|
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:04:17 -0500, Muggles
wrote: Some people don't have a choice but to work where ever they can find a job. It's the employers duty to provide a safe work place for all of their employees. Are you saying there is a shortage of waiter jobs in non smoking places? I bet it is the other way around because smokers tip better. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:16:36 -0500, Muggles
wrote: I'm not a liberal - I'm a conservative, and it's a good idea to limit secondhand smoke. You are the same kind of "conservative" who wants to impose your morality on everyone else. That word has lost its meaning and become the same big government fascism we used to ascribe to liberals. The only difference is which rights you want to erode. Your "sickness" is more learned behavior than fact ... unless that charcoal grill and fireplace down the street also makes you sick. The actual chemicals are virtually the same. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:31:13 -0500, Muggles
wrote: Believe it or not, there are a bunch of people that just don't want the government, you or anyone else what they can and cannot do. When someone elses right or freedom harms me or someone else, that right becomes limited. That's a logical response. We are questioning whether you are actually harmed or simple offended. Explain why there can't be a "smoker bar" or restaurant. If you are offended or fear for your life, don't go near the place. It seems restaurant owners don't want to cater to just smokers because that eliminates a growing population of people who would not ever become patrons of that business because of the health hazards there. That's fine...if the owner wants to run a smoke free place, he should be - and is - free to do so. However, when they pass laws FORCING him to do so, they have stepped over the line. The problem with smoking areas in public places is the smoke doesn't STAY in the smoking areas. OK fine but why can't I have a smoking restaurant that you do not need to go into? I have heard tea totallers say the smell of alcohol offends them too (even to the point of sickness) but we just tell them to stay out of bars. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:35:59 -0500, Muggles
wrote: How is a non-smoker supposed to know a previous event took place in a restaurant that allowed smoking? Perhaps we just need signs Additionally, a non-smoker can enter a room where smoking had taken place and they can smell the stench - it emanates from the objects that have absorbed the chemicals. After a smoking event has been allowed to take place in a restaurant area, it's no longer conducive to being a healthy area for a non-smoker. Again you are confusing "offence" with "health" How many events can a restaurant owner book that allow for smoking these days, and how many non-smokers would never book the same area for events because of the stench left behind? It's not financially smart to book events that allow smoking. Then I guess they property holder will lose money. Why should that be any of your business. Get even with him and just leave, refusing to ever come back. If this is really a thing, the market will decide it. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 11:57:09 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/29/2016 11:54 AM, trader_4 wrote: This is just typical lib BS, that people are being "forced" to work in smoking bars. YOU are the one forcing people to conform to your ways. I say leave them free to choose. How many times do I have to tell you I'm a conservative? Limiting secondhand smoke is a good decision and has nothing to do with being a liberal or being a conservative. You are "conservative" in an ISIS sort of way. You want to impose your beliefs above the freedom of others, even in places you will never go. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
notbob wrote:
On 2016-05-29, Bod wrote: Prescription Drugs Now Kill More People than Illegal Drugs.... But.... but.... but!..... All those ppl-killing drugs are so good fer our economy. Trump will tell you, true! Makes fer more jobs! Besides, dead ppl can't work. Bottom line, Trump is one of those dreaded "power elites", an unapologetic "plutocrat". Yeah, that's who we want. (not) nb and Hillary is not? Really? |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 12:20:02 -0500, Muggles
wrote: On 5/29/2016 12:03 PM, wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:54:09 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/29/2016 10:34 AM, wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:02:57 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/29/2016 1:12 AM, rbowman wrote: On 05/28/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote: It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things. Well, I guess we had better cancel our normally scheduled August forest fires. That kind of smoke make people sick, too. Fire fighters wear breathing equipment because that smoke isn't good to breathe, either. People die from smoke inhalation, and they also have similar physical responses to forest fire smoke that people have from secondhand