The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Too many damn smokers in the world, i think i have made a topic on this a while ago but i will do it again.
Walking home today with my mates, as i am waiting for them i see them asking loads of people for "fags".
So i ask them why they smoke, what is the point in it?
Them being them, they just say shut up.
But its true, what the hell is the point in smoking?
You waste your money on something that is very bad for you and could end up killing you.
One of my mates managed to get 3 fags, he was extremley annoyed at me after i hit the first fag out of his hand and onto the floor.
Then i done exactly the same to the other 2, he he he, he was more annoyed then i have seen him for a while.
You would think my mate would of learned his lesson after he got caught smoking on school grounds on Friday and they phoned his parents up. But the fool just doesnt learn.
I walk home with about 5-6 people, all of them smoke, normaly i try not to walk with them because the smell of smoke is just awfull, and it stays in your clothes, then other people think that you yourself smokes.
Just last week this lady pulled up at the middle school next to my high school to drop off her son, he must of been about 11-12, he got out the car smoking. His mum was smoking and his dad too, now thats upto their family but i think that, that is just pure wrong. There should be a law to how old you have to be before it is legal to smoke.
When you are walking down town you always get that person who is in front of you smoking, and the smoke is just drifting back right into you face and you just want to tap them on the shoulder and tell them to put it out.
But because it is 100% legal you cant really do that.
But it should be a law, you are not allowed to smoke in public places or near anyone who wishes not to be in the company of any cigarette smoke.
Your views on smoking, the law and the age limit.
Walking home today with my mates, as i am waiting for them i see them asking loads of people for "fags".
So i ask them why they smoke, what is the point in it?
Them being them, they just say shut up.
But its true, what the hell is the point in smoking?
You waste your money on something that is very bad for you and could end up killing you.
One of my mates managed to get 3 fags, he was extremley annoyed at me after i hit the first fag out of his hand and onto the floor.
Then i done exactly the same to the other 2, he he he, he was more annoyed then i have seen him for a while.
You would think my mate would of learned his lesson after he got caught smoking on school grounds on Friday and they phoned his parents up. But the fool just doesnt learn.
I walk home with about 5-6 people, all of them smoke, normaly i try not to walk with them because the smell of smoke is just awfull, and it stays in your clothes, then other people think that you yourself smokes.
Just last week this lady pulled up at the middle school next to my high school to drop off her son, he must of been about 11-12, he got out the car smoking. His mum was smoking and his dad too, now thats upto their family but i think that, that is just pure wrong. There should be a law to how old you have to be before it is legal to smoke.
When you are walking down town you always get that person who is in front of you smoking, and the smoke is just drifting back right into you face and you just want to tap them on the shoulder and tell them to put it out.
But because it is 100% legal you cant really do that.
But it should be a law, you are not allowed to smoke in public places or near anyone who wishes not to be in the company of any cigarette smoke.
Your views on smoking, the law and the age limit.
Page:
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> the point is these people are being reckless, and endangering their,
> and others lives in doing so, knowing full well what could possibly
> happen. In this way it is no different to smoking.
you cannot say that they are 100% certain. in your post you even said the 2 words "could possibly". smokers know. there is scientific, visual and physical proof.
> People can smoke their whole lives and not suffer. A guy I know at
> work has been smoking for 50 years and seems in good health. He
> still smokes about 10 cigarettes a day.
how do you know what his lungs look like. don't judge a book by its cover. i used to know a super fit 45 year old. jogging every day. eats healthily. no illnesses. he just died. would you really like to chance your health by doing the same as him?
> the point is these people are being reckless, and endangering their,
> and others lives in doing so, knowing full well what could possibly
> happen. In this way it is no different to smoking.
you cannot say that they are 100% certain. in your post you even said the 2 words "could possibly". smokers know. there is scientific, visual and physical proof.
> People can smoke their whole lives and not suffer. A guy I know at
> work has been smoking for 50 years and seems in good health. He
> still smokes about 10 cigarettes a day.
how do you know what his lungs look like. don't judge a book by its cover. i used to know a super fit 45 year old. jogging every day. eats healthily. no illnesses. he just died. would you really like to chance your health by doing the same as him?
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> the point is these people are being reckless, and endangering their,
> and others lives in doing so, knowing full well what could possibly
> happen. In this way it is no different to smoking.
Thats why i was saying that if they wanted to smoke then they would have to do it in a room or a special smoking house provided in your local town for when you are out shopping.
That way you are only indangering your own health and other smokers health.
> the point is these people are being reckless, and endangering their,
> and others lives in doing so, knowing full well what could possibly
> happen. In this way it is no different to smoking.
Thats why i was saying that if they wanted to smoke then they would have to do it in a room or a special smoking house provided in your local town for when you are out shopping.
That way you are only indangering your own health and other smokers health.
Clazon wrote:
> it's an accident. you could blame the bus driver depending on the
> circumstances. but the point is, they made a mistake without knowing
> 100% it would hurt them.
the point is these people are being reckless, and endangering their, and others lives in doing so, knowing full well what could possibly happen. In this way it is no different to smoking.
People can smoke their whole lives and not suffer. A guy I know at work has been smoking for 50 years and seems in good health. He still smokes about 10 cigarettes a day.
> it's an accident. you could blame the bus driver depending on the
> circumstances. but the point is, they made a mistake without knowing
> 100% it would hurt them.
the point is these people are being reckless, and endangering their, and others lives in doing so, knowing full well what could possibly happen. In this way it is no different to smoking.
People can smoke their whole lives and not suffer. A guy I know at work has been smoking for 50 years and seems in good health. He still smokes about 10 cigarettes a day.
Icarus wrote:
> I'd pay money to watch a dancing bear.
You and me both.
> I'd pay money to watch a dancing bear.
You and me both.
I'd pay money to watch a dancing bear.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> You cannot judge people in this way - you CANNOT say "ok, this
> person knew they were damaging themselves, therefore they have to pay
> for their healthcare". Where will it stop?
>
> Someone is pulling grass out of a lawnmower, but doesn't unplug it
> first. The mower chops their fingers off. That's their fault for
> not unplugging it though.
i already exempted this as it's accidental, not purposefully done.
> Someone is driving at 40mph on a 40mph road, but it is icy. The
> person crashes and loses both legs. That was their fault for not
> driving more slowly to suit the conditions though.
they were'nt driving correctly. losing both legs means that blood loss could kill them. they must be treated. it's an accident not purposeful. careless, not knowing 100% that they would be injured because of their actions.
> Someone runs across the road without looking. They are hit by a bus
> and are now in a coma. That's their fault for not looking though.
it's an accident. you could blame the bus driver depending on the circumstances. but the point is, they made a mistake without knowing 100% it would hurt them.
> You can't have selective healthcare like that.
> You cannot judge people in this way - you CANNOT say "ok, this
> person knew they were damaging themselves, therefore they have to pay
> for their healthcare". Where will it stop?
>
> Someone is pulling grass out of a lawnmower, but doesn't unplug it
> first. The mower chops their fingers off. That's their fault for
> not unplugging it though.
i already exempted this as it's accidental, not purposefully done.
> Someone is driving at 40mph on a 40mph road, but it is icy. The
> person crashes and loses both legs. That was their fault for not
> driving more slowly to suit the conditions though.
they were'nt driving correctly. losing both legs means that blood loss could kill them. they must be treated. it's an accident not purposeful. careless, not knowing 100% that they would be injured because of their actions.
> Someone runs across the road without looking. They are hit by a bus
> and are now in a coma. That's their fault for not looking though.
it's an accident. you could blame the bus driver depending on the circumstances. but the point is, they made a mistake without knowing 100% it would hurt them.
> You can't have selective healthcare like that.
Didn't you say 5 hours though?
They actually have 10 rooms, but 5 of them are rented out to pimps and dancing bears for some extra income.
oh no it was 5 hours wasnt it! lol i thought he was being metaphorical!
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Another arguement is that heavy smokers more than pay for their own
> healthcare in the tax they pay on cigarettes. A packet of cigarettes
> minus tax would probably be less than 50p. As they are 4.80 a pack
> these days, that equates to a lot of money a year.
Very good point, i also didnt think about that one.
> Another arguement is that heavy smokers more than pay for their own
> healthcare in the tax they pay on cigarettes. A packet of cigarettes
> minus tax would probably be less than 50p. As they are 4.80 a pack
> these days, that equates to a lot of money a year.
Very good point, i also didnt think about that one.
Page: