should us smokers really be taxed so much
Discussion
Cotty said:
Not as easy as that. After one of the F1 races at Silverstone I was sitting in one of the huge marquee watching a tennis match on the big screens. I thought it would be ok to smoke as most of the sides were open and therefore good airflow/dissipation of smoke. The wind changed and someone 20 foot away asked if I would not smoke as it was drifting over to them. I didn't expect them to move so I finished the cig outside, checking the wind was not blowing the smoke back inside the marquee.
They didn't complain when a friend brought in a big pot of risotto and the smell drifted over to them.
That was courteous of you but if they don't want to smell cigarettes then they should be the ones who move IMO.They didn't complain when a friend brought in a big pot of risotto and the smell drifted over to them.
Their risotto is not going to give you a sore throat. A very large number of people do not like cigarette smoke, which is also proven to be harmful.
The problem here was demonstrated by the couple I described in my first post. You will recall that they were in a car, the wife lit a cigarette, gave it to her husband and then lit another for herself. There were two small children in the back seat. The reason they did that was that they don't think that there is anything wrong with cigarette smoke, and that with the passenger side window down two inches there is plenty of 'ventilation to dissipate the smoke' . That is because their need to feed their addiction is warping their judgement. Exactly the same way as yours is, though your failure to accept reality is on a much less serious level. Do you see nothing wrong with their behaviour?
The problem here was demonstrated by the couple I described in my first post. You will recall that they were in a car, the wife lit a cigarette, gave it to her husband and then lit another for herself. There were two small children in the back seat. The reason they did that was that they don't think that there is anything wrong with cigarette smoke, and that with the passenger side window down two inches there is plenty of 'ventilation to dissipate the smoke' . That is because their need to feed their addiction is warping their judgement. Exactly the same way as yours is, though your failure to accept reality is on a much less serious level. Do you see nothing wrong with their behaviour?
Edited by cardigankid on Sunday 22 February 11:00
bodhi said:
Not entirely sure how you get places would be forced to provide facilities for people to have a smoke indoors, however I see no issue with allowing people to provide those facilities if they so wish. Forcing is just a sign of intolerance imo, like forcing people to go out in the rain and cold to have a smoke, or not employing smokers.
I don't see employers queuing up to provide smoking areas. If someone wants to do it, I'm sure they can. The reason they don't is that they dont want claims from the same people when they find that they have emphysema or lung cancer. cardigankid said:
Their risotto is not going to give you a sore throat.
Neither will cigarette smoke. Smoked them for years (not any more) me and people around me did not develop sore throats. Maybe that's an underlying issue that you might want to get checked out.cardigankid said:
A very large number of people do not like cigarette smoke, which is also proven to be harmful.
Agreed cardigankid said:
Their risotto is not going to give you a sore throat. A very large number of people do not like cigarette smoke, which is also proven to be harmful.
The problem here was demonstrated by the couple I described in my first post. You will recall that they were in a car, the wife lit a cigarette, gave it to her husband and then lit another for herself. There were two small children in the back seat. The reason they did that was that they don't think that there is anything wrong with cigarette smoke, and that with the passenger side window down two inches there is plenty of 'ventilation to dissipate the smoke' . That is because their need to feed their addiction is warping their judgement. Exactly the same way as yours is, though your failure to accept reality is on a much less serious level. Do you see nothing wrong with their behaviour?
The problem here was demonstrated by the couple I described in my first post. You will recall that they were in a car, the wife lit a cigarette, gave it to her husband and then lit another for herself. There were two small children in the back seat. The reason they did that was that they don't think that there is anything wrong with cigarette smoke, and that with the passenger side window down two inches there is plenty of 'ventilation to dissipate the smoke' . That is because their need to feed their addiction is warping their judgement. Exactly the same way as yours is, though your failure to accept reality is on a much less serious level. Do you see nothing wrong with their behaviour?
Cotty said:
Agreed
So ban smoking all together? What political party would cut it's own throat by doing that at the moment? I don't smoke but I like a drink, what happens next when the smokers have been outlawed after the liberals like cardigankid have had their way? [/footnote]
Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Sunday 22 February 19:08
mygoldfishbowl said:
So ban smoking all together? What political party would cut it's own throat by doing that at the moment? I don't smoke but I like a drink, what happens next when the smokers have been outlawed after the liberals like cardigankid have had their way?
WOW who said that? cardigankid said the following no one said anything about banning smokingcardigankid said:
A very large number of people do not like cigarette smoke, which is also proven to be harmful.
RobinOakapple said:
bad company said:
heebeegeetee said:
I think this thread is showing that the time has to come when no smoking can take place in any public area at all. It should be confined to the smokers home, and that's it, imo.
Heil HItler. Not.
Then lets ban loud stereo systems, the wearing of hoodies and . . . . . . . . .
Heil Hitler
bad company said:
RobinOakapple said:
bad company said:
heebeegeetee said:
I think this thread is showing that the time has to come when no smoking can take place in any public area at all. It should be confined to the smokers home, and that's it, imo.
Heil HItler. Not.
Then lets ban loud stereo systems, the wearing of hoodies and . . . . . . . . .
Heil Hitler
Not.
Less people smoke apparently so the deterrent could be working. Its clear that health issues are well proven even with the secondary smoke.
Additionally I object to my clothing being ruined with the foul stench of fags, one only has to walk past a smoker for one's clothes to be contaminated.
Additionally I object to my clothing being ruined with the foul stench of fags, one only has to walk past a smoker for one's clothes to be contaminated.
Einion Yrth said:
spadriver said:
Does smoking cause as much anti social behavior as alcohol?
Just as much of a health risk if taken to extremes-as is often the case in the yUK.
And when nanny has eradicated smoking, drinking will be next.Just as much of a health risk if taken to extremes-as is often the case in the yUK.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff