I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  


friendsmore friends | add your site

Extreme Humor

Funny Games

Crazy Games

123 Games

Free Samples

Gorilla Mask


Insane Pictures

Hot Games

Viva La Games

Arcade Games

Goofy Humor

Comic World

FreeGame Heaven

Back to Listing

World's Most Sarcastic No Smoking Sign [Pic]

Hits: 51576 | Rating: (3.1) | Category: Funny | Added by: fancylad
Page: 1 2 3 4 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Male, 30-39, Midwest US
 69 Posts
Sunday, February 14, 2010 7:48:27 PM
they are making it harder and harder on us smokers, what about our rights

Male, 18-29, Eastern US
 1 Posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010 12:21:16 AM

Its not a misspelling, its the British spelling.

Male, 13-17, Europe
 55 Posts
Thursday, January 07, 2010 10:21:01 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

Male, 18-29, Asia
 133 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:56:42 PM
It was good, right up until I read "patronises."

Bad spelling is such a mood-killer...

Female, 30-39, Canada
 201 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:26:16 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.

Female, 18-29, Southern US
 208 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 3:14:52 PM
No trapeze art?! wtf. :C

Male, 18-29, Europe
 563 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:42:52 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.

Male, 13-17, Eastern US
 121 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 1:41:11 PM
but i like doing all of that stuff...except fox hunting. rape is fun though!!!

Male, 30-39, Western US
 461 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12:34:08 PM
No hare coursing?? Dammit!

Wait, what is that?

Male, 18-29, Europe
 4278 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12:12:09 PM
"I award you no points" - Principal Anderson to Billy Madison, 1995

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6465 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:16:26 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 4278 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 10:00:50 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 4278 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:56:09 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 563 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:06:51 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 563 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:00:28 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

Male, 18-29, Europe
 563 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:59:55 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!

Male, 18-29, Europe
 563 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:59:17 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

Male, 18-29, Europe
 563 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:58:29 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:


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…

Male, 18-29, Europe
 563 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:56:56 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

Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 6465 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:33:18 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 4278 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:06:06 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.

Male, 18-29, Europe
 4278 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:57:34 AM
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

Male, 40-49, Australia
 8285 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:22:50 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?

Male, 18-29, Europe
 112 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:05:14 AM

Tell that to Roy Castle's family you prat.

Male, 18-29, Asia
 4753 Posts
Tuesday, January 05, 2010 5:00:16 AM
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.

Page: 1 2 3 4 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account

Back to Listing ^top

Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |