Printable View
now, they're building 7.4 litre engines for racing applications. seems pretty awesome, getting 600+ hp out of a motor in a 50 year old truck. I saw it the other day on tv. I couldn't imagine why they picked a DANA rear-end, until they dropped in the motor/trans.
Some people have too much money...
Why did you quote me, didnt you read my first statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by yrwyddfa
people should be able to put whatever they want in there body,
Just have smoking pubs and non smoking pubs and let the health freaks sit by themselves.
The problem I have with smoking is that I dont smoke but I still suffer from the small group that do.
Yeah and make all pubs none smoking like the law is going to do :afrog:
Like I say stand outside by all means and smoke, just dont come near me and make me suffer for your habit :rolleyes:
Too much water thins out blood sugar levels causing death. It takes alot of water to do this but it is possible :)
Why not let people choose between smoking and non smoking? Bodwad if you dont like second hand smoke dont go in pubs, a pub is a place where people go to sit down and take drugs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
I think the point that your missing is that that this isn't really about smoking . . .
If it is about toxins to the human body we should be concerned with other far more lethal toxins. If it is about social behaviour (you do not want to breath second hand smoke, one presumes) then I believe that there are far more pressing social issues to consider - underage drinking, violence, drugs etc etc
As for you having to tolerate a smoky pub: don't go there; vote with your feet - or are you so such a martyr? There are non-smoking places everywhere - go there instead.
Another issue, of course, is that the govt is once more legislating against a free people. What other 'freedoms' are next?
What about mobile phones? Do you agree that putting a microwave transmitter next to your brain is sensible? OK it doesn't heat the skin - but you are still exposing your brain to loads of free radicals - of which you do not have enough anti-oxidants to deal with. I object to being in an environment (my office, my home, my pub) where I am subjected to gross quantities of free-radicals so you, my friend, can text your best mate 'Hello' When will this legislation come through?
You can argue that there is no scientific study available that prove the mobile phone - freeradical link. But microwaves produce free radicals when passing through the human body - and mobile phones use microwaves (actually it's just less than microwave but more than radio waves) But this is the same argument that smoking doesn't damage human beings because there is no scientific study too.
Anyone who believes that smoking is safe is stupid. Anyone who believes that mobile phones are inherently safe is the same.
Wrong, a pub is a public house as in "accessible to everyone".
Whereas free choice means I should be able to walk in a public house without inhaling smelly second-hand smoke. Smokers have been pampered enough imo and all we received in return is arrogant self-centered behaviour as if it is your divine right to spoil the atmosphere for everyone else around.
If you want to poison yourself, no problem there but keep it away from others who want to live like, as you say, "health freaks". It's as simple as that. And no, I won't be turned away at the door because I'm a non-smoker.
Let's put it this way:
tobacco smoke should be considered a health hazard in confined spaces (enough studies have pointed to that fact) and since regulation requires any publicly accessible building (including shops and pubs) to be health hazard free, owners of pubs will have to adapt their premises or be fined. This means either declare their premises smokers/non-smokers only or foresee two separate, well-ventilated rooms for both.
The only legislation needed from the government is to declare tobacco smoke a health hazard. The warning on the package should be expanded to a warning on public premises as well so people know what to expect.
Environmental laws force businesses to deal with their waste and smoke, car manufacturers to produce less polluting engines and even mobile phone manufacturers to alter their product to suit health hazard laws.
Sod your coveted "freedom" if everyone else has to suffer for it.
Apologies - corrected.Quote:
Originally Posted by davebat
This simply doesn't deserve a reply. Damn it I already have :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
It doesn't? Well ok then, if you ever wave your cancer stick in front of my face don't be surprised waking up in hospital with several fractures and teeth missing because that's about the only answer your kind seems to understand.
:thumb: Good one - I needed a giggle on what looks like a dismal day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Free choice also applies to smokers, why should they be turned away because they smoke? You cannot ban one dangerous product without banning them all.
sillyQuote:
Originally Posted by Wally Pipp
Silly? Perhaps. But you'll still be beaten to death.
Perhaps. But certainly not from you ;)
You know what I dont care because the laws coming in either way :p
Ill remember that next a drunk trys to push a bottle through my face or runs me down when he is at the wheel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
It is already against the law to be drunk and disorderly and drink driving so whats its about time smoking was banned from public :afrog:
by that logic we should be allowed to smoke but ban lung cancer and respiratory problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
It is against the law to influence others as a result of drinking. You can get drunk as long as you arent a nuisance :D
Same should apply to smoking. If you smoke without producing any smoke or smells then go ahead :afrog:
I dont smoke, my concern with the ban is the fact that the government is trying to control every aspect of our lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
What are laws??? :)
Control is required for society to work without revolution :afrog:
You start with smoking (the ban - which I don't really object to) but onward bound to every other aspect of your life.
I, for one, will resist it. I can't do anything - but I will make my voice heard.
Whether or not someone threatens violence because they're too ill-equipped to argue in a coherent or intelligent manner is totally irrelevant
I know it's sad; but people who consider violence within a civil society should bury themselves alive to hide the shame they bring on the community at large: I mean: COME ON: as if >2.0 litre engines are eco-friendly. The guy lives in a dreamworld; and is fortunate to be hiding behind an IP address that is leased to him daily.
fortunate? Not really, I'm paying for it. Besides, if you were stood in front of me I'd say exactly the same and do exactly the same.
Oh and I'm a fervent supporter of clean energy, of hydrogen engines and propulsion system who don't pollute as much as we do. I'm a strong supporter of the polluter-pays-the-cleanup-bill doctrine etc... our cars are more eco-friendly than those 10 years ago, I seriously doubt if they would be if no-one then gave a toss about the environment. If you doubt that then it is not I who lives in a dream world. Today they pollute, today factories pollute but there's a growing consensus that pollution is a big no-no if we're to survive the next 3 generations so legislation is in place to reduce it.
Only when it comes to smoking everybody is allowed to go their own merry way. There's a public smoking ban in every government building which very few people observe (and, incidentally, complain about when they have to go outside in cold weather) despite penalties and high cigarette prices. So don't talk to me about rights when several of them are not willing to follow legislation in the first place. If you must smoke do it in your own home, designated areas or out in the street. Is that so hard to understand?
Or must the majority always listen to a minority?
I want to reply - really - I do.
But I can't stand the childishness of it all. The unreasoned argument (if I can call it that)
I give up.
We could just make cigs illegal and really annoy them :afrog:
See I'm not commenting ;)
Childisness? That's rich coming from someone so rigid in thinking you could use him as a flagpole... anyway
:lol: Calm down dear its only a commercial :afrog:
No comment: :bigyello:
Everything should be powered by coal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
That WOULD take care of the second hand smoke issue :D
Hey, people are getting a bit testy here. There's not much consensus, but it seems like people arguing that the government shouldn't be allowed to control them to this extent versus others (including myself) saying that we don't much want to participate in the actions of smokers by breathing second hand smoke.
There are some things the government should but out of, but it also seems that there are a few things they should not. If my neighbor has something particularly nice, I could wait till he was away and just take it. Does the government have the right to prosecute me in this case (or even investigate), should it be left up to my neighbor and a civil suit? Or is that too much as well?
To non-smokers, this is similar. Smokers are not doing just to themselves (which would be fine with me), they are doing to those around them. If I'm one of them there those, I do object, but how? Should I tell them to put out there smokes? Ask them to put out there smokes? Shove their smokes up their noses? Take them to court? The first and third would be rude, the last would hardly solve the problem when it occurs. As for the second, what if they were to refuse, what is the proper course at that time? There certainly is no law against it....oh, but wait, now there will be!
Indeed. However,Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
One presumes you need a ban on smoking because it infringes your right to clean air, or because the breathing of second hand smoke prevents you from going somewhere where you would like to go (a pub, for instance)
I do not want asbestosis. I avoid places where there is asbestos. I do not want pneumoconiosis - so I avoid coal mines. Each of these comes about by human activities. I can choose to become a coal miner; I can choose to become an asbestos clearence guy.
I can also choose the restaurant where smokers are banned, and the pubs that smokers are banned. There are plenty about - and I use them, as a smoker, all the time.
The question is - why legislate? I can understand why smoking should be banned in all work places. You could mention that pub's are work places - but then so is the coal mine - you start the job knowing the risks.
The legislation should enable an employee (or union of the same) to force an employer to provide a smoke-free environment in which to work. The law should not arbitrarily rule on a subject which has connotations (sp?) that far extend the specific remit of the legislation. The ban on smoking - or rather a law that prohibits people doing what might be harmful to others (passive smokers do not necessarily have ill-health later - it's just more likely) will have connotations (sp? again!) that will end up creating caselaw (in the UK, anyway) which will end up being particularly harmful to society.
I would like to ask all those 100% in favour to tell me what is right about a ban. Not why it is not wrong.
While we're talking about banning stuff and what's good for society, let's ban beer, ale, vodka, and just about every other alcohol available on the planet. One drink leads to two, to three and before you know it, you can't think straight. We then cause disruptions, get into fights, or start bothering people we don't even know. Oh, and it's smelly too. :)
I wonder, when was the last time a group of smoking football fans started a fight... "or some smoker had a few too many cigarettes, went home, and beat up his wife."
Shop owners will have to get rid of offenders, if they have a public restaurant. If the smokers provide enough revenue, then a public place may become private. What will happen to those caught smoking? Will they go to a smoker rehab for 3 weeks, and be allowed to drink as much as they want, as long as they don't smoke? We the inurance companies pay for it?
It doesn't take criminals long to figure that they're above the law, and start breaking all kinds of laws that law-abiding citizens obey. Criminals commit crimes, even though they know that they are breaking the law.
Guns are illegal, but more people have them than ever before.
It's human nature to get what you want. I see no good of smoking bans.
The shop owners should voluntarily ban smoking in sections that are expected to be used by non-smokers. If more did, the law would be un-necessary.
Man, I need a smoke! :D
I am surprised nobody has sewed someone over smoking next to them :)
The ban protects non smokers as well as children. We must also remember that smoking is causing a massive crisis in the health services (yes cigs pay taxes) but it is still and issue that the government needs to sort out. The only way to prevent it being an increasing issue and to protect the next generations from the habit is to remove it from view. We are responsible for the protection of the next generation and if you have kids I am sure you would agree that they deserve the right to live a long and healthy life. Damage them when they are young and it will have massive effects on the rest of their lives. Like all anti-smoker people here have said we dont mind if you smoke where it doesnt effect others which is what this ban is aimed at. I dont run over you just because I am in a car and you shouldnt be on the road as a pedestrian. I go around you or slow down (I might try and hit mendhak though) :afrog:
Smells like prohibition to me; and look how that turned out!Quote:
Originally Posted by BodwadUK
Prohibition? If it was banned outright then yes it would be, but smoking is not being banned. It is only being banned in public places to protect those that do not smoke.
As to ventilation systems, most pubs have air-con units and so they wouldn't exactly want to spend a fortune on these only to have a ventilation system sucking it back out again. Not exaclty cost efficient :lol:
The only crisis there is the dichotomy that an action that causes ill-health (smoker) is a significant financial contributor to the same.Quote:
We must also remember that smoking is causing a massive crisis in the health services
Ironic or what.
If all smokers gave up the UK (yeah right!) then the general population would pay around 1.5p extra on standard rate income tax.
So as I've said before just say thanks - I'm paying for your public services by shortening my life ;)
Your shortening everyones lives until you stop smoking in public :p