cigarette smoke. OK fine, why aren't you campaigning to ban wood stoves, fire places and back yard charcoal grills? If you'd like to debate a different topic, start another thread. This topic is about smokers and smoking, right? Moving the goal posts and trying to change the subject doesn't change the facts about smoking or secondhand smoke and it's dangers. A neighbor can burn 40 pounds of wood in an evening with impunity but if he is burning a gram of tobacco and you smell it, you go ballistic. Your exaggerating my reaction. I don't go ballistic - I GET SICK from secondhand smoke. Those are 2 separate responses. One is an emotional response, and the other is a physical response that can't be controlled, unlike an emotional response CAN be controlled. Only tobacco smoke? Tobacco smoke is the main smoke I've been affected by, but other smoke I have similar reactions, too. VOC's mostly make me sick to my stomach and I can get headaches from them. If not my point is valid. The fact remains most of the compounds in tobacco smoke is also in wood smoke. No, wood smoke contains "a complex mixture of gases and fine particles (also called particle pollution, particulate matter, or PM). These microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system, where they can cause health problems such as burning eyes, runny nose, and illnesses such as bronchitis. In addition to particle pollution, wood smoke contains several toxic harmful air pollutants including: benzene, formaldhyde, acrolein and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous. http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smo...cigarette.html A distinction without a difference, particularly when you look at the scale. 40 pounds of wood vs a gram of tobacco. (something like 20,000 to one). |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 2016-05-29, ChairMan wrote:
and Hillary is not? Really? Exactly where did you read me even mention Hillary? Dolt! This election is sooooo bad, we don't even have a "lesser evil" to choose from. 8| nb |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 05/28/2016 05:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
[snip] Since you're presumably an American and no doubt believe in freedoms like owning a gun, you should also accept the freedom to smoke. As far as I'm concerned, you can own all the guns you want. That DOESN'T mean it's OK to fire them at random, around people. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "I do not think Jesus Christ ever existed." -- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 05/28/2016 05:58 PM, Paul wrote:
[snip] Yah, smoking stinks and people that smoke are suicidal. And suicidal people often don't care who else gets hurt. That sounds like the "golden rule". If you're suicidal, everyone else wants to die too. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "I do not think Jesus Christ ever existed." -- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 05/28/2016 06:36 PM, Mr Macaw wrote:
[snip] Only if the others stay where they are and voluntarily inhale it. I'm not handcuffing you to the railings and blowing it in your face. It's perfectly fine for me to set off a bomb in a crowded theater. It's YOUR fault for not getting out of the way of the explosion :-) Also, BREATHING is not voluntary. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 05/29/2016 10:17 AM, notbob wrote:
On 2016-05-29, Bod wrote: Prescription Drugs Now Kill More People than Illegal Drugs.... But.... but.... but!..... All those ppl-killing drugs are so good fer our economy. Trump will tell you, true! Makes fer more jobs! Besides, dead ppl can't work. There's no unemployment problem among dead people. Bottom line, Trump is one of those dreaded "power elites", an unapologetic "plutocrat". Yeah, that's who we want. (not) nb |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:34:51 +0100, notX wrote:
On 05/28/2016 06:36 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: [snip] Only if the others stay where they are and voluntarily inhale it. I'm not handcuffing you to the railings and blowing it in your face. It's perfectly fine for me to set off a bomb in a crowded theater. It's YOUR fault for not getting out of the way of the explosion :-) Creating a ridiculous analogy won't help your argument. A bomb will kill you instantly, and you don't get a warning. If you shouted "I'm going to set a bomb off", I'd get out of the way, then you'd only be liable to damage to the property, not me. Cigarette smoke gives you a warning, you see someone smoking, you choose not to go near them, and you don't need to get as far away as a bomb either. Even if you inhale a few breaths, it's not going to harm you. You have plenty time to move. Also, BREATHING is not voluntary. Where you breathe is. -- I imposed a declaration in opposition to your motion to modify the preliminary injunction in support of the cross motion to vacate the preliminary injunction. So noted by the Federal Court of Justice proceeding preliminary declaration. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 19:27:03 +0100, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 05/28/2016 05:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: [snip] Since you're presumably an American and no doubt believe in freedoms like owning a gun, you should also accept the freedom to smoke. As far as I'm concerned, you can own all the guns you want. That DOESN'T mean it's OK to fire them at random, around people. [snip] But guns kill you 100%. Smoking (if you believe the hype) kills you 0.00000000000000000000000000000001% per breath. -- Why do people point to their wrist when asking for the time, but don't point to their crotch when asking where the bathroom is? |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 00:39:28 +0100, Flush Limbaugh wrote:
