Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 55    Average: 3.9/5]
100 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 51587
Rating: 3.9
Category: Funny
Date: 01/04/10 09:02 AM

100 Responses to World`s Most Sarcastic No Smoking Sign [Pic]

  1. Profile photo of fancylad
    fancylad Male 30-39
    18502 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:57 am
    Link: World`s Most Sarcastic No Smoking Sign - This sign just categorically ruined my Saturday night.
  2. Profile photo of ubberboard08
    ubberboard08 Male 13-17
    107 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:25 am
    lmao xD where is this?
  3. Profile photo of GirlieMutant
    GirlieMutant Female 18-29
    236 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:27 am
    What am I going to do then??
  4. Profile photo of revdrdark
    revdrdark Male 40-49
    691 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:38 am
    Has to be the UK--not "Hare Coursing" and "Double decker buses" and "Blancmange" (a desert over there that contains Irish moss)....
    but for all that, sorta meh.
  5. Profile photo of panth753
    panth753 Female 18-29
    9186 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:44 am
    "What am I going to do then??"

    Exactly.

  6. Profile photo of DaisyDope
    DaisyDope Female 13-17
    299 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:50 am
    most definately the fabulous Britain.
  7. Profile photo of Mweebles
    Mweebles Female 18-29
    1653 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:52 am
    Dammit! I was all set on practicing my trapeze act and then pillaging afterward.
  8. Profile photo of regrhcp
    regrhcp Male 18-29
    47 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 10:13 am
    reminds me of a Jim Jeffries joke
  9. Profile photo of movie
    movie Male 13-17
    204 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 10:26 am
    yay!!!!!!!!!! i just now got loged in!!!!!!!!i couldnt while ago... darn i wanted to rape my girlfriend cause she is... well... how do i put this... rapable!!!!! uhh. is that a word?
  10. Profile photo of CoffeeDiiva
    CoffeeDiiva Female 40-49
    1605 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 10:26 am
    Jim Jefferies (sp?) the comedian kinda did that on his stand up act. Love him.
  11. Profile photo of hagane
    hagane Male 30-39
    967 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 10:33 am
    WTH do they mean by "No Smoking"?
  12. Profile photo of xxPinkxx
    xxPinkxx Female 18-29
    3830 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 10:56 am
    well i like it :)
  13. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 11:17 am
    The way smokers are being treated in the US is shameful, Now they are trying to ban smoking in peoples own cars and homes. BTW, I`m a non-smoker.

    Our freedoms are being lost daily, Taken by the social elite that think they know what`s best for the rest of us and also believe those laws don`t apply to themselves.

  14. Profile photo of xXxcupcakeXx
    xXxcupcakeXx Female 13-17
    81 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 11:21 am
    apparently smoking is their biggest concern. never mind about the raping or murdering but if you smoke, you`re in deep poo xD
  15. Profile photo of MrVandercar
    MrVandercar Male 18-29
    286 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 11:23 am
    and a partridge in a pear treeeeee
  16. Profile photo of StarDagger
    StarDagger Male 40-49
    1189 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 11:45 am
    What kind of morons still smoke, that is one of the reasons for these new laws, no one does it anyway.
  17. Profile photo of Lou-Saydus
    Lou-Saydus Male 13-17
    216 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 12:06 pm
    Somebody needs to learn what the word sarcastic means.
  18. Profile photo of Oystah
    Oystah Female 40-49
    4033 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 12:10 pm
    Gotta agree with you, Crakrjak. And I am a former regular smoker who occassionally falls off the wagon. Hang onto your soda and chips kids!!!
  19. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 12:13 pm
    "What kind of morons still smoke, that is one of the reasons for these new laws, no one does it anyway."
    ------------------
    Some people are too dumb to even get the point. Smokers know there`s no smoking indoors. The owner of this facility is angry that he needs to post that pointless sign. Note to you. You don`t represent "everybody" nor do they need a speaker.
  20. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 12:30 pm
    I for one support smoking even though I know its unhealthy. Sure it is totally stupid, but as a former smoker of 17 years, I can say that I wish it was not unhealthy and I miss it dearly. Those that do smoke all know the risks and it is their choice. In a country that bans all other forms of enjoyment, who can blame them? They regulate everything... alcohol, drugs and now smoking... what`s left?

    If you were never addicted to smoking, well you just wouldn`t understand. It`s f-ing wonderful! And yes, I smokers now smell like crap to me and I think it`s disgusting, but I still support a smokers right to choose.

    If I had a bar I would create an indoor-outhouse type offshoot where all the smokers can hang and drink.

  21. Profile photo of lucu
    lucu Female 18-29
    176 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 1:10 pm
    I`m glad it`s getting harder for smokers to be around others. My body can`t handle the second-hand smoke, and it starts to close up my throat. ._. Can`t breathe!
  22. Profile photo of howlingwolf
    howlingwolf Male 18-29
    1351 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    Personally, I dislike smoking and will never start. HOWEVER, if a smoker wishes to continue, I feel it`s his/her choice if and only if they do so out of the range of other non-smokers. If someone is smoking indoors, I make it a point to hack and cough until they leave, because my acting like a douche is worth it if they leave so others can be a bit safer.
  23. Profile photo of opiebreath
    opiebreath Female 18-29
    15782 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 1:20 pm
    Blanc... mange...?
  24. Profile photo of regalia13
    regalia13 Female 18-29
    212 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    blancmange is a usually sweetened and flavored dessert made from gelatinous or starchy ingredients and milk. Or so merriam-webster says.
  25. Profile photo of Altaru
    Altaru Male 18-29
    3483 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 1:50 pm
    "I for one support smoking even though I know its unhealthy."

    I support them too, as long as they do it way the f*ck away from me.

    I`ve already been told by my doctor at my last visit that my lungs were literally BLACK from all the second-hand smoke.

    I`ve never picked up a cig in my life, and never will (since that sh*t killed my father), but I live with people who all smoke (or smoked at the time) at least a pack a day.

    I make it a point to make an ass of myself `til they go outside if they try to smoke while I`m in the room. I know it`s irritating, and a little disrespectful, but in the end it`s the best for them too.

  26. Profile photo of Fatninja01
    Fatninja01 Male 30-39
    25408 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 1:56 pm
    Weiner boy! Winge winge winge! tis amusing!
  27. Profile photo of banjolegs
    banjolegs Male 30-39
    176 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 1:58 pm
    blancmange . best eaten through a straw..top yums..
  28. Profile photo of TopperHey
    TopperHey Male 18-29
    1930 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:06 pm
    I had to read the last bit about 3 times ^_^

    Congregation? So it`s in a church? Ahh I get it. Lol. Even a church is obliged to put up no-smoking notices after the ban.

  29. Profile photo of feiku
    feiku Female 18-29
    526 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    Don`t think they should ban smoking, but I see nothing wrong with making smokers smoke outside the premises. I know it`s your freedom, but it`s also my freedom to be able to sit in a food joint and not get my appetite ruined by the smell of the cigs. It`s just being considerate.
    :)
  30. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:09 pm
    "They regulate everything... alcohol, drugs and now smoking... what`s left? "

    They are gearing up to tax, regulate, or outright ban things like these: Soda, Chips, Trans-fats, Tanning salons, Movie theater popcorn, Fruity alcohol drinks, Violent video games, Booze games, Candy, Texting, Driving with your dogs head hanging out the window, Styrofoam, Fireplaces, and many others on the way.

