The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Well, it’s being talked about at the moment. My own personal views on the subject, as a non-smoker, are that it should not be.
Although I don’t smoke myself, who is it for me or anyone else for that matter to tell you that you can’t? On the practical side of things smoking injects a rather large sum of money into the country. Granted it will take quite a bit out, but I’d wager it’s not as much as it puts in.
There are some aspects of smoking that I don’t enjoy, the main one being the smokers that smoke in the designated non-smoking areas or intentionally blow their smoke into peoples faces, but this is fairly rare from my experiences.
Smoking is a habit, something that many smokers enjoy and do not want to give up. So why should they have to? Because it is bad for them?
They know the possible medical implications and as adults they should be able to make their own decision. Yes the nicotine in the cigarettes make it addictive, but there are plenty of other, possibly more dangerous drugs that are available and not being considered to be banned.
Alcohol for instance. I have never met a smoker that becomes more aggressive after a cigarette. Yet alcohol, which plays a part in rather a large amount of crime, is considered to be more acceptable.
Caffeine. I don’t know if any of you know anything about true caffeine addicts, but it is truly one of the worst and most health threatening addictions you can have. Heart problems, severe shaking and aggression all play a part.
I could go on, but can’t see the point. What are all your views on this?
Although I don’t smoke myself, who is it for me or anyone else for that matter to tell you that you can’t? On the practical side of things smoking injects a rather large sum of money into the country. Granted it will take quite a bit out, but I’d wager it’s not as much as it puts in.
There are some aspects of smoking that I don’t enjoy, the main one being the smokers that smoke in the designated non-smoking areas or intentionally blow their smoke into peoples faces, but this is fairly rare from my experiences.
Smoking is a habit, something that many smokers enjoy and do not want to give up. So why should they have to? Because it is bad for them?
They know the possible medical implications and as adults they should be able to make their own decision. Yes the nicotine in the cigarettes make it addictive, but there are plenty of other, possibly more dangerous drugs that are available and not being considered to be banned.
Alcohol for instance. I have never met a smoker that becomes more aggressive after a cigarette. Yet alcohol, which plays a part in rather a large amount of crime, is considered to be more acceptable.
Caffeine. I don’t know if any of you know anything about true caffeine addicts, but it is truly one of the worst and most health threatening addictions you can have. Heart problems, severe shaking and aggression all play a part.
I could go on, but can’t see the point. What are all your views on this?
Page:
Personally I find this habit a smelly, halmful, expensive ridiculous one...
You may have guessed I do not smoke - never tried it.
Since I was tiny I remember the pain and suffering my Grandad went through with emphesemia, severe asthma and cancer the doctors all think smoking had a great deal to do with.
The fact he also worked with aspestos stuff is the huge factor for his illnesses but still seeing such horrible diseases that can be related to smoking was a huge turn off for me. I keep my word so when i promised him I would never smoke - I never have.
I do not know if it should be banned though. As the copper said there are more dangerous things that seem accepted. Alchohol in particular. Alot more people seem to be moving on to regularly smoking cannabis now which is (in my opinion) not a great thing to do.
Alchohol can cause bad health problems, violent behaviour, a rise in crime etc.
Cannabis on a regular basis often increases the risk of paranoia and other such mental conditions, is also not that great for the body and may also be a part of non acceptable behaviour... Smoking is smelly, bad for the smokers health, my health and tax payers money and is also an addictive substance that can make people irritable and unpleasent!
You may have guessed I do not smoke - never tried it.
Since I was tiny I remember the pain and suffering my Grandad went through with emphesemia, severe asthma and cancer the doctors all think smoking had a great deal to do with.
The fact he also worked with aspestos stuff is the huge factor for his illnesses but still seeing such horrible diseases that can be related to smoking was a huge turn off for me. I keep my word so when i promised him I would never smoke - I never have.
I do not know if it should be banned though. As the copper said there are more dangerous things that seem accepted. Alchohol in particular. Alot more people seem to be moving on to regularly smoking cannabis now which is (in my opinion) not a great thing to do.
Alchohol can cause bad health problems, violent behaviour, a rise in crime etc.
Cannabis on a regular basis often increases the risk of paranoia and other such mental conditions, is also not that great for the body and may also be a part of non acceptable behaviour... Smoking is smelly, bad for the smokers health, my health and tax payers money and is also an addictive substance that can make people irritable and unpleasent!
i think it should because its just another drug and its VERY bad for u-never mind the money!
Also kids think its cool and so they start smoking when they're 13!
Also kids think its cool and so they start smoking when they're 13!
And keeping it legal for money reasons? Pathetic. Theres more than enough money to go around without someone getting lung cancer
Yes, ban them.......ban all of them. Its disgusting that the government let people smoke and not only harm themselves but others around them.
I would say don't ban them, but again for completely selfish reasons. Being a non-smoker, I pay a damn sight less tax to the government by not purchasing cigarettes. I'm quite happy to let other people pay over their weight.
That being said, they do rather catch me out on alcohol...
That being said, they do rather catch me out on alcohol...
Hmm. I see where he's coming from. Little addictive carcinogenic sticks with no real benefits, that kill their users and anyone else unlucky enough to spend too much time too close to them. There's no way they'd be legal if it weren't for the number of people who already smoke.
I figure a ban on smoking in public places would be a good idea - let them kill themselves, but minimise the risk of them talking anyone else with them.
Sure, drink-drivers kill innocent people too, but that's not to say you can't try to save some innocents, just because you can't save them all.
Anyway, drink-driving *IS* illegal. So surely any comparison between the two would suggest smoking *should* be illegal?
I doubt it'd happen, partly because of the financial side, partly because even Blair would (probably) think twice before forcing his ideas on *that* many unwilling voters.
I figure a ban on smoking in public places would be a good idea - let them kill themselves, but minimise the risk of them talking anyone else with them.
Sure, drink-drivers kill innocent people too, but that's not to say you can't try to save some innocents, just because you can't save them all.
Anyway, drink-driving *IS* illegal. So surely any comparison between the two would suggest smoking *should* be illegal?
I doubt it'd happen, partly because of the financial side, partly because even Blair would (probably) think twice before forcing his ideas on *that* many unwilling voters.
I'm a smoker, and I'm trying to give up. I've not touched one for 50 hours 23 minutes and I'm beginning to gnaw my knuckles like a psychotic bunny rabbit. My chest is tight and I feel like I'm slowly suffocating. Damn things! I've reached the point where they are no longer enjoyable to me.
So yes, I'd ban them, but for purely selfish reasons. If they were illegal I wouldn't break the law to buy them. I'd let them go. That would be my cut-off point. (Of course they are never going to be banned for reasons stated below).
Like all drugs they wrap you in an invisible cord of love and hate. One minute you despise them and the damage they are doing to your health, and you pledge to never touch them again. The next minute you are once again enchanted by their aroma and taste and their relaxation qualities, and you find yourself gayly striding to the nearest newsagents telling yourself: they're not that bad...
BAN THEM!
*eats the 50th extra strong mint of the day trying to stave off cravings*
So yes, I'd ban them, but for purely selfish reasons. If they were illegal I wouldn't break the law to buy them. I'd let them go. That would be my cut-off point. (Of course they are never going to be banned for reasons stated below).
Like all drugs they wrap you in an invisible cord of love and hate. One minute you despise them and the damage they are doing to your health, and you pledge to never touch them again. The next minute you are once again enchanted by their aroma and taste and their relaxation qualities, and you find yourself gayly striding to the nearest newsagents telling yourself: they're not that bad...
BAN THEM!
*eats the 50th extra strong mint of the day trying to stave off cravings*
It shouldnt be banned, its too much of a major source of revenue for blair's bum buddies.
cookie monster wrote:
> Passive smoking isnt that bad, Boris johnson was talking about it on
> room 101 a few weeks ago.
Yes, he said passive smoking for a month is like standing in front of frankfurters being barbecued for half an hour or something. Which is all the more reason to ban frankfurters, I say.
Apparently David Blunkett has said that if alcohol came about today, ie we discovered it in the present, it wouldn't be legalised because it's too dangerous. And neither would cigarettes be legal. But once the ball's rolling, it's hard to stop. So they tighten up on how companies can advertise. Like that helps anyone.
> Passive smoking isnt that bad, Boris johnson was talking about it on
> room 101 a few weeks ago.
Yes, he said passive smoking for a month is like standing in front of frankfurters being barbecued for half an hour or something. Which is all the more reason to ban frankfurters, I say.
Apparently David Blunkett has said that if alcohol came about today, ie we discovered it in the present, it wouldn't be legalised because it's too dangerous. And neither would cigarettes be legal. But once the ball's rolling, it's hard to stop. So they tighten up on how companies can advertise. Like that helps anyone.
Passive smoking isnt that bad, Boris johnson was talking about it on room 101 a few weeks ago.
Page: