Hey anti smoking bullies....I told you so!!

page: 9
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 12:57 AM
link   
I was going to say who the heck needs fireplaces in California?

Then I remembered a summer there were I got cold a lot... in LA.

So yes, don't deprive them of fires. After all one good volcano kills 20 years of carbon saving effort anyway.

edit on 3-1-2013 by pacifier2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by AnnKoontz
California is the worse. How can the call themselves Liberals, when all they do is take away people's rights? You can get drugged up and have all the orgies you want, but don't light a fire to keep yourselves warm.


Well it's why San Francisco doesn't look like Mexico City. It's not as if there are not other ways to produce heat.



If Cali looked like that you would be claiming "liberals" are evil polluters.

Reality check, Cali is not all that liberal mate. Gay Marriage banned, repeal of death penalty failed, second largest prison population, etc.

In fact four east coast states are more liberal according to this...

fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com...

Sorry but I just hate stupid stereotypes that people seem to love to spread around.


Wood is a RENEWABLE resource, it's "green". It's better than those coal burning electric plants! Not everyone can afford the luxury of paying for gas or electric to heat their home.

Also here is a little food for thought. Now that humans have developed a nice system to stop forest fires not nearly as much wood is being burned into the atmosphere therefore if we burn a little in our fireplaces it doesn't matter because it still doesn't make up for the immense amount of wood that would have been burned if we didn't put out those forest fires!

-Alien



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   
And yet another reason why I'm grateful that I no longer live in or near any big cities.

Not using wood to heat ones home, but rather to use coal, oil, electric, or natural gas instead... in order to be "environmentally friendly".



Holy crap, now I've heard it all.


[insert slap forehead here]



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnnKoontz
California is the worse. How can the call themselves Liberals, when all they do is take away people's rights? You can get drugged up and have all the orgies you want, but don't light a fire to keep yourselves warm.
edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)
edit on 1-1-2013 by AnnKoontz because: (no reason given)


You have to cut through the BS. Liberals are extinct. Those claiming to be liberals are merely progressives(one of the most regressive social movements in history). They tend to be control freaks/psychopaths and sociopaths. These are people who have no real conscience and see nothing wrong with infringing and controlling other people to suit what they think is best. Basically, what is right for them is right for everyone else. They will come up with any pathological lie to justify the positions they take and simply cannot be trusted ever.

They are the descendants of the serfs who wanted to be serfs and the nobility that wanted to lord over serfs. Look at the garbage progressives push for and the politics of the Dark Age, Middle Age/Medieval Age and the Renascence. The pattern is there, these people are an internal threat to our Constitutional, self-determinism way of life.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   
This is ridiculous. A right is only a right if it doesn't infringe on another's right.

That being said, a right to smoke in your own home is perfectly fine and legal. A right to smoke in a bar or restaurant where people don't want cancerous second-hand smoke wafting around their face and food is a different story.

A right to smoke outside a building is fine and legal. A right to smoke on a military installation (soon) is unprofessional.

Let's face it. Smokers are usually hypochondriacal goons that get stressed to easily and take out their stress in high energy situations, like snapping back at their boss because they havent had a cig break for a few hours.

There are many reasons why smoking should be illegal in public. In your own house? go for it. But let's keep our chimneys lit, too.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
The problem in this country is most people in the USA don't give a damn about there health or fitness. They simply don't give a crap about it.

Stuffing your face with fast food 5 times a day effects you and you only, your smoke will effect others not just yourself.

There are those who wanna live healthy be fit and try to live a long life, once your smoke has a effect on my right to want clean lungs and a healthy body it invades my rights.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I just had to throw this story into the mix of BAN this BAN that.

Water, water everywhere -- just not in plastic bottles, says a town in the US state of Massachusetts.
Jean Hill, an 84-year-old activist, thought up the ban.

Well you know what Jean, I want to ban 84 year old activists. Pick on my cornflakes and you will have a fight on your hands.

finance.ninemsn.com.au...

Instead of banning bottled water in plastic containers because of landfill problems, could recycling have been a better option? surely worth considering when everyone wins. where I live in Australia we pay a 10 cent levy on the purchase of bottled water, cans of beer, flavoured milk, glass bottles etc: all refundable at the recycling depots.

As a kid i remember taking soda bottles to the local deli for a 20 cent refund. That's a good few years ago.

Point is, you would be hard pushed to see a bottle or can on the side of the road in the state of South Australia.

edit on 3-1-2013 by keenasbro because: Expand on my reply



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ker2010
 


Of course you ride a push bike instead of driving a vehicle, because you don't want to affect other peoples lungs with the exhaust fumes your vehicle is spewing out everytime you drive it.

I think I am right in saying that the ban of cigerette smoking in Pubs, Bars, Restaurants etc: originated in Ireland then spread to other countries like Australia, America.

IMO the op is right. Give them an inch (Bureaucrats) they will chisel away at all your rights, once that happens it will be enough to turn you to smoking/drinking



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Schmidt1989
 


If a business is privately owned, they should have the right to decide if they are a smoking establishment or not.

