The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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?
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?
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?
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.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> Cars are by no means a necessity.
And smoking is?
> Cars are by no means a necessity.
And smoking is?
Peer pressure is crap.
I find it hard to understand how people started smoking if it wasn't through peer pressure, because it's not like your first cigarette tastes great now is it?
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. ;)
I find it hard to understand how people started smoking if it wasn't through peer pressure, because it's not like your first cigarette tastes great now is it?
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. ;)
Light wrote:
> True enough. But when it comes to the secondary smoke
> argument...well, are you as vocal about cars? The pollution from them
> damages ones health. Do you ask people not to drive down your road to
> avoid any damage?
Guh, and that's the stupidest argument ever.
A: There are very few cars in the world which don't cause pollution, and those that are aren't on the market.
B: Even though you can buy low tar ciggerettes which are less dangerous to your health, few people do
C: Cars have a use (they are TRANSPORT!)
D: Smoking does feck all.
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.
Smoking bad, Non-Smoking good.
End.
> True enough. But when it comes to the secondary smoke
> argument...well, are you as vocal about cars? The pollution from them
> damages ones health. Do you ask people not to drive down your road to
> avoid any damage?
Guh, and that's the stupidest argument ever.
A: There are very few cars in the world which don't cause pollution, and those that are aren't on the market.
B: Even though you can buy low tar ciggerettes which are less dangerous to your health, few people do
C: Cars have a use (they are TRANSPORT!)
D: Smoking does feck all.
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.
Smoking bad, Non-Smoking good.
End.
Ooooh no, I reckon the whole place will become far angrier! The majority of the country smoke anyway, and to take that away from them will certainly cause their cravings to get the best of them, and they will eventually become high in stress and maybe a little chaotic.
The industry would also lose many jobs, and will again cause a lot of anger. And then what about obesity? To compensate the loss of smoking, they might want to crave for food instead!
Hnnnnrr...
The industry would also lose many jobs, and will again cause a lot of anger. And then what about obesity? To compensate the loss of smoking, they might want to crave for food instead!
Hnnnnrr...
I reckon our country may be a considerabley happier place with a national smoking ban, you know.
It'd certainly be a lot cleaner and healthier, anyway!
I wonder just how much of this adds to the increasing speed of the global warming effect?
I say "increasing" because, as you should all know, it's only naturally gonna happen anyway. Temperatures were always going to rise. With ice bergs still around, technically speaking, were still in an "ice age" here.
:)
It'd certainly be a lot cleaner and healthier, anyway!
I wonder just how much of this adds to the increasing speed of the global warming effect?
I say "increasing" because, as you should all know, it's only naturally gonna happen anyway. Temperatures were always going to rise. With ice bergs still around, technically speaking, were still in an "ice age" here.
:)
It's your choice to go out, you don't have to...
Sorry, couldn't resist XD
Sorry, couldn't resist XD
Page: