|
Post by Janeybeans on Jan 24, 2004 3:10:55 GMT
okay, I beg your humble forgivness... somet like that..
... druggie:D
|
|
|
Post by GunstarHero on Jan 24, 2004 3:14:25 GMT
okay, I beg your humble forgivness... somet like that.. ... druggie:D thats not fair, its not like i do it everyday
|
|
|
Post by Janeybeans on Jan 24, 2004 3:15:45 GMT
okay, we believe you
... druggied bitch
|
|
|
Post by GunstarHero on Jan 24, 2004 3:29:05 GMT
okay, we believe you ... druggied bitch ur the bitch, k ;D and shut up ;P YOUVE NO PROOF
|
|
|
Post by Janeybeans on Jan 24, 2004 9:47:06 GMT
Crackwhore!
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 15:36:44 GMT
Tut jon don't be turning into She Who Shall Remain Nameless now As have now tried it I can give a completely balanced argument har. The whole thing is daft, even as I was smoking it (not inhaling lol) I was thinking "I'm going to regret this tomorrow" but i don't. It didn't taste very nice, at all, but it smelled a bit nicer than cigarette smoke. Don't feel any urge or desire to do it again, but don't regret doing it either. Tis all that Ruth's fault, being a bad influence ;D yeah exactly, never tried a cigarette moi ! and neither have i
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 24, 2004 17:56:16 GMT
Tut jon don't be turning into She Who Shall Remain Nameless now As have now tried it I can give a completely balanced argument har. The whole thing is daft, even as I was smoking it (not inhaling lol) I was thinking "I'm going to regret this tomorrow" but i don't. It didn't taste very nice, at all, but it smelled a bit nicer than cigarette smoke. Don't feel any urge or desire to do it again, but don't regret doing it either. Tis all that Ruth's fault, being a bad influence ;D and neither have i A bit of a French excuse. Cigars are worse, I have very little respect for anyone who'd want to even try one; it's destroyed my dad, I simply can't believe there'd be any good in trying one. If anyone uses the "I tried it for the experience" argument needs shooting
|
|
|
Post by Geg on Jan 24, 2004 18:01:48 GMT
I might try licking a car battery tomorrow, for the experience...
(note: that was obvious sarcasm...)
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 18:07:08 GMT
In all fairness I never said I tried it to see what it's like/for the experience, I just said I tried it.
I've never liked smoking. I think it's a totally foolish thing to do, it costs a lot, makes your breath smell, nails and teeth manky blah blah blah. We all know all of the arguments, but we have to realise that as long as cigarettes/cigars/pipes/anything is available, people will use them, because it's their choice. As long as they aren't breathing it right at me or burning anything with fag ends, so be it. It's a great idea to have shopping centres, restaurants, workplaces etc smoke-free, but as for pubs, bars and clubs - people are there for a good time, and unfortunately it's part and parcel for some people.
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 24, 2004 18:25:33 GMT
smoking may be part and parcel of having fun for some, but it isn't for others, bars and clubs should provide a covered area outside for the purpose of smoking. i hate going out and coming home stinking of tobacco smoke. an area outside would provide suitable ventilation to allow the smoke to disperse quickly while providing non smokers with an area free of smoke in which to have their fun
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 18:51:18 GMT
All perfect good sense, but what about pubs/clubs with no outdoor space? Should they just be made completely non-smoking, or would non-smokers just be wise to avoid them?
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 24, 2004 19:08:20 GMT
I've never liked smoking. I think it's a totally foolish thing to do, it costs a lot, makes your breath smell, nails and teeth manky blah blah blah ... but as for pubs, bars and clubs - people are there for a good time, and unfortunately it's part and parcel for some people. So right, this doesn't compute... you hate it, and didn't try it for the experience, but did it anyway? I hate the fact I smell of smoke when I come from a town centre pub or club, or anywhere of the sort, but it's something I endure, not tolerate - I'm sure others will agree. I really, REALLY can't see anything good with smoking, yet people try it. People think it looks cool, and that really isn't true, particularly with women who smoke, I'm sure many men will agree. Ironically though it's good for the country money wise, but I still think we'd be living in a better place without it, by a long way.
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 19:14:48 GMT
I tried it becuase i tried it *shrug* and time for a really grown-up argument here: you're not my father There are weeweey stupid things we put up with in life: boy racers, chaws, Coronation Street, smoking... Granted, those other things don't damage your health, but if you don't like it, ignore it, switch it off, or move away - that's what I do. The forum seems to be missing one point, though - smoking in pubs might weewee you off, but the members of this forum who are 17 or younger shouldn't even be in the pubs in the first place. The smokers aren't the ones breaking the law.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 24, 2004 19:17:40 GMT
I tried it becuase i tried it *shrug* and time for a really grown-up argument here: you're not my father There are weeweey stupid things we put up with in life: boy racers, chaws, Coronation Street, smoking... Granted, those other things don't damage your health, but if you don't like it, ignore it, switch it off, or move away - that's what I do. The forum seems to be missing one point, though - smoking in pubs might weewee you off, but the members of this forum who are 17 or younger shouldn't even be in the pubs in the first place. The smokers aren't the ones breaking the law. Passive underage attendance in bars doesn't kill anyone. Passive smoking does.
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 19:18:31 GMT
Passive smoking in bars shouldn't affect anyone under the age of 18. In the crappy shopping centre, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 24, 2004 19:19:40 GMT
pubs and clubs with no outdoor space should become non smoking because smoking is in the minority, and why should a business turn away the majority just to please the few? smokers should be forced to sign a waiver stating that should they contract any illness which can be directly linked with their habit they shall not be permitted NHS treatment, they know and understand the risk and still freely accept it. this increase of risk should either keep them from receiving treatment funded by the non smoking populations NI contributions OR they should be made to pay a higher contribution, as you would with private health insurance, if you're at more risk of claiming you pay a higher premium
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 24, 2004 19:22:23 GMT
those under the age of 18 by being in a pub or bar and or drinking alcohol are breaking no laws, the owness is on the person whos name is above the door to refuse service to underage drinkers, it is illegal to SELL alcohol to those under 18 but it is not illegal to attempt to buy alcohol if you are under 18
Smokers may not be breaking a statute law but they could be infact guilty of a civil crime, it could be construed as negligence if it may be proved that a smoker has caused cancer in a non smoker. it is not good form to know that you could be inflicting an illness upon someone and continue to do the offending act.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 24, 2004 19:26:18 GMT
Passive smoking in bars shouldn't affect anyone under the age of 18. In the crappy shopping centre, maybe. I didn't say anything about under-18s. Smoking's pointless, anti-social, health damaging/stealing, the lot. Why exactly did you try it, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 24, 2004 19:27:01 GMT
by what i can gather she did it because she didn't want to be the odd one out
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 19:32:56 GMT
;D ok then - licence owners aren't breaking any laws by allowing people to smoke in their pub, but they are by serving people who are underage and know they shouldn't be drinking. It's an argument that can go round and round - there's nothing wrong with the ideas put forward, there'd be an incredible amount of red tape and it would take years to implement, and that's after the Government finally decide to have some backbone and put something into action. Not that that's an excuse. Take the metro centre - they took months to decide whether or not to implement a ban on smoking (and I don't see why - it's a shopping centre ffs). A big price hike could be effective in Britain. Like the one they use in New York, only here it would actually work because we wouldn't just be able to drive into New Jersey to pick up another pack of ciggies
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 19:35:25 GMT
by what i can gather she did it because she didn't want to be the odd one out She the cat's mother. In a group of ten of us, three were smokers, and I had one (and a bit) cigars in one of the pubs we went to. By what I gather, smoking made me more of an odd one out than not. But then again, maybe it didn't, because everyone I was out with was just there to have fun, and not to sit around and judge each other? And how many people here pay tax or NI contributions, out of interest? (and i'm not talking about mom+pop, I'm talking about the forum members)
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 24, 2004 19:38:41 GMT
the fact that some of US dont pay NI doesn't matter because our parents do, and if they dont smoke then its not fair they should pay for those that do smoke
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 19:49:40 GMT
I pay both tax and National Insurance contributions on my salary, and I mightn’t be too happy about paying for the treatment of the effects of active or passive smoking, but if we (as a nation) were to put a ban on that, where would we stop? How do you decide whether or not to treat a self-inflicted injury or illness? Do we refuse to pay for the staffing and upkeep of maternity wards, because after all, women get into “that situation” themselves? Do we refuse to rehabilitate drug users and alcoholics who want another chance? Do we refuse treatment to sportsmen and women, because they willingly took a risk when they decided to participate in a sport? Should women have to pay for their PAP smears as they only become compulsory once a woman becomes sexually active? Would you have denied me my operations and treatments throughout December, because it was a lump in my breast and no-one else's? Should I pay for all of the scans and blood tests I now have? (I'm speaking generally and not just to James, because he'll probably say "yes" ). If I were a smoker and was suffering the ill-effects of it, I would go to a private hospital because I'd be aware it was my own doing, but what about passive smoking? If I'm struck down by lung cancer in ten year's time, should I assume it was caused by the single time I smoked and pay for treatment myself, or maintain that it was caused by the countless numbers of times I've been in public places with non-existent or insufficient non-smoking facilities? I could decide to be a nitpicking old fart ( ) and say I wouldn't pay for treatment of passive smokers who had been in smoky bars when underage, as they had no business being there in the first place, just as I could say I refuse to pay for maternity care because I don’t like children or someone refusing to treat me if I was involved in a riding accident because I willingly chose to participate in a high risk sport. The idea of smokers paying higher NI contributions is a good one, but how many would openly admit to being a smoker when filling out the necessary forms? How would we pay for the staff and infrastructure needed to implement and maintain such a system? The rows will just go on and on and on unless some definitive action is taken by the Government - and in all honesty, who can see that happening in the near future?
