You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Smoking ban in pub gardens.
April 24 2024 4.24pm

Smoking ban in pub gardens.

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 9 of 10 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

 

View Cucking Funt's Profile Cucking Funt Flag Clapham on the Back 18 Aug 15 1.54pm Send a Private Message to Cucking Funt Add Cucking Funt as a friend

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 1.22pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 12.56pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 10.36am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.47am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Aug 2015 10.17am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.04am

A very silly article.

Firstly, it assumes that everyone is like the person commenting, which they are not. In fact the vast majority don't smoke or want to be anywhere near someone who does.
Secondly, anyone who wants to spend that much time in a pub needs to get a life.
As far as eating a big pub lunch is concerned. Unlike nicotine and all the other carcinogens related to cigarettes,there is no evidence that enjoying a fatty, high calorie meal occasionally is bad for you. It's when you do it most days that it is likely to become a problem.

Why do some people want to take the wingeing of an addict seriously ?

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.05am)

Isn't a carcinogen.



I did not mean to imply that it was, but that is just a diversion on your part.

When it comes to people hooked on addictive substances telling me how they should have the right to pollute the air, I am very intolerant.

Smoking has no use other than to facilitate self indulgence.

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.47am)

All existence is an exercise in self indulgence but they have the right to pollute the air, provided they are not causing you any harm. They have this right, because as citizens they are entitled to use public space, as all citizens are.



Not if the law says they don't.

Our rights are balanced against the good of our society.

That's what laws are for. Surely you know this.

Smoking doesn't harm the 'good of society', in any real meaningful way, and contributes a large amount of revenue. The good of society is protected better by allowing freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, than dictating acceptable behavior, especially where consensus of right is divided among the populace.

Plus of course, you weren't presenting an argument based on social good and social well being, but on personal distaste and personal opinion.


Your post contradicts itself.

You state as if a fact that smoking doesn't harm society and then say that my view is just an opinion.

News alert. Your assertion is just an opinion as well.

The difference is that there is scientific proof that passive smoking is bad for the health. In any case, smoking is not harmless a past time, it is a genuine addiction. It boils down to a group of addicts and their enablers telling us, the majority of non smokers, that we should tolerate their disgusting unhealthy stink because we are mean and small minded not to.

Poppycock. Maybe we should allow pubs to open a crack house next to the kiddies play area. That will boost their turnover.

Edited by TheJudge (18 Aug 2015 1.23pm)


Jamie's right when he says it doesn't harm society - people have been smoking for hundreds of years and, guess what, society is still here. The things that really harm society are things like war, bubonic plague, floods and, dare I say it, do-gooders and social engineers who try to alter people's behaviour to align with their own particular views.

Sure, smoking can be harmful on a personal level and possibly to those in the immediate vicinity but, then again, so is the amount of air pollution generated by cars, buses, lorries, aircraft etc. and numerous industrial installations. In fact, the effect of second-hand smoke on the environment is negligible by comparison. Your view on this is totalitarian and you don't even seem to realise it.

 

Wife beating may be socially acceptable in Sheffield, but it is a different matter in Cheltenham
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View I'mPalace Till I Die's Profile I'mPalace Till I Die Flag 18 Aug 15 2.22pm Send a Private Message to I'mPalace Till I Die Add I'mPalace Till I Die as a friend

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 18 Aug 15 3.50pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 2.22pm

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself


Did I? I don't think so. Pollution from cars and lorries is also disgraceful, especially the grave error of promoting diesel as a cleaner fuel. The particulates in the air are far too high as is all the polluting that is going on globally. Smoking cannot even be said to be the bi product of a necessary activity. At least cars have and factories have a use.
Maybe I'll come round and crap on your lawn seeing as you think that we should all be passive about everything.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 18 Aug 15 3.54pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 18 Aug 2015 1.54pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 1.22pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 12.56pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 10.36am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.47am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Aug 2015 10.17am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.04am

A very silly article.

Firstly, it assumes that everyone is like the person commenting, which they are not. In fact the vast majority don't smoke or want to be anywhere near someone who does.
Secondly, anyone who wants to spend that much time in a pub needs to get a life.
As far as eating a big pub lunch is concerned. Unlike nicotine and all the other carcinogens related to cigarettes,there is no evidence that enjoying a fatty, high calorie meal occasionally is bad for you. It's when you do it most days that it is likely to become a problem.

Why do some people want to take the wingeing of an addict seriously ?

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.05am)

Isn't a carcinogen.



I did not mean to imply that it was, but that is just a diversion on your part.

When it comes to people hooked on addictive substances telling me how they should have the right to pollute the air, I am very intolerant.

Smoking has no use other than to facilitate self indulgence.

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.47am)

All existence is an exercise in self indulgence but they have the right to pollute the air, provided they are not causing you any harm. They have this right, because as citizens they are entitled to use public space, as all citizens are.



Not if the law says they don't.

Our rights are balanced against the good of our society.

That's what laws are for. Surely you know this.

Smoking doesn't harm the 'good of society', in any real meaningful way, and contributes a large amount of revenue. The good of society is protected better by allowing freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, than dictating acceptable behavior, especially where consensus of right is divided among the populace.

Plus of course, you weren't presenting an argument based on social good and social well being, but on personal distaste and personal opinion.


Your post contradicts itself.

You state as if a fact that smoking doesn't harm society and then say that my view is just an opinion.

News alert. Your assertion is just an opinion as well.

The difference is that there is scientific proof that passive smoking is bad for the health. In any case, smoking is not harmless a past time, it is a genuine addiction. It boils down to a group of addicts and their enablers telling us, the majority of non smokers, that we should tolerate their disgusting unhealthy stink because we are mean and small minded not to.

Poppycock. Maybe we should allow pubs to open a crack house next to the kiddies play area. That will boost their turnover.

Edited by TheJudge (18 Aug 2015 1.23pm)


Jamie's right when he says it doesn't harm society - people have been smoking for hundreds of years and, guess what, society is still here. The things that really harm society are things like war, bubonic plague, floods and, dare I say it, do-gooders and social engineers who try to alter people's behaviour to align with their own particular views.

Sure, smoking can be harmful on a personal level and possibly to those in the immediate vicinity but, then again, so is the amount of air pollution generated by cars, buses, lorries, aircraft etc. and numerous industrial installations. In fact, the effect of second-hand smoke on the environment is negligible by comparison. Your view on this is totalitarian and you don't even seem to realise it.


People have been murdering each other for hundreds of years too. Does that make it alrght too ?

In case you weren't aware, society is made up of people. Things that affect people affect society.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View I'mPalace Till I Die's Profile I'mPalace Till I Die Flag 18 Aug 15 4.07pm Send a Private Message to I'mPalace Till I Die Add I'mPalace Till I Die as a friend

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.50pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 2.22pm

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself


Did I? I don't think so. Pollution from cars and lorries is also disgraceful, especially the grave error of promoting diesel as a cleaner fuel. The particulates in the air are far too high as is all the polluting that is going on globally. Smoking cannot even be said to be the bi product of a necessary activity. At least cars have and factories have a use.
Maybe I'll come round and crap on your lawn seeing as you think that we should all be passive about everything.


Haha, that did make me chuckle. If you come and crap on my lawn I'll turn the sprinklers on. But seriously are you saying that you don't use a car other than for essential business purposes then if you disagree with them as much as smoking? Why do they serve more of a purpose than smoking compared to social and domestic pleasure purposes? They are also self-indulgent instruments for the human race

Edited by I'mPalace Till I Die (18 Aug 2015 4.09pm)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 Aug 15 4.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.54pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 18 Aug 2015 1.54pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 1.22pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 12.56pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 10.36am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.47am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Aug 2015 10.17am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.04am

A very silly article.

Firstly, it assumes that everyone is like the person commenting, which they are not. In fact the vast majority don't smoke or want to be anywhere near someone who does.
Secondly, anyone who wants to spend that much time in a pub needs to get a life.
As far as eating a big pub lunch is concerned. Unlike nicotine and all the other carcinogens related to cigarettes,there is no evidence that enjoying a fatty, high calorie meal occasionally is bad for you. It's when you do it most days that it is likely to become a problem.

Why do some people want to take the wingeing of an addict seriously ?

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.05am)

Isn't a carcinogen.



I did not mean to imply that it was, but that is just a diversion on your part.

When it comes to people hooked on addictive substances telling me how they should have the right to pollute the air, I am very intolerant.

Smoking has no use other than to facilitate self indulgence.

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.47am)

All existence is an exercise in self indulgence but they have the right to pollute the air, provided they are not causing you any harm. They have this right, because as citizens they are entitled to use public space, as all citizens are.



Not if the law says they don't.

Our rights are balanced against the good of our society.

That's what laws are for. Surely you know this.

Smoking doesn't harm the 'good of society', in any real meaningful way, and contributes a large amount of revenue. The good of society is protected better by allowing freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, than dictating acceptable behavior, especially where consensus of right is divided among the populace.

Plus of course, you weren't presenting an argument based on social good and social well being, but on personal distaste and personal opinion.


Your post contradicts itself.

You state as if a fact that smoking doesn't harm society and then say that my view is just an opinion.

News alert. Your assertion is just an opinion as well.

The difference is that there is scientific proof that passive smoking is bad for the health. In any case, smoking is not harmless a past time, it is a genuine addiction. It boils down to a group of addicts and their enablers telling us, the majority of non smokers, that we should tolerate their disgusting unhealthy stink because we are mean and small minded not to.

Poppycock. Maybe we should allow pubs to open a crack house next to the kiddies play area. That will boost their turnover.

Edited by TheJudge (18 Aug 2015 1.23pm)


Jamie's right when he says it doesn't harm society - people have been smoking for hundreds of years and, guess what, society is still here. The things that really harm society are things like war, bubonic plague, floods and, dare I say it, do-gooders and social engineers who try to alter people's behaviour to align with their own particular views.

Sure, smoking can be harmful on a personal level and possibly to those in the immediate vicinity but, then again, so is the amount of air pollution generated by cars, buses, lorries, aircraft etc. and numerous industrial installations. In fact, the effect of second-hand smoke on the environment is negligible by comparison. Your view on this is totalitarian and you don't even seem to realise it.


People have been murdering each other for hundreds of years too. Does that make it alrght too ?

In case you weren't aware, society is made up of people. Things that affect people affect society.

By definition, murder is always unacceptable, as its the unjustifiable homicide on another person and has never been accepted. Presumably you mean killing each other. And yes, in some cases, that is perfectly accepted by society. Its also perfectly legal to kill yourself.

Society is indeed made up of people, lots of very different people, all with different needs, desires and ideas, all of whom combine to make up society; including smokers and non-smokers.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 18 Aug 15 4.29pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 4.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.50pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 2.22pm

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself


Did I? I don't think so. Pollution from cars and lorries is also disgraceful, especially the grave error of promoting diesel as a cleaner fuel. The particulates in the air are far too high as is all the polluting that is going on globally. Smoking cannot even be said to be the bi product of a necessary activity. At least cars have and factories have a use.
Maybe I'll come round and crap on your lawn seeing as you think that we should all be passive about everything.


Haha, that did make me chuckle. If you come and crap on my lawn I'll turn the sprinklers on. But seriously are you saying that you don't use a car other than for essential business purposes then if you disagree with them as much as smoking? Why do they serve more of a purpose than smoking compared to social and domestic pleasure purposes? They are also self-indulgent instruments for the human race

Edited by I'mPalace Till I Die (18 Aug 2015 4.09pm)

In an ideal World there would be no man made pollution.

I think that covers it.

Banning smoking in public places is a no brainer for me. Smokers can smoke at home or give up smoking. That seems like a fair compromise.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 18 Aug 15 4.32pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 4.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.54pm

Quote Cucking Funt at 18 Aug 2015 1.54pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 1.22pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 12.56pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 10.36am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 Aug 2015 9.43am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.47am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 15 Aug 2015 10.17am

Quote TheJudge at 15 Aug 2015 10.04am

A very silly article.

Firstly, it assumes that everyone is like the person commenting, which they are not. In fact the vast majority don't smoke or want to be anywhere near someone who does.
Secondly, anyone who wants to spend that much time in a pub needs to get a life.
As far as eating a big pub lunch is concerned. Unlike nicotine and all the other carcinogens related to cigarettes,there is no evidence that enjoying a fatty, high calorie meal occasionally is bad for you. It's when you do it most days that it is likely to become a problem.

Why do some people want to take the wingeing of an addict seriously ?

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.05am)

Isn't a carcinogen.



I did not mean to imply that it was, but that is just a diversion on your part.

When it comes to people hooked on addictive substances telling me how they should have the right to pollute the air, I am very intolerant.

Smoking has no use other than to facilitate self indulgence.

Edited by TheJudge (15 Aug 2015 10.47am)

All existence is an exercise in self indulgence but they have the right to pollute the air, provided they are not causing you any harm. They have this right, because as citizens they are entitled to use public space, as all citizens are.



Not if the law says they don't.

Our rights are balanced against the good of our society.

That's what laws are for. Surely you know this.

Smoking doesn't harm the 'good of society', in any real meaningful way, and contributes a large amount of revenue. The good of society is protected better by allowing freedom of individuals to make decisions for themselves, than dictating acceptable behavior, especially where consensus of right is divided among the populace.

Plus of course, you weren't presenting an argument based on social good and social well being, but on personal distaste and personal opinion.


Your post contradicts itself.

You state as if a fact that smoking doesn't harm society and then say that my view is just an opinion.

News alert. Your assertion is just an opinion as well.

The difference is that there is scientific proof that passive smoking is bad for the health. In any case, smoking is not harmless a past time, it is a genuine addiction. It boils down to a group of addicts and their enablers telling us, the majority of non smokers, that we should tolerate their disgusting unhealthy stink because we are mean and small minded not to.

Poppycock. Maybe we should allow pubs to open a crack house next to the kiddies play area. That will boost their turnover.

Edited by TheJudge (18 Aug 2015 1.23pm)


Jamie's right when he says it doesn't harm society - people have been smoking for hundreds of years and, guess what, society is still here. The things that really harm society are things like war, bubonic plague, floods and, dare I say it, do-gooders and social engineers who try to alter people's behaviour to align with their own particular views.

Sure, smoking can be harmful on a personal level and possibly to those in the immediate vicinity but, then again, so is the amount of air pollution generated by cars, buses, lorries, aircraft etc. and numerous industrial installations. In fact, the effect of second-hand smoke on the environment is negligible by comparison. Your view on this is totalitarian and you don't even seem to realise it.


People have been murdering each other for hundreds of years too. Does that make it alrght too ?

In case you weren't aware, society is made up of people. Things that affect people affect society.

By definition, murder is always unacceptable, as its the unjustifiable homicide on another person and has never been accepted. Presumably you mean killing each other. And yes, in some cases, that is perfectly accepted by society. Its also perfectly legal to kill yourself.

Society is indeed made up of people, lots of very different people, all with different needs, desires and ideas, all of whom combine to make up society; including smokers and non-smokers.



I mean that just because something has been going on for ages it does make it desirable or acceptable.

If smoking didn't harm you, we could all smoke our arses off and it wouldn't matter.
Brown teeth and yellow stained ceilings would have to remain fashionable though.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 18 Aug 15 4.33pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 4.29pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 4.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.50pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 2.22pm

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself


Did I? I don't think so. Pollution from cars and lorries is also disgraceful, especially the grave error of promoting diesel as a cleaner fuel. The particulates in the air are far too high as is all the polluting that is going on globally. Smoking cannot even be said to be the bi product of a necessary activity. At least cars have and factories have a use.
Maybe I'll come round and crap on your lawn seeing as you think that we should all be passive about everything.


Haha, that did make me chuckle. If you come and crap on my lawn I'll turn the sprinklers on. But seriously are you saying that you don't use a car other than for essential business purposes then if you disagree with them as much as smoking? Why do they serve more of a purpose than smoking compared to social and domestic pleasure purposes? They are also self-indulgent instruments for the human race

Edited by I'mPalace Till I Die (18 Aug 2015 4.09pm)

In an ideal World there would be no man made pollution.

I think that covers it.

Banning smoking in public places is a no brainer for me. Smokers can smoke at home or give up smoking. That seems like a fair compromise.


That would require no humans, not sure how ideal you'd find that.

You also need to research the word compromise.

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 18 Aug 15 4.51pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Aug 2015 4.33pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 4.29pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 4.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.50pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 2.22pm

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself


Did I? I don't think so. Pollution from cars and lorries is also disgraceful, especially the grave error of promoting diesel as a cleaner fuel. The particulates in the air are far too high as is all the polluting that is going on globally. Smoking cannot even be said to be the bi product of a necessary activity. At least cars have and factories have a use.
Maybe I'll come round and crap on your lawn seeing as you think that we should all be passive about everything.


Haha, that did make me chuckle. If you come and crap on my lawn I'll turn the sprinklers on. But seriously are you saying that you don't use a car other than for essential business purposes then if you disagree with them as much as smoking? Why do they serve more of a purpose than smoking compared to social and domestic pleasure purposes? They are also self-indulgent instruments for the human race

Edited by I'mPalace Till I Die (18 Aug 2015 4.09pm)

In an ideal World there would be no man made pollution.

I think that covers it.

Banning smoking in public places is a no brainer for me. Smokers can smoke at home or give up smoking. That seems like a fair compromise.


That would require no humans, not sure how ideal you'd find that.

You also need to research the word compromise.

A world with a lot less humans could be very pleasant.

I'll let people on the new quiet Earth smoke at home if they make me their king.

Now that is compromise. ha ha.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stuk's Profile Stuk Flag Top half 18 Aug 15 4.53pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 4.51pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Aug 2015 4.33pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 4.29pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 4.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.50pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 2.22pm

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself


Did I? I don't think so. Pollution from cars and lorries is also disgraceful, especially the grave error of promoting diesel as a cleaner fuel. The particulates in the air are far too high as is all the polluting that is going on globally. Smoking cannot even be said to be the bi product of a necessary activity. At least cars have and factories have a use.
Maybe I'll come round and crap on your lawn seeing as you think that we should all be passive about everything.


Haha, that did make me chuckle. If you come and crap on my lawn I'll turn the sprinklers on. But seriously are you saying that you don't use a car other than for essential business purposes then if you disagree with them as much as smoking? Why do they serve more of a purpose than smoking compared to social and domestic pleasure purposes? They are also self-indulgent instruments for the human race

Edited by I'mPalace Till I Die (18 Aug 2015 4.09pm)

In an ideal World there would be no man made pollution.

I think that covers it.

Banning smoking in public places is a no brainer for me. Smokers can smoke at home or give up smoking. That seems like a fair compromise.


That would require no humans, not sure how ideal you'd find that.

You also need to research the word compromise.

A world with a lot less humans could be very pleasant.

I'll let people on the new quiet Earth smoke at home if they make me their king.

Now that is compromise. ha ha.

I quite agree, but that's not the same as no humans, which is what would be required for no man made pollution.

 

Optimistic as ever
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 18 Aug 15 5.04pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Aug 2015 4.53pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 4.51pm

Quote Stuk at 18 Aug 2015 4.33pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 4.29pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 4.07pm

Quote TheJudge at 18 Aug 2015 3.50pm

Quote I'mPalace Till I Die at 18 Aug 2015 2.22pm

Judge - You mentioned earlier that pollution from motor vehicles is not the same. But if you drive to a football match for example, this is not essential and is clearly self indulgent. There are other alternatives should you choose such as electric cars/ e-cigarettes. But these still have some negative impact too. You sound like the fun police with your totalitarian views or maybe you are just hypocritical and only picking on self indulgent activities that don't suit your lifestyle and personal choices. I bet you live a far from perfect green friendly and anti-indulgent life! Who gives you the right to cherry pick what someone else should and should not do whilst living a life of sin (sin is based upon self-indulgence) yourself


Did I? I don't think so. Pollution from cars and lorries is also disgraceful, especially the grave error of promoting diesel as a cleaner fuel. The particulates in the air are far too high as is all the polluting that is going on globally. Smoking cannot even be said to be the bi product of a necessary activity. At least cars have and factories have a use.
Maybe I'll come round and crap on your lawn seeing as you think that we should all be passive about everything.


Haha, that did make me chuckle. If you come and crap on my lawn I'll turn the sprinklers on. But seriously are you saying that you don't use a car other than for essential business purposes then if you disagree with them as much as smoking? Why do they serve more of a purpose than smoking compared to social and domestic pleasure purposes? They are also self-indulgent instruments for the human race

Edited by I'mPalace Till I Die (18 Aug 2015 4.09pm)

In an ideal World there would be no man made pollution.

I think that covers it.

Banning smoking in public places is a no brainer for me. Smokers can smoke at home or give up smoking. That seems like a fair compromise.


That would require no humans, not sure how ideal you'd find that.

You also need to research the word compromise.

A world with a lot less humans could be very pleasant.

I'll let people on the new quiet Earth smoke at home if they make me their king.

Now that is compromise. ha ha.

I quite agree, but that's not the same as no humans, which is what would be required for no man made pollution.

Thanks for pointing that out.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 9 of 10 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Smoking ban in pub gardens.