lfc84 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Your civil liberties point is facile... How dare you. These are my civil rights and they are being taken from myself and other people who wish to carry out a perfectly legal habit away from moaning minnies like yourself. We are not even allowed to do so in a private club. By not seeing this point I think you have actually already lost something important already. People fought and died for civil liberites - not for fuckwits like you to let them go at a whim. How dare you poison the air that i breathe. Why kill yourself in such a manner. Smoking kills. Sit in your own house and smoke over your babies cot or in front of your kids - your choice to be a murderer. Dont do it in the same pub as me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Lear Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Exposing employees to second hand smoke isn't something they can choose to avoid. The "they can go and get another job elsewhere" argument shows how selfish these people are. Pollute yourself if you want, but don't poison the bar maid, or your work mates just to satisfy your addicted, disgusting habit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 How dare you. These are my civil rights and they are being taken from myself and other people who wish to carry out a perfectly legal habit away from moaning minnies like yourself. We are not even allowed to do so in a private club. By not seeing this point I think you have actually already lost something important already. People fought and died for civil liberites - not for fuckwits like you to let them go at a whim. Lol,lol. If anyone needed any evidence as to how addictive nicotine actually is, and the absolute fear that the thought of deprivation instils in it's victims, this post should do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 23. Vehicles which one or more persons use for work ?? This is particularly nasty - doesn't this apply to those people who work for themselves even if they are the only person to use their own van etc.? I'm all for your right to smoke in a shared van Albert - if, of course, you don't mind me handing you the keys after I've done the smelliest fart in the world and left windows closed and the heater on for 10 minutes!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 A dangerous path. What a bunch of dumbocrats you anti's are. Just wait till they say, in 30 years time, 'they've' decided to cull your disabled grandchild because: 'What value does he add? What point does he serve? What does he add to society in these days of cost assessment with 5 pensioners to every 1 worker? Just look at his wasted global carbon footprint!, He pollutes the human gene pool' etc. Exageration? Have you actually read 1984? Have you seen just how many of those so called surreal 'parallels' have today actually become a reality? I challenge anybody to tell me of anything in George Orwell's 1984 that is not actually a fact today. The bulk of '1984' has become fact in the last 6 years. Let's look at the real argument here. Nobody is asking any non-smoker to share a pub with a smoker - just leave people the right to do what they want to do with other people in private clubs or selected pubs etc. and for everyone to defend that right. It might be 'stinky' and you might not 'approve', but if it does not involve you and you can legally remove yourself from it - great. The fact is that smokers will not be breaching human rights if they smoke together away from you, because we are talking about a perfectly legal hobby. Why should politicians, business, lobby groups or people's opinions have any affect on this? - Our system, the system we all work for, and the same system that determines the price of our houses and the wages we receive each week, should be left to decide the outcome i.e. the true market can sort this out. Most anti-smokers are nothing but sanctimoneous people, and in the future when they need to desperately defend something they believe in, thinking they have a perfectly legal right to do that, the difference is that when they need my support I'll still be there to defend them. That is what principle is all about. The problem is that many anti's do not currently realise that today they are selling off very important values...and the saddest thing of all is that many anti-smokers have such a 'view' on this that they don't see the consequences of selling themselves out in the process! People have fought and died for our civil liberties, and people have served in the forces to defend those rights - but many people are currently willing to sacrifice those values in less than a generation (one prime minister's career actually). Anti's neither understand or appreciate what these human rights actually represent - until of course it dawns on them that they will need these principles at some point in the future to defend something they think is defensible. I am saddened that so many people on here have no principles whatsoever. And if you are misguided enough on this argument to think that you do have principles - then it's time you actually evaluated those principles and realised what they actually mean. I'm sorry, but if you are an anti, and a supporter of this curent legislation, then your principles currently add up to absolultely nothing - other than a sell out. Never forget that an opinion on something is not a principle. It might be a victory on smokers today - but you - through your very own stupidity - are making yourself tomorrow's target. Dumbocracy at its best. _ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snaipyr Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 A dangerous path. What a bunch of dumbocrats you anti's are. Just wait till they say, in 30 years time, 'they've' decided to cull your disabled grandchild because: 'What value does he add? What point does he serve? What does he add to society in these days of cost assessment with 5 pensioners to every 1 worker? Just look at his wasted global carbon footprint!, He pollutes the human gene pool' etc. Exageration? Have you actually read 1984? Have you seen just how many of those so called surreal 'parallels' have today actually become a reality? I challenge anybody to tell me of anything in George Orwell's 1984 that is not actually a fact today. The bulk of '1984' has become fact in the last 6 years. Let's look at the real argument here. Nobody is asking any non-smoker to share a pub with a smoker - just leave people the right to do what they want to do with other people in private clubs or selected pubs etc. and for everyone to defend that right. It might be 'stinky' and you might not 'approve', but if it does not involve you and you can legally remove yourself from it - great. The fact is that smokers will not be breaching human rights if they smoke together away from you, because we are talking about a perfectly legal hobby. Why should politicians, business, lobby groups or people's opinions have any affect on this? - Our system, the system we all work for, and the same system that determines the price of our houses and the wages we receive each week, should be left to decide the outcome i.e. the true market can sort this out. Most anti-smokers are nothing but sanctimoneous people, and in the future when they need to desperately defend something they believe in, thinking they have a perfectly legal right to do that, the difference is that when they need my support I'll still be there to defend them. That is what principle is all about. The problem is that many anti's do not currently realise that today they are selling off very important values...and the saddest thing of all is that many anti-smokers have such a 'view' on this that they don't see the consequences of selling themselves out in the process! People have fought and died for our civil liberties, and people have served in the forces to defend those rights - but many people are currently willing to sacrifice those values in less than a generation (one prime minister's career actually). Anti's neither understand or appreciate what these human rights actually represent - until of course it dawns on them that they will need these principles at some point in the future to defend something they think is defensible. I am saddened that so many people on here have no principles whatsoever. And if you are misguided enough on this argument to think that you do have principles - then it's time you actually evaluated those principles and realised what they actually mean. I'm sorry, but if you are an anti, and a supporter of this curent legislation, then your principles currently add up to absolultely nothing - other than a sell out. Never forget that an opinion on something is not a principle. It might be a victory on smokers today - but you - through your very own stupidity - are making yourself tomorrow's target. Dumbocracy at its best. _ Right on! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 got to agree, what happens next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 got to agree, what happens next? Law can be repealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 its about time this was outlawed - great news. Indeedy, I also can't wait. It'll come to my Canton in Switzerland in September, so that means everywhere I go will be fag-free Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 A dangerous path. What a bunch of dumbocrats you anti's are. [Rant chopped] It might be a victory on smokers today - but you - through your very own stupidity - are making yourself tomorrow's target. Dumbocracy at its best. I blame care in the community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grant Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Canton??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Canton??? Swiss county! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 A dangerous path. What a bunch of dumbocrats you anti's are. Just wait till they say, in 30 years time, blah blah paranoia blah blah sensationalism blah persecution complex blah blah blah FYP I do not take civil liberties lightly, but just because a new law is enacted that prevents anything does not signal the enslavement of mankind or even the early stages of it. My grandfather did not fight a war in any sense to protect my right to smoke: he fought it to protect his family and the sovereignty of his country. Let me point out a few distinctions: Expressing opinions - we can choose to ignore them, so we should be free to express them. Drinking alcohol - we can choose whether to drink or not, and drinking per se does not cause direct harm to others, so we should be free to make that choice. As a public policy point that doesn't make it wrong to take measures to discourage excessive or binge drinking. Smoking - we can choose whether to smoke or not, but those around us have no real choice as to whether they are exposed to that smoke. It is therefore appropriate to place limits on it. It really devalues the concept of civil liberties when you use it to justify any action you take - do not equate democracy and free speech with the freedom to do anything you damn well please and to hell with the consequences to others: it is grossly offensive. The basic rights that underpin our society come with the responsibility to do no harm to those around us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deejay Denzel Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 Great news, Smoke outside... the walk to the front door will do you good. ..and on the way you will be handed 5 fruit/vegetables. Your daily fruit, fag and exercise intake all at once (you must smoke 20 fags whilst at the front door to keep you going) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lectro Posted January 31, 2007 Share Posted January 31, 2007 A dangerous path. What a bunch of dumbocrats you anti's are. Just wait till they say, in 30 years time, 'they've' decided to cull your disabled grandchild because: 'What value does he add? What point does he serve? What does he add to society in these days of cost assessment with 5 pensioners to every 1 worker? Just look at his wasted global carbon footprint!, He pollutes the human gene pool' etc. Exageration? Have you actually read 1984? Have you seen just how many of those so called surreal 'parallels' have today actually become a reality? I challenge anybody to tell me of anything in George Orwell's 1984 that is not actually a fact today. The bulk of '1984' has become fact in the last 6 years. Let's look at the real argument here. Nobody is asking any non-smoker to share a pub with a smoker - just leave people the right to do what they want to do with other people in private clubs or selected pubs etc. and for everyone to defend that right. It might be 'stinky' and you might not 'approve', but if it does not involve you and you can legally remove yourself from it - great. The fact is that smokers will not be breaching human rights if they smoke together away from you, because we are talking about a perfectly legal hobby. Why should politicians, business, lobby groups or people's opinions have any affect on this? - Our system, the system we all work for, and the same system that determines the price of our houses and the wages we receive each week, should be left to decide the outcome i.e. the true market can sort this out. Most anti-smokers are nothing but sanctimoneous people, and in the future when they need to desperately defend something they believe in, thinking they have a perfectly legal right to do that, the difference is that when they need my support I'll still be there to defend them. That is what principle is all about. The problem is that many anti's do not currently realise that today they are selling off very important values...and the saddest thing of all is that many anti-smokers have such a 'view' on this that they don't see the consequences of selling themselves out in the process! People have fought and died for our civil liberties, and people have served in the forces to defend those rights - but many people are currently willing to sacrifice those values in less than a generation (one prime minister's career actually). Anti's neither understand or appreciate what these human rights actually represent - until of course it dawns on them that they will need these principles at some point in the future to defend something they think is defensible. I am saddened that so many people on here have no principles whatsoever. And if you are misguided enough on this argument to think that you do have principles - then it's time you actually evaluated those principles and realised what they actually mean. I'm sorry, but if you are an anti, and a supporter of this curent legislation, then your principles currently add up to absolultely nothing - other than a sell out. Never forget that an opinion on something is not a principle. It might be a victory on smokers today - but you - through your very own stupidity - are making yourself tomorrow's target. Dumbocracy at its best. _ Funniest post of the year so far.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.