|
|
|
Post by Tassadara C on Jan 24, 2004 20:47:24 GMT
pubs and clubs with no outdoor space should become non smoking because smoking is in the minority, and why should a business turn away the majority just to please the few? Could just let the pubs decide whether to be non-smoking or not; I bet they would segregate out nicely.
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 24, 2004 20:48:33 GMT
I pay tax and NI contributions, and I might not be happy about paying for treating effects of smoking/passive smoking, but if we put a ban on that, where do we stop? Do we refuse to pay for maternity wards, because after all, those women got into that situation themselves? Do we refuse to rehabilitate drug users and alcoholics? Do we refuse treatment to sportsmen and women, because they took a risk when they decided to participate in a sport? Should women have to pay for PAP smears, as they only become compulsory once the woman becomes sexually active? Would you have denied me my operations and treatments throughout December, because it was a lump in my breast and no-one else's? Should I now pay for all of the scans and blood tests I now have? (and I'm speaking generally not just to James, because he'll probably say "yes" )If I were a smoker and was suffering the ill-effects of it, I would go to a private hospital, because I'd be aware it was my own doing, but what about passive smoking? If I'm struck down by lung cancer in ten year's time, should I assume it was caused by the one time I smoked and pay for treatment myself, or that it was caused by the countless numbers of times I've been in smoky public places? I might be a nitpicking old fart ( ) and say I wouldn't pay for treatment of passive smokers who had been in smokey bars when underage, as they had no business being there in the first place. The rows will just go on and on and on unless some definitive action is taking by the Government - and really, who can see that happening in the near future? What I don't get is it was you that brought up the under-18 argument, I didn't even maintain it; I still asked completely different questions (still unanswered) and also am in the dark about why exactly smoking's legal, furthermore why you tried it. It's all so pointless; it's not as if only under-18's are damged by passive smoking* *that is, by the way, if I was to actually follow the argument that wasn't even mine
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 24, 2004 22:52:23 GMT
w00t - all sorted via MSN, so we can get back to smoking in general terms, not referring to me "being a smoker" when I've done it once. If anyone cares to have the lecture, just IM me, lol. It beats Nytol ;D
|
|
|
Post by Zippy on Jan 24, 2004 23:28:08 GMT
w00t - all sorted via MSN, so we can get back to smoking in general terms, not referring to me "being a smoker" when I've done it once. If anyone cares to have the lecture, just IM me, lol. It beats Nytol ;D pwnd, tbf It should be noted that this means "I won, in fairness"
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 24, 2004 23:42:24 GMT
"i pay both tax and NI" what you want a parade?
|
|
|
Post by beSottied on Jan 25, 2004 14:05:25 GMT
Don’t be so utterly ridiculous. I was merely stating the fact that I personally contribute to the NHS and could offer my opinion on paying for the treatment of others. Being taxed is no reason for a parade, believe me.
|
|
|
Post by DrSmartEsq on Jan 25, 2004 15:15:28 GMT
if its no reason for a parade stop crowing about paying taxes. I pay tax but i dont crow about it, its something that you just do without whinging, and due to full time education i dont as yet pay NI but when i graduate i'll get a job and start paying both tax and NI at a rate befitting my income (shock horror at the manditory payments) everyones paying for everyone else, its called the implimentation of socialist policy, even kids buying sweets are funding public transport and other drains on the economy but the kids dont crow about paying the bus drivers wages when ever they get on the bus
|
|