If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Taking the asshattery one step further, pub in England ordered to close its windows to stop cigarette smoke from drifting inside   (thesun.co.uk) divider line 208
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

3448 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Jul 2007 at 9:32 AM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



208 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-07-14 07:35:02 AM  
But think of the children!

/oh, wait
 
2007-07-14 07:48:44 AM  
It just shows what an effect the scaremongering from the anti-smoking fanatics has had.

Couldn't have said it better myself ;)
 
2007-07-14 08:12:52 AM  
Makes me think of the Seattle hospitals that are banning smoking anywhere on hospital grounds.
 
2007-07-14 08:18:32 AM  
snatchbeast: Makes me think of the Seattle hospitals that are banning smoking anywhere on hospital grounds.

That became Louisiana state law, as well, on Jan 1. Not sure if the law is administrative or legislative, but no one here really minds. I'm a pack-a-day smoker who's married to an RN non-smoker. I think it's a good idea.

I agree, however, that the trend is going too far, in general.
 
2007-07-14 09:28:57 AM  
I went to a concert last night, at an OUTDOOR amphitheater. No smoking anywhere and if you do feel the need you have to get a "pass" from an usher, walk across the road, go up a flight of stairs , and smoke in a parking lot.

I just hid behind the shiatter.
 
2007-07-14 09:36:31 AM  
Soon, smoking will be banned everywhere except for special smoking sheds on your own property.

/can't wait
 
2007-07-14 09:38:56 AM  
Soon, smoking will be banned everywhere except for special smoking sheds on your own property.

/can't wait



I hope I live to see the day.


/really
//I'd be happier if America joined the anti-smoking trend
///your cigarette stinks like shiat
 
2007-07-14 09:39:56 AM  
I quit smoking years ago, but I have to say that the anti-smoking laws are getting very silly. What's next, you can only smoke under water? I shouldn't have said that, I probably gave them ideas.
 
Ask
2007-07-14 09:40:55 AM  
I'm really looking forward to more anti smoking laws myself, being crammed into a car with a father that smokes has made me hate smoking with a passion usually reserved for religious wackos.

/not a wacko.
//Has a paper that proves it.
 
2007-07-14 09:42:57 AM  
/really
//I'd be happier if America joined the anti-smoking trend
///your cigarette stinks like shiat
They have these things called states. If you don't like some of the policies of your state, you can attempt to change it, or, if there's already a state that accomodates the way you want the government to control people's lives, you can go there. Fascinating, isn't it?
 
B A [TotalFark]
2007-07-14 09:47:30 AM  
I don't smoke and even I think this is asinine. Ban smoking within ??feet of doors & open windows & move on with Life. Seattle isn't the only place to ban smoking on the grounds of hospitals. UTMB hospital covers acres of Galveston & smoking is banned from all grounds including the parking lots.
 
2007-07-14 09:48:29 AM  
They have these things called states. If you don't like some of the policies of your state, you can attempt to change it, or, if there's already a state that accomodates the way you want the government to control people's lives, you can go there. Fascinating, isn't it?


Yawn. Ok. I wish all 50 STATES would pass similar laws limited when and where people can smoke.

/working had to pass one in my own state
//appreciating the help from similar-minded people in other states
 
2007-07-14 09:49:13 AM  
blankwhiteboard: Soon, smoking will be banned everywhere except for special smoking sheds on your own property.

/can't wait


I hope I live to see the day.


/really
//I'd be happier if America joined the anti-smoking trend
///your cigarette stinks like shiat


I'm completely against smoking, but you're being an ass. You see, smokers are citizens too. And just because you find the smell bad, doesn't mean everyone has to bend to your whim. Go someplace else, if it's bothering you. Sit in the non-smoking section. And if you're in a bar and you're offended by cigarette smoke... well then you're just a sissy.

/Get rid of beer in bars!
//And pool! It can lead to gambling!
 
2007-07-14 09:49:14 AM  
It just shows what an effect the scaremongering from the anti-smoking fanatics has had.

This has nothing to do with anti-smoking activist. It is a the power of unaccountable petty bureaucrats in a the psuedo-facist nanny state that the UK is fast becoming.
 
2007-07-14 09:50:20 AM  
Sorry, don't mind the anti-smoking laws. Not after I buried my mother. The cancer was mean. Ate her brain, ensheathed her heart, sent her into cardiac arrest. She was 54. She stopped smoking alright, and lived one year. You can't tell me it's not addictive. And when you start smoking as a kid in the 1940s, how the hell are you supposed to stop without hospitalization, which is what it took.

Flat out, smoking is disgusting, it's lethal, not just for the smoker, but everyone around it. You don't see us letting people burn chlorine gas, so why the hell do we let them light up cancer sticks? It's not like it has ANY redeeming qualities either. People who smoke look trashy. It made me sick to see my mother (and eventually my sister) stick those things into their mouth and light them up. Who the hell ever thought it was cool was so dead wrong. Oh, wait, they're just dead!
 
2007-07-14 09:54:34 AM  
You can't tell me it's not addictive.
Who tried to? Nicotine is a physically addictive drug. On the other hand, I am of the opinion that people ought to be allowed to do to themselves as they wish. And a bar owner ought to be able to make the rules for his place of business; if you don't like it, go find a bar that doesn't allow smoking. But that kind of choice is anathema, is it?

On the other hand, the effects of second-hand smoke are not soundly established. Yes, studies arise that say that second-hand smoke is as bad as or worse than smoking alone...but those same studies are refuted by other studies that call them into question.
 
2007-07-14 09:55:18 AM  
This is the hallmark of inefficient government: they ignore the big issues facing their nation, and become obsessed with dictating minutiae.

The eastern European communist regimes had also gone to the extremes of this, where cities were choking in deadly industrial pollution, but the government spent vast sums building enormous dossiers on its citizens on subjects as nonsensical as toilet paper consumption of individuals.

Britain has been spiraling downward in this direction with things like surveillance cameras that nobody watches, to replace policemen who have been pulled off the beat--penny wise and pound foolish policies.

Other nonsense, like obsessively monitoring recycle trash and levying huge fines for putting it out except under the strictest protocols, shows government in a near state of collapse.

While at the same time, the great concerns of government are neglected, such as fighting a war and their national decision to have government run health care in filthy and decrepit hospitals--while excluding more and more people from essential services.
 
2007-07-14 09:57:16 AM  
Waaaaah, I'm a smoker, waaaaah, I have the right to impede other people's rights with my bad habits because I'm more specialer than everyone else, waaaaaah!

FTFA: But the pub later reopened its windows after lawyers said there was nothing in the anti-smoking laws to prevent them.

Oh, wait, look at that, it was a case of overzealous enforcement officers (and their dickish superiors backing them up on the council), not a case of the law that some whacky, freedom-hating anti-rights-trampling fascists got passed.

Of course, at the heart of the matter is the ultimate question: why the fark would you ban smoking INSIDE private establishment rather than OUTSIDE on pulic spaces?

Facts:

1) Smokers are all congenitally retarded
2) Nobody should be allowed to smoke in public
3) People who don't want to be subjected to smoke by smokers in private establishments can choose not to patronize them, so banning smoking in private establishments, unless you're the owner, is farktarded.

Barmy brits indeed....
 
2007-07-14 09:59:29 AM  
I'm completely against smoking, but you're being an ass. You see, smokers are citizens too. And just because you find the smell bad, doesn't mean everyone has to bend to your whim. Go someplace else, if it's bothering you. Sit in the non-smoking section. And if you're in a bar and you're offended by cigarette smoke... well then you're just a sissy.

/Get rid of beer in bars!
//And pool! It can lead to gambling!


Sorry, no. Tobacco is dangerously addictive and second hand smoke is damaging to those who are around it. These are known and accepted facts. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home but I firmly believe that smoking should be banned in public places and I will continue to work tirelessly to pass such a law in my home state.

/former nicotine addict
//not proud of that fact
 
2007-07-14 10:01:42 AM  
Yep, The Man was right. There's nothing as sanctimonious as an ex-smoker.
</never smoked>
</won't go to smoking bars...but never goes to bars, anyway>
 
2007-07-14 10:02:56 AM  
blankwhiteboard: Soon, smoking will be banned everywhere except for special smoking sheds on your own property.

/can't wait


I hope I live to see the day.


/really
//I'd be happier if America joined the anti-smoking trend
///your cigarette stinks like shiat


cared to check statistics for percentage of the population that smokes?
Men are more likely to smoke throughout the EU than they are in the US. Women are more likely to smoke in France, Germany, and Norway than they are in the US, and rougly equally likely throughout the rest of the EU.

WHO Tobacco Atlas (pops)
 
2007-07-14 10:04:58 AM  
I don't care where people smoke, just don't throw your butts on the ground.
 
2007-07-14 10:06:29 AM  
And just because you find the smell bad, doesn't mean everyone has to bend to your whim.

- Cigarette smoke causes allergic reactions
- Cigarette smoke is still damaging even if not inhaled directly from the cigarette
- Most smokers simply litter their butts all over the place
- Several brush fires - some extremely damaging or fatal - are started every year by smokers
- House fires are frequently started by smokers
- Cigarette smokers burden non-smokers on company health plans

Smoking causes huge amounts of harm and is not done for any reason other than personal satisfaction, ergo, the harm should be mitigated to only the person who chooses to smoke. This is the exact same standard applied to all sorts of other activities:

1) Racing must be restricted to private places that allow it
2) Drinking is restricted to private places that allow it
3) You can just sky dive anywhere you want

Privacy of your own home, and the homes or establishments of people who allow it: fine, if you're stupid enough to smoke, it's none of my business as long as you aren't hurting me.
 
2007-07-14 10:08:30 AM  
3) You can NOT just sky dive anywhere you want

FTFM
 
2007-07-14 10:09:47 AM  
Trinilos: /Get rid of beer in bars!
//And pool! It can lead to gambling!


It's stupid comments like that, that shoot down any goodwill smokers may actually earn.

Drinking is hardly the same as smoking. Smoking travels, it's something others have to experience the effect of [e.g. 2nd hand smoke]. We already frown and punish complete drunks in public [e.g. those out of control]. Someone who has just had a few drinks is not likely to be a hassle [any more than they were sober]. Whereas, as soon as you light up that smoke, I'm introduced to the negative aspects of it.

I say fark smokers up the bumhole. It's such a stupid "habit" to get into. You want to calm down? Stop stressing yourself out like an asshole. Drive slower, organize your time better, co-operate with your neighbours, get some exercise, watch a movie, whatever, ..., You can relax yourself without having to drink or smoke.
 
2007-07-14 10:14:26 AM  
This is the hallmark of inefficient government: they ignore the big issues facing their nation, and become obsessed with dictating minutiae.


Wrong! The UK has a socialized medical system. The country spends millions each year to treat smoking related illness such as cancer, emphysema, heart disease and the thousand other illnesses that smoking causes.

In a socialized system who foots the medical bill? Every citizen, both smoking and non-smoking alike. In a socialized medical system this IS a *very big issue* and the monies wasted treating the diseases could be better spent increasing the quality of life for all citizens.
 
2007-07-14 10:15:24 AM  
cxjohn: Sorry, don't mind the anti-smoking laws. Not after I buried my mother. The cancer was mean. Ate her brain, ensheathed her heart, sent her into cardiac arrest. She was 54. She stopped smoking alright, and lived one year. You can't tell me it's not addictive. And when you start smoking as a kid in the 1940s, how the hell are you supposed to stop without hospitalization, which is what it took.

Flat out, smoking is disgusting, it's lethal, not just for the smoker, but everyone around it. You don't see us letting people burn chlorine gas, so why the hell do we let them light up cancer sticks? It's not like it has ANY redeeming qualities either. People who smoke look trashy. It made me sick to see my mother (and eventually my sister) stick those things into their mouth and light them up. Who the hell ever thought it was cool was so dead wrong. Oh, wait, they're just dead!


I'm very sorry for your loss, and I completely understand WHY you choose the side you do, but when it comes to laws, I don't want a nanny state, thanks. If a person decides to smoke, despite EVERYONE telling them the risks of it, knowing FULL WELL they are addictive, unhealthy, and potentially lethal, then that's their choice. The LAST thing I or a lot of other people want is more government interference in our daily lives telling us what we can and cannot do to our bodies.

And my grandfather quit smoking after 30 years cold turkey, grandmother and uncle quit with the gum, and my father quit cold. So don't think it can't be done quite successfully. And what about alcohol? Is that next? Alcohol can be JUST as dangerous. And not only to them, but to everyone around them should they choose to get violent, wander into traffic, or worse yet, drive. It also causes liver and kidney failure, and is equally addictive. Should we have our nanny state ban alcohol too, for fear that someone else would want to make their decisions themselves?

/sorry if I sound like an ass
//just trying to get the point across that nanny-state is BAD
 
2007-07-14 10:23:52 AM  
FTA: Mad council stokes fag-ban fire

I think I've figured it out. Some poof on the local council got thrown out and called the cops.
 
2007-07-14 10:25:51 AM  
Trinilos - just to be clear I'm not talking about *banning* cigarettes, rather I'm talking about banning where and when you can smoke. Taking the alcohol example you brought up there are plenty of laws that dictate where and when you can consume alcohol. For instance you can't drink while you are driving (for obvious reasons). In most cities and towns you can't have an open container of alcohol in public. Some of these "open container" laws are hold-overs from the by golly wonderful Ward and June Cleaver days of yore but many more have passed recently.


I am talking about doing the same for smoking, that is, limiting where and when you can smoke legally *in public*. I'd like to see it banned in all public enclosed spaces. I think an outdoor public space ban it's going to happen but I'd gleefully accept such a law.
 
2007-07-14 10:27:35 AM  
oops.


I am talking about doing the same for smoking, that is, limiting where and when you can smoke legally *in public*. I'd like to see it banned in all public enclosed spaces. I think an outdoor public space ban it's going to happen but I'd gleefully accept such a law.


I am talking about doing the same for smoking, that is, limiting where and when you can smoke legally *in public*. I'd like to see it banned in all public enclosed spaces. I think an outdoor public space ban ISN'T going to happen but I'd gleefully accept such a law.
 
2007-07-14 10:29:31 AM  
carrot [TotalFark] Quote 2007-07-14 07:35:02 AM
But think of the children!
ladmo.azanorak.com

snatchbeast [TotalFark] Quote 2007-07-14 08:12:52 AM
Makes me think of the Seattle hospitals that are banning smoking anywhere on hospital grounds.
ladmo.azanorak.com

Thanks to the Farkers who Boobiesed these pictures.
 
2007-07-14 10:30:34 AM  
snatchbeast: Makes me think of the Seattle hospitals that are banning smoking anywhere on hospital grounds.

I've seen that at hospitals here...and routinely ignore the signs. What's the hospital rent-a-cop going to do to me? It's not like hospital rules carry the weight of law. I've seen the signs in hospital parking structures as well, a semi-enclosed space filled with auto exhaust, seriously WTF?
 
2007-07-14 10:31:19 AM  
Sorry, no. Tobacco is dangerously addictive and second hand smoke is damaging to those who are around it. These are known and accepted facts. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home but I firmly believe that smoking should be banned in public places and I will continue to work tirelessly to pass such a law in my home state.


The exact same thing could be said of the emissions from your car's tailpipe.

You honestly think a cigarette emits more toxic pollution than your car does?

Why are you sitting here screaming about having "your" air polluted by smokers while you're willing to sit in an outdoor cafe with thousands of cars whizzing by polluting "your" air 1000x more than ANY smoker EVER could?

/non-smoker
//you're still a hypocrite
 
2007-07-14 10:32:02 AM  
I await the day when all smokers will be banished into the phantom zone for the duration of their smoke break.
i76.photobucket.com
 
2007-07-14 10:32:11 AM  
Gannon's Remorse: And just because you find the smell bad, doesn't mean everyone has to bend to your whim.

- Cigarette smoke causes allergic reactions
- Cigarette smoke is still damaging even if not inhaled directly from the cigarette
- Most smokers simply litter their butts all over the place
- Several brush fires - some extremely damaging or fatal - are started every year by smokers
- House fires are frequently started by smokers
- Cigarette smokers burden non-smokers on company health plans

Smoking causes huge amounts of harm and is not done for any reason other than personal satisfaction, ergo, the harm should be mitigated to only the person who chooses to smoke. This is the exact same standard applied to all sorts of other activities:

1) Racing must be restricted to private places that allow it
2) Drinking is restricted to private places that allow it
3) You can just sky dive anywhere you want

Privacy of your own home, and the homes or establishments of people who allow it: fine, if you're stupid enough to smoke, it's none of my business as long as you aren't hurting me.


Alright, last post I'm gonna make. Don't want to spend my morning arguing with people who don't understand that more frivolous "You can't live with out us" government laws are not a good thing.

-Alcohol causes mental and physical impairment
-A drunk can and will cause MUCH more harm than a pack of cigarettes
-Never seen broken bottles on the sides of roads? They can cause mild to severe cuts on pets and people, possibly leading to severe infections, and can and DO blow out tires causing property damage and possible life endangerment
-There are far more drunk driving incidents(read: DEATHS) than forest fires
-A drunk can cause just as much if not more harm to their own estate (or someone else's). Don't assume every fire started by a cig in a house ends in the neighborhood burning down.
-So do alcoholics, cripples, and just about anyone else who isn't perfectly healthy

Just the same, drinking is not done for any other reason than for personal satisfaction. It serves no benefit to anyone, or anything, in any way. So why allow it? And of course I agree smokers and non smokers shouldn't be sitting across the table from one another if they can help it. That's why there's smoking and non smoking sections. That's why a lot of smokers do it outside. If someone lights up at Denny's in the non smoking section they'll be asked to move to the section dedicated for them so that people like you don't have to be so close.

And save for people with allergies, second hand smoke is an absolute joke. How on earth could you think that a mouthful of smoke that's not only been filtered through the cig, but through the mouth, throat, and lungs of the smoker, and then spread out quite thin in the air could pose ANY risk whatsoever except for a particular odor you don't like?

So essentially, vehement anti-smokers just want to pass laws to outlaw cigarettes because they think it's a nasty habit.

/not pro-smoking
//just anti-stupid laws and too much government interference
///done and out
 
2007-07-14 10:34:16 AM  
I have found that quitting smoking has had a dual health benefit.

1. The smokes won't kill me.
2. The stress from having to deal with the anti-smoking pussies won't kill me.

/Was four years last January
//Not a pussy
 
2007-07-14 10:41:52 AM  
tomstdenis: Drinking Smoking is hardly the same as smoking drinking. Smoking travels Drinking affects you, it's something others have to experience the effect of [e.g. 2nd hand smoke noisy drunks and bar fights]. We already frown and punish complete drunks pack a day smokers in public [e.g. those out of control]. Someone who has just had a few drinks smokes is not likely to be a hassle [any more than they were sober before]. Whereas, as soon as you light up that smoke drink that beer, I'm introduced to the negative aspects of it you.

ftfy?
/not a smoker
//but drinking causes more harm to society
 
2007-07-14 10:42:30 AM  
MikeMc: snatchbeast: Makes me think of the Seattle hospitals that are banning smoking anywhere on hospital grounds.

I've seen that at hospitals here...and routinely ignore the signs. What's the hospital rent-a-cop going to do to me? It's not like hospital rules carry the weight of law. I've seen the signs in hospital parking structures as well, a semi-enclosed space filled with auto exhaust, seriously WTF?


In Arizona the anti smoking at work law went into effect a couple months ago. Where I work they posted the new smoking policy. It also bans smoking in the three level parking garage. Some guy can't light up a camel as he's walking to his car, but someone with a 30 year old clunker can let it sit idling for 20 minutes while the air conditioning cools down the interior.
 
2007-07-14 10:46:00 AM  
I really just think they should ban smoking all together. Sure you can argue that people have the right to do it, but its just one more source of polution and poor health. It makes everyone around the smoker just as sick as the smoker himself, if not moreso.

In general though, I agree with much of the above posts. If a place allows smoking and you don't like it, then go somewhere else. Its what we have in place right now, and everyone just has to deal with it.
 
2007-07-14 10:48:54 AM  
stevarooni:
On the other hand, the effects of second-hand smoke are not soundly established. Yes, studies arise that say that second-hand smoke is as bad as or worse than smoking alone...but those same studies are refuted by other studies that call them into question.


Here are a few things that the most educated men in the world believed at one time or another.

The world is flat.
Tomatoes are poisonous.
The sun goes round the earth.
Cocaine and Opiates are harmless.
You can tell if a man is a criminal or not by examining the shape of his head.
 
2007-07-14 10:49:38 AM  
Smokers, knowing what we've known about how horrible smoking is for the last 40 years (I'm assuming a majority of you are under 55). Why would you start? What is the appeal?

//Not trolling/judging, really want to know.
 
2007-07-14 10:49:41 AM  
The exact same thing could be said of the emissions from your car's tailpipe.

You honestly think a cigarette emits more toxic pollution than your car does?

Why are you sitting here screaming about having "your" air polluted by smokers while you're willing to sit in an outdoor cafe with thousands of cars whizzing by polluting "your" air 1000x more than ANY smoker EVER could?

/non-smoker
//you're still a hypocrite


Uh.. what? It's not my air, it is everybody's. And I pollute as little as I can. I carpool to work each day and drive a hybrid when I can. And just because cars pollute the atmosphere doesn't mean we shouldn't take steps to reduce that pollution. Were you alive before 1986? If so you might recall leaded gasoline. You could by it at pumps. Lead was added to gasoline by one Thomas Midgley in 1923. It was later found to be a heavy polluter but we kept on pumping it right into the atmosphere (some countries still do). Later when it was found that lead is stored in the body and never eliminated it was decided that we should ban leaded gas and we did. Midgley would later go on to invent CFCs and freon.

I'm not saying that cigarette smoke pollutes the atmosphere. I'm saying that cigarette smoke in the form of second-hand (as well as primary) causes disease in humans. Nobody disputes this (nobody educated on the topic anyway).

As for your rather dumb argument comparing auto exhaust to cigarettes it is illegal in most places to run an automobile indoors in the first place. I'm talking about doing the same for smoking.

Now, how am I a hypocrite?
 
2007-07-14 10:50:18 AM  
Tombfyre: I really just think they should ban smoking all together.

or legalize everything, i'm just sick of this double standards bullshiat.
 
2007-07-14 10:51:38 AM  
Tombfyre 2007-07-14 10:46:00 AM
I really just think they should ban smoking all together. Sure you can argue that people have the right to do it, but its just one more source of polution and poor health. It makes everyone around the smoker just as sick as the smoker himself, if not moreso.


If (like was posted on an eariler smoking thread) you're so concerned about second-hand smoke that you want people at redlights to roll their windows up so you don't have to smell it, then you should ALSO be sticking your head out the window to yell at them to turn their engines off.

Anything less and you're a hypocrite.
 
2007-07-14 10:51:43 AM  
Alf_Garnett

You forgot one thing on that list of things that most educated men in the world believed at one time or another.

Smoking is harmless.
 
2007-07-14 10:54:37 AM  
I'm not saying that cigarette smoke pollutes the atmosphere. I'm saying that cigarette smoke in the form of second-hand (as well as primary) causes disease in humans. Nobody disputes this (nobody educated on the topic anyway).

As for your rather dumb argument comparing auto exhaust to cigarettes it is illegal in most places to run an automobile indoors in the first place. I'm talking about doing the same for smoking.

Now, how am I a hypocrite?


Because the EXACT same things have been said about tailpipe emissions as have been said about cigarettes...yet I dont see you biatching about having other's people's cars pollute the air you breathe.

Biatching about having to breathe in other people's cigarette smoke in a bar makes as much sense as biatching about having to breathe in their car's tailpipe emissions while you stand on the side of the freeway.
 
2007-07-14 10:55:15 AM  
blankwhiteboard
//I'd be happier if America joined the anti-smoking trend
///your cigarette stinks like shiat


No. It smells like tobacco. If it stank like shiat then nobody would have started smoking it in the first place. Tobacco was never described as a shiat-stink until recently.

I don't like the smell of cedar. Now, if I ever develop an anal retentive hatred of cedar, I might begin describe it as smelling like shiat, but hopefully someone will shoot me before I turn into a shrill anti-cedar crybaby.
 
2007-07-14 10:57:10 AM  
I_Make_Jebus_Cry

Biatching about having to breathe in other people's cigarette smoke in a bar makes as much sense as biatching about having to breathe in their car's tailpipe emissions while you stand on the side of the freeway.

I'm a little embarrassed to ask this.

Do understand the difference between indoors and outdoors?
 
2007-07-14 10:57:34 AM  
blankwhiteboard: Wrong! The UK has a socialized medical system. The country spends millions each year to treat smoking related illness such as cancer, emphysema, heart disease and the thousand other illnesses that smoking causes.

Really? Because last I heard, smokers are denied treatment in the UK.
 
2007-07-14 10:58:36 AM  
I'm a little embarrassed to ask this.

Do understand the difference between indoors and outdoors?


See above example of parking garage.

Also, if you will notice, they are not just trying to ban smoking inside. They have banned smoking in MANY places out of doors.

hypocrites. All of them.
 
Displayed 50 of 208 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report