Printable View
IMO laws are not sufficient,people should obey them.:)
in my city smoking in taxi,busses,metro are forbidden in laws.
they wanted to prohibit it also in resturaunts but noone will obey them.:D
police officers can't fine all disobeyers.we are all friendly$.:D
I agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ideru
When I visit people (which do not smoke) I won't light a cigarette in their house. As long as you try not to disturb or bother someone with your smoke, I feel it's OK
I said YES ( i dont smoke ..) :) :):)
I dont want my friends to get CANCER ... ( this will reduce some amount of cigarette taken by smokers .)
Even passive smoking is injurious to HEALTH !!
and I like this attitude.. !!Quote:
Originally Posted by HanneSThEGreaT
Smoking in public places is nothing when compared to the emissions from cars motor bikes and speedboats at these places. In a plant, we are not sposed to smoke but the machines right next to us are billowing out exhaust and evaporated coolant. Why dont we focus on the vehicles and the manufacturing instead of the freedoms of nature of habit of our fellow man?
ahoodin
And mrRee, there is...no smoking while posting at codeguru. :lol:
Since there are so many sources of air pollution ...., so why to add one more? Is the air become better when someone smokes?Quote:
compared to the emissions from cars motor bikes and speedboats at these places.
Krzemo.
PS: It is hard from smokers to understand those who don't smoke ....
Stop trying to tell people how to run their businesses. If you can't stand the second hand smoke, why not go to a bar or restaurant that has a smoking ban? Economics will balance out the number of smoking and non-smoking bars/restaurants. I don't smoke, but what they are proposing doesn't make sense.
I dont smoke, but I still dont agree with the stupid ban!Quote:
Originally Posted by Krzemo
ahoodin
Even if every adult in the world smoked, it would cause less pollution than it would if we stopped burning coal worldwide. Also, do something about diesel fuel outputs. Between the factories, and the trucks, they are doing a lot more harm than smokers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Krzemo
Let the smokers smoke. Most businesses already had places for employees to smoke. In one place, the breakroom on every OTHER floor was smoke-free.
Now, hundreds of employees turn a 7 minute smoke break into a 25 minute smoke-break, because they have to get their coats on, get to the lobby, go outside and take their 7-minute break, and then reverse the procedure.
Well If I own the buziness and I am a smoker, if I want to smoke at my desk I should be able to. If I have employees and I feel they should be able to smoke at their desk too, then why not? How many good detective flicks have you seen where the detective doesn't smoke like a chimney all the way through? :D I mean come on people...
If you want to tell me what is good for me why don't you all go be evil dictators. If I wanna smoke...and you dont want me too...you can always go jump in the lake! But you choose not to so just remember that...free will!
ahoodin :cool:
I
That is not a point. Let say it in mathematics:Quote:
Originally Posted by dglienna
a=global pollution (a>0)
b="smoker polution" (b>0)
(a>0) and (b>0) => (a+b)>a
So less in mathematics : when U add something than that becomes always larger ;) :D
And I have to say that b can be much larger than a (from the person point of view) since it is more concentated. When smokers smoke in a room, it will not take too much time for concentration b to achieve the danger level :D (even if pollution a is filtered out to zero in this room ;) )
Krzemo.
Why not - only if U are alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by ahoodin
Did U know that that image was developed and sponsored ( they payed a lot of money to film producers) by tabacco producers.;) And as I see it was effective :D - it conviced U.Quote:
How many good detective flicks have you seen where the detective doesn't smoke like a chimney all the way through?
U wanna smoke ... but maybe others which are forced to be near by U don't . Your free will is to smoke - others free will is to not to smoke, so if U smoke U take this freedom of choice from others - it is evil for sure.Quote:
If I wanna smoke...and you dont want me too...you can always go jump in the lake! But you choose not to so just remember that...free will!
Interesting observation: In Poland we have carriages in train which are smokers free and others for smokers. There are many peoples in smokers free part of train, but in the same time smokers part is almost empty. Funny is that many of persons in "smokers free" part of the train are acctually smokers. They go to corridor to smoke and sometimes they are catched and pay fine. Thay choose to pay fine from traveling in smokers part of train .... Just think about it.
Best regards,
Krzemo.
I voted no.
Boy all you people who voted yes are <insert something you find very negative indicative of selfishness and bad character>.
Can't you stop thinking about your little comforts for a moment and focus on
the larger issues.
As I write this, I note that the non-smokers are for the first time saddled with a vote-count that is < 60 %. :mad:
Well... I read the original version so I know for sure what you think of non-smokers. :D ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by souldog
Yes, larger issues... Most health-insurances charge non-smokers as much as they charge those that smoke - people who are most certainly going to make the insurance pay for their almost certain expensive lung-treatment.Quote:
Originally Posted by souldog
No, actually the smoker doesn't make the insurance pay.
He makes the non-smoker pay - in health and in wealth.
(Ironically, here in Germany, women pay a higher premium to private health insurance on account of being women - perhaps, one reason being that they will most certainly bear a baby. But, smokers pay as much as non-smokers do! I believe treatment for one lung-cancer patient costs so much that a good number of babies can be delivered in as much money!)
Of course there would be more pollution inside a room, but I was referring to in the atmosphere.
In Hollywood, when the script calls for an actor to smoke, he has to smoke, whether or not he smokes in real life. You can usually tell the ones that don't.
because a(global pollution) is a big number whereas b(cigs smoke) is only a small number, b can be neglected:p...Quote:
Originally Posted by Krzemo
because you're talking about concentrated smoke in a room, if we take a as the smokes from an oil-fueled machinery in a room, this is more highly concentrated polution compared to b(smoker's polution)...so again, b can be neglected:p...Quote:
And I have to say that b can be much larger than a (from the person point of view) since it is more concentated. When smokers smoke in a room, it will not take too much time for concentration b to achieve the danger level :D (even if pollution a is filtered out to zero in this room ;) )