Smokers unite before it is too late.

[Madhatter]

I can find the words, I did find the words, I just like to drag it out a bit, so that we have something to discuss, but if it was your own work well done, I'm impressed, not sure I agree with all of it though.

that impressed you can have some karma

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by garinda

Plagiarist?

Is that a Frenchy that draws patterns in the sand?

See smokers funny....others not so.

(puts on Frank Muir Voice) A word deriving from a 7th century French dominican friar who was caught dong something he shouldn't have been. Instead of attending 'Matins' he was often found in his cell with the current issue of 'Playvillagewench' using his 'wrist to play'. This word was then mistranslated during the infamous 1971 Monty Python sketch to 'played yer wrist' and some 12 year old mistyped it into wikipedia as Plagiarist and the O.E.D research team added it to their 'book'

[garinda]

Originally Posted by Guinness

(puts on Frank Muir Voice) A word deriving from a 7th century French dominican friar who was caught dong something he shouldn't have been. Instead of attending 'Matins' he was often found in his cell with the current issue of 'Playvillagewench' using his 'wrist to play'. This word was then mistranslated during the infamous 1971 Monty Python to 'played yer wrist' sketch and some 12 year old mistyped it into wikipedia as Plagiarist and the O.E.D research team added it to their 'book'

Ok. A non-smoker with a sense of humour.

Nice bow-tie by the way Frank.

[shakermaker]

Originally Posted by garinda

Ok. A non-smoker with a sense of humour.

An alcoholic?

[Guinness]

An alcoholic car driver

[WillowTheWhisp]

how are you so sure the air we breathe is fine

Well, if it's in Accy you can probably be sure that it isn't!

[jambutty]

I am not really surprised that none of the ant-smoking brigade has responded to my challenge in post #109. To save anyone from the chore of going back to search here it is again.

“Are there any of the anti-smoking lobby prepared to declare here and now that it is grossly unfair to target the smoker without also targeting the other major polluter – the internal combustion engine?

I doubt if anyone has the courage to do so because it will destroy all their arguments at a stroke and show them to be irrelevant to the debate.”

You give in too easy katex. You, me and others may well smell like an old ashtray but that is on a par with everyone smelling like an old exhaust pipe.

No one ever stated that smoking was good for ANYONE Guinness. In fact we all agree that smoking is bad – full stop.

Talking about vehicle exhaust fumes as a comparison to smoking is not muddying the waters. It is a legitimate comparison. Both affect people’s breathing.

You want to smoke in the privacy of your own home, without causing distress to anyone else..go right ahead, I'll fight for your right

But you won’t fight for my right to be able to breathe air that is not polluted by vehicle exhaust fumes! It wouldn’t have anything to do with you either being a car driver or using public transport, would it?

As for the rest you should come out of your dream world and face reality.

Well said Katex. It's time this thread went to thread heaven as everytime I look at it I light up another ciggie! Just for the sheer hell of it, lol.

On that I think that you are right because everyone is dancing around the real issue and avoiding it with irrelevancies.

[katex]

You give in too easy katex. .[/FONT]

Story of my life Jambutty

Ok being frivilous again, however, think what has to be said has been said in an intelligent and constructive way, and thought as Junetta that the thread should now be closed (for a while anyway ) as it was ending in a light hearted way as all debates should.

[Guinness]

Originally Posted by jambutty

But you won’t fight for my right to be able to breathe air that is not polluted by vehicle exhaust fumes! It wouldn’t have anything to do with you either being a car driver or using public transport, would it?

As for the rest you should come out of your dream world and face reality.

Because you asked the question I'll respond

Of course I use a car, and so do you one way or another, mass transportation is a necessity in modern day life. Thats reality!

Do you think the tooth fairy delivers your fags and food to Asda? Did you turn away the ambulance/fire brigade/police/taxi etc etc etc the last time you needed them?...thought not.., we ALL know that vehicles spew out pollutants, so what do we do about it? We restrict the use of vehicles which is kinda what the hefty tax on fuel does (similar to the hefty tax on fags reducing the number of smokers) and make the exhaust emissions fall below a certain level by law (similar to the ban on smoking in public places). We research cleaner fuels, more efficient propulsion and cleaner methods of mass transport.

However, we are comparing a necessity (mass transport and therefore exhaust fumes) with a luxury (fags) and I stand by my original statement that this "muddies the waters" of a strong case for infringement of the basic human right to freedom of choice.

[Tinkerbelle]

Originally Posted by shakermaker

I would rather have someone slying a quick spliff next to me in a bus stop than a tobacco smoker anyday!!

Just out of interest, these spliff smokers, what are they going to be rolling there joints with?

[Madhatter]

“Are there any of the anti-smoking lobby prepared to declare here and now that it is grossly unfair to target the smoker without also targeting the other major polluter – the internal combustion engine?

I doubt if anyone has the courage to do so because it will destroy all their arguments at a stroke and show them to be irrelevant to the debate.”

Yes it's grossely unfair, they should do more to reduce pollution, they should put more freight on the railways, so that it's one deisel engine not 50, they should make youu sue public transport so it's one engine not 50. OR even ban the combustion engine altogether.

Right how has that destroyed the argument that you shouldn't smoke in any public place open or closed.
I've still got a right to fresh air in the pub, not come out smelling of smoke.
YOU smoke, your choice, not mine and it doesn't help me at all. A bus taking people to work at the local supermarket does, and the lorry delivering their does, The teacher going to work helps me by educating the future generations of this world.
Your pollution, your comparison not mine, does nothing positive, apart from feed the government with tax.

I fight for the right to breath fresh air in public places, I also fight for less polution from car exhausts, I recycle and try to save energy where it's being wasted, wasted electric causes more pollution from power stations.
I'm not fighting for your rights, I'm fighting for mine in every case, You fight for your own rights, but if your smoking, I doubt you'd bother fighting for the right to an exhaust free town, your just using it to try to justify you smoking in a public place.

It's unrealistic to expect a car free town, and most people think it's unrealistic to expect smoker free public areas, I doubt very much if it will get through.
Most people who see that they have the rights to a smoke free enclosed area, will also see it as you have a human right to smoke in a open public area. People who want an outright ban are very few.

[Madhatter]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelle

Just out of interest, these spliff smokers, what are they going to be rolling there joints with?

They'll switch to cakes with icing on top tink.
Which brings me to another point, how many people are there that enjoy a joint but don't usually smoke or don't smoke much? a hell of a lot.

Right or wrong, you'll never stop people from smoking weed in this country, the only reason I don't agree with it being legalised is the government will add a hugh amount of tax to it.

[jambutty]

So according to you Guinness, because motor vehicles are considered a necessity, it is OK to pollute the atmosphere with them. But because you consider the smoking of tobacco products is a luxury, smoking should be severely restricted if not totally banned. Now there is an interesting, selfish and sanctimonious philosophy. One person’s luxury is another person’s necessity and vice versa.

If we restrict the use of vehicles then explain to me how come vehicle numbers on the roads increase year by year and choke up the motorways and other roads? How come the school run has become a road traffic nightmare twice a day during school term? If you call that restriction then you should really re-examine your argument because it is crass in the extreme.

Today’s fuels are indeed cleaner than those of yesteryear but the exhaust gases still pollute, it’s just that you can’t see the fumes anymore. You can smell them though. In any case it takes time and mileage for a cat to do its job, meanwhile the car is spewing out death.

I stand by my original statement that this "muddies the waters" of a strong case for infringement of the basic human right to freedom of choice.

You will probably kick yourself now for making that statement because it strengthens the smoker’s case no end. We all have the same the basic human right of freedom of choice. I choose to smoke in my own home/garden or in my car. I may chose to have a fag whilst walking down the street, not that I can walk very far. It helps to mask the vehicle fumes. If you came into my home or I give you a lift in my car and I choose to have a smoke then you will have to either leave, get out or lump it. If we pass in the street and you object to me walking past you smoking a fag I will tell you where to go in no uncertain terms.

If I walk into any building and there is not a sign stating that people are allowed to smoke I will not light up. If I call at your house I won’t even ask you if you minded if I smoked. I would wait to be invited to do so. I won’t even take leave to go outside for a fag and then come back in. It’s called having respect for other people’s views which are lacking in the smoking protestors.

No person’s rights take precedence over another and the compromise is live and let live which seems to be beyond your comprehension.

[Guinness]

Funny, I dont recall saying anything remotely like what you accuse me of here. Cigarettes are classed as a luxury item, whether you personally accept that or not, does not change the fact.

If you actually read my post you will notice that I am actually stating that telling YOU that you cannot smoke is an infringement of YOUR freedom of choice and is a more valid and logical argument for smoking in a bus shelter than mass transportation. (Ooo must kick myself for being reasonable and seeing your point of view)

Selfish, crass, sanctimonius?..resorting to name calling loses the argument and my attention..

[Madhatter]

Jambutty, I think you want to blame the anti smoking bunch as you see them for this new idea. It may be an anti smoking bunch, but the majority of the so called anti smoking bunch out here don't agree with it. If you want to smoke most will say feel free to do so, as long as you respect the wishes of those who don't.