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

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:The E-Cig users make a fog that looks like the worst day in London. In my opinion it's 10 times worse than regular cigarette smoke. Some of them find it funny when they blow a huge cloud your way. Why can't everybody just quit smoking all this death shit.

Because we live in a free world. Don’t turn all right wing on us.

I think that's a perversion of the concept of freedom.  Certainly one cannot be addicted, and still be free.  It's a loss of freedom internally...handcuffs for the mind.

veya_victaous wrote:I'm Personally not that phased by the smell of smokers (Dad and several friends are smokers) and think vaping is less intrusive than traditional cigarettes.

But the negative health effects are undeniable and the product offers no value, it not even enjoyable, unless you're addicted. and addictions are bad for peoples well being. SO it's hard to argue against trying to reduce the rate of smoking in society.

It's also proven these sort of policies work in regards to reducing the rate of smoking in society. the biggest decrease being in the rate of people start smoking which is the most import segment because if you never create the addiction you never have to deal with the addiction. which means smoking will naturally be phased out with generational change.

We are seeing this work in Australia right now, young people are not taking up smoking because it is a social limitation, since you always need to go outside for a smoke your not that great to go out with. it's no longer cool, it's not the 'social lubricant' it once was when people sat around the bar a smoked, it's now something which you have to excuse yourself from the Bar(and friends) to do.

So while these policies may be a bitch for current smokers they are undoubtedly better for societies future.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I'm not running round in circles with you BS 'but what about' crap.

You just called me a runt and a wanker in one post.

Without provocation.

Do it again and you're in the basement.

Really?

Is that why you have constantly run away from my points you little runt?

You are nothing more than a snob and a prejudied twat

Period

That is based on you being an elitist dick

And you threaten me with the basement and thus abuse your position

Go fuck yourself

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:The E-Cig users make a fog that looks like the worst day in London. In my opinion it's 10 times worse than regular cigarette smoke. Some of them find it funny when they blow a huge cloud your way. Why can't everybody just quit smoking all this death shit.

Because we live in a free world. Don’t turn all right wing on us.

Lurker wrote:

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:The E-Cig users make a fog that looks like the worst day in London. In my opinion it's 10 times worse than regular cigarette smoke. Some of them find it funny when they blow a huge cloud your way. Why can't everybody just quit smoking all this death shit.

Because we live in a free world. Don’t turn all right wing on us.

But your so-called freedom affects all of us.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think that's a perversion of the concept of freedom.  Certainly one cannot be addicted, and still be free.  It's a loss of freedom internally...handcuffs for the mind.

I’m talking about the moaners, not the smokers.  

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

I’m talking about the moaners, not the smokers.  

Yes I know, but whether one is justified turns on whether one is free.  With any kind of addiction, one is not free.  And here, right now, you can see that the entire thread is divided into the addicted, and not addicted.

As veya points out, impliedly, if you are not addicted, you don't smoke.  As I point out, impliedly, the addicted are the "moaners" (your term) who defend the tobacco industry, and the resultant practices of smokers.

It's all a kind of extortion.  Handcuffs for the mind.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I think that's a perversion of the concept of freedom.  Certainly one cannot be addicted, and still be free.  It's a loss of freedom internally...handcuffs for the mind.

I’m talking about the moaners, not the smokers.  

Yes I know, but whether one is justified turns on whether one is free.  With any kind of addiction, one is not free.  And here, right now, you can see that the entire thread is divided into the addicted, and not addicted.

As veya points out, impliedly, if you are not addicted, you don't smoke.  As I point out, impliedly, the addicted are the "moaners" (your term) who defend the tobacco industry, and the resultant practices of smokers.

It's all a kind of extortion.  Handcuffs for the mind.

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:The E-Cig users make a fog that looks like the worst day in London. In my opinion it's 10 times worse than regular cigarette smoke. Some of them find it funny when they blow a huge cloud your way. Why can't everybody just quit smoking all this death shit.

Because we live in a free world. Don’t turn all right wing on us.

But your so-called freedom affects all of us.

So you only agree with freedom for some and not others, depending upon what you personally, have no problem with?

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I'm Personally not that phased by the smell of smokers (Dad and several friends are smokers) and think vaping is less intrusive than traditional cigarettes.

But the negative health effects are undeniable and the product offers no value, it not even enjoyable, unless you're addicted. and addictions are bad for peoples well being. SO it's hard to argue against trying to reduce the rate of smoking in society.

It's also proven these sort of policies work in regards to reducing the rate of smoking in society. the biggest decrease being in the rate of people start smoking which is the most import segment because if you never create the addiction you never have to deal with the addiction. which means smoking will naturally be phased out with generational change.

We are seeing this work in Australia right now, young people are not taking up smoking because it is a social limitation, since you always need to go outside for a smoke your not that great to go out with. it's no longer cool, it's not the 'social lubricant' it once was when people sat around the bar a smoked, it's now something which you have to excuse yourself from the Bar(and friends) to do.

So while these policies may be a bitch for current smokers they are undoubtedly better for societies future.

That's actually quite a sensible post. However, a lot of young people where I live do smoke, and it doesn't really affect their social life that much because we have places where people can sit outside and socialise. You can even get beer gardens with heaters these days. Nipping out for a cigarette doesn't really affect anyone's friendship anyway.

I can't see why this argument is still going on here actually. I don't think anyone has said that smokers should be able to smoke in public buildings/pubs/cafes.

veya_victaous wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:I'm Personally not that phased by the smell of smokers (Dad and several friends are smokers) and think vaping is less intrusive than traditional cigarettes.

But the negative health effects are undeniable and the product offers no value, it not even enjoyable, unless you're addicted. and addictions are bad for peoples well being. SO it's hard to argue against trying to reduce the rate of smoking in society.

It's also proven these sort of policies work in regards to reducing the rate of smoking in society. the biggest decrease being in the rate of people start smoking which is the most import segment because if you never create the addiction you never have to deal with the addiction. which means smoking will naturally be phased out with generational change.

We are seeing this work in Australia right now, young people are not taking up smoking because it is a social limitation, since you always need to go outside for a smoke your not that great to go out with. it's no longer cool, it's not the 'social lubricant' it once was when people sat around the bar a smoked, it's now something which you have to excuse yourself from the Bar(and friends) to do.

So while these policies may be a bitch for current smokers they are undoubtedly better for societies future.

That's actually quite a sensible post. However, a lot of young people where I live do smoke, and it doesn't really affect their social life that much because we have places where people can sit outside and socialise. You can even get beer gardens with heaters these days. Nipping out for a cigarette doesn't really affect anyone's friendship anyway.

I can't see why this argument is still going on here actually. I don't think anyone has said that smokers should be able to smoke in public buildings/pubs/cafes.

here they are now kicked out of the beer garden too. they were moved to there, but now anywhere food is consumed is against the rules.

Most shopping centers have made their own rules that are stricter than the laws and banned it within 5 to 10 meters of the entrances, some have even banned it in the car park (essentially banning it entirely on their property).

Even in public parks it's banned within 10 meters of Play Equipment or Picnic tables.


You can see by the stats it is working less smokers than ever and more people that have never smoked 

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... it is always the left wing who want to make excessive laws/rules/regulations on every aspect of peoples lives... cos they are obsessed with thinking that they know what's best for everyone and that they're better than everyone and that their way is the right way and so they can make everyone the same and so to make all conform etc, so then they will have created their ideal society that they dream of...!


Right wing = small state, small govt, minimal laws/rules/regulations and minimal interference in everybody's daily life, as we are all adults and free to make our own choices and do what we want...!

Tommy Monk wrote:Eddie... it is always the left wing who want to make excessive laws/rules/regulations on every aspect of peoples lives... cos they are obsessed with thinking that they know what's best for everyone and that they're better than everyone and that their way is the right way and so they can make everyone the same and so to make all conform etc, so then they will have created their ideal society that they dream of...!


Right wing = small state, small govt, minimal laws/rules/regulations and minimal interference in everybody's daily life, as we are all adults and free to make our own choices and do what we want...!

eddie wrote:

Lurker wrote:

But your so-called freedom affects all of us.

So you only agree with freedom for some and not others, depending upon what you personally, have no problem with?

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

here they are now kicked out of the beer garden too. they were moved to there, but now anywhere food is consumed is against the rules.

Most shopping centers have made their own rules that are stricter than the laws and banned it within 5 to 10 meters of the entrances, some have even banned it in the car park (essentially banning it entirely on their property).

Even in public parks it's banned within 10 meters of Play Equipment or Picnic tables.


You can see by the stats it is working less smokers than ever and more people that have never smoked 

Australia is clearly way ahead on this. The reduction in the number of smokers was a big result of the UK banning smoking in 2007 in all indoor public places. I can only imagine going further having the same positive impact as it has in Oz

Of course, it hits like a tidal wave in some restaurants and on the streets in otherwise excellent countries like Japan and Austria where people can still smoke in many places.

Fortunately Thailand is not a big smoking country!

I don't see why anyone would oppose it tbh, aside from outright selfish addictiveness.

Tommy Monk wrote:Again you are showing you don't have a clue about left/right politics...!


What you said is only true to deluded leftys... who think left means nice fluffy bunny cuddles to all and freedom and an ever lasting utopia full of lovely young people who know everything and where someone else will always do the work and pay for it all... and right means nasty greedy racist old white nazi men who don't like anyone and don't like anything, and who only care about counting their money, being mean, and stopping all the leftys from getting anywhere/anything and stopping them having any fun...!


In short... you think left means nice and free... and right means nasty and authoritarian...!


Which is why you are a total tit when it comes to anything on politics or economics...!!!

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

here they are now kicked out of the beer garden too. they were moved to there, but now anywhere food is consumed is against the rules.

Most shopping centers have made their own rules that are stricter than the laws and banned it within 5 to 10 meters of the entrances, some have even banned it in the car park (essentially banning it entirely on their property).

Even in public parks it's banned within 10 meters of Play Equipment or Picnic tables.


You can see by the stats it is working less smokers than ever and more people that have never smoked 

Australia is clearly way ahead on this. The reduction in the number of smokers was a big result of the UK banning smoking in 2007 in all indoor public places. I can only imagine going further having the same positive impact as it has in Oz

Of course, it hits like a tidal wave in some restaurants and on the streets in otherwise excellent countries like Japan and Austria where people can still smoke in many places.

Fortunately Thailand is not a big smoking country!

I don't see why anyone would oppose it tbh, aside from outright selfish addictiveness.

More than 20 years ahead;  as restrictions and bans on smoking started appearing in the 1980s --  even earlier still in workplaces, as employers were able to voluntarily declare "smoke free" workplaces well before then...

Britain isn't alone in resisting change, though --  France and Japan are another couple of "advanced"/First World countries 'dragging the chain' and that still allow smoking in restaraunts and workplaces..

At the current rate, some so-called "third world" African and Asian countries will be cleaning up their act, well ahead of Britain.

Tommy Monk wrote:Get it right fleakeeper... I never said anything about 'objectors being imposed upon are then "free" to move away'...!!!


All I said was there are plenty of whinging non smokers about who think nothing of blowing their car exhaust smoke in non drivers faces...!

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Get it right fleakeeper... I never said anything about 'objectors being imposed upon are then "free" to move away'...!!!


All I said was there are plenty of whinging non smokers about who think nothing of blowing their car exhaust smoke in non drivers faces...!

Another exercise in tu quoque fallacy (to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy, without directly refuting or disproving their argument).

We are talking here about smoking or vaping, not exhaust smoke.  If you want to complain about exhaust smoke, start another thread.  This one is occupied.

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Another exercise in tu quoque fallacy (to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy, without directly refuting or disproving their argument).

We are talking here about smoking or vaping, not exhaust smoke.  If you want to complain about exhaust smoke, start another thread.  This one is occupied.

Actually Tommy is bang on the money here and as seen the hypocrisy is staggering

Hence if people believe smokers are harming others in public. Then clearly the issue of smoke from cars is as important to disuss also here. As those arguing to restrict smokers, should be on the very same page when it comes to pollution from cars, barbecues etc

The reality is they are not in any shape or form

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Actually Tommy is bang on the money here and as seen the hypocrisy is staggering

Hence if people believe smokers are harming others in public. Then clearly the issue of smoke from cars is as important to disuss also here. As those arguing to restrict smokers, should be on the very same page when it comes to pollution from cars, barbecues etc

The reality is they are not in any shape or form

You get not disagreement here.  It's another subject to raise a gripe about.

Start another thread.  This one is busy.

Didge wrote:Its clearly very important to discuss here

So I will continue to discuss here

Hence how many drivers here take into consideration the general public when they pollute by driving their cars?

The answer will be zero

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:Its clearly very important to discuss here

So I will continue to discuss here

Hence how many drivers here take into consideration the general public when they pollute by driving their cars?

The answer will be zero

How many drivers smoke cigarettes?  How many vape?  Who rides with them?  Those are the only relevant questions for this thread.

Auto emissions is another topic, for another thread.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Another exercise in tu quoque fallacy (to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy, without directly refuting or disproving their argument).

We are talking here about smoking or vaping, not exhaust smoke.  If you want to complain about exhaust smoke, start another thread.  This one is occupied.

Actually Tommy is bang on the money here and as seen the hypocrisy is staggering

Hence if people believe smokers are harming others in public. Then clearly the issue of smoke from cars is as important to disuss also here. As those arguing to restrict smokers, should be on the very same page when it comes to pollution from cars, barbecues etc

The reality is they are not in any shape or form

You get not disagreement here.  It's another subject to raise a gripe about.

Start another thread.  This one is busy.

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You get not disagreement here.  It's another subject to raise a gripe about.

Start another thread.  This one is busy.

Quite right. I think most of us want to see cleaner fuel for cars, and, preferably, major improvements in public transport world wide in order to decrease the number of people on the road. But we need transport to get around. People should only use cars if they really have to. That is the considerate thing to do. Just like not smoking in public places

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You get not disagreement here.  It's another subject to raise a gripe about.

Start another thread.  This one is busy.

Quite right. I think most of us want to see cleaner fuel for cars, and, preferably, major improvements in public transport world wide in order to decrease the number of people on the road. But we need transport to get around. People should only use cars if they really have to. That is the considerate thing to do. Just like not smoking in public places

And yet they do not. And yet you do not call for them to be restricted in public places. Where pollution poses a massive threat to human lives. So wanting cleaner cars does not resolve the present situation.Nor have you called to have barbeues banned from eating areas

Again I smoke away from people. That means I do not pose a threat to people but the militant Lefty that you are want to curb my freedoms. Based on a fallacy that I am endangering people

I mean have you presented scientific evidence on what possible harm there is to others when I smoke away from them outside?

No

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


And yet they do not. And yet you do not call for them to be restricted in public places. Where pollution poses a massive threat to human lives. So wanting cleaner cars does not resolve the present situation.Nor have you called to have barbeues banned from eating areas

Again I smoke away from people. That means I do not pose a threat to people but the militant Lefty that you are want to curb my freedoms. Based on a fallacy that I am endangering people

I mean have you presented scientific evidence on what possible harm there is to others when I smoke away from them outside?

No

If you are smoking away from people (ie: not in outdoor eating areas, bus shelters etc.) then there is no problem.

I don't call for cars to be restricted in public places because people still have to get to work, it is a sad necessity of life for many people. I do think city centres would benefit from having limits on the number of cars in them (only the extreme centres, the main shopping arcades etc.). And I always advocate using public transport if it is a viable alternative.

This is still an exercise in deflection though, since my views on transport and emissions from it are unrelated to my views on smoking. No one here 'supports' using cars when they don't need to. So it is a futile point.

PS: BBQs are not exactly something people use everyday, more a few days in Summer thing, so again this is only deflection.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:


And yet they do not. And yet you do not call for them to be restricted in public places. Where pollution poses a massive threat to human lives. So wanting cleaner cars does not resolve the present situation.Nor have you called to have barbeues banned from eating areas

Again I smoke away from people. That means I do not pose a threat to people but the militant Lefty that you are want to curb my freedoms. Based on a fallacy that I am endangering people

I mean have you presented scientific evidence on what possible harm there is to others when I smoke away from them outside?

No

If you are smoking away from people (ie: not in outdoor eating areas, bus shelters etc.) then there is no problem.

I don't call for cars to be restricted in public places because people still have to get to work, it is a sad necessity of life for many people. I do think city centres would benefit from having limits on the number of cars in them (only the extreme centres, the main shopping arcades etc.). And I always advocate using public transport if it is a viable alternative.

This is still an exercise in deflection though, since my views on transport and emissions from it are unrelated to my views on smoking. No one here 'supports' using cars when they don't need to. So it is a futile point.

PS: BBQs are not exactly something people use everyday, more a few days in Summer thing, so again this is only deflection.

There is no proble with me smoking in a beer garden or restaurant garden. As again I move away from people and thus you then are the problem here. See more hypocrisy where you are happy to maintain something worse, in the form of a barbecue in these areas.

You have smoke free gardens with some, go to them and allow premises that have smoking in gardens to continue

How many of those people who drive to work, drive their kids to shool etc could atually walk or us Public transport?

You donot think city centres would benefit?

Of course they would benefit and there is nothing stopping cities building tram systens

https://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/news/89-less-pollution-when-roads-closed-for-london-marathon

Its not futile at all as seen you show the worst double standards and I will continue to expose this

I see you ran away from my question

I mean have you presented scientific evidence on what possible harm there is to others when I smoke away from them outside?


So the reality is you are the problem here.

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

There is no proble with me smoking in a beer garden or restaurant garden. As again I move away from people and thus you then are the problem here. See more hypocrisy where you are happy to maintain something worse, in the form of a barbecue in these areas.

You have smoke free gardens with some, go to them and allow premises that have smoking in gardens to continue

How many of those people who drive to work, drive their kids to shool etc could atually walk or us Public transport?

You donot think city centres would benefit?

Of course they would benefit and there is nothing stopping cities building tram systens

https://www.globalactionplan.org.uk/news/89-less-pollution-when-roads-closed-for-london-marathon

Its not futile at all as seen you show the worst double standards and I will continue to expose this

I see you ran away from my question

I mean have you presented scientific evidence on what possible harm there is to others when I smoke away from them outside?


So the reality is you are the problem here.

Read my post again - I said "I do think city centres would benefit..."

And just because you smoke far enough from others does not mean other people do the same. They don't. Some do, but not enough

1.6 million car trips per day, made by London residents, could potentially be walked (22% of car
trips).67 Potentially walkable trips are defined as:
 shorter than 2km
 made between 6am and 8pm
 made without a heavy or bulky load
 made by someone aged 5 to 74 without a disability
 trips made by van, dial-a-ride, plane and boat are excluded

2.7 million car trips per day, made by London residents, could potentially be cycled (38% of car
trips).68 Potentially cyclable trips are defined as:
 shorter than 8km
 take less than 20% longer by bike
 made between 6am and 8pm
 made without a heavy or bulky load
 made by someone aged 5 to 64 without a disability
 trips made by van, dial-a-ride, plane and boat are excluded

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You get not disagreement here.  It's another subject to raise a gripe about.

Start another thread.  This one is busy.

Quite right. I think most of us want to see cleaner fuel for cars, and, preferably, major improvements in public transport world wide in order to decrease the number of people on the road. But we need transport to get around. People should only use cars if they really have to. That is the considerate thing to do. Just like not smoking in public places

And yet they do not. And yet you do not call for them to be restricted in public places. Where pollution poses a massive threat to human lives. So wanting cleaner cars does not resolve the present situation.Nor have you called to have barbeues banned from eating areas

Again I smoke away from people. That means I do not pose a threat to people but the militant Lefty that you are want to curb my freedoms. Based on a fallacy that I am endangering people

I mean have you presented scientific evidence on what possible harm there is to others when I smoke away from them outside?

No

Eilzel wrote:You're preaching to the choir, didge. I always used public transport in the UK and in Bangkok. I now use a car but only because I live in a place where public transport is non-existent.

I supported the congestion charge coming in in London and would support one now in the centre of Manchester.

My views on driving are only slightly more lenient than on smoking, and only because I acknowledge the fact driving is sometimes necessary. So in the respect, I'm sorry, but my opinions are consistent

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:You're preaching to the choir, didge. I always used public transport in the UK and in Bangkok. I now use a car but only because I live in a place where public transport is non-existent.

I supported the congestion charge coming in in London and would support one now in the centre of Manchester.

My views on driving are only slightly more lenient than on smoking, and only because I acknowledge the fact driving is sometimes necessary. So in the respect, I'm sorry, but my opinions are consistent

Well as seen its not necessary in a mass of trips taken by car drivers who are causing harm to everyone

You have yet failed to show what risk I pose to others smoking away from them?

So how far is work from where you live?

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well as seen its not necessary in a mass of trips taken by car drivers who are causing harm to everyone

You have yet failed to show what risk I pose to others smoking away from them?

So how far is work from where you live?

If away from them then none. But as I very clearly mentioned if you so carefully bothered to read, not everyone who smokes sits far out of the way of those who don't. Many think the very next table is enough - it isn't.

It would take me about an hour to walk to work. Not such a task in temperate England. Not going to happen in tropical Thailand - especially in rainy season. Believe me, if they had any public transport I'd use it.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

Well as seen its not necessary in a mass of trips taken by car drivers who are causing harm to everyone

You have yet failed to show what risk I pose to others smoking away from them?

So how far is work from where you live?

If away from them then none. But as I very clearly mentioned if you so carefully bothered to read, not everyone who smokes sits far out of the way of those who don't. Many think the very next table is enough - it isn't.

It would take me about an hour to walk to work. Not such a task in temperate England. Not going to happen in tropical Thailand - especially in rainy season. Believe me, if they had any public transport I'd use it.

So you could easily walk or cycle to work but thus choose to knowingly pollute

You start walking to work, then I will stop smoking in outdoor eating areas

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you could easily walk or cycle to work but thus choose to knowingly pollute

You start walking to work, then I will stop smoking in outdoor eating areas

Yeah sure, didge. You try living in the tropics and doing that everyday, then standing in front of a class of students in your sweat or rain soaking shirt and trousers

Unrelated to smoking. End of subject.

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

So you could easily walk or cycle to work but thus choose to knowingly pollute

You start walking to work, then I will stop smoking in outdoor eating areas

Yeah sure, didge. You try living in the tropics and doing that everyday, then standing in front of a class of students in your sweat or rain soaking shirt and trousers

Unrelated to smoking. End of subject.

See how many times you give poor excuses not to cycle or walk

I have travelled through Asia a number of times and did plenty of walking

So again you are a copout

I suggest you start practicing what you preach

Eilzel wrote:

Didge wrote:

See how many times you give poor excuses not to cycle or walk

I have travelled through Asia a number of times and did plenty of walking

So again you are a copout

I suggest you start practicing what you preach

Walks on holiday in summer clothes are just the same as wearing trousers and a shirt, right didge? And walking to a hotel/bar/tourist attraction just like walking into a busy school?

Give over man.

No debating you. Too many irrelevant points and deflections.

You carry on killing yourself. Thanks for being one of the few smokers who choose not to inflict it on others.

Syl wrote:Blimey, 8 pages in and still the same points are being made.

Is not the whole point of for or against smoking, either Ecigs or tobacco, if you dont smoke you dont want to inhale harmful toxins or sweet sickly vape when you are in a confined space or eating/drinking inside or out.

If you do smoke you dont inflict it on others......it's not bloody rocket science now is it?

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:Blimey, 8 pages in and still the same points are being made.

Is not the whole point of for or against smoking, either Ecigs or tobacco, if you dont smoke you dont want to inhale harmful toxins or sweet sickly vape when you are in a confined space or eating/drinking inside or out.

If you do smoke you dont inflict it on others......it's not bloody rocket science now is it?

No, but you raise a good point generally.  Those in the wrong will try to find some bit of logic to justify their view.  And so, the testing and probing means these arguments go on, and on, and on.

And when they think the public has forgotten, they will recycle arguments.  Republicans and Tories do this a lot.

Eilzel wrote:

eddie wrote:

So you only agree with freedom for some and not others, depending upon what you personally, have no problem with?

I think Quill already mentioned that freedom only extends to the point you pose no risk to others.

Syl wrote:Blimey, 8 pages in and still the same points are being made.

Is not the whole point of for or against smoking, either Ecigs or tobacco, if you dont smoke you dont want to inhale harmful toxins or sweet sickly vape when you are in a confined space or eating/drinking inside or out.

If you do smoke you dont inflict it on others......it's not bloody rocket science now is it?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:

So you only agree with freedom for some and not others, depending upon what you personally, have no problem with?

And yet what you are demanding with your narrowed concept of "freedom" there, eddie, is that you should have the personal freedom to selfishly impose the effects of your unhealthy habits onto the health, safety, well-being and comfort of other people nearby...

And then we see you, Tommy, Dodge and Ragga' stating that those objectors being imposed upon are then "free" to move away from your polluting --  even if it's a public space, and those objecting were there first, minding their own business..