RJRB Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 But isn't the thread and any proposed legislation aimed purely at cars with children in them? That is the whole point to protect the health of people who AREN'T free to make their own choice. The fact that some people seem prepared to argue that they have every right to damage their children's health is exactly the reason why this proposal is likely to go on the statute book. I took the heading in a wider context,ie there are undoubtedly more smoking restrictions on the way.in fact there are more bloody restrictions whichever direction you look. I will kick back against those restrictions which impinge on my liberties. Smoking with children,or non smokers in my car isn't one of them,but you only have to look in the above posts to see why some people get up my nose to a greater extent than the smoke drifting off the end of a cigarette gets up theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 In other words you don't mind kids getting cancer. Wheres the proof pasive smoking causes it?The 'Independant' test ive read says different. If passive smoking is so bad then how come were all living longer? Many people above 35 grew up in smoke filled houses,pubs,cars and work places. Sort of contradicts itself doesnt it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 How we like to be controlled! If you as a goverment want to get legalisation for something then get a foot in the door,using kids is an old trick! Before long we will be told which shoe lace to tie first,but then i think many are so thick they need and want to be told! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Wheres the proof pasive smoking causes it?The 'Independant' test ive read says different. If passive smoking is so bad then how come were all living longer? Many people above 35 grew up in smoke filled houses,pubs,cars and work places. Sort of contradicts itself doesnt it? That would be true if smoking alone impacted on health. But it doesn't. Diet, the NHS and better healthcare in general, affluence, warmth and other better living conditions, etc, all help people to live longer. Smoking kills people but not to the extent that the above factors help people live longer. If you aren't aware that smoking kills then ask someone to explain carcogenics to you at the next meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJRB Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 That would be true if smoking alone impacted on health. But it doesn't. Diet, the NHS and better healthcare in general, affluence, warmth and other better living conditions, etc, all help people to live longer. Smoking kills people but not to the extent that the above factors help people live longer. If you aren't aware that smoking kills then ask someone to explain carcogenics to you at the next meeting of the Flat Earth Society. The word is carcinogenic,and as mentioned above there is a whole host of them floating about in the air,in the ground,in our food as well as in cigarette smoke,at least so I was told at the last meeting of the flat earth society. You are invited to the next meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xt500 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478075/100-year-old-celebrates-birthday-smoking-170-000th-cigarette.html ""I have smoked ever since infant school and I have never thought about quitting. " . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-478075/100-year-old-celebrates-birthday-smoking-170-000th-cigarette.html ""I have smoked ever since infant school and I have never thought about quitting. " . She must be 99% ash by now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Never smoked a fag and don't want to. But I have no desire to push my personal habits on to any one else either. Smoking is a personal choice - and nothing to do with any one else. As for boozers and fags, it should have been down to the Landlords to decide, signs outside could have denoted if the boozer was a Smoking/non-smoking establishment. The patrons could have then made up their own minds if to enter or not - it would have been that simple. But the Bliar/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell Government decided for us, as we are not adult enough to make up our own minds. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnailyBoy Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 Never smoked a fag and don't want to. But I have no desire to push my personal habits on to any one else either. Smoking is a personal choice - and nothing to do with any one else. As for boozers and fags, it should have been down to the Landlords to decide, signs outside could have denoted if the boozer was a Smoking/non-smoking establishment. The patrons could have then made up their own minds if to enter or not - it would have been that simple. But the Bliar/Brown/Mandelson/Campbell Government decided for us, as we are not adult enough to make up our own minds. Angel. and the employees working conditions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 The word is carcinogenic,and as mentioned above there is a whole host of them floating about in the air,in the ground,in our food as well as in cigarette smoke,at least so I was told at the last meeting of the flat earth society. You are invited to the next meeting. Only if it's non-smoking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.