  31. Profile photo of pomunium
    pomunium Female 13-17
    77 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:32 pm
    Uh, maybe I`m wrong, but I`m pretty sure you can`t get black lungs from second-hand smoke.
    And hacking and coughing in someone`s face to get them to leave is really drating immature. I don`t care if you hate smoke or not, don`t be a dick.
  32. Profile photo of piemaster
    piemaster Male 18-29
    226 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:34 pm
    We SHOULD tax everything that is proven to hurt society. Let people use them, but make them pay more for it than we do. Agree? =D
  33. Profile photo of Oystah
    Oystah Female 40-49
    4033 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:39 pm
    Banning indoor public smoking was actually a pretty good idea and I`m surprised it took so long, but when you`re outside, I don`t see the problem, and when you`re in your own house or car - please. I mean, look, we made it this far and you used to be able to smoke EVERYWHERE - airplanes, hospitals, elevators - and everyone smoked. It`s just another infringment of right to choice, a new tax, a new way to scare people to buy air filters, a new way to put farmers and laborers out of work, etc., etc., etc.
  34. Profile photo of Oystah
    Oystah Female 40-49
    4033 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:41 pm
    And don`t even get me started on mandatory seatbelts.
  35. Profile photo of BunnyNaku
    BunnyNaku Female 18-29
    5224 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 2:51 pm
    well after looking at what crakrjak said, why dont they just put a tax on LIFE and BREATHING while theyre at it :P
  36. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 3:02 pm
    Im a non smoker and have grown up in a house which had 3 heavy smokers. Im very fit, This second hand smoke kills stuff is rubbish. Right i admit its unpleasent but if a businessman decideds he doesent want smokers its their decision to cator for them or not.

    Our freedoms are being taken away and governments are trying to create a society matching their authoutarian beliefs. Its hypocritical anyway know how much money smokers contributed to the nhs in tax a lot more then they ever took out. You dont smoke fine but dont force your view on others.

    And to those who say you do dramtics because their is a smoker next to you, man up or shut up

  37. Profile photo of Elle1987
    Elle1987 Female 18-29
    519 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 3:13 pm
    I am an ex smoker but what used to piss me off is how righteous and uppity some non smokers were... especially reformed smokers.. Yeah because you have no vices? I agreed with the smoking ban in public places such as pubs etc even when I was a smoker.. I actually liked going outside to have a cig in the fresh air (ultimately pointless I know) and smokers are sociable people.. we all stand outside and have a good moan about the smoking ban.. Now that I am no longer a smoker.. It still pisses me off to see the self righteous bulls**t some of you people are coming out with.. Unless you are a teetotaling, non smoking, non fat, non coffee drinking virgin STFU.. Don`t go judging someone because they are a smoker.. Its everyone`s choice to do as they bloody well please with their bodies.. That goes for idiots who do smoke and feel the need to impose it on non smokers too. don`t be a dick..
  38. Profile photo of adaedwar
    adaedwar Male 18-29
    192 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 3:34 pm
    I`m a smoker and I have no problem when a businessman doesn`t want people smoking in their building but when the government imposes it business can be affected. Dozens of smokers moved from "Jim`s" restaurants over to IHOP when they changed voluntarily, so when they are forced it affects business way too much.
  39. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    "I am an ex smoker but what used to piss me off is how righteous and uppity some non smokers were... especially reformed smokers.. Yeah because you have no vices?"

    Good point... is anyone taking a poll on how many of these "vice-less" people don`t wash their hands after using a restroom and then walk around touching things and people? I think thats drating more disgusting than smoking... and whats more... I bet more people do it.

  40. Profile photo of adaedwar
    adaedwar Male 18-29
    192 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 4:03 pm
    @StarDagger:
    If "no one does it anyway" how can you claim there is any basis for these laws you support?
  41. Profile photo of auskitten
    auskitten Female 18-29
    2 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 4:06 pm
    I live in Australia and they`ve recently brought in new laws so you can`t smoke in your car if a child is in it with you,which in principle i definitly agree with,but f*ck the gov making that choice for you.If you care enough about your kids it should be common sense.
  42. Profile photo of lUnderground
    lUnderground Female 18-29
    449 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 4:29 pm
    I remember a quote from supersize me... When will the day come where it is socially acceptable to patronize and insult obese people directly for thier vice of eating food, just as people today patronize and insult those who choose to smoke? anyway thats my input ;P
  43. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    > auskitten
    > I whine blah blah bitch whine blah...

    Why the frak would you object to a law that tells you to do something, if you`re already supposedly doing it because you`re such a caring and sensible parent? If I wore red every day and they passed a law saying "everyone must wear red", surely I would simply say "So what, no skin off my nose, I`m already there."

    You could only object if you DO smoke in the car with your kids, in which case, go to the Doc and get your parenting skills checked out.

  44. Profile photo of anguskhan79
    anguskhan79 Male 30-39
    89 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    I live in NC and smoking just became illegal in bars of all places. You can still drink all night destroying your liver and brain cells until you leave with a stranger to get and std from but God forbid you should also have a puff without stepping outside. If the owner wants to go smoke free that`s fine, but why do we need Big Brother to force it on us?
  45. Profile photo of SFunk
    SFunk Male 18-29
    68 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    at all those suggesting it`s not fair that people persecute others for smoking, consider that your persecuting them for that judgement
  46. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 4:43 pm
    Most of you are too young to know this but... There was a time in our not so distant past where you were free to smoke indoors, movie theaters even... On buses, at work while sitting at your desk with your liquor in the file drawer and a girly calendar on the wall. A time where drinking and driving with your seatbelt off on highways with 70mph speed limits were merely frowned upon. These laws that limit freedoms restrict everyones freedom. What would the complainers complain about in their perfect society?
  47. Profile photo of ctimlock
    ctimlock Male 13-17
    41 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 5:28 pm
    >SFunk
    >at all those suggesting it`s not fair that people persecute others for smoking, consider that your persecuting them for that judgement

    Okay, that`s just straight up retarded.

  48. Profile photo of robotobunneh
    robotobunneh Female 18-29
    265 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 5:43 pm
    Personally, I`m glad that smoking was banned inside bars here. If it weren`t, I`d never be able to go to a bar because cigarette smoke makes me have asthma attacks. It also smells bad. I kind of wish they`d ban offensive perfume too xD But in all seriousness, I don`t understand why it`s so hard to go outside for a cigarette. It`s inconvenient, but it`s not hurting you in any way. But smoking inside IS hurting others.
  49. Profile photo of xtkm1x
    xtkm1x Male 13-17
    432 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    Much agreed, Lionhart.
  50. Profile photo of robotobunneh
    robotobunneh Female 18-29
    265 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    Oh and just to clarify, I don`t care if people smoke. I just don`t want it around me.
  51. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 5:46 pm
    "These laws that limit freedoms restrict everyones freedom."

    No. These laws that limit freedom exist to protect the populace in a justifiable role. Driving drunk and secondhand smoke can injure others and so are banned in the former case and restricted in the latter.

    You can not seriously argue that it should be legal whether or not it harms others. The purpose of banning such activities is to protect individuals who otherwise have no choice in the matter.

    One of my friends was killed by a drunk driver and I`ll be damned if I`ll condone more people dying for the sake of your self-indulgence.

  52. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 5:52 pm
    catbarf, You`re a child.
  53. Profile photo of catbarf
    catbarf Male 18-29
    1455 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    "catbarf, You`re a child. "

    Would you mind presenting any more such stunning nuggets of wisdom?

    If you`re not willing to a condemn an activity by virtue of how it affects others, by what basis can you condemn other such anti-social activities as theft and murder?

  54. Profile photo of splurbyburbl
    splurbyburbl Male 30-39
    2798 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 6:06 pm
    LOL VV
  55. Profile photo of weirdgrrl
    weirdgrrl Female 30-39
    202 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    "Most of you are too young to know this but... There was a time in our not so distant past where you were free to smoke indoors, movie theaters even... On buses, at work while sitting at your desk with your liquor in the file drawer and a girly calendar on the wall. A time where drinking and driving with your seatbelt off on highways with 70mph speed limits were merely frowned upon."

    Are you suggesting that ANY of these things were good? I remember them but certainly don`t miss them! And one`s freedoms should not inflict harm on another person otherwise your freedom is at somebody else`s cost. Secondhand smoke and drunk driving inflict harm. I am glad that the law protects me from them!

  56. Profile photo of paypay
    paypay Female 13-17
    78 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 7:37 pm
    "catbarf, You`re a child. "
    Would you mind presenting any more such stunning nuggets of wisdom?

    hahahahah! that was so funny

  57. Profile photo of slayer50515
    slayer50515 Male 18-29
    988 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 7:49 pm
    " "catbarf, You`re a child. "
    Would you mind presenting any more such stunning nuggets of wisdom? "
    Win of the day.
  58. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:01 pm
    weirdgrrl, That`s not very weird of you. Most people would agree that the illegality of drinking and driving has been a positive step but I don`t know if I agree. Individuals lost rights, not everyone who drinks and drives is "an accident waiting to happen". I think if you cause an accident you should be held responsible. Secondly, who’s to say the safety of all mankind is what’s good for mankind? Perhaps our species requires accidental and early death to survive. Worried about global warming? An untimely demise is good for the environment. His/her share of food, housing and energy will no longer be needed and our planet sighs with relief. Seems to me all these automobile safety requirements and laws about seatbelts, speeding, drinking and now smoking are allowing people to live long environmentally unfriendly lives.
  59. Profile photo of The_tru_bob
    The_tru_bob Male 18-29
    181 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:04 pm
    @madest, So basically, you condone murder of children so that they don`t negatively affect the environment? What a wonderful argument, you must be one the most intelligent 40 year old people I`ve ever met.
  60. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:05 pm
    If you`re going down that route madest, why haven`t you already topped yourself for the good of Mother Earth?

    Frankly I`m stunned that you`re arguing that drink-driving should be acceptable unless you actually cause an accident. Do you also believe that holding a gun to someone`s head is acceptable unless you actually pull the trigger?

    Drink-driving causes thousands of deaths every year, and all too often it`s innocent bystanders who die. There is no excuse for taking that risk with someone else`s life.

  61. Profile photo of weirdgrrl
    weirdgrrl Female 30-39
    202 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    @madest: So happy not to meet your criteria for weirdness. :-)

    As for your "argument," it is so ridiculous that it`s not worth the effort to ridicule it further. The bob`s seem to have taken care of that sufficiently already... Thanks guys!

  62. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:15 pm
    Do you also believe that holding a gun to someone`s head is acceptable unless you actually pull the trigger?
    -------------
    Don`t be silly. Somebody holding a gun to someones head is a threatening act. Driving drunk is not. The national standard of .08 may be a lot for some but I know it`s nothing for others. I don`t agree that people who are drunk while driving should lose their jobs and become a tax burden on the masses.. I`m more from the school of no harm, no foul.

  63. Profile photo of Kandigoddess
    Kandigoddess Female 18-29
    12 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:31 pm
    Madest, so when you lose someone you love to a driver who wasn`t a threat because he could handle .08 usually... you will learn your lesson. Personally I think you need to grow up and drive sober like a responsible adult.
  64. Profile photo of npdarren
    npdarren Male 18-29
    602 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 8:57 pm
    Madest, you`re right that people are affected differently by alcohol and that .08 B.A.C isn`t very much for some, but how can you make a judgment as to who is threatening or not at that intoxication level? I`m sure you`d agree that at least some people are threatening behind the wheel with .08 B.A.C, but there isn`t any way to tell. That`s why you`re considered too drunk to drive at .08 B.A.C; because it`s generally accepted that this is the amount that can "possibly" be threatening. It should never be acceptable to simply wait and see if they are capable of driving, that`s why we have the limit.
  65. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:43 pm
    How did this get twisted into a drunk driving argument ?

    I don`t think drunk driving is good at any time, Use good judgment and call a cab or have a designated driver. However .08 is a really arbitrary alcohol level, Skinny light weights might be dangerous at that level while the big and tall may still be relatively sober.

    The real problem are the obscene penalties that MADD has pushed through state legislatures that leave even first time offenders broke, Jobless, and unable to drive again for 6 months. The punishment should fit the crime, Not be a major source of income for the state and lawyers.

    Gamblers, Shoplifters, and Prostitutes aren`t treated as badly as drunk drivers are in court.

  66. Profile photo of CrakrJak
    CrakrJak Male 40-49
    17515 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 9:52 pm
    "..when you lose someone you love to a driver who wasn`t a threat because he could handle .08 usually... you will learn your lesson."

    Ahem, People die on the roads driving sober everyday. Things like dropping a cd on the floorboard, Dropping a cigarette ember in your lap, texting, using a cellphone, eating, fixing makeup, etc.. have all contributed to wrecks.

    But none of the above are prosecuted like drunk drivers are. I`m not suggesting they should be either. We have too many laws and mandatory sentencing guidelines as it is.

    Today you demonize drunk drivers, Tomorrow it will be your habit that is demonized.

  67. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 10:15 pm
    > CrakrJak
    > I`m not suggesting they should be either. We have too many laws and mandatory sentencing guidelines as it is

    Interesting POV crakrjak. For the record:

    Changing CD or tape
    Smoking
    Texting
    Using cellphone or SatNav without handsfree installation
    Eating
    Drinking
    Doing Makeup or using mirror for anything other than watching behind car

    ...are all illegal, instant loss of licence, in Australia.

    (PS its "every day" not "everyday", "everday" is an adjective).

  68. Profile photo of Kandigoddess
    Kandigoddess Female 18-29
    12 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 10:28 pm
    I never said that they should be prosecuted like they are, I am just saying that if you feel fine at a .08 BAC and you have a dead kid on your windshield, you will learn your lesson. Its just stupid to even take the risk.
  69. Profile photo of miraclewik
    miraclewik Female 18-29
    320 posts
    January 4, 2010 at 11:53 pm
    I think most of you are missing something here. 0.08 is what percentage of alcohol is in your blood. A lightweight may take 3 drinks to get there, a heavy guy 6 or so. 0.08 is the same level of intoxication for all.
  70. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 12:24 am
    Back to smoking, i challenge people here to present one study from a independant research group (not one owned by anti smoking lobby) to show that second hand smoke hurts you.

    Many here would complain that big business have too much influence on the government. Well same with these advocacy groups that just lie and create fake figures to get what they want from the government http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/sep/10/tobacco-display-ban-misleading-figures ban on shop displays for cigerretes where only those it would benifit were asked ie big supermarkets and anti smoking lobby.

  71. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 12:35 am
    And you attack people for smoking saying it affects you. Can i tax heavily and force all you people with children to stay in doors. Hearing your baby at the cinema annoys the hell out of me. Hearing your children whine at a restaurant. Your kid kicking my chair in the plane gives me stress, shortening my life.

    Can we ban everyone that has a drink from ever receiving an organ its their fault they had a drink.

    While were at it lets ban free speech (or what remnant we have of it in the uk) Its damaging to my health as some hate preacher indoctrinates some boy to blow me up.

    You want a government to shape citizens into exactly what they want and their standards move to iran, china, north korea,cuba or any other country with a totalitarian regime. Because this is the slop we are starting on with you smug uppity people who read sensationalized conjecture don`t research it and force your view on others from inaccurate information

  72. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 12:36 am
    > jayme21
    > i challenge people here to present one study from an independant research group to show that second hand smoke hurts you

    Hahaha forget secondhand smoke, there isn`t, and has to date never been, a study that proves scientifically that smoking is harmful to even the smoker. There is a ... L ... O ... T ... of circumstantial evidence to support it, but no actual proof.

  73. Profile photo of Nurcowski
    Nurcowski Male 18-29
    264 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 2:23 am
    you know we`re all a bunch of drating pussies when people find it necessary to mobilize and push legislation like this.

    starting four days ago, i can no longer smoke at my local bowling alley (actually it`s illegal to smoke indoors in any public place where i live), and that`s just not right. a bowling alley just isn`t the same without that thin smokey haze and smell of cigamarettes.

    if you can`t deal with cigarette smoke, i don`t know how you are able to put up with car exhaust, loud children, or bad farts. they are all just as annoying and equally harmful to your health/sanity.

    the next person who asks me to put out my cigarette will have their eyeball used as an ashtray...damn it i need a cigarette >-(

  74. Profile photo of hethatisme
    hethatisme Male 13-17
    26 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 4:57 am
    impressive rant Nurcowski
  75. Profile photo of Baalthazaq
    Baalthazaq Male 18-29
    4548 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 5:00 am
    Jayme:
    This time, I will oblige thusly:Link.

    From there, you can click the links to all the reports, studies and so on and so forth detailing why the link between passive smoking and health risks is accepted by every major medical and scientific organization.

    Also, Madest:
    "No harm, no foul" is in direct contradiction of you saying you care if someone points a gun to someone`s head.

    No harm, no foul. There is no harm. There is no foul. In the case of the gun, there is no harm, there is no foul.

    The analogy only fails because it beats your argument.

  76. Profile photo of metalm0rgan
    metalm0rgan Male 18-29
    110 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 5:05 am
    @jayme21

    Tell that to Roy Castle`s family you prat.

  77. Profile photo of Lionhart2
    Lionhart2 Male 40-49
    8309 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 7:22 am
    > madest
    > Baalthazaq, Don`t put words in my mouth. I didn`t expect you to understand. You`re Muslim and not allowed to drink (or have a pulled pork BBQ sandwich). In plain English I pointed out that action was a threat

    Geez madest, I totally support your right to free speech, right up to that blatantly racist/derogatory comment at the end which I`ve deleted from the above quote. If you think about what you said there again, I think you`ll agree I could`ve swung the banhammer on that one, but ur a member of longstanding and usually have some interesting things to say so I`m just censoring a bit instead. Bit of cross-cultural sensitivity next time though ok?

  78. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 7:57 am
    jayme21:
    US Surgeon General - "Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke."
    International Agency for Research on Cancer - "There is sufficient evidence that involuntary smoking (exposure to secondhand or `environmental` tobacco smoke) causes lung cancer in humans"
    World Health Organisation - "Parties recognize that scientific evidence has unequivocally established that exposure to tobacco causes death, disease and disability" (Lion, take note - "unequivocally")

    None of thos

  79. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 8:06 am
    None of those organisations are anti-smoking lobbies. None of their research was funded by anti-smoking campaigns.

    Now I would like to see the research papers which conclude that exposure to children causes serious long-term health problems and even premature death. And it can`t be from some anti-child lobby.


    madest: drink-driving is a threatening act. You`re putting the lives of everyone else on the road at risk when you`re not in full control of a car, just like I would be putting someone`s life at risk by holding a gun to their head.
    As Baal has pointed out, "no harm no foul" either applies to both drink-driving AND putting a gun to someone`s head, or neither.

  80. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 8:33 am
    almightybob1 that might be true if 100% of inebriated drivers kill people and 0% of non-impaired drivers do.

    My point in all this is the absurdity of our laws and loss of freedoms. Because of the drunk driving laws police can now pull people over on "suspicion" and this is something our forefathers thought they were protecting us from when they penned the constitution. The ban on smoking has opened up sign regulations reminding us all of something we know we can`t do anyway.

    In a free society business owners should be able to determine if smokers fit into their business plan. How about an all smoking bar where non smokers are banned? And I don`t know if you`re aware of this or not but the people who write and pass these laws are allowed to smoke in their offices.

  81. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 8:56 am
    Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke…when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor………………thats right water……….you ever burned leaves in the fall…know how the heavy smoke bellows off…….thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made……thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006……..after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons…….because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ……..they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irrita
  82. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 8:58 am
    as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa’s is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa’s study on shs as junk science……… Wednesday, March 12, 2008 British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke “health hazard” claims are greatly exaggerated The BMJ published report at:

    http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/...

    concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.” What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers…

  83. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 8:59 am
    tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws. Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

    Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent ” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ” And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke

  84. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 8:59 am
    SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

    The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80). Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms!

  85. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 9:00 am
    The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’ Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/s...

    As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

  86. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 9:06 am
    Stolen rant over, WHO in 1998 was exposed by the sunday telegrah and times to have withheld findings from a study that showed passive smoking was nothing. Who had a vested interest in the information they had been pertrating for years and huge sums of money invested in anti smoking wasnt wasted.

    Roy castle claims it wads smoke from clubs etc doesent make it so. I have gilberts syndrome i drink orange juice wow must be the cause. Exact same causation many of these flawed reports are done. All you who say it affects you ever heard placibo effect you think it will so it does. Why you probably buy overpriced brand named painkillers or order anti depressants of tv not because it does but because someone in a white coat aiming to make money tells you to.

  87. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 9:56 am
    almightybob1 that might be true if 100% of inebriated drivers kill people and 0% of non-impaired drivers do.

    Equally, not 100% of people who get shot in the head die, and plenty of people die without being shot in the head. This is a ridiculous counter-argument.
    The evidence that shows alcohol inhibits perceptiveness, reaction times etc etc is all well documented. If you get behind the wheel of a car drunk, you are not in control of that car.


    My point in all this is the absurdity of our laws and loss of freedoms.

    You do not have the freedom to put another person`s life at risk. At that point, your freedom is over-reaching. Every civilised society accepts this.

  88. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 10:00 am
    Because of the drunk driving laws police can now pull people over on "suspicion" and this is something our forefathers thought they were protecting us from when they penned the constitution.

    The police can stop you "on suspicion" of other crimes too. Would you want them to not chase a thief unless they actually personally saw him steal something? Or let a murderer walk away because they didn`t observe him pulling the trigger? It`s called probable cause.

    jayme21 - if you`re just gonna copy-pasta an argument off the internet, you`d be better off posting the link. Nobody is going to read a series of upside-down paragraphs.
    And I`d rather engage YOU in discussion than an article. Feel free to quote things to refer to facts and evidence, but don`t just get someone else to do the talking for you.

  89. Profile photo of madest
    madest Male 40-49
    7379 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 10:16 am
    "What is true of every member of the society, individually, is true of them all collectively; since the rights of the whole can be no more than the sum of the rights of the individuals." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789.
  90. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 12:12 pm
    "I award you no points" - Principal Anderson to Billy Madison, 1995
  91. Profile photo of EvilGrouse
    EvilGrouse Male 30-39
    454 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    No hare coursing?? Dammit!

    Wait, what is that?

  92. Profile photo of iamcool1235
    iamcool1235 Male 13-17
    121 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 1:41 pm
    but i like doing all of that stuff...except fox hunting. rape is fun though!!!
  93. Profile photo of jayme21
    jayme21 Male 18-29
    579 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 1:42 pm
    Why write my own when its so eloquently been posted by someone else on another comment board. Greatly reduced to 2 points though.

    Second hand smoke is made up of mostly air and the harmful chemicals inside it are the equivalent of a single grain of salt in your hand.

    WHO didn`t publish a study they completed over 36 years the most long term study. Which didn`t show any ill effects to second hand smokers.

  94. Profile photo of v_ataraxic
    v_ataraxic Female 18-29
    208 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    No trapeze art?! wtf. :C
  95. Profile photo of weirdgrrl
    weirdgrrl Female 30-39
    202 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 3:26 pm
    @jayme21: I guess you aren`t aware of the subsequent documents leaked from the tobacco industry after the 1998 incident that exposed how tobacco industry executives were attempting to discredit WHO with the claim of suppressed information. And honestly, you need to read the actual studies rather than glance at a few out of context statistics to understand what are actual facts, what those facts really mean, and what is simply interpretation of those facts. For example, the study in BMJ that you provided the link to was only discussing mortality (death) due to secondhand smoke rather than morbidity (disease). That`s a rather important distinction. Because I, for one, am not claiming that secondhand smoke kills; I`m claiming that secondhand smoke harms. Which the studies DO support.
  96. Profile photo of iBegrindin
    iBegrindin Male 18-29
    133 posts
    January 5, 2010 at 6:56 pm
    It was good, right up until I read "patronises."

    Bad spelling is such a mood-killer...

  97. Profile photo of mctsirikosj
    mctsirikosj Male 13-17
    55 posts
    January 7, 2010 at 10:21 am
    ohh i wanted to take a hot air bloon ride in an office as well! darn it i`ll have to just drive a double decker through the wall instead... oh wait I cant do that either haha
  98. Profile photo of GeorgieFruit
    GeorgieFruit Male 18-29
    1 post
    January 14, 2010 at 12:21 am
    iBegrindin

    Its not a misspelling, its the British spelling.

  99. Profile photo of devildog78
    devildog78 Male 30-39
    70 posts
    February 14, 2010 at 7:48 pm
    they are making it harder and harder on us smokers, what about our rights

Leave a Reply