News for all Blightys

Recommended Videos

Conqueror Kenny

New member
Jan 14, 2008
2,824
0
0
Borris said:
Well im going it take away oyster cards form children... err... if they are naughty
now how is the man that said that now the mayor if london. oh lord shoot me now.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
conqueror Kenny said:
Borris said:
Well im going it take away oyster cards form children... err... if they are naughty
now how is the man that said that now the mayor if london. oh lord shoot me now.
Well, he's better than Archer :)

jeffers said:
Also, I'm sorry to hear about those pubs near you, but I don't think that proves the ban doesn't work. As I said, all the pubs in a ten mile radius of me are doing a roaring trade (I've just come back from a pretty hellish shift, as it happens). Specifically, at the pub where I work, we've been getting a lot more families coming in for meals since the ban took place. Maybe it's coincident, but I don't think so.
Well, a quote from my boss "If they don't want my trade, then f*** 'em"; and our troupe hasn't been seen in a pub since. That's about 40 pints gone straight there.
Now either you've got a much higher mark-up on food, or you have to be losing money. And it still doesn't help those legally addicted smokers; in fact, any pub that allows little screaming rugrats into the pub loses my vote anyway.

Let's also take a quick look at the 1000% rise in female arrest for drunk and disorderly that's happened since the smoking ban. And of the price slashings of alcohol by the supermarkets.

As for the research linking on Wiki, Penn and Teller showed that most of it is based on a VERY dodgy survey done in the late 70's(I think) where the hypothesis is only looking for links between passive smoking and cancer; both of which are very hard to prove.

Now you ask any Doctor and they'll tell you that within 10 years of stopping smoking, your cancer risk is back to that of a normal person; but...how can that be?

Yes, I know it's dangerous (It's the only thing I see when I open the packet); Surprisingly Methadone doesn't have that warning...or Alcopops...Or Red Bull...Or Pro-Plus...or even Ritalin/Phalidomide/Valium/Tartrazine/Viagra, products that can kill you on your first time and are as addictive.

(Damn I need a smoke now...)

If we are such a tolerant society though, and we have shown steps towards it, there needs to be an understanding that an almost definitively male passtime (Sitting around the campfire) has been torn apart by it's very roots and passed onto Women (who don't have the BMI to cope with it) and Families (Because they have the spending power).

Now, if you want to have a family friendly place that serves alcohol and doesn't serve smokers, that's fine. Won't see me dead in it, but that's fine.

But: If the Moslems can have a Temple, and the Sikhs can have a Temple, and you are still selling nicotine sticks at every corner, please understand that those of us that smoke, and those of us who don't mind smoke, really want to be accepted as people again.
 

Giarc1982

New member
May 4, 2008
1
0
0
nightfish said:
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Liberal Democrats- no-one knows what they stand for. They excel in being forgettable. People who've lost faith in Labour but who can't bring themselves to vote Conservative tend to vote for them. I may be among them at the next election.
I voted LD last time simply because I admired Charles Kennedy. Thought he was a great alternative to the two main parties and it showed. The LD were successful under his reign and I actually thought that under him the LD could break the two party system thats been here for decades. However his party stabbed him in the back and acted utterly pathetic so they lost my vote.
Yeah what they did to CK really annoyed me, since then they've really lost focus certainly I thought CK was trying to position them on the traditional Labour values since "New Labour" and "New Tory" are dificult to distinguish but now, they well I'm not sure what this new guy stands for, I did not like Ming Cambells environment tax stuff.

I think Labours majority needs to be cut so a few labour rebells could stop idiotic policy decicions like the 10p tax axe(I can't believe it was Labour who did that)
 

OneHP

Optimist Laureate
Jan 31, 2008
342
0
0
j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Let's also take a quick look at the 1000% rise in female arrest for drunk and disorderly that's happened since the smoking ban. And of the price slashings of alcohol by the supermarkets.
I fail to see how this links with the smoking ban. If you ask me, it's the creation of alcopops that are responsible for the rise in drunk and disorderly behaviour.
I blame the parents, no joke.
 
Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Really haven't the will to keep fighting on a polarised argument, but I'll address some salient points.

They just smoke outside round the back.
Can they drink as well out there? There's a lot of places where it's either smoke or drink.

I fail to see how this links with the smoking ban. If you ask me, it's the creation of alcopops that are responsible for the rise in drunk and disorderly behaviour.
Smokers can't drink and smoke = Smokers drink at home = Smokers friends drink at their homes = Supermarkets get the alcopops sales = Lots more cheapy cheapy alcohol and no reason to stop.

However, the science community as a whole still thinks it's bad for you. This isn't an argument between different factions of the science community. Every doctor, scientist and science teacher I know has said that passive smoking is dangerous.
The science community as a whole think we must eat 5 portions of fruit and veg a day. Does anyone here? Like I said there's a lot of other things that are equally as bad that aren't demonised.

Because unless your enough of an idiot to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking or taking methadone, you're not likely to harm anyone else, only yourself.
You are far more likely to get involved in brawls, abuse, damage, lost work hours than if you smoke though. Wanna ask an ambulance/taxi driver how much drink ruins lives?

Just as a point: I am not defending smoking in any way. It IS a disgusting smelly habit that can harm others; but so is driving.

The scientific community, as I've said, believes that passive smoking is dangerous. Therefore, by lighting up, you're not just hurting yourself, but the people around you.
Then it should either be accepted in certain places or banned outright. I've no problem one way or the other.

I'm not trying to judge you or anything. I'm just saying, passive smoking is dangerous, and people need to be aware of that.
There are warnings on every pack sold. There aren't on Red Bull etc. despite being outlawed in certain countries. We do know the risk, but we're addicts.

So, hang on, just because you can't have a smoke in a place, you avoid it entirely?
Try to understand what nicotine does to you. After ten minutes, the narcotic effect wears off and your body suffers cravings. After four hours, your personality will shift towards aggression as your body tries to get a 'fix'. Watch any airport in the world when the smokers get off the plane, they are usually running to get to a safe place.

Muslims don't go into their temples and fill 'em full of smoke.
*slaps self* No, bad. :)

If you go into a pub and light up, it's not the same thing. You're becoming an annoyance to those around you, you fill the air with smoke, threaten our lungs with cancer... okay that's enough judgemental condemnation from me.
But we'd like a place where we can go and drink. If you don't agree with my way and you find it harmful, then fair enough; but then to go and make pubs into some bastard offchild of Macdonalds that sell overpriced food to screaming kids? Where do you think that fits into my world view? Smoker or not.
And even if you push us onto the streets like the condemned lepers we obviously are now; don't you think that a group of angry blokes in a smoke cloud is gonna stop trade anyway?

Would you ban inebriated yobs from the pub? I really doubt it.
Would you ban screaming children? Smelly tramps? Perfume-clouded Harpies? Gruff Angry Bikers?
Nope.

Just us dirty, wretched, will-less, aging smokers and their deluded friends. The people who pubs ran on for ooh...the odd millenia.

Oh and most temples are full of incense. We'd just like a temple, nay a shed, where we can go and smoke without the bigotry of the non-smokers. We know it kills us. Just like we know that alcohol kills us.

Which is more than a lot of these alcopop drinkers do; but then they pay more.

After a long day's work, we'd just like to leave all of the shite behind us for a change. That's what a pub's meant to be about. Not some creche for those people who can't be arsed to cook.

You don't have to inhale our smoke; hell, you don't even have to like us. Just let us smoke and drink somewhere.