That's my Mrs you're talking about + she turns off the ECO button. I'm trying to persuade her to start smoking ATM.
When I was a smoker the Government got bugger all tax out of me. All my tobacco came from Belgium. Warning: non-smoking seriously damages the Government's wealth.
its kind of what people do (if their internet chat savy) you wouldn't do it making a speech (or laying down the law) as some like to do. :Finger::smileys:
Smoking , disgusting unhealthy habit , the sooner it is legally banned in all but private inner sanctums the better , bad enough being stooped enough to do it yourself but the ignorant shellfish behaviour of most when exercising their rights over others rights to breathing fresh air is inexcusable ,how ignorant can some people be
It's got fuck all to do with Government whether someone chooses to smoke or not,and it's got fuck all to do with anyone else either. Enoch Powell was right when he warned that Government interference would lead to this. And I cannot believe that adult human beings actually support their lives being interfered with in this way. If you don't want to smoke,then don't. But keep your noses out of other peoples business.
perhaps take a look at what you do in this life to contribute to pollution either directly or by the products you buy. Ya 2 mile round trip to the shop in ya car puts out more pollution than I could in a year of smoking.
I am not talking about pollution or ecology , I am talking about the disgusting habit of smoking and the obnoxious ignorant attitude of smokers , they are very vocal about their rights to smoke but with scant regard for others rights not to !! Every where we go there are smokers hanging around stinking the place out with their drug addiction ,bus stations , entrances to just about everywhere you go , even ironically hanging around hospital entrances inflicting on other people that which has in many cases just lost them their own leg !!!
All very well keeping your nose out of other people's business but not always so easy to keep it out of other people's smoke , ok the poor buggers are nothing more than drug addicts but no need to be selfish ignorant with it !!
most smokers I know tend to shuffle of to an area where it's not affecting others to have a fag. Can't smoke in a pub anywhere anymore even though its entirely possible to have smoking and non smoking pubs and we pay billions in tax only to be forced to smoke out on the street. you are also overlooking the benefits of smoking like helping to prevent unwanted pregnancy and keeping fat chicks slim
When was the last time you saw a smoker on the TV news wagging their finger at non-smokers then? It's non-smokers that shrieked and bitched demanding to lord it over everyone and let their views dominate the rest of us.And it hasn't stopped there has it? Take a look around you and see the same voices squealing that others should be stopped from doing something because they don't agree with it. I do not smoke:I used to smoke: I doubt I will take up smoking again: and I do not care for the smell of smoke. But they are MY personal opinions and choices,and I would not dream of imposing my view on anyone else. Here's the transcript of a speech from 1976 that warned us this might happen: “There is one precedent, and only one in the strict sense, for what we are doing, and it is a significant one. I am referring to the legislation enacted under the previous Administration which made it a criminal offence to ride a motor cycle without a crash helmet. I believe that that was the first instance, and this proposition has not been shaken, when it was made a criminal offence (…). That precedent in the matter of wearing safety helmets, which this House by about 55 votes to 15 decided to establish, is now being promptly followed. It is being followed within a matter of two or three years. But this will not be the end. These are by no means the only circumstances in which the failure of individuals to take certain precautions in their private lives entails all manner of risk to themselves and, indirectly, consequences which may be tragic upon others. There is the whole realm of sporting activity, such as mountaineering, boating, and so on, where there are precautions which ought to be taken, and which any sensible person will take. We shall be told presently that these, too, have to be regulated. It will not stop there, because it cannot logically stop there. We shall be told, and rightly, that a man’s habits in life—smoking, the manner in which he conducts his life, indulges himself—affect materially his prospects of survival, as certainly they do. There will, therefore, be increasingly irresistible pressure, once we break through this barrier of principle, to envelop one area of personal decision after another within the criminal law. I believe, therefore, that it is of outstanding importance that, even though this principle has once been breached, it should be reasserted and upheld. I fear I shall not carry the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South with me on this, but I should not fear to accept the loss of life which might otherwise, by the breaching of that principle, have been avoided. As I said in the debate on the wearing of crash helmets, many lives have been laid down, and are laid down, in order to maintain the essentials of personal liberty in a society living under the law".
