I wish you could sue smokers!

costapkt

Bettyboop wrote: »

If only you could whip out a chocolate bar and magazine and have a read while the smokers are enjoying the outside when you are supposed to be working

Why don't you ? Or do you eat to many chocolate bars ?

angie_baby

Smoking is bad i know that, but i do still smoke. Alot less than i did, im more of a social smoker and dont have a social life! So dont smoke alot anymore. Hopefully one day i will kick the habbit properly.

But im sure once that i read the government earns over 8 billion a year from taxes on fags and it actully cost the government 3 billion on smoking related deseases??

CAN I JUST SAY I THINK I READ THIS - I may be wrong. Can anyone find figures for 08 as i do think this is very interesting.

Also they say they dont market towards the young, but yet look at the B&H silver packets with there slidy sides and space to write messages. This to me is marketing towards youngters. And the goverment allow this. Why? Is it so they can make more money?

As i said i dont really know anything really, the whole thing just seems mad. I always said they ban smoking from public places, why not just ban it compleatly??

costapkt

Bettyboop wrote: »

So glad they did... next the ban will reach even other places that in the end you will have a confined area with sliding doors where you can all inhale and exhale toxin without non-smokers contracting second degree lung cancers!

Hitler was against smoking but had methods similar to what you describe.

Bettyboop

costapkt wrote: »

Why don't you ? Or do you eat to many chocolate bars ?

I eat chocolate regularly if you must know and I'm quite lucky as I don't put weight on

Volcano

costapkt wrote: »

Hitler was against smoking but had methods similar to what you describe.

"Reductio ad Hitlerum":

Unfortunately, it does not go without saying that in our examination we must avoid the fallacy that in the last decades has frequently been used as a substitute for the reductio ad absurdum: the reductio ad Hitlerum. A view is not refuted by the fact that it happens to have been shared by Hitler.

Leo Strauss, Natural Right and History (1976), pp. 42-43

In almost every heated debate, one side or the other—often both—plays the "Hitler card", that is, criticizes their opponent's position by associating it in some way with Adolf Hitler or the Nazis in general. This move is so common that it led Mike Godwin to develop the well-known "Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies": "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html

marleyboy

Until they ban smoking completely, which the government so far has not even considered, smokers are free to smoke, so long as it is outdoors where Drivers are free to drive their pollution guzzling 4X4's, (the equivalent of 200+ cigarettes in 1 hour), Drinkers are free to drink alcohol (which is just as deadly as tobacco - and serves just as much purpose).

NON smokers will have to get used to the idea that all these smokers are deliberately going around blowing smoke in NON smokers eyes, as much as the Curry Houses deliberately go around wafting the smell of Curries n Kebabs in our faces, and those horrid vehicles deliberately pumping fumes into our children's faces, even at child buggy level, for maximum effect. All because the government say we all can.

Non Smokers, welcome to the real World, where smoking indoors is relocated to the ever polluting outdoor life. Feel free to breathe it all in with the rest of us, or wear a mask.

Whatever you choose, either Drink, smoke, drive, eat fatty foods, spray cheap deodorants get used to the idea that others will always choose differently and LEGALLY, to your choice, as is their entitlement and as is yours.

hartcjhart

Bettyboop wrote: »

So glad they did... next the ban will reach even other places that in the end you will have a confined area with sliding doors where you can all inhale and exhale toxin without non-smokers contracting second degree lung cancers!

Now there has been some cob**ers sprouted by you anti smoke brigade but this really takes the biscuit,we have outside smoking shelters BUT they by LAW are not allowed to be enclosed AND there is no 100% percent scientific proof that secondhand/passive smoking causes lung cancer

biscit

It bugs me to see smokers treated as 2nd class citizens. They don't deserve better than 5th...

Volcano

hartcjhart wrote: »

AND there is no 100% percent scientific proof that secondhand/passive smoking causes lung cancer

The World Health Organisation thinks it does:https://www.who.int/inf-pr-1998/en/pr98-29.html

So does the NHS: http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Cancer-of-the-lung/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Their conclusions being reached after numerous scientific studies over the last 25-odd years. Lung cancer is only one of the diseases shown by hundreds of scientific studies that second-hand smoke causes death and disease in non-smokers.

hartcjhart

thats what I am saying,
thinks it does
ask the experts to state catergorically 100% and they will decline to do so

figures are massaged for the outcome you want