|
|
|
Squire
 
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Friday, August 15, 2008 5:14 PM
Posts: 38,
Visits: 265
|
|
Did I at any point say that the toxins in chocolate were more deadly than the toxins in tobacco? No. I believe I said there were more of them. They aren't as virulent, but there are more.
The same goes with normal air. All of the toxins in the air, compared to the toxins in a drag on a cigarette... more of them. Not as concentrated, but there are more.
Actually READ the posts, people. Don't jump on them in an attempt to dissolve every argument.
CP Player of much reknown.
Used to play Jimmy the Fish at LT.
Man of many knots.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:50 AM
Posts: 1,483,
Visits: 2,106
|
|
StuartMaher (5/1/2007)
Just the same as Richard Hammond proved catagorically that speed doesn't kill!
That's right! And Richard Hammond he's rich and on telly right? Don't you see? Crashing your car at hundreds of miles an hour is a) good for you, b) makes you rich and c) gets you on telly. Joy-riders of the world rejoice!
Smoker's logic is a beautiful thing. I've never ever had an argument with a smoker who didn't at some point tell me about his "great grandfather who smoked 4,000 fags a day and is still alive at 207". I think smoking destroys some section of the brain that handles rational thought.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Wag
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:50 AM
Posts: 1,483,
Visits: 2,106
|
|
Coll (5/1/2007)
Did I at any point say that the toxins in chocolate were more deadly than the toxins in tobacco? No. I believe I said there were more of them. They aren't as virulent, but there are more. The same goes with normal air. All of the toxins in the air, compared to the toxins in a drag on a cigarette... more of them. Not as concentrated, but there are more.
Again I would like to see a source for this "special" argument that fags contain less toxins than fields. (That's special, like the kids at my partners school have "special" needs).
Actually READ the posts, people. Don't jump on them in an attempt to dissolve every argument.
We did read your post Coll, you presented pseudo-factual statements about the relative quantities of toxins in chocolate and fields compared with smoking to conclude that people who eat chocolate should not complain about smoking. The overwhelming implication of your logic was that chocolate and fields were more dangerous than tobacco due to these toxins. Why else mention them? Why else demand that they were relevant to the smoking ban?
If you can't construct a logical argument in which the facts you assert build logically to the conclusions you reach then I don't see why we should feel obliged to search through your claims to find some special meaning that was artfully hidden between the words.
History is an important source for LRP. Along with other works of fiction.
|
|
|
|
|
Cold Water and Brass Tacks
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:04 AM
Posts: 1,198,
Visits: 1,055
|
|
StuartMaher (4/30/2007)
Back then it was clear it was an inevitability, just as a smoking ban outdoors will eventually be. No amount of flowery words, rhetoric or arguments can stop the amti smoking legislation. the wall has writing on it. It's been there for a few years but people refused to read it until now. Oh Stu you see you occassionally make cogent points and then you make idiotoc statements like that. Yes thats right Stu they will ban smoking outside... because we could enforce that couldn't we... yes it inevitable isn't it. I don't think. No Stu they won't... the logical step would be to make the sale and possession of Tobacco illegal. Making it a categorised drug. Indeed that is the logical way forward. You seem to think stopping people smoking in their own homes would be unenforcable and yet you seem to think that enforcing them not smoking outside is? Does someone need to point out to you how effective banning substances and illegalising consumption actually is? Again?
|
|
|
|
|
Cold Water and Brass Tacks
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 10:04 AM
Posts: 1,198,
Visits: 1,055
|
|
Andy Rimmer (4/30/2007)
To be honest I don't care if you smoke or not- we all kill ourselves in different ways, what I object to is smokers laying claim to every public building by declaring it a breach of their rights to ban them from smoking in them.Yah... Andy your missing the point again. Suggesting smokers lay claim to every public building is blatant nonsense as most venues have been non-smoking for many years. The majority of restaurants are non smoking. No ones asking for all buildings to be smoking friendly or even the majority. Instead of repeating your same old point can you say how it relates to banning even a single friendly smoking pub from existing. A Clearly labelled and signposted venue run by and for smokers. As far as i can see not one argument you have made relates at all to how such an establishment would be a negative effect to a non smoker.
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:39 PM
Posts: 397,
Visits: 2,463
|
|
[quote]Coll (5/1/2007)
The same goes with normal air. All of the toxins in the air, compared to the toxins in a drag on a cigarette... more of them. Not as concentrated, but there are more.
[quote]Now this could just be me, i dont smoke so forgive the ignorance, but i have seen people smoking, dont you breath in through the cigerate? thus taking in all the toxins from the air on the other side as well, is not like your repolaceing the vast numbers of toxins from the air with leass, but more deadly ones, but in fact you are adding all the realy nasty ones in smoke to the loads on air, making it realy bad? or do the deadly smoking toxing just kick crap out of the weaker air toxing, rendering them dead 
www.mandalastudios.co.uk www.kangena.co.uk RL - Mark (Coventry)
CP - Urtsi (Ael) [Ex Head Weapons Checker/ Ref]
Mandala - Wookie (Ref/ Props)
PD - Wookie (Ref)
GF - Organiser
Dark Secrets - Philip Stanley (Tech Assistant)
|
|
|
|
|
Champion
Group: Game Moderators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 4:11 PM
Posts: 468,
Visits: 2,178
|
|
Flannel (5/1/2007)
[quote] StuartMaher (4/30/2007)
Oh Stu you see you occassionally make cogent points and then you make idiotoc statements like that. Hey... no fair.. that was my argument against you on another topic! Flannel (5/1/2007)
Yes thats right Stu they will ban smoking outside... because we could enforce that couldn't we... yes it inevitable isn't it. I don't think. People said the same about smoking in public places. All I can do is point to the US states that ban smoking in outdoor places and they seem succesful. Flannel (5/1/2007)
No Stu they won't... the logical step would be to make the sale and possession of Tobacco illegal. Making it a categorised drug. Indeed that is the logical way forward. You're just saying that to get me excited! Sadly that is a looong way off. You can't make an addictive substance illegal after being legal for so long. Flannel (5/1/2007)
You seem to think stopping people smoking in their own homes would be unenforcable and yet you seem to think that enforcing them not smoking outside is?Yup.. damn those civil liberties stopping the police entering a private home without a warrant. Luckily, the police are still allowed to open their eyes when walking about, allowing them to see what is happening there.
RL: Stuart Maher
PD: Stuart Maher in a frock coat
LT: Stuart maher in orange hi-vis
Omega: Stuart Maher in a rat mask
BUTT: Stuart Maher in various crap costumes
EOS: Stuart Maher writing plot EOS - Book now, thank me later. I was going to copyright my posts... but then remembered this is an LRP forum!
|
|
|
|
|
Heroic Knight
Group: Basic Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:36 PM
Posts: 246,
Visits: 1,242
|
|
The Local Authority in which I live has actually banned smoking in certain outdoor areas not covered by the legislation. They have added their own restrictions on top of what the Government said. It is now illegal here to smoke in bus shelters, or designated areas for queuing, eating and meeting (ie. outdoor cafes, beer gardens) unless the owners hold a permit. Admittedly, these permits are fairly easy to come by, but the steps have started towards a ban in ALL public spaces, indoor or outdoor.
How do I know this? I work for the Authority, and have had all sorts of training on enforcing the rules. There are proposals before the Council to ban smoking in all areas where drinking is banned (including all parks, nature walks, streets etc.), and if they are passed (as people expect), will have the harshest anti-smoking rules of any Local Authority.
Maelstrom - Elspeth Grigori - Holy Martyr
Lilith Sartia - I see weird people!
EOS - Maram-amma Suran - The Very Important Wife
Reality - Rebecca Willatts
|
|
|
| | |