huge chunk of the NHS. Fair enough. Does that mean they're completely useless in every other country in the world?
I mean, they don't have the NHS, do they/ So I guess it doesn't have its uses anywhere else. So should we just get banned in every other country in the world except the UK, that way it's only kept in the countries where it has a use?
It's just like in a classroom when the teacher says "Pupil A, stop talking."
"But miss, Pupil C was talking too, why are you only moaning at me?"
With cars though, we can expect a better future still. Hydrogen combustion is still in the early stages, though, as far as I'm aware there's about 20 buses in London with Hydrogen engines. At the moment they're just too big to put in cars, but there ARE scientists working on it.
And back to smoking; you say that the taxes pay for a huge chunk of the NHS. Fair enough. Does that mean they're completely useless in every other country in the world?
I mean, they don't have the NHS, do they/ So I guess it doesn't have its uses anywhere else. So should we just get banned in every other country in the world except the UK, that way it's only kept in the countries where it has a use?
There are better ways to commit slow suicide.
I would if it hadn't already been proved that small amounts of different alcohols daily can help against diseases and suchlike.
I think, however, that there should be some sort of limit on drinking to try and cut down binge drinkers/alcoholics etc
I think, however, that there should be some sort of limit on drinking to try and cut down binge drinkers/alcoholics etc
munn wrote:
> stuff
You know munn, it's amazing how your moral compass is happy to spin all over the place to get round stating that cars (something that you like and would be happy to use) are a pollutant and unpleasant, yet you're entirely unwilling to put the same level of thought into cigs (something you don't like and you don't want to use).
For all the time you've spent trying to justify it, I'm afraid it just looks like a "I don't like this, ergo absolutely no-one should", followed by a "well...anything you say is wrong" with little or no explanation.
If you have your opinions, fair enough. But your justifications are all a little subjective.
As to the other "smoking is bad and causes deaths so ban it" arguments; are any of you willing to apply that logic to drinking?
> stuff
You know munn, it's amazing how your moral compass is happy to spin all over the place to get round stating that cars (something that you like and would be happy to use) are a pollutant and unpleasant, yet you're entirely unwilling to put the same level of thought into cigs (something you don't like and you don't want to use).
For all the time you've spent trying to justify it, I'm afraid it just looks like a "I don't like this, ergo absolutely no-one should", followed by a "well...anything you say is wrong" with little or no explanation.
If you have your opinions, fair enough. But your justifications are all a little subjective.
As to the other "smoking is bad and causes deaths so ban it" arguments; are any of you willing to apply that logic to drinking?
Smoking is a terrible vice. As the previous posts have said, many deaths and unhappiness have rooted from the evil of smoking. You see these national smoking helplines and stuff (they are good and effective) but the government aren't doing enough about it.
The best way to stop this evil is to ban it completely (maybe a class C drug??) But - they won't do this because it brings so much money into the economy. I guess it's true, money IS the root of all evil...
The best way to stop this evil is to ban it completely (maybe a class C drug??) But - they won't do this because it brings so much money into the economy. I guess it's true, money IS the root of all evil...
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.
Lets just agree ciggys are the worst invention ever. And the person who invented them was a idiot.
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.
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.
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.
Page: