Ben Varrey Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Another good idea from the states. Of course smokers will moan about it, but it isn't just about what other people breathe. It's also about projecting the acceptability of smoking to others, particularly the young and easily influenced. America always leads the way on these things. It's almost inevitable that Europe will eventually follow. Shouldn't you be in the Middle East somewhere running a country by dictatorship? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Another good idea from the states. Of course smokers will moan about it, but it isn't just about what other people breathe. If it isn't then it is nobody's business. It's also about projecting the acceptability of smoking to others, particularly the young and easily influenced.And you think it is quite right to remove this projection to removing people's freedoms to smoke where they don't harm others, just so people are not influenced? What a wally! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 And I suppose cretins like you will continue to ignore the carcinogens emitted from vehicle exhausts, the adverse health consequences of alcohol, etc. I am fairly anti alcohol and would readily accept greater controls on it's supply and use. And I would support banning cars in areas of high pedestrian density, or at least polluting cars. So a generally cretinous conclusion you've jumped to there. Shouldn't you be in the Middle East somewhere running a country by dictatorship? I think you'll find the Middle East has a much more relaxed attitude to tobacco use than we do in the west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 And you think it is quite right to remove this projection to removing people's freedoms to smoke where they don't harm others, just so people are not influenced? Like so much of what you write I have had to read this nonsense several times to see what you're trying to say. And as usual, I can't make sense of it. It's just a random selection of words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Then let me re-state. You seem to think that removing people's freedoms to smoke (when it doesn't cause harm others) is quite all right. You think that putting others off smoking is enough justification. It's pretty obvious you have no concern for individual freedoms. Aside from the fact that it shows you have little respect for yourself or others, it seems you are quite willing to pay a very great price just to lessen to continuance of cigarette smoking. That's hard to make sense of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 And you think it is quite right to remove this projection to removing people's freedoms to smoke where they don't harm others, just so people are not influenced? Like so much of what you write I have had to read this nonsense several times to see what you're trying to say. And as usual, I can't make sense of it. It's just a random selection of words. For what may be only the second or third time I find myself in complete agreement with LDV. To put it in simple terms, the position is that smoking outdoors does not injure the health of others and banning it is just petty meddling by people with a penchant for interfering in other peoples' lives, presumably to boost their inadequate egos. I have yet to see or read of any reliable evidence that "second hand smoking" harms anyone anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 I am fairly anti alcohol and would readily accept greater controls on it's supply and use. And I would support banning cars in areas of high pedestrian density, or at least polluting cars. So a generally cretinous conclusion you've jumped to there. In that case what do you propose is done to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in any public places? And what do you suggest be done about banning restricting use of vehicles other than in congested areas (pollution travels)? How do you personally minimise the use of your car? I think you'll find the Middle East has a much more relaxed attitude to tobacco use than we do in the west. What a weak response, MTP. If you didn't get the Mermaid's meaning then you are truly cretinous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Waffle, waffle....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManxTaxPayer Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 In that case what do you propose is done to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in any public places? And what do you suggest be done about banning restricting use of vehicles other than in congested areas (pollution travels)? How do you personally minimise the use of your car? When policies dealing with these issues are proposed I shall ponder whether to lend my support to them or not. Otherwise, they are irrelevant to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Goblin Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 When policies dealing with these issues are proposed I shall ponder whether to lend my support to them or not. Otherwise, they are irrelevant to this thread. On the contrary, they are a logical extension to it. If you do not want to talk about it justify your opinion, fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Ah the good old 'two wrongs make a right' argument. Very good. Not that modern cars actually cause much pollution now anyway, unlike say, cigarettes, which are just as bad as they have always been Would you like to enter into a challenge to prove that theory? If you and I find two garages, of equal dimenions (say, 12ftx12ft)and no windows, door closed, I will sit and smoke all night long in my garage space and you can sit in yours with a car engine running and we'll see who walks out in the morning ha hah ah ah ah, i join you in the smoking garage then. well put Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Then let me re-state. You seem to think that removing people's freedoms to smoke (when it doesn't cause harm others) is quite all right. You think that putting others off smoking is enough justification. It's pretty obvious you have no concern for individual freedoms. Aside from the fact that it shows you have little respect for yourself or others, it seems you are quite willing to pay a very great price just to lessen to continuance of cigarette smoking. That's hard to make sense of! According to the studies, smoking in these public places does cause harm to others even if it's just to influence their behavour, but this is about the health of the smoker also. The city's authorities has the power in these places to influence the health of the population, including the smokers themselves. They've reduced smoking massively in the city with previous changes, and this is an extension of that. You can't drink in this kind of public space, you can't run around nekkid, etc. This isn't just about passive smoke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Bawden Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Then let me re-state. You seem to think that removing people's freedoms to smoke (when it doesn't cause harm others) is quite all right. You think that putting others off smoking is enough justification. It's pretty obvious you have no concern for individual freedoms. Aside from the fact that it shows you have little respect for yourself or others, it seems you are quite willing to pay a very great price just to lessen to continuance of cigarette smoking. That's hard to make sense of! According to the studies, smoking in these public places does cause harm to others even if it's just to influence their behavour, but this is about the health of the smoker also. The city's authorities has the power in these places to influence the health of the population, including the smokers themselves. They've reduced smoking massively in the city with previous changes, and this is an extension of that. You can't drink in this kind of public space, you can't run around nekkid, etc. This isn't just about passive smoke. Slim's world-everything is banned, oh except for bicycles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Slim's world-everything is banned, oh except for bicycles I've not supported the ban, I'm just passing on what I read about the justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweek Posted February 5, 2011 Share Posted February 5, 2011 Slim's world-everything is banned, oh except for bicycles Brakes sometimes smoke - I think we should take Slim's brakes off his bike - and then send him down Crellin's Hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.