Mesa no smokey
Poll
Do you smoke?
| No, never | 56% | 56% - 60 | ||||
| Used to, but quit | 20% | 20% - 22 | ||||
| Light smoker, < a pack a day | 13% | 13% - 14 | ||||
| Moderate, a pack a day | 6% | 6% - 7 | ||||
| heavy, > a pack a day | 3% | 3% - 4 | ||||
| Total: 107 | ||||||
I used to smoke pot in college, but I've never been into tobacco.
This.FatherTed wrote:
posting to say the most annoying people in the world are ex-smokers-turned preachers
'well lad when i was young, i was on 4000gazzilion a day, now i've quit ive never felt better. you should quit too!'
i want to stab people like that.
Really pisses me off, worst ones are the ones that started at age 3 and patronisingly tell you everything they know about smoking XD
on topic: I smoke a 12.5g every couple of weeks, used to smoke about 50g a week but cut down heavily for some reason.
I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.
Wrong, they tax it because petrol is generally an imported item so its bad for the balance of trade and causes at least local pollution.JohnG@lt wrote:
I dismissed it because it is completely irrelevant and false. The price of gas in places like Europe is much higher because they tax it to death in order to get people to ride mass transit systems.nlsme1 wrote:
I already pointed out your hypocrisy, and you dismissed it.nlsme1 wrote:
Being one that loves oil so much, how can you say this, while knowing the GOVERNMENT is the main reason our gas is half the cost as the rest of the world?
Its one of the few imports which can be hammered without the free traders griping.
Australia has banned smoking in public places, mainly to protect the people who work in bars and were exposed to smoke for their working day.
Fuck Israel
Balance of trade is such a flawed and archaic statisticDilbert_X wrote:
Wrong, they tax it because petrol is generally an imported item so its bad for the balance of trade and causes at least local pollution.JohnG@lt wrote:
I dismissed it because it is completely irrelevant and false. The price of gas in places like Europe is much higher because they tax it to death in order to get people to ride mass transit systems.nlsme1 wrote:
I already pointed out your hypocrisy, and you dismissed it.
Its one of the few imports which can be hammered without the free traders griping.
Australia has banned smoking in public places, mainly to protect the people who work in bars and were exposed to smoke for their working day.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
I think it should be up to business' to decide whether they want a smoking/non-smoking section or not tbh... Don't like working around smokers? find a new job.Dilbert_X wrote:
Wrong, they tax it because petrol is generally an imported item so its bad for the balance of trade and causes at least local pollution.JohnG@lt wrote:
I dismissed it because it is completely irrelevant and false. The price of gas in places like Europe is much higher because they tax it to death in order to get people to ride mass transit systems.nlsme1 wrote:
I already pointed out your hypocrisy, and you dismissed it.
Its one of the few imports which can be hammered without the free traders griping.
Australia has banned smoking in public places, mainly to protect the people who work in bars and were exposed to smoke for their working day.
According to your flawed and discredited theoriesJohnG@lt wrote:
Balance of trade is such a flawed and archaic statistic
If people are too dumb to realise something they're doing is dumb and anti-social then by all means tax them.
Fuck Israel
You could apply that theory to all workplace health and safety.Cybargs wrote:
I think it should be up to business' to decide whether they want a smoking/non-smoking section or not tbh... Don't like working around smokers? find a new job.
Want a hard hat? Too bad, find another job.
Fuck Israel
Apples and oranges. And yeah if your boss is such a cunt go work somewhere else. Most business' want to have good working conditions to attract more quality workers tbh.Dilbert_X wrote:
You could apply that theory to all workplace health and safety.Cybargs wrote:
I think it should be up to business' to decide whether they want a smoking/non-smoking section or not tbh... Don't like working around smokers? find a new job.
Want a hard hat? Too bad, find another job.
There should be smoking bars, then all the smokers and people that don't mind smoke can stay indoors and smoke rather than going out in bitterly cold, freezing snow.
I knew britains weather is odd at times...jord wrote:
There should be smoking bars, then all the smokers and people that don't mind smoke can stay indoors and smoke rather than going out in bitterly cold, freezing snow.
But snow in June?
tbh making it a choice to be a smoking or non-smoking bars. 90% would chose smoking because they'd not want to shut potential customers out...
It has to be decided by law or nothing will happen...
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Yeah I smoke, rollies / Golden Vagina. Still play sport, Ive noticed now Im about the only one of all of my mates that smoke.
Then don't go to a bar or ask the smoker to stop when you're next to them, I'm sure most would say ok. Why gives you the right to tell someone not to smoke in a bar?FloppY_ wrote:
I knew britains weather is odd at times...jord wrote:
There should be smoking bars, then all the smokers and people that don't mind smoke can stay indoors and smoke rather than going out in bitterly cold, freezing snow.
But snow in June?
tbh making it a choice to be a smoking or non-smoking bars. 90% would chose smoking because they'd not want to shut potential customers out...
It has to be decided by law or nothing will happen...
The fact that smoking is so unhealthy... and the fact that the smoke itself is fucking annoying...Cybargs wrote:
Then don't go to a bar or ask the smoker to stop when you're next to them, I'm sure most would say ok. Why gives you the right to tell someone not to smoke in a bar?FloppY_ wrote:
I knew britains weather is odd at times...jord wrote:
There should be smoking bars, then all the smokers and people that don't mind smoke can stay indoors and smoke rather than going out in bitterly cold, freezing snow.
But snow in June?
tbh making it a choice to be a smoking or non-smoking bars. 90% would chose smoking because they'd not want to shut potential customers out...
It has to be decided by law or nothing will happen...
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
You eating a steak is bad for the environment, you using a computer right now is killing the earth, should we ban it too? No government or person can tell another what he or she can do with their own body. Their body belongs to them, not to you or anyone else.FloppY_ wrote:
The fact that smoking is so unhealthy... and the fact that the smoke itself is fucking annoying...Cybargs wrote:
Then don't go to a bar or ask the smoker to stop when you're next to them, I'm sure most would say ok. Why gives you the right to tell someone not to smoke in a bar?FloppY_ wrote:
I knew britains weather is odd at times...
But snow in June?
tbh making it a choice to be a smoking or non-smoking bars. 90% would chose smoking because they'd not want to shut potential customers out...
It has to be decided by law or nothing will happen...
Edit: If you find smokers so annoying then why don't you go somewhere else?
Last edited by Cybargs (2010-06-24 09:03:21)
I wasn't talking about this particular season, just in general. It can get very cold at times here.FloppY_ wrote:
I knew britains weather is odd at times...jord wrote:
There should be smoking bars, then all the smokers and people that don't mind smoke can stay indoors and smoke rather than going out in bitterly cold, freezing snow.
But snow in June?
tbh making it a choice to be a smoking or non-smoking bars. 90% would chose smoking because they'd not want to shut potential customers out...
It has to be decided by law or nothing will happen...
If 90% would chose to allow smoking in their bars that tells you something about how united bar owners are. Though it wouldn't be 90% anyway, because there's still a lot of anti smoking people that would go to non smoking bars. Supply and demand.
Supply and demand is a bitch when it doesn't go your way doesn't itjord wrote:
I wasn't talking about this particular season, just in general. It can get very cold at times here.FloppY_ wrote:
I knew britains weather is odd at times...jord wrote:
There should be smoking bars, then all the smokers and people that don't mind smoke can stay indoors and smoke rather than going out in bitterly cold, freezing snow.
But snow in June?
tbh making it a choice to be a smoking or non-smoking bars. 90% would chose smoking because they'd not want to shut potential customers out...
It has to be decided by law or nothing will happen...
If 90% would chose to allow smoking in their bars that tells you something about how united bar owners are. Though it wouldn't be 90% anyway, because there's still a lot of anti smoking people that would go to non smoking bars. Supply and demand.
There used to be a great cigar bar kinda close to where I live, they went out of business thoughjord wrote:
There should be smoking bars, then all the smokers and people that don't mind smoke can stay indoors and smoke rather than going out in bitterly cold, freezing snow.
And I think it's a royal pain to get a license to open up a new one. My city prefers spending its energy on keeping people from exercising their freedom to choose what to do with their lives instead of spending it on fighting crime or improving the schools.
I used to smoke quite a bit, some days I'd smoke two packs a day, others I'd smoke one cig. I was never really addicted though, and one day I just stopped going out to smoke. I still have a completely wrapped pack of Camel Lights in my drawer.
Nope I applaud the absence of intrusion on life liberty and happiness by anyone toward anyone, ( a very consistent stance I might add) and a smoker intrudes on anothers quality of life against their will in that regard.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, like a liberal, you would impose conformity on anyone that does not fit into the mold you wish them to be in. Interesting. Don't ever make any arguments for freedom on this forum again please, I'll just be forced to point out your hypocrisy.lowing wrote:
It isn't, it is the price you pay for being an obnoxious inconsiderate asshole to all those around you that do not want to breathe YOUR cigarette smoke. You pay a higher tax for them, and you are relegated to a red square in the back lot of a building, and I applaud it.JohnG@lt wrote:
Individual decisions should not be influenced by government taxation.
You are not going to call me a hypocrite because you idiotically claim it is intrusive to prevent someone from being an intrusion.
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-24 09:50:09)
Where would the smoking section begin or end? Smoking section ends at row 13 and non-smoking starts at row 14? Yeah they tried that bullshit in restaurants as well. Doesn't work, since smoke does not seem to obey the rules and lingers where it damn well wants too.steelie34 wrote:
not necessarily... what about sporting events like baseball games, where smokers have to leave their seats they paid for like everyone else, and go to a special little area out of the view of the game to smoke? you don't think that's discriminatory? why not have smoking seating sections at ballparks?lowing wrote:
The designated smoking areas are not discriminatory toward smokers, they are considerate toward non-smokers, allowing smokers to kill them selves at their leisure without dragging anyone else down with them.
(i'm not really against it, i'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of discussion)
How about you're intruding on someone's lifestyle choice?lowing wrote:
Nope I applaud the absence of intrusion on life liberty and happiness by anyone toward anyone, ( a very consistent stance I might add) and a smoker intrudes on anothers quality of life against their will in that regard.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, like a liberal, you would impose conformity on anyone that does not fit into the mold you wish them to be in. Interesting. Don't ever make any arguments for freedom on this forum again please, I'll just be forced to point out your hypocrisy.lowing wrote:
It isn't, it is the price you pay for being an obnoxious inconsiderate asshole to all those around you that do not want to breathe YOUR cigarette smoke. You pay a higher tax for them, and you are relegated to a red square in the back lot of a building, and I applaud it.
You are not going to call me a hypocrite because you idiotically claim it is intrusive to prevent someone from being an intrusion.
I am not, I approve of not allowing you to force your life style on others against their will.Cybargs wrote:
How about you're intruding on someone's lifestyle choice?lowing wrote:
Nope I applaud the absence of intrusion on life liberty and happiness by anyone toward anyone, ( a very consistent stance I might add) and a smoker intrudes on anothers quality of life against their will in that regard.JohnG@lt wrote:
So, like a liberal, you would impose conformity on anyone that does not fit into the mold you wish them to be in. Interesting. Don't ever make any arguments for freedom on this forum again please, I'll just be forced to point out your hypocrisy.
You are not going to call me a hypocrite because you idiotically claim it is intrusive to prevent someone from being an intrusion.
Unless you are going to take the stance that breathing is an intrusion as much as smoking. In which case we having nothing more to talk about because of the stupidity of that position.
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-24 09:54:37)
So why not have choices. Where we have smoking bars, and none smoking bars and let the OWNERS(people who pay rent or own the building) decide... So then none smokers can go where they want and smokers can go where they want.lowing wrote:
I am not, I am approve of not allowing you to force your life style on others against their will.Cybargs wrote:
How about you're intruding on someone's lifestyle choice?lowing wrote:
Nope I applaud the absence of intrusion on life liberty and happiness by anyone toward anyone, ( a very consistent stance I might add) and a smoker intrudes on anothers quality of life against their will in that regard.
You are not going to call me a hypocrite because you idiotically claim it is intrusive to prevent someone from being an intrusion.
Unless you are going to take the stance that breathing is an intrusion as much as smoking. In which case we having nothing more to talk about because of the stupidity of that position.
That way instead of your silly taking away peoples rights, you have the choice.
But then again Lowing you don't seem to like personal choice..
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2010-06-24 09:57:03)
If I am not mistaken an owner has the right to make his or her establishment smoking or non smoking as they see fit.cpt.fass1 wrote:
So why not have choices. Where we have smoking bars, and none smoking bars and let the OWNERS(people who pay rent or own the building) decide... So then none smokers can go where they want and smokers can go where they want.lowing wrote:
I am not, I am approve of not allowing you to force your life style on others against their will.Cybargs wrote:
How about you're intruding on someone's lifestyle choice?
Unless you are going to take the stance that breathing is an intrusion as much as smoking. In which case we having nothing more to talk about because of the stupidity of that position.
That way instead of your silly taking away peoples rights, you have the choice.
I love personal choice, why are you defending a choice that affects others that do not want ot be affected? Sounds silly to me
Last edited by lowing (2010-06-24 09:58:37)