Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace?

by Syl Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:20 pm

First topic message reminder :

No......the vapour stinks and the user and anyone nearby is usually swamped by a sweet smelling stench that I for one find quite obnoxious. If you want to vape, go somewhere where you are not bothering other people. Rolling Eyes

"E-cigarette users should be allowed to vape in public places, such as in offices, buses and trains, a controversial report by MPs has recommended.
The Science and Technology Committee said that forcing vapers into the smoking shelters could undermine their efforts to quit and called for a ‘liberalisation on restrictions’ which would necessitate ‘non-vapers having to accommodate vapers.’
MPs also said regulations should be relaxed to allow licensing, prescribing and advertising of e-cigarettes to promoted their health benefits.
Committee chair Norman Lamb MP, said: “E-cigarettes are less harmful than conventional cigarettes, but current policy and regulations do not sufficiently reflect this and businesses, transport providers and public places should stop viewing conventional and e-cigarettes as one and the same. There is no public health rationale for doing so.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/08/17/let-e-cigarette-users-vape-offices-buses-say-mps-controversial/

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:06 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Happy to go to jail to defend my rights

Its my choice and you trying to stop me is what is wrong

Smokers have no intrinsic rights. An owner of a MAC-10 has more rights in this country. See, Amend. No. 2, U.S.Constitution. Public laws exist for the health & safety of the public. Nothing is more detrimental to public health than smoking.

Didge wrote:Again I actually move away from people

Distancing yourself is never adequate, as long as you are in touch with civilization.

Didge wrote:You miss the point I would only happily blow this in the face of Eilzel and Syl

The other thing I find offensive about smoking is the smell around smokers. How can people buy such products as mouthwash and toothpaste to improve their breath, yet intentionally make their clothes and hair smell like rotten, acrid eggs. Of course, they are not aware of the smell themselves, because they are the smell. Their car, their homes and their work spaces also wreak of the same, sickly odor.

You're perfectly free to refuse to go to a smoker's house, to stand near them, or go in their car. They probably don't care if they smell of cigarettes.

by Tommy Monk Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:11 am

"...MPs also said regulations should be relaxed to allow licensing, prescribing and advertising of e-cigarettes to promoted their health benefits..."

Years ago, people were told that smoking tobacco was a harmless and beneficial thing to do...!

Truth is... nobody knows how harmful it is to be breathing in all these 'vaped' chemicals... although it is well known that they contain large numbers of very harmful chemicals that are well known about...!

Surely neither smoking or vaping should be encouraged by advertising or authorities...!?

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 2:54 am

You can tell Syl and Eilzel have never smoked a joint lol

It shows why they are being so uppity on this

Dedicated for them both Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:40 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Smokers have no intrinsic rights. An owner of a MAC-10 has more rights in this country. See, Amend. No. 2, U.S.Constitution. Public laws exist for the health & safety of the public. Nothing is more detrimental to public health than smoking.

Distancing yourself is never adequate, as long as you are in touch with civilization.

The other thing I find offensive about smoking is the smell around smokers. How can people buy such products as mouthwash and toothpaste to improve their breath, yet intentionally make their clothes and hair smell like rotten, acrid eggs. Of course, they are not aware of the smell themselves, because they are the smell. Their car, their homes and their work spaces also wreak of the same, sickly odor.

You're perfectly free to refuse to go to a smoker's house, to stand near them, or go in their car. They probably don't care if they smell of cigarettes.

Sure. I don't party with smokers. Very few of them on the West coast.

by 'Wolfie Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:47 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Smokers have no intrinsic rights. An owner of a MAC-10 has more rights in this country. See, Amend. No. 2, U.S.Constitution. Public laws exist for the health & safety of the public. Nothing is more detrimental to public health than smoking.

Distancing yourself is never adequate, as long as you are in touch with civilization.

The other thing I find offensive about smoking is the smell around smokers. How can people buy such products as mouthwash and toothpaste to improve their breath, yet intentionally make their clothes and hair smell like rotten, acrid eggs. Of course, they are not aware of the smell themselves, because they are the smell. Their car, their homes and their work spaces also wreak of the same, sickly odor.

You're perfectly free to refuse to go to a smoker's house, to stand near them, or go in their car. They probably don't care if they smell of cigarettes.

It's pretty easy to avoid tobacco smokers, and their cars and houses, down here...

Less than 15% of Adult Aussies smoke these days..

What is about so many English, French and Japanese cigarette smokers these days, that they still believe that they have some kind of special "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they like, with no regards to anyone else's health and well-being -- even though they are in the minority these days ???

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:38 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're perfectly free to refuse to go to a smoker's house, to stand near them, or go in their car. They probably don't care if they smell of cigarettes.

It's pretty easy to avoid tobacco smokers, and their cars and houses, down here...

Less than 15% of Adult Aussies smoke these days..

What is about so many English, French and Japanese cigarette smokers these days, that they still believe that they have some kind of special "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they like, with no regards to anyone else's health and well-being -- even though they are in the minority these days ???

I don't think that's true of the English actually. When they banned smoking in public buildings, I never heard one smoker complain. They simply accepted it and went outside at pubs, cafes, and at work. I think that smokers tend to stick to places where they can smoke without pissing others off - certain cafes and pubs with a suitable outside area or beer garden. They meet other smokers there so nobody cares that they're smoking.

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:39 am

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're perfectly free to refuse to go to a smoker's house, to stand near them, or go in their car. They probably don't care if they smell of cigarettes.

Sure. I don't party with smokers. Very few of them on the West coast.

Stop complaining about smokers then.

by The Devil, You Know Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:35 am

by The Devil, You Know Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:37 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're perfectly free to refuse to go to a smoker's house, to stand near them, or go in their car. They probably don't care if they smell of cigarettes.

It's pretty easy to avoid tobacco smokers, and their cars and houses, down here...

Less than 15% of Adult Aussies smoke these days..

What is about so many English, French and Japanese cigarette smokers these days, that they still believe that they have some kind of special "right" to smoke wherever and whenever they like, with no regards to anyone else's health and well-being -- even though they are in the minority these days ???

So are you saying a minority shouldn't have any rights or privileges?

by Syl Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:08 pm

Didge wrote:You can tell Syl and Eilzel have never smoked a joint lol

It shows why they are being so uppity on this

Dedicated for them both

I have said on here before I have never smoked a joint, so what? I can get pretty high on life.
I have mixed with loads of people who did/still do, tbh I live and let live....BUT, I dont want to be in a confined space on public transport, and I dont want to be eating my food when people are wafting smoke in my face.....I think that makes me pretty normal and the people who disagree pretty selfish.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:56 pm

Syl wrote:
Didge wrote:You can tell Syl and Eilzel have never smoked a joint lol

It shows why they are being so uppity on this

Dedicated for them both

I have said on here before I have never smoked a joint, so what? I can get pretty high on life.
I have mixed with loads of people who did/still do, tbh I live and let live....BUT, I dont want to be in a confined space on public transport, and I dont want to be eating my food when people are wafting smoke in my face.....I think that makes me pretty normal and the people who disagree pretty selfish.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:00 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Sure. I don't party with smokers. Very few of them on the West coast.

Stop complaining about smokers then.

Why on earth? I don't stop hating it simply because there are fewer smokers on the west coast. You usually make more sense than that, Raggs.

I think that smoking is the most ridiculous pleasure ever invented. Your lungs are as vital as your heart.

You guys in the UK are hog wild about it. Ruins any dining out there, with a guy creating smelly clouds at the table next to you. Filthy, disgusting practice.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Stop complaining about smokers then.

Why on earth? I don't stop hating it simply because there are fewer smokers on the west coast. You usually make more sense than that, Raggs.

I think that smoking is the most ridiculous pleasure ever invented. Your lungs are as vital as your heart.

You guys in the UK are hog wild about it. Ruins any dining out there, with a guy creating smelly clouds at the table next to you. Filthy, disgusting practice.

Actually 11% of people in California are smokers, no doubt also pot smokers as well

Well unless you have tried smoking weed, dont knock it. It chills out most people

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:06 pm

http://tobaccofreeca.com/health/2016-california-tobacco-facts-figures/

Regardless, 55 million people is a staggering number. It would mean that there are nearly as many marijuana users as there are cigarette smokers (59 million).

https://www.sacbee.com/news/nation-world/national/article145681414.html

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Stop complaining about smokers then.

Why on earth? I don't stop hating it simply because there are fewer smokers on the west coast. You usually make more sense than that, Raggs.

I think that smoking is the most ridiculous pleasure ever invented. Your lungs are as vital as your heart.

You guys in the UK are hog wild about it. Ruins any dining out there, with a guy creating smelly clouds at the table next to you. Filthy, disgusting practice.

You were complaining about the smell of smokers. Just don't go near them if you don't like it and stop complaining. I'm sure they don't want you around either. Laughing

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:57 pm

Well, yes as long as there is no smoking areas. In California, there is no smoking in government/office buildings, bars and restaurants, public housing, within 25 ft. of a bus stop, on buses or transportation, stores, parks or recreation areas, and places like beaches or river landings (which are public places). So we get scenes like this all over town:

Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace? - Page 4 BIGBIG_gianni_AJBCAA-1

Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace? - Page 4 BIGBIG_gianni_AJBCAA-1

To walk done a street is to walk through a cloud. And what's with throwing trash on the sidewalk...there are butts all over, in front of buildings.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:Well, yes as long as there is no smoking areas. In California, there is no smoking in government/office buildings, bars and restaurants, public housing, within 25 ft. of a bus stop, on buses or transportation, stores, parks or recreation areas, and places like beaches or river landings (which are public places). So we get scenes like this all over town:

To walk done a street is to walk through a cloud. And what's with throwing trash on the sidewalk...there are butts all over, in front of buildings.

Its not smokers causing that cloud, but cars

And yet you have no objection to the constant pollution of cars daily within California

Smoke from cigs, dissipates in open air, but the pollution from cars does not.

Time you banned all cars within cities, except for logistics, and transport for children, the disabled and elderly. All the rest need to get off their fat arses and learn to use the legs they have

Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace? - Page 4 Photo-1

Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace? - Page 4 Photo-1

California is one of the most polluted states in the United States. A study conducted in 2008 at California State University, Fullerton CA, found that air pollution in California is claiming more lives than car accidents. The shape of California’s land and its warm, sunny climate are perfect for forming and trapping air pollutants. Most cities in California are built on plains or in valleys surrounded by mountains. These areas are natural bowls that trap air pollution and prevent the air from circulating. On some days temperature inversions, where the air closer to the ground becomes cooler than the air above, act as lids which trap air pollutants close to the ground. This prevents vertical mixing, where the cleaner air above mixes with the polluted air below, and the dispersion of pollutants. On hot, sunny days, pollutants emitted by vehicles, industry, and many products react with each other to form ozone, the main ingredient of smog. During the winter, temperature inversions can trap tiny particles of smoke and exhaust from cars, trucks, fireplaces, and anything else that burns fuel. This keeps the pollution close to the ground – right where people are breathing.

https://publichealth.llu.edu/about/blog/air-quality-california-steps-help-reduce-air-pollution

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:15 pm

Didge wrote:Its not smokers causing that cloud, but cars

No, actually California has cleaned up most of the smog with the strictest automobile emissions controls in the world. Look at how dated your study is...and that's Los Angeles. It used to be the smoggiest city in the world.

They are so strict in California that Republicans are trying to pass federal legislation to say that it is strictly a federal issue, thereby cancelling California's and all states power to impose standards.

Look at the picture, above. Those are smokers...and they're on every building entrance:

Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace? - Page 4 20120417000945_0

Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace? - Page 4 20120417000945_0

Should E cig users be allowed to vape on buses, trains and in their workplace? - Page 4 2018073100553_0

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:Well, yes as long as there is no smoking areas. In California, there is no smoking in government/office buildings, bars and restaurants, public housing, within 25 ft. of a bus stop, on buses or transportation, stores, parks or recreation areas, and places like beaches or river landings (which are public places). So we get scenes like this all over town:

To walk done a street is to walk through a cloud. And what's with throwing trash on the sidewalk...there are butts all over, in front of buildings.

You're only walking past them in the open air - you should stop fussing about it. You said there weren't many smokers there anyway.

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:21 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Well, yes as long as there is no smoking areas. In California, there is no smoking in government/office buildings, bars and restaurants, public housing, within 25 ft. of a bus stop, on buses or transportation, stores, parks or recreation areas, and places like beaches or river landings (which are public places). So we get scenes like this all over town:

To walk done a street is to walk through a cloud. And what's with throwing trash on the sidewalk...there are butts all over, in front of buildings.

You're only walking past them in the open air - you should stop fussing about it. You said there weren't many smokers there anyway.

Don't be silly. You should not be so fussy about property crimes. Razz

Yes, there are not smokers here, but they are all out on the street corners. Thank god for legislation.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Its not smokers causing that cloud, but cars

No, actually California has cleaned up most of the smog with the strictest automobile emissions controls in the world.

They are so strict in California that Republicans are trying to pass federal legislation to say that it is strictly a federal issue, thereby cancelling California's and all states power to impose standards.

Look at the picture, above. Those are smokers...and they're on every building entranc

Bullshit alert

Its one of the most heavily polluted states in the US and whilst they maybe doing their best to try and rectify the problem. Its still heavily polluted and espcially from the mass of vehicles being used within the state

So it has hardly made a dent in the pollution that many people suffer in California and the poor will suffer the most with a decrease in life expentancy. Somkers have their own choice and know they will decrease their life expectancy. Pollution does not give anybody a choice and will descrease for many their life expectancy

Again smokers smoking in open air have their smoke dissipates quickly and whilst I agree they should stand away from people. If you move towards them, when smoking, and dislike this, then you are then the problem and an idiot

Pollution does not dissipates and like I say, you have enough public transport system. Its time you banned cars or created a non-polluting vehicle. As I said they should only be there to transport children, the elderly and disabled. The rest of those ovberweight fat Californians, need to learn to get of their arses and learn to walk

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:25 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

You're only walking past them in the open air - you should stop fussing about it. You said there weren't many smokers there anyway.

Don't be silly. You should not be so fussy about property crimes.

Yes, there are not smokers here, but they are all out on the street corners. Thank god for legislation.

So there are smokers there. They're on the street corners because they're banned from smoking inside. Just be pleased about that and get on with your life. Cool

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:31 pm

Didge wrote:Bullshit alert

Its one of the most heavily polluted states in the US and whilst they maybe doing their best to try and rectify the problem.

Bullshit alert, indeed. You provide dated studies, for yesterday's problems. Get up to date.

Road Show wrote:Colorado moves to adopt California's vehicle emissions standards

Governor John Hickenlooper signed an executive order setting the state down the path to more stringent emissions standards.

BY KYLE HYATT
JUNE 20, 2018

There are currently 12 states (and Washington, D.C.) that have adopted California's ultra-stringent vehicle emissions standards, but the 13th state to do so might just be Colorado if Governor John Hickenlooper has his way, according to Automotive News.

Governor Hickenlooper signed an executive order that officially directs the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission to draft rules to adopt the same standards as California by the end of the year, which gives the coalition of states using California's standards even more clout when dealing with the federal government.

Unfortunately, you are trying to dodge the point. If auto emissions are bad where you are, fix them. Don't use them as an excuse for continuing unhealthy practices in other areas.

by nicko Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:36 pm

Car manufacturers are fiddling the emission tests,
most of them anyway. !

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:43 pm

nicko wrote:Car manufacturers are fiddling the emission tests,
most of them anyway. !

European manufacturers have been caught doing that. Guess California is too hard on them...po babies.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/19/vws-ceo-was-told-about-emissions-software-months-before-scandal-der-spiegel.html

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:47 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Bullshit alert

Its one of the most heavily polluted states in the US and whilst they maybe doing their best to try and rectify the problem.

Bullshit alert, indeed. You provide dated studies, for yesterday's problems. Get up to date.

Road Show wrote:Colorado moves to adopt California's vehicle emissions standards

Governor John Hickenlooper signed an executive order setting the state down the path to more stringent emissions standards.

BY KYLE HYATT
JUNE 20, 2018

There are currently 12 states (and Washington, D.C.) that have adopted California's ultra-stringent vehicle emissions standards, but the 13th state to do so might just be Colorado if Governor John Hickenlooper has his way, according to Automotive News.

Governor Hickenlooper signed an executive order that officially directs the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission to draft rules to adopt the same standards as California by the end of the year, which gives the coalition of states using California's standards even more clout when dealing with the federal government.

Unfortunately, you are trying to dodge the point. If auto emissions are bad where you are, fix them. Don't use them as an excuse for continuing unhealthy practices in other areas.

I am not trying to dodge anything, but exposing your bullshit

Again, where another state tries to adopt the polices of california. Does not mean the level of Pollution is at a level that is clean for the residents of california

It simple means they are wanting to adopt their program

Again the levels in California are so high, its decreased the life expectancy of californians

https://www.seeker.com/health/air-pollution-is-shaving-years-off-of-the-human-lifespan

Want me to continually embarress you more here?

I have a stack of evidence, to prove you are nothing more than a hypocritical idiot

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:50 pm

Didge wrote:I am trying to dodge anything

Then why are you suddenly talking about automobile emissions?? The topic is smoking.

If you've got emissions problems there, treat it as a separate issue. That issue says nothing about smoking.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 7:53 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:I am trying to dodge anything

Then why are you suddenly talking about automobile emissions?? The topic is smoking.

If you've got emissions problems there, treat it as a separate issue. That issue says nothing about smoking.

You said about walking into clouds of smoke

Yet the reality is you are walking into clouds of pollution daily and yet I see nothing from you to ban cars to selective areas

The issue here is you are a prejudiced hypocritical bigot. Wanting to discriminate against smokers in open air, whilst at the same time happy for your state to shorten the life expectancy of all its people with pollution

The United States and Europe are also affected, particularly in California, which has the dubious honor of containing eight of the US’s 10 most polluted cities, thanks to an unhappy marriage of high population and unfortunate topography that has the effect of trapping pollution.

Residents of Los Angeles would have 8.4 extra months to live if WHO standards were met, while inhabitants of San Diego would have an additional four months. Chicagoans would have about six months.

Scientists have known that particulate matter is particularly dangerous for some time. But parsing the direct impact of exposure has been problematic, with observational data muddied by other socioeconomic factors that often go along with exposure, such as income, diet, smoking, etc.

https://www.seeker.com/health/air-pollution-is-shaving-years-off-of-the-human-lifespan

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:04 pm

Didge wrote:You said about walking into clouds of smoke

Yeah, smog is not mere clouds of smoke. Take a look at your own photo of downtown Los Angeles. There's no comparison.

Again, you are citing use-to-be truths. Old news.

by Raggamuffin Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:05 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:I am trying to dodge anything

Then why are you suddenly talking about automobile emissions?? The topic is smoking.

If you've got emissions problems there, treat it as a separate issue. That issue says nothing about smoking.

I agree. This is actually about vaping rather than smoking, but it's not about traffic pollution.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:10 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:You said about walking into clouds of smoke

Yeah, smog is not mere clouds of smoke. Take a look at your own photo of downtown Los Angeles. There's no comparison.

Again, you are citing use-to-be truths. Old news.

That is smog seen in that photo from poluution, as again cig smoke dissipates in open air

So its not old news, you are a massive hypocrite and as seen, I see no view from you to not only get fat californians off their arses and walk to work. You would rather maintain the pollution

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:13 pm

You're trying to change the subject, didge. If you've got smogs problems in Kent, get active.

Meanwhile, this thread is about e-cigs.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:14 pm

Original Quill wrote:You're trying to change the subject, didge. If you've got smogs problems in Kent, get active.

Meanwhile, this thread is about e-cigs.

I am easily showing that in fact many people that bitch about smoking, are in fact two faced when it comes to pollution

And you emphatically fall into the category

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:57 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:You're trying to change the subject, didge. If you've got smogs problems in Kent, get active.

Meanwhile, this thread is about e-cigs.

I am easily showing that in fact many people that bitch about smoking, are in fact two faced when it comes to pollution

And you emphatically fall into the category

That's of no interest to anyone. It's illogical. They are two separate issues, so it cannot be "two-faced". Duplicity requires a single fulcrum, otherwise there is no comparison to be had.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

I am easily showing that in fact many people that bitch about smoking, are in fact two faced when it comes to pollution

And you emphatically fall into the category

That's of no interest to anyone. It's illogical. They are two separate issues, so it cannot be "two-faced". Duplicity requires a single fulcrum, otherwise there is no comparison to be had.

No there is not sepeate issues, based on your views and answsers

You went off a view that you are walking into a cloud of smoke did you not?

