Smoking ban

[communistworkethic]

aye genius - go back and read the rest of the thread, I've specifically identified the fact that there are a group of smokers who do take their full break and expect to big given extra dispensation for their fag. See, not all, some.

Big wooo for you- i'm sure you give the boss and apple and polish his helmet too. You forgot to subtract the amount of time you piss away on here though smartass.

I would go back and read it all but I can't be arsed. I've read enough to know that you are generalising and making out that most if not all smokers are lazy w*kers taking the piss. I'm merely pointing out that the piss takers come from a cross section of society, some smoke and use that, others have other vices and use that to take the piss.

Just because you have identified a group doesn't mean you should tar us all the same way. I'm no goody two shoes but it does piss me off when over opiniated idiots like to get all pedantic and smart arse, which in my view you are right now. I respect most of your views, even agree with quite a few. I suggest you be a little less condescending towards others...it improves the debate even when you disagree with them.

I would go on but I can't be arsed...

how fecking dim??? The fact I identified a group within smokers means I didn't tar you all

[fatshaft]

Smokers smoke, out of choice. Non-smokers don't smoke, out of choice. Both "parties" go into a pub, out of choice. The two are inter-linked and so should be able to live aside one another, as they have done for decades and decades. Crazy ban.

And I'm a non-smoker.

To take away someones right to have the choice to smoke in a pub is silly.

However, I believe it should have been at the discretion of the landlord to decide if it was smoke free, or not.

So where can non-smokers go to the pub for a non-smoking pint? There is no choice, smokers could decide to light up or not when they visited the pub, non-smokers have no option.

[TANGODANCER]

i've never understood the " i smoke so i pay more tax , if i'm smoking less , they'll have to put x pence more on summert else you use to cover the difference " argument .. like theyre keeping other peoples tax bills down .

" theyre stopping me doing something i like, so if i stop doing it , that'll teach them ! "

i'll bet theres a latin term for this 'logic' ..

Not sure anybody claimed that a1. What was stated was that tax on smoking goes towards funding the National Health. Seems one campaign is kicking the other's ass. It is however a fact that the more people who pack up, the contributions from tobacco will decrease. No arguing with that. Do you really believe the hospital wards will all become empty then?

[fatshaft]

My mate who's a landlord said Sunday / Monday the toilets had to be cleaned on 4 more occasions than normal becasue the stench (normally blocked out by ciggie smoke) was coming through the pub.

This is a post in favour of the ban then I take it? Was the dirty fecker embaressed about the squalid facilities he previously provided his punters?

[fatshaft]

i've never understood the " i smoke so i pay more tax , if i'm smoking less , they'll have to put x pence more on summert else you use to cover the difference " argument .. like theyre keeping other peoples tax bills down .

" theyre stopping me doing something i like, so if i stop doing it , that'll teach them ! "

i'll bet theres a latin term for this 'logic' ..

Not sure anybody claimed that a1. What was stated was that tax on smoking goes towards funding the National Health. Seems one campaign is kicking the other's ass. It is however a fact that the more people who pack up, the contributions from tobacco will decrease. No arguing with that. Do you really believe the hospital wards will all become empty then?

long term yes, there will be an obvious correlation between less smokers and more bed space.

[communistworkethic]

but there'd also be less smokers requiring rather costly treatments for cancer, heart disease, bronchitis, emphesaema, impotence and so on.

[Puskas]

i've never understood the " i smoke so i pay more tax , if i'm smoking less , they'll have to put x pence more on summert else you use to cover the difference " argument .. like theyre keeping other peoples tax bills down .

" theyre stopping me doing something i like, so if i stop doing it , that'll teach them ! "

i'll bet theres a latin term for this 'logic' ..

Not sure anybody claimed that a1. What was stated was that tax on smoking goes towards funding the National Health. Seems one campaign is kicking the other's ass. It is however a fact that the more people who pack up, the contributions from tobacco will decrease. No arguing with that. Do you really believe the hospital wards will all become empty then?

long term yes, there will be an obvious correlation between less smokers and more bed space.

So once the smoking ban's in place we'll all live forever and never get ill?
Or will there be the same number of people getting ill, but with different things? Hmmm, let's think about that, shall we?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

A selection of your posts...

the point is that in ANY company there are smokers who seem to think they are entitled to time to smoke in addition to their alotted breaks.

Fair enough. I was pointing out that in any company there are coffee drinkers etc that take the piss just as much if not more. Just as valid a point as yours

How long now before we get accused of being privelleged for having smoke-break time over the all those concientious non-smokers.
you already are, and the fact is why should you work less than someone who doesn't have a habit for the same money? no reason at all

valid point, my coffee drinkers point carries the same validity as per previos point

You forgot to subtract the amount of time you piss away on here though smartass.

yes, very clever. oooh, you are on here too. Is this an official break in your office? See thats just being pedantic, put differently it would probably have been amusing

Big wooo for you- i'm sure you give the boss and apple and polish his helmet too.

Well done. Top marks for being condescending

aye genius - go back and read the rest of the thread

Well done for constructive debate. Disagree, argue with me but is there a need for that?

Might I suggest some people engage their brains before entering in to a conversation and trying to make analogies that have no parallel to the actual situation of smoking and stop posting bollocks on here?

Condescending again. The analogies i made make sense to me, maybe others. Just because you believe they make no sense doesn't make them invalid and cause to try and ridcule.

how fecking dim??? The fact I identified a group within smokers means I didn't tar you all

I would agree with this on the basis of some of your posts. But in some you move from specifics to generalisations and this is where my argument is coming from. Disagree by all means but because you disagree it neither indicates dimness on my part nor rightness on your part

[communistworkethic]

i've never understood the " i smoke so i pay more tax , if i'm smoking less , they'll have to put x pence more on summert else you use to cover the difference " argument .. like theyre keeping other peoples tax bills down .

" theyre stopping me doing something i like, so if i stop doing it , that'll teach them ! "

i'll bet theres a latin term for this 'logic' ..

Not sure anybody claimed that a1. What was stated was that tax on smoking goes towards funding the National Health. Seems one campaign is kicking the other's ass. It is however a fact that the more people who pack up, the contributions from tobacco will decrease. No arguing with that. Do you really believe the hospital wards will all become empty then?

long term yes, there will be an obvious correlation between less smokers and more bed space.

So once the smoking ban's in place we'll all live forever and never get ill?
Or will there be the same number of people getting ill, but with different things? Hmmm, let's think about that, shall we?

again, the losing argument resorts to nonsense in an effort to save themselves

If there are less smokers then the number of smoking related diseases will fall, that's a given, even the most imbecilic can't fail to see that.

Whether people get ill with other things is an absolute unknown and depends on how they act - if all smokers take to injecting smack and stabbing non injectors with their dirty needles then perhaps there'll be just as many ill people. Or if they start inhaling the fumes from gas ovens perhaps, or ruinning in to oncoming traffic.

If you want to particpate in intelligent debate try applying intelligence and not just putting in ridiculous comments in a vain attempt to salvage your faltering posiion.

[CrazyHorse]

Shit thread. Pointless argument. Move on.

[Puskas]

i've never understood the " i smoke so i pay more tax , if i'm smoking less , they'll have to put x pence more on summert else you use to cover the difference " argument .. like theyre keeping other peoples tax bills down .

" theyre stopping me doing something i like, so if i stop doing it , that'll teach them ! "

i'll bet theres a latin term for this 'logic' ..

Not sure anybody claimed that a1. What was stated was that tax on smoking goes towards funding the National Health. Seems one campaign is kicking the other's ass. It is however a fact that the more people who pack up, the contributions from tobacco will decrease. No arguing with that. Do you really believe the hospital wards will all become empty then?

long term yes, there will be an obvious correlation between less smokers and more bed space.

So once the smoking ban's in place we'll all live forever and never get ill?
Or will there be the same number of people getting ill, but with different things? Hmmm, let's think about that, shall we?

again, the losing argument resorts to nonsense in an effort to save themselves

If there are less smokers then the number of smoking related diseases will fall, that's a given, even the most imbecilic can't fail to see that.

Whether people get ill with other things is an absolute unknown and depends on how they act - if all smokers take to injecting smack and stabbing non injectors with their dirty needles then perhaps there'll be just as many ill people. Or if they start inhaling the fumes from gas ovens perhaps, or ruinning in to oncoming traffic.

If you want to particpate in intelligent debate try applying intelligence and not just putting in ridiculous comments in a vain attempt to salvage your faltering posiion.

Losing the argument? I was winning it - I note you failed to respond to my last points to you...
In any event, there will be less smoking-related diseases, yes. That doesn't mean there will be less diseases. It simply means that people who otherwise suffered from smoking-related diseases will get ill with other things (if they didn't, they would live forever). Even the most imbecilic can't fail to see that...

[communistworkethic]

A selection of your posts...

the point is that in ANY company there are smokers who seem to think they are entitled to time to smoke in addition to their alotted breaks.

Fair enough. I was pointing out that in any company there are coffee drinkers etc that take the piss just as much if not more. Just as valid a point as yours

How long now before we get accused of being privelleged for having smoke-break time over the all those concientious non-smokers.
you already are, and the fact is why should you work less than someone who doesn't have a habit for the same money? no reason at all

valid point, my coffee drinkers point carries the same validity as per previos point

You forgot to subtract the amount of time you piss away on here though smartass.

yes, very clever. oooh, you are on here too. Is this an official break in your office? See thats just being pedantic, put differently it would probably have been amusing

Big wooo for you- i'm sure you give the boss and apple and polish his helmet too.

Well done. Top marks for being condescending

aye genius - go back and read the rest of the thread

Well done for constructive debate. Disagree, argue with me but is there a need for that?

Might I suggest some people engage their brains before entering in to a conversation and trying to make analogies that have no parallel to the actual situation of smoking and stop posting bollocks on here?

Condescending again. The analogies i made make sense to me, maybe others. Just because you believe they make no sense doesn't make them invalid and cause to try and ridcule.

how fecking dim??? The fact I identified a group within smokers means I didn't tar you all

I would agree with this on the basis of some of your posts. But in some you move from specifics to generalisations and this is where my argument is coming from. Disagree by all means but because you disagree it neither indicates dimness on my part nor rightness on your part

aye -I made a point originally and clarifed it subsequently, it's how it works.

[a1]

Reductio ad absurdum?

i dont think its that , its probably not logic at all , more like some kinda "cutting your nose off to spite your face" type thing ..

those "youre here catching me on a speed camera , why dont you spend more time catching real criminals" type ones turn up quite a lot too in cases like this ..

i forget what those are called too ..

[Lennon]

yeah brilliant, no justification for that assumption whatsoever. Genius arguing, why not just throw in some unrelated random comments for good measure??

Of course non-smokers will now be all supping an extra dozen pints a week, of course, why didn't I think of that? Why would I think that they would only drink the same but be happy not to be inhaling the poisonous effluent of the breath of smokers and not wanting the associated illnesses?? How stupid of me to not realise all non-smokers are wannabee alcoholics?? If only I'd seen the example of this happening in Scotland and Ireland, I'd have seen the telltale signs!



Maybe you want to avoid smoking and smoke, your brain appears to be starved of oxygen as it is.

Have you just wet yourself?

By the way, I don't smoke. I quit 2 months ago.

My point is, people don't go into pubs for the good of their health. If the smoke in pubs really bothered you that much, you wouldn't have gone in there in the first place. Or are you saying you were willing to risk your life for the sake of a few pints? If not, then you clearly weren't concerned about contracting cancer from passive smoke and you're merely rejoicing in the smoking ban because you've automatically "won" and probably have nothing else in your life to feel good about.

[CrazyHorse]

Shit thread. Pointless argument. Move on.

Seven pages, plus like the 3rd or 4th thread on the subject.....

[communistworkethic]

Not sure anybody claimed that a1. What was stated was that tax on smoking goes towards funding the National Health. Seems one campaign is kicking the other's ass. It is however a fact that the more people who pack up, the contributions from tobacco will decrease. No arguing with that. Do you really believe the hospital wards will all become empty then?

long term yes, there will be an obvious correlation between less smokers and more bed space.

So once the smoking ban's in place we'll all live forever and never get ill?
Or will there be the same number of people getting ill, but with different things? Hmmm, let's think about that, shall we?

again, the losing argument resorts to nonsense in an effort to save themselves

If there are less smokers then the number of smoking related diseases will fall, that's a given, even the most imbecilic can't fail to see that.

Whether people get ill with other things is an absolute unknown and depends on how they act - if all smokers take to injecting smack and stabbing non injectors with their dirty needles then perhaps there'll be just as many ill people. Or if they start inhaling the fumes from gas ovens perhaps, or ruinning in to oncoming traffic.

If you want to particpate in intelligent debate try applying intelligence and not just putting in ridiculous comments in a vain attempt to salvage your faltering posiion.

Losing the argument? I was winning it - I note you failed to respond to my last points to you...
In any event, there will be less smoking-related diseases, yes. That doesn't mean there will be less diseases. It simply means that people who otherwise suffered from smoking-related diseases will get ill with other things (if they didn't, they would live forever). Even the most imbecilic can't fail to see that...

you are truly stupid - read what I wrote I answered your points fully.

It doesn't follow that those poeple will get ill with something else at all. It certainly doesn't mean they'll all get ill enough to require hospital treatment or even NHS treatment. Not everyone gets ill. Some people never have a day sick in their lives. Some just die of old age. Some die suddenly with no prior symptoms or diseases or heart attackes on anaphalactic shock or diabetic coma. Some get shot, stabbed, ruin over, bombed, strangled, drowned. They don't live for ever.

It does not follow that just because people don't get smoking related diseases they'll get something else, in any mode of logic or reason.


Thanks for illustrating stupidity in action yet again.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Is there an insult barometer available?

I'm curious as to whether today is an exceptional day or not for Commie

[TANGODANCER]

but there'd also be less smokers requiring rather costly treatments for cancer, heart disease, bronchitis, emphesaema, impotence and so on.

No doubt they'll soon need the money for booze, drug and obesity related cases, and then there's always the good old weekend alcholic punch-ups to fill A&E every weekend. Maybe higher-priced drink is the answer, who knows what the next government fund-raising bright idea will entail? We await with baited breath.....

[fatshaft]

Is there an insult barometer available?

I'm curious as to whether today is an exceptional day or not for Commie

nah, it's the norm, just unusually I'm actually on his side for a change

[Soldier_Of_The_White_Army]

Everythings been said a dozen times over. Now all that's left is personal character assasination.

Thread over.