That is why private property was so important to our founders, to preserve liberty.

You don't have to walk into a smoking establishment, that s freedom.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dispo
 


Thank you Dispo for a very interesting and informative post


On the subject of smoke/smoking/pollution:

I have never heard a satisfactory rebuttal or refutation to the "why not ban cars" argument to date. It's simply dismissed or ignored. However, I think it's a pivotal argument which demands a reasonable explanation. Several years ago the UK government aggressively targeted smokers and, more specifically, smoking in public areas. They waged an expensive and expansive campaign and forced through a ban on smoking in public places/workplaces despite widespread objection. They even resorted to sleight of hand and deception (promising publically, exemption to private members clubs then quietly revoking it prior to pushing the bill through) under the auspices of 'conern for public health'.

However, the amount of damage done by passive smoking pales into insignificance when you consider the widespread exposure of absolutely everyone to equally harmful yet arguably more ubiquitous chemicals from car exhaust fumes. Why did the government target smokers based on 'concern for public health', resorting to a complete and outright ban, yet do nothing to 'protect' us from the suffocating pollution created by car users? The argument I have heard time and time again is that it's just not practical to ban cars... Well, this is inconsistent policy making/thinking at best and, at worst, outright hypocrisy.

Apart from the fact we most definitely could do without cars (I have never owned a car, walk the 6 mile round trip to work and back every day and generally get about, or use public transport when walking isn't practical), if the motivation was genuinely concern for public health then SURELY they must be CONSIDERABLY more concerned about the impact of vehicular pollution?

TLDR: why AREN'T we banning cars? Seriously? I would love to hear a good explanation that remains consistent with the logic of banning smoking in public places.

Edit: also, whilst I understand the restrictions placed on people having fires in areas where smog is a problem (especially coming from post-industrial Northern England, where everything is chimneys and blackened stone) I do think, in terms of the big picture, it's like bringing a dustpan and brush to an earthquake...
edit on 3-1-2013 by Milkflavour because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Quite right timetothink
But as far as the anti everything people are concerned (minority groups) if it's good for them it's good for all.
If you are a non smoker why the fk would you want to go into a smoking room anyway????? because you (non smokers) think someone has taken away your right to free choice. You, on the other hand have no problem taking away my right to free choice. Simple, have smoking rooms, Pubs, if you don't like smoking, don't fking go in there period.

Again I will go to exhaust fumes from your vehicle, shall we ban these as well. Nobody is going to convince me that cigerette smoke is worse than car emmissions. I have to laugh at the al-fresco diners sipping away at their coffee under an umbrella on the footpath as cars and trucks are driving past spewing exhaust fumes into their $5.00 lattee. The diesel fumes must add to the taste. Pleeeeeese.

I don't play the pokie machines at pubs, they are imo anti social, that dosn't mean I should fight to ban them. My choice is not to play them instead.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by keenasbro
 


HAHA noons denies your right to sit in your house and smoke till your hearts content. You have the right to have tar lungs, yellow nails and bad breath, it is certainly your right. But if im out eating or in a establishment i dont want to smell your cancer stick while im trying to enjoy a nice meal.

Cars are needed in a lot of places that dont have public transit unless you are willing to jog 20 miles to work a day or ride a horse/bicycle.
edit on 3-1-2013 by hellbjorn012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hellbjorn012
 


So you're saying it's fine for you to choose to use a car over a push bike and pollute the atmosphere, expose me and my child to dangerous/carcinogenic chemicals etc at all times (not just mealtimes
) because you can't be arsed and it's MORE CONVENIENT for you, but it's not ok for me to choose to smoke because it spoils your dinner?

Just checking that you're saying that your choices are ok but mine aren't...
edit on 3-1-2013 by Milkflavour because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Milkflavour
 


What purpose does smoking serve? Cars serve a purpose other than giving you bad breath LOL



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by hellbjorn012
 


So you are seriously saying you don't notice the car exhausts on the sidewalk, but you can notice the cig?

I call liar liar to anyone who claims that.

It's just so cool to pick on smokers these days, give me a break.

There are thousands of things in the air you breathe every minute that are worse than what comes from a cig, if it was about health or comfort you would be worrying about the big things.

I want burps, farts, body odor, stinky feet, sewer gas, perfume, hair spray, paint fumes, plastic manufacturing plants etc etc etc. banned.....

And anything I consider useless....
edit on 3-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)
edit on 3-1-2013 by timetothink because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by hellbjorn012
 


What purpose does sugar, drugs, alcohol, make up, cake serve?

It is not YOUR place to decide for anyone else what makes them happy , except in the cases of real crimes like murder.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Did you actually read the article and see the reasoning behind the ban?
Just asking.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Evidently you are in the minority as all bars, restaurants in my Area of 500.000 + people have banned smoking and its happening across the states

You are losing, ya need to grow some will power, man up and quit. Addiction to stuff like cigs is a mental weakness.

edit on 3-1-2013 by hellbjorn012 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
34
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join