On 5/28/2016 6:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: Anyway, getting covered in **** is disgusting. Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. You need to do it billions of times. Obviously math was not a good subject for you. I've got a degree including lots of maths actually. And statistics. I know what you believe in is a load of ****ing bull**** spouted by the media. -- But she was always fat. She was born an only twin. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 05/29/2016 10:17 AM, trader_4 wrote:
[snip] South Park has a good episode on tolerance. Parents force the kids to go to a tolerance museum, where they are shown the evils of intolerance, eg using racial slurs, stereotypes of Mexicans as lazy, Asian as smart, etc. Then when the parents and tolerance museum people walk outside there is a guy 30 ft away who's smoking a cigarette. They all immediately viciously attack him for smoking. IIRC, that episode was called "The Death Camp of Tolerance", and involved a teacher who wanted to be fired for being gay. I first guessed the title was "Lemmiwinks", after the gerbil he put up someone's ass. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "I do not think Jesus Christ ever existed." -- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) |
Where should smoking be illegal?
|
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 05/29/2016 10:20 AM, Bod wrote:
[snit] The smell of beetroot makes me feel sick, and, knowing that, I would avoid using beetroot around you. I wouldn't use it anyway and blame you for not leaving. That's called respect. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "I do not think Jesus Christ ever existed." -- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) |
Where should smoking be illegal?
|
Where should smoking be illegal?
|
Where should smoking be illegal?
|
Where should smoking be illegal?
Per Mr Macaw:
Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. Some would strongly disagree with that. There are people who get significant headaches from just a single inhalation. That being said, I would agree with those who think we have gone overboard on restricting smokers. A major financial company I have done work for put out a broadcast email to all employees and contractors - telling them that it was *not* OK to stand outside of a building and smoke... and, instead, they could only smoke in designated, out-of-sight areas behind buildings. Reading between the lines, I came away with "We are a respected financial institution and people are trusting us to handle their money - and we do not want anybody to think than any of us are foolish enough to have become addicted to nicotine." I thought that was a little over-the-top.... and I'll go along with "If I don't like it, I can always move."..... but in situations where people do not have the option of moving... When I'm in an elevator and some addict that has just stubbed out their cigarette gets in and exhales, all I can think is "If you had farted, you'd be embarrassed....". -- Pete Cresswell |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 29/05/2016 20:38, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 00:39:28 +0100, Flush Limbaugh wrote: On 5/28/2016 6:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: Anyway, getting covered in **** is disgusting. Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. You need to do it billions of times. Obviously math was not a good subject for you. I've got a degree including lots of maths actually. And statistics. I know what you believe in is a load of ****ing bull**** spouted by the media. There's so many people who have smoked all of their lives and lived to well over a hundred, that didn't die of a smoking related disease. If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a smoking related disease! -- Bod |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 5/29/2016 1:15 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 12:20:02 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/29/2016 12:03 PM, wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:54:09 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/29/2016 10:34 AM, wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 10:02:57 -0500, Muggles wrote: On 5/29/2016 1:12 AM, rbowman wrote: On 05/28/2016 09:57 PM, Muggles wrote: It's not good to inhale carbon monoxide, or breathe in smoke from any source. Our lungs weren't designed to inhale those things. Well, I guess we had better