That is not a cloud of vapour, completely different

Hence your views at many times here have been on smoking in public

You changed the direction of the debate and continued this and now want to backtrack, when I show how hypocritical you are being on pollution

Like I said, you want to discriminate against smokers in public, based off a snobbish view and actually defend the continuation of cars polluting California

The smoking in public issue in regards to harming the rest of the the populace is miniscule, compared to pollution and as seen you want to defend the cars that cause this pollution

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:17 pm

Didge wrote:No there is not sepeate issues, based on your views and answsers

You went off a view that you are walking into a cloud of smoke did you not?

You brought up the issue of smog. That's no mere "cloud of smoke". Not even close. The issue about auto emissions has no bearing on the subject of this thread, nor even the remotest relevance. It's a necessary by-product of transportation.

Smoking is an election for pleasure. It is entirely unnecessary and has no value associated with it. It is not necessary for transportation, dressing, eating, pooing, or procreation...it has no benefit whatsoever, tho it has tremendous downsides for the smoker and for those in his company.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:21 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:No there is not sepeate issues, based on your views and answsers

You went off a view that you are walking into a cloud of smoke did you not?

You brought up the issue of smog. That's no mere "cloud of smoke". Not even close. The issue about auto emissions has no bearing on the subject of this thread, nor even the remotest relevance. It's a necessary by-product of transportation.

Smoking is an election for pleasure. It is entirely unnecessary and has no value associated with it. It is not necessary for transportation, dressing, eating, pooing, or procreation...it has no benefit whatsoever, tho it has tremendous downsides for the smoker and for those in his company.

After you brought up claiming you walk into a cloud of smoke from smokers.

It was an over the top exaggeration from you and as ignoring the blatant fact daily you walk into a wall of pollution daily

It has every bearing and proves you are a hypocritical two faced idiot

That ia a fact

And its my pleasure to smoke, when I do not look to cause the harm of others and no Totalitarian Marxist extremist will ever deny me my tight to do so

Smoking weed has more benefits than you think

Its why its now being used medically and even made legal medically

Ouch again

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:26 pm

Didge wrote:After you brought up claiming you walk into a cloud of smoke from smokers.

It was an over the top exaggeration from you and as ignoring the blatant fact daily you walk into a wall of pollution daily

If you think it's an exaggeration, then argue that. You'll lose--smokers exhale clouds of smoke--but at least you'll be consistent.

Arguing auto emissions is a diversion.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:After you brought up claiming you walk into a cloud of smoke from smokers.

It was an over the top exaggeration from you and as ignoring the blatant fact daily you walk into a wall of pollution daily

If you think it's an exaggeration, then argue that. You'll lose--smokers exhale clouds of smoke--but at least you'll be consistent.

Arguing auto emissions is a diversion.

Its not a diversion, its shows you are emphatically a hypocrite and majorly two faced

As are you seriously more concerned at cig smoke, which dissipates in open air, compard to pollution?

Yes or no?

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:32 pm

Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

If you think it's an exaggeration, then argue that. You'll lose--smokers exhale clouds of smoke--but at least you'll be consistent.

Arguing auto emissions is a diversion.

Its not a diversion, its shows you are emphatically a hypocrite and majorly two faced

And you are a pig's fart.

Do you really just want to call each other names?

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:

Its not a diversion, its shows you are emphatically a hypocrite and majorly two faced

And you are a pig's fart.

Do you really just want to call each other names?

Well animal flatulence also increase pollution

I never called you a name, I am merely stating a fact that you are two faced on this

I never called you a pig, but hey, happy to take any name you throw at me buddy

lol!

by Original Quill Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:34 pm

Didge wrote:As are you seriously more concerned at cig smoke, which dissipates in open air, compard to pollution?

I don't even endeavor to compare the two. They are two separate issues.

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:As are you seriously more concerned at cig smoke, which dissipates in open air, compard to pollution?

I don't even endeavor to compare the two. They are two separate issues.

Which is why you are a hypocrite

When trying to seperate them both, when each can cause potential harm
In the case of smoking, laws rightly restrict people smoking in confined areas
They dont stop cars polluting full stop

Hence double standard

by Guest Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:29 pm

Didge wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Why not? Smoking is revolting, why should others like you and me have to deal with the stink of whatever type of cig it is? There should be designated smoking areas and that should be it. Everywhere else - no. Even bus stops. Kids often uses buses and have to line up with people smoking these putrid things. Sure e-cigs are harmless but they still smell and still set a worse example than just not smoking anything.

Are you now going to ban hands on phsyical workers getting on trains and buses, because they have worked their arse all day and now smell a tad?

my hubby used to come home after a hard days graft having been sweating during the day.....i found it a huge turn on......salty taste

am i some sort of sicko

Embarassed

[/quote]

by Original Quill Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:40 am

Didge wrote:When trying to seperate them both, when each can cause potential harm
In the case of smoking, laws rightly restrict people smoking in confined areas
They dont stop cars polluting full stop

But nothing of what you say creates any sort of equivalency. Just two separate issues. with two separate causes. Treat them in the same campaign if you wish, but in no way one does one cancel the other out.

And if you are going to group smoking with auto emissions, throw in Russian hacking while you are at it. How about all the smoke that creates? Did Trump conspire with the Russians...that's a cloudy area, too.

by Guest Mon Aug 20, 2018 1:42 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:When trying to seperate them both, when each can cause potential harm
In the case of smoking, laws rightly restrict people smoking in confined areas
They dont stop cars polluting full stop

But nothing of what you say creates any sort of equivalency. Just two separate issues. with two separate causes. Treat them in the same campaign if you wish, but in no way one does one cancel the other out.

And if you are going to group smoking with auto emissions, throw in Russian hacking while you are at it. How about all the smoke that creates? Did Trump conspire with the Russians...that's a cloudy area, too.

When trying to seperate them both, when each can cause potential harm
In the case of smoking, laws rightly restrict people smoking in confined areas
They dont stop cars polluting full stop

by veya_victaous Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:52 am

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:
Original Quill wrote:You're trying to change the subject, didge. If you've got smogs problems in Kent, get active.

Meanwhile, this thread is about e-cigs.

I am easily showing that in fact many people that bitch about smoking, are in fact two faced when it comes to pollution

And you emphatically fall into the category

That's of no interest to anyone. It's illogical. They are two separate issues, so it cannot be "two-faced". Duplicity requires a single fulcrum, otherwise there is no comparison to be had.

Exactly

Car pollution and Smoking are not related at all.

Didge as typical has lost the debate and now being stupid Rolling Eyes

by Guest Mon Aug 20, 2018 6:16 am

gelico wrote:
Didge wrote:

Are you now going to ban hands on phsyical workers getting on trains and buses, because they have worked their arse all day and now smell a tad?

my hubby used to come home after a hard days graft having been sweating during the day.....i found it a huge turn on......salty taste

am i some sort of sicko

[/quote]

Nope not at all, its natural as I said to Eilzel with sexual attration

Have a read back

by Eilzel Mon Aug 20, 2018 8:17 am

Not one person has suggested that sweat cannot be arousing.
Not one person has said they hate homeless people if they smell.

Most here would probably support finding cleaner alternatives to drivel fuel guzzling cars but like any reasonable grown up, accepts that for now many people DO need to drive cars to get to certain places.

None of the above can be compared to smoking cigarettes, which is nothing more than a dirty addiction that harms both the smoker and those around them.

Any ridiculous comparison to cars driving, homeless people or sweat is just that - ridiculous.

by Syl Mon Aug 20, 2018 12:12 pm

Eilzel wrote:Not one person has suggested that sweat cannot be arousing.
Not one person has said they hate homeless people if they smell.

Most here would probably support finding cleaner alternatives to drivel fuel guzzling cars but like any reasonable grown up, accepts that for now many people DO need to drive cars to get to certain places.

None of the above can be compared to smoking cigarettes, which is nothing more than a dirty addiction that harms both the smoker and those around them.

Any ridiculous comparison to cars driving, homeless people or sweat is just that - ridiculous.

Didge does like to bring red herrings into the debate....he sometimes ends up arguing against himself as he brings so many in he forgets what the actual topic is about. Laughing

I think one of the saddest sights is seeing people in dressing gowns outside hospital grounds, looking like they are at deaths door, puffing away on their cigarettes.

I used to smoke many years ago, and I know it's a hard habit to break, and I also know E cigs are much safer and less harmful to the passive smoker, but they are still imo anti social when other people who want to breath clean air are inhaling the sickly sweet stink many of them give off.

by Sponsored content