cancel our normally scheduled August forest fires. That kind of smoke make people sick, too. Fire fighters wear breathing equipment because that smoke isn't good to breathe, either. People die from smoke inhalation, and they also have similar physical responses to forest fire smoke that people have from secondhand cigarette smoke. OK fine, why aren't you campaigning to ban wood stoves, fire places and back yard charcoal grills? If you'd like to debate a different topic, start another thread. This topic is about smokers and smoking, right? Moving the goal posts and trying to change the subject doesn't change the facts about smoking or secondhand smoke and it's dangers. A neighbor can burn 40 pounds of wood in an evening with impunity but if he is burning a gram of tobacco and you smell it, you go ballistic. Your exaggerating my reaction. I don't go ballistic - I GET SICK from secondhand smoke. Those are 2 separate responses. One is an emotional response, and the other is a physical response that can't be controlled, unlike an emotional response CAN be controlled. Only tobacco smoke? Tobacco smoke is the main smoke I've been affected by, but other smoke I have similar reactions, too. VOC's mostly make me sick to my stomach and I can get headaches from them. If not my point is valid. The fact remains most of the compounds in tobacco smoke is also in wood smoke. No, wood smoke contains "a complex mixture of gases and fine particles (also called particle pollution, particulate matter, or PM). These microscopic particles can get into your eyes and respiratory system, where they can cause health problems such as burning eyes, runny nose, and illnesses such as bronchitis. In addition to particle pollution, wood smoke contains several toxic harmful air pollutants including: benzene, formaldhyde, acrolein and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). https://www.epa.gov/burnwise/wood-smoke-and-your-health There are approximately 600 ingredients in cigarettes. When burned, they create more than 7,000 chemicals. At least 69 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer, and many are poisonous. http://www.lung.org/stop-smoking/smo...cigarette.html A distinction without a difference, particularly when you look at the scale. 40 pounds of wood vs a gram of tobacco. (something like 20,000 to one). So, provide your evidence of what's contained in those 2. -- Maggie |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 20:55:18 +0100, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Mr Macaw: Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. Some would strongly disagree with that. There are people who get significant headaches from just a single inhalation. There's always one..... but most people don't have a problem. These freaks must have problems near any kind of smoke presumably, bonfires etc? Why should the rest of the world take care of these people? That being said, I would agree with those who think we have gone overboard on restricting smokers. A major financial company I have done work for put out a broadcast email to all employees and contractors - telling them that it was *not* OK to stand outside of a building and smoke... and, instead, they could only smoke in designated, out-of-sight areas behind buildings. Reading between the lines, I came away with "We are a respected financial institution and people are trusting us to handle their money - and we do not want anybody to think than any of us are foolish enough to have become addicted to nicotine." I thought that was a little over-the-top.... and I'll go along with "If I don't like it, I can always move."..... but in situations where people do not have the option of moving... When I'm in an elevator and some addict that has just stubbed out their cigarette gets in and exhales, all I can think is "If you had farted, you'd be embarrassed....". Unless he's continuing to smoke the cigarette, I don't see the problem. If he does, you can ask him to put it out or simply leave the elevator at the next floor. Please people, think for yourselves to overcome a situation, instead of trying to find blame somewhere. Has everyone become a lawyer or something? -- There was an old man from Limerick, Who was completely unaware of the short often humorous poems that shared the same name as his hometown. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 20:56:06 +0100, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 20:38, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 00:39:28 +0100, Flush Limbaugh wrote: On 5/28/2016 6:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: Anyway, getting covered in **** is disgusting. Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. You need to do it billions of times. Obviously math was not a good subject for you. I've got a degree including lots of maths actually. And statistics. I know what you believe in is a load of ****ing bull**** spouted by the media. There's so many people who have smoked all of their lives and lived to well over a hundred, that didn't die of a smoking related disease. If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a smoking related disease! I only know of one, and he smoked CONTINUOUSLY all day every day. A far cry from the odd bit of passive smoke now and then. -- Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 5/29/2016 2:55 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Mr Macaw: Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. Some would strongly disagree with that. There are people who get significant headaches from just a single inhalation. That being said, I would agree with those who think we have gone overboard on restricting smokers. A major financial company I have done work for put out a broadcast email to all employees and contractors - telling them that it was *not* OK to stand outside of a building and smoke... and, instead, they could only smoke in designated, out-of-sight areas behind buildings. Reading between the lines, I came away with "We are a respected financial institution and people are trusting us to handle their money - and we do not want anybody to think than any of us are foolish enough to have become addicted to nicotine." I think it's more along the lines of 'we want our customers to have a healthy experience entering into our place of business. We put smokers in the back of the building because it's out of site, our customers aren't exposed to the smoke, and some of our employees are simply addicted to the nicotine'. The problem with smoking on the job is that smokers take multiple "smoke breaks" during the day above and beyond regular company provided break times. It's a waste of company time. I thought that was a little over-the-top.... and I'll go along with "If I don't like it, I can always move."..... but in situations where people do not have the option of moving... When I'm in an elevator and some addict that has just stubbed out their cigarette gets in and exhales, all I can think is "If you had farted, you'd be embarrassed....". -- Maggie |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 5/29/2016 2:56 PM, Bod wrote:
On 29/05/2016 20:38, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 00:39:28 +0100, Flush Limbaugh wrote: On 5/28/2016 6:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: Anyway, getting covered in **** is disgusting. Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. You need to do it billions of times. Obviously math was not a good subject for you. I've got a degree including lots of maths actually. And statistics. I know what you believe in is a load of ****ing bull**** spouted by the media. There's so many people who have smoked all of their lives and lived to well over a hundred, that didn't die of a smoking related disease. If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a smoking related disease! Why can some people be a carrier of a disease and NEVER get sick from it themselves? -- Maggie |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:04:10 +0100, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:55 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote: Per Mr Macaw: Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. Some would strongly disagree with that. There are people who get significant headaches from just a single inhalation. That being said, I would agree with those who think we have gone overboard on restricting smokers. A major financial company I have done work for put out a broadcast email to all employees and contractors - telling them that it was *not* OK to stand outside of a building and smoke... and, instead, they could only smoke in designated, out-of-sight areas behind buildings. Reading between the lines, I came away with "We are a respected financial institution and people are trusting us to handle their money - and we do not want anybody to think than any of us are foolish enough to have become addicted to nicotine." I think it's more along the lines of 'we want our customers to have a healthy experience entering into our place of business. We put smokers in the back of the building because it's out of site, our customers aren't exposed to the smoke, and some of our employees are simply addicted to the nicotine'. What about customers who smoke? The problem with smoking on the job is that smokers take multiple "smoke breaks" during the day above and beyond regular company provided break times. It's a waste of company time. You must have funny companies. Wherever I've worked, people always smoke in normal breaks, or at their desk. -- A. Top posters. Q. What's the most annoying thing on newsgroups? |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:04:56 +0100, Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 2:56 PM, Bod wrote: On 29/05/2016 20:38, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 00:39:28 +0100, Flush Limbaugh wrote: On 5/28/2016 6:46 PM, Mr Macaw wrote: Anyway, getting covered in **** is disgusting. Breathing in one lungful of smoke won't do you any harm whatsoever. You need to do it billions of times. Obviously math was not a good subject for you. I've got a degree including lots of maths actually. And statistics. I know what you believe in is a load of ****ing bull**** spouted by the media. There's so many people who have smoked all of their lives and lived to well over a hundred, that didn't die of a smoking related disease. If smoking does harm some people then why doesn't *every* smoker get a smoking related disease! Why can some people be a carrier of a disease and NEVER get sick from it themselves? Because they're superior. -- Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 2016-05-29, Mr Macaw wrote:
I've got a degree including lots of maths actually. And statistics. I know what you believe in is a load of ****ing bull**** spouted by the media. Izzat the same media that depends so heavily on "statistics"? ;) nb |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:23:34 +0100, notbob wrote:
On 2016-05-29, Mr Macaw wrote: I've got a degree including lots of maths actually. And statistics. I know what you believe in is a load of ****ing bull**** spouted by the media. Izzat the same media that depends so heavily on "statistics"? ;) More like it makes them up and misunderstands them. Never trust a journalist. -- Extract from a customer complaint letter sent to The Body Shop: I recently shampooed my pet rabbit with Body Shop shampoo. Its eyes bulged out and turned red. If you tested your stuff on animals like everyone else, this sort of thing wouldn't happen... |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 2016-05-29, Mr Macaw wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:23:34 +0100, notbob wrote: Izzat the same media that depends so heavily on "statistics"? ;) More like it makes them up and misunderstands them. Never trust a journalist. .....or statisticians. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
Muggles wrote:
Then I guess they property holder will lose money. Why should that be any of your business. Get even with him and just leave, refusing to ever come back. If this is really a thing, the market will decide it. The market IS already doing that. It's just a matter of time before smoking at all public venues is banned. Excuse me? The market is NOT what is banning smoking. It was/is a bunch of smoke Nazis busily working to get the government to pass laws. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:55:55 +0100, notbob wrote:
On 2016-05-29, Mr Macaw wrote: On Sun, 29 May 2016 21:23:34 +0100, notbob wrote: Izzat the same media that depends so heavily on "statistics"? ;) More like it makes them up and misunderstands them. Never trust a journalist. ....or statisticians. Exactly. What they usually do is not quote the total number of people. Like "200 people were killed by speeding drivers" - yes, out of 65 million. That's pretty good odds. -- When you're having a really bad day and it seems like people are trying to **** you off, remember it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to extend your middle finger. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
Muggles wrote:
On 5/29/2016 11:24 AM, Bod wrote: On 29/05/2016 17:21, Muggles wrote: On 5/29/2016 11:03 AM, Bod wrote: On 29/05/2016 16:46, Muggles wrote: On 5/29/2016 10:29 AM, Bod wrote: Muggles is a drama queen. lol What about all the other people, men here, who have already said in one way or another similar things before I ever joined this discussion? Are they drama kings?? hahaha! Probably, yes. Are you prejudiced against women and call them drama queens? Why do you differentiate between men with the same objections to secondhand smoke and only single me out as a women calling me a drama queen?? :) I didn't, I said they probably are drama Kings. So you're just prejudiced against women then? I don't know about anyone else but I'm getting there. Against SOME women at least. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
Muggles wrote:
I bet there is tons! of discarded chewing gum, all over the world. No outcry. No hissy fits. Why? No one can smell old chewing gum. nb hmmm I guess it's not carcinogenic, either! lol Wait a while, there will be a study someday. |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On 2016-05-29, Mr Macaw wrote:
Like "200 people were killed by speeding drivers" - yes, out of 65 million. That's pretty good odds. .....unless yer unfortunate enough to be one of the 66. nb |
Where should smoking be illegal?
On Sun, 29 May 2016 23:00:10 +0100, notbob wrote:
On 2016-05-29, Mr Macaw wrote: Like "200 people were killed by speeding drivers" - yes, out of 65 million. That's pretty good odds. ....unless yer unfortunate enough to be one of the 66. I'll put you down as failing stats class. Let me give you a word of advice, never place bets on horses, you wouldn't understand the odds. And where did you pull the number 66 from? You can't even get your incorrect argument right. -- Cold showers/baths/swimming: 1) Cure Hayfever. Apparently this is due to the strengthening effect on the mucous membranes. 2) Help circulation by bringing blood to capilliaries and increasing circulation through the body. 3) Improve the internal furnace, be warmer when it's cold. 4) Make losing weight easier - generating heat burns loads of calories. 5) Detoxify, by contracting muscles to eliminate toxins - skin and hair also improves. 6) Save energy. 7) Increase libido (contrary to the old wives' tale). |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter